Hurry up with Global Warming before I FREEZE to death!

SCOTT DEPOT, WV — Comments heard in recent days where I live have ranged from the ridiculous to the sublime in regard to global warming. The thermometer at my house recently registered an outside temperature of two degrees below zero.

In many parts of the nation we have experienced record lows and tremendous amounts of snow. I recall being stranded in Grand Forks, North Dakota, for three days in what was then called the worst snowstorm in more than 80 years. Some drifts were up to the roof lines of houses. I certainly wished for global warming on that trip.

I have survived some of the hottest and coldest places on earth where people would normally travel and some where it took extra effort to be in such creature discomfort. I stood at the top of Mont Blanc, the highest accessible peak in Europe, so I was told. It was so cold my fingers were numb and that made it difficult to take the pictures I have to prove that I was there. I have been in the deserts of the United States, the Middle East, Egypt and Africa where it was extremely hot.

One man said, “It has been so cold where I live I wish global warming would hurry up and get here.” Another added, “I may freeze to death before global warming arrives.”

More at link-

http://www.spcm.org/Journal/spip.php?article6529



Ha ha!

[specialk]

My My Tfool...you were a busy boy last night...no life syndrome I see!! :P

[White_Male_Canada]

You`re all wrong. Global warming is bad.

[trish]

so TFan, what don't you understand about rising oscillatory functions with deepening amplitudes? what don't you get about scalar fields with spherical domains that have average values that rise with time but also display a temporally rising constrast between local extremes? anyone with half a brain realizes that one northern winter cold spell disputes nothing about global patterns. so why bring up this tired old joke?

[corbomite]

so TFan, what don't you understand about rising oscillatory functions with deepening amplitudes? what don't you get about scalar fields with spherical domains that have average values that rise with time but also display a temporally rising constrast between local extremes? anyone with half a brain realizes that one northern winter cold spell disputes nothing about global patterns. so why bring up this tired old joke?

yeah and its all manmade too :-)

[chefmike]

tried to explain why extreme weather events are becoming more common to you earlier TFan, but it is really like talking to a lump of shit. Knowledge just doesn't seem to penetrate your thick skull. And I also see WMC is putting in his 8-cents worth also. VERY CLEVER! Very scientific cowboy! Nice source also, a french christian journal: the journal for cretins!

"Anybody with any semblance of scientific knowledge would know that the more energy you add to a system the more erratic it becomes.


The SUN causes global warming! :lol:

"The SUN causes global warming!" TFan the scientist.

Please read the section on solar variation at the following link and try to understand it TFan, I know that might be asking too much of you but just try. Don't be a moron all your life!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Solar_variation

You've convinced me, props!

We need legislation banning the sun. I knew the SUN was up to something! :lol: :peanutbutter

[White_Male_Canada]

"Anybody with any semblance of scientific knowledge would know that the more energy you add to a system the more erratic it becomes. The Earth behaves just the same way but on a bigger scale, this can clearly be seen in the increasing occurrence of weather extremes. It really isn't rocket science; more like science 101 for retards! Are you really as knowledgeable about climatology as you claim you are WMC?" ILCB
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=15281



I love the "man is responsible for global warming" UN government line.

You`re preaching exponential CO2growth which has already been proven false.

[muhmuh]

You`re preaching exponential CO2growth which has already been proven false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

[trish]

so TFan, what don't you understand about rising oscillatory functions with deepening amplitudes? what don't you get about scalar fields with spherical domains that have average values that rise with time but also display a temporally rising constrast between local extremes? anyone with half a brain realizes that one northern winter cold spell disputes nothing about global patterns. so why bring up this tired old joke?

yeah and its all manmade too :-)

yes, these two purely logical concepts are entirely manmade. evidently you don't understand them either...or else you just blurted an idiotic response without READING the post. wanna try again?

[trish]

"Anybody with any semblance of scientific knowledge would know that the more energy you add to a system the more erratic it becomes. The Earth behaves just the same way but on a bigger scale, this can clearly be seen in the increasing occurrence of weather extremes. It really isn't rocket science; more like science 101 for retards! Are you really as knowledgeable about climatology as you claim you are WMC?" ILCB
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=15281



I love the "man is responsible for global warming" UN government line.

