Global warming is speeding up.

[ReinyDays]

... The CO2 within the first few tens of meters of atmosphere are sufficient to absorb all of that energy. Right? ...

No ... and this is no casual error on your part ... this show a lack of understanding on your part of the physics at hand ... QM is real, we use it here ... from your reference, 2013 IPCC report, first working group, Figure 12-5 and associated text ... avail yourself ... then ask yourself why Reinydays and the IPCC say the same thing ... ∆T = 5.35 W/m^2 k ln (CF/CI)

 

[JesseForgeard]

In my city, the hottest month ever was recorded this year. I’d say this is accurate.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Fort fun is so stupid he doesn't even know HE expels over 1000 pounds of CO2 every year.

If he wants to stop CO2 he should stop breathing.

I would support that idea!!

 

[Crick]

I would support that idea!!

Two for one in the long list of passive aggressive denier death threats. I'll add it to the book. Aren't you two something.

 

[westwall]

Two for one in the long list of passive aggressive denier death threats. I'll add it to the book. Aren't you two something.

Not a death threat. You assholes are all about killing the other guy. I merely pointed out that you morons are not just hypocrites, but racist hypocrites.

He merely agreed.

It takes a special kind of stupid to claim that is a threat.

Hello stupid.

 

[Captain Caveman]

A high speed. In reverse.

So you don't know

 

[Crick]

Not a death threat. You assholes are all about killing the other guy. I merely pointed out that you morons are not just hypocrites, but racist hypocrites.

He merely agreed.

It takes a special kind of stupid to claim that is a threat.

Hello stupid.

Don't be stupid. It is a blatant death wish, obvious to all. And certainly not the first. How many times do you think deniers here have suggested that AGW proponents stop breathing? Do you guys EVER have anything original to say?

 

[westwall]

Don't be stupid. It is a blatant death wish, obvious to all. And certainly not the first. How many times do you think deniers here have suggested that AGW proponents stop breathing? Do you guys EVER have anything original to say?

You can "believe" whatever moronic thing you wish. Thinking people understand.

Clearly you can't think.

And little parrot you claiming to have an original thought? LAUGHABLE!

 

[Crick]

You also can believe whatever you want, even if it's diametrically opposed to what EVERYONE else believes and is blatantly obvious you are making a pathetic attempt to defend yourself for inexcusable behavior.

BtW, global warming is speeding up.

 

[westwall]

You also can believe whatever you want, even if it's diametrically opposed to what EVERYONE else believes and is blatantly obvious you are making a pathetic attempt to defend yourself for inexcusable behavior.

BtW, global warming is speeding up.

Really, how so? Got anything measurable? No, just more religious zealot opinion.

Thought so.

I see you still ignoring the elephant in the room....

Every time you try and bury this post I am going to bump it up again....just for you.

Great Flood of 1862​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jump to navigationJump to search
Great Flood of 1862

Lithograph of K Street in the city of Sacramento, California, during the Great Flood of 1862
Date	December 1861 – January 1862
Location	Oregon, Nevada, California, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Sonora, Mexico

The Great Flood of 1862 was the largest flood in the recorded history of Oregon, Nevada, and California, occurring from December 1861 to January 1862. It was preceded by weeks of continuous rains and snows in the very high elevations that began in Oregon in November 1861 and continued into January 1862. This was followed by a record amount of rain from January 9–12, and contributed to a flood that extended from the Columbia River southward in western Oregon, and through California to San Diego, and extended as far inland as Idaho in the Washington Territory, Nevada and Utah in the Utah Territory, and Arizona in the western New Mexico Territory. The event dumped an equivalent of 10 feet of rainfall in California, in the form of rain and snow, over a period of 43 days.[1][2] Immense snowfalls in the mountains of the far western United States caused more flooding in Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, and Sonora, Mexico the following spring and summer as the snow melted.
The event was capped by a warm intense storm that melted the high snow load. The resulting snow-melt flooded valleys, inundated or swept away towns, mills, dams, flumes, houses, fences, and domestic animals, and ruined fields. It has been described as the worst disaster ever to strike California.[3]

Contents​

• 1Background
• 2Impact by region
  • 2.1Oregon
  • 2.2Idaho
  • 2.3California
    • 2.3.1Northern California
    • 2.3.2Central Valley
    • 2.3.3Sacramento
      • 2.3.3.1Levee damage
      • 2.3.3.2City rebuilding
    • 2.3.4Southern California
    • 2.3.5Economic impact
  • 2.4Nevada
  • 2.5Utah
  • 2.6Arizona
  • 2.7New Mexico
  • 2.8Sonora, Mexico
• 3Current interest
• 4See also
• 5References
• 6Further reading
• 7External links

Great Flood of 1862 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Crick]

Bump all you like. What relevance do you believe it has to the thread topic?

