Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming set to pass 2C threshold in 2050


Global warming set to pass 2C threshold in 205027-03-2017 19:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
https://phys.org/news/2016-09-global-2c-threshold.html

Earth is on track to sail past the two degree Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) threshold for dangerous global warming by 2050, seven of the world's top climate scientists warned Thursday.


More stuff about climate on the climate debate forum interesting projection by actual scientists sadly not optimistic.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-03-2017 19:49
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
Well, I did good and made it all the way to second paragraph before the big whopper lie was told.

Since 1990, devastating weather-related events—floods, drought, more intense storms, heat waves and wild fires—due to climate change have doubled in number,


Seriously people, how do you expect us to believe anything you say??!!??!!
Edited on 27-03-2017 19:50
27-03-2017 20:11
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
You'll notice that the authors of this report are from the IPCC, the organization whose stated mission is to avert AGW, not to investigate all possible causes and whether it is even dangerous.
27-03-2017 20:14
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Well, I did good and made it all the way to second paragraph before the big whopper lie was told.

Since 1990, devastating weather-related events—floods, drought, more intense storms, heat waves and wild fires—due to climate change have doubled in number,


Seriously people, how do you expect us to believe anything you say??!!??!!


Because they measure those things, how the hell would you know its false anyway, considering that you think that being ignorant is something to be proud of.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-03-2017 20:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Frescomexico wrote:
You'll notice that the authors of this report are from the IPCC, the organization whose stated mission is to avert AGW, not to investigate all possible causes and whether it is even dangerous.


That statement is a lie as you well know. They investigate all causes, the IPCCs brief is to report to policy makers on the science. If another possible cause was credible or if climate changes effects were thought to be benign it would have to report on that and in fact it considers this.

I suggest actually reading the reports before sagely telling people what is contained within them.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-03-2017 21:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Well, I did good and made it all the way to second paragraph before the big whopper lie was told.

Since 1990, devastating weather-related events—floods, drought, more intense storms, heat waves and wild fires—due to climate change have doubled in number,


Seriously people, how do you expect us to believe anything you say??!!??!!


Because they measure those things, how the hell would you know its false anyway, considering that you think that being ignorant is something to be proud of.


As is typical of you, you spend time attacking people and making arguments of the Stone against anything they say.

Such is the usual tactics of many of the Faithful of the Church of Global Warming.

Since you can't attack the argument itself, all you can do is tell people they are uneducated, ignorant, lying, or 'obviously' mentally challenged.

You do not understand sufficient mathematics to realize why we can't measure or calculate anything like a global temperature to any useful accuracy. Heck, you don't even understand what mathematics IS.

You do not understand sufficient physics to realize when the laws of thermodynamics are being violated in your arguments or when the Stefan-Boltzmann law is being violated in your arguments.

You try to produce one story after another of 'confirming data' that is nothing more than manufactured shit from the IPCC and NOAA.

You claim that anyone that disagrees with you is a complete idiot.


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2017 21:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
You'll notice that the authors of this report are from the IPCC, the organization whose stated mission is to avert AGW, not to investigate all possible causes and whether it is even dangerous.


That statement is a lie as you well know. They investigate all causes, the IPCCs brief is to report to policy makers on the science. If another possible cause was credible or if climate changes effects were thought to be benign it would have to report on that and in fact it considers this.

I suggest actually reading the reports before sagely telling people what is contained within them.


The IPCC is a political organization. They have a political agenda. They are nothing more than part of the doctrine of the Church of Global Warming.

The IPCC is not science. It does not use science. It does not create science. It is religious and political propaganda.


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2017 21:10
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2016-09-global-2c-threshold.html

Earth is on track to sail past the two degree Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) threshold for dangerous global warming by 2050, seven of the world's top climate scientists warned Thursday.


More stuff about climate on the climate debate forum interesting projection by actual scientists sadly not optimistic.


Utter bull.

Given that clearly we are nowhere near getting to the lowest projections of the IPCC why the hell can they claim that we are warming faster than anticipated????

