Australia suffers most extreme warming

wow! Talk about a 360 degree change of subject. We WERE talking about SOLAR OUTPUT.

But if you want to talk about the "hole in the Ozone layer" - yes it has been taken into account because it accelerates global warming

 

More criticism of the ipcc (the one true church).
The saturation effect has not been debunked, it is very real.

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/chapter4.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/...likelihood-of-agw-tipping-points-in-the-cold/

But as Dr Evans stated, there is no irrefutable evidence, not even any good evidence that co2 emmitted by mankind is the MAIN CAUSE of the recent (now long ceased) small amount of global warming.

 

On all the evidence produced by both sides, I have never seen on read any information whereby it states or shows that the ozone was or has been taken into consideration. I see pretty graphs, but no information on those graphs that represent the ozone effects. I am speaking about graphs and data produced by both climate advocates and sceptics. It would be interested in seeing ALL the data compiled onto ONE graph, not just data compiled onto a graph that supports a specific theory. Yes. I understand there is a lot of information, but I don't want to do a 3 year university degree to understand it all either.

I understand the basic concept of solar output, and also understand there is NO absolute in the science.

 

The whole "academic referencing" thing is a problem for you? Nice link to a PDF which I cannot find an Author for let alone academic references. However I did do some searching and more importantly i actually READ the bloody link - something I doubt you did because it VALIDATES GLOBAL WARMING BY CO2. He is talking about a different mechanism to David Evans

Take an example page 37

But the whole question of CO2 saturation effect is answered here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

Take particular note of the cited US airforce experiments

 

And you want this space station built by when??

What did your last slave die of?

But deep breath Bower and assume that others do NOT know of "Google Scholar"
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=ozone+global+warming&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1412.short

As for images

 

So you say an alarmist site dedicated to discrediting skeptics is more creditable than a chapter from an education module posted on the University of Chigago's web site. More proof that alrmists accept without question anything that supports their religion but demand stringent proof of any proposal that doesn't comply with their doctrine, but even if they are given proof they refuse to accept it anyway. I notice you did not mention the other site I gave which has academic referencing.
Yes I did read the PDF and it does support the contention of the saturation effect. It goes to great lengths to explain the mechanism of how it works. Even your alarmist site has to admit the existence of the saturation effect but like all alarmist attempts at discrediting the science that does not agree with their doctrine they twist and squirm and try their best to put an alarmist spin on the facts.
You have just given us the most outrages example of cherry picking I have ever seen with your quote from the PDF I gave you!!! You carry on about other people 'cherry picking' and then you go and do that!!!! You have just discredited yourself and shown yourself to be deceitfull.

Let's have a look at some of the things you didn't quote from that PDF I posted;

The Band Saturation Effect
Figure 4-5 shows the results from a series of model runs for different atmospheric CO2 concentrations,
ranging from 0 to 1000 ppm. For reference, the atmosphere in 2010 contains about
390 ppm. With no CO2, the atmosphere would be transparent to light of around 700 cycles/cm,
like it is in the atmospheric window. Adding the first 10 ppm of CO2 has a fairly noticeable
impact on the shape of the outgoing light spectrum, a sharp V-shaped slice out of the spectrum.
As the CO2 concentration is increased to 100 ppm, the center of the peak runs into the blackbody
curve from just a bit colder than 220 K, and it does not get any deeper as the CO2 concentration
is raised to 1000 ppm. This is the band saturation effect, the band referring to the range of
frequencies, and saturation meaning “used up,” all absorbed by the CO2.

(I can't seem to copy and paste the actual graphs)

Figure 4-5 A demonstration of band saturation by CO2. The addition of 10ppm CO2 (upper
right)makes a huge difference to the outgoing infrared light spectrum relative to an atmosphere
that has no CO2 (upper left). Increasing CO2 to 100 and 1,000 ppm (lower panels) continues
to affect the spectrum, but you get less bang for your CO2 buck as CO2 concentration gets
higher.

Your claim that the saturation effect has not been debunked is simply wrong, nothing but misleading alarmist propaganda. And we still have not seen any incontrovertible proof that agw is the MAIN CAUSE of the small global temperature rise over the last 150 years.

