Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[FLVOL69]

Listen to Answer Senator Gets When He Asks Obama

Typical well qualified and informed Obama appointee. It's blatantly obvious this woman has no ****ing business whatsoever working for the EPA.This is one of greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the american taxpayers.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Care to show off your calculations?

In more climate news,

NASA Satellites Start Tracking Down the Sources of Climate Change

European carbon market reform set for 2019

Bank of England warns of huge financial risk from fossil fuel investments

El Nino Officially Declared for 2015

just doing it in my head it's about .013 deg C per decade. So it's 1.3 degree C per 100 years. I could care less. My grandkids may give a crap, but I sure don't. You figure out how to make the rest of the world walk the walk and I will agree we should MAYBE do something. Until then, take your tree hugging and go somewhere else.

 

[BartW]

That's the problem. If you look at just CO2 alone according to their best calculations which are probably just as good as any you or anyone else can come up with its affect is pretty small. So, they claim there are all these positive feedbacks that amplify the affect of CO2. Only so far, there aren't any positive feedbacks. And, here is the kicker. Even they agree that as CO2 concentration increases its affect diminishes. That is as the atmosphere saturates with CO2 there is no increased warming without the feedbacks. Which it appears is where we are. However, we have their minions in the Obama's EPA going ahead with their plans to increase carbon restrictions which will kill our economy [ALARMIST!] to the delight of some of the other economic powers of the world-namely China and India. Hopefully, our next President can reverse what these knotheads are doing. And, I hope the states just ignore them.

SandVol, didn’t you just learn that water vapor is a pretty significant positive feedback? Do you have even the slightest clue what you’re talking about with the saturation argument?

Is the CO2 effect saturated?
A Saturated Gassy Argument

just doing it in my head it's about .013 deg C per decade. So it's 1.3 degree C per 100 years. I could care less. My grandkids may give a crap, but I sure don't. You figure out how to make the rest of the world walk the walk and I will agree we should MAYBE do something. Until then, take your tree hugging and go somewhere else.

Nice math…

Ok so you've gone from 'a zillionth' of a degree per decade to .013 C/decade... now care to share where you're getting these numbers?

Unless you're about to croak climate change will very likely have a significant influence on your life, be it directly or because of policy actions. Even if you don't give two ****s about your grandkids it would still be to your (camp's) benefit to end the petty nonsense and engage in serious dialogue.



And y'all can drop the "we can't take action because China" talking point already. China has committed to cutting emissions and is already setting up a cap-and-trade market. Expect more to follow as the new global treaty is hammered out.

 

[BartW]

I find it funny how the rhetoric shifts in these kind of conversations. One moment there is no climate change, the next it is just not caused by people, the next it is just not that big of a deal, then back to there is no climate change.

bump

 

[BartW]

James Inhofe: There Is No Global Warming Because God

“I take my religion seriously,” Inhofe wrote. “[T]his is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains.”

Inhofe quoted one of his “favorite Bible verses,” Genesis 8:22, to back up his claim. The verse reads, “As long as the earth remains, There will be springtime and harvest, Cold and heat, winter and summer.”

In a radio interview, Inhofe said it was ridiculous that scientists continue to address global warming. “The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous,” he said.

:no:

 

[Sandvol]

SandVol, didn’t you just learn that water vapor is a pretty significant positive feedback? Do you have even the slightest clue what you’re talking about with the saturation argument?

Is the CO2 effect saturated?
A Saturated Gassy Argument


Nice math…

Ok so you've gone from 'a zillionth' of a degree per decade to .013 C/decade... now care to share where you're getting these numbers?

Unless you're about to croak climate change will very likely have a significant influence on your life, be it directly or because of policy actions. Even if you don't give two ****s about your grandkids it would still be to your (camp's) benefit to end the petty nonsense and engage in serious dialogue.



And y'all can drop the "we can't take action because China" talking point already. China has committed to cutting emissions and is already setting up a cap-and-trade market. Expect more to follow as the new global treaty is hammered out.

Whatever is feeding back. It's definitely negative. Would that really make sense that water is a positive feedback? I have about as much clue as to what I'm talking about as you do. P.S.-Your Saturated Gassy Link is B.S. His guess is as good as anybody's.

 

[Sandvol]

just doing it in my head it's about .013 deg C per decade. So it's 1.3 degree C per 100 years. I could care less. My grandkids may give a crap, but I sure don't. You figure out how to make the rest of the world walk the walk and I will agree we should MAYBE do something. Until then, take your tree hugging and go somewhere else.

You do understand why Bart and his whack job pals are spreading this BS about direct measurement?

 

[BartW]

Whatever is feeding back. It's definitely negative. Would that really make sense that water is a positive feedback? I have about as much clue as to what I'm talking about as you do. P.S.-Your Saturated Gassy Link is B.S. His guess is as good as anybody's.

Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. As temperature rises, more H2O changes phase from liquid to gas. This has been observed. So yes, obviously water vapor is a positive feedback. You (finally) established this a couple of pages ago.

The author Spencer Weart is a physicist (Cornell, UC Boulder) turned science historian. The other author Raymond Pierrehumbert is a professor of geophysical sciences at UChicago (alma mater MIT) who focuses in climatology. The website RealClimate is run by Gavin Schmidt, head of NOAA. Even I have way more relevant degrees and experience than you.

You've been proven wrong time and time again in this thread. You barely have a clue, if at all. The term that comes to mind is fractal wrongness. Their "guess" is incontrovertibly better than yours.

You do understand why Bart and his whack job pals are spreading this BS about direct measurement?

