Expert: We must act fast on warming

Sep 24, 2008 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Kansas.com

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Comments
22,841 - 22,860 of 27,024 Comments Last updated Friday Aug 29
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#23635 Feb 27, 2012
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest you take this up with Cicerone, the head of the National Academy of Sciences, since you know more about it than him.
You obviously could not even comprehend that short extract I posted.
Poor stupid you.
Awww, poor Chimney CAN'T POST ANY MEASUREMENT WHERE ANY HEAT FLOWS FROM A COLD BODY TO A WARMER BODY AND "HEATS-UP" THE WARMER BODY.

Isn't that RIGHT....you AGW A-HOLE?

Why don't YOU TELL US WHY??
---------

Hey, why don't you ask your QUACK AGW "scientist", Cicerone, the head of the National Academy of Sciences, to help you find that Phantom Measurement....THAT DOES NOT EXIST...DUMBASS?

---------
Hell, even an INSECT knows that Cold Bodies DO NOT HEAT-UP Warm Bodies.

How does it feel to have an IQ lower than an INSECT?

HAHAHA....you AGW'ers are SO STUPID ..... and PATHETIC.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#23636 Feb 27, 2012
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest you take this up with Cicerone, the head of the National Academy of Sciences, since you know more about it than him.
You obviously could not even comprehend that short extract I posted.
Poor stupid you.
Don't waste your time on bonehead gordhead. He is unteachable. I and others have tried numerous times but he persists in his misuse of the second law.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#23637 Feb 27, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't waste your time on bonehead gordhead. He is unteachable. I and others have tried numerous times but he persists in his misuse of the second law.
REALLY???

You must be talking about your Panic Attacks, Crapping your Pants and RUNNING FOR THE HILLS..."round and round" you go.

Change your Pants lately?
----------
Speaking about "understanding basic science"....

"I'm still waiting for you to post EVEN ONE MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE, where a Cold Object HEATS-UP a Warmer Object.

Why don't you stop BABBLING CULT-SPEAK and start POSTING those Non-Existant Measurements?

The next Ice Age will have come and past before you ever answer.

What a HOOT!"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#23638 Feb 27, 2012
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
We see a trend of increasing temperatures correlated with rise in CO2 levels. That observation does not prove causality, but when the causal mechanism i.e. the so-called greenhouse effect, is known and accepted by scientists (even those skeptical of AGW), and can explain the observed positive correlation, you have to admit there is more than a smoking gun here.
Throughout 700,000 years of ice core data we can see a relationship between temperature and CO2. Temperatures go up and CO2 follows, temps go down and CO2 follows. This is not only seen in the ice core but in the Beck Reconstructions as well.

I do not dispute the GHG effect. What I dispute is that man's burning of fossil fuels has caused the temp increase.

A study of atmospheric water vapor was completed and determined that a full 30% of the warming in the 1980s and 1990s was from an increase in water vapor.

Water vapor is 96% of GHGs. The same study showed that water vapor decreased in the last decade and the decrease would have had a negative impact of 25%.

Not a chemist, but there is a connection between water vapor and co2 in the atmosphere, the more water vapor the more co2 the atmosphere can hold.

So did increasing temps cause an increase of water vapor in the atmosphere and is this why more co2 is currently found?

There's the rub, where did it come from. All things static, CO2 would have increased if temperatures increased. That's a given based on 700,000 years of proxy study.

So how much would be man made and is the amount of man made co2 enough to change the climate and should we be taxed for it.

My agenda is specific. I do not want to be taxed for an unproven premise. I have no objection to climate science, no objections to alternative fuels.

The pattern of increase in atmospheric co2 is what we would expect to see. Temps started up about 1850 after the LIA and CO2 in the current record started up about 1959. Or much sooner if you look at the Beck Reconstructions.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#23639 Feb 27, 2012
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>

The greenhouse effect is not conjecture. It already matches the observed disparity in temperatures both on Earth and on Venus, compared with a pure black body model of how hot they should be.
The science is not based on the computer models. Rather, the computer models are based on the science of the greenhouse effect and then the extremely complex task of seeing how changes in GHG levels will drive any changes through a system loaded with complex feed-back mechanisms and other variables, including changes from solar intensity.

Don't solar models fail to predict the rise over the last 30 years?
But in any case, why are you assuming "one or the other"? GHG levels are one driver among others. I tend to assume the other effects are likely to be stabilising on the basis that the earth has maintained a climate conducive to life for several billion years. Not that a Carboniferous period climate would be desirable right now, of course, but that is my reaction to "runaway heating" panic merchants.
Solar models do not predict or account recent warming. But solar physicist did. They got it right, just weren't heard because their findings did support the premise.

I have been following this for a few years now. I saw the many papers published that were ignored. NASA just came out with statements that mimic the ones being made 10 years ago by solar phycisits not associated with NASA.

