Another Climate Alarmist Lets It Slip: Why They Want To Scare You

[rdean]

Are we to simply believe that global climate change not only exists, but is man-made, when the Earth itself, emits more "climate changing" gases in one volcanic eruption, than man-kind has in our entire existance?

You seem to have your facts backwards. Human beings emit more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

You need to employ a little skepticism before posting "facts" such as this. It's repeated constantly by the denialists and it's FALSE. There's a reason the overwhelming number of scientists believe AGW is a fact. They get paid to do research and publish papers on their findings. Many denialists, however, do it for the cash they get from the energy companies. They don't have to do research or publish, just disparage those who do and rake in much more cash than those working on meager government grants. Remember that when you hear "they're doing it for the money" and think about who's really throwing the cash around.

So, your disputing one of the things I have said, and maybe you're right. What about the rest? Noticed you cherry-picked one of many items. Interesting, very interesting. Are you trying to say that nothing I have said has any merit, simply because I may have one fact incorrect?

I chose one of your most egregious and easily debunked points. THAT'S what should be concerning to you. The other points I'm going to have to be even more unkind about. You repeatedly said that climate scientists IGNORE this or that point, which is an out and out LIE. ALL factors are taken into account. Think about THIS then.

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentration of those gases has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

How can you expect warming when the Earth has been cooling for billions of years?

"Snowball Earth" Confirmed: Ice Covered Equator

 

[mamooth]

And finally some honesty from the left, My "...type should die."

Given you started with the "you should just die" crap, and that I was clearly mocking you by pointing out how it really applied to you, the degree of your dishonesty here is kind of shocking.

I also see you're using that phony outrage charade as an excuse to cut and run from my debunking of all the fake facts that you brainlessly parroted, right after you whined that nobody was addressing your nonsense.

It certainly didn't take long for you to reveal what you're made of. Disappointing. New denier cultists usually last a little longer with me before their inevitable meltdown.

 

[skookerasbil]

One must have a plate in their head not to recognize that the whole concept of environmentalism exists for the expressed purpose of destruction of the capitalistic system. Fucking duh. It is front and center in the manifesto's of prominent radical progressives like Saul Alinsky >>>

How to Create a Social State

Why Hillary's Alinsky Letters Matter


http://www.jeffhead.com/alinsky.htm


Many of the dopey environmentalist dummies in the forum were romanticized during their college years after reading about utopian worlds....ended up embracing it for life while MOST of society woke up and realized that no economic models were ever applied by the writers who endorsed these utopian worlds ( More, Hobbes, Fuerbach, Plato, Marx ). Less than 20% of Americans associate themselves as being liberal. Why? Because to do so makes you look stoopid and naïve........none of their shit works.

Want to be able to connect the dots? Take a gander into this link and check out the content..........the AGW k00ks hate this stuff.........makes them look like dicks!!!



The Green Agenda

 

[skookerasbil]

Where's that knobby cucumber Billy? I seems to have misplaced it yet again!!!

Many deserved of yet another one on this thread!!

 

[mamooth]

Hey skook, has it snowed yet anywhere in the northern hemisphere?

You're slipping. You're usually pointing to any snowflake anywhere as proof there's no global warming. It's your mostest favorite fallacy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Kline is a left wing socialist with absolutely no credibility as a researcher. Lack of training and ethics seems to be the hallmark of left wing idiots wanting power. As the pope is a socialists and a NWO guy the selection of a left wing hack doesn't surprise me. She is dangerous and one you do not turn your back on..

 

[Programmer]

I am starting to get curious what do the AGW folks want us to do?

It seems to me all they do is complain...

Reading the fringe Naomi Klein it seems to me she wants to redistribute everyone's money so the world is equally as miserable..

They want to commoditize carbon and carbon dioxide.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I am starting to get curious what do the AGW folks want us to do?

It seems to me all they do is complain...

Reading the fringe Naomi Klein it seems to me she wants to redistribute everyone's money so the world is equally as miserable..

