What is the relationship between weather and climate?

Weather is what’s happening outside the door right now; today a snowstorm or a thunderstorm is approaching. Climate, on the other hand, is the pattern of weather measured over decades.

NASA and NOAA plus research centers around the world track the global average temperature, and all conclude that Earth is warming. In fact, the past decade has been found to be the hottest since scientists started recording reliable data in the 1880s. These rising temperatures are caused primarily by an increase of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere created when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses.

Hotter air around the globe causes more moisture to be held in the air than in prior seasons. When storms occur, this added moisture can fuel heavier precipitation in the form of more intense rain or snow.

At the same time, because less of a region’s precipitation is falling in light storms and more of it in heavy storms, the risks of drought and wildfire are also greater. Ironically, higher air temperatures tend to produce intense drought periods punctuated by heavy floods, often in the same region.

These kinds of disasters may become a normal pattern in our everyday weather as levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere continue to rise.

Link -
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html
==========================================

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 1:51pm:

These rising temperatures are caused primarily by an increase of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere created when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses.

Yes, that's one theory.

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/7-theories-climate-change

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 2:29pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 1:51pm: These rising temperatures are caused primarily by an increase of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere created when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses. Yes, that's one theory. http://heartland.org/policy-documents/7-theories-climate-change

And now cue # with one of his 'warmist wiki' post about the Joe Bast being connected with Big Oil' or some other mythical 'evil empire' group...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 3:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 2:29pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 1:51pm: These rising temperatures are caused primarily by an increase of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere created when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses. Yes, that's one theory. http://heartland.org/policy-documents/7-theories-climate-change And now cue # with one of his 'warmist wiki' post about the Joe Bast being connected with Big Oil' or some other mythical 'evil empire' group...

Well, how about I save # the trouble and confirm that the "Heartland org" is a front for Big Oil!

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 5:19pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 3:06pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 2:29pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 1:51pm: These rising temperatures are caused primarily by an increase of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere created when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses. Yes, that's one theory. http://heartland.org/policy-documents/7-theories-climate-change And now cue # with one of his 'warmist wiki' post about the Joe Bast being connected with Big Oil' or some other mythical 'evil empire' group... Well, how about I save # the trouble and confirm that the "Heartland org" is a front for Big Oil!

LOl ok you can if you like....but don't expect us to believe YOU anymore than we do #

Can't trust 'evil oil'- into renewables, endow universities with a warmist bent (Penn State etc), fund warmist conferences (AGU etc).

I think we had climate change here today!!

Pissed down like never before!!

:D

Weather,
..
Since 1.8mm leaked into the Mount Lawley gauge on December 1, Perth has recorded a miserable 0.2mm or rain.

Today is the 80th in the current dry spell, the third-longest stretch with 0.2mm or less since rainfall records began in 1876.
..

source: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perths-dry-spell-drags-on/story-fnhocxo3-1226831895417

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:31pm:

Weather, .. Since 1.8mm leaked into the Mount Lawley gauge on December 1, Perth has recorded a miserable 0.2mm or rain. Today is the 80th in the current dry spell, the third-longest stretch with 0.2mm or less since rainfall records began in 1876. .. source: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perths-dry-spell-drags-on/story-fnhocxo3-1226831895417

So it has happened before. Definitely weather.

lee wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:31pm: Weather, .. Since 1.8mm leaked into the Mount Lawley gauge on December 1, Perth has recorded a miserable 0.2mm or rain. Today is the 80th in the current dry spell, the third-longest stretch with 0.2mm or less since rainfall records began in 1876. .. source: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perths-dry-spell-drags-on/story-fnhocxo3-1226831895417 So it has happened before. Definitely weather.

I said it was weather: are you trying to say I didn't??  ;) ;)

lee wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:31pm: Weather, .. Since 1.8mm leaked into the Mount Lawley gauge on December 1, Perth has recorded a miserable 0.2mm or rain. Today is the 80th in the current dry spell, the third-longest stretch with 0.2mm or less since rainfall records began in 1876. .. source: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perths-dry-spell-drags-on/story-fnhocxo3-1226831895417 So it has happened before. Definitely weather.

