The Arctic ice cap grows by 60% in a year.

Again with the 16 year thing! Why 16 years?

If you choose 18 years you're wrong. If you choose 14 years you're wrong.

The ONLY reason you choose 16 years is because you are a intellectually dishonest, fanatical, (actually just plain fucking crazy) righty.

Essentially you are lying. You are deceiving liar.


Anyone still denying that AGW is real and that CO2 is responsible for the bulk of it is simply an idiot. Period.

Anyone not aware that virtually all of earth's ice is melting and has been for fifty years is ignorant. Period.

The levels of stupidity on display here from the right wing nut jobs is head-shakingly amazing. Please tell me there is a righty here who believes in AGW.

 

Where's the science that proves CO2 is responsible for the sudden rise in world temps over the last 150 year? Since man started burning millions of years worth of carbon sequestration in the form of fossil fuels?

How do we know CO2 is greenhouse gas?


The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.


Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up
How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.



Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

 

So still pushing the same old nonsense with reports published nearly a decade ago. Do you happen to read the information published recently - like in 2013 - which shows all the 'global warming' models are failing and the earth is not warming. I take it you ignore factual information that does not agree with your preconceived notions.

IPCC Lead Author Says Climate Models Are Failing
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...c-lead-author-says-climate-models-are-failing

 

You are beyond scum. You bring up the same lying arguments time after time... Arguments I refute with science over and over.

ust on the other thread I told you... you can look at the 5 year average temps starting 10 7 for the last decade... which therefore includes 15 years back and see temps aJre either flat or down.


you keep lying your ass off... you are a disgusting leftist fool.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/

"Dr. James Hansen and Reto Ruedy of NASA GISS have written a paper (non peer reviewed) with a remarkable admission in it. It is titled Global Temperature Update Through 2012.

Here is the money quote, which pretty much ends the caterwauling from naysayers about global temperature being stalled for the last decade.

The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.

Gosh, I thought Hansen had claimed that “climate forcings” had overwhelmed natural variability?"

--

this would be where you trying to blame the messenger...
but Hansen is one of the chief agw nutters. He was the one who wrote it...

you lying ass leftist troll.

 

Why don't you post a chart of world temps? And I mean a chart that is longer then 16 years and less than 20 million, and from an authoritative source.

You won't do it because you are a deceiving, intellectually dishonest, crazed nutjob. You really should seek help.

 

I just revised my post above with a link to two one of the top agw nutter scientists.

I have given you links to 400,000 year old charts showing we are in the middle of the range.

I have told you using the best statistical methods... there has no warming outside of natural variability since the industrial revolution.

 

Ummm the science of the physics of greenhouse gas has not changed in a decade.

CO2 is still a greenhouse gas and it's levels are still going up from the burning of fossil fuels and the temperature of the world is still going up and the ice is still melting.

Again, only an idiot would dispute that. (Cue the nut-job ignorant righ
ties) All together now.

 

Why don't you post a chart of world temps? And I mean a chart that is longer then 16 years and less than 20 million, and from an authoritative source.

You won't do it because you are a deceiving, intellectually dishonest, crazed nutjob. You really should seek help.

 

If you would use your brain you would now know.

Greenhouse gases are like a thermostat. They moderate temps.
They bounce heating energy back into space and they bounce warmth back to the earth.

The most important gas is water vapor...

CO2 is just a tiny component of greenhouse gases
Man made co2 is just a tiny fraction of 1% of greenhouse gases.

Science does not know if greenhouse gases are warming on net in the earths atmosphere.

So to argue man made co2 is doing all the warming or even significant warming is just a massive fraud or massive ignorance of current science. Science has no way to tell what effect man made co2 has at the moment... but its potential role is being reduced by the year.

 

Why don't you post a chart of world temps? And I mean a chart that is longer then 16 years and less than 20 million, and from an authoritative source. Words are cheap and used by lying lawyers to deceive.

You won't do it because you are a deceiving, intellectually dishonest, crazed nutjob. You really should seek help.