You`re preaching exponential CO2growth which has already been proven false.

proven to whom? a novelist, a few hired hands for the oil industry, some bloggers who put so much ego into their argument they can't admit they're wrong?

look, i don't know what course of action we should take. i'm not promoting Kyoto or any particular political strategy liberal or conservative. but the science on this is conclusive. read Nature vol 445 issue7128, read the current Science, listen to Bush...even he admits humans are a primary causitive agent in current climate change.

[White_Male_Canada]

You`re preaching exponential CO2growth which has already been proven false.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

That in no way proves exponential CO2. Cute link that Wiki, a site where anyone can edit anything at any time.

There is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years so why would a relatively tiny increase in CO2 mean so much now as the fear mongers at the UN government say ?

[muhmuh]

You`re preaching exponential CO2growth which has already been proven false.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

That in no way proves exponential CO2.

so whats that exponential rise near the end of the graph then?


There is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years so why would a relatively tiny increase in CO2 mean so much now as the fear mongers at the UN government say ?

cute graph ... got one that overlays the increase in solar intensity over that span of time to show it rises along with the decline of co2?

[White_Male_Canada]

so whats that exponential rise near the end of the graph then?


That chart is in no way defines exponential CO2.

There is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years so why would a relatively tiny increase in CO2 mean so much now as the fear mongers at the UN government say ?


cute graph ... got one that overlays the increase in solar intensity over that span of time to show it rises along with the decline of co2?

All graphs you can find will reveal that CO2 follows temperature increases.

[muhmuh]

That chart is in no way defines exponential CO2.

it shows an exponential rise in co2 in the atmosphere... if you cant see it or keep denying it theres no point in talking to you any further


There is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years so why would a relatively tiny increase in CO2 mean so much now as the fear mongers at the UN government say ?

like i said ... find a graph that shows the solar intensity over those last 500 million years and overlay ith the the one you posted to geat a clear picture of what actually happened

[White_Male_Canada]

That chart is in no way defines exponential CO2.


it shows an exponential rise in co2 in the atmosphere... if you cant see it or keep denying it theres no point in talking to you any further

No it does not. That is a graph chart. Show me the mathematical calculations that prove exponential CO2.


There is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years so why would a relatively tiny increase in CO2 mean so much now as the fear mongers at the UN government say ?


like i said ... find a graph that shows the solar intensity over those last 500 million years and overlay ith the the one you posted to geat a clear picture of what actually happened

The clear picture will be that CO2 lags behind and follws temperature. It is in fact solar irradiance that acounts for the majority of temp fluctuations. You`re merely attempting post hoc propter hoc.

Been through all this before. Look for the other topics posted on the man-made global warming fallacy.

[chefmike]

Global Warming Myths and Facts

MYTH The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.

FACT There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.The most respected scientific organizations have stated unequivocally that global warming is happening, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005)

The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. In the case of global warming, scientists have given a clear warning, and we have more than enough facts to act on.

MYTH Global warming is just part of one of the earth's natural cycles.

FACT The global warming we are experiencing is not natural.People are causing it by burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more carbon dioxide (C02) into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. (IPCC 2001) Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)

Though natural amounts of CO2 vary from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels, looking back 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have corresponded with higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

MYTH As the ozone hole shrinks, global warming will no longer be a problem.

FACT Global warming and the ozone hole are different problems.The ozone hole is a thinning of the stratosphere's ozone layer, which is roughly 9 to 31 miles above the earth's surface. The depletion of the ozone is due to man-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A thinner ozone layer lets more harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach the earth's surface.

Global warming, on the other hand, is the increase in the earth's average temperature due to the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities.

MYTH We can adapt to climate change—civilization has survived droughts and ice ages before.

FACT Individual civilizations have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts.Although humans as a whole have survived the vagaries of drought, ice ages and more, not every society has. What's more, unless we limit the amount of heat-trapping gases we are putting into the atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since human civilization began 10,000 years ago. (IPCC 2001)

The consequences of continued warming at current rates are likely to be dire. Many densely populated areas, such as low-lying coastal regions, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection is that the homes of 13 to 88 million people around the world would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Poorer countries and small island nations will have the hardest time adapting. (McLean et al. 2001) In what appears to be the first forced move resulting from climate change, 100 residents of Tegua island in the Pacific Ocean were evacuated by the government because rising sea levels were flooding their island. Some 2,000 other islanders plan a similar move to escape rising waters.

Scarcity of water and food could lead to major conflicts with broad ripple effects throughout the globe. Even if people find a way to adapt, the wildlife and plants on which we depend may be unable to adapt to rapid climate change. While the world itself will not end, the world as we know it may disappear.