 

Thank you for the links.

 

Sorry, that should be - "Your claim that the saturation effect has been debunked is simply wrong,.."

 

Let's try this again - your link to the "education module" (which it was not - it is a BOOK) validates ME and AGW - NOT YOU. The words might be the same but the measured effect is NOT neither is what he is talking about.

I am NOT doing any more for today - nor reading any more of the ravings above - I have had enough

I have shown time and again in this thread the sites are not valid. I have demonstrated where they have misrepresented data and it is ignored and the SAME site is used again.

They even misquote an AGW text and pretend it is validating something entirely different - without of course showing the link

And then I get accused of not "putting up the proof"

The denialist side has NOTHING - no research, no unadulterated data and no clue

- - - Updated - - -

You should have really read that text

 

Here are some FACTS that are detained by the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratories Office of Science CDIAC.

These FACTS are proven using current samples taken from our Atmosphere at many points of position and altitudes all over the world and compared against a great number of Ice Core Samples drilled at multiple sites that detail over 800,000 years of Earth's atmospheric Molecular and Elementary Gases and their percentages as part of the atmosphere over that time.

FACT....CO2 levels are higher now than they have ever been in 800,000 years.

FACT....CO2 levels are rising at an accelerated rate never before documented in 800,000 years.

FACT....CH4 levels are at their highest in 800,000 years.

FACT...CH4 levels are rising at an accelerated rate never before documented in 800,000 years.

FACT...both these unprecedented in 800,000 years accelerated rises and levels of CO2 and CH4 started shortly after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 20th Century.

FACT...There has been a steady increase in Global Temperatures ever since shortly after the start of the Industrial Revolution.

FACT...We are currently in a period of Low Solar Radiation of Earth as such levels change due to the Wobble existing in Earth's Solar Orbit which changes the relative average mean distance over a year thus the Earth goes through centuries of Higher Solar Radiation and Centuries of Lower Solar Radiation due to this cyclical change in average yearly mean distance due to such a Wobble.

FACT....Volcanic activity has been relatively the same over the last few centuries.

FACT....There is only a few things that can increase Global Temps....the Earth's Orbital Average Mean Distance being closer and thus allowing more Solar Radiation to effect the atmosphere.

Higher Solar Output.

Increases in CO2 and CH4 and to an extent a few other Green House Gases.

FACT....since there is no increase in Solar Output....and we are not in a Solar Orbital Warming Trend.....this leaves only increases of CO2 and CH4 and other Green House Gases as a cause for current Global Temp. Increases.

FACT...as Global Temperatures Increase more Water Evaporation occurs thus more and stronger storms occur as well wild weather and drought and extreme heat and cold will occur due to this greater amount of water vapor changing weather patterns.

FACT....the more CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere the greater the temps...the greater the amount of evaporation...the greater the Water Vapor in our atmosphere which unto itself water vapor holds in even a greater amount of heat.

FACT....the increase of CO2 and CH4 is the REASON for the Increase in Global Temps. causing an increase in Water Vapor.

FACT....in the early part of the 20th century Water Vapor existed CONSISTENTLY at between 1% and 2% in Earth's Atmosphere.

FACT....over the last few decades...Water Vapor has existed at a level of between 5% and 6% in Earth's Atmosphere.

FACT....there are only a few reasons why CO2 Levels would rise.....either because of a large increase in Volcanic Activity or because of Man Made Emissions.

FACT...as there has not been any increase in Volcanic activity CO2 Increases are Man Made.

FACT...the combination of CO2 warming our Atmosphere causing greater evaporation thus raising Water Vapor Levels is greatly increasing Global Temps. to the point that GREAT AMOUNTS of CH4 a Green House Gas that holds in Heat 71 Times greater than Co2 is bubbling up from the bottom of oceans and arctic circle lakes and bubbling out of Permafrost where it has existed as Gel Form Methane.

FACT....there is not ONE THING HERE I HAVE POSTED...that anyone here can disprove and as well I have MANY TIMES provided the link to the CDIAC....LINK....http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

And I have done so again.

