No question that co2 is a postive forcing

[konradv]

The Chinese have pretty complete records of sunspots going back a couple thousand years.

Newton had pretty complete records as well.

His calculations were based on assumptions, just like the basis of global warming, since we don't have enough historical data to make a drop in a bucket.

And he was wrong.

You people who think the Earth started when you were born and will end when you die really make me laugh. The Sun is already billions of years old, and has billions of years to go, yet you folks think you've found the window of 200 years that defines the universe.

And it just happens to be during the time you are alive?

Weak human beings. With no concept of how insignificant you truly are to the universe.

What was Newton wrong about? His calculations work out just fine for ordinary, everyday events. If I were you, I'd forget about telling us what we think, but try to do a little more thinking of your own! Saying we think the earth started when we were born is TOTALLY WRONG. It's laughable that you could make such a statement and then call one of the greatest geniuses of all time, wrong!!! You have blinders on. The reason for looking at the last 200 years is because we're putting nmore CO2 into the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year! You, therefore, can't take the past as a template for the future, if uderlying conditions have changed.

 

[konradv]

Newton had pretty complete records as well.

His calculations were based on assumptions, just like the basis of global warming, since we don't have enough historical data to make a drop in a bucket.

And he was wrong.

You people who think the Earth started when you were born and will end when you die really make me laugh. The Sun is already billions of years old, and has billions of years to go, yet you folks think you've found the window of 200 years that defines the universe.

And it just happens to be during the time you are alive?

Weak human beings. With no concept of how insignificant you truly are to the universe.

Bullshit. Look, if you want to discuss this, at least learn the basics of what the science behind it is. You can find it here, this is an American Institute of Physics site, real science from real scientists;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

No bullshit Dumb as Rocks. How many fucking times does this need to be explained to you?

YOU

HAVE

NO

PERSPECTIVE.

These events when viewed in terms of your minsicule time here on earth I'm sure seem very signifacnt. The fact is historically, in terms of of history of the earth, what we are seeing now is about as signifcant as a gnat on an elephant's ass.

The only thing that's not significant is your brain power. The reason for looking at what's happening now is that's when we've been adding massive amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere. It's your look into the past that's insiginficant and IRRELEVANT, since underlying conditions have changed.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It would make perfect sense if we where colder because we are within the most powerful sun spot grand minimum since the Danton. But one month don't make a trend and we don't have any data to support it because the scientist control the data and they are either screwing with it as you say or the data says other wise...If they are screwing with it then it is much bigger then just a science issue.

I agree for the most part. However, you are ignoring the well documented falsification of temperature data. that makes all of the other comments moot.

I see. Then you are accusing Dr. Spencer of scientific fraud? That is a very serious accusation.
The Inconvenient Skeptic UAH Temperature for December of 2010

UAH Temperature for December of 2010

The final numbers are not in, but I have been able to see most of the data for the month and it looks like the UAH anomaly will be +0.18 °C. That will give 2010 a total global temperature of 0.497 °C which will be a bit less than the previous warmest year of 1998 with was 0.517 °C. The +0.18 °C is a -0.2 °C drop from the month before and almost a full -0.5 °C change from January of this year. The El Nino set the year up to be warm, but the year finished with a strong cooling trend.

Did you notice that that was a positive? Kind of blows away your nonsense about how cold it is globally.

Kind of funny how this guy can point to a nino that lasted about 3 months into 2010 from Jan-April and changed quickly over to the strongest nina since the 70s for the next 7 1/2 mother fucking months. I remember watching this nina develop in mid April-May time frame and make it up to -1.5c within area 3.4 by September time frame. That is at over 4 months of strong nina within one year...This sucker was more then strong enough to over power any effects of the nino. Promise you that.

What did 1998 have? Strongest Nino in history by strongest in history we are speaking about 2.8c within 3.4...ONE, YES ONE FUCKING DEGREE C ABOVE THIS YEAR AND MUCH larger area of above normal ssts over the pacific....Jan-May and then Moderate until Nov and which was more or less weakly nina -.5c by nov-dec time frame. That is what this year nearly beat in the UAH record...When understanding a year you must look at the factors that caused it.

2010 was nearly the opposite of 1998 within the ENSO and sun spot activity. And The nino makes up twice as much of the difference in 1998 then 2010. 2010 within the UAH nearly beat it only .25c outside to .4-.42c(1998) outside the raising avg.

 

[IanC]

You folks put a lot of faith in the accuracy and method of measuring sun spot activity and other highly undetectable data......200 years ago, when even electricity still wasn't a staple.

Isaac Newton thought the earth was about 1/100th the size it actually is.