They want to commoditize carbon and carbon dioxide.

SO how are you going to make it a commodity? Keep people from breathing? Or make them pay to breath?

 

[Programmer]

I am starting to get curious what do the AGW folks want us to do?

It seems to me all they do is complain...

Reading the fringe Naomi Klein it seems to me she wants to redistribute everyone's money so the world is equally as miserable..

They want to commoditize carbon and carbon dioxide.

SO how are you going to make it a commodity? Keep people from breathing? Or make them pay to breath?

Not me. See 'cap and trade'. Certainly not me.

 

[skookerasbil]

So, have the courage of your convictions and stop driving your car, heating your home, cooking your meat (unless your vegitarian, in which case ignore that), wearing synthetic cloth, using electricity(even solar has a carbon footprint), and anything alse that emits carbon.

If you want to live in a cave, just do so. Go hug a tree and worship Gaia, or do whatever else your weird religion says to do. Just don't try to force others to do it as well.

And if anyone ever said to completely give up emitting carbon, your weird ecofreak demands might make some sense. But since nobody says that, that would mean it's just a dishonest strawman on your part.

So dude/dudette, we've been asking you and yours for a very long time for the solution to your problem. What is it you need to do to stop the killer CO2?

they can start by breaking up their computers. and go from there to their cars, don't heat or cool their homes, etc. And when they are done with they can STOP breathing.

Stop breathing? Stop breathing what Stephanie? Breathing the air is the next thing on the agenda for these human racists......soon enough, we'll be getting regulations on breathing.

 

[konradv]

Climate change: Do ice ages debunk the science? - CNN.com

Sure the climate has fluctuated in the past. Why this time is different.

 

[RollingThunder]

Are we to simply believe that global climate change not only exists, but is man-made, when the Earth itself, emits more "climate changing" gases in one volcanic eruption, than man-kind has in our entire existance?

You seem to have your facts backwards. Human beings emit more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

You need to employ a little skepticism before posting "facts" such as this. It's repeated constantly by the denialists and it's FALSE. There's a reason the overwhelming number of scientists believe AGW is a fact. They get paid to do research and publish papers on their findings. Many denialists, however, do it for the cash they get from the energy companies. They don't have to do research or publish, just disparage those who do and rake in much more cash than those working on meager government grants. Remember that when you hear "they're doing it for the money" and think about who's really throwing the cash around.

So, your disputing one of the things I have said, and maybe you're right. What about the rest? Noticed you cherry-picked one of many items. Interesting, very interesting. Are you trying to say that nothing I have said has any merit, simply because I may have one fact incorrect?

I chose one of your most egregious and easily debunked points. THAT'S what should be concerning to you. The other points I'm going to have to be even more unkind about. You repeatedly said that climate scientists IGNORE this or that point, which is an out and out LIE. ALL factors are taken into account. Think about THIS then.

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentration of those gases has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

CO2 warming has relatively little power to affect the climate BY ITSELF. Basic Physics says it's about 1degC/Doubling. The GW THEORY however -- attributes superpowers to the gas that are NOT basic physics. And at the same time -- they UNDERESTIMATE the other climate drivers --- sometimes on purpose...

You need twice as CO2 each doubling to get another 1 degC.. And we haven't even finished the FIRST doubling since the Industrial Revolution..

Completely wrong. You can't just make up your own 'facts'.

A doubling of the CO2 levels could produce a temperature rise of up to 8°F., according to the climate scientists.

How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels?
NOAA
January 24, 2014
Scientists say that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels will likely cause global average surface temperature to rise between 1.5° and 4.5° Celsius (2.7° to 8.1° Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial temperatures. (Current concentrations are about 1.4 times pre-industrial levels.) The full process could take hundreds of years -- perhaps more than a thousand -- to play out. Climate scientists call the full temperature rise from doubled carbon dioxide concentrations the equilibrium climate sensitivity.

