how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[SSDD]

I asked specifically what was wrong with postma's model atmosphere. You complained about the same things that trenberth ignores. Postma's model is superior if for no other reason than it recognizes day and night and doesn't move the sun 4 times further away from us than it actually is.

So again what is your specific objection to postma's model? How do you believe trenberth's is better?

Try and leave personalities out and simply focus on the two models

 

[IanC]

I asked specifically what was wrong with postma's model atmosphere. You complained about the same things that trenberth ignores. Postma's model is superior if for no other reason than it recognizes day and night and doesn't move the sun 4 times further away from us than it actually is.

So again what is your specific objection to postma's model? How do you believe trenberth's is better?

Try and leave personalities out and simply focus on the two models

I asked for a replacement diagram for Trenberth's cartoon. you gave me a multipage pdf with no useable diagrams. what is the actual number that the slayer's come up with for the average solar input? is it demonstably different than Trenberth's?

 

[mamooth]

The hard fact remains that not so very long ago, malaria was a severe health problem in the southeastern US. It isn't any more and the reason, while you may not like it is because the threat was eliminated through the use of DDT. No malaria, and oddly enough, no extinct birds.

Bullshit. Malaria was mostly wiped out in the USA before DDT was invented. Kind of difficult for DDT to control malaria before its invention, no?

You know what did eliminate malaria in the USA? Public health programs. Isolating the people from the infected mosquitoes, and the mosquitoes from the infected people. That evil gubmint did it.

So, did your cult not inform you of that? No wonder you didn't know. All you have to go on is your cult's revisionist history.

 

[mamooth]

When called on actual results of such a rise, you can't even begin to discuss the issue. You dodge, rant, and deflect rather than engage the question.

Nice projection of your tactics. It's funny, how lacking in self-awareness you are.

Given that you'll just keep ignoring any info you get, what's the point of wasting time doing it yet another time? Wave those hands! Wave for all you're worth! That will make the inconvenient data vanish!

At least it's good to see you declaring AGW is real and significant. You've fallen back to the "but warming is good!" tertiary line of defense. I hope you understand how doing that risks the ire of your fellow denialists, who all swear there's no warming at all. You should all get together and figure out a consistent position.

And don't worry. Once "warming is good!" becomes untenable, you can fall back to your final line of defense, "It's bad, but we can't do anything about it!".

 

[IanC]

When called on actual results of such a rise, you can't even begin to discuss the issue. You dodge, rant, and deflect rather than engage the question.

Nice projection of your tactics. It's funny, how lacking in self-awareness you are.

Given that you'll just keep ignoring any info you get, what's the point of wasting time doing it yet another time? Wave those hands! Wave for all you're worth! That will make the inconvenient data vanish!

At least it's good to see you declaring AGW is real and significant. You've fallen back to the "but warming is good!" tertiary line of defense. I hope you understand how doing that risks the ire of your fellow denialists, who all swear there's no warming at all. You should all get together and figure out a consistent position.

And don't worry. Once "warming is good!" becomes untenable, you can fall back to your final line of defense, "It's bad, but we can't do anything about it!".

who swears that there has been no warming since the Little Ice Age, or even the commonplace use of thermometers? seem like a bit of a strawman there mamooth.

but I can understand how you got the idea of fall-back positions. global warming became climate change, and now it is extreme weather. each needing less and less evidence because.....well, there is less and less evidence to support your position.

 

[SSDD]

Bullshit. Malaria was mostly wiped out in the USA before DDT was invented. Kind of difficult for DDT to control malaria before its invention, no?

Do you guys just go through your lives never actually knowing anything at all. Do you constantly just make it up as you go and expect to be believed? DDT was invented in 1939. In 1947 the National Malaria Eradication Program, a cooperative of 13 southeastern states, in conjunction with the CDC and the US Public Health Service began operations to eliminate malaria in the southeast US. In 1949 the country was declared free of malaria as a signifigant health problem and by 1952 the CDC was out of the operation altogether.

Here, from the CDC. There are plenty of other sites that provide information on the topic of how much suffering malaria caused right here in the US prior to the invention of DDT. You and your mindless, ignorant counterparts prove over and over that you don't know squat. You lie at the drop of a hat without the slightest bit of knowledge of what you are lying about.