"Using modelling techniques, the Finnish team was able to extend data on solar activity back to 850 AD. The researchers found that there has been a sharp increase in the number of sunspots since the beginning of the 20th century. They calculated that the average number was about 30 per year between 850 and 1900, and then increased to 60 between 1900 and 1944, and is now at its highest ever value of 76."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/1869...

The above reference is to this paper.

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07...

Why could we have the highest levels of solar activity and have temps stay relatively cool in comparison to the rest of the holocene? Because we are in a natural decline in temps going toward another period of glaciation.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23640 Feb 27, 2012
home in lincoln county wrote:
we must act fast to remove all HUMANS from this planet to some other so we can start over .
this is what the final solution to the pollution problem will be if the warmers and the rest of the enviro. movement has their way . no people on this planet . and any that may be left here will live in huts with none of the modern toys of life we use today .

after all the end game to the enviro. movement is for world population control by any means !
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#23641 Feb 27, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, we can call it "thermal pollutant."
Others have posted similarly.
It is not a matter of whether I am correct in using the term. I could say "one is an integer" and he would put it in the 'list'.

He even has a thread on which only he posts references to everything I say that he is too dim to understand. The ultimate ad-hominem and it really doesn't matter if I am right or wrong. Some things he quotes accurately. Some things he quotes his own misleading quotes, etc. It is not worth bothering with him.
litesong

Everett, WA

#23642 Feb 27, 2012
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
.... if the warmers and the rest of the enviro. movement has their way . no people on this planet.
//////////
litesong wrote:
"at home in lynching counties" didn't like my answer to his interpretation of AGW advocates' ideas. So I'll repeat......

"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
......we must act fast to remove all HUMANS from this planet......
//////////
litesong wrote:
We must only remove AGW deniers. Since they AREN'T humans, like eart hling (alien has no affinity to Earth), all we have to worry about is the ASPCA.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#23643 Feb 27, 2012
DumBozo wrote:
It seems that you have a reading comprehension disability.
How so, DumBozo?
Show me one citation for 'CO2 as a thermal pollutant' and I'll apologise?
Show me one citation for 'thermal pollutant' and I'll apologise?

The term 'thermal pollutant' doesn't exist, LessFact/Nobody made it up, just as he made up "fourty."
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23644 Feb 27, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
..
Not a chemist, but there is a connection between water vapor and co2 in the atmosphere, the more water vapor the more co2 the atmosphere can hold.
..
So you are not a chemist. We knew that all along.

.. it's physics: CO2 warms the atmosphere, and the warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.

So you are WRONG!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23645 Feb 27, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
.. They got it right, just weren't heard because their findings did support the premise.
I have been following this for a few years now. I saw the many papers published that were ignored. NASA just came out with statements that mimic the ones being made 10 years ago by solar phycisits not associated with NASA..
You are nuts. You have no science yet you comment on science. Were you born without integrity?

Gossip. All gossip. Where's your evidence? NONE!

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#23646 Feb 27, 2012
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
It is not a matter of whether I am correct in using the term.
Yes, it is and you're not correct, the term doesn't exist.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
I could say "one is an integer" and he would put it in the 'list'.
You could say that, but it would be a deflection.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
He even has a thread on which only he posts references to everything I say that he is too dim to understand.
ROFLMAO.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
The ultimate ad-hominem and it really doesn't matter if I am right or wrong.
I only post your bloopers there, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Some things he quotes accurately.
All my quotes of you are accurate and I can link to each one.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Some things he quotes his own misleading quotes, etc.
That needs rewriting for clarification.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
It is not worth bothering with him.
Thanks for finally exposing yourself at last, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
NobodyYouKnow was the originator of the first "thermal pollutant" post, now LessFact has admitted using the term.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23647 Feb 27, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
.. NASA just came out with statements that mimic the ones being made 10 years ago by solar phycisits not associated with NASA.
"Using modelling techniques, the Finnish team was able to extend data on solar activity back to 850 AD. The researchers found that there has been a sharp increase in the number of sunspots since the beginning of the 20th century. They calculated that the average number was about 30 per year between 850 and 1900, and then increased to 60 between 1900 and 1944, and is now at its highest ever value of 76."
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/1869...
The above reference is to this paper.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07...
..
You have posted a few times the paper "Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints." I replied to you once. This is another response.

Here's what four international scientists (two of whom are common with the reference paper) published in Nature, the premier science magazine in the world:

.. we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

The full abstract for "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years"

Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

THERE YOU GO: solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

THE END.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23648 Feb 27, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't waste your time on bonehead gordhead. He is unteachable. I and others have tried numerous times but he persists in his misuse of the second law.
Well, others like Steve Case believe in Gord. They wrote so.

Hence, it is important to show Gord's errors as long as he continues to post. He prefers no replies himself because he uses obscene language to discourage discourse.