To understand how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide on time frames of a century or less, scientists also study the transient climate sensitivity. They imagine that carbon dioxide will continue to increase at roughly the rate it has been, and then ask how much warming would be realized around the time when the concentration has doubled the preindustrial value. On this shorter time scale, it’s likely the planet will warm between 1° and 2.5°C (2°-4.5°F).

The difference between transient and equilibrium sensitivity comes from the fact that some parts of the Earth system -- mountain glaciers, sea ice, precipitation -- react within years or a few decades to a warming or cooling nudge. Others -- including ice sheets, permafrost, and especially the deep ocean -- respond sluggishly, sometimes taking centuries to overcome the inertia of their previous state.

 

[flacaltenn]

Are we to simply believe that global climate change not only exists, but is man-made, when the Earth itself, emits more "climate changing" gases in one volcanic eruption, than man-kind has in our entire existance?

You seem to have your facts backwards. Human beings emit more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

You need to employ a little skepticism before posting "facts" such as this. It's repeated constantly by the denialists and it's FALSE. There's a reason the overwhelming number of scientists believe AGW is a fact. They get paid to do research and publish papers on their findings. Many denialists, however, do it for the cash they get from the energy companies. They don't have to do research or publish, just disparage those who do and rake in much more cash than those working on meager government grants. Remember that when you hear "they're doing it for the money" and think about who's really throwing the cash around.

So, your disputing one of the things I have said, and maybe you're right. What about the rest? Noticed you cherry-picked one of many items. Interesting, very interesting. Are you trying to say that nothing I have said has any merit, simply because I may have one fact incorrect?

I chose one of your most egregious and easily debunked points. THAT'S what should be concerning to you. The other points I'm going to have to be even more unkind about. You repeatedly said that climate scientists IGNORE this or that point, which is an out and out LIE. ALL factors are taken into account. Think about THIS then.

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentration of those gases has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

CO2 warming has relatively little power to affect the climate BY ITSELF. Basic Physics says it's about 1degC/Doubling. The GW THEORY however -- attributes superpowers to the gas that are NOT basic physics. And at the same time -- they UNDERESTIMATE the other climate drivers --- sometimes on purpose...

You need twice as CO2 each doubling to get another 1 degC.. And we haven't even finished the FIRST doubling since the Industrial Revolution..

Completely wrong. You can't just make up your own 'facts'.

A doubling of the CO2 levels could produce a temperature rise of up to 8°F., according to the climate scientists.

How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels?
NOAA
January 24, 2014
Scientists say that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels will likely cause global average surface temperature to rise between 1.5° and 4.5° Celsius (2.7° to 8.1° Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial temperatures. (Current concentrations are about 1.4 times pre-industrial levels.) The full process could take hundreds of years -- perhaps more than a thousand -- to play out. Climate scientists call the full temperature rise from doubled carbon dioxide concentrations the equilibrium climate sensitivity.

To understand how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide on time frames of a century or less, scientists also study the transient climate sensitivity. They imagine that carbon dioxide will continue to increase at roughly the rate it has been, and then ask how much warming would be realized around the time when the concentration has doubled the preindustrial value. On this shorter time scale, it’s likely the planet will warm between 1° and 2.5°C (2°-4.5°F).

The difference between transient and equilibrium sensitivity comes from the fact that some parts of the Earth system -- mountain glaciers, sea ice, precipitation -- react within years or a few decades to a warming or cooling nudge. Others -- including ice sheets, permafrost, and especially the deep ocean -- respond sluggishly, sometimes taking centuries to overcome the inertia of their previous state.

You weren't paying attention to what I've been saying about the warming power of CO2.

The 1 degC/Doubling is the BASIC PHYSICS numbers. derived from the Chemical Handbook and Atmos Physics.

The crap you're quoting includes the FAULTY part of GWarming theory. The part that takes the ACTUAL warming powers of CO2 -- and applies the "Magic Multipliers"....

