Of course the climate in changing. It has always changed -- sometimes rapidly, sometimes very slowly. But all of this time and money wasting nonsense, encouraged and promoted by those who plan to get rich by exploiting carbon credit markets, and those who have invested their egos, is insanity. And what is the justification? A bunch of incorrect models. All have been shown to be wrong, none have been shown to be correct, and no two agree. Never mind the opinion of many scientists that modeling a chaotic system like the Earth's Climate to accurately predict future temperature is something no one can do given our current state of knowledge. This climate modeling is a worthwhile academic exercise useful for training future scientists. To use any of the output from these models for political decision making, however, is absurd. The land and see temperature data sufficient to know if temperature is going up or down or remaining unchanged does not exist. It has all be so heavily doctored, proxied, adjusted, altered, shifted, re-visted and re-altered that no one has any confidence in any of it, other than James Hansen -- a charlatan who has now stooped to giving his papers directly to the media without first subjecting them to peer review. The only temperature record that any one trusts is from satellites, and it is an insufficiently long record to allow conclusions to be drawn. It shows no significant change in global temperature over the past 17 years. We should continue trying to measure temperature and trying to understand climate. But in the meantime, We should worry about the things we can understand and change. There is no limit to the worthwhile things we could be doing. Why are we doing this? How does one stop it?
Oh pie. You were doing so well. Did you just have stroke? You OK? Do you remember that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas and we have raised it's level by 40%? The funny thing is that I am sure that you do not believe a word you wrote. Save perhaps the first sentence. Because as we both know everything you wrote is wrong and unsubstantiated. Time for a chart? Oh yeah!!! Oh, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Almost forgot. And pie, next time choose just one falsehood to spout. You make it a pain to correct because of the sheer volume of bullshit. Of course, that's your plan isn't it?
once again we see the nutters combining proxy charts with instrument charts. we also know that even that they are now fiddling with the instrument measurements. but again lets put that chart into perspective...
So, humans have never existed with CO2 levels this high. We don't really know what it may do to our physiology. There are some studies that have associated high CO2 levels with reduction of mental abilities. This may explain some of the mental retardation in the conservatives and even worse, the Libertarians. They may lack some buffering ability that normal people have. Le Grande Experiment.
do you recognize some of these names... on the front page of the website...you need to. John Cook is the creator of the al gore funded skeptical science site. Lubos Motl is highly respected by many. Do you read some of the papers... do you click around. your websites argument is pathetic. at least your second citation acknowledged a bit more of reality at first... I hae not yet finished reading it. "A tour de force list of scientific papers..." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Environmental Scientist "Wow, the list is pretty impressive ...It's Oreskes done right." - Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist "I really appreciate your important effort in compiling the list." - Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist and Geoscientist "An excellent place to start to take stock of the scientific diversity of positions on AGW." - Emil A.Røyrvik, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist "...it's a very useful resource. Thanks to the pop tech team." - Joanne Nova, Author of The Skeptics Handbook "I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..." - John Cook, Cartoonist at Skeptical Science Note... I did not see you produce one peer reviewed paper stating man made co2 causes warming. I could probably find you old ones using failed models... but where is your science.
here is a list of the largest contributors... when filtered by your second citation... Some of these people are top guys in the field. you smear campaign is ridiculous. And if we are going to get into bias because of funding... you have to cross almost all the nutters off a list too. The author credit tally... Sherwood B. Idso 76 credits. John R. Christy 43 credits. Richard S. Lindzen 35 credits. Nicola Scafetta 27 credits. Robert G. Currie 27 credits. Patrick J. Michaels 26 credits. Robert C. Balling Jr. 26 credits. Bruce A. Kimball 26 credits. Roy W. Spencer 24 credits. Ross McKitrick 23 credits. David H. Douglass 22 credits. Henrik Svensmark 19 credits. Willie H. Soon 19 credits. Craig Loehle 19 credits. Nils-Axel Morner 17 credits. Paul C. Knappenberger 16 credits. O. M. Raspopov 16 credits.
