Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

for the evidence see Message 303Enjoy

Among other sources of CO2 ...Do you know where that CO2 in the oceans came from? and why are the oceans warming? Hint: it rhymes with mobile warning ... Curiously the math is built into the models that show the effect of the various elements to global warming. You see a smooth curve rise of CO2 caused temperature from the mathematical model that fits well the the jagged curve of actual measurement of temperature (with daily and seasonal variations). That smooth rise curve is the result of the maths. As noted in the article they took those and more factors into consideration, and the only causes that showed matches to the actual temperature pattern were the greenhouse gasses. These graphs demonstrate that the only match between cause and effect is the greenhouse gasses model rising curve to the actual temperature overall pattern.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Nice

quote:

---

When a forest fire burns, the CO2 in the smoke came from living or recently dead fuel, so the smoke contains the same proportions of carbon-12 and carbon-14 as the atmosphere. This is the case with nearly all natural sources of CO2. We can carbon date the CO2 in the atmosphere, and tell exactly how much of it comes from humans burning fossil fuels. It's a hard measurement. It leaves no room for interpretation.

​

There is one natural source of CO2 that contains only carbon-12, and which is often pointed out by climate deniers as the real source of all of this new carbon-12: volcanoes. Volcanoes worldwide constantly erupt, both on land and under the sea. They do so at a fairly constant rate. We measure their output, and we know that annually, worldwide volcanic activity averages about 200 million tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere, all with carbon-12, which is indistinguishable from the carbon-12 produced by burning fossil fuels. However, each year, we measure a total of about 29 billion tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere. That's more than 100 times the amount volcanoes can account for. The only possible source of all the rest of that new CO2 is fossil fuel burned by humans.

​

This, in short, is the "smoking gun" that proves the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans burning fossil fuel. It's not a conjecture or a model or a prediction, it's a measurement that anyone can reproduce, and isotopes are isotopes, and don't have alternate explanations.

---

Pretty hard to argue with eh?Enjoy

You mean where the feathers swoop out over the cloaca?

quote:

---

Pre-Christmas melt? North Pole forecast to warm 50 degrees above normal Thursday

​

It’s not normal, and it’s happening again.

​

For the second year in a row in late December and for the second time in as many months, temperatures in the high Arctic will be freakishly high compared to normal.

​

Computer models project that on Thursday, three days before Christmas, the temperature near the North Pole will be an astronomical 40-50 degrees warmer-than-normal and approaching 32 degrees, the melting point.

​

On some forecast maps simulating Arctic temperatures, the color bar does not even go as high as predicted levels.

​

​

The warmth will be drawn into the Arctic by a powerhouse storm east of Greenland. The European weather model estimates its lowest pressure will be around 945 millibars, which is comparable to many category 3 hurricanes.

​

Maue explained that depleted sea ice cover east of the Nordic Sea helps create a passageway for warm air to surge north uninhibited. You have more real estate available to advect the warm and moist air northward, he said.

​

Arctic sea ice levels are at a record lows. In November, the Arctic usually gains ice, but over a period of five days it saw 19,000 square miles of ice cover vanish, which NOAA called almost unprecedented.

​

​

When these excessive warm anomalies occur in the Arctic, the cold air which is usually present must go somewhere. In November, it piled up in Siberia and that is poised to happen again:

---

This is global climate change folks. It ain't pretty, and it ain't going away.

First:

quote:

---

​

... A group of researchers just tried to replicate 38 peer-reviewed studies that support skeptic talking points, and surprise! They ran into some trouble.

​

In a paper published last week in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, the researchers reported a number of problems with the 38 studies, including questionable physics and incomplete data sets. They also found that some of the studies were published in peer-reviewed journals that didn’t specialize in climate science, and therefore probably didn’t have the proper experts looking over the work.

​

One of the most common problems the researchers encountered was something called cherry-picking. Not to be confused with actual cherry-picking (which is now endangered thanks to climate change), data cherry-picking is a big science no-no in which researchers falsify results by including only the data that support those results and not the data that don’t.

​

A group of researchers just tried to replicate 38 peer-reviewed studies that support skeptic talking points, and surprise! They ran into some trouble.

​

In a paper published last week in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, the researchers reported a number of problems with the 38 studies, including questionable physics and incomplete data sets. They also found that some of the studies were published in peer-reviewed journals that didn’t specialize in climate science, and therefore probably didn’t have the proper experts looking over the work.

​

One of the most common problems the researchers encountered was something called cherry-picking. Not to be confused with actual cherry-picking (which is now endangered thanks to climate change), data cherry-picking is a big science no-no in which researchers falsify results by including only the data that support those results and not the data that don’t.