These kinds of disasters may become a normal pattern in our everyday weather as levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere continue to rise.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 7:53pm:

lee wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:42pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:31pm: Weather, .. Since 1.8mm leaked into the Mount Lawley gauge on December 1, Perth has recorded a miserable 0.2mm or rain. Today is the 80th in the current dry spell, the third-longest stretch with 0.2mm or less since rainfall records began in 1876. .. source: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perths-dry-spell-drags-on/story-fnhocxo3-1226831895417 So it has happened before. Definitely weather. These kinds of disasters may become a normal pattern in our everyday weather as levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere continue to rise.

from the recommended site - Hotter weather, more moisture in the atmoshpere, more precipitation.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 7:53pm:

lee wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:42pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:31pm: Weather, .. Since 1.8mm leaked into the Mount Lawley gauge on December 1, Perth has recorded a miserable 0.2mm or rain. Today is the 80th in the current dry spell, the third-longest stretch with 0.2mm or less since rainfall records began in 1876. .. source: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perths-dry-spell-drags-on/story-fnhocxo3-1226831895417 So it has happened before. Definitely weather. These kinds of disasters may become a normal pattern in our everyday weather as levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere continue to rise.

What lee said is now documented: if patterns start up - particularly with respect to time- that haven't happened before lee has a sword of his own making to fall on!  ;)  :) :)

** Ya gotta have it up there he said!! <..where is that head tapping emoticon when you need it??>  8-) 8-)

lee wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 8:39pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 7:53pm: lee wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:42pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:31pm: Weather, .. Since 1.8mm leaked into the Mount Lawley gauge on December 1, Perth has recorded a miserable 0.2mm or rain. Today is the 80th in the current dry spell, the third-longest stretch with 0.2mm or less since rainfall records began in 1876. .. source: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perths-dry-spell-drags-on/story-fnhocxo3-1226831895417 So it has happened before. Definitely weather. These kinds of disasters may become a normal pattern in our everyday weather as levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere continue to rise. from the recommended site - Hotter weather, more moisture in the atmoshpere, more precipitation.

...and then?  :o

So where has the man made co2 induced catastrophic warming gone??

Because everything else is a smokescreen conjured up by the failed model junkies and their political controllers. The warmists are nothing but useful idiots doing the snake oil sales....

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 5:19pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 3:06pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 2:29pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 1:51pm: These rising temperatures are caused primarily by an increase of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere created when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses. Yes, that's one theory. http://heartland.org/policy-documents/7-theories-climate-change And now cue # with one of his 'warmist wiki' post about the Joe Bast being connected with Big Oil' or some other mythical 'evil empire' group... Well, how about I save # the trouble and confirm that the "Heartland org" is a front for Big Oil!

1. Can you substantiate that claim?

2. Do you accept that there is more than one theory on climate change?

Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland.

Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs.

Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:16am:

Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity.

Do you accept that there is more than one theory on climate change?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:16am:

Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity.

Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change's deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were 'alarmist'.

'The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,' he told  'We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.
'The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.
'[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.'

;D

namnugenot wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:42am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, ... ;D

James Lovelock's claim to fame was that he "...concluded that the level of CFCs constituted "no conceivable hazard""... to the ozone layer.

Bad call there James.   

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:24am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Do you accept that there is more than one theory on climate change?

There are probably an infinite number of theories, but I do not weight them all equally.

Neither should you.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:24am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Do you accept that there is more than one theory on climate change? There are probably an infinite number of theories, but I do not weight them all equally.

Good.  At least we're making progress.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:42am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, ... ;D James Lovelock's claim to fame was that he "...concluded that the level of CFCs constituted "no conceivable hazard""... to the ozone layer. Bad call there James.