Sources
T.A. Boden, R.J. Stepanski, and F.W. Stoss, Trends '91: A Compendium of Data on Global Change, ORNL/CDIAC-46 (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, December 1991).

IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005

The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming [PDF], Environmental Defense, 2005.

McLean, R.F., A.Tsyban, V. Burkett, J.O. Codignotto, D.L. Forbes, N.Mimura, R.J. Beamish, V. Ittekkot, L. Bijlsma and I. Sanchez-Arevalo. 2001. IPCC Third Assessment Report, Contribution of Working Group II, Chapter 6.

fightglobalwarming.com

[trish]

WMC claims:

That chart is in no way defines exponential CO2.


of course "a quantity is DEFINED to have exponential growth if it's instantaneous rate of growth is proportional to the current value of the quantity. of course no chart can define exponential growth. however, can EXHIBIT exponential growth over a subinterval of its domain. the chart to which professor WMC refers does exhibit such growth. perhaps it can be better seen by reversing the picture so that time increases from left to right on the horizontal axis.

[trish]

the chart in its entirety looks like this.

[trish]

WMC's chart is interesting in that it shows the extraordinary amount of carbon in the atmosphere before the development of photosynthesis. the flowering plants captured that carbon and took it with them to their "graves" where it metamorphized into fossil fuels. Consider the eons it took to sequester all that carbon. Consider that how much of that store as been released in a two hundred year period.

you posted an interesting chart WMC...one that shows how living things have change the atmospheric composition in the past and how that very change can be reversed. thankyou for making the case for life induced global climate change.

[muhmuh]

No it does not. That is a graph chart. Show me the mathematical calculations that prove exponential CO2.

like i said there really is no point in discussing this with you if you deny blatantly obvious evidence


WMC's chart is interesting in that it shows the extraordinary amount of carbon in the atmosphere before the development of photosynthesis. the flowering plants captured that carbon and took it with them to their "graves" where it metamorphized into fossil fuels. Consider the eons it took to sequester all that carbon. Consider that how much of that store as been released in a two hundred year period.

you posted an interesting chart WMC...one that how living things have change the atmospheric composition in the past and how that very change can be reversed. thankyou for making the case for life induced global climate change.

for a deeper understanding of this you might want to read up on the daisyworld model if you dont know it already

[trish]

thanks for the tip, muhmuh...i haven't encountered it 'til now.

[White_Male_Canada]

you posted an interesting chart WMC...one that shows how living things have change the atmospheric composition in the past and how that very change can be reversed. thankyou for making the case for life induced global climate change.

You`re welcome, except plants “inhale”, photsynthesize CO2, humans do not. There were no humans then, where did the CO2 come from. There was very little human activity during the medieval warming period, where did the CO2 come from.


a quantity is DEFINED to have exponential growth if it's instantaneous rate of growth is proportional to the current value of the quantity. of course no chart can define exponential growth. however, can EXHIBIT exponential growth over a subinterval of its domain. the chart to which professor WMC refers does exhibit such growth. perhaps it can be better seen by reversing the picture so that time increases from left to right on the horizontal axis.

First, CO2 follows temperature changes, it does not lead. Secondly, of the whole atmosphere all CO2 only accounts for 0.038% of it. Of that amount man-made CO2 is only responsible for emitting about 2-4% of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere(0.038%).

The chart you paste does not quantify exponential CO2 growth. Prove it, exhibit the formula you refer to for calculating change in radiative forcing which is usually given in Watts per meter2 in specific regard to CO2.

Global warming religionists repeat what they are told and take it on faith. No critical thinking required and definitely no critical thinking tolerated.

[trish]

You claim the tail end of the chart doesn't exhibit exponential behavior. That a question about the illustrated curve per se, NOT a question about what climate model might account for the curve in question. Consequently to settle the claim it is not necessary to discuss physical models such as forcing. One merely needs to see a exponential expression will "suitably" fit the data. I don't know why your eyes aren't up to this simple task. So here's a quick (i don't have the data the chart was based on) back of the envelop fit: CO2 in ppmv over the interval from 1800 to the present is roughly equal to 2.48 x exp(0.0025 x date in years).