If you need evidence that global warming is accelerating, have a look through AR6.

 

[Crick]

No ... and this is no casual error on your part ... this show a lack of understanding on your part of the physics at hand ... QM is real, we use it here ... from your reference, 2013 IPCC report, first working group, Figure 12-5 and associated text ... avail yourself ... then ask yourself why Reinydays and the IPCC say the same thing ... ∆T = 5.35 W/m^2 k ln (CF/CI)

Do you believe that all the IR coming off the Earth's surface is NOT absorbed by the first few tens of meter of the atmosphere?

I fully accept QM and have given you no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

 

[westwall]

Bump all you like. What relevance do you believe it has to the thread topic?

If you need evidence that global warming is accelerating, have a look through AR6.

You claim the storms of today are more powerful than ever before. That is a false statement as proved by this storm. You also claim they are increasing in number, likewise a number that is not born out by actual fact. Thus the relevance is it PROVES you are a liar.

 

[westwall]

Great Flood of 1862​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jump to navigationJump to search
Great Flood of 1862

Lithograph of K Street in the city of Sacramento, California, during the Great Flood of 1862
Date	December 1861 – January 1862
Location	Oregon, Nevada, California, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Sonora, Mexico

The Great Flood of 1862 was the largest flood in the recorded history of Oregon, Nevada, and California, occurring from December 1861 to January 1862. It was preceded by weeks of continuous rains and snows in the very high elevations that began in Oregon in November 1861 and continued into January 1862. This was followed by a record amount of rain from January 9–12, and contributed to a flood that extended from the Columbia River southward in western Oregon, and through California to San Diego, and extended as far inland as Idaho in the Washington Territory, Nevada and Utah in the Utah Territory, and Arizona in the western New Mexico Territory. The event dumped an equivalent of 10 feet of rainfall in California, in the form of rain and snow, over a period of 43 days.[1][2] Immense snowfalls in the mountains of the far western United States caused more flooding in Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, and Sonora, Mexico the following spring and summer as the snow melted.
The event was capped by a warm intense storm that melted the high snow load. The resulting snow-melt flooded valleys, inundated or swept away towns, mills, dams, flumes, houses, fences, and domestic animals, and ruined fields. It has been described as the worst disaster ever to strike California.[3]

Contents​

• 1Background
• 2Impact by region
  • 2.1Oregon
  • 2.2Idaho
  • 2.3California
    • 2.3.1Northern California
    • 2.3.2Central Valley
    • 2.3.3Sacramento
      • 2.3.3.1Levee damage
      • 2.3.3.2City rebuilding
    • 2.3.4Southern California
    • 2.3.5Economic impact
  • 2.4Nevada
  • 2.5Utah
  • 2.6Arizona
  • 2.7New Mexico
  • 2.8Sonora, Mexico
• 3Current interest
• 4See also
• 5References
• 6Further reading
• 7External links

Great Flood of 1862 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Crick]

You claim the storms of today are more powerful than ever before. That is a false statement as proved by this storm. You also claim they are increasing in number, likewise a number that is not born out by actual fact. Thus the relevance is it PROVES you are a liar.

You didn't fail statistics, you never took it. Or logic. Or anything approaching critical thinking. Your point was so stupid no one could tell what the **** you were trying to say. You think a powerful storm in 1862 refutes the idea that global warming is accelerating? Wow... been drinking? Smoking? Something wasted your grey cell count.

 

[gtopa1]

Can you explain why you find those poorly supported hypotheses, published in Newsweek and Time more than any peer reviewed science journal, more believable or reliable or acceptable than the conclusions of the IPCC??

