Climate change: Is it for real?

another republican kangaroo court

lamar smith's house science committee is worse than the benghazi committee

"Dr. Michael Mann, Earth System Science Center-Penn State University/Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change (2nd edition) joins Thom. Climate Scientist Thomas Karl has been accused by House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith of playing a part in a vast conspiracy - all for publishing a groundbreaking study on global warming. Why are oil companies and their Republican lapdogs in Congress waging a war on science? And what kind of effect is that war having on valuable environmental research?"

http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/noaa-defies-gop-mccarthy-witchhunt#sthash.sVfRdMJJ.dpuf

[video=youtube;iHuNeVVD80M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHuNeVVD80M[/video]



The House science committee is worse than the Benghazi committee

by David Roberts on October 26, 2015

Last Thursday, the nation watched with a mix of amusement and horror as the House Benghazi committee spent 11 hours grilling Hillary Clinton on a bizarre farrago of issues, many of which bore only tangential connection to the Benghazi attack.

Over the past few weeks, the political narrative seems to have shifted from "Clinton in trouble" to "congressional witch hunt seeks to take down Clinton." Between McCarthy's accidental truth telling, an ex-staffer confirming the worst reports about the committee, and another House Republican conceding the obvious, it has become clear that the Benghazi committee is a thoroughly partisan political endeavor. Opinion has turned, but Republicans are trapped.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616370/science-committee-worse-benghazi-committee

 

Some other guy who's name wasn't worth remembering refuses to explain how he thinks CO2 causes global warming. He says you can tell me, so go for it, explain the mechanism by which CO2 causes global warming?

 

again? ok


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

"The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: −89.2°C (−128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe. Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold. Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon? The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun. At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

This would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans. Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was −18 °C. In other words, it would be freezing cold even at the height of summer.

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.



Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)

What can keep the energy in the atmosphere? The answer is greenhouse gases. Science has known about the effect of certain gases for over a century. They ‘capture’ energy, and then emit it in random directions. The primary greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour, nitrous oxide and ozone – comprise around 1% of the air.

This tiny amount has a very powerful effect, keeping the planet 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. (The main components of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – are not greenhouse gases, because they are virtually unaffected by long-wave, or infrared, radiation). This is the second piece of evidence: a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere.

For our next piece of evidence, we must look at the amount of CO2 in the air. We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.



Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

The Smoking Gun

The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:



Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

Summing Up

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

[video=youtube;5LvaGAEwxYs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvaGAEwxYs[/video]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

Got a source for this?

That's not an answer, as it says in the beginning if it's "like the chain of evidence in a court case" then you've failed to prove your case. It's like a case saying that we know this group of guys did it, and we know bad stuff happens when this group of guys is around. But we can't prove that that one guy did anything. All you have is bad circumstantial evidence from biased sources claiming that CO2 is guilty just cause he hangs out with Methane and Water Vapor.

 

Actually, there is no evidence the global warming hypothesis is correct other than a short correlation between the rise in CO2 from the 70s to the 99s and as you know correlation does not imply causation. Government led by environmentalists are the closest they have ever gotten to implementing the change to capitalism they have always wanted. The population bomb was used first. Exactly the same government intervention proposed.

They do need useful idiots to take up the banner with the propaganda and there are a few here doing just that. Whether for partisan reasons or true belief, they have yet to be well read in the subject.

 

<Mod Edit>

 

Got an attitude problem?

Well you're debunked, have you actually read the paper that claim is based on? I just did and what you, well not you, the people you can do no better then copying, what they say is NOT what the people who did the actual experimentation say. The site you copied interpreted it wrong, likely to try and prove their preconceived notions.

Here open the PDF and read, that is if you're capable of understanding. https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Here's a riddle for you, if these "greenhouse gasses" prevent light/radiant energy from leaving wouldn't they also prevent it from entering in the first place?

 

it's funny when ask for a source and the source was already posted in the appropriate place

 

Ohh snap you got me, there was a link to the page you copied. Took a bit more then that though to find the actual source of their BS claim.

It doesn't however let you off the hook for the BS claim that you've been pushing all over this forum.