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html

So again, the hard fact is that malaria used to be a severe health problem in the US and through the use of DDT it was eliminated without the bird extinctions and other health problems the lying environmentalists claimed would result if the compount weren't banned. After all, it was no longer a problem here....the only people who would suffer and die at that point were brown people breeding like rats in third world countries....right?

You know what did eliminate malaria in the USA? Public health programs. Isolating the people from the infected mosquitoes, and the mosquitoes from the infected people. That evil gubmint did it.

Yeah, I know what eliminated malaria in the USA...because I took the time to actually learn something rather than just make it up like you idiots. Here is what eliminated malaria according to the CDC...

The National Malaria Eradication Program was a cooperative undertaking by state and local health agencies of 13 southeastern states and the Communicable Disease Center of the U. S. Public Health Service, originally proposed by Dr. L. L. Williams. The program commenced operations on July 1, 1947. It consisted primarily of DDT application to the interior surfaces of rural homes or entire premises in counties where malaria was reported to have been prevalent in recent years. By the end of 1949, more than 4,650,000 house spray applications had been made. It also included drainage, removal of mosquito breeding sites, and spraying (occasionally from aircrafts) of insecticides. Total elimination of transmission was slowly achieved. In 1949, the country was declared free of malaria as a significant public health problem.

So, did your cult not inform you of that? No wonder you didn't know. All you have to go on is your cult's revisionist history.

Clearly your cult has misinformed you and you are so stupid that you just believe everything you are told and never bother to find out for yourself. I personally observed the anti malaria program in action during my childhood and if you were as old as you claim to be you would not be unaware of it.

As you can clearly see...as stated by the CDC, your cult is once more found guilty of revising history and apparently that is all you have to go on.

You are a f'ing idiot and you prove it over and over and over at every opportunity.

 

[SSDD]

Nice projection of your tactics. It's funny, how lacking in self-awareness you are.

So describe what the southeast US will look like if the global mean rises 2 degrees. What will summer look like? What will winter look like? What happens to the growing season? How do the seasons change? What crops will no longer grow here? What crops will be able to grow here that couldn't before? What happens to precipitation? Snow in winter? Rain in spring and summer? Describe it in detail.

If you have nearly as much evidence as you claim, you should be able to get into detail. That is the purpose of evidence...to enable you to describe events in more and more detail. So lets hear it.

At least it's good to see you declaring At least it's good to see you declaring AGW is real and significant. [/quote]

Not only are you a f'ing idiot, you are once more proven to be a f'ing liar. Show me anywhere I have said that AGW is real and signifigant. I said assume that the temp is up 2 degrees...tell me what it will look like. If you had an actual argument, you wouldn't be forced to lie in an effort to make a point....or maybe you would just because your character is so hopelessly flawed that lying is just what you do.

 

[SSDD]

who swears that there has been no warming since the Little Ice Age, or even the commonplace use of thermometers? seem like a bit of a strawman there mamooth.

but I can understand how you got the idea of fall-back positions. global warming became climate change, and now it is extreme weather. each needing less and less evidence because.....well, there is less and less evidence to support your position.

Nah...she is just a liar....picking up siagon's tactic of editing what people say in an attempt to make an argument since they have no actual evidence upon which to make one that is believable.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Have you noticed how often you ask a question, receive an excellent answer, ignore it and then ask the same question all over again as if nothing had ever happened?

THIS is the future of agriculture where you live:

2012–13 North American drought

The 2012-2013 North American Drought, an expansion of the 2010–2012 Southern United States drought, orignated in the midst of a record breaking heat wave. Low snowfall amounts in winter, coupled with the intense summer heat from La Nina, caused drought-like conditions to migrate northward from the southern United States, wreaking havoc on crops and water supply.[1] The drought has inflicted, and is expected to continue to inflict, catastrophic economic ramifications for the affected states. It has exceeded, in most measures, the 1988-1989 North American drought, the most recent comparable drought, and is on track to exceed that drought as the costliest natural disaster in US history

2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add to that increased problems with pests, disease and storm intensity.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Climate and the spread of diseaseare not linked?