AboveAlpha

 

Excellent post AboveAlpha! This is as simple as it is and needs to be! There is no doubt they will disregard and have poor old BB going around in circles giving the very same information but in a more complex manner because they are wanting to argue insignificant detail or intricate detail showing their pseudo scientific prowess....lol

 

I agree with TV, well done.... BUT you could provide links until the cows come home, there are some here who still won't believe it until they are standing in water up to their ears and the skin is being burnt off them from solar radiation. Some will say "It's because we have a foreign queen", others will say it's a "figment of our imagination" yet others will say it's an ALP/Green conspiracy to build the wealth of banks. Anything but face reality.

 

BB, TV and DV,
some people just don't want to know, there is nothing you can do.
They are happy to live in denial, and do whatever they can to discredit *the other side*.
God knows why!

The onliest way for them to learn is to place their mouth over an exhaust pipe and have the motor run for a couple of seconds.
It won't kill them, but they will understand from there on....

Maybe its is their strict refusal of acceptance, which would stir their tiny little world.
The change, which from there on will be required might cause a nightmare for them.

Its like our current government, they will do what they can for business, without calculating the associated risks.
Its called capitalism, everything goes...
Leave the important changes they won't make for a future Labor/Green government.

Another 3 years lost, great to have the Liberals. They stand for deaf, dumb and blind....

Regards

 

Exactly ..........

 

It is a text book. If you had read all the way to the bottom you would know that. The chapter is all about the saturation effect which why I posted it. You claim the saturation effect has been debunked, this text book proves it is a very real natural phenomenon.

So you attack the source instead of the science again. You still have not responded to my challenge, if I can demonstrate misrepresented data, bias, cherry picking, unreferenced claims and/or graphs and references to blogs, the things you claim invalidate other sites, on skepticalscience.com you will agree that the site is not untrustworthy, not valid and stop referencing it.

The denialist side has nothing? We are still waiting for you to provide incontravertible evidence that anthroprogenic co2 is the MAIN CAUSE of the recent global warming. We are still waiting for you demonstrate that the recent warming is not a natural cycle.

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

Lol. Incontrovertible evidence, no, you give us incontrovertible evidence we are wrong. Why, because if your wrong, God help us.

 

I believe the link to NASA would dispute your FACT 10. http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/

All your FACTS regarding CO2 is incorrect, as it doesn't take into consideration that plant life in both hemispheres thrive in summer breathing in CO2, and each winter die off releasing some of the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

In what months of the year were all these tests on CO2 in the atmosphere done?

 

Oh! Dear! I point out it is a book and not an "education module" and your defence is that I am wrong and it is a "Text book"

There is a phrase for that sort of rebuttal - lame and transparent

No I have demonstrated, repeatedly, until I am sick of it, that the "science" is nothing but opinion, misrepresentation, adulterated data and downright lies. I do not have to keep demonstrating this again and again on the same thread.

See the post by Above Alpha - or explain away the changing Infrared Radiation signature of the Earth

This image is from drroyspencer - a well known sceptic but even HE does not disagree with the IR signature change



Oh! And about the "saturation effect" - this is what Spencer has to say

1. Yes, the CO2 absorption bands are already mostly saturated&#8230;but the wings of those bands are not, as is evident in the above graph of satellite measurements. This saturation effect partly explains why the approximate 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times has resulted in only a 1% decrease in the rate of IR loss by the Earth to space (theoretically calculated). This is already accounted for in the climate models used by the IPCC.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/

Now for the bad news about "natural cycles". Climate., like your underpants, does not change by itself. What we are trying to debate here is the REASON for the change

 

Sorry but linking from a prediction in 2006 about solar activity is pretty ruddy useless - especially since solar cycle 24 has been such a late starting fizzier

Go for something a little more current http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/index.html#.UuC2daUm44Y

Co2 is measured all year around which is why the graphs have up and down dips with the seasons

 

What rebuttal? You said it was a book, I merely added a detail that you omitted, perhaps because you didn't read all the way to the end, that it was a text book.

Stop trying to avoid the issue. You automaticaly disregard anything coming from a whole site because you think one or more statements from that site are wrong or more importantly disagree with your agw doctrine. In other words, more often than not, you don't bother to actually test the science, you say it is invalid purely because of where it is presented and that is bad science, bad research.

