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

[itfitzme]

How has that whole temperature thing been doing since 2005?

According to the warmists it has remained flat since 1998 and a few even say as early as 1996, I suggest you need to read a hell of a lot to get current. *It appears you are at least a decade behind the curve.

I thought that you would post some data as evidence that it's not energy invested temporarily into the latent heat of fusion of all the ice being melted.

*That's a hypothesis, but we'll have to wait for data.

BTW, el socko, westwall/gslack hasn't noticed yet that I don't respond to his posts or what it means yet? Kinda slow on the uptake, ain't he.

 

[itfitzme]

I ran across this while searching on ice volume

https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/supportingmaterial/SLW_WorkshopReport.pdf

 

[itfitzme]

Man-made particles lowered hurricane frequency: study

"Higher levels of air pollution reduced the frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes and other tropical storms for most of the 20th century, a study said "

Industrial pollution linked to 'natural' disasters - Met Office

Man-made particles lowered hurricane frequency: study - FRANCE 24

 

[IanC]

"you've been consumed with proving denial"

that funny! the warmers call me a denier and the deniers call me a warmer, hahahahaha.

I am not consumed with anything. I try to point out the weakness in the logic and data that the catastrophic AGW side puts up as evidence, thats all.

by coincidence the 90's appeared to support the CO2 theory. the idea got locked in but since then they have been trying to jam square pegs into round holes to make things fit.

there is no 3x feedback. nature abhors positive feedbacks because they are unstable.

there is no 'hotspot', which is an obligatory condition for all climate models. not from lack of looking for it, I might add.

if there were no GHGs in the atmosphere then more than 90% of the heat would escape by direct radiation from the surface and less than 10% would be carried even part way up by conduction and convection. as GHGs are added the ratio changes, especially at lower elevations because heat is stored, temps go up, and energy is available to drive convective and latent heat pathways. the ratio has already gone from 90:10 to 66 (40 through the window, 26 pinballing through GHGs) : 97 (17 thermal, 80 latent heat). nature has already found a way past the blockage in the near-surface atmosphere, any diminishment of that 26W by CO2 is mostly going into the already primed other pathways, not being completely transformed into extra surface temperature.

it has been this warm, or warmer, for much of the interglacial with no catastrophes. proxy reconstructions wipe out the variance so we cannot see the peaks and valleys of past temperature records, if you looked at the modern thermometer era at the same resolution as proxy records it would hardly be an upturn. that is why it is so dishonest to splice on high definition data to proxy reconstructions like the MBH98,99 Hockey Stick abominations. they are pure propaganda, and the authors knew it.

I could care less whether you understand the points I am trying to make but the one thing I know that you are wrong about is my politics. I am a socialist Swedish-Canadian, although I must admit I am old enough to have been forced by reality to give up some of my youthful exuberance about the intelligence and character of mankind. global warming alarmism isnt the stupidest thing I have seen from group think herd mentality, but it has been the longest lasting and most expensive.

I think that your science is strong on the thermodynamics of the earth adjusting to energy imbalance, but you seem to think that energy only sometimes needs to be conserved.

But there is a more important point that you tend to underplay by an order of magnitude. The resulting warming of AGW is not the problem at all. The fact that we have built a civilization capable of feeding and housing 7B people assuming a stable climate which has now become unstable from this energy imbalance is the problem. We have just experienced only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what it will require to rebuild civilization to accomodate the new climate. But it's something for which there is no choice. That's why the current discussion is mostly outside of the scientific community. It's among engineers and business people and politicians and meteorologists and public safety people and agriculturalists.

Denialists assume that do nothing is a choice. They present zero evidence to support that which they'd like to be true. For that reason they are no longer relevant to the future. Cultural Natural Selection is at work on the problem and denialism will go extinct.

Doers have taken over and will save at least some of us from the delay in action that the Denialist culture has imposed on our fate.

hahahaha, I feel somewhat insulted that you think I am distainful of the first law but you gave no indication why you said it so I assume it is just a gratuitous ad hom.

weather and climate have always been changeable, never stable. human civilizations have always had to adapt. there is scant evidence for extreme weather as can be seen in the historical records for such things as hurricanes and tornadoes, droughts and floods, etc. at a very simple level it is easy to see why warm times are more stable. even in ice ages the tropics remain warm but the temperature differential towards the poles is extreme, with violent energy exchange an easy option. right now, with warmer poles, the capacity for violent changes is less. even the Little Ice Age had storms which are unheard of now.

did I detect a whiff of the real reason you are on the CAGW bandwagon when you mentioned seven billion people? easier to talk about burning fossil fuels than people? hahaha.

people are here for the forseeable future and they are going to keep mucking up their environment just by being there. dont conflate your fear of overpopulation with your fear of fossil fuel burning putting plant food in the air.

