Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[Abraham3]

If what you claim is true...that all of the weather we are seeing is based on mans CO2 contribution to the atmospheric budget, then, logically, there can be NO PRIOR EXAMPLES of the weather you are using as your examples.

And you REALLY want to claim to have a PhD? You're whacked. You need a lesson in BASIC INFERENCES. Really, REALLY BASIC.

 

[Abraham3]

We WILL be keeping track of this. Believe you me! And where exactly did I say this was the end of the summer cycle? I merely stated that the rate had slowed a month earlier than usual. You really DO have a reading comprehension issue don't you?

Well... someone has an issue - we both know what you said:

And back to the real world... The Arctic ice melt has slowed one month earlier than normal...

Going to have to come up with a new "theory" to 'splain that one LUUUUCCYYY!

 

[gslack]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.

And let's just ignore the fact that Venus is about 26 million miles closer to the sun.

Every planetary scientist will tell you that Venus being slightly closer to the sun than the Earth is did not cause its runaway greenhouse effect. Something catastrophic happened to that planet, something that caused it to have a retrograde rotation about its axis that is slow in the extreme, something that melted the entire surface 500 million years ago, something that released virtually all of the CO2 on and in the planet into its atmosphere. Now, none of that has to do with the point I am trying to make. The point is that at some point, the concentration of CO2 in Venus' atmosphere made it not only uninhabitable by virtue of it becoming toxic to life, but at some point, the surface temperature simply became too hot to support life, or to support the ocean of water that is believed to have once existed there. There is no evidence that Venus started out this way. But it certainly is this way today. So my question is how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours? How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough? And when you finally do come to that decision, will it be too late for our children, and their children?

Total and complete BULLSHIT...

As far as "every planetary scientist will tell you..." Complete nonsense... ASk 10 scientists anything and you will get 10 different answers. They may agree on a theory, but not all will agree on the method or cause.. Hence why there is no FACT but theory on Venus's condition..

As far as your contention about "soemthing catastrophic happened" another bit of nonsense.. You don't know why venus is the way it is. It could have evolved that way due toany number of things. There is no factual account of it's history to check, all we have is conjecture based on what we can see and/or study. Get a grip loon...

I showed you facts why we cannot consider venus a model of what could happen due to GH gas proliferation. And you ignored it and kept on anyway...

Pathetic..

 

[flacaltenn]

Those are the underlying motivating facts of this debate.. The lead science is being driven and directed by POLITICAL goals.. Whether they be UN administration of a Global redistribution program or complete central control of the energy sector of OUR economy.

You can't get more real or cogent that that...

You might if you had any evidence.

Gave you a taste of the evidence right there with about 5 quotes from the AGW leadership.. Quotes condoning lying, cheating, and promoting panic.. I don't know how more irrelevent you can make yourself by ignoring those bitsy pieces in the same post..

You get over THAT hurdle -- we can discuss the biased charter of the IPCC, the role of non-science review in determining how to write conclusions for that report and the literal food fights that have erupted at the last 2 or 3 meetings over payments and wealth transfers between nations...

 

[flacaltenn]

It would be all the National delegations to the UN who have hijacked the science lead on this circus. All their heads of state waiting for me to cut them a check for their fair redistribution of damages.

It has been almost universally the case, since the IPCC was formed and throughout every new report's composition, that the political representatives have urged or forced the science authors to downplay the chances, the risk and the danger. That is why with the exception of the unpredictable current hiatus, the IPCC's predictions to date have all erred on the side of conservatism. Politicans are not telling the IPCC to be alarmist. Quite the opposite. And this has been WIDELY reported.

That is a stupendous act of naivety and blatant avoidance of reality right there..

The political directors of this inquisition from the UN to Congress has been misinterpretating the science, and embellishing the most outrageous claims.. I can only ask that you educate me about all the SKEPTICISM AND RESTRAINT that ANY of the leading pols worldwide (western nations) have demanded of the process.

Do you agree with the Dear Leaders comments last week about "the warming has accelerated faster than predicted?" Did you miss the Senate panel blaming the death of 19 firefighters on Global Warming?

Please DO tell...

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't know how could mistake what I was saying about the AUDIENCE for this AGW road show being composed of political scientists.