You're right that modern plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O2. That's why there's O2 in breathable amounts in the atmosphere today. Where did the initial CO2 come from? Perhaps it belched into the atmosphere from very early times. It doesn't much matter to the present argument. The point is all living things absorb carbon and sequester it in their graves. Eons worth of collected carbon have been released by the burning of fossil fuels in just a few hundred years.

Neither "my" chart nor yours (because the time scale is too large) shows an appreciable rise in CO2 during the middle ages. So there's no need to anwers the question where did all that medieval CO2 come from.

It's true that in a certain sense there's very little CO2 in the atmosphere. Roughly 380 parts per million. But climate is very sensitive to it's radiative properties. In 1800 there where 280 ppm. Let's see (380-280)/380 = 26% increase since the industrial revolution and just about 0% increase over the period from 1000 to 1800.

I agree with you about religionists too. No one who subscribes to one seems to be capable of an independent thought.

[guyone]

Neither do Bolsheviks for that matter.

[trish]

Neither do Bolsheviks for that matter.

nor their devoted critics for that matter; however the discussion above is apolitical...neither of us have made any use of Bolshevik principles. the exponential curve doesn't give a damn about ideology.

[White_Male_Canada]

Neither do Bolsheviks for that matter.

nor their devoted critics for that matter; however the discussion above is apolitical...neither of us have made any use of Bolshevik principles. the exponential curve doesn't give a damn about ideology...It's true that in a certain sense there's very little CO2 in the atmosphere. Roughly 380 parts per million. But climate is very sensitive to it's radiative properties


You`re still arguing exponential CO2 values yet still fail to prove it. Have CO2 levels gone up? Yes. Are they the main cause of GW? No.

Once more, exhibit the formula you refer to for calculating change in radiative forcing aka, "radiative properties", which is usually given in Watts per meter2 in specific regard to CO2.

And if there is about 380ppm CO2 then that makes it out to be about 1/400th of 1% of all gases present in the atmosphere yet the GW religionists preach it is the MAIN cause of GW.

But then Trish says:


Neither "my" chart nor yours (because the time scale is too large) shows an appreciable rise in CO2 during the middle ages. So there's no need to anwers the question where did all that medieval CO2 come from.

So if CO2 was not the cause of prior warming periods then it cannot be argued that from henceforth it is and always will be the cause, manmade of course.

As I`ve stated, CO2 follows temperature fluctuations and does not lead or cause them.

Notice how CO2 levels have little or no bearing on temperatures and how much solar irradiance does(1611 forward). Also take notice of how much warmer the medieval period was. The line that does not match is the CO2 concentration level, especially for the medieval period, when the temperature varied positively more than 0.6 C, while the CO2 kept low levels.

[trish]

WMC still insists,
You`re still arguing exponential CO2 values yet still fail to prove it.

The data proves it.

Once again WMC demands,
exhibit the formula you refer to for calculating change in radiative forcing.

i never refered to a formula or any specific model for calculating radiative forcing...you did...you exhibit it. a detailed calculation of forcing has to take into account the line structure of the CO2 band (more than 200 lines) as well as the spectral region on the long-side of the band partially occluded by water vapor line structure. this is more than i care to undertake for your benefit and more than you or our readers here would care to assess anyway. there are plenty of models out there, look them up. they all demonstrate the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in our current atmosphere.

WMC then pronounces,
if CO2 was not the cause of prior warming periods then it cannot be argued that from henceforth it is and always will be the cause, manmade of course.

of course. point to where i claimed that!
it's commonly accepted these days that the secular motion of the Earth is the primary forcing behind the periodic occurrence of ice ages and the intermittant warming periods. that's why, by the way, in your deep time climate chart the CO2 peaks lag slightly behind the temperature peaks. since we both agree CO2 isn't always the cause of warming, your most recent exhibit showing solar radiance, CO2 levels and temperature presents no paradox.

[White_Male_Canada]

The data proves it.

i never refered to a formula or any specific model for calculating radiative forcing...you did...you exhibit it. a detailed calculation of forcing has to take into account the line structure of the CO2 band (more than 200 lines) as well as the spectral region on the long-side of the band partially occluded by water vapor line structure. this is more than i care to undertake for your benefit and more than you or our readers here would care to assess anyway. there are plenty of models out there, look them up. they all demonstrate the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in our current atmosphere.

You posted a graph chart, not the science behind it.

