Leading Climate Scientist, Dr Peiser, "we Should All Be Relieved That It Isn’t Such A Big Problem A

[jc456]

JC.....time to pop up another post on the PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread!!!! Shit makes their heads explode!!

More meaningless drivel from the braindead retard kookles.

And yet, nothing. Still nothing. Posting written articles with conjecture in them isn't proof of anything except someone's opinion. What I provided was validated by your article from the other thread concerning saturation. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901validated that adding CO2 scarcely increase temperatures. So an experiment, the one I was looking for validates my stance. Set, Match!!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

JC.....time to pop up another post on the PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread!!!! Shit makes their heads explode!!

More meaningless drivel from the braindead retard kookles.

And yet, nothing. Still nothing. Posting written articles with conjecture in them isn't proof of anything except someone's opinion. What I provided was validated by your article from the other thread concerning saturation. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901validated that adding CO2 scarcely increase temperatures. So an experiment, the one I was looking for validates my stance. Set, Match!!!!

Really, REALLY braindead drivel and silly lies.

You quote a snippet of the article I cited and try to pretend that the part you just quoted wasn't followed by this part...

"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.""

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

 

[Youch]

Racist, aligning dogs with conservative black Americans,

I will not reduce myself to your idiocy. Instead, I will challenge you. Find an overall position, (not some parsed sound-bite), that represents Sowell's position on anything, and then PROVE HIM/ME WRONG???!!!!! You CANNOT!!! Thus, your side-ways, malinformed, bigoted position holds no water. Again, prove me wrong....

YOU said Sowell is smart "for a black man". That is as 'racist' as any white supremacist.

You just lost all integrity.
I never said what you claimed.
Only a simpleton would make such a claim when anyone could go back and read for themselves what was posted.
Few on this earth revere Thomas Sowell as much as I. I've purchased and read most of his books.
I am in impressed with him, as are millions of others.
Oh yes, and he is black. Imagine that, millions of conservatives respecting a black man with a brain. Kind of like with Williams, Carson, Cain, Thomas, Watts, and the like.....
Odd, that you accuse me, a person of color, as being white supremacist. Just proves you are an idiot.

Then you revere a hack.

Sowell is smart. Just smart enough to know that if he ever bites the hand that feeds him, you will never hear from him again. When Sowell wrote "The Housing Boom and Bust", telling the truth was never an option. If he had told the truth that the financial crisis had NOTHING to do with the Community Reinvestment Act and it was caused by the private sector and wealthy investors and speculators, he would have suffered the same fate as Bruce Bartlett and David Frum. Banishment by the right wing cartel funding machine. The book is a prime example of just how stupid and dogmatic folks on the right really are.

I suggest actually reading one of his books. Otherwise, is just appears that your an idiot.

I see a emoinal trend with you.....I enjoy the intellectual prowess of Sowell, and you reduce yourself to "revere" and "racist", which is both extreme, nonsensical, and emotional, making you an idiot. Prove me wrong.

WOW...you are so obtuse, you don't even know what YOU posted. Let's recap...and let's see WHO first injected the words "revere" and "racist"

Post 102:

Bfgrn: Sowell is not a brilliant man. He is a lightweight who will always contort his story to please his handlers. He is incapable of critical thought.

Youch: You've obviously not read any of his books or sat in any of his lectures. You know nothing of the man. Among the smartest black men that ever lived. And you denigrate him. Are you a racist??

Post 166:

Youch: Few on this earth revere Thomas Sowell as much as I.

And finally, YOU are the one who denigrates Sowell when you made the statement "Among the smartest black men that ever lived"

But clearly if you are too stupid to even remember what you posted, you are also too obtuse to understand what it means...

Numb nuts,

I stand by my posts.

He is a brilliant man, and that you denigrate him, or that anyone would, on the basis of his skin color, in this thread, elsewhere on this forum, or elsewhere in the world, is dumb.

Brave Boy Behind a Keyboard,

I make a lot of posts on a lot of topics on a lot of forums. But recalling the conversations in this thread is easy. Do you have SPECIFIC issues with my positions, or is all you have in your quiver are duds?

Sowell is awesome. Prove to me he is not. You are an idiot. Prove to me you are not.

Only then can we discuss real issues.

Prove wrong my predictions of what is to come....

 

[mamooth]

Few on this earth revere Thomas Sowell as much as I. I've purchased and read most of his books.