I do, but the issue is irrelevant

It would be all the National delegations to the UN who have hijacked the science lead on this circus. All their heads of state waiting for me to cut them a check for their fair redistribution of damages.

It has been almost universally the case, since the IPCC was formed and throughout every new report's composition, that the political representatives have urged or forced the science authors to downplay the chances, the risk and the danger. That is why with the exception of the unpredictable current hiatus, the IPCC's predictions to date have all erred on the side of conservatism. Politicans are not telling the IPCC to be alarmist. Quite the opposite. And this has been WIDELY reported.



Our representatives - even some republican reps - have exercised the unmitigated gall of accepting what an overwhelming majority of the world's experts are telling them is the case. Even were you absolutely correct, given the ratio of scientists accepting AGW to those rejecting it would lead me to absolutely believe that our politicians should accept AGW as a fact. If you think our elected reps should reject the word of the world's experts arguing that we face a danger and need to take action and instead take the word of tiny minorities not only poo-poohing the dangers but insisting that the experts are ignorant, greedy fools running a enormous scam on the world - then I truly hope you will find some other democracy to inhabit, as such a point of view is a real and present danger to this nation and the rest of the world.



No one has suggested that warming will destroy the Earth. These conversations would run more smoothly if you could hold down the hyperbole. The suggestion is and has been for many years, that a temperature change of 2C or less by 2100 may be coped with. Greater changes or changes arriving faster, will have enormous costs as has been detailed to you on numerous occasions. The Earth couldn't care less. It's the humans we're actually worried about, at least on this side of the argument.



Saying it doesn't make it so. When you say it's bad science, you are putting yourself in disagreement with a great many PhDs who have been studying this issue every day of their professional lives. A thousand pardons if I take their word over yours. Besides, where is the "BAD science"? Have these data been falsified? Has flawed reasoning been published unchecked? Have multiple lines of investigation failed to draw and support the same conclusions? No, no and no.



Of what models do you speak? If you want to toss out all models that accept AGW as a real and valid process, you will toss out EVERY model that has ever been able to reproduce the actual climate behavior of the last 150 years. Does that seem like GOOD science to you?

That's where we part ways. I don't even like the accounting for "man's contributions" to CO2 since they are rigged by including herds of domestic cattle and forest fires.
The rigging doesn't stop there. We have IPCC reports that misrepresent the 1.2W/m2 solar forcing that's occurred in the past 200 yrs in a DESPARATE attempt to keep the AGW for Morons theory uncomplicated. And a range of projected Climate Sensitivities so wide -- you just have to chuckle when you hear the "science is settled"...

Do you believe herds of domestic cattle would exist without our presence? You'll have to explain that to us someday. And while you're at it, you might want to brush up on accuracy and resolution. If someone - say the IPCC - wanted to quote a single value for solar forcing to the nearest tenth of a W/m*2, where would they take into account the standard cyclical change on the order of a few hundredths of a W/m*2? Eh?

You continue to **** up the links to the quotes.. I refuse to spend time debating with someone who doesn't understand how to use the tools.. I'm not gonna go retrieve my original statements.

So ---- in no particular order..

1) Certainly WILL explain the bias in the CO2 accounting charged to man.. Domestic cattle should be accounted for on what biosystems they replaced. Certainly huge clouds of buffalo roaming the plains were a CO2 offset to domestic cattle.. Same with the reduction of deer, elk, beaver, and others that were hunted to their limits before the settlement of most of our ag land.. Same goes for charging man with every forest fire that occurs on claimed land.. Particularly when the "let it burn" practices that were prevailing were based on the eco-naut philosophy of "natural" processes and NOT modern land management science. Least you think this is a minor false charge to the account. Domestic cattle is a LARGE portion of the bill..

2) What the mental midget admins of the political class have been doing exactly is making pronouncements like "the science is settled" (boxer) and "the ice is melting so fast, the tundra is in danger of floating away" (waxman).. They aren't really following the science, they are defining the outcome of the science.

ALREADY flushing BILLIONS of dollars per year down the toilet SPECIFICALLY on the excuse of AGW. Without even agreeing on what the expected benefit of such flushing might actually be. It has become a JUSTIFICATION for energy jihad rather than a cure to any particular effects of global warming..

