Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[PMZ]

Climate Forcings and Global Warming

Any changes to the Earth’s climate system that affect how much energy enters or leaves the system alters Earth’s radiative equilibrium and can force temperatures to rise or fall. These destabilizing influences are called climate forcings. Natural climate forcings include changes in the Sun’s brightness, Milankovitch cycles (small variations in the shape of Earth’s orbit and its axis of rotation that occur over thousands of years), and large volcanic eruptions that inject light-reflecting particles as high as the stratosphere. Manmade forcings include particle pollution (aerosols), which absorb and reflect incoming sunlight; deforestation, which changes how the surface reflects and absorbs sunlight; and the rising concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which decrease heat radiated to space. A forcing can trigger feedbacks that intensify or weaken the original forcing. The loss of ice at the poles, which makes them less reflective, is an example of a feedback.

Carbon dioxide forces the Earth’s energy budget out of balance by absorbing thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by the surface. It absorbs thermal infrared energy with wavelengths in a part of the energy spectrum that other gases, such as water vapor, do not.

Climate and Earth?s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

We've known for decades this fact.



The greenhouse effect.

The effective temperature of Earth is much lower than what we experience. Averaged over all seasons and the entire Earth, the surface temperature of our planet is about 288 K (or 15°C). This difference is in the effect of the heat absorbing components of our atmosphere. This effect is known as the greenhouse effect, referring to the farming practice of warming garden plots by covering them with a glass (or plastic) enclosure.

Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance

Shame that this BASIC science and math was IGNORED by climate science for 25 years, because the story needed tobe that simple ass well correlated temp vs co2 curve. ALL this systems analysis of storage and delays was a plague to these clowns UNTIL they needed to pull the "hiding in the oceans " card.. Majorities of citatations before then assumed a couple years to new tmp equilibrium.. THAT kind of sloppy science is what created a vibrant skeptic opposition. NOW that the box is opened, wont be long before the public knows that curve matching is NOT climate science.

You seem quite ignorant of the fact that there is zero science behind your politics. It's simply what you wish was true.

 

[Meister]

Climate Forcings and Global Warming





Climate and Earth?s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

We've known for decades this fact.



The greenhouse effect.




Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance

Shame that this BASIC science and math was IGNORED by climate science for 25 years, because the story needed tobe that simple ass well correlated temp vs co2 curve. ALL this systems analysis of storage and delays was a plague to these clowns UNTIL they needed to pull the "hiding in the oceans " card.. Majorities of citatations before then assumed a couple years to new tmp equilibrium.. THAT kind of sloppy science is what created a vibrant skeptic opposition. NOW that the box is opened, wont be long before the public knows that curve matching is NOT climate science.

You seem quite ignorant of the fact that there is zero science behind your politics. It's simply what you wish was true.

Nobody is arguing about the changing climate, it's been doing that for the last 4 billion years.
What is being argued is that the change is directly linked to man, and your science hasn't proved anything. What has been proved is that there has been leaked emails from YOUR scientists that contradict their own work. There are scientists that once believed there was a connection that no longer think there is a connection. The scientists can't connect the dots unless they jimmy rig the numbers.
There are too many variables that create climate change and the scientists just can't with any certainty say that their work is the end all arguments that it's the cause of climate change.
No matter what you say, PMZ, that is where the rubber meets the road on this issue and for you to say any different is no more than your politics. So go pound sand in your sandbox, or play with your Barbie, makes no difference to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you know better then phds and professors of their field. Genius???

Yes! Money can influence scientists, especially when they are told by the scribes what they must believe in order to get grants. Many believe the AGW farce because of the AGW talk circuit that has caused many of the so called "scientists" to become rich.

James Hansen drives a Bentley to work and lives in a 22 room mansion and is also an environmental wacko that helped fuel the AGW myth based on his personal cause and not any science.

As compared to big oil execs that private jet to work.

Damn those guys spending money in a way you don't like.
They should have received your approval first.

 

[PMZ]

Shame that this BASIC science and math was IGNORED by climate science for 25 years, because the story needed tobe that simple ass well correlated temp vs co2 curve. ALL this systems analysis of storage and delays was a plague to these clowns UNTIL they needed to pull the "hiding in the oceans " card.. Majorities of citatations before then assumed a couple years to new tmp equilibrium.. THAT kind of sloppy science is what created a vibrant skeptic opposition. NOW that the box is opened, wont be long before the public knows that curve matching is NOT climate science.

