No hurricanes???

[puller]

Also, I completely believe that things happen in cycles....the current cycle we are in probably happened eons ago...but you cannot convince me that that spraying silver iodide and other chemicals into the atmosphere to squeeze a little more moisture out is a good thing....

[sunfan1121]

So now it is not a green house gas, it is acid. True CO2 is acid, but how much of it does you need in order to change the ph of the oceans? It seems like some people want the "CO2" to be the answer, they are just looking for the right question.

Humanity will not be able to reduce its CO2 emission without destroying modern society or killing billions of people. That is true whether man made CO2 has any effect on anything or not.

Co2 has changed the PH of the ocean, another fact.

Modern society won't survive without alternative fuels. Fossil fuel won't last forever. So yes, regardless of the Co2 debate, eventually things will change.

[GScholz]

Fossil fuels will still be the primary source of energy for the next 50 to 100 years. After that we'll be producing the similar sort of bio-fuels.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12536.html

[Tank-Ace]

Always synthetic. IIRC, Germany used quite a bit during WWII.

[sunfan1121]

Always synthetic. IIRC, Germany used quite a bit during WWII.

Not the same thing. Biofuels use the waste from microbes. The Germans were using coal.

[FLS]

It's kind of funny that there has been no measurable warming for the entire period of the debate and the models can't explain it. It's also funny that Hanson's "hockey stick" was produced by the Y2K bug.  If anyone pushing climate change actually believed in it they would video conference instead of flying private jets to resorts.

[Stellaris]

Anyone doubting global warming is welcome to download and review NASA's climate records and related data here:

        Global surface temperatures - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
        Clouds - http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/isccpDsets.html
        Aerosols - http://gacp.giss.nasa.gov/data_sets/
        Precipitation - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/precip_cru/
        Radiative flux - http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/flux.html
        Scattering - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/mmishchenko/
        Oceans - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/o18data/

And you can run NASA's climate simulation software on your own PC to play with the various inputs and outputs yourself:

         http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

or use Columbia University's version, which is more user friendly:

         http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

or if understanding climate science for yourself seems like a lot of work, NASA has kindly made some movies to simplify it for you:

         http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011300/a011376/

If you don't believe computer simulations are capable of usefully modelling reality - why are you flying Aces High?

If you believe computer simulations can be useful but that those fraudulent "scientists" at NASA are faking global warming to get more money, then the website you need is here:

        http://www.venusproject.org/articles/science-proves-that-nasa-faked-the-moon-landings-moon-landing-is-a-hoax.html

[sunfan1121]

It's kind of funny that there has been no measurable warming for the entire period of the debate and the models can't explain it. It's also funny that Hanson's "hockey stick" was produced by the Y2K bug.  If anyone pushing climate change actually believed in it they would video conference instead of flying private jets to resorts.

We can use satellites to measure the amount of heat that escapes the planet. You should look into those numbers.

[guncrasher]

seems to me a few years have passed without any major hurricanes despite predictions to the contrary. 

is the dry air not being estimated correctly? has global warming thrown a curve ball? or is mother nature winding up for a uppercut? 

 

 

well hurricane sandy was mostly a tropical depression according to your standards.  after all it only caused 285 something deaths and 68 billion in damages and that was last year.  but hey  why worry about the small storms when the really big ones should be coming soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy

hey airlines cancelled 15,000 flights around the world. 

http://www.livescience.com/24380-hurricane-sandy-status-data.html

it was only a 1000 miles wide.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2012/10/hurricane_sandy_the_superstorm.html

can you imagine if global warming was actually real?


semp

[FLS]

We can use satellites to measure the amount of heat that escapes the planet. You should look into those numbers.

I'm well aware of the hot air on the planet.

[NatCigg]

well hurricane sandy was mostly a tropical depression according to your standards.  after all it only caused 285 something deaths and 68 billion in damages and that was last year.  but hey  why worry about the small storms when the really big ones should be coming soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy

hey airlines cancelled 15,000 flights around the world. 

http://www.livescience.com/24380-hurricane-sandy-status-data.html

it was only a 1000 miles wide.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2012/10/hurricane_sandy_the_superstorm.html

can you imagine if global warming was actually real?


semp

 

Can you imagine more people more sensors more reporting more politics. The BIG one is coming AHHHHHHHHH! 

[bozon]

We can use satellites to measure the amount of heat that escapes the planet. You should look into those numbers.

The heat escaping is the same amount as heat absorbed if we assume that the earth is in a local thermodynamic equilibrium. Greenhouse effect does not change that, it only changes the wavelengths in which the radiation escapes.

Anyone doubting global warming is welcome to download and review NASA's climate records and related data here:
<snip>

I only looked at the Columbia page and their setup (the NASA one is down due to lack of government funding... this is so sad). They seem to be doing the classic error of assuming a 2D atmosphere - i.e. a uniform atmosphere without a vertical structure. This has been shown to be absolutely critical in order to solve the radiation transfer through the atmosphere, which IS the greenhouse effect.

[MiloMorai]

Fossil fuels will still be the primary source of energy for the next 50 to 100 years. After that we'll be producing the similar sort of bio-fuels.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12536.html

Fossil fuels are used for much more than just energy.

[BoilerDown]

A lot of people here don't understand the Carbon Cycle, and how, for example, human's breathing is a neutral action, burning fossil fuels is a net positive action, and plants doing their thing is a net negative action.  Not until everyone understands that is it even worth bothering to type more than this on this issue.

[Slate]

A lot of people here don't understand the Carbon Cycle, and how, for example, human's breathing is a neutral action, burning fossil fuels is a net positive action, and plants doing their thing is a net negative action.  Not until everyone understands that is it even worth bothering to type more than this on this issue.

    Oh ok if we all ride carbon cycles we will save the planet I get it now.