It's 90 degrees in New York City, in early April...

[del]

We are sorry we ever doubted you Al Gore!

I hope this is sarcasm.

Obviously, the fact that it is 90 degrees in the first week of April shows how ignorant those are that claimed the winter snows proved there is no global warming were.

Thanks for looking out for us Al Gore...

Your Nobel Prize was well deserved

 

[Old Rocks]

I hope this is sarcasm.

Obviously, the fact that it is 90 degrees in the first week of April shows how ignorant those are that claimed the winter snows proved there is no global warming were.

Thanks for looking out for us Al Gore...

Your Nobel Prize was well deserved

90 degrees does not prove there IS global warming.
Al Gore wants Leftwinger to feed his pockets with green.
You have been indoctrinated well Leftwinger

Well, dingleberry, we had precipitation events this winter, not a cold winter.

And one of the predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming. Exactly what we have been seeing.

 

[Gunny]

Where did all the right-wing talk about heavy snowfall proving that there's no global warming go?

It's been awfully quiet on that front lately, hasn't it?

Now, I'm not one to say a few abnormally hot weeks in early spring are absolute proof of Global Warming...

...But I wonder if an official apology from the James Inholfe crowd will be forthcoming, after their comments about Al Gore being a "criminal" due to the fact that it snowed a lot this winter?

I won't hold my breath.

And still the silence reigns... LOL.

What are you waiting for? Your posts are proof of nothing except it was 90 degrees in NY in April.

Certainly nothing to apologize for.

I don't know whether or not Al Gore is a criminal, but he's an idiot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Post it!

Old Rocks and I only found ones that have a near total CO2 atmosphere not a deminimus increase of a few hundred PPM

So now you're trying to assert that there's something in the atmosphere that counteracts the greenhouse effect caused by CO2?

What might that be?

Your hypothesis states: "deminimus increases in Earth's atmospheric trace element CO2 causes immediate and cataclysmic changes in the climate"

Show me one experiment, just one that shows this happens.

We're not talking about a 97% CO2 atmosphere, we're talking about barley perceptible increases from 280 to 500PPM.

Show me ONE experiment where this was demonstrated.

 

[Vast LWC]

What are you waiting for? Your posts are proof of nothing except it was 90 degrees in NY in April.

Certainly nothing to apologize for.

I don't know whether or not Al Gore is a criminal, but he's an idiot.

I agree that 90 Degree temperatures in April are proof of nothing.

As has been addressed elsewhere in the thread, my point was that the people who were screaming that the heavy snow this winter was proof that Global Warming was a hoax, were foolish to do so.

 

[Vast LWC]

Your hypothesis states: "deminimus increases in Earth's atmospheric trace element CO2 causes immediate and cataclysmic changes in the climate"

Show me one experiment, just one that shows this happens.

We're not talking about a 97% CO2 atmosphere, we're talking about barley perceptible increases from 280 to 500PPM.

Show me ONE experiment where this was demonstrated.

Do the experiment I posted above yourself Frank, you can literally see the difference.

But putting that aside, you have a logical fallacy going on here.

We know for a fact that Carbon Dioxide creates a "Greenhouse" effect.

Though the atmosphere is certainly not 97% carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere would have the same effect whether it was diluted or not, unless there was some other circumstance that countered the effects of the increased Carbon Dioxide levels.

On what basis are you forming your opinion, therefore, that lessening the level of Carbon Dioxide from 97% would eliminate the greenhouse effect altogether?

 

[Vast LWC]

And here is the mathematical formula that proves the point:

Idealized greenhouse model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To wit:

This model predicts a global warming of ΔTs = 1.2 K for a doubling of carbon dioxide.

 

[keee keee]

A couple warm days does not mean there is global warming. Not having a summer last year records cold and snow far outweighs a few fluke warm spring days. these days are God fucking with you. I call them fuck days cause it is still early April and we are still going to get some shitty weather!!!! Happens every year. But not all this snow like last year. Snow in all 48 states like last winter don't remember that in recent years!!!! Go to the store and buy produce we are still paying for this cold weather now!!!! Global warming is a hoak created to tax and control us more that is all it is a big fat HOAKS

 

[Vast LWC]

A couple warm days does not mean there is global warming. Not having a summer last year records cold and snow far outweighs a few fluke warm spring days. these days are God fucking with you. I call them fuck days cause it is still early April and we are still going to get some shitty weather!!!! Happens every year. But not all this snow like last year. Snow in all 48 states like last winter don't remember that in recent years!!!! Go to the store and buy produce we are still paying for this cold weather now!!!! Global warming is a hoak created to tax and control us more that is all it is a big fat HOAKS

Snow is precipitation, not a temperature gauge.