This article suggests otherwise:

Climate Change One Factor in Malaria Spread

Mar. 4, 2010 — Climate change is one reason malaria is on the rise in some parts of the world, new research finds, but other factors such as migration and land-use changes are likely also at play. The research, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology, aims to sort out contradictions that have emerged as scientists try to understand why malaria has been spreading into highland areas of East Africa, Indonesia, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Climate change one factor in malaria spread

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Climate and the spread of diseaseare not linked?

This article suggests otherwise:

Climate Change One Factor in Malaria Spread

Mar. 4, 2010 — Climate change is one reason malaria is on the rise in some parts of the world, new research finds, but other factors such as migration and land-use changes are likely also at play. The research, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology, aims to sort out contradictions that have emerged as scientists try to understand why malaria has been spreading into highland areas of East Africa, Indonesia, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Climate change one factor in malaria spread

The fact remains, and will not go away that malaria was once a serious problem here in the southeastern US. It isn't now and hasn't been since, through practice, it was eliminated. It could be eliminated in the third world as well but envirowackos fight tooth and nail against the means by which all that suffering and death could be eliminated.

 

[SSDD]

2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add to that increased problems with pests, disease and storm intensity.

Wikipedia? That's your argument against all of the published, peer reviewed material stating that drought was worse back when the climate was cooler? You guys get nuttier all the time. Wiki

 

[SSDD]

I asked for a replacement diagram for Trenberth's cartoon. you gave me a multipage pdf with no useable diagrams. what is the actual number that the slayer's come up with for the average solar input? is it demonstably different than Trenberth's?

Realistic Terrestrial System Model...beginning on page 34. Now once again, why believe in trenberth's cartoon that you acknowledge is terribly flawed when a more realistic model is available? Do you not like it because it isn't "cartoony" enough or because it doesn't require an ad hoc greenhouse effect to explain the temperature here on earth?

 

[mamooth]

In 1947 the National Malaria Eradication Program

Check it out. SSDD is actually claiming, for reasons no one can fathom, that there was no malaria eradication in the USA before that specific program in 1947. He's taking historical revisionism to glorious new heights.

For example, the malaria control campaign during the Panama Canal construction? Didn't happen, according to SSDD. The canal was finished in 1914, before DDT. Since SSDD says DDT is the only method of malaria control, the malaria control campaign there must be a conspiracy, a liberal fiction.

Back in the real world, Malaria had already been vastly reduced in the USA by the time DDT came around. Claiming DDT did all the work is kook talk.

After all, it was no longer a problem here....the only people who would suffer and die at that point were brown people breeding like rats in third world countries....right?

And now SSDD calls me a genocidal racist. Par for the course. After all, his cult says that any tactic, no matter how reprehensible, is justifiable so long as it pushes the cult agenda. "The ends always justify the means for my side!" isn't just their motto, it's their sole guiding moral principle.

 

[PMZ]

there are a few things that you seem to be confused about. solar input is the stable component of the temperature equilibrium, therefore the surface can be a wide range of temperatures depending on the conditions for heat loss. this is an important point! without GHGs to constrain IR radiation from directly escaping to space the surface would be ~minus 18C. the 496W/m2 from the surface is a combination of solar input and charged heat sinks of the ground and atmosphere. it can have many other values but the net output from the earth must equal the net input from the sun ( to a close degree, the conditions are always changing).

you are also confused about CO2 somehow being equivilent to a half-silvered mirror for IR radiation. it is not. the extinction length for CO2 reactive bands of IR is roughly 10 metres. got that? the IR is totally dispersed in random directions in 33 feet, it cannot become any less ordered. if a CO2 molecule has absorbed a suitable IR photon and is vibrating (quantum vibration, not ordinary vibration), then collides with another molecule, that IR quantum becomes part of the overall energy equation and can be emitted as blackbody radiation. if the CO2 molecule simply emits the same type of photon its direction has been randomized. because we dont care about the lateral component, only the vertical component, we say that half goes up and half goes down on avg. there is no 'reflection', only total dispersion, happening constantly.

while I admire your confidence in your ability to think things through, so do a lot of us here on the message board. I think you need to delve a little deeper because your posts have been very simplistic and in many cases have significant errors in them.

First, hopefully you realized that I understand the GHGs absorb and re-radiate, I was using the half silvered mirror as a metaphor. If you find it confusing, it's not a necessary part of the explanation.