You seem quite ignorant of the fact that there is zero science behind your politics. It's simply what you wish was true.

Nobody is arguing about the changing climate, it's been doing that for the last 4 billion years.
What is being argued is that the change is directly linked to man, and your science hasn't proved anything. What has been proved is that there has been leaked emails from YOUR scientists that contradict their own work. There are scientists that once believed there was a connection that no longer think there is a connection. The scientists can't connect the dots unless they jimmy rig the numbers.
There are too many variables that create climate change and the scientists just can't with any certainty say that their work is the end all arguments that it's the cause of climate change.
No matter what you say, PMZ, that is where the rubber meets the road on this issue and for you to say any different is no more than your politics. So go pound sand in your sandbox, or play with your Barbie, makes no difference to me.

These are the beliefs for which there is zero supporting science. They are purely political wishes from conservative control freaks.

We have developed our civilization during a very long period of remarkable climate stability. None of the natural climate change processes have interfered in our progress.

Now science has shown how our prodigious appetite for the gift of cheap energy from past suns has self inflicted what nature spared us from.

And how delicate the balance is keeping us in the sweet climate spot that we have flourished in.

I suppose that there is some kind poetic justice that the timing of the formulation of science's unavoidable prophecy coincides with the end of the fossil fuel era due to what we always knew would happen. The gift will soon be all gone. We must go to energy plan B at the same time that we have to adapt civilization to our new climate.

The good news, at least compared to the dinosaurs, who fell victim to natures climate change rather than self inflicted climate change, is that we have a distribution of brainpower among us from quite limited to quite advanced, to lead us to the new place. Like Moses sort of.

People like you can relax and let those who are equipped to solve the puzzle of getting from our past to our future, do so.

Scary, for sure, to be dependent on others. But, what else is civilization?

 

[polarbear]

Interesting.

What happens on the grid today when demand changes or a power plant goes up or down?

The instant that happens the distribution network switch gear selects the next closest power plant to absorb the load increase.
With the HVAC line system you use in the US, the closest one is preferred because with Ac the power factor of the generator-line resistance R- and the inductive L of the local HV transformer does not drop into the basement as it would if you have to get a long distance backup-up .

So if all you got is wind or solar as a backup closest to the area where the failure happened you are screwed unless the weather system that causes such a failure is small & local.
With wind and solar that failure happens all the time and seldom is the cause, that the current weather which caused it is confined to a small area.
If it extends like most of them do to where your next nearest wind & solar driven generators are, then the whole system goes down....
Then you got not enough "spinning reserves" or none at all...and that`s why we use conventional spinning reserves to back wind and solar, because these can crank out power no matter what the weather is doing.

To understand why it`s not so simple to back the grid with more distant power plants and HVAC transmission lines you first got to understand what a power factor is.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pWOm77KDJM"]Power Factor Correction Explained! Green Leaf Strategic Solutions, Inc - YouTube[/ame]


With long range AC transmission lines R= line resistance Ohms and L = the nearest substation transformer

In Canada especially central Canada most of our power comes from the hydro plant far up North. That`s why we use High Voltage DC not AC long distance transmission lines. These go first into converter stations that hack the DC and transform it into 60 hertz HVAC for the sub-nets distribution system.
To implement your proposal you would first have to re-design your entire transmission line system and switch gear.
That still leaves you with the problem to find a wind farm that can harvest a wind with speeds that are high enough to handle its own area base load plus the load that just came on line when the other wind or solar power source went down.
And all of that has to happen instantly.
There is no time to spin-up spare wind turbine props and wait till their output voltage and rpm are in sync with the grid.
In the meantime, till they phase in the whole grid went down.
Look at any wind mill farm when the wind speed would be high enough so that the total output is twice the base load... they all shut down 1/2 of the wind turbines,...because they have to, else they start over feeding the nearest HV transformer sub-station !...and blow it up!
You should try and take a look at some of the wind turbines that show live stream data on the internet:
Good luck if that`s the wind speed for a larger wind farm that is supposed to feed the grid:
Live Turbine Data - University of Maine at Presque Isle

And in Minnesota towns this is what you got for "wind-power"
The Power of Your Hometown - Minnesota Municipal Power Agency

