Warmers Gone Wild! ConTrail Melting the Polar Ice Caps!

[CrusaderFrank]

AGU stunner: Aircraft Vapor Trails Responsible for 15-20% of Arctic Warming
Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Nature (subs. req’d) reports on an analysis presented by Stanford’s Mark Jacobson to the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting last week:

The first analysis of emissions from commercial airline flights shows that they are responsible for 4–8% of surface global warming since surface air temperature records began in 1850 — equivalent to a temperature increase of 0.03–0.06 °C overall.

The analysis, by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, also shows that in the Arctic, aircraft vapour trails produced 15–20% of warming.

This study is yet more strong evidence that we need a high priority global strategy to sharply reduce black carbon:"

Science « Climate Progress

Holy Fucking Moly Batman! Do you realize what this means?

Dear God, have you figured out the full implications of this?!!!

Why, my Dear Watson, this can only mean that the Face on Mars really is from an advanced civilization and they are flying invisible aircraft because not coincidentally, the Martian ice caps are melting concurrently with our own!

Warmers are a more dependable laugh than Will Farrell

 

[Liability]

AGU stunner: Aircraft Vapor Trails Responsible for 15-20% of Arctic Warming
Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Nature (subs. req’d) reports on an analysis presented by Stanford’s Mark Jacobson to the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting last week:

The first analysis of emissions from commercial airline flights shows that they are responsible for 4–8% of surface global warming since surface air temperature records began in 1850 — equivalent to a temperature increase of 0.03–0.06 °C overall.

The analysis, by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, also shows that in the Arctic, aircraft vapour trails produced 15–20% of warming.

This study is yet more strong evidence that we need a high priority global strategy to sharply reduce black carbon:"

Science « Climate Progress

Holy Fucking Moly Batman! Do you realize what this means?

Dear God, have you figured out the full implications of this?!!!

Why, my Dear Watson, this can only mean that the Face on Mars really is from an advanced civilization and they are flying invisible aircraft because not coincidentally, the Martian ice caps are melting concurrently with our own!

Warmers are a more dependable laugh than Will Farrell

It's worse.

the vapor trails with all that black carbon stuff fucking up our atmosphere also changes the color of the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface!

Anyone up on the Superman/Kryptonian aspects of the sun's color will immediately recognize the threat.

I have a hunch that the very same aliens behind the invisible planes and contrails on Mars are up to something even more nefarious here on planet Huston!

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. And you two silly bastards will find something else to make fun of next week. With the same incredible lack of intellect as these posts show. Oh well, Happy New Year to both of you.

 

[Liability]

LOL. And you two silly bastards will find something else to make fun of next week. With the same incredible lack of intellect as these posts show. Oh well, Happy New Year to both of you.

Olde Fossil: the MASTER on the topic of lack of intellect.

Sure we will find shit to ridicule next week. You liberoidal assbite liars are an endless supply of raw material.

And a Happy New Year to you too, Fossil.

 

[code1211]

AGU stunner: Aircraft Vapor Trails Responsible for 15-20% of Arctic Warming
Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Nature (subs. req’d) reports on an analysis presented by Stanford’s Mark Jacobson to the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting last week:

The first analysis of emissions from commercial airline flights shows that they are responsible for 4–8% of surface global warming since surface air temperature records began in 1850 — equivalent to a temperature increase of 0.03–0.06 °C overall.
The analysis, by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, also shows that in the Arctic, aircraft vapour trails produced 15–20% of warming.

This study is yet more strong evidence that we need a high priority global strategy to sharply reduce black carbon:"

Science « Climate Progress

Holy Fucking Moly Batman! Do you realize what this means?

Dear God, have you figured out the full implications of this?!!!

Why, my Dear Watson, this can only mean that the Face on Mars really is from an advanced civilization and they are flying invisible aircraft because not coincidentally, the Martian ice caps are melting concurrently with our own!

Warmers are a more dependable laugh than Will Farrell

Does anybody else find this 3/100's to 6/100's of a degree to be just a little ridiculous? This comes out to right around .0003773 degrees per year. Per year!

As luck would have it, the average year increase across the last 2000 years has been about .00035 per year.

What's the difference per year between these numbers? Anybody? Bueller?

.0000273 degrees per year. To race to a full degree of temperature change at this rate of difference would be 36,630 years. Wow!

The experts cannot accurately predict anything, but they think that they can isolate the effect from con trails in the Arctic to this degree of accuracy. Koo koo nuts are in season.

 

[Old Rocks]

Science « Climate Progress

The figure is from Spaceweather.com, in its “Sunspot Surge” post.


The 2000s were the hottest decade in recorded history by far — even though we’re at “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.” The 2000s were a full 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s, which of course had been the hottest decade on record, 0.14°C warmer than 1980s (according to the dataset that best tracks planetary warming). Hmm. It’s almost like the warming is accelerating.