​

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Climate science scepticism and denial | The Guardian

​

If any of the contrarians were a modern-day Galileo, he would present a theory that’s supported by the scientific evidence and that’s not based on methodological errors. Such a sound theory would convince scientific experts, and a consensus would begin to form. Instead, as our paper shows, the contrarians have presented a variety of contradictory alternatives based on methodological flaws, which therefore have failed to convince scientific experts.

​

Human-caused global warming is the only exception. It’s based on overwhelming, consistent scientific evidence and has therefore convinced over 97% of scientific experts that it’s correct.

---

And then:

quote:

---

With enough evidence, even skepticism will thaw

​

Half a decade before he took this trip to the farthest reaches of the north, Andreas Muenchow had his doubts about whether warming temperatures were causing one of the world’s great platforms of ice to melt and fall apart.

​

He even stood before Congress in 2010 and balked on whether climate change might have caused a mammoth chunk of ice, four times the size of Manhattan, to break off from this floating, 300-square-mile shelf. The University of Delaware oceanographer said he wasn’t sure. He needed more evidence.

​

But then the Petermann Ice Shelf lost another two Manhattans of ice in 2012, and Muenchow decided to see for himself, launching a project to study the ice shelf intensively.

​

He was back again in late August, no longer a skeptic. It was hard not to be a believer here at 81 degrees north latitude, where Greenland and Canada very nearly touch. The surface of the bumpy and misshapen ice was covered with pools and puddles, in some cases frozen over but with piercing blue water beneath. Streams carved through the vast shelf, swelling into larger ponds or even small lakes.

​

The meltwater was a sign the ice shelf was growing more fragile, moving closer to the day when it might give up more city-size chunks of ice.

​

The Petermann Ice Shelf serves as a plug of sorts to one of Greenland’s largest glaciers, lodged in a fjord that, from the height of its mountain walls down to the lowest point of the seafloor, is deeper than the Grand Canyon. There’s enough ice piled up behind Petermann to raise oceans globally by nearly a foot someday.

​

The question for Muenchow is no longer whether Petermann is changing it’s how fast it could give up still more ice to the seas. That’s why he and British Antarctic Survey colleague Keith Nicholls ventured here by helicopter to take the measure of the Petermann shelf, which had been shifting and surging in a way that damaged the scientific instruments they had left behind a year earlier behaving as though it didn’t want to be known.

---

The evidence shows global climate change is occurring.Enjoy

Hi Faith, Let me copy Message 303 here for you, the information there is fairly straightforward. Clicking on the link provided provides you with the activated screen for each of these graphs and their overlay for the final total of the data.

quote:

---

This article goes through ALL the purported causes of climate change to show which ones cause how much change.

​

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

​

I know this is a bare link, but all I can do is take screenshots:

​

​

When you add them all together you get a very very very strong match between the model and the observed data, and the only element that significantly adds to the warming is the greenhouse gases. And it would have been worse if we had not banned aerosols.

---

Should be pretty self-explanatory.Enjoy

And the more heat is "reflected" (actually absorbed and re-emitted in random directions), the more heat is retained within the atmosphere ("trapped"), and the more heat is re-emitted back towards the earth and the ocean where it is absorbed again. Nobody said other molecules were not affected, but now you are talking about the energy of the molecules being transferred not by absorption but by impact, transferring increased energy in other particles (like billiard balls), and which they can now emit in random directions as heat. This increased energy also causes storms to have more energy. This results in more damage from intense storms, like hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes and the like. Oh please do. Let's see what you've learned from sites spreading denial, delusions and disinformation.Meanwhile you have not explained the correlations of heat with man-made\released greenhouse gases seen in Message 333 from the article What's Really Warming The World? ... care to give it a try?Anything that doesn't explain those trends by something other than global warming is a red-herring to reality.Enjoy

So you are just explaining how the increased energy in CO2 molecules from absorption of infrared is transferred to other molecules and heating them up ... resulting in a net warmer atmosphere.The more (Man-made\released) CO2 molecules in the air, the more such absorptions and transfers occur and the warmer the atmosphere gets.Thanks.Please note that this does not say anything about increased global warming not being directly associated with increase CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity, it just details one of the many ways that energy\heat is captured in the atmosphere, and how some is transferred to the oceans and land.Arguing about the details of how global climate change is occurring is not arguing that it is not occurring.Enjoy

So you are going to deny something that children and animals know by observing that the air cools after the sun sets and warms in the morning when the sun rises. How does that warming happen without energy being added?This basic information has been known for so long it is hard to find on the internet, like proving that 1+1=2.

quote:

---

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

​

... Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (infrared radiation) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." ...