 

[82_VOL_83]

SandVol, didn’t you just learn that water vapor is a pretty significant positive feedback? Do you have even the slightest clue what you’re talking about with the saturation argument?

Is the CO2 effect saturated?
A Saturated Gassy Argument


Nice math…

Ok so you've gone from 'a zillionth' of a degree per decade to .013 C/decade... now care to share where you're getting these numbers?

Unless you're about to croak climate change will very likely have a significant influence on your life, be it directly or because of policy actions. Even if you don't give two ****s about your grandkids it would still be to your (camp's) benefit to end the petty nonsense and engage in serious dialogue.



And y'all can drop the "we can't take action because China" talking point already. China has committed to cutting emissions and is already setting up a cap-and-trade market. Expect more to follow as the new global treaty is hammered out.

No, you can do the research on specific heats and such. China is making nice because it will be profitable for their government. Nothing more nothing less. Your nativity is one thing, your continued insistence on being naive is disturbing.

 

[82_VOL_83]

bump

I do not deny that the climate is changing. It is impossible for the ecosystem to reach stasis by its very nature. I don't deny that man MAY be having a measurable effect on it (remember what I call measurable is in hundredths of thousandths of inches). I just don't believe that it is worth the fuss that the alarmists make and the support you continually give to falsified data.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. As temperature rises, more H2O changes phase from liquid to gas. This has been observed. So yes, obviously water vapor is a positive feedback. You (finally) established this a couple of pages ago.

The author Spencer Weart is a physicist (Cornell, UC Boulder) turned science historian. The other author Raymond Pierrehumbert is a professor of geophysical sciences at UChicago (alma mater MIT) who focuses in climatology. The website RealClimate is run by Gavin Schmidt, head of NOAA. Even I have way more relevant degrees and experience than you.

You've been proven wrong time and time again in this thread. You barely have a clue, if at all. The term that comes to mind is fractal wrongness. Their "guess" is incontrovertibly better than yours.

So now we are going to turn into a jungle planet?

 

[82_VOL_83]

I just love it when someone says you are wrong because I say you are and then presents it as fact.

 

[Mtntrout]

I just love it when someone says you are wrong because I say you are and then presents it as fact.

The staggering irony...

 

[BartW]

No, you can do the research on specific heats and such. China is making nice because it will be profitable for their government. Nothing more nothing less. Your nativity is one thing, your continued insistence on being naive is disturbing.

My nativity? Specific heats and such? All I’m asking is where you got your numbers.

I do not deny that the climate is changing. It is impossible for the ecosystem to reach stasis by its very nature. I don't deny that man MAY be having a measurable effect on it (remember what I call measurable is in hundredths of thousandths of inches). I just don't believe that it is worth the fuss that the alarmists make and the support you continually give to falsified data.

Now you’re measuring climate change in ‘hundredths of thousands of inches’?

So now we are going to turn into a jungle planet?

Is this a bad attempt at a racist joke? You’ve totally lost me.

I just love it when someone says you are wrong because I say you are and then presents it as fact.

…

 

[BartW]

Google has developed a technology to tell whether ‘facts’ on the Internet are true

:question:

 

[Orangeslice13]

I'm watching a show on AHC that says climate change destroyed the Mayan empire.

 

[tumscalcium]

I'm watching a show on AHC that says climate change destroyed the Mayan empire.

Shouldn't have been burning fossil fuels...

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I'm watching a show on AHC that says climate change destroyed the Mayan empire.

:crazy: But it left all the pots & pans in the kitchen?

 

[AirVol]

I'm watching a show on AHC that says climate change destroyed the Mayan empire.

Yah me too. Guess they had global warming then too.

 

[Sandvol]

Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. As temperature rises, more H2O changes phase from liquid to gas. This has been observed. So yes, obviously water vapor is a positive feedback. You (finally) established this a couple of pages ago.

The author Spencer Weart is a physicist (Cornell, UC Boulder) turned science historian. The other author Raymond Pierrehumbert is a professor of geophysical sciences at UChicago (alma mater MIT) who focuses in climatology. The website RealClimate is run by Gavin Schmidt, head of NOAA. Even I have way more relevant degrees and experience than you.

You've been proven wrong time and time again in this thread. You barely have a clue, if at all. The term that comes to mind is fractal wrongness. Their "guess" is incontrovertibly better than yours.

And then more clouds form and cool everything off.

 

[theFallGuy]

I'm watching a show on AHC that says climate change destroyed the Mayan empire.

too many cow farts probably

 

[Mtntrout]

I'm watching a show on AHC that says climate change destroyed the Mayan empire.

Yes, clearing the forests in central America disrupted moisture transport systems and decreased rainfall (changing regional climate).

Some believe humans can't impact climate. History shows otherwise.

 

[Mtntrout]

And then more clouds form and cool everything off.

Clouds form when water condenses. Water condenses when saturation humidity is reached, which increases with temperature. The warmer it is, the more water vapor ends up in the air (specific humidity) no matter how you slice it.

 

[Sandvol]

Clouds form when water condenses. Water condenses when saturation humidity is reached, which increases with temperature. The warmer it is, the more water vapor ends up in the air (specific humidity) no matter how you slice it.

So, then why doesn't it continue to warm?

 

[Orangeslice13]

Yes, clearing the forests in central America disrupted moisture transport systems and decreased rainfall (changing regional climate).

Some believe humans can't impact climate. History shows otherwise.

Really. They said a meteorite hit the other side of the world causing cold dry conditions south of the equator which lead to the prolonged drought and the fall of the Mayans.



But that doesn't fit anyone's adgreda.