So, in conclusion, we who know mmgw is a farce... now have NASA saying that burning fossil fules....COOLS

[LogicIsForSquares]

It only makes sense when you understand the role of CO2 in retaining the sun's energy in our atmosphere.

[Pumpkin Eater]

http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/05/05/independent-satellite-records-agree-little-to-no-global-warming-over-past-18-years/

[LogicIsForSquares]

I have my doubts that globalwarming.org didn't cherry pick their data. Their agenda is pretty obvious. I will take them as seriously as I would gun violence data presented by MSNBC.

[MLD Woody]

Read up on what NASA has to say about the whole thing

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

I mean, based on this thread, we can all agree NASA is a good source, right?

[gftChris]

That said, I don't think any action we take will matter so long as India and China along with all the other up and coming economies make zero effort to stop their emissions.

This ties in quite neatly with a quote that Cal likes to trot out from time to time. I don't remember verbatim, but it's essentially like "now we have the task of intentionally re-configuring global economics" - point being, the current model of global economics and how to grow a country's economy is basically 'burn shit + ??? = $$$$' where now we need to find a way for countries to develop their economies without following this path.

 

That's the path taken by the UK for centuries, and by most of europe, the US, Canada, Australia, and now India/China (and others). Re-configuring those economies is an immense challenge, so at the same time, we need to re-configure the emerging economies to be much less reliant on the 'burn shit' approach.

[gftChris]

FWIW, some of the smallest economies around are among of the most dependent on renewables. For example costa rica this year generated 99% of its energy from renewables. In 5 years, half of Morocco's energy demands will be met by a new solar installation in their desert.

 

The US has enormous quantities of natural energy - be it death valley-esque sun energy, tornado alley's wind, nearly a hundred thousand miles of coastline - there's plenty of scope to fuel the entire country (and probably others) from renewables, that after initial start up are cheaper to extract than fossil fuels, won't run out in less than a hundred years and don't pollute the air, never mind anything to do with global warming.

[gftChris]

Follow the link to a list of countries and how much renewable energy they produce, as a percentage of overall energy production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources#All_countries

 

Top of the list - Lesotho, Paraguay, Bhutan, Iceland and Albania. All of whose power comes from >99.9% renewables. Bonus points to anybody who can point to all of those countries on an unmarked map.

 

Towards the other end, there are some equally less well known places. But fun fact, UK and US each generate about 12% of the energy from renewables. India is 15%, China is 20%. Canada is about 65%.

 

So, instead of trying to blame other countries for not doing enough, perhaps the UK and US should at least get to the level of what the other countries are doing before saying they won't do anything?

[calfoxwc]

so, a tiny country model is supposed to be the realistic model for

a major world power with a lot of population and increasing all the time.

 

idiocy. if it weren't so foolish, it would be amusing.

[calfoxwc]

wait, chris is talking economies and mmgw.

 

hahahahahahaha.

 

liberal emotional knee jerk "OOPS".

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-solar-activity-may-play-significant-role-in-global.html

 

The Earth has been getting warmer -- but how much of that heat is due to greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural causes?

A leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.

ADVERTISEMENT

“[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,” reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The man who leaked the report,StopGreenSuicide blogger Alec Rawls, told FoxNews.com that the U.N.’s statements on solar activity were his main motivation for leaking the document.

'The main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.'

- StopGreenSuicide blogger Alec Rawls

“The public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself,” Rawls wrote on his website in December, when he first leaked the report.

 

Rawls blames the U.N. for burying its point about the effect of the sun in Chapter 11 of the report.

“Even after the IPCC acknowledges extensive evidence for ... solar forcing beyond what they included in their models, they still make no attempt to account for this omission in their predictions. ... It's insane,” he told FoxNews.com.

Some skeptical climatologists say that the statement in the U.N. draft report is important, but not game-changing.

“The solar component is real but not of sufficient magnitude to have driven most of the warming of the late 20th century,” Pat Michaels, the former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and current director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, told FoxNews.com.

The U.N. report also says that the effect of solar activity will be “much smaller than the warming expected from increases in [man-made] greenhouse gases.”

An estimate from NASA said that solar variations caused 25 percent of the 1.1 degree Fahrenheit warming that has been observed over the past century.