Also 1.2c over now is hardly massive.

Also the bit about extreme weather is simply a lie.
27-03-2017 21:28
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2016-09-global-2c-threshold.html

Earth is on track to sail past the two degree Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) threshold for dangerous global warming by 2050, seven of the world's top climate scientists warned Thursday.


More stuff about climate on the climate debate forum interesting projection by actual scientists sadly not optimistic.


Utter bull.

Given that clearly we are nowhere near getting to the lowest projections of the IPCC why the hell can they claim that we are warming faster than anticipated????

Also 1.2c over now is hardly massive.

Also the bit about extreme weather is simply a lie.


I suppose you have a source for the IPCC projections that is not an anti-scientific blog?

A bit rich to accuse those scientists of lying considering the amount of frankly ridiculous and blatantly false statements you routinely come out with.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-03-2017 21:31
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
Spothead,

Take the simplest of statements. Show one credible source that floods, drought, OR heatwaves have freikin doubled since 1990. Pick one!

IPCC (Ignorant Pieceofshit Climate Clowns)is showing their cards big time.

Oh, and by the way, believing this drivel is the very definition of ignorant.
Edited on 27-03-2017 21:39
27-03-2017 21:43
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Are you too thick to look up things for yourself?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_wave


A more general indicator that allows comparing heat waves in different regions of the World, characterized by different climates, has been recently developed. [12] This was used to estimate heat waves occurrence at the global scale from 1901 to 2010, finding a substantial and sharp increase in the amount of affected areas in the last two decades.

27-03-2017 22:34
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
This is what your putting up as evidence?


If you stand by the article you posted up, then put up some real numbers.
27-03-2017 22:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2016-09-global-2c-threshold.html

Earth is on track to sail past the two degree Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) threshold for dangerous global warming by 2050, seven of the world's top climate scientists warned Thursday.


More stuff about climate on the climate debate forum interesting projection by actual scientists sadly not optimistic.


Utter bull.

Given that clearly we are nowhere near getting to the lowest projections of the IPCC why the hell can they claim that we are warming faster than anticipated????

Also 1.2c over now is hardly massive.

Also the bit about extreme weather is simply a lie.


I suppose you have a source for the IPCC projections that is not an anti-scientific blog?

A bit rich to accuse those scientists of lying considering the amount of frankly ridiculous and blatantly false statements you routinely come out with.


Why does an IPCC 'projection' have any weight??? These guys are basing their 'projection' on manufactured data.


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2017 22:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
spot wrote:
Are you too thick to look up things for yourself?

...deleted Wikipedia link...

[quote]
A more general indicator that allows comparing heat waves in different regions of the World, characterized by different climates, has been recently developed. [12] This was used to estimate heat waves occurrence at the global scale from 1901 to 2010, finding a substantial and sharp increase in the amount of affected areas in the last two decades.
...deleted wikipedia image link...


Wikipedia is not data. The source for this information is manufactured data.

Why do you continue to believe the IPCC, NOAA, and Wikipedia are God?

Learn to think for yourself. Stop depending on others to make your arguments for you. You can't even see whats wrong with them.


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2017 22:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
GasGuzzler wrote:
This is what your putting up as evidence?


If you stand by the article you posted up, then put up some real numbers.


He hasn't got any. All he can quote is the manufactured shit that he calls data.


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2017 23:04
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffs: you spend time attacking people.....tell people they are uneducated, ignorant, lying, or 'obviously' mentally challenged.

Ah.... "badnight" says, spot describes in accurate detail. Not as accurately as I do, tho.
27-03-2017 23:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffs: you spend time attacking people.....tell people they are uneducated, ignorant, lying, or 'obviously' mentally challenged.

Ah.... "badnight" says, spot describes in accurate detail. Not as accurately as I do, tho.


Still stuck speaking gibberish while insulting people and quoting made up data, Chief Litebeer?


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2017 23:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Are you too thick to look up things for yourself?

