Derails from Climate Change News thread.

[macdoc]

simple question for the deniers.

Does C02 absorb IR?

[mistermack]

simple question for the deniers.

Does C02 absorb IR?

Yes it does.
Question for the simple alarmists :
What happens then?

[macdoc]

It gets hotter as the ocean air retain the IR....first bit of science you got correct since you've been posting about client.

This happens



this happens



and this happens



Now you admit that CO2 traps IR...a fine step in the correct direction

Yet you don't admit we have altered the climate by increasing the CO2 from 283 ppm to 400 ppm????!!!, a 40% increase..
...you don't think this will shift the climate despite all the evidence that says it has ???

I'd like to hear than line of reasoning laid out.

[Seth]

It gets hotter as the ocean air retain the IR....first bit of science you got correct since you've been posting about client.


Now you admit that CO2 traps IR...a fine step in the correct direction

Yet you don't admit we have altered the climate by increasing the CO2 from 283 ppm to 400 ppm????!!!, a 40% increase..
...you don't think this will shift the climate despite all the evidence that says it has ???

I'd like to hear than line of reasoning laid out.

Nobody said it doesn't shift the climate. What I'm saying is that the climate is shifting all the time, from hot to cold and back again, for billions of years. It's a self-regulating system that oscillates between historic extremes of hot and cold. There has been more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now, by far, and life persists. There has been less snow and ice, and life persists. There has been much, much more snow and ice and life persists.

Nothing that has happened (actually happened so far) falls outside the historic range of temperatures estimated by science, and in spite of the hue and cry that the earth is getting warmer it's not getting THAT MUCH warmer, and it's not getting fatally warmer fast enough to warrant all the panic.

And as it gets warmer, and CO2 increases, plant life will increase, which will increase transpoevaporation, which will result in more moisture in the air, which will result in more clouds, which will result in a higher albedo, which will result in less insolation, which will result in temperatures being forced back the other way just as it's been doing for billions of years.

The biggest contributor to "global warming" is insolation and even minute variances in solar output throw a monkey wrench in all the climate computer models, none of which predicted the last 16 years of flat temperatures.

If the computer models were even 50 percent accurate I'd be more inclined to give them some credence, but at the moment they are just WAGs and nothing more, and no two of them agree with any of the others.

If the science were as exact as you suggest, every climate computer model would predict the same thing and those predictions would come to pass. So far every single climate model is batting 0.000 for accuracy.

"Climate science" lost my trust way back in the 70s when it was predicted that we'd all be the temperature of melting lead by now.

Didn't happen because the earth self-corrects, and I'd rather it skews towards warm than skewing towards cold.

[Tero]

Good of you to study all that Seth.but those wild swings of CO2 levels take millions if years. You are not grasping the current fast rate of change. It should be barely measurable in 200 years. 2000 yes.

[mistermack]

God Macdoc, it's hard to talk seriously to you. You constantly post the most stupid drivel.

Nobody on this thread has ever denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I can't, I just CAN'T believe that you are so stupid, that you don't equate ''CO2 is a greenhouse gas'' with ''CO2 traps IR''.

I've said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas so many times on this and other threads, you have read it literally dozens and dozens of times. You're either determined to appear stupid, or you just don't comprehend English.

If you think all you have to do is establish that CO2 traps IR, and that this is something new, that nobody else knows, you're just inhabiting la la land.

Or just trolling in the most pathetic fashion.

As far as this bollocks about the oceans is concerned, the ocean temperatures do not reflect the vast amount of missing heat, that the Earth is supposed to have soaked up.

The oceans have warmed slightly, and they should be warming, at this point in the cycle.
The oceans are still cold from the last ice-age glaciation. At any point when the atmosphere is warmer than the long term average, the oceans will take in heat. That's what they have been doing, ever since the ice melted. The long-term average is much colder than today, because we are actually in a temporary warm inter-glacial, in the middle of an ice age.

According to the original models that started the mad panic, there is a huge amount of missing heat. That's why people have desperately been trying to claim that the missing heat is in the deep ocean, because they can't find it in surface waters or the atmosphere. Conveniently, the deepest parts of the oceans are not adequately monitored for temperature.

The truth is that the heat isn't anywhere, and the models are wrong.
In any case, the models didn't predict that the oceans would warm, and the atmosphere would not.
But that's what you're trying to claim. Face it, the whole thing is built on bollocks.
They need to start again, and own up to what they don't know. Which is an awful lot.

[macdoc]

he oceans have warmed slightly, and they should be warming, at this point in the cycle.

Making up things to fit your misguided view.

Why should they be warming when reality is we are moving to a cooling phase in the Milankovich cycle.

What you are doing it attempting to deny that increasing CO2 by 40% in a short time period will have no impact despite saying CO2 traps IR.

And the trying to replace the warming that is so clearly obvious in the observed record.with the idea that there is some other driver...
what is the other driver?
Are you claiming we are moving to the opposite phase of the Milankovitch cycle ...one that is warming despite the reality that we are not???!



You'll twist any fact to avoid the reality.

It's getting warmer.
We're responsible due to burning of fossil fuels.

The climate science community is in agreement, the observations are in agreement ( cooler stratosphere ) for fuck sakes even Exxon acknowledges it.

Do you really think AGW is limited to the atmosphere?