Which formula do you adhere to, the IPCC and EEA formula, Pielke, Kiehl and Trenberth, Stefan-Boltzmann ? Or all of them?

if CO2 was not the cause of prior warming periods then it cannot be argued that from henceforth it is and always will be the cause, manmade of course.


of course. point to where i claimed that!

Your opinions match the type of rhetoric that emanates from the UN government and the IPCC.
So we all now know that CO2 is not the major cause of GW as the IPCC wishes people to think. Inconvenient for the UN government that solar irradiance is the major cause since the UN government cannot attempt to usurp control over the sun itself. Much more convenient to try usurp power over people with spurious claims that they are the reason temperatures are on the increase.


it's commonly accepted these days that the secular motion of the Earth is the primary forcing behind the periodic occurrence of ice ages and the intermittant warming periods. that's why, by the way, in your deep time climate chart the CO2 peaks lag slightly behind the temperature peaks. since we both agree CO2 isn't always the cause of warming, your most recent exhibit showing solar radiance, CO2 levels and temperature presents no paradox.

If the UN government and the IPCC are correct in that man-made CO2 is the major cause of GW, and if the world adheres to Kyoto, how much of a temperature change would occur?

[trish]

WMC harps again,
You posted a graph chart, not the science behind it.

Just fit an exponential curve to a set of data points taken from a chart (see previous post where I did that for you). There’s no science there. Just statistics and it's the last time I'm going to address it.

Now here’s an interesting exchange:


if CO2 was not the cause of prior warming periods then it cannot be argued that from henceforth it is and always will be the cause, manmade of course.

Quote:
of course. point to where i claimed that!


Your opinions match the type of rhetoric that emanates from the UN government and the IPCC.


In other words I didn’t claim that and you can’t bring yourself to admit you’re caricaturizing my argument. Thanks for your courtesy, fucker.

You go on to claim:




So we all now know that CO2 is not the major cause of GW as the IPCC wishes people to think. Inconvenient for the UN government that solar irradiance is the major cause since the UN government cannot attempt to usurp control over the sun itself. Much more convenient to try usurp power over people with spurious claims that they are the reason temperatures are on the increase.

Now your true motivations come to the surface. It’s not the science, it’s the politics. You hate the UN and everyone who has an opinion that happens to support the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. You may have noticed, however, that I’ve made no overtures to Kyoto. I’ve said in other posts, either in this thread or in this forum that I have no opinion on Kyoto. I will thank you to stop pigeon holing me as a mouthpiece for the UN. I'm just a HA.


CO2 is not the major cause of GW as the IPCC wishes people to think.

Okay, let’s do a back of the envelope calculation that gives some indication of the sensitivity of surface temperature T to the radiant energy flux F that strikes the surface. Since this a back of the envelope calculation we’ll assume the Earth re-radiates the absorbed energy as a black body in equilibrium. The fourth power of the surface temperature is then proportional to the radiant energy flux striking the surface, the constant of proportionality being the Stephan-Boltzman constant = s = 5.67 x 10^(-eight) watts per square meter per quartic degree Kelvin. Differenting this relationship we obtain the approximation
dT/dF = 0.25 (s x F)^(-3/4).
(Notice ^ denotes the phrase “to the power of”). Since the exponent is negative dT/dF decreases with F. So we obtain a very conservative approximation of the change in temperature per change in radiant energy flux if we take F to be the solar constant, namely F = 1258.93 watts per square meter. We readily find that dT/dF = 322 degrees Kelvin per Watt per square meter. This means that if the radiant energy flux changes by only 0.00008% the resulting change in the Earth’s surface temperature will be about 0.32 degrees C. This is why temperature is so sensitive to miniscule variations in greenhouse gases (which redirect long wave radiation back to the surface) and fluctuations in any other factor that impacts on the radiant energy flux striking the Earth’s surface, like changes in amount of daylight as the year progresses.

[chefmike]

Now your true motivations come to the surface. It’s not the science, it’s the politics. You hate the UN and everyone who has an opinion that happens to support the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

In a nutshell, trish... 8) :rock2 :P

[White_Male_Canada]

Now here’s an interesting exchange:

if CO2 was not the cause of prior warming periods then it cannot be argued that from henceforth it is and always will be the cause, manmade of course.



of course. point to where i claimed that!


Your opinions match the type of rhetoric that emanates from the UN government and the IPCC.


In other words I didn’t claim that and you can’t bring yourself to admit you’re caricaturizing my argument. Thanks for your courtesy, fucker.