...deleted Wikipedia link...

[quote]
A more general indicator that allows comparing heat waves in different regions of the World, characterized by different climates, has been recently developed. [12] This was used to estimate heat waves occurrence at the global scale from 1901 to 2010, finding a substantial and sharp increase in the amount of affected areas in the last two decades.
...deleted wikipedia image link...


Wikipedia is not data. The source for this information is manufactured data.

Why do you continue to believe the IPCC, NOAA, and Wikipedia are God?

Learn to think for yourself. Stop depending on others to make your arguments for you. You can't even see whats wrong with them.

Simply dismissing all evidence that conflicts with your personal ideology isn't thinking for yourself, it is denial.
27-03-2017 23:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Are you too thick to look up things for yourself?

...deleted Wikipedia link...

[quote]
A more general indicator that allows comparing heat waves in different regions of the World, characterized by different climates, has been recently developed. [12] This was used to estimate heat waves occurrence at the global scale from 1901 to 2010, finding a substantial and sharp increase in the amount of affected areas in the last two decades.
...deleted wikipedia image link...


Wikipedia is not data. The source for this information is manufactured data.

Why do you continue to believe the IPCC, NOAA, and Wikipedia are God?

Learn to think for yourself. Stop depending on others to make your arguments for you. You can't even see whats wrong with them.

Simply dismissing all evidence that conflicts with your personal ideology isn't thinking for yourself, it is denial.


I dismiss the 'evidence' because there is no way to measure or calculate the global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy.

Any idiot that tells you otherwise, such as the IPCC, NOAA, or Wikipedia, are making up data.

It is no different counting 'heat waves' that have occurred.

Wikipedia is well known as a biased source and often contains badly written articles (they were written by the People after all). I generally dismiss them on sight.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-03-2017 23:29
27-03-2017 23:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Are you too thick to look up things for yourself?

...deleted Wikipedia link...

[quote]
A more general indicator that allows comparing heat waves in different regions of the World, characterized by different climates, has been recently developed. [12] This was used to estimate heat waves occurrence at the global scale from 1901 to 2010, finding a substantial and sharp increase in the amount of affected areas in the last two decades.
...deleted wikipedia image link...


Wikipedia is not data. The source for this information is manufactured data.

Why do you continue to believe the IPCC, NOAA, and Wikipedia are God?

Learn to think for yourself. Stop depending on others to make your arguments for you. You can't even see whats wrong with them.

Simply dismissing all evidence that conflicts with your personal ideology isn't thinking for yourself, it is denial.


I dismiss the 'evidence' because there is no way to measure or calculate the global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy.

Any idiot that tells you otherwise, such as the IPCC, NOAA, or Wikipedia, are making up data.

Forgive me if I consider you to be the idiot rather than the IPCC, NOAA and every other national scientific organisation on the planet.

Edit: Your claims that the ozone layer reflects radio waves and that lead in the air is harmless aren't exactly helping your credibility.
Edited on 27-03-2017 23:31
27-03-2017 23:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Are you too thick to look up things for yourself?

...deleted Wikipedia link...

[quote]
A more general indicator that allows comparing heat waves in different regions of the World, characterized by different climates, has been recently developed. [12] This was used to estimate heat waves occurrence at the global scale from 1901 to 2010, finding a substantial and sharp increase in the amount of affected areas in the last two decades.
...deleted wikipedia image link...


Wikipedia is not data. The source for this information is manufactured data.

Why do you continue to believe the IPCC, NOAA, and Wikipedia are God?

Learn to think for yourself. Stop depending on others to make your arguments for you. You can't even see whats wrong with them.

Simply dismissing all evidence that conflicts with your personal ideology isn't thinking for yourself, it is denial.


I dismiss the 'evidence' because there is no way to measure or calculate the global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy.

Any idiot that tells you otherwise, such as the IPCC, NOAA, or Wikipedia, are making up data.

Forgive me if I consider you to be the idiot rather than the IPCC, NOAA and every other national scientific organisation on the planet.