So can we take it you agree with all of Sowell's whackaloon claims? Let's try this again, because it's such fun to watch you run.

Like Sowell, do you think Obama is just like Hitler?

Do you think the US is in danger of having to surrender to Iran?

Were you a big backer of starting a war in Iraq?

Do you think DDT is harmless, and that banning it killed millions?

Do you think the New Deal made the depression worse?

Do you favor the gold standard?

Brave Boy Behind a Keyboard,

And that doesn't seem to be you, being how you keep running. Are all Sowell groupies such intellectual cowards, or is it just you?

 

[jc456]

JC.....time to pop up another post on the PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread!!!! Shit makes their heads explode!!

More meaningless drivel from the braindead retard kookles.

And yet, nothing. Still nothing. Posting written articles with conjecture in them isn't proof of anything except someone's opinion. What I provided was validated by your article from the other thread concerning saturation. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901validated that adding CO2 scarcely increase temperatures. So an experiment, the one I was looking for validates my stance. Set, Match!!!!

Really, REALLY braindead drivel and silly lies.

You quote a snippet of the article I cited and try to pretend that the part you just quoted wasn't followed by this part...

"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.""

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

where there is water vapor remember? You need water vapor, has nothing to do with CO2. Learn something already. It was in your own flippin post k00k!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

JC.....time to pop up another post on the PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread!!!! Shit makes their heads explode!!

More meaningless drivel from the braindead retard kookles.

And yet, nothing. Still nothing. Posting written articles with conjecture in them isn't proof of anything except someone's opinion. What I provided was validated by your article from the other thread concerning saturation. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901validated that adding CO2 scarcely increase temperatures. So an experiment, the one I was looking for validates my stance. Set, Match!!!!

Really, REALLY braindead drivel and silly lies.

You quote a snippet of the article I cited and try to pretend that the part you just quoted wasn't followed by this part...

"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.""

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

where there is water vapor remember? You need water vapor, has nothing to do with CO2. Learn something already. It was in your own flippin post k00k!!!!

Just Crazy, you seem to be posting out of your asshole again. CO2 warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere holds more water. Which increases the amount of heat the atmosphere absorbs.

 

[jc456]

JC.....time to pop up another post on the PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread!!!! Shit makes their heads explode!!

More meaningless drivel from the braindead retard kookles.

And yet, nothing. Still nothing. Posting written articles with conjecture in them isn't proof of anything except someone's opinion. What I provided was validated by your article from the other thread concerning saturation. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901validated that adding CO2 scarcely increase temperatures. So an experiment, the one I was looking for validates my stance. Set, Match!!!!

Really, REALLY braindead drivel and silly lies.

You quote a snippet of the article I cited and try to pretend that the part you just quoted wasn't followed by this part...

"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.""

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

where there is water vapor remember? You need water vapor, has nothing to do with CO2. Learn something already. It was in your own flippin post k00k!!!!

Just Crazy, you seem to be posting out of your asshole again. CO2 warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere holds more water. Which increases the amount of heat the atmosphere absorbs.

And yet Herr Koch proved it otherwise. Feel free to provide some experiment that disproves Koch's experiment.

go

for

it

 

[RollingThunder]

More meaningless drivel from the braindead retard kookles.

And yet, nothing. Still nothing. Posting written articles with conjecture in them isn't proof of anything except someone's opinion. What I provided was validated by your article from the other thread concerning saturation. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901validated that adding CO2 scarcely increase temperatures. So an experiment, the one I was looking for validates my stance. Set, Match!!!!

Really, REALLY braindead drivel and silly lies.

You quote a snippet of the article I cited and try to pretend that the part you just quoted wasn't followed by this part...

"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.""

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

where there is water vapor remember? You need water vapor, has nothing to do with CO2. Learn something already. It was in your own flippin post k00k!!!!

Just Crazy, you seem to be posting out of your asshole again. CO2 warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere holds more water. Which increases the amount of heat the atmosphere absorbs.

And yet Herr Koch proved it otherwise. Feel free to provide some experiment that disproves Koch's experiment.

go

for

it

No, 'Herr Koch' did not prove anything like that, you lying troll. Shove your bogus pseudo-science back up your butt where it belongs.

And BTW, your fraudulent OP was debunked in post #221.