 

[SSDD]

If there was any doubt in anyone's mind about your scientific disability, this video should remove it completely and unequivocally. To say that there is no AGW because atmospheric CO2 is a small component of the atmosphere is like claiming that viruses cannot create illnesses because they are too small.

I am still waiting for someone...anyone to post some actual evidence that any amount of additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. Got any? I believe you posted something earlier but there was nothing there and when you were asked to point out which part of it you believe constituted proof that additional CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm...you couldn't do it.

 

[SSDD]

A theraputic dose of warfrin, a bloodthinner, is 2mg. For a 70kg adult, that is one part per 35 million. At that dose, patients have their INR tested regularly. The maximum dose is one in 14 million. Beyond that, the patient is at risknof hemophelia.

It is amazing how biological systems respond to small amounts of things.

And there is hard, observed, measured empirical data to support that precaution. Show me one bit of hard, observed, measured empirical data to support the claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 from 350ppm to 450ppm will cause the global temperature to rise.

The fact that some things are dangerous in small quantities does not mean that all things are dangerous in small quantities...or even in large quantities. Show me the hard evidence that man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 causes global warming....you might mention how much warming you think man's contribution causes in the grand scheme.

You guys make claim after claim but simply can't back up any of them.

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't matter. *It's already established that everything you have to say is pure bs. *You don't think there is any global warming because you think the temperature record is falsified.

I didn't say that I don't think that there has been some warming. *I think that there has and now I think that we are going to start to see some cooling...and yes, the temperature record has been falsified...and I don't think so, I know so. *The evidence that the temperature record has been tampered with, and is corrupted with the heat island effect is overwhelming.

So, for you, the real reason that global warming isn't driving beetles is because there isn't any warming. *It's got nothing to do with whether forest fires are natural or not

Have you looked at what the forest services from both the US and Canada say? *They say the beetle problem is due to management practices...and oh, by the way...global warming to. *No evidence to support that claim but tossing global warming into the mix is sure to bring in some extra funding.

Bull shit. *

You said, "That would depend on which altered*surface temperature record you look at."

That's right. The amount of warming that has happened depends on the record you look at . Some have been tampered with more than others.

You have posted on and on and on. *And all of it was disingenuous because beneath it is a more fundamental axiom that the temp record is false. *Ergo, no warming.[/q

You didn't say, "not as extreme because...."

Rather, you simply omit what you know is you underlying premise. No argument that may be presented matters because none addresses you unstated axiom.

See omission is also lying. *It's called lying by ommission.

And there is the root of it. *In your world view, everyone is lying. *You know they are, after all, you are. And, of course you should, because everyone else does.

You said, "That would depend on which altered surface temperature record you look at."

And it all builds from there.

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't matter. *It's already established that everything you have to say is pure bs. *You don't think there is any global warming because you think the temperature record is falsified.

I didn't say that I don't think that there has been some warming. *I think that there has and now I think that we are going to start to see some cooling...and yes, the temperature record has been falsified...and I don't think so, I know so. *The evidence that the temperature record has been tampered with, and is corrupted with the heat island effect is overwhelming.

So, for you, the real reason that global warming isn't driving beetles is because there isn't any warming. *It's got nothing to do with whether forest fires are natural or not

Have you looked at what the forest services from both the US and Canada say? *They say the beetle problem is due to management practices...and oh, by the way...global warming to. *No evidence to support that claim but tossing global warming into the mix is sure to bring in some extra funding.

Bull shit. *

You said, "That would depend on which altered*surface temperature record you look at."

That's right. The amount of warming that has happened depends on the record you look at . Some have been tampered with more than others.

You have posted on and on and on. *And all of it was disingenuous because beneath it is a more fundamental axiom that the temp record is false. *Ergo, no warming.

Who said no warming. I said that the record has been falsified and tampered with, and corrupted by the heat island effect but I didn't say that there has been no warming. When the record is tampered with and corrupted, and you acknowledge that there has been some warming...the two things should lead a thinking person to the conclusion that we don't know how much warming has happened.

Combine that with the fact that the temperature record has been altered to make the past appear cooler and the present warmer, and the heat island effect injects a warm bias into the record and again, a thinking person should lean towards a conclusion that there has been less warming than more.

You didn't say, "not as extreme because...."

Rather, you simply omit what you know is you underlying premise. No argument that may be presented matters because none addresses you unstated axiom.

See omission is also lying. *It's called lying by ommission.

Making up things that haven't been said to satisfy your bias is lying.

And there is the root of it. *In your world view, everyone is lying. *You know they are, after all, you are. And, of course you should, because everyone else does.