Ah...back to claiming that you speak for all scientists again. You are a nothing. You are a spokesman for nobody. No forgiveness.

What do the IPCC, NOAA, and every science organization have in common?

They are all POLITICAL organizations.

Science isn't about consensus. Consensus isn't used in science at all. Science isn't even people. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves.

Political organizations cannot trump the requirements of mathematics. ALL of these organizations listed are making egregious math errors. They are ALL doing it for the same reason.

Now...do you want to go around AGAIN on how you don't know statistics, probability, or random number generation?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-03-2017 23:34
27-03-2017 23:42
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
You'll notice that the authors of this report are from the IPCC, the organization whose stated mission is to avert AGW, not to investigate all possible causes and whether it is even dangerous.


That statement is a lie as you well know. They investigate all causes, the IPCCs brief is to report to policy makers on the science. If another possible cause was credible or if climate changes effects were thought to be benign it would have to report on that and in fact it considers this.

I suggest actually reading the reports before sagely telling people what is contained within them.


Let's talk about my lie. First of all here is the IPCC's mission statement:

{The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization for the purpose of assessing "the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data. It bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical literature."}

Please notice the phrase " understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change". It doesn't say all causes.

Second, where, in my statement did I sagely tell people what is in the reports?
Edited on 28-03-2017 00:02
27-03-2017 23:49
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffs: Still stuck speaking gibberish while insulting people and quoting made up data, Chief Litebeer?

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" keeps earning its name. Meanwhile:
.... 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum reached its peak sometime ago, & like 2015 & 2016, will NOT reach 14 million square kilometers extent maximum.... just remarkable!! Arctic sea ice VOLUME growth should continue to or into April, but only as a bit more sea ice thickening, not as extra southward expansion frontage. All three years have been very close to the 14 million square kilometer mark, AND even for extended periods of time. But each of the trio has left a graph profile like a volcano with its top blown off & below the 14 mark.
Robert Scribbler makes mention of this year's Arctic sea ice maximum extent:
https://robertscribbler.com/2017/03/20/frailest-ever-winter-sea-ice-facing-a-cruel-cruel-summer/
Not only was 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum below 14 million square kiometers, it actually DIDN'T reach 13.9 million square kilometers. AND THAT SEA ICE was thin. Of course, March 2017 Arctic sea ice VOLUME was 9600 cubic kilometers less than the average of the 1980's, & 11,000(+?) cubic kilometers less than 1980, itself, but even a thousand (+?) cubic kilometers less than record breaking years, 2015 & 2016.
It is good that AGW denier liar whiners double-down & triple-down(?) on their bets that Earth is returning to an ice age.
Not mentioned earlier.... during this time of year, when yearly sea ice maximum variations are reduced..... 2017 Arctic sea ice maximum extent was well LESS THAN 2 million square kilometers than for the year 1979.
2017 Arctic sea ice extent is so low as of Mar. 22, that 1980 DECADE average sea ice extent was NOT as low until MAY 9. Beyond that tidbit was this largebit:
At these divergent times WHEN ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT WAS THE SAME, 1980 decade average VOLUME WAS 30,000+ cubic kilometers, while 2017 VOLUME is 18,600 cubic kilometers.
As mentioned above, 2+million KM2 is water that was sea ice in 1979 & readily absorbing solar energy, instead of reflecting solar heat to space.
Yeah, already excess AGW energy has a strong feedback, causing more solar energy to be absorbed. Wherever there are downwellings in that 2 million extra KM2 of water, solar energy is transported to bottom of continental shelves or into the deep Arctic Ocean for storage.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
From the article:
More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent. Though the atmosphere has been spared from the full extent of global warming for now, heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future.
27-03-2017 23:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffs: Still stuck speaking gibberish while insulting people and quoting made up data, Chief Litebeer?