Lemme explain to you the theory you're wasting time defending. Because you don't seem to understand it.
YOUR theory says that the temperature forcings from man-made CO2 are just the TRIGGER for a postulate chain of positive feedback effects that give SUPERPOWERS to the actual warming power of CO2 BY ITSELF.

That's this hokey "climate sensitivity" business. Problem for you is -- that these "Magic Multipliers" have been continuously revised downwards for about 20 years now. As the "continuing debate" (that you deny exists) shows that they really don't understand the role of increased water vapor or thermal distribution pathways at the surface or even the somehow "newly discovered" role of ocean heat storage. You need to be careful quoting ANYTHING older than a couple years -- because the magic multipliers are dropping faster than BlackBerry stocks.

So --- zealots and skeptics alike (and me) TOTALLY buy the effect of CO2 warming by itself. We DISAGREE on all the superpowers attributed to it by this speculation about how the climate system is SOOO unstable that it will destroy itself if there ever is a temperature forcing of more than a couple degrees.

Questions? Discussion? What do YOU think?

 

[RollingThunder]

You seem to have your facts backwards. Human beings emit more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

You need to employ a little skepticism before posting "facts" such as this. It's repeated constantly by the denialists and it's FALSE. There's a reason the overwhelming number of scientists believe AGW is a fact. They get paid to do research and publish papers on their findings. Many denialists, however, do it for the cash they get from the energy companies. They don't have to do research or publish, just disparage those who do and rake in much more cash than those working on meager government grants. Remember that when you hear "they're doing it for the money" and think about who's really throwing the cash around.

So, your disputing one of the things I have said, and maybe you're right. What about the rest? Noticed you cherry-picked one of many items. Interesting, very interesting. Are you trying to say that nothing I have said has any merit, simply because I may have one fact incorrect?

I chose one of your most egregious and easily debunked points. THAT'S what should be concerning to you. The other points I'm going to have to be even more unkind about. You repeatedly said that climate scientists IGNORE this or that point, which is an out and out LIE. ALL factors are taken into account. Think about THIS then.

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentration of those gases has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

CO2 warming has relatively little power to affect the climate BY ITSELF. Basic Physics says it's about 1degC/Doubling. The GW THEORY however -- attributes superpowers to the gas that are NOT basic physics. And at the same time -- they UNDERESTIMATE the other climate drivers --- sometimes on purpose...

You need twice as CO2 each doubling to get another 1 degC.. And we haven't even finished the FIRST doubling since the Industrial Revolution..

Completely wrong. You can't just make up your own 'facts'.

A doubling of the CO2 levels could produce a temperature rise of up to 8°F., according to the climate scientists.

How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels?
NOAA
January 24, 2014
Scientists say that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels will likely cause global average surface temperature to rise between 1.5° and 4.5° Celsius (2.7° to 8.1° Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial temperatures. (Current concentrations are about 1.4 times pre-industrial levels.) The full process could take hundreds of years -- perhaps more than a thousand -- to play out. Climate scientists call the full temperature rise from doubled carbon dioxide concentrations the equilibrium climate sensitivity.

To understand how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide on time frames of a century or less, scientists also study the transient climate sensitivity. They imagine that carbon dioxide will continue to increase at roughly the rate it has been, and then ask how much warming would be realized around the time when the concentration has doubled the preindustrial value. On this shorter time scale, it’s likely the planet will warm between 1° and 2.5°C (2°-4.5°F).

The difference between transient and equilibrium sensitivity comes from the fact that some parts of the Earth system -- mountain glaciers, sea ice, precipitation -- react within years or a few decades to a warming or cooling nudge. Others -- including ice sheets, permafrost, and especially the deep ocean -- respond sluggishly, sometimes taking centuries to overcome the inertia of their previous state.

You weren't paying attention to what I've been saying about the warming power of CO2.

The 1 degC/Doubling is the BASIC PHYSICS numbers. derived from the Chemical Handbook and Atmos Physics.

The crap you're quoting includes the FAULTY part of GWarming theory. The part that takes the ACTUAL warming powers of CO2 -- and applies the "Magic Multipliers"....