You're squiming like a pinned worm just to avoid the obvious. You flail about, They're wrong, the models are wrong, there is no heat....
there is one person that is incredibly wrong about what is going on and that is you.

Just where the fuck do you think the additional IR trapped ends up??>

Get over it....

[macdoc]

Another simple question since you actually got the first one correct.

If CO2, which is a greenhouse gas, is increased by 40% in a short period.
Where is the result of that increase in captured IR in terms of the radiative imbalance it engenders in the earth's heat budget?
If it's trapping 40% more that pre-industrial, where is the resulting heat energy?

some of it here perhaps?


( the signs are reversed on the bottom )

or perhaps here?

[Seth]

Good of you to study all that Seth.but those wild swings of CO2 levels take millions if years. You are not grasping the current fast rate of change. It should be barely measurable in 200 years. 2000 yes.

Doesn't matter. It'll all even out in the long run. It always does.

Adapt or die.

[Seth]

and only 4 times the loss of Greenland ice in 2012 alone.

Ya know what's great about Greenland melting down? There's millions of square miles of unexplored mineral resources...like gold and rubies (so far)!

Get all that fucking ice out of the way and look at all that land available for mining and drilling and occupation!

Go Global Warming!

Edit: And WWII fighter aircraft in excellent condition too!

[Seth]

The Daily Caller


Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?
5:03 PM 05/16/2014

Michael Bastasch


The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.

Since coming out with this figure last year, climate scientist John Cook of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute has been under fire for the methodology he used.

“Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on [anthropogenic global warming] is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research,’’ Cook and his fellow authors wrote in their study which was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters last year.

The university has told climate skeptic blogger Brandon Schollenberger that the data on the study he possesses was illegally obtained and they would take legal action against him if he published it.

“UQ has therefore published all data relating to the paper that is of any scientific value to the wider community,” said Queensland’s acting pro-vice-­chancellor Alastair McEwan.

“UQ withheld only data that could identify research participants who took part in the ­research on condition of anonymity,” McEwan added. “Such conditions are not uncommon in academic ­research, and any breach of confidentiality could deter people from participating in valuable research in the future.”

McEwan said that all the data Cook used to come up with his “97 percent” consensus was published on his blog SkepticalScience.com. The school says it wants to protect the privacy of those surveyed in Cook’s research.

“That’s right. The University of Queensland sent me a threatening letter which threatens me further if I show anyone that letter,” Schollenberger wrote on his blog Thursday. “Confusing, no? It gets stranger. Along with its threats, the University of Queensland included demands.”

“According to it, I’m not just prevented from disclosing any of the ‘intellectual property’ (IP) I’ve gained access to,” Schollenberger added. “I’m prevented from even doing anything which involves using the data. That means I can’t discuss the data. I can’t perform analyses on it. I can’t share anything about it with you.”

“Apparently I badgered Cook too much. I tried too hard to get him to do his duty and try to protect his subjects’ privacy. The University of Queensland needs me to stop. If I don’t, they’ll sue me,” he said.

Cook’s paper has been touted by environmentalists and the Obama administration as evidence that virtually all scientists agree that global warming is a man-made threat.

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” President Obama said last year announcing his climate plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

But Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

Queensland’s legal fight with Schollenberger comes while UK news outlets are reporting that one of the world’s top scientific journals rejected a study from five climate scientists for political reasons.

The UK Times reported that a reviewer with the journal Environmental Research Letters rejected the study because it was “harmful” to the climate cause because it “opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate skeptics media side.”

“The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading, told the Times.

Bengtsson was one of the study’s authors and recently joined the camp of scientists skeptical of global warming.

[mistermack]

and only 4 times the loss of Greenland ice in 2012 alone.

Ya know what's great about Greenland melting down? There's millions of square miles of unexplored mineral resources...like gold and rubies (so far)!

Get all that fucking ice out of the way and look at all that land available for mining and drilling and occupation!

Go Global Warming!

Edit: And WWII fighter aircraft in excellent condition too!

In any case, a large part of the melting of ice in the north is due to reduced albedo of the ice, because of soot particles. This is quietly ignored by the alarmist loonies, as they would rather people didn't know.

Compare the North to the South, and ANTARCTIC sea ice is at record levels. No soot, lots of ice.

Another interesting fact is that Greenland has not warmed significantly. It has lagged well behind the rest of the planet. It's warmest decades were in the 1930s and 1940s, and the warmest year on record is 1941. So if it's ice is melting, it's more likely to be the soot than air temperatures.

[Tero]

So let me get this straight. As soon as you start measuring something, you are an alarmist loonie? As far as I know, the scientists are not the ones telling you to do this or that. The politicians have to do that.

[cronus]

By the time this argument fizzles out the Amazon will have burnt down. Need somekind of unorthodox means of shutting the deniers down. Treat it like the drugs turf war it is. Know what I mean? These are not usual times....there is no margin in time or space for a counter-argument by idiots.

[mistermack]

By the time this argument fizzles out the Amazon will have burnt down. Need somekind of unorthodox means of shutting the deniers down. Treat it like the drugs turf war it is. Know what I mean? These are not usual times....there is no margin in time or space for a counter-argument by idiots.

The rain forests are a totally different subject, and I've always been against ANY reduction. We've gone much too far already. But I'm against their destruction for conservation reasons, not the one-off release of carbon.