Global Warming 'Splained

[skookerasbil]

Chrysler mega-comeback.....................

Payne: SUVs saved Chrysler | themichiganview.com | The Michigan View


How'd they do it????????????????????????????

NOT with sales of gay-ass little SMARTCARS like those driven by Old Rocks and Rolling Thunder!!!

gay

 

[RollingThunder]

Your "Relevant Chart" includes bull shit extrapolations regarding future trends which are just as accurate as the ones in 2000 which predicted that the dot com bubble would last forever.

Just more retarded nonsense from someone who is totally clueless about the science involved.

More nonsense from TrollingBlunder.
AGW Mongers often quote the change in temps since the mid 1800s, which was the end of the mini Ice Age. They ignore the long history of climate change over millions of years for a reason: it shows they are making much ado about nothing.

As I said before, just more retarded nonsense from someone totally clueless about the science.

Climate scientists do not "ignore the long history of climate change". That is an incredibly stupid claim since it is their job to study just that. They've discovered what the natural forces were that produced the previous climate changes in Earth's past and those factors aren't causing the current abrupt warming. The link between current global warming and rising CO2 levels is very clear.

Once again, as always, your comments only display your complete ignorance of this subject.

 

[boedicca]

TrollingBlunder blathers on.

 

[RollingThunder]

TrollingBlunder blathers on.

Bowedbydick retards on...and on....and on..........

 

[edthecynic]

Chrysler mega-comeback.....................

Payne: SUVs saved Chrysler | themichiganview.com | The Michigan View

Urban Dictionary: small penis car

small penis car

The bigger the car the smaller the penis.
A small penis car is a big car driven by a man trying to overcompensate for having a small penis.

 

[Old Rocks]

Does that make ol' Kooky a eunuch?

 

[RollingThunder]

Does that make ol' Kooky a eunuch?

I think it makes him a very retarded eunuch with a sixth grade education.

 

[code1211]

Nobody said the 1% change in temperature over 110 billion years was perfectly linear, bub.

Sunspots and other solar activity do cause fluctuations, but in the long run, we're all going to be VAPORIZED.

Just so I know how acute my panic must be, did you say million or billion?

 

[boedicca]

Nobody said the 1% change in temperature over 110 billion years was perfectly linear, bub.

Sunspots and other solar activity do cause fluctuations, but in the long run, we're all going to be VAPORIZED.

Just so I know how acute my panic must be, did you say million or billion?

Ooops. I meant Million. So, it's time to panic.

 

[code1211]

Yes, it will matter. A bit more warming will do wonders for improving the quality of human life just like it did during the Medieval Warming Period. The mini Ice Age ended in the mid 1880s, and the warming ever since has been very favorable to agriculture.

If all AGW was going to do, is bump the global temps up like the regional hemispheric bump Europe and the N. Atlantic region experienced in the MWP, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, we have already more than doubled the warming experienced in the MWP and this is globally not regionally, and it is just the start of the warming not the end of it.

(http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/trakar-albums-agw-picture3532-temperature-pattern-mwp.html)

vs.

(http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/trakar-albums-agw-picture3533-temp-pattern-1999-2008-noaa.html)

And this is just the start, even if we could cease all open-cycle combustion of fossil fuels today, it would take a century or more before the planet equilibrates to the additional CO2 we have already added to the atmosphere, and several millenia before temperatures begin to decrease to where they would have been without mankind's atmospheric dumping. So far we seem to be stuck at (or near) the top end of (Business As Usual) which means not just continued emissions, but continued accelerating emission rates. If this continues unabated we could easily see a tripling of preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels within the next 6-10 decades and an initiating of planetary conditions that will, over a few centuries, come more to resemble those of the PETM, rather than anything that has existed on this planet in the history of our species.

All of this sounds very scientific and logical.

However, the current warming period that we are enjoying and which followed the Little Ice Age started before the Industrial Revolution. That is, it started before the vast burning of Fossil Fuels. It has continued with some ups and downs at a pretty consistant rate in spite of increasing CO2 levels.

The rate of increase in Global temperature from the year 0 to the year 1000 was greater than the increase from the year 1001 to the year 2000. Climate can and has changed without any input from man's burning of Fossil fuels.

The Scenarios and the resulting predictions put forth by Dr. James Hansen in 1988 were based on the theories that you promote above and were wrong.

If Hansen's predictions had been based on calcualtionns that I could have done on a bar napkin with a ball point point pen a list of the average temperatures since 1880, I would have produced a more accurate prediction.

No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined.

 

[code1211]

Nobody said the 1% change in temperature over 110 billion years was perfectly linear, bub.