But Michaels said that if the U.N. increases its estimates about how much the sun affects Earth’s temperatures, it might help the U.N. get its prediction models back on track. While the Earth warmed over the last two decades, it did so more slowly than the U.N. had predicted.

“Climate science has the problem of trying to explain why we are now in our 17th year without a significant warming trend. As a result, you are seeing many forecasts of warming for this century being ratcheted down,” he said.

Others say that the focus on solar activity distracts from the big picture -- the fact that the Earth is warming.

“I see climate contrarians try this trick almost every time a big new solar study comes out. They somehow tend to neglect mentioning that solar variation is smaller than the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide,” Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists told FoxNews.com.

To back that up, Huertas points to data that show that solar activity and temperature rose together from 1880 until 1960, but that then, solar activity stopped increasing -- even as temperatures continued going up.

“The basic evidence is that solar activity has varied a bit while global temperature keeps going up,” Huertas said.

But Rawls said that while solar activity has indeed stopped increasing, the important thing is that it remains at a historically high level.

“The simplest way to put it is: If you put a pot on the stove at the maximum temperature, and leave it on at that temperature -- are you telling me that the pot won’t keep warming?”

Rawls worries that if solar activity falls, the effects could be dire.

“Unlike warming, cooling really is dangerous, regularly dropping the planet into hundred-thousand-year-long glacial periods.”

NASA has said that there is evidence that the most recent “Little Ice Age” was caused by a dip in solar activity.

“Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun's surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe,” during which temperatures were colder by about 1.8 degrees F than they are today, NASA has reported.

But Huertas said that’s not what we should worry about at a time when the effects of warming are already being felt.

“Climate change is affecting weather all across the planet and when it comes to extreme weather, the strongest links are to coastal flooding [and] heat waves,” Huertas said.

“While climate skeptics are arguing on the Internet about drafts of the report, states like New York and New Jersey are working to help people rebuild their homes in ways that have a better chance of surviving more destructive storms and flooding in the future,” he said.

[calfoxwc]

Co2 does not cause global warmingCo2 does not cause global Co2 CO2 does not cause global warming

 

There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming.

Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and it doesn't do much.

Global temperatures have always been changing despite Co2 increases

• The icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region; deforestation at the foot of the mountain is the likely explanation for the melting trend (See for more info);

• Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 years

• There has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather

• The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years; Greenland’s ice sheet is not melting according to 17 years of satellite data recently released (See for more information)

• Most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor

• Temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased

The 'Global warming' phenomenon could be caused by other things

Changes in land use and urbanization may contribute more to changes in the average ground temperature than “global warming” caused by human emissions.

Co2 does not hold in heat!

The public is being misled through propaganda to assume CO2 is like a sheet of plastic holding in heat. CO2 can only absorb 8% of radiation frequencies available (No one disputes this.), and only about 1% of the heat leave the earth as radiation--the other 99% being conduction, convection and evaporation. NASA says its 41%, not 1%, but there is no agreement, and night vision equipment shows there is very little infrared radiation given off by normal temperature matter.

Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air through absorption equilibrium

Equilibrium is rapid and total as indicated by many sources of evidence. One, the graph for CO2 in the air is an extremely precise line. If nothing were regulating, it would vary wildly. Two, if equilibrium were not established, oceans would be absorbing or losing CO2 at a high rate, yet no detectable change occurs beyond the stab in the dark guess that it might have dropped 0.15 pH units over the past century.

Measurements are inaccurate

• Temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (See for more information)

• Temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island” effect; methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it; See Anthony Watt’s “How not to measure temperature series” at

•Sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world

• Computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts. Data is usually inputted by persons looking for specific outcomes. See for more information.

7 Global warming is based on computer modelling and has had no empirical confirmation

World expert in analysis of stochastic and hydrological processes, professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis, has shown that the models have made no valid predictions during the last 20 years; McKitrick, McIntyre and Herman have shown the model predictions of temperature exceed the observable trends by as much as 300%. Ferenc Miskolczi's 3 papers, in 2004, 2007 and 2010 show that the greenhouse effect has not changed in the last 61 years, therefore proving that the slight heating which has occurred over the 20thC has not been due to greenhouse gases such as CO2.