Yes, thank you. The saturation effect is demonstrable natural phenomenon, it has not been debunked as you claimed. As Spencer says, the saturation effect is responsible for there being only a 1% decrease in the rate of IR loss despite a 40% increase in co2.

Yes that's right, nothing changes by itself, there is always something that causes change. Are you trying to say that the climate has never changed in the past? Do you believe the preposterous statement on skepticalscience that past climate change is a myth! Here's the bad news, the climate has ALWAYS changed, it has NEVER been constant. So there must be 'natural' forces and cycles that cause climate change. You are proposing that mankind has somehow overridden those natural forces and cycles and mankind is CAUSING unnatural climate change. You have yet to provide incontravertible evidence of this.

 

How do you propose we combat cilmate change?

 

OK...I will explain this.

You are confusing Solar Flare Activity with the 2 specific reasons that can increase Global Temperatures.

Our Sun goes through an approximately 11-year solar cycle (or sunspot cycle) and there are periodic variations...but such increases in Solar Output are sporadic and are not constant even during activity to increase Global Temps.

The two events that CAN actually increase Global Temps. are a steady constant period of increased Thermonuclear Fusion in which the Sun will dramatically increase the rate and amount of Hydrogen being fused into Helium.

Such an event would be something that has not occurred in the history of Man or in the last few Billion Years because if it DID happen it would cause a great number of species extinction.

The other Cyclical increase in Earth absorption or increased encountered of Solar Radiation is not caused by an increase in Solar Output but rather a decrease in the average mean yearly distance from the Earth to the Sun as because of the Celestial Mechanics of Earth's orbit around the Sun the Earth has a slight WOBBLE.

The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the astronomical seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit (obliquity) oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing.

Because of this WOBBLE...Earth will periodically go through warming trends but we are NOT in such a current period.

Now as far as the CO2 data....no...it is not wrong and this data has been collected by members of the U.S. Dept.of Energy's CDIAC.

Since my...JOB....has given me some very in depth experience and knowledge specific to Oak Ridge National Laboratories as well as Los Alamos National Laboratories I can tell you this.

Both of these DOE Labs are quite possibly the most secure, advanced, ultra-high technology capable, employers of only the ABSOLUTE BEST AND BRIGHTEST MINDS IN THE WORLD....and just the FACT I am even typing out the words...Oak Ridge and Los Alamos RIGHT NOW....means a NSA used IBM software program that is the successor to ECHELON....is RIGHT NOW recording and flagging this post.

The data from the DOE's Office of Science at Oak Ridge CDIAC....is without a doubt...the ABSOLUTE most comprehensive, unbiased, complex, based upon a variety of control based methodology....which means that BEFORE they even take samples or even examine such samples they have developed quite possibly the most comprehensive triple redundancy built in multiple control group anti-contamination specific system of just COLLECTING SAMPLES....never mind all the other controls they go through to make 100% CERTAIN that testing and subsequent determined data is accurate.

We are not talking about so Lab at some College or University or some GW program run and paid for by some corporate entity,,,,,,we are talking about the absolute best people using the best methodology using the best equipment and taking samples from every possible place and area necessary for an accurate determination to be developed specific to what exactly is happening.

the CDIAC data is the ONLY DATA that the U.S. Military trusts and the CDIAC data is used in U.S. Military Supercomputers to develop U.S. Military Contingency Plans.

These people LEAVE NOTHING TO CHANCE.

AboveAlpha

 

You are the one making the claim DV, it's up to you to provide the proof.

 

Very interesting read! But I fear there is ulterior motives for why you won't get a response from the blissfully ignorant skeptics! It is so obvious that there are issues but still you'll get crazies wanting to argue little detail when the bigger picture is glaring them right in the face!

Both sides of politics planned action, it is just one side changed their mind for political gain and fools will chase opposing arguments for keeping face regarding their political persuasion! That is all it obviously is!

Anyway, enjoying reading yours and BB's posts!

 

Many American's fail to realize that the weather is not limited to the United States. they think only weather happens in US.