Sunspots and other solar activity do cause fluctuations, but in the long run, we're all going to be VAPORIZED.

And nobody stated that the warming would be perfectly linear, old gal.

However, April makes the 314 straight month that the global average has been above the average for the 20th century. And, in spite of a very strong La Nina, April was the seventh warmest April on record.

Has the Global concentration of CO2 diminished sufficiently to account for April not being the warmest one on record?

 

[code1211]

The Sun is getting hotter at the rate of 1% per 110 million years.

It is now 30% hotter than it was 4.57 billion years ago.

In another billion years (+/-) the sun will get SO HOT that life on earth will be pretty much vaporized (or as good as such as water will be turned into vapor).

So, instead of worrying about what kind of light bulbs and grocery sacks people use, how about we free the private sector to invent migration and homesteading appropriate technology for new planets?

Apocalypse Not Yet. You notice any new signs of the end of the world today? I have to say I got distracted and missed paying attention at the moment when it was all supposed to end. My neighborhood is quiet and peaceful. But religious belief is not the only source of predictions of the end of the world. A pair of astronomers say in about 1 billion years the output of our Sun will go up enough to evaporate the oceans and rivers into water vapor.

The story begins some 4.57 billion years ago, when the young sun's nuclear furnace ignited and stabilized. Back then, solar physicists estimate, the sun was 30 percent dimmer than it is today. As it has matured, it has brightened at a pace of about 1 percent every 110 million years.

Over that period, the two explain, Earth's climate system has adjusted to the increase in the sun's output, keeping the planet's average temperature within a livable range and with plenty of water on hand. Orbiting 93 million miles from the sun, Earth finds itself nicely placed in the sun's habitable zone.

But over the next billion years, the duo says, the sun's output will rise by another 10 percent.

Let us suppose sentient beings will still inhabit planet Earth hundreds of millions of years from now and beyond. What to do? I see a few choices:

Migrate to Mars.
Do climate engineering
Move Earth to a larger orbit (and thereby lengthen bond maturities too).
Leave the solar system.

FuturePundit: End Of World In 1 Billion Years?

This isn't really relevant to AGW, since we're talking about two completely different time scales. If you want to have an honest debate, let's at least talk about the same thing. AGW has NOTHING to do with long-term fluctuations on earth or the sun.

That is simply not true. The shape of Earth's orbit around the Sun is certainly a long-term fluctuation and has a very measurable effect on the climate.

 

[code1211]

...And this is just the start, even if we could cease all open-cycle combustion of fossil fuels today, it would take a century or more before the planet equilibrates to the additional CO2 we have already added to the atmosphere, and several millenia before temperatures begin to decrease to where they would have been without mankind's atmospheric dumping. So far we seem to be stuck at (or near) the top end of (Business As Usual) which means not just continued emissions, but continued accelerating emission rates. If this continues unabated we could easily see a tripling of preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels within the next 6-10 decades and an initiating of planetary conditions that will, over a few centuries, come more to resemble those of the PETM, rather than anything that has existed on this planet in the history of our species.

Unfortunately, you are sorely misinformed. The itsy bitsy amount of warming we have seen since end of the Little Ice Age is very moderate on a global, millenial scale.

Please support this assertion with appropriate supportive scientific cite or reference.

We seem to be about 16 degrees cooler right now than we were about 50 million years ago.

Conservationists of that age would be panicking over how cold the Earth is right now.

Comcast.net - Email currently unavailable

 

[code1211]

Your "Relevant Chart" includes bull shit extrapolations regarding future trends which are just as accurate as the ones in 2000 which predicted that the dot com bubble would last forever.

Just more retarded nonsense from someone who is totally clueless about the science involved.

To what science are you referring? Can you please produce an accurate prediction of the current climate from 30 years or more ago and show the reason why the AGW Theory supported that prediction at the time that it was made?

 

[code1211]

...And the reason you still can't show us one (1) lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature is....

Equipment needed:

Two large, thick-wall, insulated pressure vessels with IR transparent sealed ports.
IR generator
dry Nitrogen source
dry CO2 source
precision temp. measurement equipment
vaccuum pump

Purge the two vessels, carefully fill one container with 100% dry Nitrogen and then fill the other with 99.99994% dry Nitrogen and 0.00006% dry CO2. Seal both vessels affix IR source to IR transparent port and power up, await equilibration of systems (shouldn't take more than a few hours--EDIT--depending upon the size of your samples! --end EDIT--), and then measure the ambient air temperature within the container to the nearest ten thousandth of a degree. Carefully repeat entire procedure three times carefully recording all data. At this level the temperature differential will be small, but if laboratory practices are duly rigorous, you should be able to record a significant difference between the to sample atmospheres in accord with mainstream physics findings and understandings.