CO2 is a heavy gas

Being one of the heaviest gas molecules in the atmosphere CO2 stays low, hugging the ground and allowing plants to photosynthesize. Have you ever heard of plants thriving in the higher atmosphere?

According to the climate change theories, the biggest problem is the CO2 which is somehow getting into the higher atmosphere, this way creating the greenhouse effect. Now, how can a very heavy gas rise up where there's little or no air? I'd like to see a mechanism that allows the CO2 gas to be high up and low down at the same time. People I asked about this gave at least a whole page of "facts" that none of which made sense and are often contradicting each other. Truth shouldn't be complicated. If it is, it's probably a lie.

When Earth warms up, other planets in the Solar system warm up as well

How can you argue with that?

The adverse economic effect of taxing carbon dioxide production in an effort to control "CO2-induced" global warming will be substantial. Poverty will be created and wealth will be destroyed. Nothing is worse for the environment than poverty. People in poverty don't care a whit for the environment, they just want to feed their children. Examples of this throughout the world, and in cities everywhere, are abundant. Environmental protection is considered an unaffordable luxury when people are poor. With the global economy on a knife-edge, it is no time to hold back-- we should all be fighting against those who are incapable of recognizing that the cause-effect order is not established for CO2 and temperature... Indeed, the DATA themselves more strongly support that CO2 rises occur as a result of temperature increases, and that our addition to CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect at all that is predictable from the previous data..

An idea isn't validated by how many scientists accept it, but by the veracity of the evidence supporting it. It is perfectly possible for many scientists who accept or reject the theory to be wrong.

From the

website:[Thayer Watkin Silicon Valley& Tornado Alley USA]]

"A small change in cloudiness over the rest of the Earth's surface can be far more important than major changes in the area of the ice caps. It is important to keep such things in perspective. Climate modelers have a distinct tendency to focus on a sensational minor topic while neglecting the major topics of climate. Clouds and cloudiness are the major factors in the Earth's climate. Clouds rule the Earth's climate. Everything else, including the atmospheric greenhouse gases, is marginal."

Please remember that "consensus" among scientist is when they leave the building still speaking to each other. What entity/individual has determined the current 360 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere vs roughly 250 ppm pre-industrial revolution is the optimum level for life on earth (both mammal and vegitation) ??? Some data indicates that at about 160 ppm plant life on earth would wither and die. Climate models do not include the effect of cloud formation because it is almost impossible to model their effect on earth's climate.

If it were possible for man to control CO2 in the atmosphere and return it to pre industrial levels and that descision proved to be wrong would it be easy to return to the optimum levels ?? Remember the earth's climate/weather is a dynamic, always changing and the so-called MMGW is more of a political ploy for more control over peoples lives than anything else. Model input data in some cases has been tweeked to arrive at a predetermind conclusion because the reuslt wasn't what the researcher wanted !!!

1 Svante Arrhenius's experiments with radiation passing through air in a test-tube does not establish that CO2 can warm air. Arrhenius made several mistakes in his experiment; Firstly, he used radiation of 9.7 microns; CO2 primarily affects radiation at 14.77 microns; water is the dominant greenhouse gas at the radiation band Arrhenius used, so what he proved is that water vapor can cause heating. Secondly, Arrhenius believed the glass tube he used was impervious to inra-red radiation; it isn't which is where the misnomer of the greenhouse effect comes from; what warms a greenhouse is the absence of convection which is what Arrhenius also measured; glass like CO2 absorbs and reemits radiation instantly; CO2 does not delay or block radiation; what CO2 does do is collisionally transfer some energy to the relatively inert gases, N2 and O2, which make up 99% of the atmosphere; but even this is a relatively minute heating effect with the vast bulk of the atmosphere being heated by conductive transfer with Earth's surface. The Earth's average temperature is 288K; the greenhouse temperature is 33K of that total and CO2 supplies less than 1/2 of that, and human CO2 about 3% of that 1/3.

2 The current warming is most likely due entirely to TSI, total solar insolation; figure 6.5 from TAR clearly shows an excellent correlation between TSI and temperature movements since 1700:

 

In addition TSI has been declining since 2000 coinciding with a temperature decline:

 

The basic lie of CO2 causing the recent warming or any warming is that CO2 warming is infra-red or long-wave [LW] based; LW cannot warm the oceans; it does not have the energy to penetrate water; since the warming of the world is ocean based [see Compo and Sardeshmukh, White and Cayan,Stockwell and Cox] this warming cannot be due to CO2.