There’s little doubt the 2010s will be the hottest decade on record, barring multiple supervolcanoes. Yet when the anti-science crowd isn’t perversely spending their time trying to stop all efforts to cut global warming pollution that might slow warming, they are perversely trying to convince the public and policymakers we’re not warming at all. That’s why many of them have been rooting for this deep solar minimum to become a Maunder Minimum, to mute the warming signal and hence the motivation for action for a few more years. Yes, they have a self-destructive streak.

 

[code1211]

Science « Climate Progress

The figure is from Spaceweather.com, in its “Sunspot Surge” post.


The 2000s were the hottest decade in recorded history by far — even though we’re at “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.” The 2000s were a full 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s, which of course had been the hottest decade on record, 0.14°C warmer than 1980s (according to the dataset that best tracks planetary warming). Hmm. It’s almost like the warming is accelerating.

There’s little doubt the 2010s will be the hottest decade on record, barring multiple supervolcanoes. Yet when the anti-science crowd isn’t perversely spending their time trying to stop all efforts to cut global warming pollution that might slow warming, they are perversely trying to convince the public and policymakers we’re not warming at all. That’s why many of them have been rooting for this deep solar minimum to become a Maunder Minimum, to mute the warming signal and hence the motivation for action for a few more years. Yes, they have a self-destructive streak.

And strangely enough, according to the Max Planck Society, the last 60 years have had the strongest solar activity ever in the last 11,000 years. Pretty impressive, huh?

So our deep dip in the run of the highest Solar Activity in 11,000 years just means that we are at the coolest fiery high in 11,000 years.

You know something else that is strange? The Sunspot count constructed by these folks seems to mirror pretty well, well, much better than CO2 for instance, the corresponding rises and falls of temperature.

Quite a coinkidink, isn't it? The Sun, apparently, has something to do with the heat on the planet.

First link is a chart from the article showing Solar Activity.

Second link is the graph of temperatures from the same time period.

Third link is the article from the Max planck Society. Both the article and the Sunspot chart were published in 2004. It is worth noting that the current solar cycle runs from 2001 to 2012.

http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDok...Wissenschaft/2004/10/Solanki0402/Web_Zoom.gif

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Max Planck Society - Press Release

 

[Old Rocks]

Drastic Climate Change Affects Germany | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 30.09.2005

German film director Roland Emmerich filmed it with his big-budget natural catastrophe movie "The Day After Tomorrow." The United Nations is seeking to slow it down with the Kyoto Protocol. And photos of the Alps from the early 20th century compared with 2005 show it clearly: Global warming.

Now, the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg has presented its most recent assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). According to its simulations, global warming is worse than once believed. It's an alarming announcement, considering how drastic earlier predictions were.

"Our most recent results are more solid than before," said Jochem Marotze, the institute's director. "We are convinced that they are dependable."

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Rising sea levels would wipe cities like New York from the mapThe results: Earth's temperature will rise on average up to four degrees Celsius (7.2 Fahrenheit) by the year 2100 and sea levels will increase up to 30 centimeters (11.8 inches). One scientist said that this rapid warming of the Earth is the "strongest climate change in the last one million years."

Dry spells and floods become the norm

 

[Old Rocks]

Science « Climate Progress

The figure is from Spaceweather.com, in its “Sunspot Surge” post.


The 2000s were the hottest decade in recorded history by far — even though we’re at “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.” The 2000s were a full 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s, which of course had been the hottest decade on record, 0.14°C warmer than 1980s (according to the dataset that best tracks planetary warming). Hmm. It’s almost like the warming is accelerating.

There’s little doubt the 2010s will be the hottest decade on record, barring multiple supervolcanoes. Yet when the anti-science crowd isn’t perversely spending their time trying to stop all efforts to cut global warming pollution that might slow warming, they are perversely trying to convince the public and policymakers we’re not warming at all. That’s why many of them have been rooting for this deep solar minimum to become a Maunder Minimum, to mute the warming signal and hence the motivation for action for a few more years. Yes, they have a self-destructive streak.

And strangely enough, according to the Max Planck Society, the last 60 years have had the strongest solar activity ever in the last 11,000 years. Pretty impressive, huh?

So our deep dip in the run of the highest Solar Activity in 11,000 years just means that we are at the coolest fiery high in 11,000 years.

You know something else that is strange? The Sunspot count constructed by these folks seems to mirror pretty well, well, much better than CO2 for instance, the corresponding rises and falls of temperature.

Quite a coinkidink, isn't it? The Sun, apparently, has something to do with the heat on the planet.

First link is a chart from the article showing Solar Activity.

Second link is the graph of temperatures from the same time period.

Third link is the article from the Max planck Society. Both the article and the Sunspot chart were published in 2004. It is worth noting that the current solar cycle runs from 2001 to 2012.

http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDok...Wissenschaft/2004/10/Solanki0402/Web_Zoom.gif

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Max Planck Society - Press Release

Now Code, weren't you just arguing for global cooling?