Again, making up things is lying and you are writing fiction here. There are some people who are lying and have been caught red handed altering the temperature record. There are others who take the alterations and use them, and refer to them as fact in thier research. These people aren't lying, but their data isn't good.

Climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade. You may want to look up the term.

You said, "That would depend on which altered surface temperature record you look at."

And it all builds from there.

And I meant, which altered temperature record you look at. Here are some hard examples of the tampering. We shall see what sort of person you are by your reaction to the following....and let me stress that these are only a few examples...I could go on with them ad nauseum.

This is what the GISS record looked like when published in 1999:

This is what the GISS record looked like when it was published in 2011. The alterations are blatant and clearly aimed towards making the amount of warming appear larger than it is.

You may regard this sort of blatant data tampering as business as usual, but I find it disturbing. The fact is that since 2008 NOAA has warmed a total of 793 months with 571 of those months being post 1959. In the same period since 2008 they have cooled a total of 754 months with 739 of those months being prior to 1960.

That fact alone should tell you that someone somewhere is up to no good. The nature of the changes should tell you what sort of no good they are up to. Can you think of a rational, scientifically sound reason to lower the temperature of 739 months prior to 1960? What possible reason could there be to make such changes unless your aim is to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened.

The major recorders of the surface record are all guilty of this sort of practice and have all been caught red handed at it.

So you tell me. What do you think of the general practice of altering the temperature record to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened?

 

[gslack]

According to the warmists it has remained flat since 1998 and a few even say as early as 1996, I suggest you need to read a hell of a lot to get current. *It appears you are at least a decade behind the curve.

I thought that you would post some data as evidence that it's not energy invested temporarily into the latent heat of fusion of all the ice being melted.

*That's a hypothesis, but we'll have to wait for data.

BTW, el socko, westwall/gslack hasn't noticed yet that I don't respond to his posts or what it means yet? Kinda slow on the uptake, ain't he.

LOL,in case you weren't aware. Westwall and I post nothing at all alike.. The same cannot be said for you and a few others.. And your name.. ifitzme.. A little telling don't ya think socko? You're name itself is you stating you are a sock.. You know it, we know it..

You think you're slick, you think you're special, but soon enough your proxy will be added to the blacklist. And when it does you will have to begin again as another ignorant remake. You won't stop because it's your life..

 

[IanC]

SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.

 

[gslack]

Man-made particles lowered hurricane frequency: study

"Higher levels of air pollution reduced the frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes and other tropical storms for most of the 20th century, a study said "

Industrial pollution linked to 'natural' disasters - Met Office

Man-made particles lowered hurricane frequency: study - FRANCE 24

Wait a tick... The previous claim was AGW would cause a higher frequency in storms.. Now it's air pollution will lessen the frequency?

Dude seriously is everything going to effect the frequency of storms? You guys would be a bit more believable if you didn't claim everything is going to happen and all of it is attributable to man... Aren't you even starting to feel it's getting a bit silly now?

No of course not, you're an algorian..silly me..

 

[itfitzme]

SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.

Who cares. The raw data has been available since forever. SSDDs on the iggy list. He's been bsing all along, then when he's busted, he pulls this out of his assets..

 

[itfitzme]

SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to
systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.

Find your own local weather station data.

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

There are, or were, three in my are. One out by the reservior, one by the airport, and one at what appeared to be someones house in a residential neighborhood.

I used them when I moved in and started a garden, to get a sense of when the season actually started.

 

[gslack]

SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.

Who cares. The raw data has been available since forever. SSDDs on the iggy list. He's been bsing all along, then when he's busted, he pulls this out of his assets..

Yeah sure he is socko.. We are all on your "iggy" list.. SO then who exactly are you arguing with now?

The fact is the data is not sound and further any and all attempts to reuse the data in whatever form they choose, is going to be equally suspect. A scientist gets caught being fraudulent with data once, then defends his fraudulent data until there is no doubt, then refuses to admit his error only submits new, is anti-science no matter how you look at it..

If this kind of behavior came from an anti-AGW position you guys would respond the same way we are now if not worse...

 

[SSDD]

Who cares. The raw data has been available since forever. SSDDs on the iggy list. He's been bsing all along, then when he's busted, he pulls this out of his assets..

I said that your reaction to the blatant data tampering would reveal a lot about the sort of person you are. I was right. You aren't interested in anything that challenges your faith...even hard evidence of fraud on the part of climate scientists.

 

[westwall]

Who cares. The raw data has been available since forever. SSDDs on the iggy list. He's been bsing all along, then when he's busted, he pulls this out of his assets..

I said that your reaction to the blatant data tampering would reveal a lot about the sort of person you are. I was right. You aren't interested in anything that challenges your faith...even hard evidence of fraud on the part of climate scientists.