 

it's far from bs and the sources are easily located at the link

the bs is all yours, i posted science, facts and evidence from qualified climatologists


W.F.J. Evans

Dr. Evans at NorthWest Research Associates in Redmond is an American citizen and resides in the Seattle area. He was a professor of Environmental Science and Physics at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario for 15 years. He has a D.Sc. and a Ph.D. from the University of Saskatchewan and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.


Dr. John A. Church is an expert on sea level and its changes. He was Co-convening Lead Author (with Jonathan M. Gregory) for the Chapter on Sea Level in the IPCC Third Assessment Report and a member of the Joint Scientific Committee of the WCRP. He is currently a project leader at CSIRO.

Dr. Church is a graduate from the University of Queensland with a BSc in Physics in 1972. He later obtained a Doctorate in 1979.

Since that time Dr. Church has led a number of programs with CSIRO Division of Oceanography and was Program Leader of the Oceanography Program (now non-existent), Australian National Antarctic Research Expeditions; former Project Leader, Leader, Southern Ocean Processes Project (now non-existent), CSIRO Division of Marine and atmospheric Research, Polar Waters Program (now-non-existent), Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. On an international level, Dr. Church has been the Principal Investigator for the NASA/CNES TOPEX/Poseidon Extended Satellite Mission (which is now dead) since 1996. Dr. Church is a Member of the Australian Institute of Physics.



ICE CORE, Taylor Dome - Carbon Dioxide Data, 0-11 KYrBP

"Records of past temperature, precipitation, atmospheric trace gases, and other aspects of climate and environment derived from ice cores drilled on glaciers and ice caps around the world. Parameter keywords describe what was measured in this data set. Additional summary information can be found in the abstracts of papers listed in the data set citations."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2419.html


The graph shows recent monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii.

The last four complete years of the Mauna Loa CO2 record plus the current year are shown. Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm.

In the above figure, the dashed red line with diamond symbols represents the monthly mean values, centered on the middle of each month. The black line with the square symbols represents the same, after correction for the average seasonal cycle. The latter is determined as a moving average of SEVEN adjacent seasonal cycles centered on the month to be corrected, except for the first and last THREE and one-half years of the record, where the seasonal cycle has been averaged over the first and last SEVEN years, respectively.

The last year of data are still preliminary, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks. The Mauna Loa data are being obtained at an altitude of 3400 m in the northern subtropics, and may not be the same as the globally averaged CO2 concentration at the surface.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

 

FALSE. Global flood events show a clear trend. You've been lied to by the Ayatollahs of Denierstan.



Also, you're now admitting that your earlier claim that climate change was "negligible" is in fact utterly false crapola.

And when was it? Oh yes, all of one sentence ago, that you were saying that only global trends were important. Soooo long ago, I can see why you forgot.

If that were true, certainly you would be able to find evidence of equally significant regular flooding in Atlantic City back in the 19th century. And certainly, there would have been flooding just as significant in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, when AMO was just as high as today, and you could find evidence of those floods. What's that? You can't?

You've been lied to by the Ayatollahs of Denerstan again? Tsk, tsk. Looks like those guys have found themselves the perfect chump.

 

What is it that you have a hard time understanding? That CO2 absorbs infrared? Or that CO2 is transparent in visible?

Because you put both of those together, and that makes a greenhouse gas.

 

Thanks for showing you are a product if mass hysteria which Denies rational thought. You must have gotten that chart from the cartoonists alarmist blog.

 

David Evans posting on Joannova - gee rubbish on (*)(*)(*)(*)

His claims to academic credibility are - shaky is the best term

http://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans
Joannova is a joke and David Evens has claimed to be everything from a rocket scientist to the next coming

 

Sorry - that is physics 101

Even Mythbusters proved that lols!!

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...id=05CE86A6ED976280B03605CE86 A6ED976280B036

[video]http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mythbusters+co2&qpvt=mythbusters+co2&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=05CE86A6ED976280B03605CE86 A6ED976280B036[/video]

 

No, that chart comes from Munich RE, one of the world's largest re-insurance companies. FYI, a re-insurance company is a company that insures insurance companies against major disasters. So re-insurance companies have a really, really good reason to track disasters, because their bottom line depends on it.

Nice try, though.

 

The very fact that you feel compelled to resort to an insult (as with the final, two-word paragraph, above) is evidence of your desperation.