So the main claim to fame of "all reputable climate scientists" is predicting warming that didn't show up. Bad call there boys and girls. Which is not overcome by shouting it more loudly.


If you listen carefully you may hear it....a repetitive slurping sound...for those of you who know it you will recognize it straight away...as the familiar sound of Dr J suckin it...then the swallow...and then, like Oliver, the request for more...  ::)

namnugenot wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:05pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:42am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, ... ;D James Lovelock's claim to fame was that he "...concluded that the level of CFCs constituted "no conceivable hazard""... to the ozone layer. Bad call there James.    So the main claim to fame of "all reputable climate scientists" is predicting warming that didn't show up. Bad call there boys and girls. Which is not overcome by shouting it more loudly.

But.. the warming did show up.

Oceans have been warming up more than expected.

did you miss that ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:16pm:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:05pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:42am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, ... ;D James Lovelock's claim to fame was that he "...concluded that the level of CFCs constituted "no conceivable hazard""... to the ozone layer. Bad call there James.    So the main claim to fame of "all reputable climate scientists" is predicting warming that didn't show up. Bad call there boys and girls. Which is not overcome by shouting it more loudly. But.. the warming did show up. Oceans have been warming up more than expected. did you miss that ?

Unfortunately "more than expected" is neither a scientific term nor does it differentiate whether said claim is statistically significant. Which it isn't.

Oh, can you show us the supposed link between so called man made co2 and this bizarre ocean warming claim?

Rider wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:32pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:16pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:05pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:42am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, ... ;D James Lovelock's claim to fame was that he "...concluded that the level of CFCs constituted "no conceivable hazard""... to the ozone layer. Bad call there James.    So the main claim to fame of "all reputable climate scientists" is predicting warming that didn't show up. Bad call there boys and girls. Which is not overcome by shouting it more loudly. But.. the warming did show up. Oceans have been warming up more than expected. did you miss that ? Unfortunately "more than expected" is neither a scientific term nor does it differentiate whether said claim is statistically significant. Which it isn't. Oh, can you show us the supposed link between so called man made co2 and this bizarre ocean warming claim?

Nothing bizarre about it.   Go look it up. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

Co2 is  a greenhouse gas. More co2 = more warming.

What is bizarre is the claim that more c02 = no warming, which is what nammy said.  Which is completely untrue if you measure everything, not some selective measurements (deniers 101 trick).

You just need to flush this idea out of your head that earth has not warmed in the past decade.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:26pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:24am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Do you accept that there is more than one theory on climate change? There are probably an infinite number of theories, but I do not weight them all equally. Good.  At least we're making progress.

We are progressing ?
From where?, and to where ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

Rider wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:16pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:05pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:42am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, ... ;D James Lovelock's claim to fame was that he "...concluded that the level of CFCs constituted "no conceivable hazard""... to the ozone layer. Bad call there James.    So the main claim to fame of "all reputable climate scientists" is predicting warming that didn't show up. Bad call there boys and girls. Which is not overcome by shouting it more loudly. But.. the warming did show up. Oceans have been warming up more than expected. did you miss that ? Unfortunately "more than expected" is neither a scientific term nor does it differentiate whether said claim is statistically significant. Which it isn't. Oh, can you show us the supposed link between so called man made co2 and this bizarre ocean warming claim? Nothing bizarre about it.   Go look it up. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/ Co2 is  a greenhouse gas. More co2 = more warming. What is bizarre is the claim that more c02 = no warming, which is what nammy said.  Which is completely untrue if you measure everything, not some selective measurements (deniers 101 trick). You just need to flush this idea out of your head that earth has not warmed in the past decade.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas...so what...lots of things are greenhouse gases and the proportional increase in the atmosphere is miniscule. Peppermint also kills HIV in a petri dish...but not so much in the big wide world.
Also you don't measure everything you don't even know what to measure...Oh that's right you just have to measure CO2...now who's being selective?
To flush an idea you have to come up with something better than rainbows and unicorns.