 

[jc456]

And yet, nothing. Still nothing. Posting written articles with conjecture in them isn't proof of anything except someone's opinion. What I provided was validated by your article from the other thread concerning saturation. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901validated that adding CO2 scarcely increase temperatures. So an experiment, the one I was looking for validates my stance. Set, Match!!!!

Really, REALLY braindead drivel and silly lies.

You quote a snippet of the article I cited and try to pretend that the part you just quoted wasn't followed by this part...

"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.""

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

where there is water vapor remember? You need water vapor, has nothing to do with CO2. Learn something already. It was in your own flippin post k00k!!!!

Just Crazy, you seem to be posting out of your asshole again. CO2 warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere holds more water. Which increases the amount of heat the atmosphere absorbs.

And yet Herr Koch proved it otherwise. Feel free to provide some experiment that disproves Koch's experiment.

go

for

it

No, 'Herr Koch' did not prove anything like that, you lying troll. Shove your bogus pseudo-science back up your butt where it belongs.

ah.......he did!!!!!!!!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

Really, REALLY braindead drivel and silly lies.

You quote a snippet of the article I cited and try to pretend that the part you just quoted wasn't followed by this part...

"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.""

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

where there is water vapor remember? You need water vapor, has nothing to do with CO2. Learn something already. It was in your own flippin post k00k!!!!

Just Crazy, you seem to be posting out of your asshole again. CO2 warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere holds more water. Which increases the amount of heat the atmosphere absorbs.

And yet Herr Koch proved it otherwise. Feel free to provide some experiment that disproves Koch's experiment.

go

for

it

No, 'Herr Koch' did not prove anything like that, you lying troll. Shove your bogus pseudo-science back up your butt where it belongs.

ah.......he did!!!!!!!!!!

Only in your retarded imagination, troll. Which has no apparent connection to the real world.

 

[jc456]

where there is water vapor remember? You need water vapor, has nothing to do with CO2. Learn something already. It was in your own flippin post k00k!!!!

Just Crazy, you seem to be posting out of your asshole again. CO2 warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere holds more water. Which increases the amount of heat the atmosphere absorbs.

And yet Herr Koch proved it otherwise. Feel free to provide some experiment that disproves Koch's experiment.

go

for

it

No, 'Herr Koch' did not prove anything like that, you lying troll. Shove your bogus pseudo-science back up your butt where it belongs.

ah.......he did!!!!!!!!!!

Only in your retarded imagination, troll. Which has no apparent connection to the real world.

you simply can't help yourself with your insulting habits. You behave as a very sad individual.

 

[jillian]

Dr Benny Peiser says public are more sceptical about climate change and global warming Nature News Daily Express

One word = Ooooooooooooooooooops!!!!

So......here you have a world renowned climate science expert stating that the AGW community has been exaggerating the threat posed by global warming.

He goes on to say,

"Something is clearly balancing out the warming effect of the CO2 [carbon dioxide]," he explained.
"It might be natural factors, it might be the ocean, no one knows for sure.
"It [the warming] could start anytime - and that is an indication that we don’t fully understand the climate.
"That’s a reality that most climate scientists are reluctant to admit."





Like Ive been saying forever........we got a lot of phonies in this forum.

peiser is not a climatologist... but you can pretend he's an "expert"

Peiser acknowledges that he is "not a climate scientist" and has "never claimed to be one." His interest as a social anthropologist, is in "how climate change is portrayed as a potential disaster and how we respond to that."

Benny Peiser - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

no doubt you get your weather report from your neighborhood barrista....

 

[RollingThunder]

Just Crazy, you seem to be posting out of your asshole again. CO2 warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere holds more water. Which increases the amount of heat the atmosphere absorbs.

And yet Herr Koch proved it otherwise. Feel free to provide some experiment that disproves Koch's experiment.

go

for

it

No, 'Herr Koch' did not prove anything like that, you lying troll. Shove your bogus pseudo-science back up your butt where it belongs.

ah.......he did!!!!!!!!!!

Only in your retarded imagination, troll. Which has no apparent connection to the real world.

you simply can't help yourself with your insulting habits. You behave as a very sad individual.

Your silly comments are off-topic nonsense. You behave as a lying troll who can't support his fallacious claims with any actual evidence.