​

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link ... on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)

---

That's 1859 when CO2 was identified as a "greenhouse" gas. 1859.Or are you going to say that heat is not energy? And you said that N2 and O2 got their increased energy from CO2 collisions - which is how energy is transfered in gases. And denial is not an argument . Which curiously does not explain the observations made of global climate change as shown in the article What's Really Warming The World?.The point is, it does not matter what you say, what you claim and how often you do it -- if you cannot explain the evidence in that article for anthropogenic global climate change then your argument is irrelevant to reality.Explain the evidence. Then we'll talk about your little claims.Enjoy

Irrelevant.You still have not explained the observations made of global climate change as shown in the article What's Really Warming The World?.The point is, it does not matter what you say, what you claim, and how often you do it -- if you cannot explain the evidence in that article for anthropogenic global climate change then your argument is irrelevant to reality.Explain the evidence. Then we'll talk about your claims.Enjoy

My solar panels generate more electricity than I use, so the excess goes towards reducing my carbon footprint from gasoline.I live in Rhode Island.The initial installation cost is irrelevant in the long run, because they are virtually maintenance free so operating costs are virtually nil.Enjoy

First, I had my roof inspected first to ensure this would not be a problem in the near future.Second, the panels that cover the roof area actually protect the shingles under them, extending their life, so I could re-shingle around them if the rest of the roof needs it.Third, removing them and reinstalling them is labor, not materials, and I expect that roofing companies will either acquire the skills or have a contractor on hand, because so many people around here have them.Fourth, I may not be here ... Enjoy

Well you live in "Walkerstan," so no state rebates, but you could still be eligible for the federal tax credit (until Trump and gang do away with it). I paid no taxes last year with most of the tax credit left for this year and the next.Without the grants and tax rebates my installation cost was $13k and I use about $750/year, so I am about half your costs in both cases.The way I look at it, the $13k is an investment with a return of $750/year tax free. That is a return of 5.7% on investment. It is difficult to find a guaranteed investment with a 5.7% return in the stock, bond, mutual fund market these days. I also oversized my installation so that I can take my gas water heater and gas boiler off line and replace them with an electric water heater (hot water is hot enough for my radiant floor heat), keeping my gas water heater as backup in case of power outage. This will reduce my gas bill by $800/year, so then I will get a $1,550/year tax free return, or 11.9% ... a rather stunning return that is guaranteed every year. This also reduces my carbon footprint substantially.Tax on dividends is ~10% per year so the tax free return would mean that 5.7% is worth 6.3% after taxes for a comparable stock investment, and the 11.9% is worth 13.1% after taxes.In your case, looking at it as an investment, you would get $1,300/year tax free return on $25k investment, or 5.2%, and after taxes would be worth 5.7% return on investment. The question for you is whether or not you have current investments that are doing worse than this, and can you switch them at little cost (ie -- ira early withdrawal penalty, broker fees, etc).Another option is to do it yourself to reduce installation cost, and then you can also do it piece-meal, adding to the array periodically. I run my sump pump on an entirely isolated system that I installed. It has two panels with voltage regulators that put out 12vdc for the whole day (peak output of the panels is 21vdc, and the regulators cut that back to 12, but then I also still get 12vdc on cloudy days). Each one charges a deep cycle marine battery and they run a marine bilge pump. Because of high water table here this pump cycles every 5 minutes in the rainy period. Everything bought on-line. If you can wire a car battery you can do it.My next installation will be large enough to power the fridge during a power outage through an inverter, and I am thinking of using a 24 vdc system that can also pump the hot water through my floor heat piping. My roof panels have no battery backup and no way to directly use them when the grid goes down (RI regulation requires it to shut down to protect line workers).Check out Unbound Solar — Solar Products & DIY Advice by Our Experts -- it is "100% employee owned. Each of us has a personal stake in providing outstanding service to our customers. We thrive on your success!"Enjoy

And the objective empirical evidence says yes. Again I direct you to the article What's Really Warming The World?. You can see the graphs in Message 333 as well.Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that explains this data differently, then the information is unrefuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity. Your "scenario: is a fantasy that is contradicted by data. See the Bloomburg article.Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that explains this data differently, then the information is unrefuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity. Denying the evidence that global warming is man-made via greenhouse gases (including CO2) does not make it go away. See the Bloomburg article.Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that explains this data differently, then the information is unrefuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity.Until you deal with the evidence clearly presented in the Bloomburg article your arguments are irrelevant.Enjoy