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" keeps earning its name. Meanwhile:
.... 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum reached its peak sometime ago, & like 2015 & 2016, will NOT reach 14 million square kilometers extent maximum.... just remarkable!! Arctic sea ice VOLUME growth should continue to or into April, but only as a bit more sea ice thickening, not as extra southward expansion frontage. All three years have been very close to the 14 million square kilometer mark, AND even for extended periods of time. But each of the trio has left a graph profile like a volcano with its top blown off & below the 14 mark.
Robert Scribbler makes mention of this year's Arctic sea ice maximum extent:
https://robertscribbler.com/2017/03/20/frailest-ever-winter-sea-ice-facing-a-cruel-cruel-summer/
Not only was 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum below 14 million square kiometers, it actually DIDN'T reach 13.9 million square kilometers. AND THAT SEA ICE was thin. Of course, March 2017 Arctic sea ice VOLUME was 9600 cubic kilometers less than the average of the 1980's, & 11,000(+?) cubic kilometers less than 1980, itself, but even a thousand (+?) cubic kilometers less than record breaking years, 2015 & 2016.
It is good that AGW denier liar whiners double-down & triple-down(?) on their bets that Earth is returning to an ice age.
Not mentioned earlier.... during this time of year, when yearly sea ice maximum variations are reduced..... 2017 Arctic sea ice maximum extent was well LESS THAN 2 million square kilometers than for the year 1979.
2017 Arctic sea ice extent is so low as of Mar. 22, that 1980 DECADE average sea ice extent was NOT as low until MAY 9. Beyond that tidbit was this largebit:
At these divergent times WHEN ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT WAS THE SAME, 1980 decade average VOLUME WAS 30,000+ cubic kilometers, while 2017 VOLUME is 18,600 cubic kilometers.
As mentioned above, 2+million KM2 is water that was sea ice in 1979 & readily absorbing solar energy, instead of reflecting solar heat to space.
Yeah, already excess AGW energy has a strong feedback, causing more solar energy to be absorbed. Wherever there are downwellings in that 2 million extra KM2 of water, solar energy is transported to bottom of continental shelves or into the deep Arctic Ocean for storage.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
From the article:
More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent. Though the atmosphere has been spared from the full extent of global warming for now, heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future.


Are you trying to prove me correct, Litebeer? Gawd...you're like a ship with a stuck rudder.


The Parrot Killer
28-03-2017 00:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
You'll notice that the authors of this report are from the IPCC, the organization whose stated mission is to avert AGW, not to investigate all possible causes and whether it is even dangerous.


That statement is a lie as you well know. They investigate all causes, the IPCCs brief is to report to policy makers on the science. If another possible cause was credible or if climate changes effects were thought to be benign it would have to report on that and in fact it considers this.

I suggest actually reading the reports before sagely telling people what is contained within them.


Let's talk about my lie. First of all here is the IPCC's mission statement:

{The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization for the purpose of assessing "the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data. It bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical literature."}

Please notice the phrase " understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change". It doesn't say all causes.

Second, where, in my statement did I sagely tell people what is in the reports?


If there was credible research that some other cause was causing it they would be bound to report that, natural forcing and natural variability are mentioned, ask yourself why would they mention something that is not considered.



You insinuating that they are not considered is being deceptive.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-03-2017 00:54
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
Spot wrote; ask yourself why would they mention something that is not considered.


I would ask myself why they would NOT mention what SHOULD be considered.

Water vapor.......95% of total greenhouse gases.....not mentioned.

Go home everyone. There's no agenda here.
Attached image:

28-03-2017 01:22
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
You'll notice that the authors of this report are from the IPCC, the organization whose stated mission is to avert AGW, not to investigate all possible causes and whether it is even dangerous.


That statement is a lie as you well know. They investigate all causes, the IPCCs brief is to report to policy makers on the science. If another possible cause was credible or if climate changes effects were thought to be benign it would have to report on that and in fact it considers this.

I suggest actually reading the reports before sagely telling people what is contained within them.


Let's talk about my lie. First of all here is the IPCC's mission statement:

{The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization for the purpose of assessing "the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data. It bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical literature."}

Please notice the phrase " understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change". It doesn't say all causes.