3 The " standard greenhouse model" is fundamentally flawed as Gerlich and Tscheuschner [G&T], Kramm and others have shown. The criticism G&T have received from the likes of Foster and Halpern has been ill-conceived because this criticism did not understand that G&T were explaining the basic difficulties in measuring the flawed and ill-conceived greenhouse concept; as noted this concept has never been adequately explained.

The consensus idea that anthropogenic global warming [AGW] is real because a majority of scientists support it is a thoroughly unscientic idea; it is also incorrect; there are many scientists who gone against the official support of AGW, arguably some of the best climate scientists in the world. the consensus idea also ignores the considerable pressure brought to bear on scientists who are employed by government agencies such as CSIRO, BoM, NASA and the EPA to conform to the 'company' line But even if there were a real consensus it would not establish the veracity of AGW; as one of the leading scientists of the 20thC, Richard Feynman, said:

"The exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong."

Science is not decided by majority vote; it is an oppressive concept which shows the desperation of the AGW supporters.

4 The CRU climate scandal and many other examples of fudging and fraud by the AGW camp clearly establish that there is a concerted effort to manipulate data to conform to AGW. Only recently the NIWA, which prepares New Zealand's official temperature record using methods similar to Australia's official temperature, was successfully sued on the basis of that record being manipulated and adjusted unfairly. There is clear evidence that the Australian record has also been manipulated, as has the official IPCC record from GISS. This is wrong.

5 A final point; wiki, real climate and skeptical science are authorities for nothing; these are all pro-AGW sites which are completely partisan and therefore not reliable.

I see that the alleged rebuttal of Watts' critique of official temperature data by Menne has been referred to. I’ve been trying to get a handle on the time line of when NOAA published their rebuttal and Watts his follow up and his reply to Menne. Here’s the NOAA effort:

 

Here’s the Watts reply:

 

Here’s the Menne paper:

 

And here’s the fulsome reply to Menne by Watts and D’Aleo;

 

As well as this exchange Tamino entered the fray with this post:

 

But Tamino has overlooked several points. The first is his comment that satellites and ground based temps are in accord; no doubt over the whole period from 1979 to now they are, but what about from 1998:

 

From 1979 to 1998:

 

Tamino goes on to make 2 main charges against Watts and D’Aleo; the first is that they are stupid for asserting that by getting rid of colder, rural stations NOAA has produced a cooler temperature trend; if indeed that is what D&A did assert they would be silly; what they did say is that by getting rid of the colder sites the average temp over the whole site range would be warmer; nothing about trends. Now the GMST is the benchmark of AGW; people can gesticulate and hand-wave about trends but if the temp, the GMST, is warmer then you have an argument which supports AGW. And that is what removing the colder sites accomplished. Tamino side-steps this by putting up a GISStemp graph showing no temp drop at the time of the removal of the colder sites; but this is a anomaly trend graph; it shows the change in temp of the remaining sites not the change in GMST created by the absence of the cold sites.

The second mistake by Tamino is that D&A were wrong to say:

“The number of stations that dropped out tended to be disproportionally rural –”

Tamino says this is wrong because since there were more rural stations to begin with then as a fraction actually more urban stations were lost; but look at the graph:

 

There is a drop in urban sites but that is more than matched by an increase in suburban sites; in % terms the rural station increase has been exceeded by the combined increase in suburban and urban stations.

The only conclusion is that Watts' original critique of the official temperature record is correct and that Menne's attempt to legitimise that record was ill-conceived.

The oceans comprise the bulk of the Earth's surface. From what I have read, It takes full wavelength sunlight to warm the oceans. Atmospheric CO2 does not warm the oceans. The thermal aspect of CO2 vs the other atmospheric components suggests increases in CO2 should actually be somewhat neutral or have a cooling effect as it displaces water vapor. So, the energy is reduced via a lower humidity and is not imbalanced as claimed. This has now been verified in the upper Troposphere where more heat is found escaping into space. So, warming effects ascribed to CO2 increases are offset via reduced water vapor. From a % point, this would render the effects of atmospheric CO2 as almost negligible.

and, in conclusion, mmgw farce can take a giant leap into

scary fairy tale land.