And he was a certifiable genius.

he also spent an inordinant amount of time on alchemy

 

[IanC]

There is no question that it is being a green house gas...So 800 thousand years going from 160 to 300 ppm...Remember the 160-200 ppm happens during the ice ages as the ocean temperature went down they could store more co2...With the growing glaciers This my friends worked to compound the ice ages. The main forcing is the orbit around our star, so imagine the energy going down=decreased amount of energy into our oceans=oceans becoming better co2 stores=enhanced ice ages.

Now the opposite occurs during interglacial periods in which co2 goes up to 280-300 ppm...This occurs because oceans warm becoming less abe to store co2, which forces them to release the co2 into the Atmosphere, which increases the co2 in the Atmosphere and causes the warm periods to compound and increases the rate of warming.

On a shorter time span our climate is controlled by the sun spot cycles, which have cycles of 11, 22, and some believe even longer cycles. Mid evil warm period was a period of very warm weather and occurred during high sun spot activity. We had a short term ice age from 1300-1800 ad which occurred during a time of weaker activity of our sun...

So we proved that the sun has a negative or positive forcing on our climate. We proved that the orbit of our planet has a effect on temperature of our planet and co2 moves up and down and may have a compounding effect on them.

Now what got us out of the short term ice age that we where in? You got that right the strongest increase in sun spot activity in 2,000 years. BUT it peaked in 1950 and has been decreasing ever since. Between 1950-2000 it was decreasing! What does decreasing activity equal? decreasing temperatures. But we went up. Meaning there is a positive forcing, which is stronger then the negative forcing of the decrease in sun spot activity.

To make things even more interesting the decade between 2000-2010 the suns activity has dropped into the crapper, 1910-1915 was the decade which had the lowest temperatures of the 130 years record period. Why? Because it had the lowest sun spot activity, which is much like todays. So that is a huge negative forcing on our planet and what do we find? A less but rising temperature of our planet. So if you think about it, every fucking year this goes on means a compounding. Meaning our temperatures should be decreasing at a ever faster rate, but what do we got...Read above. A stable or even a raise in earths avg temperature.

So here we sit at 390 ppm going up 2 ppm per year within the weakest fucking sun spot cycle possible since the Dalton of 1810-1840 and we are warming, even so at a weaker rate of doing so. Screw 1998 that is .4c+ outside the norm...1998 was not normal and in fact was a monster that we may not see for another 50 or 100 fucking year...2005 was .3 outside the norm, but what be this year? Thats right...Not even .25c outside the avg baseline. So the enso has a effect on temperature and guess what most of this year was within a mother fucking nina that is stronger then 2008, 1999-2001. You would have to search back to the mid 70s to find a monster like where seeing now, but here we sit discusing the warmest or second warmest year of the 130 year record and quite possible the hottest year in 1,000 years. In people think co2 is not even a fucking green house gas? WTF? A warmer earth=more co2 which enhances the effect to...And add methane. Now we got something. Water vapor increases too for you water vapor people. In guess what more warming.

Matthew, I know you think you have it all figured out but you really need to investigate other ideas on the subject rather than focus only on evidence that supports your pet theories. You may be right but there are a lot of conflicting ideas out there. Right now it seems youre driving yourself crazy by spinning in tighter and tighter circles.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, care to point out where Mathew is incorrect? Or where the science that is on the AIP site concerning the history of the investigations of GHGs is incorrect?

 

[Bern80]

The only thing that's not significant is your brain power. The reason for looking at what's happening now is that's when we've been adding massive amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere. It's your look into the past that's insiginficant and IRRELEVANT, since underlying conditions have changed.

And how can you possibly know if what is happening now is relevant if you don't compare it to anything in the past. How do you know that how warm it is now is too warm if you have no frame of reference from the past?

 

[konradv]

The only thing that's not significant is your brain power. The reason for looking at what's happening now is that's when we've been adding massive amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere. It's your look into the past that's insiginficant and IRRELEVANT, since underlying conditions have changed.

And how can you possibly know if what is happening now is relevant if you don't compare it to anything in the past. How do you know that how warm it is now is too warm if you have no frame of reference from the past?

Who says we don't have a frame of reference from the past? We know during most of human evolution CO2 levels were at about 280-300 ppm. Now it's ~380. Given that CO2 traps energy and only half is likely to be re-emitted into space, what do you think the other half is doing? Please answer THAT before questioning someone else's frame of reference. You seem to be bleeping over the obvious, i.e. more trapped energy = more heat, in favor of looking at a time when we weren't putting 65 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY. Why would that situation have ANY relevance to what's happening today?

 

[Bern80]

The only thing that's not significant is your brain power. The reason for looking at what's happening now is that's when we've been adding massive amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere. It's your look into the past that's insiginficant and IRRELEVANT, since underlying conditions have changed.

And how can you possibly know if what is happening now is relevant if you don't compare it to anything in the past. How do you know that how warm it is now is too warm if you have no frame of reference from the past?