3) So are you suggesting that 2degC or less by 2100 is what we should expect? Why don't you give me the CONSENSUS on that?
Everytime anyone points to the LACK OF CONSENSUS on key elements of AGW hype --- you come back with the "let's be rational about this" act.. TIL --- you make inferences to catastophic COLLAPSE of our climate --- like you and Oroman just did by hinting that Venus is our future if we don't repent and become believers...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.

And let's just ignore the fact that Venus is about 26 million miles closer to the sun.

Every planetary scientist will tell you that Venus being slightly closer to the sun than the Earth is did not cause its runaway greenhouse effect. Something catastrophic happened to that planet, something that caused it to have a retrograde rotation about its axis that is slow in the extreme, something that melted the entire surface 500 million years ago, something that released virtually all of the CO2 on and in the planet into its atmosphere. Now, none of that has to do with the point I am trying to make. The point is that at some point, the concentration of CO2 in Venus' atmosphere made it not only uninhabitable by virtue of it becoming toxic to life, but at some point, the surface temperature simply became too hot to support life, or to support the ocean of water that is believed to have once existed there. There is no evidence that Venus started out this way. But it certainly is this way today. So my question is how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours? How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough? And when you finally do come to that decision, will it be too late for our children, and their children?

So my question is how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours? How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough?

You should post a graph of CO2 levels for all of Earth's history and then we can further discuss your awesome questions. Thanks!

 

[flacaltenn]

That's where we part ways. I don't even like the accounting for "man's contributions" to CO2 since they are rigged by including herds of domestic cattle and forest fires.
The rigging doesn't stop there. We have IPCC reports that misrepresent the 1.2W/m2 solar forcing that's occurred in the past 200 yrs in a DESPARATE attempt to keep the AGW for Morons theory uncomplicated. And a range of projected Climate Sensitivities so wide -- you just have to chuckle when you hear the "science is settled"...

Do you believe herds of domestic cattle would exist without our presence? You'll have to explain that to us someday. And while you're at it, you might want to brush up on accuracy and resolution. If someone - say the IPCC - wanted to quote a single value for solar forcing to the nearest tenth of a W/m*2, where would they take into account the standard cyclical change on the order of a few hundredths of a W/m*2? Eh?

Now this is particularly troublesome to me.. Because we've been over this before..
Do you remember me posting the chart for Total Solar Irradiance from 1700 to present? And then complaining about the ever-present ploy that Warmers have been taught of SHIFTING the conversation to "standard cyclical changes" involving only the latest couple sun spot cycles??

Be real clear on this point. When I refer to Solar radiative forcing -- I'm talking about TSI -- not what has happened in the past couple Sun cycles.. That amounts to a surface forcing of ~ 0.5 X (1.2W/m2) since 1700 to present..

Remember THIS? from a mere week ago???

Now you also may remember, you or OroMan posted THIS ----

And I told you that the IPCC HAD to under-rate the increase in Solar forcing.. So they lowballed the number.. That number for solar forcing should be AT LEAST .3W/m2.. (making TSI jive with the IPCC start date of 1750 -- but ignoring thermal inertia since heating now can FOLLOW power increases by several decades)

But instead -- they posted charts of SUN SPOT NUMBERS instead of TSI to justify the fraud.

I asked you and Oroman to justify this IPCC manipulation.. There was no response. Can't be a response. Because they are playing a false narrative.. This is NOT a case of my "brushing up on accuracy and resolution".. 0.3W/M2 is kinda hard to LOSE in a chart as simple as that.. Aint it??

The "Church of Man ******* the Climate" says that no forcing that hasn't changed in 20 years should be included in the analysis.. But all that scripture is changing now that the TEMPERATURE hasn't moved in 10 years or more.. So SUDDENLY -- the Warmers are discovering energy HIDING in deep dark places and the DIFF. btwn Power and Energy..

Turns out -- that applies to ANY radiative forcing.. Including solar. The fact that TSI "leveled out" 15 or 20 yrs ago doesn't matter any more -- because "climate science" just got smart enough to NOT EXPECT instanteous forcing of temperature..