 

[skookerasbil]

And yet Herr Koch proved it otherwise. Feel free to provide some experiment that disproves Koch's experiment.

go

for

it

No, 'Herr Koch' did not prove anything like that, you lying troll. Shove your bogus pseudo-science back up your butt where it belongs.

ah.......he did!!!!!!!!!!

Only in your retarded imagination, troll. Which has no apparent connection to the real world.

you simply can't help yourself with your insulting habits. You behave as a very sad individual.

Your silly comments are off-topic nonsense. You behave as a lying troll who can't support his fallacious claims with any actual evidence.

Hows the old nut sack today s0n??


Your kind took a serious rupture this week!!!! >>>> Climate change supporters suffer losses TheHill


The lying trolls were dominating.......and even more now after Tuesday!!!


The American people spoke.......nobody gives a flying **** about the science except a handful of k00k left states. But with the HOUSE now going to hold court for the next decade ( see governors redistricting of state counties).....the greens don't have dick anymore!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

No, 'Herr Koch' did not prove anything like that, you lying troll. Shove your bogus pseudo-science back up your butt where it belongs.

ah.......he did!!!!!!!!!!

Only in your retarded imagination, troll. Which has no apparent connection to the real world.

you simply can't help yourself with your insulting habits. You behave as a very sad individual.

Your silly comments are off-topic nonsense. You behave as a lying troll who can't support his fallacious claims with any actual evidence.

Hows the old nut sack today s0n?? Your kind took a serious rupture this week!!!! >>>> Climate change supporters suffer losses TheHill The lying trolls were dominating.......and even more now after Tuesday!!! The American people spoke.......nobody gives a flying **** about the science except a handful of k00k left states. But with the HOUSE now going to hold court for the next decade ( see governors redistricting of state counties).....the greens don't have dick anymore!!

I see you're still crazy enough to imagine that the real-world scientific facts about the reality of anthropogenic global warming and its consequent climate changes, have anything to do with the political world or the political manipulations of the fossil fuel industry and the Koch brothers. The political posturing of the rightwingnut stooges for the fossil fuel industry will soon confront the reality of a rapidly warming planet and rising sea levels and increasing extreme weather disasters. Reality wins.

 

[Youch]

Few on this earth revere Thomas Sowell as much as I. I've purchased and read most of his books.

So can we take it you agree with all of Sowell's whackaloon claims? Let's try this again, because it's such fun to watch you run.

Like Sowell, do you think Obama is just like Hitler?

Do you think the US is in danger of having to surrender to Iran?

Were you a big backer of starting a war in Iraq?

Do you think DDT is harmless, and that banning it killed millions?

Do you think the New Deal made the depression worse?

Do you favor the gold standard?

Brave Boy Behind a Keyboard,

And that doesn't seem to be you, being how you keep running. Are all Sowell groupies such intellectual cowards, or is it just you?

Odd, that you attempt to put words in other peoples mouth, and/or re- or mis-interpret his or my points of view. But I'l play our game insofar as its fun for me to play word games. In order......

Not just like. But similar.
Not in danger, but well on its way to defeat.
Irrelevant, but no.
The banning did kill millions, this is a proven fact. Lets debate.
The New Deal DID make the depression worse. This is a proven fact. Lets debate.
The gold standard is more stable and less prone to political motives. To the extent that I support it is a grey area for me.

In what way is supporting Sowell in this specific thread being an intellectual coward?? I've answered every question. Sowell has more than made his own case, for those who have bothered to understand his position. You seem to be arguing against yourself. Why? Small something???

 

[Youch]

And yet, nothing. Still nothing. Posting written articles with conjecture in them isn't proof of anything except someone's opinion. What I provided was validated by your article from the other thread concerning saturation. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901validated that adding CO2 scarcely increase temperatures. So an experiment, the one I was looking for validates my stance. Set, Match!!!!

Really, REALLY braindead drivel and silly lies.

You quote a snippet of the article I cited and try to pretend that the part you just quoted wasn't followed by this part...

"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.""

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

where there is water vapor remember? You need water vapor, has nothing to do with CO2. Learn something already. It was in your own flippin post k00k!!!!

Just Crazy, you seem to be posting out of your asshole again. CO2 warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere holds more water. Which increases the amount of heat the atmosphere absorbs.

And yet Herr Koch proved it otherwise. Feel free to provide some experiment that disproves Koch's experiment.

go

for

it

No, 'Herr Koch' did not prove anything like that, you lying troll. Shove your bogus pseudo-science back up your butt where it belongs.