From my perspective you are inclined to confuse things with frequency domain stuff that is both confusing and unnecessary. The only relevant commodity is energy, no matter it's form.

Also, you intoduced Trenbarth's energy budget, so I assumed that you bought into his portrayal of reality.

Considering the energy budget and simple physics, I don't see how anybody can, and certainly nobody has, come up with any rational that denies AGW.

GHGs make it harder, considering outgoing longwave radiation, to achieve energy balance. The force that overcomes that additional resistance is the long term average temperature of the earth and atmosphere. With the incoming solar energy the same, and a reduction of outgoing longwave energy, the earth components will warm. There simply is no other possibility to achieve eventual equilibrium.

The dynamics of the transition are very complex, made more so by the reality of daily massive additions to our atmospheric GHGs, but the stable end can only be achieved by a warmer planet and atmosphere.

your half silvered mirror being replaced with a 3/4 silvered mirror is just wrong. a better analogy is a deck of cards. it takes seven shuffles to randomize a deck, shuffling 70 times doesnt make it more random. 10 metres of atmosphere randomizes (disperses) the wavelengths preferential to CO2, the next 10, 100, 1000 metres dont make any significant differences.

the theoretical 1C temp increase per 2xCO2 is based on no change to other parts of the system. but that extra energy (actually decreased loss of energy) will go into other pathways rather than simply only get used to warm the surface. GCMs (general circulation models) are unable to handle water vapour, thermals, clouds, and a host of other local small scale factors. the assumptions made in 5x5 degree, or even 1x1 degree grids make for uncertainties that are far larger than the actual CO2 effect being looked for. there is a slim chance that one of the models may be correct, but that would be more of a lucky guess than an accurate physical description of the climate system.

as an interesting side question.....I wonder how much IR radiation from the Sun gets 'blocked' from entering the lower atmosphere and surface by CO2?

No matter what happens within system earth, energy balance remains the necessary long term equilibrium big picture end point.

It is very entertaining to consider all of the various thermodynamics of earth, oceans, atmospheres, ice caps, natural and man made sources and sinks, frequency domain details, as long as they are regarded as actors on a stage who play their parts and interact and then retire to the wings. But the play is Conservation of Energy and at the end of the performance that's the plot that the audiance carries home.

Energy in = energy out. Incoming solar radiation is constant enough to be considered so over the long term. Outgoing long wave is presented obstacles on the way out. Unles you dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the higher the concentration of it in the atmosphere, the more incoming energy temporarily exceeds outgoing, and that energy will have its way with earth until the net effect of warming drives it through the obstacles.

How long that play takes, and how much forcing is required as a function of GHG concentration, can be debated endlessly, and has been, and the majority of scientists are now converging on some more reliable estimates.

Let me say that I have been no part of that but have researched and followed it objectively and am the reporter here.

While you've been consumed with proving denial, a professed skeptic is not an objective perspective, the mainstream science community has considered all possibilities in an open minded way, and discovered, as often happens, the big picture is pretty simple. The details endlessly fascinating.

There is a time and place for skepticism, but it's long over. The problem has moved from a science problem to a business, political, and engineering one.

Technology, economics, risk, profit making, jobs, organizations, laws, etc are the stars of the next act and are already on stage playing their roles.

 

[mamooth]

So describe what the southeast US will look like if the global mean rises 2 degrees.

Still demanding everyone address your strawmen? Nah. We've seen how doing that turns out. You don't debate in good faith, so there's no point treating your arguments seriously.

Anyways, congratulations on so thoroughly defeating those strawmen that exist only in your fevered mind. Now just remind us why anyone else should care.

Not only are you a f'ing idiot, you are once more proven to be a f'ing liar.

You get so upset when your strawmen are laughed at, and it's so damn funny. Red faced, bug-eyed, sputtering, spittle flying at the computer screen ... my point here is made, my work here is done.

 

[Saigon]

2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add to that increased problems with pests, disease and storm intensity.

Wikipedia? That's your argument against all of the published, peer reviewed material stating that drought was worse back when the climate was cooler? You guys get nuttier all the time. Wiki

Do try and post with a little honesty and self-respect, SSDD.

You asked what impact climate change would have on agriculture where you live - you have the evidence. Increased temperatures may well mean more droughts where you live.