Lemme explain to you the theory you're wasting time defending. Because you don't seem to understand it.
YOUR theory says that the temperature forcings from man-made CO2 are just the TRIGGER for a postulate chain of positive feedback effects that give SUPERPOWERS to the actual warming power of CO2 BY ITSELF.

That's this hokey "climate sensitivity" business. Problem for you is -- that these "Magic Multipliers" have been continuously revised downwards for about 20 years now. As the "continuing debate" (that you deny exists) shows that they really don't understand the role of increased water vapor or thermal distribution pathways at the surface or even the somehow "newly discovered" role of ocean heat storage. You need to be careful quoting ANYTHING older than a couple years -- because the magic multipliers are dropping faster than BlackBerry stocks.

So --- zealots and skeptics alike (and me) TOTALLY buy the effect of CO2 warming by itself. We DISAGREE on all the superpowers attributed to it by this speculation about how the climate system is SOOO unstable that it will destroy itself if there ever is a temperature forcing of more than a couple degrees.

Questions? Discussion? What do YOU think?

I think you're spewing a bunch of confused, fraudulent, anti-science nonsense. There is nothing "magical" about the fact that a warmer atmosphere will result in a higher water vapor level, or the fact that more water vapor increases the greenhouse effect and causes more warming than just the initial increase in CO2 would cause by itself.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, your disputing one of the things I have said, and maybe you're right. What about the rest? Noticed you cherry-picked one of many items. Interesting, very interesting. Are you trying to say that nothing I have said has any merit, simply because I may have one fact incorrect?

I chose one of your most egregious and easily debunked points. THAT'S what should be concerning to you. The other points I'm going to have to be even more unkind about. You repeatedly said that climate scientists IGNORE this or that point, which is an out and out LIE. ALL factors are taken into account. Think about THIS then.

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentration of those gases has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

CO2 warming has relatively little power to affect the climate BY ITSELF. Basic Physics says it's about 1degC/Doubling. The GW THEORY however -- attributes superpowers to the gas that are NOT basic physics. And at the same time -- they UNDERESTIMATE the other climate drivers --- sometimes on purpose...

You need twice as CO2 each doubling to get another 1 degC.. And we haven't even finished the FIRST doubling since the Industrial Revolution..

Completely wrong. You can't just make up your own 'facts'.

A doubling of the CO2 levels could produce a temperature rise of up to 8°F., according to the climate scientists.

How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels?
NOAA
January 24, 2014
Scientists say that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels will likely cause global average surface temperature to rise between 1.5° and 4.5° Celsius (2.7° to 8.1° Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial temperatures. (Current concentrations are about 1.4 times pre-industrial levels.) The full process could take hundreds of years -- perhaps more than a thousand -- to play out. Climate scientists call the full temperature rise from doubled carbon dioxide concentrations the equilibrium climate sensitivity.

To understand how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide on time frames of a century or less, scientists also study the transient climate sensitivity. They imagine that carbon dioxide will continue to increase at roughly the rate it has been, and then ask how much warming would be realized around the time when the concentration has doubled the preindustrial value. On this shorter time scale, it’s likely the planet will warm between 1° and 2.5°C (2°-4.5°F).

The difference between transient and equilibrium sensitivity comes from the fact that some parts of the Earth system -- mountain glaciers, sea ice, precipitation -- react within years or a few decades to a warming or cooling nudge. Others -- including ice sheets, permafrost, and especially the deep ocean -- respond sluggishly, sometimes taking centuries to overcome the inertia of their previous state.

You weren't paying attention to what I've been saying about the warming power of CO2.

The 1 degC/Doubling is the BASIC PHYSICS numbers. derived from the Chemical Handbook and Atmos Physics.

The crap you're quoting includes the FAULTY part of GWarming theory. The part that takes the ACTUAL warming powers of CO2 -- and applies the "Magic Multipliers"....