And BTW, your fraudulent OP was debunked in post #221.

I find your signature to be the most maleducated and dumbest of all the signatures on this forum. I look forward to debating you on any of those issues in any applicable forum thread.

I apologize in advance if I'm not punctual, as I don't often post. But rest assured I'll get back to you, as your signature is too outrageously stupid and ignorant to ignore.

 

[jon_berzerk]

SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer5:33 p.m. EDT October 20, 2014

WASHINGTON — If you thought last winter was a horror show, with cold blasts from the polar vortex and a lack of California rain, here's some good news: No sequel is expected this year, federal forecasters say.

Mike Halpert of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday that the upcoming winter looks pretty average in general. He doesn't expect a lot of extreme conditions like last year's cold outbreaks when Arctic air dipped south with the polar vortex.

"A repeat of last winter is not particularly likely," said Halpert, acting director of NOAA's Climate Prediction Center in College Park, Maryland.

Feds Don t expect winter to be polar vortex redux

--LOL

November 8, 2014; 2:51 AM ET


Polar Vortex to Blast 200 Million People With Arctic Air


Arctic air associated with the polar vortex will lunge into the North Central United States early next week and will expand southward and eastward to affect about 200 million people as the week progresses.

Polar Vortex to Blast 200 Million People With Arctic Air

 

[RollingThunder]

SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer5:33 p.m. EDT October 20, 2014

WASHINGTON — If you thought last winter was a horror show, with cold blasts from the polar vortex and a lack of California rain, here's some good news: No sequel is expected this year, federal forecasters say.

Mike Halpert of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday that the upcoming winter looks pretty average in general. He doesn't expect a lot of extreme conditions like last year's cold outbreaks when Arctic air dipped south with the polar vortex.

"A repeat of last winter is not particularly likely," said Halpert, acting director of NOAA's Climate Prediction Center in College Park, Maryland.

Feds Don t expect winter to be polar vortex redux

--LOL

November 8, 2014; 2:51 AM ET


Polar Vortex to Blast 200 Million People With Arctic Air


Arctic air associated with the polar vortex will lunge into the North Central United States early next week and will expand southward and eastward to affect about 200 million people as the week progresses.

Polar Vortex to Blast 200 Million People With Arctic Air

So what, retard?

NOAA predicts that this winter probably won't feature the same multiple, repeated blasts of Arctic air carried south by a wobbly jet stream that froze the eastern parts of the country last winter (remember - "California had its warmest April-September on record this year with an average temperature of 70.0°F, 3.3°F above average. This bested the previous record set just last year by 0.6°F. Oregon had its second warmest warm season, Washington its third warmest" - NOAA). That doesn't mean that there will be no Arctic air incursions into the USA this winter, just probably not the same repeated pattern.

 

[jon_berzerk]

SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer5:33 p.m. EDT October 20, 2014

WASHINGTON — If you thought last winter was a horror show, with cold blasts from the polar vortex and a lack of California rain, here's some good news: No sequel is expected this year, federal forecasters say.

Mike Halpert of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday that the upcoming winter looks pretty average in general. He doesn't expect a lot of extreme conditions like last year's cold outbreaks when Arctic air dipped south with the polar vortex.

"A repeat of last winter is not particularly likely," said Halpert, acting director of NOAA's Climate Prediction Center in College Park, Maryland.

Feds Don t expect winter to be polar vortex redux

--LOL

November 8, 2014; 2:51 AM ET


Polar Vortex to Blast 200 Million People With Arctic Air


Arctic air associated with the polar vortex will lunge into the North Central United States early next week and will expand southward and eastward to affect about 200 million people as the week progresses.

Polar Vortex to Blast 200 Million People With Arctic Air

So what, retard?

NOAA predicts that this winter probably won't feature the same multiple, repeated blasts of Arctic air carried south by a wobbly jet stream that froze the eastern parts of the country last winter (remember - "California had its warmest April-September on record this year with an average temperature of 70.0°F, 3.3°F above average. This bested the previous record set just last year by 0.6°F. Oregon had its second warmest warm season, Washington its third warmest" - NOAA). That doesn't mean that there will be no Arctic air incursions into the USA this winter, just probably not the same repeated pattern.

so like you say

it is just a guess

--LOL

--LOL@U loser