namnugenot wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 10:13am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:45am: Rider wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:16pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:05pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:42am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, ... ;D James Lovelock's claim to fame was that he "...concluded that the level of CFCs constituted "no conceivable hazard""... to the ozone layer. Bad call there James.    So the main claim to fame of "all reputable climate scientists" is predicting warming that didn't show up. Bad call there boys and girls. Which is not overcome by shouting it more loudly. But.. the warming did show up. Oceans have been warming up more than expected. did you miss that ? Unfortunately "more than expected" is neither a scientific term nor does it differentiate whether said claim is statistically significant. Which it isn't. Oh, can you show us the supposed link between so called man made co2 and this bizarre ocean warming claim? Nothing bizarre about it.   Go look it up. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/ Co2 is  a greenhouse gas. More co2 = more warming. What is bizarre is the claim that more c02 = no warming, which is what nammy said.  Which is completely untrue if you measure everything, not some selective measurements (deniers 101 trick). You just need to flush this idea out of your head that earth has not warmed in the past decade. CO2 is a greenhouse gas...so what...

So what?!?
:D
C02 being a greenhouse gas is THE big deal here.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:48am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:26pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:24am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Do you accept that there is more than one theory on climate change? There are probably an infinite number of theories, but I do not weight them all equally. Good.  At least we're making progress. We are progressing ? From where?, and to where ?

Yes.

From your narrow-mindedness, to open-mindedness.

Congratulations.

namnugenot wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:42am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change's deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were 'alarmist'. 'The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,' he told  'We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened. 'The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world. '[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.' ;D

Got a link??  ;) :D

namnugenot wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 10:13am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:45am: Rider wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:16pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:05pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:42am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, ... ;D James Lovelock's claim to fame was that he "...concluded that the level of CFCs constituted "no conceivable hazard""... to the ozone layer. Bad call there James.    So the main claim to fame of "all reputable climate scientists" is predicting warming that didn't show up. Bad call there boys and girls. Which is not overcome by shouting it more loudly. But.. the warming did show up. Oceans have been warming up more than expected. did you miss that ? Unfortunately "more than expected" is neither a scientific term nor does it differentiate whether said claim is statistically significant. Which it isn't. Oh, can you show us the supposed link between so called man made co2 and this bizarre ocean warming claim? Nothing bizarre about it.   Go look it up. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/ Co2 is  a greenhouse gas. More co2 = more warming. What is bizarre is the claim that more c02 = no warming, which is what nammy said.  Which is completely untrue if you measure everything, not some selective measurements (deniers 101 trick). You just need to flush this idea out of your head that earth has not warmed in the past decade. CO2 is a greenhouse gas...so what...lots of things are greenhouse gases and the proportional increase in the atmosphere is miniscule. Peppermint also kills HIV in a petri dish...but not so much in the big wide world. Also you don't measure everything you don't even know what to measure...Oh that's right you just have to measure CO2...now who's being selective? To flush an idea you have to come up with something better than rainbows and unicorns.

They do measure more than CO2 actually: that is why the term Co2e exists!

-->> come get sum, freakoid: but you aint got the cash have ya son!??!

  :D :D  :-?  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[  :-*

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:43pm:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 10:13am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:45am: Rider wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:16pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:05pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:42am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:16am: Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland. Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs. Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, ... ;D James Lovelock's claim to fame was that he "...concluded that the level of CFCs constituted "no conceivable hazard""... to the ozone layer. Bad call there James.    So the main claim to fame of "all reputable climate scientists" is predicting warming that didn't show up. Bad call there boys and girls. Which is not overcome by shouting it more loudly. But.. the warming did show up. Oceans have been warming up more than expected. did you miss that ? Unfortunately "more than expected" is neither a scientific term nor does it differentiate whether said claim is statistically significant. Which it isn't. Oh, can you show us the supposed link between so called man made co2 and this bizarre ocean warming claim? Nothing bizarre about it.   Go look it up. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/ Co2 is  a greenhouse gas. More co2 = more warming. What is bizarre is the claim that more c02 = no warming, which is what nammy said.  Which is completely untrue if you measure everything, not some selective measurements (deniers 101 trick). You just need to flush this idea out of your head that earth has not warmed in the past decade. CO2 is a greenhouse gas...so what... So what?!? :D C02 being a greenhouse gas is THE big deal here.