I`m clarifying your statement by following simple logic. The fact you`ve been caught out frustrates you and leads to the "fucker" nonsense.


I’ve said in other posts, either in this thread or in this forum that I have no opinion on Kyoto. I will thank you to stop pigeon holing me as a mouthpiece for the UN. I'm just a HA.

No opinion other than you agree with the UN`s IPCC ?

CO2 is not the major cause of GW as the IPCC wishes people to think.


Okay, let’s do a back of the envelope calculation that gives some indication of the sensitivity of surface temperature T to the radiant energy flux F that strikes the surface. Since this a back of the envelope calculation we’ll assume the Earth re-radiates the absorbed energy as a black body in equilibrium. The fourth power of the surface temperature is then proportional to the radiant energy flux striking the surface, the constant of proportionality being the Stephan-Boltzman constant = s = 5.67 x 10^(-eight) watts per square meter per quartic degree Kelvin. Differenting this relationship we obtain the approximation
dT/dF = 0.25 (s x F)^(-3/4).
(Notice ^ denotes the phrase “to the power of”). Since the exponent is negative dT/dF decreases with F. So we obtain a very conservative approximation of the change in temperature per change in radiant energy flux if we take F to be the solar constant, namely F = 1258.93 watts per square meter. We readily find that dT/dF = 322 degrees Kelvin per Watt per square meter. This means that if the radiant energy flux changes by only 0.00008% the resulting change in the Earth’s surface temperature will be about 0.32 degrees C.

That whole treatise has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2.


This is why temperature is so sensitive to miniscule variations in greenhouse gases (which redirect long wave radiation back to the surface) and fluctuations in any other factor that impacts on the radiant energy flux striking the Earth’s surface, like changes in amount of daylight as the year progresses.

That last qoute of your alludes to what the UN government`s IPCC submission previously stated, "The direct increase in radiative heating of the lower atmosphere due to doubling CO2 is 4 wm-2."

To move forward, do you adhere to the IPCC`s modeling predictions calculated with a doubling of CO2 included ? If so, how did they calculate exponential growth of CO2 ?

[trish]

WMC

Let’s see:

You’ve misrepresented my assertions and you continue to misrepresent them when i make them explicity clear. That's why the fucker, fucker. And you misrepresent the assertions of the IPCC. It’s idiotic to claim, as you do, that the thousands of climatologists involved in the IPCC assessment believe that CO2 forcing is responsible for all climate changes in the geological past. I’m not saying you’re an idiot. I’m say you’ve got no integrity.

You drop names but you give no substantial arguments of your own. What formula do you use?
Your odd locutions (like “that chart in no way defines exponential growth” or "proves exponential CO2") and your repeated insistence on mundane phrases (“usually given in Watts per meter2”), which I suppose you suppose makes you sound like a scientist,
your inability to distinquish between a curve that exhibits exponential behavior over an interval and a theory from which exponential behavior can be deduced,
your inability to comprehend that a derivation from first principles (which you continually demand) is not a proof (experiment and methodical observation come as close as we get to proof in science),
all the above, indicate your unfamiliarity with the topic upon which you labor to pronounce. It’s horrifying what little integrity you seem to have.

So why do you insist human behaviors are not a primary factor in the recent climate changes? You don’t want the UN to have an excuse to advise Canada on energy policy. Your opposition to UN is so vociferous it clouds your ability to think about any related topic with an independent frame of mind. You’re so wrapped up in what you perceive the political consequences of a CO2 forced climate might be, that you can’t control yourself. You can’t, can you? You’re always on the edge of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being religiously bound to their own view. Now i agree it's closed minded to be blindly bound to your own perspective. But judging from your other posts in this forum you're something of a religious zealot. So just what does it mean when you accuse someone of being a religionist? What kind of loopy criticism is that? You simply have no intellectual integrity and I simply have no more reason to continue of this discussion.

But before I go, hold out your hands….palms up, sweetie…yeah, just like that…HERE’S YOUR ASS.

[specialk]

WMC



But before I go, hold out your hands….palms up, sweetie…yeah, just like that…HERE’S YOUR ASS.

You go girl!!! :wink:

[chefmike]

WMC

Let’s see:

You’ve misrepresented my assertions and you continue to misrepresent them when i make them explicity clear. That's why the fucker, fucker. And you misrepresent the assertions of the IPCC. It’s idiotic to claim, as you do, that the thousands of climatologists involved in the IPCC assessment believe that CO2 forcing is responsible for all climate changes in the geological past. I’m not saying you’re an idiot. I’m say you’ve got no integrity.