The actual temperatures were not lower than average worldwide, but were in fact quite high over the last year.

Again, I have not been saying that 90 temperatures are proof of global warming. I have been saying that snow in a local area over a winter is NOT proof of global warming being false.

And I'm ragging on the people that pretend the snow was some sort of proof.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know......I saw a program on the History Channel the other day. It was called Earth 2100, talking about the problems that are just now starting.

In Alaska, there have been native villages of fishermen who have had to be relocated.

Why? Their shoreline is disappearing at the rate of 45 feet PER YEAR! Why? The permafrost has warmed to the point where the water can no melt it, resulting in shoreline erosion.

Glacier National Park in Montana (my home state), has lost several glaciers, over a very short period of time.

Hurricanes have increased in intensity. Why? The water in the Gulf is getting warmer, resulting in stronger hurricanes. Katrina was the first, and probably won't be the last. Why are they happening so strongly? Because the earth is trying to cool itself off, and because there is more heat, it takes a bigger hurricane to dissipate it.

Ignore it all you want, but it's happening.

 

[Gunny]

What are you waiting for? Your posts are proof of nothing except it was 90 degrees in NY in April.

Certainly nothing to apologize for.

I don't know whether or not Al Gore is a criminal, but he's an idiot.

I agree that 90 Degree temperatures in April are proof of nothing.

As has been addressed elsewhere in the thread, my point was that the people who were screaming that the heavy snow this winter was proof that Global Warming was a hoax, were foolish to do so.

Temperatures are average here. There may or may not be global warming. Maybe someday they'll weed out all the Chicken Little's and publish some facts.

The Earth goes through warming and cooling trends on its own. If that is case, nothing we can do but suck it up.

There is no proof that global warming is man-made. I believe THAT is where the distinction is made. Proponents of man-made global warming hop in and out of the two, distinct reasons the same as abortion proponents hop in and out of abortion and partial-birth abortion, as it suits their argument.

If and when they prove it is man-made, then they will know the exact cause by default and it can be dealt with.

Flailing around in the dark with a bunch of alarmist "We have to DO something" solves nothing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where did all the right-wing talk about heavy snowfall proving that there's no global warming go?

It's been awfully quiet on that front lately, hasn't it?

Now, I'm not one to say a few abnormally hot weeks in early spring are absolute proof of Global Warming...

...But I wonder if an official apology from the James Inholfe crowd will be forthcoming, after their comments about Al Gore being a "criminal" due to the fact that it snowed a lot this winter?

I won't hold my breath.

I saw this one coming, in fact you beat me to it.

If I claim this warm spell is proof of global warming, I sound like a complete moron, right?

So when you guys (who did) claimed the snow/cold spell was proof there wasn't global warming,

guess how you sounded??

 

[del]

Where did all the right-wing talk about heavy snowfall proving that there's no global warming go?

It's been awfully quiet on that front lately, hasn't it?

Now, I'm not one to say a few abnormally hot weeks in early spring are absolute proof of Global Warming...

...But I wonder if an official apology from the James Inholfe crowd will be forthcoming, after their comments about Al Gore being a "criminal" due to the fact that it snowed a lot this winter?

I won't hold my breath.

I saw this one coming, in fact you beat me to it.

If I claim this warm spell is proof of global warming, I sound like a complete moron, right?

So when you guys (who did) claimed the snow/cold spell was proof there wasn't global warming,

guess how you sounded??

like you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your hypothesis states: "deminimus increases in Earth's atmospheric trace element CO2 causes immediate and cataclysmic changes in the climate"

Show me one experiment, just one that shows this happens.

We're not talking about a 97% CO2 atmosphere, we're talking about barley perceptible increases from 280 to 500PPM.

Show me ONE experiment where this was demonstrated.

Do the experiment I posted above yourself Frank, you can literally see the difference.

But putting that aside, you have a logical fallacy going on here.

We know for a fact that Carbon Dioxide creates a "Greenhouse" effect.

Though the atmosphere is certainly not 97% carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere would have the same effect whether it was diluted or not, unless there was some other circumstance that countered the effects of the increased Carbon Dioxide levels.

On what basis are you forming your opinion, therefore, that lessening the level of Carbon Dioxide from 97% would eliminate the greenhouse effect altogether?

It's YOUR Hypothesis and you and all the other Warmers REFUSE to test it!

Why do you suppose that is?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And here is the mathematical formula that proves the point:

Idealized greenhouse model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To wit:

This model predicts a global warming of ΔTs = 1.2 K for a doubling of carbon dioxide.