Nothing but big fat zero`s or just a few kw`s just enough for a few households.
Arlington 24.3 [KW]
Olivia 88.6
Winthrop 51.1
That`s what it was at 12:36 when I looked at it.
The wind speeds that they show are the same for a huge area extending from the Arctic down central USA all the way to the Mexican border.
Here is the current screenshot:

You figure that the rest of the eastern USA would have enough wind and solar to make up for all the rest that don`t ?
That would require wind speeds which are already above the safe operating range of wind turbines:

The cut-in speed for each Hometown WindPower turbine is 12 miles per hour or just over 5 meters per second. The turbine’s rated speed is the wind speed that results in the optimal power output for the turbine. When the wind speed exceeds the turbine’s rated speed, the turbine’s power output stops increasing and actually begins to decrease with higher wind speeds. Wind turbines automatically shut down in very windy conditions – typically greater than 50 mph - to prevent turbine damage. The speed at which the turbine shuts down is called the cut-out speed.

On a day like this you would have to send everybody home to freeze in the dark!
And in Germany they have to hope they have enough water in their pumped basins to go hydro-electric till the weather changes!
That`s why they have to go back to coal & gas for "spinning reserves" else they can kiss their current GDP good bye !
Imagine the cost, the weather could cause more havoc than a nationwide general strike or even a war if all you got is wind and solar

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You seem quite ignorant of the fact that there is zero science behind your politics. It's simply what you wish was true.

Nobody is arguing about the changing climate, it's been doing that for the last 4 billion years.
What is being argued is that the change is directly linked to man, and your science hasn't proved anything. What has been proved is that there has been leaked emails from YOUR scientists that contradict their own work. There are scientists that once believed there was a connection that no longer think there is a connection. The scientists can't connect the dots unless they jimmy rig the numbers.
There are too many variables that create climate change and the scientists just can't with any certainty say that their work is the end all arguments that it's the cause of climate change.
No matter what you say, PMZ, that is where the rubber meets the road on this issue and for you to say any different is no more than your politics. So go pound sand in your sandbox, or play with your Barbie, makes no difference to me.

These are the beliefs for which there is zero supporting science. They are purely political wishes from conservative control freaks.

We have developed our civilization during a very long period of remarkable climate stability. None of the natural climate change processes have interfered in our progress.

Now science has shown how our prodigious appetite for the gift of cheap energy from past suns has self inflicted what nature spared us from.

And how delicate the balance is keeping us in the sweet climate spot that we have flourished in.

I suppose that there is some kind poetic justice that the timing of the formulation of science's unavoidable prophecy coincides with the end of the fossil fuel era due to what we always knew would happen. The gift will soon be all gone. We must go to energy plan B at the same time that we have to adapt civilization to our new climate.

The good news, at least compared to the dinosaurs, who fell victim to natures climate change rather than self inflicted climate change, is that we have a distribution of brainpower among us from quite limited to quite advanced, to lead us to the new place. Like Moses sort of.

People like you can relax and let those who are equipped to solve the puzzle of getting from our past to our future, do so.

Scary, for sure, to be dependent on others. But, what else is civilization?

These are the beliefs for which there is zero supporting science. They are purely political wishes from conservative control freaks.

The conservatives don't wish to force anyone to use wind and solar or oil and natural gas.
If you want to spend big bucks on a solar generating system for your house, feel free.
Please, no government subsidies.

We have developed our civilization during a very long period of remarkable climate stability.

Remarkable stability? Like the Little Ice Age? LOL!

And how delicate the balance is keeping us in the sweet climate spot that we have flourished in.

Right, because we never had heat waves, cold spells, droughts or floods before ebil men started burning that ebil oil.
Please, live in a cave, your CO2 is killing Gaia.

 

[Kosh]

And you know better then phds and professors of their field. Genius???

Yes! Money can influence scientists, especially when they are told by the scribes what they must believe in order to get grants. Many believe the AGW farce because of the AGW talk circuit that has caused many of the so called "scientists" to become rich.

James Hansen drives a Bentley to work and lives in a 22 room mansion and is also an environmental wacko that helped fuel the AGW myth based on his personal cause and not any science.

As compared to big oil execs that private jet to work.

Actually Hansen uses private jets to spread the AGW gospel. It is included in his $30,000/hr fee for speaking.

