Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
- EPA Climate Change Arrest
- Nothing Nuclear Winter Can’t Fix
Recent Comments
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Jehzsa on “pushing nature past its limits”
- arn on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- dm on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- dm on “pushing nature past its limits”
It is clearly set to really take off — look at all the room for expansion it has, it could blow up at any time (then you’ll see interesting, just you wait). Any day, any second, now, it’s going to take off…really take off…then you’ll be sorry.
Did Phil Jones use his Excel skills on that graph?
But what is the pee value?
If you have to go a good pee is priceless.
You are cherry picking!!!
You probably could have achieved a similar result by showing up to 10% of atmospheric concentration as the y axis – it still would have flatlined.
The level of ignorance of the physics of the greenhouse gas effect by the ignorati commenting here is astounding.
It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words, but this graph is a severe case of photoshopping, and you’ve been mislead and have been had.
Suckers, I’ve got some property in the 9th ward.
I expect stupid does a good job of recognizing itself.
You are ranting mindlessly like an imbecile.
Lol, well, you have a limitless amount of typing space, physicist, why don’t you try and educate us? Please tell us all about the IR spectrum and the speed of light and such!
Physicist,
What is your problem with the CHART?
Puts that couple of parts-per-million of an inert gas thing in perspective doesn’t it. The sidewalk warmista crowd undoubtedly has a hard time grasping the scale of trace concentrations.
@physicist sometimes the truth hurts, doesn’t it?
Do you even know what photoshopping is? Were you hired by Bill McKibben to troll this blog?
That’s an interview I’d like to see. Dumb and dumber.
Correction – make the y scale 0 to 1 % of atmosphere – it still flatlines !
See – I knew some psycho would object to the extreme numbers on the y axis.
Whoever is making up these charts is dicking with you, and you ignorati are just too stupid to figure that out.
And your comments continue to demonstrate that. Keep digging the hole deeper.
The chart is correct.
I said the chart is dicking with people, because it is totally misleading. But that is the prime purpose of the global warming denier – misleading people. 99.964% of the atmosphere is N2, O2, and Argon, and they have no greenhouse gas effect, because of the electronic structure of those molecules and element. So show a plot with a y-axis scale that shows the variation in CO2, rather than burying it by having a large scale.
Quit trying to shit people.
You are complete moron. The atmosphere is about 1-2% H2O, which is by far the dominant greenhouse gas.
“I said the chart is dicking with people, because it is totally misleading.”
I was taught in high school that if you want to represent the nature of a trend without misleading people, you always start your graph on the zero axis, otherwise you are intentionally exaggerating what you are trying to represent. Maybe you missed that class.
I see that overrated highbrow drooling moonbat Physicist can’t even EXPLAIN to us why he objects to the chart.
Let me jump in here, no hockey stick shape…
Wrong (as usual), plotted on an appropriate scale, it would indeed look like a hockey stick. Over the last 150 years or so CO2 concentration is up from 280ppm to 420ppm.
Go do your homework
a real scientist would be aware that ratios of very small numbers are meaningless.
Physicist wants to focus on relative percentage changes. Standard trick of the Shyster. E.g., “My business is growing at 100 times the rate of Exon Mobile…!” You want to make it sound like your business is more powerful than Exon Mobile. You just conveniently forget to mention that you earned $1 of profit last year and made $105 this year.
OK, maybe Physicist is really really dumb, but he’s funny.
Your right Will. My business grew by 250% in 2006. When I went from one employee to two. This year growth is actually more impressive even though we will grow by only around 40% we will actually generate more revenue growth this year than 2006. Good observation about percentages.
I did tell you why I objected, read it again. The y-xis uses such a large scale, that the fact that the CO2 concentration has gone up about 40% from 280 ppm to 400ppm is totally buried.
And let me assure you that if CO2 was something like 1% of the atmosphere, this fucking place would be so hot none of us would be here.
Go check out the temps on Venus where the atmosphere is almost all CO2. The temp is above the melting point of lead.
Lol, yes, Venus. Try again Sherlock. Physicist, is it that you believe people here don’t understand about the y-axis? Are you that oblivious that you don’t understand that everyone commenting here knows what the y-axis is doing?
Here’s a clue. CO2 is a trace gas. As a trace gas, it is incapable of doing anything measurable to the earth’s temps. Given the narrow unique absorption bands, It simply isn’t profuse enough to warm anything up. Additionally, given the open IR bands in the spectrum, trying to warm the planet with CO2 is like trying to warm your house in winter with a laser pen while the window is open. It’s simply vapid to consider it any differently. Get back to us when CO2 hits about 10%. I’ll panic then.
I just read “physicist’s” post above after I wrote my comment on how con artists love to talk about percentage changes while leaving out the actual physical quantities being compared. Classic stuff.