You drop names but you give no substantial arguments of your own. What formula do you use?
Your odd locutions (like “that chart in no way defines exponential growth” or "proves exponential CO2") and your repeated insistence on mundane phrases (“usually given in Watts per meter2”), which I suppose you suppose makes you sound like a scientist,
your inability to distinquish between a curve that exhibits exponential behavior over an interval and a theory from which exponential behavior can be deduced,
your inability to comprehend that a derivation from first principles (which you continually demand) is not a proof (experiment and methodical observation come as close as we get to proof in science),
all the above, indicate your unfamiliarity with the topic upon which you labor to pronounce. It’s horrifying what little integrity you seem to have.

So why do you insist human behaviors are not a primary factor in the recent climate changes? You don’t want the UN to have an excuse to advise Canada on energy policy. Your opposition to UN is so vociferous it clouds your ability to think about any related topic with an independent frame of mind. You’re so wrapped up in what you perceive the political consequences of a CO2 forced climate might be, that you can’t control yourself. You can’t, can you? You’re always on the edge of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being religiously bound to their own view. Now i agree it's closed minded to be blindly bound to your own perspective. But judging from your other posts in this forum you're something of a religious zealot. So just what does it mean when you accuse someone of being a religionist? What kind of loopy criticism is that? You simply have no intellectual integrity and I simply have no more reason to continue of this discussion.

But before I go, hold out your hands….palms up, sweetie…yeah, just like that…HERE’S YOUR ASS.

LMFAO!

trish ftw, once again!

[White_Male_Canada]

You’ve misrepresented my assertions and you continue to misrepresent them when i make them explicity clear. That's why the fucker, fucker. And you misrepresent the assertions of the IPCC. It’s idiotic to claim, as you do, that the thousands of climatologists involved in the IPCC assessment believe that CO2 forcing is responsible for all climate changes in the geological past. I’m not saying you’re an idiot. I’m say you’ve got no integrity.

And you`re misinformed. The IPCC report is drafted and finalized by appointees of governments who may have little or no expertise in many of the wide ranging fields covered. Those thousands of scientists have no expertise in climate modeling,which is the preserve of only a handful of people who generally are in government funded institutions rather than more independent bodies. The IPCC claims that CO2 rising levels cause rising temperatures while only reporting the presumed cause and conveniently omit historical referances to temperatures.


It’s horrifying what little integrity you seem to have.

It`s bizarre to see how uninformed you are as you reduce yourself to a final coda consisting of merely nothing more than a rant.


It’s idiotic to claim, as you do, that the thousands of climatologists involved in the IPCC assessment believe that CO2 forcing is responsible for all climate changes in the geological past... So why do you insist human behaviors are not a primary factor in the recent climate changes?

-CO2 was not the cause of the medieval warming period and there is no evidence to suggest it is the main of cause of GW now.

-IPCC computer modeling hasn`t been proven. And using them to backcheck ? They do a terrible job of modeling the last 100 years. In fact they are way off.So what makes them so good at predicting the future? I have a computer model that predicts the DOW average for the next 100 years. Trust me, send me all your money.

- CO2 levels lag and follow temperature changes.

-National Research Council report on the IPCC/Mann chart stated that Mann`s method was biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped temp. chart, that uncertainties had been underestimated. They also expressed very little confidence in the IPCC's claim about the 1990s being the warmest decade in the millennium.



You’re so wrapped up in what you perceive the political consequences of a CO2 forced climate might be, that you can’t control yourself.

I do believe you`re the one who is out of control and in dire need of an astronaut diaper.

Speaking of the political climate, the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (pols) was released before the report itself so that " Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. See Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15 "
They released the IPCC's the political conclusions first, and then will adjust the actual science to fit them.


To move forward, do you adhere to the IPCC`s modeling predictions calculated with a doubling of CO2 included ? If so, how did they calculate exponential growth of CO2 ?

Or are you that naive and take everything at face value,accept it and regurgitate it as the whole truth.

[trish]

thanks I_love_Cristina_Bianchini, and thankyou chefmike. thanks specialk...i love the avatar. i hardly ever take the phrase LOL seriously...but i really am laughing out loud. thanks for your support.

[muhmuh]

which car would i have to drive to melt the caps fast enough for canada to flood and wmc to drown during both out lifetime?