Who says we don't have a frame of reference from the past? We know during most of human evolution CO2 levels were at about 280-300 ppm. Now it's ~380. Given that CO2 traps energy and only half is likely to be re-emitted into space, what do you think the other half is doing? Please answer THAT before questioning someone else's frame of reference. You seem to be bleeping over the obvious, i.e. more trapped energy = more heat, in favor of looking at a time when we weren't putting 65 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY. Why would that situation have ANY relevance to what's happening today?

I don't see anyone here denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know what it does, it traps heat. And if that were the ONLY process occurring in our atmosphere, we might have cause for alarm......but it isn't.

You still don't understand the concept of perspective. A 25% increase seems like a lot. But pull back and look at the big picture. What percentage are we putting into the total atmosphere? CO2 is a trace gas, about .04%, mans contribution to that .04% is a litte over 3%. So if man contributes about 3.2% of 390 ppm, that's 12.48 ppm. The entire atmosphere is about 1,000,050 ppm of 'stuff'. Making the 'huge' amount of CO2 man is contributing to the atmosphere a mind boggling .00001248%.

 

[IanC]

Ian, care to point out where Mathew is incorrect? Or where the science that is on the AIP site concerning the history of the investigations of GHGs is incorrect?

My point is that there are lots of conflicting explanations for what is going on with climate. I dont profess to know which one is correct but I am convinced that the Pascal's Wager being fed to us by the alarmists will undoubtedly be proven incorrect.

There has even been several papers out lately showing that most scientific papers are severely flawed even though they show confidence at the 95 percent level. Climate science doesnt operate anywhere close to that and is so rife with ambiguous assumptions that it would be a miracle if they were even remotely close to the truth.

 

[Old Rocks]

And how can you possibly know if what is happening now is relevant if you don't compare it to anything in the past. How do you know that how warm it is now is too warm if you have no frame of reference from the past?

Who says we don't have a frame of reference from the past? We know during most of human evolution CO2 levels were at about 280-300 ppm. Now it's ~380. Given that CO2 traps energy and only half is likely to be re-emitted into space, what do you think the other half is doing? Please answer THAT before questioning someone else's frame of reference. You seem to be bleeping over the obvious, i.e. more trapped energy = more heat, in favor of looking at a time when we weren't putting 65 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY. Why would that situation have ANY relevance to what's happening today?

I don't see anyone here denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know what it does, it traps heat. And if that were the ONLY process occurring in our atmosphere, we might have cause for alarm......but it isn't.

You still don't understand the concept of perspective. A 25% increase seems like a lot. But pull back and look at the big picture. What percentage are we putting into the total atmosphere? CO2 is a trace gas, about .04%, mans contribution to that .04% is a litte over 3%. So if man contributes about 3.2% of 390 ppm, that's 12.48 ppm. The entire atmosphere is about 1,000,050 ppm of 'stuff'. Making the 'huge' amount of CO2 man is contributing to the atmosphere a mind boggling .00001248%.

It is a 40%, learn to do simple math. And the rest of your math is just as bad. Man is resposible for all of the 40%. As far as the affect of the percentage of CO2, why don't you just try that same percentage of Potassium Cyanide in relation to your body weight? Surely that small fraction of that substance cannot hurt you.

 

[konradv]

And how can you possibly know if what is happening now is relevant if you don't compare it to anything in the past. How do you know that how warm it is now is too warm if you have no frame of reference from the past?

Who says we don't have a frame of reference from the past? We know during most of human evolution CO2 levels were at about 280-300 ppm. Now it's ~380. Given that CO2 traps energy and only half is likely to be re-emitted into space, what do you think the other half is doing? Please answer THAT before questioning someone else's frame of reference. You seem to be bleeping over the obvious, i.e. more trapped energy = more heat, in favor of looking at a time when we weren't putting 65 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY. Why would that situation have ANY relevance to what's happening today?

I don't see anyone here denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know what it does, it traps heat. And if that were the ONLY process occurring in our atmosphere, we might have cause for alarm......but it isn't.

You still don't understand the concept of perspective. A 25% increase seems like a lot. But pull back and look at the big picture. What percentage are we putting into the total atmosphere? CO2 is a trace gas, about .04%, mans contribution to that .04% is a litte over 3%. So if man contributes about 3.2% of 390 ppm, that's 12.48 ppm. The entire atmosphere is about 1,000,050 ppm of 'stuff'. Making the 'huge' amount of CO2 man is contributing to the atmosphere a mind boggling .00001248%.

The fact that it's a trace gas is irrelevant. It DOES trap energy. If there's more of it, it will trap MORE energy. Look up estimates for how cold it would be, if CO2 didn't exist. Pretty significant for a "trace" gas, eh? What's important is the increase, 25-30% over historical averages, NOT the absolute amount. That would be like saying that just because a desert doesn't get much rain a 25-30% increase woouldn't be significant. It most certainly would!

