U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

[CrusaderFrank]

The Earth is always warming and cooling due to cycles of the SUN. If Miami floods, that is likely to blame.

Sure, we should be a minimum now.

So why are we warming?

You added in the fake data set of "warning trapped - like a rat! in the deep ocean" dreamed up by Bernie Madoff's accountant

Dude, what the fuck are you posting about?


Either go with mumbo or jumbo, sheesh.

Dude, check IPCC 2 or 3, see if they have warming trapped deep in the ocean. You Bernie Madoff fuckers added that in to "hide the decline" its fucking fake

I don't know what rock (wingnut website) you supposedly pulled that stupid assertion from, but when trying to debunk AGW, shouldn't you use actual science?

What a fucking moron. You dont know dick about anything, you dont even read the crap your side passes off as "peer reviewed" bullshit

 

[Crick]

He knows more than you do Frank.

 

[otto105]

Sure, we should be a minimum now.

So why are we warming?

You added in the fake data set of "warning trapped - like a rat! in the deep ocean" dreamed up by Bernie Madoff's accountant

Dude, what the fuck are you posting about?


Either go with mumbo or jumbo, sheesh.

Dude, check IPCC 2 or 3, see if they have warming trapped deep in the ocean. You Bernie Madoff fuckers added that in to "hide the decline" its fucking fake

I don't know what rock (wingnut website) you supposedly pulled that stupid assertion from, but when trying to debunk AGW, shouldn't you use actual science?

What a fucking moron. You dont know dick about anything, you dont even read the crap your side passes off as "peer reviewed" bullshit

I know that all the science is on the side of AGW as fact.

You're just trying create doubt.

 

[Crick]

Not every scientist is on the side of AGW; less than 1% of them these days, but a small number still reject it. Keep in mind that some scientists are smarter than others. Some scientists are dumber than others. Some scientists' intellectual capabilities have been affected by age. Some are not trained in fields on which they comment. Some people pretend to be scientists that aren't (like >99% of the 30,000 that signed the 'Oregon Petition').

But I'm quite happy with the numbers that accept AGW and agree with the conclusions of the IPCC. I have absolutely no hesitancy in declaring that AGW is many orders of magnitude (more than six at this time, I understand) more likely to be true than any other theorem explaining climate observations.

 

[skookerasbil]

Not every scientist is on the side of AGW; less than 1% of them these days, but a small number still reject it. Keep in mind that some scientists are smarter than others. Some scientists are dumber than others. Some scientists' intellectual capabilities have been affected by age. Some are not trained in fields on which they comment. Some people pretend to be scientists that aren't (like >99% of the 30,000 that signed the 'Oregon Petition').

But I'm quite happy with the numbers that accept AGW and agree with the conclusions of the IPCC. I have absolutely no hesitancy in declaring that AGW is many orders of magnitude (more than six at this time, I understand) more likely to be true than any other theorem explaining climate observations.

Lol....another dummy who proclaims PHd and MA scientists not to be real scientists!

Thankfully, that's a fringe sentiment in the real world since public policy makers obviously give these scientists tons of credibility.That's what happens when the contingent of "expert" climate scientists is so small = lOsE

 

[skookerasbil]

lOsE

 

[jc456]

BLACKMAIL

 

[jc456]

BTW warmer droids --- where's the ACCELERATING sea level rise in that graph??

Here.

Note most recent data (say, >2010) are above the faired linear rate. I personally find that not quite enough data to call, but since global warming and ice melt are accelerating, it is not unreasonable to expect to see acceleration there as well.

Ice melt where?

 

[jc456]

You added in the fake data set of "warning trapped - like a rat! in the deep ocean" dreamed up by Bernie Madoff's accountant

Dude, what the fuck are you posting about?


Either go with mumbo or jumbo, sheesh.

Dude, check IPCC 2 or 3, see if they have warming trapped deep in the ocean. You Bernie Madoff fuckers added that in to "hide the decline" its fucking fake

I don't know what rock (wingnut website) you supposedly pulled that stupid assertion from, but when trying to debunk AGW, shouldn't you use actual science?

What a fucking moron. You dont know dick about anything, you dont even read the crap your side passes off as "peer reviewed" bullshit

I know that all the science is on the side of AGW as fact.

You're just trying create doubt.

Post observed data separating AGW from natural variability. Just one. LOL

 

[jc456]

Not every scientist is on the side of AGW; less than 1% of them these days, but a small number still reject it. Keep in mind that some scientists are smarter than others. Some scientists are dumber than others. Some scientists' intellectual capabilities have been affected by age. Some are not trained in fields on which they comment. Some people pretend to be scientists that aren't (like >99% of the 30,000 that signed the 'Oregon Petition').