Yes...so what..are you hard of reading?

If being a greenhouse gas is the problem we have a big one in dihydrogen monoxide which accounts for about 95% of all global greenhouse effects.
However the gas with the greatest greenhouse potential...as evaluated by the IPCC at 23,900 times  that of CO2 and a lifespan in the atmosphere of 800-3200 years...is sulfur hexafluoride...a byproduct in the manufacture of polysilicon....used in solar panels...now that's funny.

namnugenot wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 10:39am:

If being a greenhouse gas is the problem we have a big one in dihydrogen monoxide which accounts for about 95% of all global greenhouse effects. However the gas with the greatest greenhouse potential...as evaluated by the IPCC at 23,900 times  that of CO2 and a lifespan in the atmosphere of 800-3200 years...is sulfur hexafluoride...a byproduct in the manufacture of polysilicon....used in solar panels...now that's funny.

Yes but even the IPCC concedes that although the above is true, that the actual levels of sulfur hexafluoride are so low in comparison that carbon dioxide is the bigger problem. Not to mention which whilst it is correct its used in solar panels, it also has far more uses than this.

For example

n Europe, SF
6 falls under the F-Gas directive which ban or control its use for several applications. Since 1 January 2006, SF
6 is banned as a tracer gas and in all applications except high-voltage switchgear.[23] It was reported in 2013 that a three-year effort by the United States Department of Energy to identify and fix leaks at its laboratories in the United States such as the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, where the gas is used as a high voltage insulator, had been productive, cutting annual leaks by 35,000 pounds. This was done by comparing purchases with inventory, assuming the difference was leaked, then locating and fixing the leaks.[3]

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 10:48am:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 10:39am: If being a greenhouse gas is the problem we have a big one in dihydrogen monoxide which accounts for about 95% of all global greenhouse effects. However the gas with the greatest greenhouse potential...as evaluated by the IPCC at 23,900 times  that of CO2 and a lifespan in the atmosphere of 800-3200 years...is sulfur hexafluoride...a byproduct in the manufacture of polysilicon....used in solar panels...now that's funny. Yes but even the IPCC concedes that although the above is true, that the actual levels of sulfur hexafluoride are so low in comparison that carbon dioxide is the bigger problem. Not to mention which whilst it is correct its used in solar panels, it also has far more uses than this. For example n Europe, SF 6 falls under the F-Gas directive which ban or control its use for several applications. Since 1 January 2006, SF 6 is banned as a tracer gas and in all applications except high-voltage switchgear.[23] It was reported in 2013 that a three-year effort by the United States Department of Energy to identify and fix leaks at its laboratories in the United States such as the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, where the gas is used as a high voltage insulator, had been productive, cutting annual leaks by 35,000 pounds. This was done by comparing purchases with inventory, assuming the difference was leaked, then locating and fixing the leaks.[3]

Oh that is sooo super...except along with a lot of manufacturing that of polysilcon has been shiftng to China (about 40% in 2012) which has somewhat lower standards...you do understand the concept and implications of a global atmosphere...don't you? So piss in the pool is piss in the pool. You also realise how quickly world polysilicon production is increasing?

namnugenot wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 10:39am:

Yes...so what..are you hard of reading? If being a greenhouse gas is the problem we have a big one in dihydrogen monoxide which accounts for about 95% of all global greenhouse effects. However the gas with the greatest greenhouse potential...as evaluated by the IPCC at 23,900 times  that of CO2 and a lifespan in the atmosphere of 800-3200 years...is sulfur hexafluoride...a byproduct in the manufacture of polysilicon....used in solar panels...now that's funny.

nam wants another 3 and a half billion word circle party to remind him that water is in a cycle whilst carbon is being injected into the system!!

