U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

[skookerasbil]

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.

The UN makes the same proclamation every few years.....for decades now. Still nobody cares.

 

[jc456]

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.

Of course you don’t. You know I’m right.. you can’t produce that same observation spectrum like the blue sky scenario! So you quit. It happens to everyone of you. I love it

 

[Tresha91203]

Yeah, the internet sucks. I doubt there are any bigger crabs than the monsters along the Miami canal. Mudfish, too.

The crabs are like 2 1/2 feet wide and have claws like a stone crab. They move slow, but are huge! They're light/medium blue and white.
Nothing on the internet about them, yet I could go right to where they're at.
I would not eat them. Their claws are like 8" long and shaped like a Stone Crab.

They just sit down there in the heat on the bank all day.

These?

Google Image Result for https://cdn3.volusion.com/c473e.shkj4/v/vspfiles/photos/SBC-G01-2.jpg

 

[jc456]

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.

by the way, I know the sky is blue and no scientist needs to tell us That and yet you use that example?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I wonder what the UN would say if we kicked their asses out of NY?

they cry
we used to cheer rudy on when he would give em the guff and tow their cars

 

[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

 

[SSDD]

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

Have you noticed lately that they aren't even trying to argue science any more....all they have is consensus...as if that means anything...

 

[Crick]

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch is most assuredly a scientific argument - one that you have never brought one iota of science to counter. And consensus means a great deal - it is patently obvious why deniers always say it doesn't - because they've never had it and never will. When less than one percent of practicing scientists agree with your position, it REALLY is time to consider the possibility that you might be WRONG.

 

[SSDD]

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch is most assuredly a scientific argument - one that you have never brought one iota of science to counter. And consensus means a great deal - it is patently obvious why deniers always say it doesn't - because they've never had it and never will. When less than one percent of practicing scientists agree with your position, it REALLY is time to consider the possibility that you might be WRONG.

So visit your favorite steaming pile of dogma and give me an author, title, and publication for a paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing with our so called greenhouse gas emissions has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...one will do.

Or you might bring a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....

Or you could give me an excuse for why you won't do that and in doing so, support my argument that there is nothing there but pseudoscientific excrement, and alarmist opinion....

 

[jc456]

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch is most assuredly a scientific argument - one that you have never brought one iota of science to counter. And consensus means a great deal - it is patently obvious why deniers always say it doesn't - because they've never had it and never will. When less than one percent of practicing scientists agree with your position, it REALLY is time to consider the possibility that you might be WRONG.

dude, you are totally filled with stupid. How many times now have I or someone else asked you to forward what piece in that link backs your fking claim? you can't truly be that ignorant, can you? ready, post that quote!!! We're waiting.

 

[Oddball]

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch is most assuredly a scientific argument - one that you have never brought one iota of science to counter. And consensus means a great deal - it is patently obvious why deniers always say it doesn't - because they've never had it and never will. When less than one percent of practicing scientists agree with your position, it REALLY is time to consider the possibility that you might be WRONG.

IPCC....ROFLMFAO!

Again, where are you getting that preposterous number of alleged scientists who agree with your hoax?....Out of your ass, no doubt.

BTW, it's fewer than one percent, Chumlee.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch is most assuredly a scientific argument - one that you have never brought one iota of science to counter. And consensus means a great deal - it is patently obvious why deniers always say it doesn't - because they've never had it and never will. When less than one percent of practicing scientists agree with your position, it REALLY is time to consider the possibility that you might be WRONG.

Does the Ipcc explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean?

I found the formula for the amount of energy need to heat water, is that mentioned at ipcc, or is it "magic beans"?

 

[Pilot1]

What will more taxes do to help man made climate change?

 

[Oddball]

What will more taxes do to help man made climate change?

It'll feed, pay the mortgages, and cover expenses for the endless worldwide junkets to conferences for the "scientists".

So there's that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What will more taxes do to help man made climate change?

It'll feed, pay the mortgages, and cover expenses for the endless worldwide junkets to conferences for the "scientists".

So there's that.

Turn over your weapons, freedoms and all your stuff - er, to combat climate change

 

[jc456]

What will more taxes do to help man made climate change?