Climate Talks Show Us Progressivism’s True Hypocrisy It’s estimated that around 50,000 hypocrites will be participating in the Paris climate conference this week. By David Harsanyi DECEMBER 1, 2015 Share on emailEmail Share on printPrint What do you call it when elites fly their private jets to an international climate change conference to forge a deal with despots that caps American prosperity without our consent? You call it progressivism. It’s estimated that around 50,000 carbon-spewing humans will be participating in the Paris climate conference this week. But while President Obama was taking his working dinner at the three-Michelin-star L’Ambroisie, public protests were banned in the aftermath of the Islamic terror attacks. Liberté, not so much. No one inside the confab seemed too disturbed. It took a handful of gunmen only one night to impede free expression in Paris. Yet, according to the president, a massive and expensive effort to curb the 0.1 to 0.2 C of warming we might see over the next decade — the worst case scenario predicted by alarmists — is the most critical project facing mankind. It took a handful of gunmen only one night to impede free expression in Paris. That doesn’t mean Obama won’t use the issue of terrorism to refocus our attention where it belongs. Millions of people might live in fear and suffer under the genuine, deadly threat of radical Islam, but the president contends the Paris conference itself is “a powerful rebuke to the terrorists” and an “act of defiance” in the face of extremism. Why not? True believers are rarely dissuaded by reality. Socialist Francois Hollande, president of a country that was not only recently a target of Islamic terror, but also one that witnessed the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century, claims that “never have the stakes been so high because this is about the future of the planet, the future of life.” Never? U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a man whose divided nation still suffers unconscionable destitution and tyranny, told leaders that humankind has “never faced such a test” as climate change. Never? These are preposterous exaggerations that have as much to do with history and science as the Book of Revelation. But that’s nothing new, is it? Obama alleged yesterday that without a climate change agreement there could be “submerged countries, abandoned cities, fields that no longer grow” — assertions that are no more than fearmongering, ratcheted up over the decades by frustrated environmentalists and now confidently thrown around by presidents. These prophecies are tethered to reality in the same way Donald Trump’s whoppers are, although the media treats the former with undeserving respect. Transforming ideology into a ‘science’ is not a new development on the Left. Transforming ideology into a “science” is not a new development on the Left. But the most useful indicators tell us that humanity’s prospects are on the upswing: poverty is declining, crops are producing higher yields, and humans are living longer and healthier lives despite the mild warming we’ve experienced. And in spite of these advancements (or maybe because of them) Western leaders are prepared, conveniently enough, to cap growth, spread wealth, and centralize power in the way progressives have always wanted to cap growth, spread wealth, and centralize power. Ripe For The Taking The world looks ready for a deal. Developing nations will receive reparations for the capitalist sins of advanced nations — around $100 billion each year. Corporations willbe subsidized so they can create more unproductive industries to meet arbitrary caps. And the worst carbon offenders in the world will have to do nothing. What’s not to like? If a deal can be reached, Obama will have to trust that communist China — the world’s most prodigious carbon emitter — will voluntarily implement economic restraints around 30 years from now, by which time the U.S. will have to reach a 26 to 28 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Obama will implement them unilaterally. So China will have more of a say in what happens to our environmental policy than Congress. But Obama will also negotiate with a number of other unsavory despots, like the homicidal Robert Mugabe, who represents the African position at COP-21 negotiations. He will not, however, bring the deal to Congress, which represents the majority of the American people. China will have a more say in what happens to our environmental policy than Congress. The Paris agreement might be the biggest, most crucial international deal the world has ever known, but it is not important enough to be subjected to the traditional checks and balance of American governance. Global warming “does not pause for partisan gridlock,” the president explained this summer. Or, in other words, the president does not have to “pause” for Congress if he feels like using the regulatory state to implement his preferred partisan policy. This kind of circumvention will be cheered by those who once feigned indignation when prior presidents abused executive power. This is really important, as you know. Obama hopes “to make climate change policy the signature environmental achievement of his, and perhaps any, presidency,” says an approving New York Times editor. Progressives are perfectly content to surrender freedoms to fight global warming. Perfectly content to give the executive unprecedented power to “act.” And when the private jets come back, and the pretend offsets are cashed in, and the moralizing begins, you will know they did it for your own good.