::)

namnugenot wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 11:06am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 10:48am: namnugenot wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 10:39am: If being a greenhouse gas is the problem we have a big one in dihydrogen monoxide which accounts for about 95% of all global greenhouse effects. However the gas with the greatest greenhouse potential...as evaluated by the IPCC at 23,900 times  that of CO2 and a lifespan in the atmosphere of 800-3200 years...is sulfur hexafluoride...a byproduct in the manufacture of polysilicon....used in solar panels...now that's funny. Yes but even the IPCC concedes that although the above is true, that the actual levels of sulfur hexafluoride are so low in comparison that carbon dioxide is the bigger problem. Not to mention which whilst it is correct its used in solar panels, it also has far more uses than this. For example n Europe, SF 6 falls under the F-Gas directive which ban or control its use for several applications. Since 1 January 2006, SF 6 is banned as a tracer gas and in all applications except high-voltage switchgear.[23] It was reported in 2013 that a three-year effort by the United States Department of Energy to identify and fix leaks at its laboratories in the United States such as the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, where the gas is used as a high voltage insulator, had been productive, cutting annual leaks by 35,000 pounds. This was done by comparing purchases with inventory, assuming the difference was leaked, then locating and fixing the leaks.[3] Oh that is sooo super...except along with a lot of manufacturing that of polysilcon has been shiftng to China (about 40% in 2012) which has somewhat lower standards...you do understand the concept and implications of a global atmosphere...don't you? So piss in the pool is piss in the pool. You also realise how quickly world polysilicon production is increasing?

numers with associated rates of change are good: feel free to provide them if you feel it supports your thesis won't you!!  8-)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 7:31am:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 11:06am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 10:48am: namnugenot wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 10:39am: If being a greenhouse gas is the problem we have a big one in dihydrogen monoxide which accounts for about 95% of all global greenhouse effects. However the gas with the greatest greenhouse potential...as evaluated by the IPCC at 23,900 times  that of CO2 and a lifespan in the atmosphere of 800-3200 years...is sulfur hexafluoride...a byproduct in the manufacture of polysilicon....used in solar panels...now that's funny. Yes but even the IPCC concedes that although the above is true, that the actual levels of sulfur hexafluoride are so low in comparison that carbon dioxide is the bigger problem. Not to mention which whilst it is correct its used in solar panels, it also has far more uses than this. For example n Europe, SF 6 falls under the F-Gas directive which ban or control its use for several applications. Since 1 January 2006, SF 6 is banned as a tracer gas and in all applications except high-voltage switchgear.[23] It was reported in 2013 that a three-year effort by the United States Department of Energy to identify and fix leaks at its laboratories in the United States such as the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, where the gas is used as a high voltage insulator, had been productive, cutting annual leaks by 35,000 pounds. This was done by comparing purchases with inventory, assuming the difference was leaked, then locating and fixing the leaks.[3] Oh that is sooo super...except along with a lot of manufacturing that of polysilcon has been shiftng to China (about 40% in 2012) which has somewhat lower standards...you do understand the concept and implications of a global atmosphere...don't you? So piss in the pool is piss in the pool. You also realise how quickly world polysilicon production is increasing? numers with associated rates of change are good: feel free to provide them if you feel it supports your thesis won't you!!  8-)

Do your own research DRAH, I'm not here to hold your hand and spoon feed you.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 7:28am:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 10:39am: Yes...so what..are you hard of reading? If being a greenhouse gas is the problem we have a big one in dihydrogen monoxide which accounts for about 95% of all global greenhouse effects. However the gas with the greatest greenhouse potential...as evaluated by the IPCC at 23,900 times  that of CO2 and a lifespan in the atmosphere of 800-3200 years...is sulfur hexafluoride...a byproduct in the manufacture of polysilicon....used in solar panels...now that's funny. nam wants another 3 and a half billion word circle party to remind him that water is in a cycle whilst carbon is being injected into the system!! ::)