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate Forcings and Global Warming





Climate and Earth?s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

We've known for decades this fact.



The greenhouse effect.




Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance

Shame that this BASIC science and math was IGNORED by climate science for 25 years, because the story needed tobe that simple ass well correlated temp vs co2 curve. ALL this systems analysis of storage and delays was a plague to these clowns UNTIL they needed to pull the "hiding in the oceans " card.. Majorities of citatations before then assumed a couple years to new tmp equilibrium.. THAT kind of sloppy science is what created a vibrant skeptic opposition. NOW that the box is opened, wont be long before the public knows that curve matching is NOT climate science.

You seem quite ignorant of the fact that there is zero science behind your politics. It's simply what you wish was true.

Listen up you useless ignorant SOB. Its time you defended this incessant incoherent banter.

I was responding to science that Matthew posted. Something ive NEVER seen YOU DO.
I need you to support

1 The assertionn that my comments werre political.

2 The asssertion that the is zero science behind the discussion of thermal storage, delays, and inertia in the climate system.

I have provided PAGES of cites about the retarded adoption of these FUNDAMENTAL climate system elements. Why dont you give us EVERYTHING that YOU know onthis topic..

ill be thrilled to hear your analysis of the topic. GEt to it bastard troll.

 

[PMZ]

Interesting.

What happens on the grid today when demand changes or a power plant goes up or down?

The instant that happens the distribution network switch gear selects the next closest power plant to absorb the load increase.
With the HVAC line system you use in the US, the closest one is preferred because with Ac the power factor of the generator-line resistance R- and the inductive L of the local HV transformer does not drop into the basement as it would if you have to get a long distance backup-up .

So if all you got is wind or solar as a backup closest to the area where the failure happened you are screwed unless the weather system that causes such a failure is small & local.
With wind and solar that failure happens all the time and seldom is the cause, that the current weather which caused it is confined to a small area.
If it extends like most of them do to where your next nearest wind & solar driven generators are, then the whole system goes down....
Then you got not enough "spinning reserves" or none at all...and that`s why we use conventional spinning reserves to back wind and solar, because these can crank out power no matter what the weather is doing.

To understand why it`s not so simple to back the grid with more distant power plants and HVAC transmission lines you first got to understand what a power factor is.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pWOm77KDJM"]Power Factor Correction Explained! Green Leaf Strategic Solutions, Inc - YouTube[/ame]


With long range AC transmission lines R= line resistance Ohms and L = the nearest substation transformer

In Canada especially central Canada most of our power comes from the hydro plant far up North. That`s why we use High Voltage DC not AC long distance transmission lines. These go first into converter stations that hack the DC and transform it into 60 hertz HVAC for the sub-nets distribution system.
To implement your proposal you would first have to re-design your entire transmission line system and switch gear.
That still leaves you with the problem to find a wind farm that can harvest a wind with speeds that are high enough to handle its own area base load plus the load that just came on line when the other wind or solar power source went down.
And all of that has to happen instantly.
There is no time to spin-up spare wind turbine props and wait till their output voltage and rpm are in sync with the grid.
In the meantime, till they phase in the whole grid went down.
Look at any wind mill farm when the wind speed would be high enough so that the total output is twice the base load... they all shut down 1/2 of the wind turbines,...because they have to, else they start over feeding the nearest HV transformer sub-station !...and blow it up!
You should try and take a look at some of the wind turbines that show live stream data on the internet:
Good luck if that`s the wind speed for a larger wind farm that is supposed to feed the grid:
Live Turbine Data - University of Maine at Presque Isle

And in Minnesota towns this is what you got for "wind-power"
The Power of Your Hometown - Minnesota Municipal Power Agency

Nothing but big fat zero`s or just a few kw`s just enough for a few households.
Arlington 24.3 [KW]
Olivia 88.6
Winthrop 51.1
That`s what it was at 12:36 when I looked at it.
The wind speeds that they show are the same for a huge area extending from the Arctic down central USA all the way to the Mexican border.
Here is the current screenshot:

You figure that the rest of the eastern USA would have enough wind and solar to make up for all the rest that don`t ?
That would require wind speeds which are already above the safe operating range of wind turbines:

The cut-in speed for each Hometown WindPower turbine is 12 miles per hour or just over 5 meters per second. The turbine’s rated speed is the wind speed that results in the optimal power output for the turbine. When the wind speed exceeds the turbine’s rated speed, the turbine’s power output stops increasing and actually begins to decrease with higher wind speeds. Wind turbines automatically shut down in very windy conditions – typically greater than 50 mph - to prevent turbine damage. The speed at which the turbine shuts down is called the cut-out speed.