 

[calfoxwc]

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

 

[calfoxwc]

liberals will now want us to get rid of all the water on the planet:

 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

[calfoxwc]

In conclusion, you silly, silly mmgw cultists.....

 

you "want the truth" ???

 

https://youtu.be/UXoNE14U_zM

[bbedward]

Damn here comes the random charts and facts bomb.

 

Cal, did you learn about the green house effect in school? Why don't you look up the part about how co2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

We've been curbing carbon emissions for several several years already. The effects it has on the atmosphere are not up for dispute.

[calfoxwc]

In conclusion, you honor, let the court understand, that my

climate skeptics clients are not the enemy, and they are not guilty.

 

They are victims of a forced farce, wrought of the greed and liberalness

of the UN, and liberals in this country who want more political clout,

and more money, and more votes. I demand that all charges against

my clients be dismissed......

[calfoxwc]

and, edw, you learned about liberal magic fairy dust in school.

 

didn't you learn outside of liberal school that magic fairy dust isn't real?

 

You need to grow up and stop rewatching the movie "Frozen"

 

she isn't real, edw. You have to let her go.

 

 

[gftChris]

When a thread jumps in post count by about 10, it's usually indicative of people having a rapid fire discussion, or a cal-dump. Is cal-dump the best one? cal-pat maybe?

[The Cysko Kid]

Calculus perhaps? Cal believes that by exponentially increasing his flawed logic he'll inadvertently make a point.

[calfoxwc]

you didn't like my liberal buttkicking rebuttal ?

 

gee, isn't that a "surprise".......

 

and not one word addressing all I posted.

 

typical. I'll just repost it later when you challenge me

on the subject again.

 

you can't say it isn't true. There are counter arguments, sure, but all in all,

 

mmgw is NOT A FACT. And, sad for lefties - a controversial forced theory that is only half-baked,

and cherry-picked.... is absolutely no justification for political control of the richer nations on earth.

 

have a nice day. And "Don't Tread On Me".

[The Cysko Kid]

Here's a word addressing all you posted: Rubbish.

[The Cysko Kid]

It's happening cal. To what degree and what end nobody is really sure but it is happening. Is the reaction overblown? Perhaps. But the science is there.

[gftChris]

Calculus perhaps? Cal believes that by exponentially increasing his flawed logic he'll inadvertently make a point.

Calisthenics? There's certainly a lot of huffing and puffing going on.

[calfoxwc]

on a scale of 100, that it is "happening" is more like

a four.

 

The other contributors make up the 96 percent.

 

Overblown hardly describes it. And it's overblown intentionally

for political and global economic purposes.

[Pumpkin Eater]

Now the nerds are sitting at their nerd table Laughing in their geeky voices again.

[gftChris]

Now the nerds are sitting at their nerd table Laughing in their geeky voices again.

Man, you're so cool, I wish I could be as alpha dog as you!

 

Nerds rule the world.

[MLD Woody]

Calculus perhaps? Cal believes that by exponentially increasing his flawed logic he'll inadvertently make a point.

 

Haha

[MLD Woody]

Now the nerds are sitting at their nerd table Laughing in their geeky voices again.

 

What do you do for a living?

[MLD Woody]

 

have a nice day. And "Don't Teard On Me".

 

 

No one teard on Cal

[calfoxwc]

No one teard on Cal woody

******************************

"teard" ? I suppose that came from your spell check? NOT"

 

Maybe you shed a teard? Rhymes with "beard" ?

 

The sheep get sheared? The room gets cleared?

 

Yo ? (hint: they have dictionaries online - "teard" is not in it....)

[Pumpkin Eater]

 

What do you do for a living?

Analysis laboratory for an adhesives manufacturer. Also spent a decade working as a Civil Engineering Technician. Lost that job during the 2009 real estate bust in Florida. Moved my family back to Ohio. I'm currently enrolled in the Engineering program at OSU. Took every class I could at Columbus State to keep costs down. My company pays a lot of the tuition but not all of it. If they knew I was specializing in Civil Engineering they probably wouldn't pay any of it. Don't get much sleep working full time going to class and raising a family. Wish I would have stayed focused and finished everything 15 years ago when it would have been a lot easier.