Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

[quote='A_Nony_Mouse' pid='438770' dateline='1367348600']


Scientists also know that if one builds two greenhouses one with IR reflecting glass and the other without the effect is the same. That means trapped IR is not the cause of the increased temperature of a greenhouse.

According to New Scientist 4 June 2011 pg 6 the human contribution in 2010 for CO2 emissions 30.6 GT up 1.6GT from 2009, G as in giga as in billion tons.

If one prefers "secular" sources this number was repeated in a New York Times article, 12/08/14 31.6 GT human in 2011.

Sure sounds awfuller than the 6GT you mention. But the total atmospheric CO2 750-830 GT making the uncertainty 80GT about +/-5% +/-40GT. One must note the human contribution per year is less than the uncertainty.

If the human contribution were cumulative we can do the following.

As CO2 makes up only 0.03% of the atmosphere this means roughly a 0.04% increase in CO2 per year or or 0.0001% increase in total atmospheric CO2.

So, in other words, you believe that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. I am afraid that you are going to have a difficult time convincing most of the world's scientists that what you believe is true.[/quote]

I did in fact recite the experiment with greenhouses with two different IR transmitting materials. I did correctly describe the results. That is called physical evidence. That you accuse me of not believing does not differ from accusing me of not have faith in the EFFECT of greenhouse gases despite the physical evidence of the experimental results.

Why do you demand I believe despite of and contrary to the physical evidence?

---

???

[quote=n. mouse]To assume that a peace prize, Nobel or otherwise, has any bearing upon the science involved is to assume Peres, Arafat and Kissinger and Ho Chi Minh were the supreme advocates of peace. As the peace prize barely addresses peace the suggestion it supports any science at all is ludicrous.

---

I made no such assumption. I was simply pointing out the facts.]/quote]

And I am certain there was no ulterior motive in citing a totally meaningless and irrelevant "fact" despite its prestigious title.

[quote=n. mouse]That invented save even lead one crackpot to claim warming could result in an ice age. I am sorry but anyone claiming global warming leads to cooling is going to have to give me the definitions of both warming and cooling they are using.

As to shutting of the GULF not jet stream that is no more than a hypothetical from years ago which has since been rejected one grounds of 1) not that simple and 2) if the Arctic melting stops tomorrow the inertial will continue the flow for a thousand years.

Scientists are not saying that global warming leads to cooling. They are saying that it leads to more extreme weather.

And I pointed out that is a recent change from warming ONLY. I am also pointing out that despite popular claims all examples of extreme weather have been denied as having anything to do with warming.

So the warming is stopped and we still do not have more extreme weather. Where does that leave us?

When you take the time to learn the difference between heat and temperature you can then move to learning a storm is the release of energy. The energy is released because there is a temperature difference. If everything is warming the temperature difference is the same and the energy released by storms is the same except for a very small correction because of absolute zero. Again, take the time to learn the subject.

If all youj want to do is cite the experts I will remind you appeals to authority have been an identified logical fallacy for at least 2500 years.

AGW is causing an increase in atmospheric moisture in some regions, and in many of those regions is causing an increase in precipitation.

Then it is very simple, simply measure the humidity over the oceans where this moisture has to increase. There is then also the indirect measure of precipitation in coastal areas. And then we note the latter is not happening and look to see where the cocked hat went.

Add normal cold winter temperatures to the mix and you get an increase in snowfall. We are seeing that in North America, in Eurasia, and in Eastern Antarctica. AGW is also causing decreases in atmospheric moisture in some regions, which is leading to increased and more severe droughts. Extreme weather, not global cooling.

Sorry but I have been careful to watch for the scientific opinion regarding those popular claims and I have yet to read the scientists promoting AGW claiming winter weather snow increases are a consequence. Perhaps you can provide a URL or two? Much appreciated.

---

And it is a fact that, absent satellite cameras, it appeared nearly as short of ice in the early 1930s as it is today.

And your evidence of this would be?

People really do live that far north in summer and hunt seal and such. The amount of ice affects their hunting access.

The serious question is why does anyone bother looking at the ice cover when they could much more simply recite the air temperature. If the ice cover is not a direct function of temperature then one cannot look at ice cover and claim temperature.

Why not try the other approach as in this was the day since the last record was set in ... Note the year and ask why there were so many GHGs back in the 1930s or whenever.

[quote]That aside as I do not know if I can find the article again, the idea that a total absence of arctic sea ice is BAD is a political idea. IF there is no arctic ice that implies the arctic is warmer meaning all the land north of the arctic circle should be opening to food production instead of tourists looking at polar bears.

By all means, please find the article. The Arctic sea ice is the northern Hemisphere's 'air conditioning' in that it moderates temperatures and gives us our four seasons.[/quote]

Air conditioning is adiabatic expansion of compressed gas. If you want a serious discussion do not use terms which have no technical meaning and which in this case if flat out stupid.

As I learned back in gradeschool and have confirmed many times since the seasons are do to the tilt of the earth's axis in relation to the sun. To say what you just said is incredible ignorance if not down right stupidity.

As you go on in that vein continuing the stupidity, I have better things to do with my time than bemoan the state of science education in the country if not the world.

---

Also, and I think this is an important point, the increased CO2 levels are not solely anthropogenic. If we were not emitting, then CO2 levels would still be increasing. CO2 increases by about 40% of what we emit so there is a strong correlation. But correlation doesn't mean causation for that would assume that if we weren't emitting then CO2 levels would drop by 150% of the amount that they're presently increasing by - which is obviously nonsensical!

Yet I still see this claim made all the time by alarmists that we have total control over the CO2 levels - we don't. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations wouldn't drop at 150% of the rate of increase if we weren't emitting, it would still be climbing, albeit by only about half the present growth rate.

Way back when I was playing with melters, before I lost patience with their studied ignorance of the science involved, I did a quick and dirty calculation of a CO2 source over the period of a year. It was a big number so they all wanted to know what that source was. It was simply the amount humans produce by breathing. I can wish I had seen their faces.

---

Where are the graphs for the past 5 million years oro?

I have seen something like them and yes our current contributions are valid to the call to reduce and then again we have been doing this for nigh on 50 years shouldn't we start to be seeing a slowing/ peak?

If one wants to talk global warming lets start during an ice age.

We are in an interglacial period although there are some who hold there will be no more for something like a million years. Be that as it may, we have no idea how temperature behaves in interglacial periods.

However if those who say the next ice age is overdue I say burn baby burn. Maybe it is fossil fuels that are holding it off.

Keeping that in mind, climate models are not validated until they have been run backwards and accurately reproduce all historical climates. What was it that made the Sahara green 6000 years ago?

---

As for the IPCC I am thinking that they are about as useful as the UN (aka = worthless) They do not instigate any "control" just bleat and carry on. The IPCC, UN IMF are not worth the time of day imho.

If I recall the numbers correctly they were proud to announce their first report was signed by 104 scientists. Upon inspection that broke down to 2 real scientists and 102 political scientists.

---

I am sort of intrigued how a mere century can be considered other than a short term variation of 4.5 billion years.

Part of the problem is that the same bunch of fools who deny climate change think the earth is only 6,000 years old because some idiot did some math based on their fucking bible, Mouse.

Somehow, it always comes back to that same shitty book, eh?

It certainly comes back to the same attitude when they accuse people of not believing we are melting of not having faith. Their attitude is the same. I reread one tonight and found he was claiming the north pole causes seasons. And all warming is evil because it will lead to change which they know Gaia or god condemns.