So, we have in increased solar activity with increased CO2 to absorb the extra energy from that activity. Isn't that just the most intelligent of actions, to increase manmade CO2 to absorb more of the energy?

Kind of like now that there is a fire on the back porch, no reason not to build a bonfire in the living room.

 

[code1211]

Science « Climate Progress

The figure is from Spaceweather.com, in its “Sunspot Surge” post.


The 2000s were the hottest decade in recorded history by far — even though we’re at “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.” The 2000s were a full 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s, which of course had been the hottest decade on record, 0.14°C warmer than 1980s (according to the dataset that best tracks planetary warming). Hmm. It’s almost like the warming is accelerating.

There’s little doubt the 2010s will be the hottest decade on record, barring multiple supervolcanoes. Yet when the anti-science crowd isn’t perversely spending their time trying to stop all efforts to cut global warming pollution that might slow warming, they are perversely trying to convince the public and policymakers we’re not warming at all. That’s why many of them have been rooting for this deep solar minimum to become a Maunder Minimum, to mute the warming signal and hence the motivation for action for a few more years. Yes, they have a self-destructive streak.

And strangely enough, according to the Max Planck Society, the last 60 years have had the strongest solar activity ever in the last 11,000 years. Pretty impressive, huh?

So our deep dip in the run of the highest Solar Activity in 11,000 years just means that we are at the coolest fiery high in 11,000 years.

You know something else that is strange? The Sunspot count constructed by these folks seems to mirror pretty well, well, much better than CO2 for instance, the corresponding rises and falls of temperature.

Quite a coinkidink, isn't it? The Sun, apparently, has something to do with the heat on the planet.

First link is a chart from the article showing Solar Activity.

Second link is the graph of temperatures from the same time period.

Third link is the article from the Max planck Society. Both the article and the Sunspot chart were published in 2004. It is worth noting that the current solar cycle runs from 2001 to 2012.

http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDok...Wissenschaft/2004/10/Solanki0402/Web_Zoom.gif

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Max Planck Society - Press Release

Now Code, weren't you just arguing for global cooling?

So, we have in increased solar activity with increased CO2 to absorb the extra energy from that activity. Isn't that just the most intelligent of actions, to increase manmade CO2 to absorb more of the energy?

Kind of like now that there is a fire on the back porch, no reason not to build a bonfire in the living room.

Apparently, my point was not clear.

CO2 was steady at the pre-industrial level for thousands of years and yet temperature went up and temperature went down. Causal link here? Not really.

Post industrial, CO2 has risen at a constant and steady rate. Temperature has gone up and tempearature has gone down. Causal link here? Not really.

History has shown us that temperature goes up and temperature goes down and will do so if CO2 is constant at a stagnant level or is rising at a constant pace. To the novice, given that temperature seems to do what it will do regardless of what CO2 level is currently, it would seem that the level of CO2 has little or nothing to do with temperature.

The experts have shown that a more active Sun will raise the temperature of the planet and a less active Sun will allow the temperature to fall. Everybody who lives outside of the tropics has witnessed the power of a more direct angle of the Sun's light on everything around him.

The experts have shown that CO2 is at its highest when Ice ages start and at its lowest when they end. There is cetainly not reason to believe that CO2 causes warming in this correlation.

The experts have shown that there is a tight and ongoing correlation between planetary temperature and Solar Activity that exists whether CO2 is stagnant or rising, that the historical correlation between CO2 and temperature is exactly reversed from what the AGW'ers predict and that despite rising CO2, reduced Solar Activity still allows cooling.

This is a compelling case that in the real world, Solar activity is the driving force behind Global Warming. This is an equally compelling case that CO2 has little or no impact on Global Warming. At least, not in the real world.

I hope this helps to clarify the point I was trying to make.

 

[code1211]

Drastic Climate Change Affects Germany | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 30.09.2005

German film director Roland Emmerich filmed it with his big-budget natural catastrophe movie "The Day After Tomorrow." The United Nations is seeking to slow it down with the Kyoto Protocol. And photos of the Alps from the early 20th century compared with 2005 show it clearly: Global warming.

Now, the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg has presented its most recent assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). According to its simulations, global warming is worse than once believed. It's an alarming announcement, considering how drastic earlier predictions were.

"Our most recent results are more solid than before," said Jochem Marotze, the institute's director. "We are convinced that they are dependable."

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Rising sea levels would wipe cities like New York from the mapThe results: Earth's temperature will rise on average up to four degrees Celsius (7.2 Fahrenheit) by the year 2100 and sea levels will increase up to 30 centimeters (11.8 inches). One scientist said that this rapid warming of the Earth is the "strongest climate change in the last one million years."

Dry spells and floods become the norm

I read the article. CO2 is not mentioned one time. Must be an oversight? It does say that mankind has a one of a kind influence.

As always, there are predictions of Biblical style flods, droughts and conditions that are impossible to predict, according to their predictions.