When you can tell me WHY the IPCC rigged that chart --- I'll rep you and thank you..

Til then, try to listen to what your NEW best buds are telling you on USMB and try NOT to confuse our inputs with any OLD skirmishes you might have had on previous boards. I certainly don't want to be misrepresented again in that fashion..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

LOL

Seriously?

That's all you got?

Venus

LOL

"That's all you got?" ? ! ? ! ? ! ?

Did you just wake up from a long, long sleep?

You realize how funny and stupid you AGW Culters are, right?

Dur! The Earth has warmed before! Its really old, too. DUH! OMG those culters are so stupid.

 

[Oddball]

"That's all you got?" ? ! ? ! ? ! ?

Did you just wake up from a long, long sleep?

You realize how funny and stupid you AGW Culters are, right?

Dur! The Earth has warmed before! Its really old, too. DUH! OMG those culters are so stupid.

Yes, yes y'all are.

 

[Oddball]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.

And let's just ignore the fact that Venus is about 26 million miles closer to the sun.

Every planetary scientist will tell you that Venus being slightly closer to the sun than the Earth is did not cause its runaway greenhouse effect.

28% closer is slightly?!?....I'd hate to have you as my carpenter.

How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough? And when you finally do come to that decision, will it be too late for our children, and their children?

Appeal to emotion....Fail.

 

[westwall]

If what you claim is true...that all of the weather we are seeing is based on mans CO2 contribution to the atmospheric budget, then, logically, there can be NO PRIOR EXAMPLES of the weather you are using as your examples.

And you REALLY want to claim to have a PhD? You're whacked. You need a lesson in BASIC INFERENCES. Really, REALLY BASIC.

It's not my fault you are so uneducated you can't understand the basics. Go back to school junior and learn something.

 

[westwall]

We WILL be keeping track of this. Believe you me! And where exactly did I say this was the end of the summer cycle? I merely stated that the rate had slowed a month earlier than usual. You really DO have a reading comprehension issue don't you?

Well... someone has an issue - we both know what you said:

And back to the real world... The Arctic ice melt has slowed one month earlier than normal...

Going to have to come up with a new "theory" to 'splain that one LUUUUCCYYY!

Yes, THE ARCTIC ICE MELT HAS SLOWED ONE MONTH EARLIER

So simple a moron could understand it. What's stupider than a moron?

 

[mamooth]

Be real clear on this point. When I refer to Solar radiative forcing -- I'm talking about TSI -- not what has happened in the past couple Sun cycles.. That amounts to a surface forcing of ~ 0.5 X (1.2W/m2) since 1700 to present..

Can your peculiar theory explain why temperature started tracking the opposite way of TSI since around 1980?

AGW theory can explain it, of course. Your theory is flatly contradicted by the data, hence why intelligent and honest people reject it. Go ahead, toss out all the conspiracies you can imagine, but the simple explanation here is that you're just crazy wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

Be real clear on this point. When I refer to Solar radiative forcing -- I'm talking about TSI -- not what has happened in the past couple Sun cycles.. That amounts to a surface forcing of ~ 0.5 X (1.2W/m2) since 1700 to present..

Can your peculiar theory explain why temperature started tracking the opposite way of TSI since around 1980?

AGW theory can explain it, of course. Your theory is flatly contradicted by the data, hence why intelligent and honest people reject it. Go ahead, toss out all the conspiracies you can imagine, but the simple explanation here is that you're just crazy wrong.

Slow down pardner.. It's actually EASY to explain..

AGW has had a JUVENILE expectation that the entire Earth climate system can turn on dime. They needed INSTANT gratification that the Earth would assume a new equilibrium IMMEDIATELY after any spike in a forcing function..

Well of course --- like the rest of the AGW folk tale -- that's ridiculous. The Energy STORAGE from an increase step or linear ramp of power could take 40 years. Crap -- it could be 100 years to a new equilibrium.. Seems like the "settled science" is just NOW discovering that.

(You on the other hand haven't adapted to the new scientific "equilibrium" that we don't EXPECT earth surface temps to exactly track ANY forcing function. Being as dense as you are --- this could take decades !!! )

Take that chart and roll the TSI plot about 50 years to the right.. And while you're at it -- add the last 13 years of missing data.