And somehow, no one, not East Angelia Insane Clown Posse, not MIT, not Penn State has yet to demonstrate a single lab experiment where increasing CO2 from 280PPM to 560 increases temperature by 1.2K.

My model predicts the Warmers are full of crap.

 

[Old Rocks]

Where did all the right-wing talk about heavy snowfall proving that there's no global warming go?

It's been awfully quiet on that front lately, hasn't it?

Now, I'm not one to say a few abnormally hot weeks in early spring are absolute proof of Global Warming...

...But I wonder if an official apology from the James Inholfe crowd will be forthcoming, after their comments about Al Gore being a "criminal" due to the fact that it snowed a lot this winter?

I won't hold my breath.

And still the silence reigns... LOL.

What are you waiting for? Your posts are proof of nothing except it was 90 degrees in NY in April.

Certainly nothing to apologize for.

I don't know whether or not Al Gore is a criminal, but he's an idiot.

Sure, Gunny, sure. An idiot that won the majority of the votes for the US Presidency in 2000. One that took a modestly wealthy inheritance and turned it into major wealth investing in the hi-tech market when it was on a downer. An idiot that took a lecture that he had been giving worldwide, mostly on his own dime, and made it into the most successful documentary ever. And won a Nobel and a couple of Oscers with it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Your hypothesis states: "deminimus increases in Earth's atmospheric trace element CO2 causes immediate and cataclysmic changes in the climate"

Show me one experiment, just one that shows this happens.

We're not talking about a 97% CO2 atmosphere, we're talking about barley perceptible increases from 280 to 500PPM.

Show me ONE experiment where this was demonstrated.

Do the experiment I posted above yourself Frank, you can literally see the difference.

But putting that aside, you have a logical fallacy going on here.

We know for a fact that Carbon Dioxide creates a "Greenhouse" effect.

Though the atmosphere is certainly not 97% carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere would have the same effect whether it was diluted or not, unless there was some other circumstance that countered the effects of the increased Carbon Dioxide levels.

On what basis are you forming your opinion, therefore, that lessening the level of Carbon Dioxide from 97% would eliminate the greenhouse effect altogether?

It's YOUR Hypothesis and you and all the other Warmers REFUSE to test it!

Why do you suppose that is?

Frank, it is because the neccessary work was done in 1858, by Tyndal. Just because you have no scientific education and are too lazy to check the history does not mean the rest of us are.


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.

<=Other gases

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do the experiment I posted above yourself Frank, you can literally see the difference.

But putting that aside, you have a logical fallacy going on here.

We know for a fact that Carbon Dioxide creates a "Greenhouse" effect.

Though the atmosphere is certainly not 97% carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere would have the same effect whether it was diluted or not, unless there was some other circumstance that countered the effects of the increased Carbon Dioxide levels.

On what basis are you forming your opinion, therefore, that lessening the level of Carbon Dioxide from 97% would eliminate the greenhouse effect altogether?

It's YOUR Hypothesis and you and all the other Warmers REFUSE to test it!

Why do you suppose that is?

Frank, it is because the neccessary work was done in 1858, by Tyndal. Just because you have no scientific education and are too lazy to check the history does not mean the rest of us are.


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.

<=Other gases

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)

I'm not denying CO2's role as a GHG.

You're playing ignorant and you're REALLY good at it.

All I'm saying, once again, is demonstrate your hypothesis, deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 will cause instantaneous , cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's climate.

Show me how much difference in temperature there is between a tank that has 2.5 CO2 per 10,000 and 5 per 10,000

Can ya do that even one time?

 

[ABikerSailor]

And here is the mathematical formula that proves the point:

Idealized greenhouse model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To wit:

This model predicts a global warming of &#916;Ts = 1.2 K for a doubling of carbon dioxide.

And somehow, no one, not East Angelia Insane Clown Posse, not MIT, not Penn State has yet to demonstrate a single lab experiment where increasing CO2 from 280PPM to 560 increases temperature by 1.2K.

My model predicts the Warmers are full of crap.

I don't need a model to predict that Crusty Sad Skank is full of crap, his posts demonstrate it daily.

 

[Old Rocks]

Crusader Frank;

All I'm saying, once again, is demonstrate your hypothesis, deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 will cause instantaneous , cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's climate.

.....................................................................................................................................

Since you are the one person making that stupid statement, you answer it.

As I have stated, there is a inertia in the atmospheric and ocean system, one about 30 to 50 years long. So what we are seeing now is the result of the GHGs that were in the atmosphere in 1980.

The only way that we will see a dramatic, cataclysmic response is if we see a major ocean clathrate outgassing, and even that will take a couple of years to have effect.