But I'm quite happy with the numbers that accept AGW and agree with the conclusions of the IPCC. I have absolutely no hesitancy in declaring that AGW is many orders of magnitude (more than six at this time, I understand) more likely to be true than any other theorem explaining climate observations.

Post one study using observed data!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You added in the fake data set of "warning trapped - like a rat! in the deep ocean" dreamed up by Bernie Madoff's accountant

Dude, what the fuck are you posting about?


Either go with mumbo or jumbo, sheesh.

Dude, check IPCC 2 or 3, see if they have warming trapped deep in the ocean. You Bernie Madoff fuckers added that in to "hide the decline" its fucking fake

I don't know what rock (wingnut website) you supposedly pulled that stupid assertion from, but when trying to debunk AGW, shouldn't you use actual science?

What a fucking moron. You dont know dick about anything, you dont even read the crap your side passes off as "peer reviewed" bullshit

I know that all the science is on the side of AGW as fact.

You're just trying create doubt.

Consensus =/= Science

I'm just asking questions, you should have the answers

 

[otto105]

Dude, what the fuck are you posting about?


Either go with mumbo or jumbo, sheesh.

Dude, check IPCC 2 or 3, see if they have warming trapped deep in the ocean. You Bernie Madoff fuckers added that in to "hide the decline" its fucking fake

I don't know what rock (wingnut website) you supposedly pulled that stupid assertion from, but when trying to debunk AGW, shouldn't you use actual science?

What a fucking moron. You dont know dick about anything, you dont even read the crap your side passes off as "peer reviewed" bullshit

I know that all the science is on the side of AGW as fact.

You're just trying create doubt.

Consensus =/= Science

I'm just asking questions, you should have the answers

If 98% of people who study the sky say that when you look up it's blue, you won't believe them?

 

[jc456]

Dude, check IPCC 2 or 3, see if they have warming trapped deep in the ocean. You Bernie Madoff fuckers added that in to "hide the decline" its fucking fake

I don't know what rock (wingnut website) you supposedly pulled that stupid assertion from, but when trying to debunk AGW, shouldn't you use actual science?

What a fucking moron. You dont know dick about anything, you dont even read the crap your side passes off as "peer reviewed" bullshit

I know that all the science is on the side of AGW as fact.

You're just trying create doubt.

Consensus =/= Science

I'm just asking questions, you should have the answers

If 98% of people who study the sky say that when you look up it's blue, you won't believe them?

Well since it can be observed, sure. I’d actually be concerned about the 2% that didn’t see blue. So it’s simple right? Post up their AGW observations and we can come to the same conclusion. Except, you don’t. You avoid evidence like oil and water! So, your turn, now post the observed material from your trusted scientists! Go

I expect nothing

 

[otto105]

I don't know what rock (wingnut website) you supposedly pulled that stupid assertion from, but when trying to debunk AGW, shouldn't you use actual science?

What a fucking moron. You dont know dick about anything, you dont even read the crap your side passes off as "peer reviewed" bullshit

I know that all the science is on the side of AGW as fact.

You're just trying create doubt.

Consensus =/= Science

I'm just asking questions, you should have the answers

If 98% of people who study the sky say that when you look up it's blue, you won't believe them?

Well since it can be observed, sure. I’d actually be concerned about the 2% that didn’t see blue. So it’s simple right? Post up their AGW observations and we can come to the same conclusion. Except, you don’t. You avoid evidence like oil and water! So, your turn, now post the observed material from your trusted scientists! Go

I expect nothing

From NASA

Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature



› View larger
A new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. Credit: NASA GISS/ Lilly Del Valle

› View larger
Various atmospheric components differ in their contributions to the greenhouse effect, some through feedbacks and some through forcings. Without carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. Credit: NASA GISSWater vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."



Now about yer oil and water bullshit.

 

[jc456]

What a fucking moron. You dont know dick about anything, you dont even read the crap your side passes off as "peer reviewed" bullshit

I know that all the science is on the side of AGW as fact.

You're just trying create doubt.

Consensus =/= Science

I'm just asking questions, you should have the answers

If 98% of people who study the sky say that when you look up it's blue, you won't believe them?

Well since it can be observed, sure. I’d actually be concerned about the 2% that didn’t see blue. So it’s simple right? Post up their AGW observations and we can come to the same conclusion. Except, you don’t. You avoid evidence like oil and water! So, your turn, now post the observed material from your trusted scientists! Go

I expect nothing

From NASA

Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature



› View larger
A new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. Credit: NASA GISS/ Lilly Del Valle

› View larger
Various atmospheric components differ in their contributions to the greenhouse effect, some through feedbacks and some through forcings. Without carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. Credit: NASA GISSWater vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."