@Physicist:
1) “And let me assure you that if CO2 was something like 1% of the atmosphere …”
Right now it is just below 0.04%. If you burned all the carbon-based fuels on Earth, we wouldn’t get anywhere near 1%.
2) “Go check out the temps on Venus where the atmosphere is almost all CO2. The temp is above the melting point of lead.”
Go check out the temps on Mars where the atmosphere is 95% CO2 (range from +35C to -143C). The high surface temperature on Venus is due to is closer proximity to the Sun and, more so due to its thick atmosphere. CO2 has much less to do with it.
LOL,
No one here disputes the rise from 280 to almost 400.It is that in 99% of the XY scaling it is still minimal and still a trace gas.
You are the typical trivial nose picker who wants to tease out the last dot while the rest of the sentence does not go anywhere.
@suyts,
You just do not know what you are talking about. You are flat out wrong. Go study a little and do some homework.
Right now the planet IS being warmed by the combined greenhouse gas effect of H2O vapor and CO2.
Actually, it is you who are wrong
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/why-adding-more-co2-makes-very-little-difference/
Ahh, the saturated gas argument. Empirical measurements on the ground and from satellites show that the CO2 lines are not saturated.
To the degree that it is saturated it means that the radiation from the earth is pushed to higher levels in the atmosphere, which are cooler, and therefore radiate less (w = sigma * T4), and causes an energy imbalance,which the earth now has of about 0.6W/m2.
And if you work that out I think it comes to energy input to the atmosphere of about 400,000 hiro bombs per day.
That explains the flat temperatures for the past 15 years.
Quote from Willis Eschenbach:
1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source
Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules (ibid)
Hansen says increase in forcing is “400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day”, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.
A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.
Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.
To convert Hansen’s figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres … which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre … in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre … we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.
@Physicist:
Read this:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
It is all about CO2, very recent and peer-reviewed! 😉
Has he mentioned the big oil conspiracy yet? This usually gets trotted out around the same time that people start providing him links to peer reviewed scientific papers…
@Will: “Has he mentioned the big oil conspiracy yet?”
Not yet. I’m waiting for that and the Koch brothers too (but being Canadian, I don’t really know who they are!).
They are the guys who secretly pay your wages, apparently.
That’s 15 year of zero temperature change you mean, right?
Although I do agree that CO2 should warm the atmosphere a little, just not by any amount that is worth worrying about and why its “signal” still can’t be detected above natural variability.
Not exactly sure what you mean by your question?
Climate morons commonly can’t follow simple reasoning but can make giant leaps of faith in regard to co2 attribution (which they call science) with a straight face. They are truly a breed apart.
No one is claiming it isn’t saturated. Only that it’s mostly saturated. All else being equal, we should see about 1.1C of warming assuming no negative or positive feedbacks. Which over 100 years is expected to represent a net benefit to society and the biosphere. The enemy of life is cold.
He fails to notice that most of the effect was already taken up in the first 100 ppm.
Climate scientists understand this also, which is why water vapour has to do all the heavy lifting in the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ theory. The word ‘enhanced’ in this context being approximately equivalent to the word ‘bullshit’. Nothing wrong with the basic physical theory though, except, by itself, it only produces a small amount of beneficial warming.
I forgot to add the link to this statement:
“He fails to notice that most of the effect was already taken up in the first 100 ppm.”
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3677.html#pid3677
Physicist,
have you realized why that measly warm forcing of CO2 ability is not going to turn the world into an oven?
What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?
Teaser from the link:
“My approach was to determine the total net energy that is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. I used Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 and 2008 and others. While slight differences existed the overall result is that there is 120 W/m^2 of energy transferred to the atmosphere by the Earth’s surface. This is 71% of the total energy that is absorbed by the surface from the Sun.”
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/08/what-would-the-temperature-of-the-earth-be-without-co2-in-the-atmosphere/
and even better,
The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!
Teaser from the link:
“It can also be used to compare entire years against each other. I will pick 1984 and 2009 to show that the same result applies over the course of a year. 1984 is a good year for that since it had a temperature anomaly very close to 0.0 °C for most measurements. As a result that would also be a year that should have an almost zero anomaly for the amount of energy that the Earth lost to space.”
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/05/the-science-of-why-the-theory-of-global-warming-is-incorrect/
CO2 is a nobody when it comes to driving the climate.It NEVER has and yet deluded people like you fall apart over a trace gas with a very slender IR absorption window.Heck the absorption (14.77) line is even OUTSIDE the main IR outflow.
When are you going to stop embarrassing yourself here?
:lol:, I didn’t it was going to take very long!
I think he’ll stop soon. The problem with people like him is that they initially believe skeptics aren’t knowledgeable about the issues. So, they assume a moniker which projects authority and then regurgitates arguments which have been thoroughly refuted by skeptics. Eventually, they whimper a bit and then go away. Which is sad. We all cut our teeth on arguing people current on the issues.
Today, it’s actually fun to find a person/chew toy to explain how wrong they are/play with. I mean, really, if it weren’t for people like “physicist”, we’d never had learned about this crap. The knowledge gained was great, but, entirely useless in the real world with the exception of preventing lunatics like “physicist” from swaying the population to adopt insipidly stupid laws which work to the detriment of humanity.
😆 I was laughing so hard at him I missed a word in Me comment.
It should have read, I didn’t think it was going to take very long! LMAO!
OMG! That was awesome suyts! LMAO. Nail. On. Head.
Mostly or whatever, overall effect of the increasing CO2, and it is increasing (despite the best efforts of this site to obscure that fact), it to increase the temps. and the average global temps are already up 0.8C over the last century (despite the best efforts of this site to obscure that fact).
what is the “all else”?
no negative or positive feedbacks? there will be feedbacks. what are the negative ones?
a positive one is the increase in H2O, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere because the average temp is up.
another positive one is the warming of the arctic region and the release of CO2 and methane from the thawing permafrost.
there is a large body of work out there which delineates that the net benefit will not be positive. one net negative is the fact that 40-50% of human produced CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans, leading to acidification, leading to the destruction of all reefs, which is very bad, same type of badness of destroying rain forests.
You went back in line for an extra helping of kool aid didn’t you?
No evidence, just the same old speculation that’s been around since the ’60’s. Acid rain was going to destroy the world’s forests. Didn’t happen. Now CO2 is going to destroy the world’s oceans, and so on it goes. Who knows what it will be next year.
Few papers support such claims and many more that don’t. But please, continue to indulge your apocalyptic fantasies so we can continue to mock you.
@Will: Have a read of this:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/10/11/deja-vu-all-over-again-1991s-world-on-fire/
I’ve read several large scientific ‘reviews’ on ocean acidification and there is nothing much there, except for pleas for more research funding on the topic. Lots of “if’s, but’s, maybe’s” but no hard data. That’s the field of ecology and environmental science for you. Not as bad as the field of psychiatry but not much better.
@Will : Read this too:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/10/04/blast-from-the-past-the-dying-of-the-trees/
@WIll: “I’ve read several large scientific ‘reviews’ on ocean acidification and there is nothing much there”
My experience as well. Lots of hype, but not much happening. When something does happen, man usually gets the blame and many years later, the real cause is found to be something else.
@ physicist…..
I was hoping you would actually engage in a discussion of the physical properties of CO2, IR, and the spectrum. But, you opted for inanity. So be it.
H2O isn’t a positive feedback it’s a negative. We, in the rational world, like to call atmospheric H2O…. clouds.
Clouds are an interesting study. Much has been written about clouds. Clouds do two things relative to the energy coming to the earth. Because of their composition, they block visible energy from reaching the earth, but, because of the nature of H2O, they also block IR from hitting the earth. While most imbeciles only consider the visible energy from the sun, a nearly equal amount of IR is emitted from the sun as well.
Before you blather again, stop and consider what more atmospheric H2O means in terms of what is coming in and what is going out. Consider the spectrum. Then consider CO2 and its spectrum. If you really want to delve into it, consider the spectrum both molecules re-emit in.
Dude, you don’t even know the question, much less the answer.
What do you expect James, he doesn’t even understand that graph Steven has up. phyescyst is a moron with much less oxy.
You didn’t find his citing Hansen or getting his info from DeSmogBlog credible then?
Yeh, but, we can have fun while it lasts. 🙂
Nope.
Whaaaattt??? DeSmear not credible? That’s just crazy talk! I mean sure, the site is funded by a felon. That doesn’t mean it’s dishonest!
The original idea was that if temperature increased the atmosphere would be capable of holding more water vapour. Not an illogical claim and worth testing. (This of course presumes that CO2 would be powerful enough to cause some initial warming to kick off a feedback loop of some type.) But there has been no observable change in water vapour trends for basically the entire observational record.
Ideas, theories, hunches, etc., are great. At some point they got to mesh with the observations though.
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Clouds and atmospheric water vapour
Yeh, because alarmists never deal with reality, I was going to play a hypothetical game with him. But, now you blew me up! 🙂
There is a graphic in the post you linked which is what I was alluding to as being incorrect. http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudEffectOnEarthClimate.jpg
About 40%-45% of the energy from the sun is IR or longwave. Visible or shortwave is about 45-50%. The rest is UV.
Energy and light. What a beautiful mystery.
The graph is perfectly correct. It displays the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, in ppm, over the last 160 years or so on a scale from zero to 1 million parts per million. As graphs go I would put it as one of the best I have ever seen.
Now put Earth’s population growth in the same graph over the last 160 years.
I think Steven may have accidentally graphed physicist’s learning curve!