[White_Male_Canada]

Trish is either one of two things, ignorant or just intelligent enough not to have taken the bait.


how did they calculate exponential growth of CO2


CO2 cannot absorb all the energy in the frequency bands it absorbs. Like adding shade to a window, once the room goes dark it doesn`t matter how many more shades you add, you cannot block extra light. CO2 is not and never will be the major cause of GW. And what Canadian in their right mind would want a colder world. 8)

Regardless of all of the varying assumptions about differences in the exponential rate of greenhouse forcing or the presence or absence of sulfates, one clear fact emerges. In general, they are all straight lines. Once greenhouse warming starts, it proceeds as straight line, not as an exponential increase.

Pat Michaels
Environmental Sciences
U. of V.

[LG]

CO2 cannot absorb all the energy in the frequency bands it absorbs. Like adding shade to a window, once the room goes dark it doesn`t matter how many more shades you add, you cannot block extra light. CO2 is not and never will be the major cause of GW. And what Canadian in their right mind would want a colder world.

Regardless of all of the varying assumptions about differences in the exponential rate of greenhouse forcing or the presence or absence of sulfates, one clear fact emerges. In general, they are all straight lines. Once greenhouse warming starts, it proceeds as straight line, not as an exponential increase.

Pat Michaels
Environmental Sciences
U. of V.

WMC,

Your random selection of quotes from any and every scientist who seems to disagree with the consensus view damages your arguments becuase it revelas that you do not have a single position on the issue.

Unlike many of the other skepitics you mention, Pat Michaels does not entirely disagree with global warming theory and he accepts that some warming will occur. Michaels is also a fellow of the conservative Cato Insitute and it is also known that he has carried out global warming research paid by a corporations with interests in fossil fuels, which should lead us to doubt his integrity.

In any case, Michaels is saying that global warming will occur to a smaller extent and will not be catastrophic. But a while ago, you were poo-pooing the science and saying that global warming will not happen at all. So which one is it, genius? You also quoted some other scientists who seemed to only partly disagree with the consensus. There are different theories and you seem to support every one of them as long as it is not the one supported by the majority of scientists. Are you just trying to be reactionary? Or are we to understand you haven't got a clue but merely would like to disagree with the consensus and attack valid scientific theory by claiming it's leftist propaganda.

I personally feel you haven't got a real position on many things but just like to piss of the liberals with inflammatory posts. But I have already analysed your actual beliefs in a previous post:


Below are the 10 pillar's of WMC's faith.

1. The Christian right is ALWAYS right. That is why it is called "the right". The left should therefore be called "the wrong".
2. Everything I say is right and anyone who doesn't agree with me is a communist, a Stalinist or worse
3. My sources are gospel. All other sources are leftist propaganda unless I choose to use them myself.
4. George Bush is the second coming, Condi Rice is Mary Magdalene and Dick Cheney is Peter and Paul rolled into one.
5. Environmentalists are wrong. Conservatives like me, who've never read a single scientific paper know more than all those guys with PhDs. Global warming is not happening. If it is happening, it's normal. If it's not normal, it's not caused by carbon emissions.
6. If they really want a clean environment, poor people should cut with the graffiti and go to the toilet less.
7. The war in Iraq was justified. It was won. Nobody is dying. Crime rates in Iraq are lower than in downtown Detroit. The economy is booming.
8. Gay people are sick, demented pervs.
9. Annoying people for the hell of it is fun. The purpose of a trangender forum isn't to communicate with and about transgirls but to annoy the hell out of all the other members.
10. Annnoying people can best be done by making no sense at all and by always insisting I am right. Which, of course, I am.

:D

[Jonny29]

If global warming is not man made(And I certainly don't know )Here is a question. Since temperatures have been measured on Mars, have they gone up ,down or stayed the same?Thank you

[White_Male_Canada]

If global warming is not man made(And I certainly don't know )Here is a question. Since temperatures have been measured on Mars, have they gone up ,down or stayed the same?Thank you

Global warming on Mars

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

Global warming on Pluto

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697309.htm

[chefmike]

:arrow:

[trish]

Bill O'Reilly on 60 Minutes this evening said,

"Global warming is here and government should do something about it."

That's all we need, right? Forget the science, Bill O'Reilly says it's here and government has a responibility to deal with it.

Can any culture warriors out there tell us whether good Ol' Bill takes this same position on his show? Just curious.