You also have the evidence that climate change IS linked to the spread of tropical disease.

Both of these points have now been proven, and an honest poster would accept that.

You won't.

 

[PMZ]

In 1947 the National Malaria Eradication Program

Check it out. SSDD is actually claiming, for reasons no one can fathom, that there was no malaria eradication in the USA before that specific program in 1947. He's taking historical revisionism to glorious new heights.

For example, the malaria control campaign during the Panama Canal construction? Didn't happen, according to SSDD. The canal was finished in 1914, before DDT. Since SSDD says DDT is the only method of malaria control, the malaria control campaign there must be a conspiracy, a liberal fiction.

Back in the real world, Malaria had already been vastly reduced in the USA by the time DDT came around. Claiming DDT did all the work is kook talk.

After all, it was no longer a problem here....the only people who would suffer and die at that point were brown people breeding like rats in third world countries....right?

And now SSDD calls me a genocidal racist. Par for the course. After all, his cult says that any tactic, no matter how reprehensible, is justifiable so long as it pushes the cult agenda. "The ends always justify the means for my side!" isn't just their motto, it's their sole guiding moral principle.

SSDD is the most descriptive moniker here. He can produce endlessly and his chief tool is to introduce distractions from what he has not been given his way on, AGW. And extreme conservative media politics.

One can be appaled or entertained or angered by his SS production. i see it as entertainment like trained animals in the circus. Makes you wonder why animals don't have more self respect.

 

[SSDD]

For example, the malaria control campaign during the Panama Canal construction? Didn't happen, according to SSDD. The canal was finished in 1914, before DDT. Since SSDD says DDT is the only method of malaria control, the malaria control campaign there must be a conspiracy, a liberal fiction.

And the lies just keep on coming. You claimed that malaria was wiped out in the US prior to the invention of DDT.

Bullshit. Malaria was mostly wiped out in the USA before DDT was invented. Kind of difficult for DDT to control malaria before its invention, no?

Now you switch your story to panama? You were wrong and aren't grown up enough to admit it. And the estimate is that 30,000 workers died of malaria that wouldn't have died had DDT been around. Perhaps you would prefer the sorts of programs they used because they didn't have DDT...like pouring hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil onto wetlands,or drained them entirely destroying the entire ecology to stop mosquito breeding.

Back in the real world, Malaria had already been vastly reduced in the USA by the time DDT came around. Claiming DDT did all the work is kook talk.

Back in the real world, you are a liar. In the 1940's malaria was still such a problem that a government agency had to be created in an attempt to deal with it.

Here, again from the CDC and this only deals with the area of the Tennessee Valley Authority which wasn't the worst area for malaria:

U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933. The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region. An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley. Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933. The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications.

So in 1933, 30 percent of the population in the area of the Tennessee Valley Authority was affected by malaria. Note that it didn't come under control till 1947 after the invention and use of DDT. This is all in the history books idiot and no amount of spin is going to make it go away.

And now SSDD calls me a genocidal racist. Par for the course. After all, his cult says that any tactic, no matter how reprehensible, is justifiable so long as it pushes the cult agenda. "The ends always justify the means for my side!" isn't just their motto, it's their sole guiding moral principle.

If the shoe fits, wear it to the dance. You are also in favor of blocking hydroelectric dams in 3rd world countries. That lack of access to electricity alone accounts for the deaths of more brown people in the world than stalin, lenin, hitler, and polpot killed combined. If you didn't have that wall outlet and all it brings to you, your life expectancy would also be 25 or 30 years...but hey, they are just brown people...right?

 

[SSDD]

Still demanding everyone address your strawmen? Nah. We've seen how doing that turns out. You don't debate in good faith, so there's no point treating your arguments seriously.

You warmers are always telling us how bad it is going to get if we dont' change our ways. You claim evidence upon evidence to prove it. How is it a strawman to ask you to describe exactly what a 2 degree increase in the global mean will look like?

You make the claims but when asked what it will look like, you have no answer. Just more vague hints of doom and the claim that asking for you to describe what 2 degrees will look like is not important to the discussion. How can you claim that I should be worried about 2 degrees if you can't tell me what 2 degrees will look like?

We both know that you don't do it because the benefits of 2 degrees will far outweigh the problems it will cause.