Of course, this is applicable to other deniers as well.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#23649 Feb 27, 2012
SpamBot has agreed with DumBozo that LessFact/Nobody's "thermal pollutant" term is accurate.
Chimney

Dubai, UAE

#23650 Feb 27, 2012
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww, poor Chimney CAN'T POST ANY MEASUREMENT WHERE ANY HEAT FLOWS FROM A COLD BODY TO A WARMER BODY AND "HEATS-UP" THE WARMER BODY.
Isn't that RIGHT....you AGW A-HOLE?
I don't need to, dumbass, because as you know its never going to happen that way - but it does not need to happen that way for the greenhouse effect to work.

What I can demonstrate is that if I put a can of liquid at boiling point into a tub of water that is 50 degrees C, it will cool more slowly than the same can put into a tub of water that is 10 degrees C.

Because the temperature differential is greater, the rate of NET HEAT FLOW from the can is greater when its put in the colder water. So it cools faster.

A warm earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is 15 degrees C will cool more slowly than an earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is -20 degrees C.

My God, if you haven't understood that by now, I don't know how you tie your shoelaces.
Marie

Overland Park, KS

#23651 Feb 27, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
DEPENDS upon how you interpret the definition of a thermal pollutant. CO2 does increase the temperature. That is a thermal event. Since many understand that a hotter atmosphere will become problematic it is not incorrect to say that CO2 is a pollutant because it causes the atmosphere to heat. Thus can we call it a thermal pollutant?
pollutant:
Definition
In general, substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values. Pollutants may be classified by various criteria:(1) By the origin: whether they are natural or man-made (synthetic).(2) By the effect: on an organ, specie, or an entire ecosystem.(3) By the properties: mobility, persistence, toxicity.(4) By the controllability: ease or difficulty of removal.
Here for your daily workout?

These folks help keep you mentally fit anyway - trying to return volley on all their mental gyrations

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23652 Feb 27, 2012
litesong wrote:
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
.... if the warmers and the rest of the enviro. movement has their way . no people on this planet.
//////////
litesong wrote:
"at home in lynching counties" didn't like my answer to his interpretation of AGW advocates' ideas. So I'll repeat......
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
......we must act fast to remove all HUMANS from this planet......
//////////
litesong wrote:
We must only remove AGW deniers. Since they AREN'T humans, like eart hling (alien has no affinity to Earth), all we have to worry about is the ASPCA.
yep you start with those who oppose your view and then who ? soon someone will be after you and then no one left on the planet . so you see you proved my point about global population control . so let us know when you fire up the gas chambers .
litesong

Everett, WA

#23653 Feb 27, 2012
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
.... if the warmers and the rest of the enviro. movement has their way . no people on this planet.
//////////
litesong wrote:
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
......we must act fast to remove all HUMANS from this planet......
//////////
litesong wrote:
We must only remove AGW deniers. Since they AREN'T humans, like eart hling (alien has no affinity to Earth), all we have to worry about is the ASPCA.
//////////
'at home in lynching county' wrote:
.....so let us know when you fire up the gas chambers.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Tho my Native Tribes ancestors avoided euro advanced technology gas chambers, the euros & transplanted euros were able to exterminate half the 30,000 Native Tribes around the world & leave the rest as tattered shreds, nevertheless.

'at home in lynching county' need not worry. topix AGW deniers such as bob burns, JRS,'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' &" 'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' & alleged 4-time threatener & 3-time proud threatener brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" have shown their strongest desires to be at the controls of higher technology gas chambers when AGW advocates are rounded up.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#23654 Feb 27, 2012
Marie wrote:
<quoted text>
Here for your daily workout?
These folks help keep you mentally fit anyway - trying to return volley on all their mental gyrations
Not really, they hardly introduce any new ideas, just repeat the same old thing over and over even when they have been brought to task. Not really mental, more menial at that! I am not understanding how politically or monetarily inspired sources are more believable than trusted and proven scientific institution.

Have you heard from xtp lately? I miss her input. Too bad that some unfeeling crumb hurt her.

I am back in Kansas. Miss the warm weather we had in Texas. We accomplished a lot but our numbers were down due to a death, and several medical situations. Age is creeping up on our group. We need some more younger folks to get involved.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kansas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kansas Voting Disqualification Amendment - Ment... (Oct '10) 5 hr outcome 272
Kansas views on Brownbacka s jobs goal, prescho... Aug 25 tomcatn 1
Sherow talks politics and Kansas roots Aug 17 Polno 1
About 1,800 Kansans could lose ACA coverage ove... Aug 14 ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 3
Senate primary vote could end ugly Kansas GOP race Aug 8 Le Jimbo 7
Kansas Right to Bear Arms Question, Constitutio... (Oct '10) Aug 7 Brownback Mountain 6,001
Brownback and Roberts block Obama nominees (Aug '09) Aug 7 John Grimbaldsun 20,096
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Kansas People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••