There are more simple ways to test and verify the GHG potential of CO2 (or any other GHG) but this methodology fulfills your specifications and will produce verification of the more traditional obtained results. If you have any questions or problems please feel free to ask or share them.

Is there an experiment that builds in the varying other components of the Climate system along with the effects of CO2? I'm guessing that the recent eruption of the volcano in Iceland will produce a drop in temperature readings in that area of the world in the near term and and an increase in the albedo in the months to come as the ash settles.

Cloud cover as a result of increased water vapor?

Too many variables in the real world for the gas in a bottle you describe.

 

[code1211]

Please support this assertion with appropriate supportive scientific cite or reference.

Here you go, you said little booby. The earth is far older than the 150 or so years upon which the AGW focuses.


Filehanerozoic Climate Change.png - Wikimedia Commons

This appears to be a single site measurement of an isotope of Oxygen, which says virtually nothing directly about Global CO2 levels or Global temperatures. Please cite or reference the paper that it comes from.

And let's have a look at temps since the last major glacial period.


File:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikimedia Commons

And this says nothing about CO2 levels but does indicate that global temperatures are dramatically warmer now than they have been at any time in the last 12,000 years.
I was asking for support for your assertions, but I do appreciate your efforts and support for what I stated in the first place.

You are reading the instrument record of the current times vs the proxy temps of the past. Comparing a progression of climate measured by one method and then switching at any point to different data collection technique invites error. The proxy temps of current show that the temperature now is lower than in the past.

Anecdotal evidence supports this as glaciers that are receeding now are receeding to points that they were at many thousands of years ago.

If the receeding glaciers of today are put forth to prove warming, then the proof that they advanced from points we are now at at a point in the past has to be, by the same logic, that the climate at that time was dropping and has remained low until now.

If that is the case, and it is, then this is far from being an Anthropogenically induced departure from the normal state of things. If anything, this would show that we are simply riding the global and natural cycle of climate variation.

Ötzi the Iceman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Trakar]

All of this sounds very scientific and logical.

However, the current warming period that we are enjoying and which followed the Little Ice Age started before the Industrial Revolution...

In order to keep your statement scientific and logical, either the previous warming had to end to start "the Little Ice Age," or the LIA was a minor regional event within the previously intiated warming.

That is, it started before the vast burning of Fossil Fuels. It has continued with some ups and downs at a pretty consistant rate in spite of increasing CO2 levels.

Actually there appears to be both a degree of accuracy, and several incorrect statements in these two sentences. But if you can provide some compelling and verifiable evidences (or references) to support your assertions, I would appreciate the opportunity to examine them.

The rate of increase in Global temperature from the year 0 to the year 1000 was greater than the increase from the year 1001 to the year 2000. Climate can and has changed without any input from man's burning of Fossil fuels.

again, a curious mixture of what appears to be accurate (the last sentence) and what seems to be irrelevent and/or inaccurate, but please provide the evidences/references which you feel compellingly supports your assertions.

The Scenarios and the resulting predictions put forth by Dr. James Hansen in 1988 were based on the theories that you promote above and were wrong.

Please demonstrate and support the errors you perceive or the published peer citations of the papers which refute Dr Hansen's work.

If Hansen's predictions had been based on calcualtionns that I could have done on a bar napkin with a ball point point pen a list of the average temperatures since 1880, I would have produced a more accurate prediction.

Please link to your personal journal published research which supports the above assertions

 

[skookerasbil]

A vast majority of real American males do not want to be caught dead driving one of these gay vehicles that Rocks and Thunder tool around in..................

 

[boedicca]

Puh-leeeze, his proper name is TrollingBlunder.

 

[Trakar]

We seem to be about 16 degrees cooler right now than we were about 50 million years ago.

Conservationists of that age would be panicking over how cold the Earth is right now.

Around 50 million years ago, we were in the midst of a GHG induced planetary thermal maximum extinction event, similar, but generally of a lesser magnitude than the one we are currently inducing upon the planet's climate. Actual measurements indicate that the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) was between 4° and 8°C (7.2° - 14.4° F) it took a few 100K years to return to (pre)historical norms after it peaked.

Here's a bit more information on that event if you'd like to figure out whats in store for the next few 100s of thousands of years on our planet, if we don't get our act together pretty quickly:

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: A Perturbation of Carbon Cycle, Climate, and Biosphere with Implications for the Future - http://973.geobiology.cn/photo/2011050939692101.pdf

After looking at these, it is important to remember that these circumstances were caused by a temp. change of 4-8°C over 10,000 years, we may well see that happen over the next 60-70 years,...and that's just the beginning.