CO2 cools in the sense that it causes the sun to heat a little less during the day.. This phenomenon is associated with the outer atmosphere and it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. As you can see from the graph below, CO2 isn't completely transparent to solar radiation. [the graph above is from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight] The first thing you notice is that the sun approximates a black body radiator. The red here is what reaches the Earth and the Red and yellow together is what reaches the outer atmosphere. If you integrate the total area incorporated by the spectrum, you'll find that most of the radiation from the sun is in the infrared (heat) region. There is quite a bit in the visible region too, but not as much as in the infrared. There isn't much uv, thank goodness. (uv has enough energy to break chemical bonds! We don't want that.) If you integrate just the red area, you will find that the ratio of the visible to IR striking the Earth hasn't changed very much from the ratio of visible to IR in the incident solar emr. That's because in solar radiation reaching the Earth some of the IR has been filtered out by absorption but IR is poorly scattered, whereas none of the visible has been filtered by absorption but it is fairly efficiently scattered. Both absorption and scattering are active during daylight hours in shielding the Earth from the sun. This is a temperature lowering factor. Now we know that all of the gaseous main components of the atmosphere are colorless. What this tells us is that they do not absorb visible light! None of them do! Yet look at the 400 to 700 nm region, that's the visible region of the emr spectrum. If the atmosphere does not absorb visible light then why is the red area in this region reduced from the net yellow and red combined. What this tells us is that this graph includes more than just absorption even though it is labeled as an absorption graph. Obviously some solar radiation shielding phenomena besides absorption is incorporated into this graph. That additional shielding phenomenon is mainly scattering -- the same phenomenon that makes the sky appear blue in the day and red, yellow or orange near sunset. Blue light is scattered to a greater extent then longer wavelengths. The difference between the yellow and red in the visible region as a function of wavelength is consistent with the drop in intensity of visible light reaching the surface being due to scattering. Shielding has the effect of making the Earth less hot during the day. CO2 shields by both absorption and scattering. What assumptions have been incorporated into the graph regarding water vapor content are not specified. And, of course, the very important daytime cooling effects of clouds, vertical convection, and wind driven evaporation don't show up in this graph. So to your question, "how would CO2, transparent to sunlight, cool the day side of the moon?" Let's start by recognizing that CO2 isn't completely transparent to sunlight, as the graph above nicely illustrates. There is some absorption in the IR region, and there is plenty of IR in sunlight. We assume that CO2 would function on our hypothetical moon the same way it does on Earth. During the day it is going to cool mainly by shielding due to scattering and absorption. Absorption is going to be a very weak phenomena, because as I have pointed out many times, CO2 is a poor IR absorber having only one fundamental IR active absorption band, an asymmetric stretch. This means it will be, by absorption alone, a poor shielding gas, and also I might add a poor greenhouse gas if its concentration is as low as it is on Earth. But its shielding via scattering during the day should be about as effective, or even more effective, than its shielding by absorption. (It scatters at shorter wavelengths than it absorbs at.) I used to think that CO2's warming via the greenhouse effect would probably exceed its overall shielding effect, but now this seems quite wrong to me. During the moon Day it will be net cooling because its shielding is due to both scattering at visible wavelengths and IR absorption, whereas its daytime green house effect is due only to absorption at lower altitude and not scattering. It does not scatter IR efficiently. On the dark side of the moon, however, where shielding isn't involved, it certainly will be warming by its weak greenhouse effect. And in our imagined moon atmosphere there is no water vapor and clouds to keep us warm a night; we are in a moon desert. We will have to depend on CO2's weak greenhouse effect to try and stay warm during the 13 Earth-day-long moon night. We are going to freeze to death!