It'll feed, pay the mortgages, and cover expenses for the endless worldwide junkets to conferences for the "scientists".

So there's that.

Turn over your weapons, freedoms and all your stuff - er, to combat climate change

wink, wink, nudge, nudge, no what I mean?

 

[Crick]

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch is most assuredly a scientific argument - one that you have never brought one iota of science to counter. And consensus means a great deal - it is patently obvious why deniers always say it doesn't - because they've never had it and never will. When less than one percent of practicing scientists agree with your position, it REALLY is time to consider the possibility that you might be WRONG.

So visit your favorite steaming pile of dogma and give me an author, title, and publication for a paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing with our so called greenhouse gas emissions has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...one will do.

Or you might bring a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....

Or you could give me an excuse for why you won't do that and in doing so, support my argument that there is nothing there but pseudoscientific excrement, and alarmist opinion....

There is no need for me to do that because all of that is to be found in "The Physical Science Basis" (TPSB). Your accusation that TPSB is pseudoscience and opinion is astounding coming from someone who believes in smart photons and at the very least sides with someone who believes the Earth's magnetic field holds the atmosphere in place. And a little PS, deflecting the solar wind does not "hold the atmosphere in place". You have never presented one shred of science that supports your bizarre contentions regarding the second law or Stefan-Boltzmann. Not one shred.

 

[Oddball]

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch is most assuredly a scientific argument - one that you have never brought one iota of science to counter. And consensus means a great deal - it is patently obvious why deniers always say it doesn't - because they've never had it and never will. When less than one percent of practicing scientists agree with your position, it REALLY is time to consider the possibility that you might be WRONG.

Does the Ipcc explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean?

I found the formula for the amount of energy need to heat water, is that mentioned at ipcc, or is it "magic beans"?

I bet the Underpants Gnomes can tell us.

 

[Oddball]

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch is most assuredly a scientific argument - one that you have never brought one iota of science to counter. And consensus means a great deal - it is patently obvious why deniers always say it doesn't - because they've never had it and never will. When less than one percent of practicing scientists agree with your position, it REALLY is time to consider the possibility that you might be WRONG.

So visit your favorite steaming pile of dogma and give me an author, title, and publication for a paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing with our so called greenhouse gas emissions has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...one will do.

Or you might bring a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....

Or you could give me an excuse for why you won't do that and in doing so, support my argument that there is nothing there but pseudoscientific excrement, and alarmist opinion....

There is no need for me to do that because all of that is to be found in "The Physical Science Basis" (TPSB). Your accusation that TPSB is pseudoscience and opinion is astounding coming from someone who believes in smart photons and at the very least sides with someone who believes the Earth's magnetic field holds the atmosphere in place. And a little PS, deflecting the solar wind does not "hold the atmosphere in place". You have never presented one shred of science that supports your bizarre contentions regarding the second law or Stefan-Boltzmann. Not one shred.

What is it that keeps the solar wind from blowing the atmosphere away, Gorilla Glue?

 

[jc456]

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch is most assuredly a scientific argument - one that you have never brought one iota of science to counter. And consensus means a great deal - it is patently obvious why deniers always say it doesn't - because they've never had it and never will. When less than one percent of practicing scientists agree with your position, it REALLY is time to consider the possibility that you might be WRONG.

So visit your favorite steaming pile of dogma and give me an author, title, and publication for a paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing with our so called greenhouse gas emissions has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...one will do.

Or you might bring a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....

Or you could give me an excuse for why you won't do that and in doing so, support my argument that there is nothing there but pseudoscientific excrement, and alarmist opinion....

There is no need for me to do that because all of that is to be found in "The Physical Science Basis" (TPSB). Your accusation that TPSB is pseudoscience and opinion is astounding coming from someone who believes in smart photons and at the very least sides with someone who believes the Earth's magnetic field holds the atmosphere in place. And a little PS, deflecting the solar wind does not "hold the atmosphere in place". You have never presented one shred of science that supports your bizarre contentions regarding the second law or Stefan-Boltzmann. Not one shred.

so what is it you believe holds the atmosphere in place? Let's hear this one. While you're at it, where do solar winds originate?