On a day like this you would have to send everybody home to freeze in the dark!
And in Germany they have to hope they have enough water in their pumped basins to go hydro-electric till the weather changes!
That`s why they have to go back to coal & gas for "spinning reserves" else they can kiss their current GDP good bye !
Imagine the cost, the weather could cause more havoc than a nationwide general strike or even a war if all you got is wind and solar

You're right. We are doomed to return to the caves. The Three Gorges Dam project and the engineering problems that they solved were the final problems solvable by mankind. Going to the moon did us in. The invention of computers and vast networks, a fluke. Nuclear power and the large hadron collider merely a lucky break.

 

[Meister]

You seem quite ignorant of the fact that there is zero science behind your politics. It's simply what you wish was true.

Nobody is arguing about the changing climate, it's been doing that for the last 4 billion years.
What is being argued is that the change is directly linked to man, and your science hasn't proved anything. What has been proved is that there has been leaked emails from YOUR scientists that contradict their own work. There are scientists that once believed there was a connection that no longer think there is a connection. The scientists can't connect the dots unless they jimmy rig the numbers.
There are too many variables that create climate change and the scientists just can't with any certainty say that their work is the end all arguments that it's the cause of climate change.
No matter what you say, PMZ, that is where the rubber meets the road on this issue and for you to say any different is no more than your politics. So go pound sand in your sandbox, or play with your Barbie, makes no difference to me.

These are the beliefs for which there is zero supporting science. They are purely political wishes from conservative control freaks.

We have developed our civilization during a very long period of remarkable climate stability. None of the natural climate change processes have interfered in our progress.

Now science has shown how our prodigious appetite for the gift of cheap energy from past suns has self inflicted what nature spared us from.

And how delicate the balance is keeping us in the sweet climate spot that we have flourished in.

I suppose that there is some kind poetic justice that the timing of the formulation of science's unavoidable prophecy coincides with the end of the fossil fuel era due to what we always knew would happen. The gift will soon be all gone. We must go to energy plan B at the same time that we have to adapt civilization to our new climate.

The good news, at least compared to the dinosaurs, who fell victim to natures climate change rather than self inflicted climate change, is that we have a distribution of brainpower among us from quite limited to quite advanced, to lead us to the new place. Like Moses sort of.

People like you can relax and let those who are equipped to solve the puzzle of getting from our past to our future, do so.

Scary, for sure, to be dependent on others. But, what else is civilization?

Just another typical response from you. Ignore the facts, and just keep beating your drum .
Your post was strangely sounding like a sermon

 

[PMZ]

Nobody is arguing about the changing climate, it's been doing that for the last 4 billion years.
What is being argued is that the change is directly linked to man, and your science hasn't proved anything. What has been proved is that there has been leaked emails from YOUR scientists that contradict their own work. There are scientists that once believed there was a connection that no longer think there is a connection. The scientists can't connect the dots unless they jimmy rig the numbers.
There are too many variables that create climate change and the scientists just can't with any certainty say that their work is the end all arguments that it's the cause of climate change.
No matter what you say, PMZ, that is where the rubber meets the road on this issue and for you to say any different is no more than your politics. So go pound sand in your sandbox, or play with your Barbie, makes no difference to me.

These are the beliefs for which there is zero supporting science. They are purely political wishes from conservative control freaks.

We have developed our civilization during a very long period of remarkable climate stability. None of the natural climate change processes have interfered in our progress.

Now science has shown how our prodigious appetite for the gift of cheap energy from past suns has self inflicted what nature spared us from.

And how delicate the balance is keeping us in the sweet climate spot that we have flourished in.

I suppose that there is some kind poetic justice that the timing of the formulation of science's unavoidable prophecy coincides with the end of the fossil fuel era due to what we always knew would happen. The gift will soon be all gone. We must go to energy plan B at the same time that we have to adapt civilization to our new climate.

The good news, at least compared to the dinosaurs, who fell victim to natures climate change rather than self inflicted climate change, is that we have a distribution of brainpower among us from quite limited to quite advanced, to lead us to the new place. Like Moses sort of.