You are correct, of course. ifitzme is just another in a long line of pseudo people propagated on this forum to show "support" for the inane enviro whackos and collectivists. They somehow think that burying people with BS will somehow win them over to their side when the opposite is true.

It is fun to watch the contortions they go through to sound "reasonable" though...that is quite hilarious.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah sure he is socko.. We are all on your "iggy" list.. SO then who exactly are you arguing with now?

The fact is the data is not sound and further any and all attempts to reuse the data in whatever form they choose, is going to be equally suspect. A scientist gets caught being fraudulent with data once, then defends his fraudulent data until there is no doubt, then refuses to admit his error only submits new, is anti-science no matter how you look at it..

If this kind of behavior came from an anti-AGW position you guys would respond the same way we are now if not worse...

What these guys don't seem to be able to grasp is that when other scientists use thier fraudulent numbers as fact, without checking up on them, and other scientists use that data and so on and so on, the fraud becomes institutional. It is part of everything even though only a couple of scientists are actually guilty. It is called an error cascade and climate science is caught up in one and won't get out of it till it comes crashing to the ground...much like has recently happened in medical research.

 

[itfitzme]

SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.

Does anyone know how to use excel and put up a graph?

Plot those.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah sure he is socko.. We are all on your "iggy" list.. SO then who exactly are you arguing with now?

The fact is the data is not sound and further any and all attempts to reuse the data in whatever form they choose, is going to be equally suspect. A scientist gets caught being fraudulent with data once, then defends his fraudulent data until there is no doubt, then refuses to admit his error only submits new, is anti-science no matter how you look at it..

If this kind of behavior came from an anti-AGW position you guys would respond the same way we are now if not worse...

What these guys don't seem to be able to grasp is that when other scientists use thier fraudulent numbers as fact, without checking up on them, and other scientists use that data and so on and so on, the fraud becomes institutional. It is part of everything even though only a couple of scientists are actually guilty. It is called an error cascade and climate science is caught up in one and won't get out of it till it comes crashing to the ground...much like has recently happened in medical research.

Also is the fact that 'peer review' is generally only approval that a method used to arrive at a conclusion was properly scientifically conducted. It is not necessarily approval of the conclusion itself. And the fallacy in peer review is that it can be claimed when you use only people who you know will approve your report no matter what is in it. And then others cite the peer reviewed report over and over without doing the work themselves to uncover how the study or paper was flawed. That is how an 'error cascade' can happen.

It is magnified like, as Westwall's video--you know, that video the quadruplets won't watch or comment on honestly?--shows how those scientists who initially signed on to the IPCC reports have difficulty getting their names removed when the reports become so flawed the scientists can no longer approve them.

That, plus refusal to report dissenting reports or leaving out critical information that might call the final conclusions into question, makes the whole thing smell really bad to anybody more interested in truth than in promoting falsified 'evidence' for political purposes.

 

[itfitzme]

Yeah sure he is socko.. We are all on your "iggy" list.. SO then who exactly are you arguing with now?*

The fact is the data is not sound and further any and all attempts to reuse the data in whatever form they choose, is going to be equally suspect. A scientist gets caught being fraudulent with data once, then defends his fraudulent data until there is no doubt, then refuses to admit his error only submits new, is anti-science no matter how you look at it..

If this kind of behavior came from an anti-AGW position you guys would respond the same way we are now if not worse...

What these guys don't seem to be able to grasp is that when other scientists use thier fraudulent numbers as fact, without checking up on them, and other scientists use that data and so on and so on, the fraud becomes institutional. *It is part of everything even though only a couple of scientists are actually guilty. *It is called an error cascade and climate science is caught up in one and won't get out of it till it comes crashing to the ground...much like has recently happened in medical research.

Also is the fact that 'peer review' is generally only approval that a method used to arrive at a conclusion was properly scientifically conducted. *It is not necessarily approval of the conclusion itself. *And the fallacy in peer review is that it can be claimed when you use only people who you know will approve your report no matter what is in it. * And then others cite the peer reviewed report over and over without doing the work themselves to uncover how the study or paper was flawed. * That is how an 'error cascade' can happen.

It is magnified like, as Westwall's video--you know, that video the quintuplets won't watch or comment on honestly?--shows how those scientists who initially signed on to the IPCC reports have difficulty getting their names removed when the reports become so flawed the scientists can no longer approve them.

That, plus refusal to report dissenting reports or leaving out critical information that might call the final conclusions into question, makes the whole thing smell really bad to anybody more interested in truth than in promoting falsified proof for political purposes.

But going back to the video Westwall provided, it magnifies the prob

You're not paying attention then because at least two people did comment on it. *It's idiotic, at least the grains of rice one.