Yes. The IPCC is frankly OK; it is how their statements over the years have been misinterpreted DELIBERATELY by nutter left wing zealots and their media enablers. "Might", "could" and "models suggest" are NOT definitive.

and no: NOTHING is clear at all. BTW: I haven't read those idiot rags you mentioned. The whole process of Weather Science has become far too politicised...especially since Global Cooling/New Ice Age was the Enviro-Mantra in the 70s.

Greg

 

[Crick]

Yes. The IPCC is frankly OK; it is how their statements over the years have been misinterpreted DELIBERATELY by nutter left wing zealots and their media enablers. "Might", "could" and "models suggest" are NOT definitive.

and no: NOTHING is clear at all. BTW: I haven't read those idiot rags you mentioned. The whole process of Weather Science has become far too politicised...especially since Global Cooling/New Ice Age was the Enviro-Mantra in the 70s.

Greg

If you were familiar with my postings here and that of others who accept the conclusions of mainstream science, you would see that we do not use "nutter left wing zealots" as references, but the IPCC and the sort of peer reviewed research on which it bases its work. If you have a problem with "might" and "could" and "models suggest", I 'm afraid you need to go back to Physical Science 101 for a little remediation. That IS how science works. That IS how science states its conclusions. The work of the IPCC, Assessment Reports 5 and 6 are not political works. I will not say there was no political influence on them, but that influence has lessened as time has gone by and I am quite certain that AR6 has suffered the least political dilution of any of the reports so far.

Finally, "Global Cooling / New Ice Age" has been grossly overstated by people attempting to put off measures to mitigate global warmng. Those people do that because such measures threaten their very livelihoods. A single cover story in Newsweek and Time do not a "mantra" make. Such things were NOT accepted by the majority of climate scientists. There was never a consensus that a new ice age was imminent. But, since the ice ages have been caused by Milankovich cycles, which are still underway of course, you can ALWAYS say an ice age is coming and you will be right. The world WAS slowly getting cooler before AGW came to dominate. It was an easy call. It just missed the bus. The world is getting warmer and humans are responsible. Those are now indisputable facts.

 

[gtopa1]

If you were familiar with my postings here and that of others who accept the conclusions of mainstream science, you would see that we do not use "nutter left wing zealots" as references, but the IPCC and the sort of peer reviewed research on which it bases its work. If you have a problem with "might" and "could" and "models suggest", I 'm afraid you need to go back to Physical Science 101 for a little remediation. That IS how science works. That IS how science states its conclusions. The work of the IPCC, Assessment Reports 5 and 6 are not political works. I will not say there was no political influence on them, but that influence has lessened as time has gone by and I am quite certain that AR6 has suffered the least political dilution of any of the reports so far.

Finally, "Global Cooling / New Ice Age" has been grossly overstated by people attempting to put off measures to mitigate global warmng. Those people do that because such measures threaten their very livelihoods. A single cover story in Newsweek and Time do not a "mantra" make. Such things were NOT accepted by the majority of climate scientists. There was never a consensus that a new ice age was imminent. But, since the ice ages have been caused by Milankovich cycles, which are still underway of course, you can ALWAYS say an ice age is coming and you will be right. The world WAS slowly getting cooler before AGW came to dominate. It was an easy call. It just missed the bus. The world is getting warmer and humans are responsible. Those are now indisputable facts.

"Such things were NOT accepted by the majority of climate scientists"...who WERE the climate Scientists at the time?

Abstract​

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

Greg

 

[westwall]

You didn't fail statistics, you never took it. Or logic. Or anything approaching critical thinking. Your point was so stupid no one could tell what the **** you were trying to say. You think a powerful storm in 1862 refutes the idea that global warming is accelerating? Wow... been drinking? Smoking? Something wasted your grey cell count.

The storm in 1862 dwarfs EVERYTHING that has come after. Your claim that the frequency, and severity of storms are increasing is a LIE!

 

[Captain Caveman]

You also can believe whatever you want, even if it's diametrically opposed to what EVERYONE else believes and is blatantly obvious you are making a pathetic attempt to defend yourself for inexcusable behavior.

BtW, global warming is speeding up.

Can you give me a date when man made started please