People like you can relax and let those who are equipped to solve the puzzle of getting from our past to our future, do so.

Scary, for sure, to be dependent on others. But, what else is civilization?

Just another typical response from you. Ignore the facts, and just keep beating your drum .
Your post was strangely sounding like a sermon

Show us the facts that contradict what I said. The science behind your politics. Stop wishing that I was wrong and start with evidence that you're right.

 

[Meister]

These are the beliefs for which there is zero supporting science. They are purely political wishes from conservative control freaks.

We have developed our civilization during a very long period of remarkable climate stability. None of the natural climate change processes have interfered in our progress.

Now science has shown how our prodigious appetite for the gift of cheap energy from past suns has self inflicted what nature spared us from.

And how delicate the balance is keeping us in the sweet climate spot that we have flourished in.

I suppose that there is some kind poetic justice that the timing of the formulation of science's unavoidable prophecy coincides with the end of the fossil fuel era due to what we always knew would happen. The gift will soon be all gone. We must go to energy plan B at the same time that we have to adapt civilization to our new climate.

The good news, at least compared to the dinosaurs, who fell victim to natures climate change rather than self inflicted climate change, is that we have a distribution of brainpower among us from quite limited to quite advanced, to lead us to the new place. Like Moses sort of.

People like you can relax and let those who are equipped to solve the puzzle of getting from our past to our future, do so.

Scary, for sure, to be dependent on others. But, what else is civilization?

Just another typical response from you. Ignore the facts, and just keep beating your drum .
Your post was strangely sounding like a sermon

Show us the facts that contradict what I said. The science behind your politics. Stop wishing that I was wrong and start with evidence that you're right.

Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - CBS News
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes
Climategate | Tory Aardvark
Climate Conversation Group » Scientists
Articles: Winning the AGW Science Debate: Here's How
Research by Hundreds of Scientists Undermines Global Warming Alarmism | Heartland Institute
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/21977.pdf
Statement on List of 500 Authors | Heartland Institute

Finally, I'll leave you this to chew on, my chew toy
The Forbes magazine article goes on to list other scientists - once former devout believers in AGW - who have recently quit the global warming polemic.


To name a few: Fritz Vaherenholt, the socialist founder of Germany’s environmental movement. Another is Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Also Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore agreed that, “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years.
Marketing Japan: Global Warming Scientists Abandoning Ship in Droves

 

[ScienceRocks]

simply that our co2 being burnt has a different chemical make up then natural co2.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. 2.3 Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4) How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

 

[Meister]

simply that our co2 being burnt has a different chemical make up then natural co2.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. 2.3 Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4) How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

It seems that the CO2 can be a lagging indicator in your assumption

 

[PMZ]

simply that our co2 being burnt has a different chemical make up then natural co2.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. 2.3 Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4) How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

It seems that the CO2 can be a lagging indicator in your assumption

Show us the facts that contradict what I said. The science behind your politics. Stop wishing that I was wrong and start with evidence that you're right.

 

[Kosh]

simply that our co2 being burnt has a different chemical make up then natural co2.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. 2.3 Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4) How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

It seems that the CO2 can be a lagging indicator in your assumption

Show us the facts that contradict what I said. The science behind your politics. Stop wishing that I was wrong and start with evidence that you're right.

Going to ever post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate?

 

[Meister]

simply that our co2 being burnt has a different chemical make up then natural co2.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. 2.3 Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4) How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

It seems that the CO2 can be a lagging indicator in your assumption

Show us the facts that contradict what I said. The science behind your politics. Stop wishing that I was wrong and start with evidence that you're right.

I've shown you that emails from Hanson implicated that their work was tainted.
I've shown you that your own scientists and proponents (disciples) have been jumping away from your religion.
That's all I've ever shown you, I'm not debating whether the temps are going up or if there going down. You don't have a shred of evidence to connect man to the temperature fluctuations. true story.....
Get over it, dude/dudette/it.

 

[PMZ]

It seems that the CO2 can be a lagging indicator in your assumption

Show us the facts that contradict what I said. The science behind your politics. Stop wishing that I was wrong and start with evidence that you're right.

Going to ever post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate?