Now about yer oil and water bullshit.

Which part is the observed? I see models

climate modeling study

 

[otto105]

I know that all the science is on the side of AGW as fact.

You're just trying create doubt.

Consensus =/= Science

I'm just asking questions, you should have the answers

If 98% of people who study the sky say that when you look up it's blue, you won't believe them?

Well since it can be observed, sure. I’d actually be concerned about the 2% that didn’t see blue. So it’s simple right? Post up their AGW observations and we can come to the same conclusion. Except, you don’t. You avoid evidence like oil and water! So, your turn, now post the observed material from your trusted scientists! Go

I expect nothing

From NASA

Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature



› View larger
A new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. Credit: NASA GISS/ Lilly Del Valle

› View larger
Various atmospheric components differ in their contributions to the greenhouse effect, some through feedbacks and some through forcings. Without carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. Credit: NASA GISSWater vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."



Now about yer oil and water bullshit.

Which part is the observed? I see models

You apparently don't see blue when you look up.

 

[jc456]

Consensus =/= Science

I'm just asking questions, you should have the answers

If 98% of people who study the sky say that when you look up it's blue, you won't believe them?

Well since it can be observed, sure. I’d actually be concerned about the 2% that didn’t see blue. So it’s simple right? Post up their AGW observations and we can come to the same conclusion. Except, you don’t. You avoid evidence like oil and water! So, your turn, now post the observed material from your trusted scientists! Go

I expect nothing

From NASA

Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature



› View larger
A new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. Credit: NASA GISS/ Lilly Del Valle

› View larger
Various atmospheric components differ in their contributions to the greenhouse effect, some through feedbacks and some through forcings. Without carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. Credit: NASA GISSWater vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."



Now about yer oil and water bullshit.

Which part is the observed? I see models

You apparently don't see blue when you look up.

You can’t read, climate modeling study

As stated, I didn’t expect observed evidence from you, defeats the blue sky scenario you provided?

 

[otto105]

If 98% of people who study the sky say that when you look up it's blue, you won't believe them?

Well since it can be observed, sure. I’d actually be concerned about the 2% that didn’t see blue. So it’s simple right? Post up their AGW observations and we can come to the same conclusion. Except, you don’t. You avoid evidence like oil and water! So, your turn, now post the observed material from your trusted scientists! Go

I expect nothing

From NASA

Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature



› View larger
A new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. Credit: NASA GISS/ Lilly Del Valle

› View larger
Various atmospheric components differ in their contributions to the greenhouse effect, some through feedbacks and some through forcings. Without carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. Credit: NASA GISSWater vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."



Now about yer oil and water bullshit.

Which part is the observed? I see models

You apparently don't see blue when you look up.

You can’t read, climate modeling study

As stated, I didn’t expect observed evidence from you, defeats the blue sky scenario you provided?

I don't care what you think about models. Any observed results on temperature show the world is warming, unless you can prove the sky is red.

But hey, your just a scientist on the internet.

 

[SSDD]

I don't care what you think about models. Any observed results on temperature show the world is warming, unless you can prove the sky is red.

But hey, your just a scientist on the internet.

Really? Have you ever really looked? Lets look....shall we"

It isn't warming in Antarctica

It isn't warming in the North Pacific Gulf of Alaska

It isn't warming in Southeast China

It isn't warming in the Norwegian Atlantic

It isn't warming in North Iceland

It isn't warming in the Iberian Range in Spain

It isn't warming in France

It isn't warming in Turkey

It isn't warming in Scotland

It isn't warming in the North Atlantic

It isn't warming in the Pacific

It isn't warming in North China

Where exactly is it warming? When you look at regional temperatures all across the globe, you don't see this claimed catastrophic warming.. You only see global warming in the highly manipulated, massaged, homogenized, and infilled global record. If the globe were truly warming, you would see real warming temperatures everywhere...

Compare the regional temperature records above to the global temperature below and tell me if you see a disconnect:

 

[Oddball]

Not every scientist is on the side of AGW; less than 1% of them these days, but a small number still reject it. Keep in mind that some scientists are smarter than others. Some scientists are dumber than others. Some scientists' intellectual capabilities have been affected by age. Some are not trained in fields on which they comment. Some people pretend to be scientists that aren't (like >99% of the 30,000 that signed the 'Oregon Petition')..

Horse shit.

What's your source for that fantasy?