I think that science would be very interested in your hypothesis that there is no carbon cycle and that matter can be created from nothing thereby exploding the law for the conservation of mass.

namnugenot wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 11:06am:

Oh that is sooo super...except along with a lot of manufacturing that of polysilcon has been shiftng to China (about 40% in 2012) which has somewhat lower standards...you do understand the concept and implications of a global atmosphere...don't you? So piss in the pool is piss in the pool. You also realise how quickly world polysilicon production is increasing?

It's still minuscule in the scheme of things.

Now somewhere you said that water vapour accounts for 95% of the Greenhouse Effect, presumably with CO2 making the other 5%. So, for a doubling of CO2, we should get 0.7 degrees rise - but if water vapour accounts for 95% of the Greenhouse effect (where? - at ground level?) then the approximate transient climate sensitivity would be   0.7* 95/5  or around 13.3 degrees for a doubling of CO2. (We are not worthy). That doesn't take account of other greenhouse gases, including methane and N2O.

What are you, some kind of ultra-alarmist? Even the IPCC states that the transient climate sensitivity is only about 2. As a rough calculation, that makes water vapour responsible for  2/0.7  or 2.85 times the contribution of CO2(e).  (but much less at higher altitudes, where it counts)

There are different figures quoted, but around 65 % is the generally accepted ratio, but that includes tropospheric ozone, methane , nitrous oxide etc in that figure for CO2-e. 

At least that figure passes the reality check a lot better than 95%.

muso wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 11:02am:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 11:06am: Oh that is sooo super...except along with a lot of manufacturing that of polysilcon has been shiftng to China (about 40% in 2012) which has somewhat lower standards...you do understand the concept and implications of a global atmosphere...don't you? So piss in the pool is piss in the pool. You also realise how quickly world polysilicon production is increasing? It's still minuscule in the scheme of things. Now somewhere you said that water vapour accounts for 95% of the Greenhouse Effect, presumably with CO2 making the other 5%. So, for a doubling of CO2, we should get 0.7 degrees rise - but if water vapour accounts for 95% of the Greenhouse effect (where? - at ground level?) then the approximate transient climate sensitivity would be   0.7* 95/5  or around 13.3 degrees for a doubling of CO2. (We are not worthy). That doesn't take account of other greenhouse gases, including methane and N2O. What are you, some kind of ultra-alarmist? Even the IPCC states that the transient climate sensitivity is only about 2. As a rough calculation, that makes water vapour responsible for  2/0.7  or 2.85 times the contribution of CO2(e).  (but much less at higher altitudes, where it counts) There are different figures quoted, but around 65 % is the generally accepted ratio, but that includes tropospheric ozone, methane , nitrous oxide etc in that figure for CO2-e.  At least that figure passes the reality check a lot better than 95%.

Lot of different things count as greenhouse gases, including ozone, when you stick them in beakers and take measurements but how things behave in isolation is not necessarily how things work in the real world. But that doesn't stop you attributing and predicting with 100% certainty how things work and what will happen outside beakers does it? You say the contribution of sulphur hexafluride is tiny but so then is the increase of the amount of CO2 increase attributable to the combustion of fossil fuels or .008% of total atmospheric makeup and the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is 0.004 of sulphur hexafluoride. This is misleading however as, for example, had there been no anthropogenic modification of vegetation such as it's removal...you know...to build houses like you live in and to progress agriculture that feeds you (or in measuring everything as DRAH proposed you do where is this accounted for), much, if not all, of that increase would vanish. The global historical scientific climate record does not support that CO2 drives global temperature in any case as evidenced by 450 million years of ice-core data.