Lemme explain to you the theory you're wasting time defending. Because you don't seem to understand it.
YOUR theory says that the temperature forcings from man-made CO2 are just the TRIGGER for a postulate chain of positive feedback effects that give SUPERPOWERS to the actual warming power of CO2 BY ITSELF.

That's this hokey "climate sensitivity" business. Problem for you is -- that these "Magic Multipliers" have been continuously revised downwards for about 20 years now. As the "continuing debate" (that you deny exists) shows that they really don't understand the role of increased water vapor or thermal distribution pathways at the surface or even the somehow "newly discovered" role of ocean heat storage. You need to be careful quoting ANYTHING older than a couple years -- because the magic multipliers are dropping faster than BlackBerry stocks.

So --- zealots and skeptics alike (and me) TOTALLY buy the effect of CO2 warming by itself. We DISAGREE on all the superpowers attributed to it by this speculation about how the climate system is SOOO unstable that it will destroy itself if there ever is a temperature forcing of more than a couple degrees.

Questions? Discussion? What do YOU think?

I think you're spewing a bunch of confused, fraudulent, anti-science nonsense. There is nothing "magical" about the fact that a warmer atmosphere will result in a higher water vapor level, or the fact that more water vapor increases the greenhouse effect and causes more warming than just the initial increase in CO2 would cause by itself.

Owwwwie.. I heard a couple neurons popping there. Good excersize. Except that water vapor and clouds have a HEFTY COOLING effect as well. That effect interferes with the downdwelling direct solar radiation --- not just "backradiation" as an insulator. And this is still VERY active debate.

Other components of the Magic Multiplier are the unfreezing of permafrost. Figures for that were extrapolated from the emergence of the last Ice Age and highly over-rated. And of course, in all of this, the magnitude of NATURAL cycles and effects are highly UNDER - rated..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Are we to simply believe that global climate change not only exists, but is man-made, when the Earth itself, emits more "climate changing" gases in one volcanic eruption, than man-kind has in our entire existance?

You seem to have your facts backwards. Human beings emit more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

You need to employ a little skepticism before posting "facts" such as this. It's repeated constantly by the denialists and it's FALSE. There's a reason the overwhelming number of scientists believe AGW is a fact. They get paid to do research and publish papers on their findings. Many denialists, however, do it for the cash they get from the energy companies. They don't have to do research or publish, just disparage those who do and rake in much more cash than those working on meager government grants. Remember that when you hear "they're doing it for the money" and think about who's really throwing the cash around.

So, your disputing one of the things I have said, and maybe you're right. What about the rest? Noticed you cherry-picked one of many items. Interesting, very interesting. Are you trying to say that nothing I have said has any merit, simply because I may have one fact incorrect?

I chose one of your most egregious and easily debunked points. THAT'S what should be concerning to you. The other points I'm going to have to be even more unkind about. You repeatedly said that climate scientists IGNORE this or that point, which is an out and out LIE. ALL factors are taken into account. Think about THIS then.

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentration of those gases has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

CO2 warming has relatively little power to affect the climate BY ITSELF. Basic Physics says it's about 1degC/Doubling. The GW THEORY however -- attributes superpowers to the gas that are NOT basic physics. And at the same time -- they UNDERESTIMATE the other climate drivers --- sometimes on purpose...

You need twice as CO2 each doubling to get another 1 degC.. And we haven't even finished the FIRST doubling since the Industrial Revolution..

Completely wrong. You can't just make up your own 'facts'.

A doubling of the CO2 levels could produce a temperature rise of up to 8°F., according to the climate scientists.

How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels?
NOAA
January 24, 2014
Scientists say that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels will likely cause global average surface temperature to rise between 1.5° and 4.5° Celsius (2.7° to 8.1° Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial temperatures. (Current concentrations are about 1.4 times pre-industrial levels.) The full process could take hundreds of years -- perhaps more than a thousand -- to play out. Climate scientists call the full temperature rise from doubled carbon dioxide concentrations the equilibrium climate sensitivity.