Second, where, in my statement did I sagely tell people what is in the reports?


If there was credible research that some other cause was causing it they would be bound to report that, natural forcing and natural variability are mentioned, ask yourself why would they mention something that is not considered.



You insinuating that they are not considered is being deceptive.


Are you kidding me? They had to mention natural causes, which have been the only cause possible up until the middle of the last century. But it appears even from your graph that it was just mentioned.
28-03-2017 01:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spot wrote; ask yourself why would they mention something that is not considered.


I would ask myself why they would NOT mention what SHOULD be considered.

Water vapor.......95% of total greenhouse gases.....not mentioned.

Go home everyone. There's no agenda here.

For one thing, the graph depicts emissions of greenhouse gases, not total greenhouse gases. For another, emissions of water vapour are not considered because water vapour has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere. It very rapidly condenses into water, while the other gases stay there for a long time.
28-03-2017 01:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spot wrote; ask yourself why would they mention something that is not considered.


I would ask myself why they would NOT mention what SHOULD be considered.

Water vapor.......95% of total greenhouse gases.....not mentioned.

Go home everyone. There's no agenda here.

For one thing, the graph depicts emissions of greenhouse gases, not total greenhouse gases. For another, emissions of water vapour are not considered because water vapour has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere. It very rapidly condenses into water, while the other gases stay there for a long time.


Apparently, you:

1) Do not know the absorption spectra of either water vapor or liquid water,
2) Do not know the effect of IR absorption by any substance such as water or carbon dioxide,
3) Are still ignoring the violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by describing such absorption as 'greenhouse effect',
4) Are still ignoring the violation of the 2nd LoT by describing a colder substance heating a warmer surface,
5) Have no idea why water vapor would condense out, if it would, why it would, and why and how fast it turns back into water vapor,
6) Would rather assume that the ONLY loss of energy from the surface of the Earth is going to be by radiance and nothing else,
7) Would rather spend time quibbling over percentages of this or that in an argument that makes no sense.


The Parrot Killer
28-03-2017 02:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spot wrote; ask yourself why would they mention something that is not considered.


I would ask myself why they would NOT mention what SHOULD be considered.

Water vapor.......95% of total greenhouse gases.....not mentioned.

Go home everyone. There's no agenda here.

For one thing, the graph depicts emissions of greenhouse gases, not total greenhouse gases. For another, emissions of water vapour are not considered because water vapour has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere. It very rapidly condenses into water, while the other gases stay there for a long time.


Apparently, you:

1) Do not know the absorption spectra of either water vapor or liquid water,
2) Do not know the effect of IR absorption by any substance such as water or carbon dioxide,
3) Are still ignoring the violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by describing such absorption as 'greenhouse effect',
4) Are still ignoring the violation of the 2nd LoT by describing a colder substance heating a warmer surface,
5) Have no idea why water vapor would condense out, if it would, why it would, and why and how fast it turns back into water vapor,
6) Would rather assume that the ONLY loss of energy from the surface of the Earth is going to be by radiance and nothing else,
7) Would rather spend time quibbling over percentages of this or that in an argument that makes no sense.

Another ITN non-sequitur. Any chance of your actually reading the post and making a relevant comment rather than posting random crap?
28-03-2017 03:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spot wrote; ask yourself why would they mention something that is not considered.


I would ask myself why they would NOT mention what SHOULD be considered.

Water vapor.......95% of total greenhouse gases.....not mentioned.

Go home everyone. There's no agenda here.

For one thing, the graph depicts emissions of greenhouse gases, not total greenhouse gases. For another, emissions of water vapour are not considered because water vapour has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere. It very rapidly condenses into water, while the other gases stay there for a long time.


