TooOldForThis... has done an tremendous job eviscerating your alarmist troll baloney with facts and information. In a sense he is too real for you and your teams troll lies. His command of this subject is what I aspired to; I expected to get there slowly as this is not my job. Now I don't need to. thank you... toft I hope Nitro has been reading this as he should be too smart to fall for the agw nutter lies.
What lies? What in God's name are you talking about? The entire world's science community is lying ? CO2 is not the earth's most important greenhouse and we have not raised it's levels by 40%. No cosmic rays, fukkin lol, needed. COSMIC RAYS !!!! LOL you denier crazies crack me up.
You must have missed the part about scientific study showing deadly heat waves becoming more common as the man made global warming continues. Maybe you don't care about deadly heat waves just like the tobacco industry did not care about people dying from lung cancer. Maybe you are working for the Cato Institute. BTW, you seem very similar to piezoe. I wonder why?
once again... we must ask... how come you have grafted instrument temps to proxy temps. why not show the proxy temps the whole time? oh thats right TooOld just ripped you apart on this subject but you don't ever engage on the science because you are a troll so you ignore it.
The energy imbalance on Earth has grown to about 6/10 of a watt per square meter. That is the equivalent of exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days a year more than before: http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change#t-458272 That answers my question about heat radiating at night in the infrared spectrum. It is not happening fast enough.
Because thermometers are more accurate than tree rings and ice analysis? What a stupid question. Not surprised. And too old did what the professional deniers do which to put a huge smoke screen of obfuscation. IOW bullshit. You can tell because "cosmic rays" get mentioned. It's the typical shit put out by the conservative think tanks that are beholden to the fossil fuel interests.
Seriously. You're claiming that rising CO2 *might* cause extinctions *someday* and that to avoid it, we have to quit emitting CO2. Earth to futurecurrents! The replacement for fossil fuels are biofuels. And biofuels require land to grow them on. Of course this is a modification of the environment. Before the ethanol industry grew large, the environmentalists were all about mandating ethanol in the gasoline supply. It was only after they saw the consequences (thousands of square miles of factory farms) that they got on the bandwagon against ethanol. As more biofuels are brought under cultivation, the same thing will happen again. Here are some links. You should note that these are from people who believe the alarmist paradigm on global warming: Is energy cropping in Europe compatible with biodiversity? Pedroli, Elbersen, Frederiksen, Grandin,Heikkila, Krogh, Izakovicova, Johansen, Meiresonne and Spijker Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 55, August 2013, pp 73-86 ... We conclude that increased demand for biomass for bioenergy purposes may lead to a continued conversion of valuable habitats into productive lands and to intensification, which both have negative effects on biodiversity. ... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953412003947 The impacts of biofuel production on biodiversity: A review of the current literature United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMD) is the biodiversity assessment and policy implementation arm of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world's foremost intergovernmental environmental organization. Campbell and Doswald (2009) ... The biodiversity impact of biofuels will depend on the biofuel crop and the previous land use. Biofuels can be beneficial to biodiversity when appropriate crops are grown in suitable areas. Furthermore, if they contribute to climate change mitigation, they have the potential to be indirectly beneficial to biodiversity as a whole. However, biofuels have already been shown to negatively impact biodiversity when direct conversion of natural ecosystems or indirect land conversion of non-degraded land occurs. The expansion of biofuel production in the tropics has resulted in the loss of tropical forest and wetlands, and in temperate regions biofuel production has encroached into set-aside lands. Biofuel feedstock plantations (particularly oil palm and maize plantations), have been shown to support far lower levels if biodiversity than natural ecosystems, and can cause soil erosion and the pollution of watercourses. How a feedstock plantation is managed influences the level of biodiversity impacts. Well managed plantations can in some instances prove beneficial to biodiversity especially if these are on degraded or marginal lands. ... https://www.cbd.int/agriculture/2011-121/UNEP-WCMC3-sep11-en.pdf Biofuels and Biodiversity ... Biofuels have the potential to affect all of the major drivers of biodiversity loss identified in Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 (SCBD 2010): habitat loss and degradation; climate change; excessive nutrient load and other forms of pollution; over-exploitation and unsustainable use; and invasive alien species. Furthermore, although biofuels are partly intended to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, many biofuels used today emit as much, or more, GHGs as fossil fuels or offer very limited savings, when taking into account their entire lifecycle, and when indirect land-use change is taken into consideration (e.g., Fargione et al. 2008; Searchinger et al . 2008). ... Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD Technical Series No. 65 (2012) https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-65-en.pdf Biofuels and biodiversity Wiens, Fargionne and Hill Ecological Applications, Ecology Society of America, Volume 21, Issue 4, 1085-1095 (June 2011) ... Current biofuel production occurs largely on croplands that have long been in agricultural production. The additional land area required for future biofuels production can be met in part by reclaiming reserve or abandoned croplands and by extending cropping into lands formerly deemed marginal for agriculture. In the United States, many such marginal lands have been enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), providing important habitat for grassland species. The demand for corn ethanol has changed agricultural commodity economics dramatically, already contributing to loss of CRP lands as contracts expire and lands are returned to agricultural production. ... http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/09-0673.1 http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/09-0673.1 Also of interest: Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Indirect Land Use Change Michael O'Hare, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley CARB LCFS Working Group 3, (2008) http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/011708uCBLuCB&W.pdf
The talk is from February 2012 and is not peer reviewed literature. The shortwave radiation from the sun (called "SW in") is estimated to be 340.2 +- 0.1 watts/m^2. The amount that is immediately reflected (called "SW out") is estimated to be 100.0 +- 2.0 W/m^2, and the amount of longwave radiation (called "LW out") is 239.7 +- 3.3 W/m^2. The net imbalance is estimated to be 0.6 W/m^2 but this is dwarfed by the errors in the amount of shortwave and longwave radiation that the Earth emits. Consequently, it's not possible to make a reasonable estimate of the number of Hiroshima bombs (LOL) that the earth is absorbing per year. The truth is that we have no idea because the amount of heat we're talking about is so small (compared to the size of the earth). The claim is that the heat isn't being seen because it's being absorbed by the oceans. If that is correct, then it means that the effects of global warming will not be seen for centuries because the oceans are really big compared to the very small amounts of heat. I get my numbers from an article that is peer reviewed, and which is more recent than your not peer reviewed informal talk by a famous alarmist: The Global Annual Mean Energy Balance Stephens, Li, Wild, Clayson, Loeb, Kato, L'Ecuyer, Stackhouse, Lebsock and Andrews Nature Geoscience Volume 5, pp 691-696, September 23, 2012 This small imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux. The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4 Wm−2 (95% confidence) due largely to instrument calibration errors12, 15. Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change11.