To understand how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide on time frames of a century or less, scientists also study the transient climate sensitivity. They imagine that carbon dioxide will continue to increase at roughly the rate it has been, and then ask how much warming would be realized around the time when the concentration has doubled the preindustrial value. On this shorter time scale, it’s likely the planet will warm between 1° and 2.5°C (2°-4.5°F).

The difference between transient and equilibrium sensitivity comes from the fact that some parts of the Earth system -- mountain glaciers, sea ice, precipitation -- react within years or a few decades to a warming or cooling nudge. Others -- including ice sheets, permafrost, and especially the deep ocean -- respond sluggishly, sometimes taking centuries to overcome the inertia of their previous state.

well this is bullshit......

In the dino era the C02 was 5 times higher today and the earth temperature was only estimated to be 2~6 degrees Celsius higher

Dinosaur Era Had 5 Times Today's CO2

Climate Change, Nothing New? How Has Earth's Temperature Changed in the Past? - ThomasNet News

Btw...you do know the animals and plants were bigger.... Waaaaaayyyyy bigger and flourshied in that era?


I hate the ridiculous AGW cult alarmist nonsense...

 

[westwall]

Are we to simply believe that global climate change not only exists, but is man-made, when the Earth itself, emits more "climate changing" gases in one volcanic eruption, than man-kind has in our entire existance?

You seem to have your facts backwards. Human beings emit more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

You need to employ a little skepticism before posting "facts" such as this. It's repeated constantly by the denialists and it's FALSE. There's a reason the overwhelming number of scientists believe AGW is a fact. They get paid to do research and publish papers on their findings. Many denialists, however, do it for the cash they get from the energy companies. They don't have to do research or publish, just disparage those who do and rake in much more cash than those working on meager government grants. Remember that when you hear "they're doing it for the money" and think about who's really throwing the cash around.

So, your disputing one of the things I have said, and maybe you're right. What about the rest? Noticed you cherry-picked one of many items. Interesting, very interesting. Are you trying to say that nothing I have said has any merit, simply because I may have one fact incorrect?

I chose one of your most egregious and easily debunked points. THAT'S what should be concerning to you. The other points I'm going to have to be even more unkind about. You repeatedly said that climate scientists IGNORE this or that point, which is an out and out LIE. ALL factors are taken into account. Think about THIS then.

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentration of those gases has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

so what is it they do after they absorb the radiation?

They re-emit it. Statistically 50% would escape back into space, but the other 50% would be emitted towards earth, heating it. The more CO2 the more IR is absorbed. It's a like a blanket that slows the escape of heat.

The problem with that theory is the scientific community KNOWS (not consensus mind you, this is a fact, huuuuge difference) that the oceans are the heat engines of the world. The Sun emits IR and UV radiation. The UV radiation can penetrate hundreds of meters into the oceans to warm them up (and lo and behold that has been happening for billions of years) IR radiation on the other hand can only penetrate a few MICRONS deep into the water. Thus the theory fails in its very first test.

 

[Old Rocks]

My goodness, IR can only penetrate a few microns into the steel gears we heat shrink onto shafts, but the sure do heat up fast from the torch whose heat is only penetrating a few microns deep.

 

[westwall]

My goodness, IR can only penetrate a few microns into the steel gears we heat shrink onto shafts, but the sure do heat up fast from the torch whose heat is only penetrating a few microns deep.

Simple physics test olfraud. In which direction does heat travel. Up? Or down? Here's a hint...

 

[flacaltenn]

My goodness, IR can only penetrate a few microns into the steel gears we heat shrink onto shafts, but the sure do heat up fast from the torch whose heat is only penetrating a few microns deep.

Your torch is not primarily a long wave radiant form of energy. And those steel gears are not transferring RADIANT heat, they are molecularly conducting heat. But keep on torching stuff. Must be cool work..

Can't help myself -- natural curiousity. Here's the RADIANT part of your torch. Give me the model number and fuel and I can more specific !!!!