That would be completely redundant to the lab demonstrations and quantum mechanics and common sense calculations that predict with absolute certainty that, considering only the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration increases from the burning of fossil fuels over the last 150 years, AGW is absolutely certain. The end points of the process are unequivocal. The degree to which our consumption of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric GHG concentrations, and the temperature increase that ultimately has to emerge to restore the energy balance that that concentration increase upset.

What is left to determine is how long it will take to get from that certain cause to that certain effect, and how the weather and sea levels will respond along the way.

The single cause and ultimate effect are known with certainty. The path between them is being quantified. The cause from the past is known with certainty, what mankind does from this day forth is unknowable. The degree to which the civilization that we built adapting to the previous climate and sea levels, must change, to readapt to the climate and sea levels when they stabilize to what they must, from what we've done so far, will obviously be very costly, but can't be predicted with any accuracy.

Wishing things were different has no impact on any of this.

 

[Meister]

Show us the facts that contradict what I said. The science behind your politics. Stop wishing that I was wrong and start with evidence that you're right.

Going to ever post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate?

That would be completely redundant to the lab demonstrations and quantum mechanics and common sense calculations that predict with absolute certainty that, considering only the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration increases from the burning of fossil fuels over the last 150 years, AGW is absolutely certain. The end points of the process are unequivocal. The degree to which our consumption of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric GHG concentrations, and the temperature increase that ultimately has to emerge to restore the energy balance that that concentration increase upset.

What is left to determine is how long it will take to get from that certain cause to that certain effect, and how the weather and sea levels will respond along the way.

The single cause and ultimate effect are known with certainty. The path between them is being quantified. The cause from the past is known with certainty, what mankind does from this day forth is unknowable. The degree to which the civilization that we built adapting to the previous climate and sea levels, must change, to readapt to the climate and sea levels when they stabilize to what they must, from what we've done so far, will obviously be very costly, but can't be predicted with any accuracy.

Wishing things were different has no impact on any of this.

You're fucking crazy.

From what I've shown you.....the science isn't settled.
I've named names from your own scientists that no longer agree with you and the manipulated science you embrace.

I am right......you ignore the facts that don't back your religion (agenda) and you just keep moving forward with your lies like nothing disproved them.

This discussion is done, you have no evidence of what you're trying to support regarding AGW, and the scientists know it.

 

[PMZ]

Going to ever post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate?

That would be completely redundant to the lab demonstrations and quantum mechanics and common sense calculations that predict with absolute certainty that, considering only the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration increases from the burning of fossil fuels over the last 150 years, AGW is absolutely certain. The end points of the process are unequivocal. The degree to which our consumption of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric GHG concentrations, and the temperature increase that ultimately has to emerge to restore the energy balance that that concentration increase upset.

What is left to determine is how long it will take to get from that certain cause to that certain effect, and how the weather and sea levels will respond along the way.

The single cause and ultimate effect are known with certainty. The path between them is being quantified. The cause from the past is known with certainty, what mankind does from this day forth is unknowable. The degree to which the civilization that we built adapting to the previous climate and sea levels, must change, to readapt to the climate and sea levels when they stabilize to what they must, from what we've done so far, will obviously be very costly, but can't be predicted with any accuracy.

Wishing things were different has no impact on any of this.

You're fucking crazy.

From what I've shown you.....the science isn't settled.
I've named names from your own scientists that no longer agree with you and the manipulated science you embrace.

I am right......you ignore the facts that don't back your religion (agenda) and you just keep moving forward with your lies like nothing disproved them.

This discussion is done, you have no evidence of what you're trying to support regarding AGW, and the scientists know it.

The fact that you don't know the science has no impact on it. That leaves you with two alternatives. Learn it, or keep hoping that ignorance triumphs over knowledge for the first time in history.

You are a perfect example of the fundamental motivation behind conservative entertainment. To empower ignorance by encouraging it.

Ignorant conservatives know more science than scientists who spend their entire lives learning it. More Constitutional law than legal experts who spend their lives perfecting it. More statesmanship, diplomacy, and politics than those spending their lives performing it, know. More history than the historians who devote their lives to its careful study. More about the design of our Union than the Constitutional Convention that put it on paper. More macroeconomics than Ben Bernanke. More about risk than actuaries.
More about news than people who live it.

If you wanted to know what you pretend to know you'd have to spend a dozen lifetimes in school and in practice.