Yes, it is my "opinion" that a rise in temperature of about one-and-a-half degrees would not be noticed by most people. However, for many around the world--including (but not limited to) those in Norway; Sweden; Finland; Russia; Iceland; Canada; the northern US; and Alaska (which, of course, is a part of the US; but not a part of the contiguous 48 states), the rise in temperature--however slight--would surely seem like a good thing. Except, of course, to those who are doctrinaire in their opposition to it.

I would certainly hope so, as it is pretty cold up there.

I am really weary of arguing this point.

If you want more information on the tu quoque fallacy, please just look it up in Wikipedia.

Of course it is a criticism of your views. Of your leftist views, to be precise.

 

Instead of citing a left-wing blog as your source of information, you might want to see what Wikipedia--a more neutral source--has to say about the man. (Among other things, it says that he "obtained his PhD in Electrical Engineering from the Stanford University in 1989 and a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering 1983 from the University of Sydney. He has four other degrees.")

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Evans_(mathematician_and_engineer)

 

OKAAAY! See the logic fail now what to do about it?

First need to explain term AVERAGE in words easily understood then the term GLOBAL - although there seems to have been some grasp of that it does translate to "more than the USA"

See a 1.5 degree AVERAGE rise means that we are going to see days that will be a bloody sight hotter than that - in fact this is probably going to translate to a lot of heat waves interspersed with tropical downpours the like of which you have not seen in your part of the world yet and some (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)in storms

Not - ooooh Look it is greener in Greenland

Also when it is greener in Greenland the tropics - you know that part of the planet where most of the people live - is going to be stinking

- - - Updated - - -

Still does not make him a rocket scientists any more than the title "lord" makes Lord Monckton a member of the House of Lords in England

Both well known denialists both self aggrandising liars

 

I will tell you where you can get completely unbiased data.

Run a search on the CDIAC.....Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.

The CDIAC is part of the U.S. DOE...Department of Energy's Office of Science based at the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratories.....the same place that produces Weapons Grade Nuclear Fuel for the U.S. Nuclear Rocket Force.

The U.S. Military ONLY used the data from the CDIAC to be used as data entered into DoD War Game Scenario and Planning Supercomputers.

If you go to that webpage...the CDIAC on the top of the page will be a chart that changes every 10 to 20 seconds and it gives all sorts of data supplied by the very best climatologists, physicists, chemists and researchers on Planet Earth.

AboveAlpha

 

all you're doing is showing how uninformed you are

[video=youtube;f4oINN_KUIA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4oINN_KUIA[/video]

 

That's not an insult, it's an observation. You have failed to provide a single shred of evidence to support your unfounded assertions. You lose.

Here's a photo of what warming has done in Newtok, Alaska:



Tell me again how this is a good thing.

I will take that as a tacit admission that you were wrong, but don't have the courtesy to admit it.

But you offered no criticism at all of leftist views. You only offered criticism of me, personally, for being a leftist.

Ad-hom.

 

That 1.5 degree rise in temperatures (1.53 degrees, to be more precise), has already occurred. It happened, in fact, between 1880 and 2012.

And the effects have not appeared to be cataclysmic.

Yes, he "deni[es]" the leftist theory of AGW. But the term, "denialist" (or "denier") is often used as a pejorative term for those who do not embrace the leftist theory of AGW, together with its anti-capitalist agenda. (The similarity to the term, "Holocaust denier," is not exactly subtle. Most people can see that the intent is to mock and ridicule those who do not accept AGW--not to argue the point.)

 

That is about equivalent to my saying, "You're an idiot!"--and then claiming that it was merely "an observation," not "an insult."

Even if that was a direct result of global warming (which is a very big "if"), it still does not vitiate the fact that far more people are made more comfortable by a rise in temperatures of 1.53 degrees than are discomfited by it.

You may take it any way you wish--even though you would be badly mistaken.

I said what I meant, and I meant what I said: I am just weary of discussing the matter with you.

If you want further information on the subject, you may refer to Wikipedia.

I think that is what is known as a distinction without a real difference...

 

Then of course you can link to it besides a blog right?

BTW, insurance isn't the same as actual weather events. With the growth of population around areas prone to natural disaster, insurance only shows damage, not the strength or frequency of natural disasters.

Nice try though.