Apparently, you:

1) Do not know the absorption spectra of either water vapor or liquid water,
2) Do not know the effect of IR absorption by any substance such as water or carbon dioxide,
3) Are still ignoring the violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by describing such absorption as 'greenhouse effect',
4) Are still ignoring the violation of the 2nd LoT by describing a colder substance heating a warmer surface,
5) Have no idea why water vapor would condense out, if it would, why it would, and why and how fast it turns back into water vapor,
6) Would rather assume that the ONLY loss of energy from the surface of the Earth is going to be by radiance and nothing else,
7) Would rather spend time quibbling over percentages of this or that in an argument that makes no sense.

Another ITN non-sequitur. Any chance of your actually reading the post and making a relevant comment rather than posting random crap?

Aww. I must've hurt your feelings, saying that you are quibbling over nothing.


The Parrot Killer
28-03-2017 13:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spot wrote; ask yourself why would they mention something that is not considered.


I would ask myself why they would NOT mention what SHOULD be considered.

Water vapor.......95% of total greenhouse gases.....not mentioned.

Go home everyone. There's no agenda here.

For one thing, the graph depicts emissions of greenhouse gases, not total greenhouse gases. For another, emissions of water vapour are not considered because water vapour has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere. It very rapidly condenses into water, while the other gases stay there for a long time.

P
The graph I posted? It quite clearly shows change. Water vapour is not ignored by climate scientists as anyone can verify. To suggest otherwise is conspiracy theory territory.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-03-2017 14:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
spot wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spot wrote; ask yourself why would they mention something that is not considered.


I would ask myself why they would NOT mention what SHOULD be considered.

Water vapor.......95% of total greenhouse gases.....not mentioned.

Go home everyone. There's no agenda here.

For one thing, the graph depicts emissions of greenhouse gases, not total greenhouse gases. For another, emissions of water vapour are not considered because water vapour has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere. It very rapidly condenses into water, while the other gases stay there for a long time.

P
The graph I posted? It quite clearly shows change. Water vapour is not ignored by climate scientists as anyone can verify. To suggest otherwise is conspiracy theory territory.

My comment was directed at the pie chart that GasGuzzler posted.
28-03-2017 16:27
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Sorry I am on my phone and did not mean to reply to your comment.
01-04-2017 12:46
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2016-09-global-2c-threshold.html

Earth is on track to sail past the two degree Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) threshold for dangerous global warming by 2050, seven of the world's top climate scientists warned Thursday.


More stuff about climate on the climate debate forum interesting projection by actual scientists sadly not optimistic.


Utter bull.

Given that clearly we are nowhere near getting to the lowest projections of the IPCC why the hell can they claim that we are warming faster than anticipated????

Also 1.2c over now is hardly massive.

Also the bit about extreme weather is simply a lie.


I suppose you have a source for the IPCC projections that is not an anti-scientific blog?

A bit rich to accuse those scientists of lying considering the amount of frankly ridiculous and blatantly false statements you routinely come out with.


Are you not aware of the IPCC's predictions???

They are thrown about al the time do you want me to post them up?
01-04-2017 13:39
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
If you had bothered to read the link Phs.org are not reporting on IPCC predictions, this is a new paper by scientists who have had work used in the IPCC reports in the past.

I can find out the IPCCs predictions myself thanks, as can any other individual interested.

I don't want to discuss bizarro world versions of IPCC predictions with you.


Anyway a link for people to read;

https://skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html
Edited on 01-04-2017 13:45
27-04-2017 06:44
Ksenona
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Recently I found interesting idea of solving global problems, the significance of the economy annd global problems in the world. Who are interested read THIS ARTICLE




Join the debate Global warming set to pass 2C threshold in 2050:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
10 ppm O3 in the air absorb 98% of UV, only 2% pass through. So even if CO2 is at 10 ppm temperature023-02-2019 23:38
Was IPCC set up in 1988 to save mankind from climate change?810-02-2019 20:51
2017 is set to be in top three hottest years, with record-breaking extreme weather1720-11-2017 21:25
2016 set to be hottest year on record13908-07-2017 19:49
Australia looks set for drought013-11-2014 18:46
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact