CO2 is not causing changes of climate

[valkhorn]

blah

So you claim that the cosmic ray thing matches the spiral arms of the galaxy? You do realize that the spitzer space telescope THIS YEAR has shown that we were mistaken about the size and number of spiral arms of the galaxy, and those correlations no longer hold.

I posted this in another thread, but you apparently missed it. Also, your studies are from 2003 or 2004, right? So why didn't you try to see if it was still accurate in 2011?<br><br>You and Bethesda both are quick to ignore this recent find.<br>

[Snow_Miser]

You keep claiming that SkepticalScience is written by a cartoonist but I confess I wasn't sure so I checked. What I found out is that the site's material is written by a team of people and reflect comments and suggestions by a much larger group of interested folk. Here's the resume of the website's lead austhor:Doesn't sound too cartoonish to me but, heck, I'm just a cospiratorial alarmist.

Here's the link to the info on the rest of the SkepticalScience team. They sound like a pretty smart bunch to me. Would you care to share your credentials with us?

As I said in my earlier post, you can weasel around all you want but you can't change the fact that you lied. I was talking about TSI and the Earth, not ISR and the Earth's surface. The Earth is more than just its surface - the terms are not synonymous. You lied. If you had a milligram of integrity you would be ashamed of yourself and apologize or slink away. But I'll predict that you'll just keep posting your error-filled rants.

Yeah, he's a cartoonist alright.

This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think.

I checked the link for the list of people that contribute to SkepticalScience, and they may be very smart people, but none of them are atmospheric scientists, or climatologists.

Looks like we have John Cook, who is a cartoonist, has studied physics, and is an author. No science degree.

We have Dana Nuccitelli who is an actual scientist, and has a M.Sc in astrophysics.

Robert Painting is an enviromentalist and a police officer. No science degree.

Doug Mackie looks like he is a Ph.D Student. It doesn't specify what field he is researching in.

James Wight, a science student. No current degree in Science.

Daniel Bailey studied Earth Science. No science degree.

Robert Way is a Master's Student. No current science degree.

Andy Skuce has a degree in geophysics. It's funny, the description of Andy Skuce says...

geophysics. He has worked for the British Geological Survey and several oil companies in Canada and around the world.

Wow! So a CAGW Advocate works for an oil company! Maybe this will halt all of the nonsense that skeptics are funded by big oil.

Greg Tamblyn is an engineer. No science degree.

Riccardo has a Ph.D in experimental materials.

Anne-Marie Blackburn has a B.S. in Biology.

Ari Jokimäki is a computer scientist.

Neal J. King studied physics. No Science Degree.

Barbel Winkler is a translator. No Science Degree.

Höskuldur Búi Jónsson is a geologist.

You ruled the source of the warming as being an increase in energy that is reaching Earth's surface while only looking at the sun, and not looking at simple cloud changes that are occuring right here on Earth. This, again demonstrates a lack of knowledge on your part on how Clouds impact Earth's Global Energy Flows. It is you who dug yourself in a hole, when you did so.

[Strongbad]

Yeah, he's a cartoonist alright.

[/u][/b]I checked the link for the list of people that contribute to SkepticalScience, and they may be very smart people, but none of them are atmospheric scientists, or climatologists.

Looks like we have John Cook, who is a cartoonist, has studied physics, and is an author. No science degree.

We have Dana Nuccitelli who is an actual scientist, and has a M.Sc in astrophysics.

Robert Painting is an enviromentalist and a police officer. No science degree.

Doug Mackie looks like he is a Ph.D Student. It doesn't specify what field he is researching in.

James Wight, a science student. No current degree in Science.

Daniel Bailey studied Earth Science. No science degree.

Robert Way is a Master's Student. No current science degree.

Andy Skuce has a degree in geophysics. It's funny, the description of Andy Skuce says...

[/u][/b]Wow! So a CAGW Advocate works for an oil company! Maybe this will halt all of the nonsense that skeptics are funded by big oil.

Greg Tamblyn is an engineer. No science degree.

Riccardo has a Ph.D in experimental materials.

Anne-Marie Blackburn has a B.S. in Biology.

Ari Jokimäki is a computer scientist.

Neal J. King studied physics. No Science Degree.

Barbel Winkler is a translator. No Science Degree.

Höskuldur Búi Jónsson is a geologist.

You ruled the source of the warming as being an increase in energy that is reaching Earth's surface while only looking at the sun, and not looking at simple cloud changes that are occuring right here on Earth. This, again demonstrates a lack of knowledge on your part on how Clouds impact Earth's Global Energy Flows. It is you who dug yourself in a hole, when you did so.

If you expect your AGW friend to admit error, you will be disappointed. The Church of Global Warming hast spoken and all sinners will burn in a GHG infested toxic wasteland. His messiah, Al Gore, will lead him to the promised land.

But seriously, the AGW camp since the CERN experiment, but really since ClimateGate, is crashing and burning. CO2 as a pollutant?!?! HAHAHAHAHA. There is no science here, only politics. Think of it as a crew of elitist technocrats, along with their sheepish acolytes, who deep down have a sincere distrust of people and society. They create a science around anti-progress, conveniently choose CO2 as the villain, and use it to prevent society from experiencing growth and material wealth that eventually will leave the technocrats out of jobs.

[WeatherRusty]

If you expect your AGW friend to admit error, you will be disappointed. The Church of Global Warming hast spoken and all sinners will burn in a GHG infested toxic wasteland. His messiah, Al Gore, will lead him to the promised land.

But seriously, the AGW camp since the CERN experiment, but really since ClimateGate, is crashing and burning. CO2 as a pollutant?!?! HAHAHAHAHA. There is no science here, only politics. Think of it as a crew of elitist technocrats, along with their sheepish acolytes, who deep down have a sincere distrust of people and society. They create a science around anti-progress, conveniently choose CO2 as the villain, and use it to prevent society from experiencing growth and material wealth that eventually will leave the technocrats out of jobs.

To all the more reasoned skeptics who populate this forum, this guy is an example of a bald faced denier of science. A conspiracy theorist at his worst, all so typical of his brand of skepticism based solely on ideology which has control of the political powers which govern this land. He is correct, and maybe doing more than a little projecting, that there is no science to his presentation, only politics.

When we name call someone a denier, this type is who we are referring to.

[Strongbad]

To all the more reasoned skeptics who populate this forum, this guy is an example of a bald faced denier of science. A conspiracy theorist at his worst, all so typical of his brand of skepticism based solely on ideology which has control of the political powers which govern this land. He is correct, and maybe doing more than a little projecting, that there is no science to his presentation, only politics.

When we name call someone a denier, this type is who we are referring to.

I am by no means interested in winning you over. The topic of this particular thread is CO2 being the cause of climate change. Due to the fact that most major predictions by the global warming lobby have failed (including but not limited to the Tropospheric warming, Stratospheric cooling, rapid sea level rise, Global temperatures rising in response to CO2 increasing, Himalayan glacial melt). I can keep going here, and it is sad that we allow people with no interest in actual science to hijack climate science with their ridiculous doomsday scenarios. People are naturally driven towards Armageddon, so it is no surprise that you keep crying Science, yet not once have any of your lobby's most dire predictions come true.

I look forward to your response, but I assume that as you are typing it up, you will probably be picturing me as this: or this

[WeatherRusty]

Thanks Rusty.

It does appear to me that there is still a debate on the feedback process and how CO2 relates to that. Obvioulsy as evidenced by this thread, albeit not neccesarily part of the community. As I said..Im not a denier, Im just trying to get a better handle on the CURRENT state of the climatological communities "surety" on this. I just finished reading Lindzen Choi et al 2011 and it has sparked my interest in all of this.

You didnt answer my question though...

The Skeptical Science website provides a great service to those wishing to have the peer-reviewed literature interpreted for them.

It's main purpose is to refute skeptical arguments and interpretations of mainstream science by deciphering the peer-reviewed literature.

If you don't trust someone's presentation of the peer-reviewed literature then you are given direction to the source material for your own evaluation.

[valkhorn]

If you expect your AGW friend to admit error, you will be disappointed. The Church of Global Warming hast spoken and all sinners will burn in a GHG infested toxic wasteland. His messiah, Al Gore, will lead him to the promised land.

But seriously, the AGW camp since the CERN experiment, but really since ClimateGate, is crashing and burning. CO2 as a pollutant?!?! HAHAHAHAHA. There is no science here, only politics. Think of it as a crew of elitist technocrats, along with their sheepish acolytes, who deep down have a sincere distrust of people and society. They create a science around anti-progress, conveniently choose CO2 as the villain, and use it to prevent society from experiencing growth and material wealth that eventually will leave the technocrats out of jobs.

What? First, 'climategate' was absolved and wasn't even a problem. The climatologists did nothing wrong. Second, regarding CERN, there is an actual thread discussing this in the forum which I encourage you to read. I've even posted an interview from the guy who's doing the research - and he seems to say things that are quite different from those of you who are beating the CERN drum all the time. Funny that.

[valkhorn]

The Skeptical Science website provides a great service to those wishing to have the peer-reviewed literature interpreted for them.

It's main purpose is to refute skeptical arguments and interpretations of mainstream science by deciphering the peer-reviewed literature.

If you don't trust someone's presentation of the peer-reviewed literature then you are given direction to the source material for your own evaluation.

Well, those that visit skepticalscience (like myself) usually follow through on the sources. Those that generally read WUWT don't. Just last week someone posted a graph of theirs that was completely misleading. It tried to correlated cooling temperatures with rising CO2 levels. Not only did it selectively grab a small sample of data to try to show cooling, it compared it to CO2 levels which were in completely different units. Talk about dishonest.

I'm still waiting on Bethesda or Snowlover both to realize or even admit that thanks to the Spitzer telescope the past cosmic ray fluxes no longer correlate to the spiral arms of the galaxy. The best I could get Bethesda to do was to post a graph from 2003 when the space telescope gave us these findings this last year. Go figure.

[Strongbad]

What? First, 'climategate' was absolved and wasn't even a problem. The climatologists did nothing wrong. Second, regarding CERN, there is an actual thread discussing this in the forum which I encourage you to read. I've even posted an interview from the guy who's doing the research - and he seems to say things that are quite different from those of you who are beating the CERN drum all the time. Funny that.

Funny that you fail to mention that the absolving was done by an internal inquiry, and not instead by an independent body of observers. Second you fail to mention what I already brought up which is mainly that CERN's top guy warned various scientists not to "interpret the data", which is an obvious political power play. If you wish to keep seeing things through AGW lenses, feel free to do so. But it truly is a disaster that you guys can not "hide the decline"

[WeatherRusty]

I am by no means interested in winning you over. The topic of this particular thread is CO2 being the cause of climate change. Due to the fact that most major predictions by the global warming lobby have failed (including but not limited to the Tropospheric warming, Stratospheric cooling, rapid sea level rise, Global temperatures rising in response to CO2 increasing, Himalayan glacial melt). I can keep going here, and it is sad that we allow people with no interest in actual science to hijack climate science with their ridiculous doomsday scenarios. People are naturally driven towards Armageddon, so it is no surprise that you keep crying Science, yet not once have any of your lobby's most dire predictions come true.

I look forward to your response, but I assume that as you are typing it up, you will probably be picturing me as this: or this

First of all, neither you or anyone else is going to win me over. The science is what has won me over.

The surface has warmed as each decade siince the 1970's has been warmer than it's predecessor, do you deny that?

The stratosphere has cooled in response to decreased ozone production and CO2 build up, you deny that?

Sea levels continue to rise as glacial melt water enters the ocean basins and the water column warms, you deny that?

90% of Himalayan glaciers are melting as are the large majority of glaciers world wide, you deny that?

Antarctica and Greenland both loosing ice mass, you deny that?

Species migrating north and to higher altitudes, you deny that?

Arctic warming much faster than global average, you deny that?

New high temperature records far out pacing new cold records, you deny that?

Near simultaneous worsening drought conditions, 100 year floods, fires, heat waves and unusual snow events, you deny that?

I don't belong to a "lobby".

Dire predictions come true as of this date? Such as? Be more specific please.

Do you deny the physical basis for why CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Do you deny the HITRAN database of infrared absorption spectra, radiative transfer theory and resultant increase in optical density at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2?

Do you deny the calculated temperature of the Earth as based upon the Planck Law, Wein's Displacement Law, Stephan-Boltzmann Law and the Laws of Thermodynamics? These also inform us that 3.7W/m^2 of external forcing will produce a surface warming of ~1.2C per doubling of CO2.

Do you deny the many studies of paleoclimate which provide for a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity to reside somewhere in the range of 2.0C - 4.5C?

[valkhorn]

Funny that you fail to mention that the absolving was done by an internal inquiry, and not instead by an independent body of observers. Second you fail to mention what I already brought up which is mainly that CERN's top guy warned various scientists not to "interpret the data", which is an obvious political power play. If you wish to keep seeing things through AGW lenses, feel free to do so. But it truly is a disaster that you guys can not "hide the decline"

If you actually knew anything about the truth of 'climategate', you wouldn't have said 'hide the decline'. Why? Because you would have known what it really meant, and that it was taken out of context. There was nothing wrong in hiding a particular decline of data if it becomes divergent, untrustworthy, or statistically insignificant.

As far as CERN goes, the guy who's actually doing the research says not to interpret it yet, and that it's going to take 5-10 years for any solid conclusion one way or the other, and you guys say that it's the reason why we're getting warmer. Who should I trust, the guy who's doing the research or you? And, as a scientist is SUPPOSED to do, they become cautious and say it's too early to interpret the data, and you think it's some conspiracy.

I mean, really.... you should learn how Occam's Razor works.

You still haven't addressed the fact that the cosmic ray flux no longer correlates to the spiral arms of the galaxy, and even if it had you would be talking about changes over 100-200 million years instead of a decade - which becomes useless.

I'll side with Kirkby and the people at CERN who are doing the actual research, thank you very much.

<br><br>I find it amazing how you have the people who are doing the research with one set of statements and no clear conclusion, and the denialers with a completely different set of statements, AND a conclusion!<br>

[Strongbad]

First of all, neither you or anyone else is going to win me over. The science is what has won me over.

The surface has warmed as each decade siince the 1970's has been warmer than it's predecessor, do you deny that?

The stratosphere has cooled in response to decreased ozone production and CO2 build up, you deny that?

Sea levels continue to rise as glacial melt water enters the ocean basins and the water column warms, you deny that?

90% of Himalayan glaciers are melting as are the large majority of glaciers world wide, you deny that?

Antarctica and Greenland both loosing ice mass, you deny that?

Species migrating north and to higher altitudes, you deny that?

Arctic warming much faster than global average, you deny that?

New high temperature records far out pacing new cold records, you deny that?

Near simultaneous worsening drought conditions, 100 year floods, fires, heat waves and unusual snow events, you deny that?

I don't belong to a "lobby".

Dire predictions come true as of this date? Such as? Be more specific please.

Do you deny the physical basis for why CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Do you deny the HITRAN database of infrared absorption spectra, radiative transfer theory and resultant increase in optical density at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2?

Do you deny the calculated temperature of the Earth as based upon the Planck Law, Wein's Displacement Law, Stephan-Boltzmann Law and the Laws of Thermodynamics? These also inform us that 3.7W/m^2 of external forcing will produce a surface warming of ~1.2C per doubling of CO2.

Do you deny the many studies of paleoclimate which provide for a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity to reside somewhere in the range of 2.0C - 4.5C?

I don't see a point in responding to any of your questions. We have not yet found a way to Hide the Decline in global temperatures since 2001, nor the stall overall since 1998. CO2 continues to increase as China, India, and Brazil industralize quickly. There is no current increase in global temperatures and it has been a catastrophe for your industry over the past decade. The fact that some of your scientists go as far as to say that Natural factors are being counterbalanced by CO2 is even more ridiculous when you can fail to show us any significant warming trends since 1979. Your religious movement will continue losing support, as the public wakes up to the AGW scam.

Also, do some research on the history of your sad movement. The Germans during the 1930's were quite fond of it and many of their "scientists" pioneered the Green movement.

[Strongbad]

And for casual readers who want to study real science, this is the reason why CO2 is a minimal at best contributor to Climate Change:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THE_PDO%281%29.pdf

[PhillipS]

I don't see a point in responding to any of your questions. We have not yet found a way to Hide the Decline in global temperatures since 2001, nor the stall overall since 1998. CO2 continues to increase as China, India, and Brazil industralize quickly. There is no current increase in global temperatures and it has been a catastrophe for your industry over the past decade. The fact that some of your scientists go as far as to say that Natural factors are being counterbalanced by CO2 is even more ridiculous when you can fail to show us any significant warming trends since 1979. Your religious movement will continue losing support, as the public wakes up to the AGW scam.

Also, do some research on the history of your sad movement. The Germans during the 1930's were quite fond of it and many of their "scientists" pioneered the Green movement.

Here is the current UAH temperature series from Dr Roy Spencer. He is a skeptic by any standard.

To anyone who's not willfully obtuse, the global temperature has been rising since 2001, waming hasn't stalled since 1998, and there has been significant warming since 1978.

You need some fresh denialist cliches. Those are getting pretty stale.

[PhillipS]

And for casual readers who want to study real science, this is the reason why CO2 is a minimal at best contributor to Climate Change:

http://icecap.us/ima..._PDO%281%29.pdf

Wow, is that really the the best 'science' you can offer? A writeup that refers to a 13 year old paper, ignores all of the more recent research, and consists mainly of setting up and knocking down strawman arguments? That's pretty sad.

But, since you brought up the PDO as a source of natural variability, let's offer the casual readers a fact-based alternative to your paper. Here's the SkepticalScience page on the PDO. And here is the summary:

Natural oscillations like PDO simply move heat around from oceans to air and vice-versa. They don't have the ability to either create or retain heat, therefore they're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations. Basically they're an example of internal variability, not an external radiative forcing. If PDO were responsible for warming the surface, the oceans would be cooling, which

is not the case

.

These results are expected. The

long term warming trend

is a result of an energy imbalance

caused primarily by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

. In contrast, the PDO is an internal process and does not increase or decrease the total energy in the climate system.

If you want the straight facts on the PDO just follow the links and they will take you to the peer-reviewed science.

[valkhorn]

I don't see a point in responding to any of your questions. We have not yet found a way to Hide the Decline in global temperatures since 2001, nor the stall overall since 1998. CO2 continues to increase as China, India, and Brazil industralize quickly. There is no current increase in global temperatures and it has been a catastrophe for your industry over the past decade. The fact that some of your scientists go as far as to say that Natural factors are being counterbalanced by CO2 is even more ridiculous when you can fail to show us any significant warming trends since 1979. Your religious movement will continue losing support, as the public wakes up to the AGW scam.

Also, do some research on the history of your sad movement. The Germans during the 1930's were quite fond of it and many of their "scientists" pioneered the Green movement.

For someone who says that other people should do their research, you are factually wrong in at least two statements:

1. Global temperatures are certainly not declining (see Phillip's post)
2. "Hide the Decline" didn't refer at all to temperatures. It referred to tree ring data in the Northern Hemisphere.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't see a point in responding to any of your questions. We have not yet found a way to Hide the Decline in global temperatures since 2001, nor the stall overall since 1998. CO2 continues to increase as China, India, and Brazil industralize quickly. There is no current increase in global temperatures and it has been a catastrophe for your industry over the past decade. The fact that some of your scientists go as far as to say that Natural factors are being counterbalanced by CO2 is even more ridiculous when you can fail to show us any significant warming trends since 1979. Your religious movement will continue losing support, as the public wakes up to the AGW scam.

Also, do some research on the history of your sad movement. The Germans during the 1930's were quite fond of it and many of their "scientists" pioneered the Green movement.

You should do some research on the history of the John Birch society who's doctrine you seem aligned with to the tee.

This is supposed to be a science forum and you wish not to address my questions pertaining to your apparent denial of scientific findings? What are you doing here then?

[Snow_Miser]

If you expect your AGW friend to admit error, you will be disappointed. The Church of Global Warming hast spoken and all sinners will burn in a GHG infested toxic wasteland. His messiah, Al Gore, will lead him to the promised land.

But seriously, the AGW camp since the CERN experiment, but really since ClimateGate, is crashing and burning. CO2 as a pollutant?!?! HAHAHAHAHA. There is no science here, only politics. Think of it as a crew of elitist technocrats, along with their sheepish acolytes, who deep down have a sincere distrust of people and society. They create a science around anti-progress, conveniently choose CO2 as the villain, and use it to prevent society from experiencing growth and material wealth that eventually will leave the technocrats out of jobs.

Well, I only partially agree with this statement. I don't think that CAGW Proponents want to create a 'world government' or anything. They are simply mistaken on the science of Climate Change.

However, what I do agree with, (and later confirmed) is that Phillip does not want to admit that he didn't know that if you take away Global Cloud Cover you get an increase in Incoming Shortwave Radiation. I find this to be a bit troubling, especially because it does seem that he has a lot of arrogance.

[valkhorn]

Well, I only partially agree with this statement. I don't think that CAGW Proponents want to create a 'world government' or anything. They are simply mistaken on the science of Climate Change.

However, what I do agree with, (and later confirmed) is that Phillip does not want to admit that he didn't know that if you take away Global Cloud Cover you get an increase in Incoming Shortwave Radiation. I find this to be a bit troubling, especially because it does seem that he has a lot of arrogance.

What's up with this world government conspiracy anyway? I mean if you think logically about it it's where Earth must head if we are to become a Type I civilization, and it doesn't have to be a bad thing.

But whatever, I'm still waiting for you to address the spiral arms of the galaxy error.

[WeatherRusty]

What's up with this world government conspiracy anyway? I mean if you think logically about it it's where Earth must head if we are to become a Type I civilization, and it doesn't have to be a bad thing.

But whatever, I'm still waiting for you to address the spiral arms of the galaxy error.

A large segment of the skeptical community finds AGW to be an affront to their far right ideology where the free market solves all ills, government is evil, the founding fathers had all the bases covered, and the USA is God's gift to the world.

[Strongbad]

What's up with this world government conspiracy anyway? I mean if you think logically about it it's where Earth must head if we are to become a Type I civilization, and it doesn't have to be a bad thing.

But whatever, I'm still waiting for you to address the spiral arms of the galaxy error.

Listen, we aren't watching Star Trek here. Also, Snowlover if you are reading, here is valkhorn still admitting that he thinks global statism is a good idea. This only further reinforces my belief that AGW is as much a political movement as any others out there.

[Snow_Miser]

What's up with this world government conspiracy anyway? I mean if you think logically about it it's where Earth must head if we are to become a Type I civilization, and it doesn't have to be a bad thing.

But whatever, I'm still waiting for you to address the spiral arms of the galaxy error.

I'm not sure... it seems about as unrealistic, as the extremists on the other side harping on the big conspiracy that Climate Skeptics are evil and they want to destroy the planet because they're being paid by big oil. Trust me, I have met many CAGW Advocates who think such.

I'm not sure how a change in the number in spiral arms in the Milky Way Galaxy would impact the proxy that Shaviv and Veizer reconstructed. Could you provide a link that documents your claim? Thank you.

[Snow_Miser]

This only further reinforces my belief that AGW is as much a political movement as any others out there.

AGW most certainly has a lot of politics associated with it. Once you throw in government and money, there is no doubt that there are some people that are promoting AGW because if Carbon Tax is implemented, they will get significant benefits. This mainly applies to the politicians such as Al Gore, who just recently just compared Climate Skeptics to Racists. It shows how low the AGW Community has stooped, to tolerate these types of remarks.

That being said, while there are some people who are benefiting tremendously from a Carbon Tax, I don't think that a "World Government" is what these people are after. There are also some good CAGW advocates out there. I have met some of them as well.

[Mencken_Fan]

I don't see a point in responding to any of your questions. We have not yet found a way to Hide the Decline in global temperatures since 2001, nor the stall overall since 1998. CO2 continues to increase as China, India, and Brazil industralize quickly. There is no current increase in global temperatures and it has been a catastrophe for your industry over the past decade. The fact that some of your scientists go as far as to say that Natural factors are being counterbalanced by CO2 is even more ridiculous when you can fail to show us any significant warming trends since 1979. Your religious movement will continue losing support, as the public wakes up to the AGW scam.

Also, do some research on the history of your sad movement. The Germans during the 1930's were quite fond of it and many of their "scientists" pioneered the Green movement.

One thing about ideologues like yourself, we who can read well can spot you a mile away.

[Mencken_Fan]

AGW most certainly has a lot of politics associated with it. Once you throw in government and money, there is no doubt that there are some people that are promoting AGW because if Carbon Tax is implemented, they will get significant benefits. This mainly applies to the politicians such as Al Gore, who just recently just compared Climate Skeptics to Racists. It shows how low the AGW Community has stooped, to tolerate these types of remarks.

That being said, while there are some people who are benefiting tremendously from a Carbon Tax, I don't think that a "World Government" is what these people are after. There are also some good CAGW advocates out there. I have met some of them as well.

The cool thing about science (unlike religion) is that being wrong is not only acceptable, it's exciting. That said, I would note that throughout modern history, scientific "wrongs" tend to be small ones. For example, the details of evolution have changed over the many decades but the chance of evolution itself being wrong are effectively zero. The "big bang" has been refined through quantum physics. And so on.

To accept that man is warming the planet does not require a leap of faith; it requires only science. Being the devil is in the details, and we're in the early stages of such warming, it's understandable to have a wild range of views - including irrational ones on both sides.

The impatient, waiting for us all to burn up will be disappointed; as will those who believe man can reshape the biosphere without consequence. From a human time scale, climate change is a slow process. It's underway; and we see it with such things as the migration of plants and animals, the melting Polar Cap and so on. I've been watching "the show" for many decades and am quite comfortable with it all. As for forecasts, the more precise they are, the more wrong they'll likely be....but isn't that always the case?

[tacoman25]

The cool thing about science (unlike religion) is that being wrong is not only acceptable, it's exciting. That said, I would note that throughout modern history, scientific "wrongs" tend to be small ones. For example, the details of evolution have changed over the many decades but the chance of evolution itself being wrong are effectively zero. The "big bang" has been refined through quantum physics. And so on.

To accept that man is warming the planet does not require a leap of faith; it requires only science. Being the devil is in the details, and we're in the early stages of such warming, it's understandable to have a wild range of views - including irrational ones on both sides.

The impatient, waiting for us all to burn up will be disappointed; as will those who believe man can reshape the biosphere without consequence. From a human time scale, climate change is a slow process. It's underway; and we see it with such things as the migration of plants and animals, the melting Polar Cap and so on. I've been watching "the show" for many decades and am quite comfortable with it all. As for forecasts, the more precise they are, the more wrong they'll likely be....but isn't that always the case?

You realize, of course, that the differences in religion often come down to what is believed to be right or wrong? Why do you make these generalized, moronic statements that have nothing to do with the topic at hand? Seriously.

[PhillipS]

However, what I do agree with, (and later confirmed) is that Phillip does not want to admit that he didn't know that if you take away Global Cloud Cover you get an increase in Incoming Shortwave Radiation. I find this to be a bit troubling, especially because it does seem that he has a lot of arrogance.

Hi Liar,

I had about decided to quit feeding the trolls, especially since you've shown that you are not only dishonest but that your mind is closed and your head is in a warm, dark place. But I guess I'm just a perpetual optimist so I'll try to clear up your confusion on the difference between ISR and TSI. TSI is the value of the Sun's output as measured at the Earth's orbit. It is the energy the whole Earth (air, land, sea) receives from the Sun. ISR is the net energy received from the Sun and its value depends on where it is measured. At the Top Of Atmosphere (TOA) TSI is the same as ISR because none of the solar energy has been reflected or absorbed. As you drop down through the atmosphere ISR drops because the atmosphere itself absorbs a portion of the TSI. When you've dropped to the level of the clouds (as you correctly point out) a large percentage of the TSI is reflected back into space. Any issues so far?

Since you don't like SkepticalScience here is a good explanation from NASA:

Roughly 30 percent of the total solar energy that strikes the Earth is reflected back into space by clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, desert sand, rooftops, and even ocean surf. The remaining 70 percent of the TSI is absorbed by the land, ocean, and atmosphere. In addition, different layers of the Earth and atmosphere tend to absorb different wavelengths of light. Only one percent of the TSI, mostly in the form of UV radiation, is absorbed by the upper atmosphere, mainly by stratospheric ozone. Twenty to 24 percent of the TSI and a majority of the near infrared radiation is absorbed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), mainly by water vapor, trace gases, clouds, and darker aerosols. The remaining 46 to 50 percent of predominately visible light penetrates the atmosphere and is taken in by the land and the oceans.

Solar radiation is not emitted in a smooth continuum. Superheated atoms in the Sun, particularly Hydrogen and Helium, absorb radiation in distinct wavelengths. These absorption bands are visible as dips in the green line in the graph above, which represents the spectrum of sunlight that arrives at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere. Additionally, gas molecules absorb radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere, further reducing the radiation at the surface. The blue line represents the spectrum of radiation arriving at the surface of the Earth on a clear day in the tropics, based on an atmospheric model. (Graph by Robert Simmon, based on model data from the NASA GSFC Laboratory for Atmospheres)

In my original post, the one you altered to suit your own agenda, I was referring to the Sun's output so by definition I was referring to TSI. But I'll grant that I should have been clearer and spelled things out for those in the audience with weak reading comprehension. I'll work on that. And I'll try to use shorter words in the future so I don't come across as arrogant.

But the issue isn't ISR versus TSI, much as you would like for it to be. The issue is that you rewrote my post, changing its meaning, and attributed words to me that I never said. That is unacceptable in an honest discussion because it is fundamentally dishonest. It is a lie, pure and simple, and never justifiable. Had your actions been a mistake, and everybody makes mistakes, I'm sure you would have apologized and the incident would be history. But you not only haven't apologized, you've repeatedly defended your actions, so the only conclusion anybody reading this can make is that you meant to lie, you are proud that you lied, you are just angry that you didn't get away with your lie.

Well, since this is supposed to be an honest forum for honest debate I feel that it is appropriate to remind the readers from time to time that you have a track record of dishonesty. After all, we wouldn't want some unsuspecting reader to think you are telling the truth now would we?

[Snow_Miser]

Hi Liar,

These types of remarks, like the one that Phillip wrote, are just an indication that their argument is falling apart, and that the holes in their statements have been found. The personal attacks used to cover up those errors, are also what is being shown above. They are pathetic and don't deserve a spot anywhere on this forum.

But I guess I'm just a perpetual optimist so I'll try to clear up your confusion on the difference between ISR and TSI. TSI is the value of the Sun's output as measured at the Earth's orbit. It is the energy the whole Earth (air, land, sea) receives from the Sun. ISR is the net energy received from the Sun and its value depends on where it is measured.

So yes, at the TOA, ISR is TSI. However, your error was that since the TSI wasn't changing, then the amount of ISR reaching Earth's Surface would not change. But this is not true at all. Cloud Cover changes allow for more ISR to reach Earth's Surface, which would warm the planet. This is something your argument earlier either ignored, or didn't consider at all.

At the Top Of Atmosphere (TOA) TSI is the same as ISR because none of the solar energy has been reflected or absorbed. As you drop down through the atmosphere ISR drops because the atmosphere itself absorbs a portion of the TSI. When you've dropped to the level of the clouds (as you correctly point out) a large percentage of the TSI is reflected back into space. Any issues so far?

Good. Now that you see that some of the ISR is reflected by Cloud Cover, why don't you think that a change in Cloud Cover, which increases the amount of ISR that reaches Earth's Surface, can be the cause of the warming? As you clearly stated in your post, since you think the Earth's Surface is not recieving any additional energy, then it has to be "B" right? That GHGs have trapped some of the OLR that is radiating from the Earth's Surface? The only problem, is that OLR is increasing.

OLR has increased by a rate of around 4.5 w/m^2 per decade. As I explained in my earlier post, this is because of two things. One; A decrease in Cloud Cover is causing less OLR to be trapped, so more OLR is radiated out into space. This indicates, once again, that Cloud Cover changes are more powerful than CO2, because if the source of the warming was CO2, we would see a decrease in OLR, then an increase, as OLR equilibriates to the amount of ISR. Two; since there is more ISR reaching Earth's Surface from decreasing albedo, then this produces an continued increase in OLR, since ISR is continuing to increase.

With the Earthshine experiment, we can see that albedo reached a low point in 1998, and began to incease in 2001. This means that with albedo decreasing up to that point, you can not rule out the source of the energy imbalance at Earth's Surface as an increase in ISR that reaches Earth's Surface, as you incorrectly did. This correlates well to no increase in temperatures since 2001, and even a statistically insignificant cooling.

. And I'll try to use shorter words in the future so I don't come across as arrogant.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

I don't think you even know what "arrogant" even means, as seen with the statement above.

In my original post, the one you altered to suit your own agenda, I was referring to the Sun's output so by definition I was referring to TSI.

Which means that you didn't know that a change in Cloud Cover could produce an increase in ISR that reaches Earth's Surface. Which is what I have been saying your error has been. That you only thought that the sun's output could produce an increase in ISR that reaches Earth's Surface, and you ignored the fact that decreasing Cloud Cover also allows for more ISR to reach Earth's Surface. Therefore, once again, your argument from before is flawed, because you completely ignored Cloud Cover changes possibily proving an increase in ISR, and resorted to falsely ruling out the possibiity that the warming could not be due to an increase in ISR that is reaching Earth's Surface, because TSI was not increasing.

Is it really this hard for you to see?

The issue is that you rewrote my post, changing its meaning, and attributed words to me that I never said. That is unacceptable in an honest discussion because it is fundamentally dishonest.

I did not rewrite your post in any way, shape or form. That is why in my earlier posts, I actually QUOTED your post, so that this type of confusion would not occur.

Once again, from your OWN POST.

The warming is the response to a change in the Eath's energy balance. So where did that additional energy that has warmed the Earth come from? Well, there are only two possibilities - (a) the Earth is receiving additional energy or (b ) something has perturbed Earth's climate so that less energy is being radiated out. Scientists have carefully studied the Sun and have factored in its changes and cycles and have ruled it our as the source of GW because it is just too stable and quiet. So it is not (a), which means source of the warming is (b ).

You wrote that "a" was that the Earth's Surface is receiving additional Energy. You later wrote that solar activity was not increasing, so you falsely asserted that it had to be "b." But once again, your post does not include decreasing Cloud Cover as being a possible explaination for an increase in ISR that is reaching Earth's surface, which means that your conclusions are flawed, since decreasing Cloud Cover has produced an increase in ISR that has reached Earth's surface.

Must I repeat again...

Is it really this hard for you to see?

Had your actions been a mistake, and everybody makes mistakes, I'm sure you would have apologized and the incident would be history.

So pointing out an error in your post is a mistake? Perhaps I should have heeded that warning, so I wouldn't have to deal with a barrage of personal attacks flying at me with every single post you type.

And while you're at it, look up the definition of "mistake."

[Strongbad]

Below, just another natural variable that had not yet been considered or taken into account by scientists who try to claim that CO2 is the main driver of climate. How far we have come, and how much further we can move along as a species as we continue to debunk the notion of human released CO2 (a trace gas) as a dominant driver in climate change.

Researchers have discovered that forest trees can tap into the nitrogen found in rocks, boosting their growth and allowing them to take up more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

Source

[WeatherRusty]

Hi Snowlover123:

I won't call you a liar and I won't disparage Phillip either. Confusion, misinterpretation and coming from different perspectives lead to a breakdown in civility all the way from petty arguments like this to world wars. I am quit sure Phillip understood that decreasing low and middle cloud cover would reflect less SW radiation back to space even if he didn't convey it to you.

You wrote that "a" was that the Earth's Surface is receiving additional Energy. You later wrote that solar activity was not increasing, so you falsely asserted that it had to be "b." But once again, your post does not include decreasing Cloud Cover as being a possible explaination for an increase in ISR that is reaching Earth's surface, which means that your conclusions are flawed, since decreasing Cloud Cover has produced an increase in ISR that has reached Earth's surface.

That is not a false statement at all. The additional energy received at the surface is radiated by the atmosphere rather than the Sun, which is the whole point of the greenhouse effect. The surface receives about twice the direct radiation from it's own atmosphere than it does from the Sun because the atmosphere radiates from 180 degrees in all directions and for 24 hours a day. whereas the Sun, while being much hotter, radiates from an angle of 1/2 degree and for 12 hours on average over any point on Earth.

The Earth has been warming so we should expect OLR energy to increase as that is the only way the Earth can balance it's energy budget at the TOA. When it is claimed that 4.5W/m^2 of additional OLR energy is being emitted to space, something is wrong somewhere because the total TOA imbalance is only on the order of 0.9W/m^2. Is approximately 4.5W/m^2 more SW being absorbed by the surface as well?

With regard to the cloud issue, I will await further confirmation in the peer-reviewed literature that what is being claimed here is in fact what is occurring.