TSI paused about 30 yrs ago -- the temperature pauses about now.. Now that would be REAL science based on radiative physics and heat storage.

In fact -- it's on my list of things to do to produce a lag plot like that and show the maximum correlation with surface temp.. Perhaps, we could even guess at the time it takes the climate system to respond to changes in forcings...

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW: I suspect that you (mamooth) said you have a technical backgrnd of some sort.. So lemme ruin another of your "graph matching" expectations..

Just like it's not expected that temp. HAS to immediately follow the forcing function, It's also NOT REQUIRED that the forcing function Linearly MATCH the increase the temp.... WHY YOU ASK?

Because a forcing function is in units of power.. Temp. is a function of ENERGY STORED which is the INTEGRAL of the power applied.. Perhaps you're familiar with "pulse width modulation" or energy pumping. I can simply control the duty cycle of heat pump (like an HVAC system) to LINEARLY influence the resultant temperature.. The HEAT from the HVAC is always the same, but the DUTY CYCLE of the pulses on/off control the temp..

Days of stuffing charts under folks noses and trying to make them line up perfectly is over pal..
REAL science is starting to sprout here..

 

[orogenicman]

And let's just ignore the fact that Venus is about 26 million miles closer to the sun.

Every planetary scientist will tell you that Venus being slightly closer to the sun than the Earth is did not cause its runaway greenhouse effect.

28% closer is slightly?!?....I'd hate to have you as my carpenter.

How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough? And when you finally do come to that decision, will it be too late for our children, and their children?

Appeal to emotion....Fail.

It is still within the habitable zone of the sun. That it is not habitable is not because it is closer to the sun. Mercury is closer still, and yet it is not as hot (340 K) at its surface as is Venus (735 K)

Appeal to emotion? That's certainly convenient way for you to leave pertinent questions unanswered.

 

[mamooth]

Temp tracked TSI within a couple years prior to 1980, then it went the opposite way.

Your need to explain why the decades-long delay you posit didn't exist prior to 1980. If you can't give a mechanism for that, you're obviously just tossing in a arbitrary fudge factor. And a theory that doesn't work without miraculous fudge factors isn't going to get any respect.

 

[orogenicman]

We WILL be keeping track of this. Believe you me! And where exactly did I say this was the end of the summer cycle? I merely stated that the rate had slowed a month earlier than usual. You really DO have a reading comprehension issue don't you?

Well... someone has an issue - we both know what you said:

And back to the real world... The Arctic ice melt has slowed one month earlier than normal...

Going to have to come up with a new "theory" to 'splain that one LUUUUCCYYY!

Yes, THE ARCTIC ICE MELT HAS SLOWED ONE MONTH EARLIER

So simple a moron could understand it. What's stupider than a moron?

Even your lies are sophomoric:

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[flacaltenn]

Temp tracked TSI within a couple years prior to 1980, then it went the opposite way.

Your need to explain why the decades-long delay you posit didn't exist prior to 1980. If you can't give a mechanism for that, you're obviously just tossing in a arbitrary fudge factor. And a theory that doesn't work without miraculous fudge factors isn't going to get any respect.

Sure it's there for the rise beginning the 80s.. That would be the ramp up in TSI that occurred in the 1940s !!!

U really didn''t understand I thing I said did ya? Nothing needs to be immediate.. NOTHING needs to look exactly like the other. We are not doing Sesame Street "one thing does not look like the other" science.

I'd love to do all the things you suggest.. But I'm not getting paid for that right now.

There is an INCREASE in TSI that proceeds both the warming in the 40s and the warming in the 90s by about 30 to 50 yrs.. And the CURRENT PAUSE in temp? Go back 30 yrs in the TSI record and you'll find it.. No magic.. No fudge factors. Just a more complete view of the math and science than demanding ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL looking plots..

TSI could dither about the values of only +/- .3W/m2 for ever and influence the warming/cooler cycle just by HOW LONG it was at high state versus HOW LONG it was at low state. Doesn't have to pass the Sesame Street test.. Temp. would still go and down linearly. Just like the HVAC system in your house gets a linear temp. response from non-linear pumping of energy..