The fact that it's not the only process is also irrelevant. Climate scientists know that. That's why they have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. Of course e-mail thieves with a political agenda will try to spin those words to mean something completely different. DON'T BE FOOLED.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who says we don't have a frame of reference from the past? We know during most of human evolution CO2 levels were at about 280-300 ppm. Now it's ~380. Given that CO2 traps energy and only half is likely to be re-emitted into space, what do you think the other half is doing? Please answer THAT before questioning someone else's frame of reference. You seem to be bleeping over the obvious, i.e. more trapped energy = more heat, in favor of looking at a time when we weren't putting 65 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY. Why would that situation have ANY relevance to what's happening today?

I don't see anyone here denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know what it does, it traps heat. And if that were the ONLY process occurring in our atmosphere, we might have cause for alarm......but it isn't.

You still don't understand the concept of perspective. A 25% increase seems like a lot. But pull back and look at the big picture. What percentage are we putting into the total atmosphere? CO2 is a trace gas, about .04%, mans contribution to that .04% is a litte over 3%. So if man contributes about 3.2% of 390 ppm, that's 12.48 ppm. The entire atmosphere is about 1,000,050 ppm of 'stuff'. Making the 'huge' amount of CO2 man is contributing to the atmosphere a mind boggling .00001248%.

It is a 40%, learn to do simple math. And the rest of your math is just as bad. Man is resposible for all of the 40%. As far as the affect of the percentage of CO2, why don't you just try that same percentage of Potassium Cyanide in relation to your body weight? Surely that small fraction of that substance cannot hurt you.

Can you show us one single repeatable laboratory experiment that backs you up?

 

[konradv]

Done repeatedly, Frank, as you well know. Your nothing posts are getting quite stale, IMHO. How about trying out a new throw-away line? That one's so 2010.

 

[IanC]

konradv is being disingenuous. CO2 forcings are logarthmic. every additional molecule makes less impact than the one before it. you can't say that adding 40 percent adds 40 percent effect.

 

[Bern80]

Who says we don't have a frame of reference from the past? We know during most of human evolution CO2 levels were at about 280-300 ppm. Now it's ~380. Given that CO2 traps energy and only half is likely to be re-emitted into space, what do you think the other half is doing? Please answer THAT before questioning someone else's frame of reference. You seem to be bleeping over the obvious, i.e. more trapped energy = more heat, in favor of looking at a time when we weren't putting 65 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY. Why would that situation have ANY relevance to what's happening today?

I don't see anyone here denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know what it does, it traps heat. And if that were the ONLY process occurring in our atmosphere, we might have cause for alarm......but it isn't.

You still don't understand the concept of perspective. A 25% increase seems like a lot. But pull back and look at the big picture. What percentage are we putting into the total atmosphere? CO2 is a trace gas, about .04%, mans contribution to that .04% is a litte over 3%. So if man contributes about 3.2% of 390 ppm, that's 12.48 ppm. The entire atmosphere is about 1,000,050 ppm of 'stuff'. Making the 'huge' amount of CO2 man is contributing to the atmosphere a mind boggling .00001248%.

It is a 40%, learn to do simple math. And the rest of your math is just as bad. Man is resposible for all of the 40%. As far as the affect of the percentage of CO2, why don't you just try that same percentage of Potassium Cyanide in relation to your body weight? Surely that small fraction of that substance cannot hurt you.

What number of mine is really 40%? I surely hope you don't really mean or believe the the atmosphere is 40% CO2.........

 

[IanC]

I think he was saying that we are 40 percent of the way to a doubling of CO2 from some arbitrary benchmark. he says it is all manmade but surely at least part of it is from outgassing from oceans as the globe recovers from the Little Ice Age

 

[Bern80]

I think he was saying that we are 40 percent of the way to a doubling of CO2 from some arbitrary benchmark. he says it is all manmade but surely at least part of it is from outgassing from oceans as the globe recovers from the Little Ice Age

If that's the case he can change the .00001248% to something like .000013% or even .00002% if he wants.

 

[IanC]

I think he was saying that we are 40 percent of the way to a doubling of CO2 from some arbitrary benchmark. he says it is all manmade but surely at least part of it is from outgassing from oceans as the globe recovers from the Little Ice Age

If that's the case he can change the .00001248% to something like .000013% or even .00002% if he wants.

konradv has only a rudimentary grasp of climate science. he actually thinks that it is the energy absorbed by CO2 molecules that causes the heating rather than the slowing down of energy escaping into space.

 

[Old Rocks]

konradv is being disingenuous. CO2 forcings are logarthmic. every additional molecule makes less impact than the one before it. you can't say that adding 40 percent adds 40 percent effect.

Really? You are not a scientist, so link us to some real information concerning that.