. 

namnugenot wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 9:03am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 7:28am: namnugenot wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 10:39am: Yes...so what..are you hard of reading? If being a greenhouse gas is the problem we have a big one in dihydrogen monoxide which accounts for about 95% of all global greenhouse effects. However the gas with the greatest greenhouse potential...as evaluated by the IPCC at 23,900 times  that of CO2 and a lifespan in the atmosphere of 800-3200 years...is sulfur hexafluoride...a byproduct in the manufacture of polysilicon....used in solar panels...now that's funny. nam wants another 3 and a half billion word circle party to remind him that water is in a cycle whilst carbon is being injected into the system!! ::) I think that science would be very interested in your hypothesis that there is no carbon cycle and that matter can be created from nothing thereby exploding the law for the conservation of mass.

Are you saying extraction of fossil fuels and the burning of them to release it's reactants is a natural cycle??

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 5:19pm:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 9:03am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 7:28am: namnugenot wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 10:39am: Yes...so what..are you hard of reading? If being a greenhouse gas is the problem we have a big one in dihydrogen monoxide which accounts for about 95% of all global greenhouse effects. However the gas with the greatest greenhouse potential...as evaluated by the IPCC at 23,900 times  that of CO2 and a lifespan in the atmosphere of 800-3200 years...is sulfur hexafluoride...a byproduct in the manufacture of polysilicon....used in solar panels...now that's funny. nam wants another 3 and a half billion word circle party to remind him that water is in a cycle whilst carbon is being injected into the system!! ::) I think that science would be very interested in your hypothesis that there is no carbon cycle and that matter can be created from nothing thereby exploding the law for the conservation of mass. Are you saying extraction of fossil fuels and the burning of them to release it's reactants is a natural cycle??

Plant fuel is burnt releasing CO2 that is taken up by plants... So DRAH...you live in the forest do you?...find your computer growing on some sort of shrub did we?  ::)

namnugenot wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 9:00pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 5:19pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 9:03am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 7:28am: namnugenot wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 10:39am: Yes...so what..are you hard of reading? If being a greenhouse gas is the problem we have a big one in dihydrogen monoxide which accounts for about 95% of all global greenhouse effects. However the gas with the greatest greenhouse potential...as evaluated by the IPCC at 23,900 times  that of CO2 and a lifespan in the atmosphere of 800-3200 years...is sulfur hexafluoride...a byproduct in the manufacture of polysilicon....used in solar panels...now that's funny. nam wants another 3 and a half billion word circle party to remind him that water is in a cycle whilst carbon is being injected into the system!! ::) I think that science would be very interested in your hypothesis that there is no carbon cycle and that matter can be created from nothing thereby exploding the law for the conservation of mass. Are you saying extraction of fossil fuels and the burning of them to release it's reactants is a natural cycle?? Plant fuel is burnt releasing CO2 that is taken up by plants... So DRAH...you live in the forest do you?...find your computer growing on some sort of shrub did we?  ::)

We can see you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   8-)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 9:05pm:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 9:00pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 5:19pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 9:03am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 7:28am: namnugenot wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 10:39am: Yes...so what..are you hard of reading? If being a greenhouse gas is the problem we have a big one in dihydrogen monoxide which accounts for about 95% of all global greenhouse effects. However the gas with the greatest greenhouse potential...as evaluated by the IPCC at 23,900 times  that of CO2 and a lifespan in the atmosphere of 800-3200 years...is sulfur hexafluoride...a byproduct in the manufacture of polysilicon....used in solar panels...now that's funny. nam wants another 3 and a half billion word circle party to remind him that water is in a cycle whilst carbon is being injected into the system!! ::) I think that science would be very interested in your hypothesis that there is no carbon cycle and that matter can be created from nothing thereby exploding the law for the conservation of mass. Are you saying extraction of fossil fuels and the burning of them to release it's reactants is a natural cycle?? Plant fuel is burnt releasing CO2 that is taken up by plants... So DRAH...you live in the forest do you?...find your computer growing on some sort of shrub did we?  ::) We can see you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   8-)

Good...then you can answer the question!