patrick.net

Onvacation says

Who still wants to argue that co2 warms the planet and it's not the sun?

Direct measures providing INCONTROVERTIBLE proofs that the CO2 warms the planet and not the sun:
1 - out bound earth radiations measured by satellites since 70s diminishing in spectrum absorbed by CO2
2 - low atmosphere temperatures increasing more than high elevation temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible.
3 - night temperatures increasing more than day temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible. Well sorry greenhouse effect works at night too.
4 - polar temperatures increasing more than tropic temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible.
5 - winter temperatures increasing more than summer temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible.
etc, etc...

Continue to live in your bubble.

This is rubbish for the relatively illiterate.

If you read this and understand it you will get that he's talking about a cooling cycle that happened once since 2008, a period over which we experienced global warming.

In other words, what he seems to be talking about is a "cooling" which if he's right can at best dampen the warming (a little) that is occurring for the next few years. The bigger cycle he's talking about, if he's even right changes very slowly and is far less relevant than the changes that occur over the short cylces, and we have all experienced how little those (bigger fluctuations) affect climate.

anon_961a0 says

Onvacation says

Who still wants to argue that co2 warms the planet and it's not the sun?

This statement shows you don't know what you are talking about. Nobody has ever argued that the sun does not provide the heat to warm the planet. If you thought that was what people are saying then it shows you don't listen to what they are saying.

Unless you are a scientist I think we really shouldn't listen to what you and sniper have to say because all you're doing is parroting back what others say. Your fight is so fierce it's seems you might even be paid to do this.

What is the ideal temperature for a Republican to bead up with sweat, fretting over all the tranny sex they’re missing out on?

Heraclitusstudent says

Direct measures providing INCONTROVERTIBLE proofs that the CO2 warms the planet and not the sun:

anon_961a0 says

This statement shows you don't know what you are talking about. Nobody has ever argued that the sun does not provide the heat to warm the planet.

Nobody? Ever?

anon_961a0 says

Unless you are a scientist I think we really shouldn't listen to what you and sniper have to say

I am a scientist and I have enough education to understand the literature and deduce that the science is far from settled.

And one does not have to listen to anyone that does not parrot their beliefs, but if they did, they might learn something.

Heraclitusstudent says

winter temperatures increasing more than summer temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible.
etc, etc...

So how much has the winter temp increased?

anon_961a0 says

Nobody has ever argued that the sun does not provide the heat to warm the planet.

Really, this guy just did:

Heraclitusstudent says

Direct measures providing INCONTROVERTIBLE proofs that the CO2 warms the planet and not the sun:

Next!!!

WookieMan says

@Patrick - Can we just ban climate change threads? Even if the science is 100% true, there's nothing we're doing or can do to stop it. So we get these stupid back and forth arguments that don't matter if you think about it.

@WookieMan how about we put them all in a #climatechange topic? Then you could just ignore that topic.

Why do we need an artist redition of the sun? That's not even a real image of the sun.

Tenpoundbass says

Why do we need an artist redition of the sun? That's not even a real image of the sun.

Actually it is, but there are more here:

http://www.solarham.net/
Pick one.

Sniper says

Actually it is, but there are more here:

On this page you will find the latest solar imagery

Here's a chart from Wiki on sunspots since the early 70's. It looks like there wasn't much ativity around 76 then again in 85
Here's an actual image taken two years ago.

HEYYOU says

Those that understand can explain it to those that don't.

Sure. I can explain it to you.

Greenhouse gasses, mostly water vapor, traps the heat from the sun and stops the earth from becoming an icy ball in space. After the temp rising slightly over the last century we are now going into a solar minimum where there will not be as much solar heat to warm our world.

If we are lucky the cooling will be minimal.

HEYYOU says

Remove greenhouse gasses & let's see how warm the planet stays with just sunlight.

You want to remove the most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor?

Please explain why overnight temperatures are warmer on cloudy nights versus clear nights. Is that because of CO2?

As many educated Pat netters know, (complete) burning a hydrocarbon releases 2 major green house gases - carbon dioxide and water vapor. These hydrocarbons were produced over the eons by plants taking carbon dioxide out of the air and combining with water to build plant matter that eventually formed coal, natural gas, petroleum, etc. When these hydrocarbons are burned, they are putting back into the air carbon dioxide and water vapor taken from the air long ago.

Since water vapor is more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, why do we only hear of a "carbon footprint" and not a "hydro footprint?"

Since burning hydrocarbons removes oxygen from the air that was put in by plants over eons, why do we not hear about "oxygen depletion?"

Maybe "hydro footprint" and "oxygen depletion" will be the follow up arguments to "global cooling," "nuclear winter," "global warming," and "climate change."

HeadSet says

When these hydrocarbons are burned, they are putting back into the air carbon dioxide and water vapor taken from the air long ago.

Hmmm, just completing a cycle.

Why haven't any of the "Alarmists" chimed in on these facts with their rebuttals?

HeadSet says

Since water vapor is more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, why do we only hear of a "carbon footprint" and not a "hydro footprint?"

Because it's not as glamorous and not taxable.

What now, “global cooling” ?

I can Gore is brainstorming new ideas for his new book on this. This time it would be wise to avoid predictions that can be proven wrong in the near future, especially if it happens when he’s still alive.

BorderPatrol says

What now, “global cooling” ?

Like that never happened before?

"Freeze warnings issued as cold sets in on San Francisco Bay Area"

So far this winter is on the dry (but not drought) side, and pretty cold on the west coast. You don't want that maunder minimum to happen, fake global warming is a cakewalk compared to what's in store with a maunder minimum.

Onvacation says

HEYYOU says

Those that understand can explain it to those that don't.

Sure. I can explain it to you.

Greenhouse gasses, mostly water vapor, traps the heat from the sun and stops the earth from becoming an icy ball in space. After the temp rising slightly over the last century we are now going into a solar minimum where there will not be as much solar heat to warm our world.

If we are lucky the cooling will be minimal.

You appear to be trying to mislead with that statement or simply don’t know what the solar minimum is.

Sniper says

HeadSet says

When these hydrocarbons are burned, they are putting back into the air carbon dioxide and water vapor taken from the air long ago.

Hmmm, just completing a cycle.

Why haven't any of the "Alarmists" chimed in on these facts with their rebuttals?

You have to laugh.

anon_6ae12 says

don’t know what the solar minimum is.

Solar minimum is the period of least solar activity in the 11 year solar cycle of the sun. During this time, sunspot and solar flare activity diminishes, and often does not occur for days at a time. This causes the sun to radiate less heat.

So what do YOU think the solar minimum is?

Onvacation says

anon_6ae12 says

don’t know what the solar minimum is.

Solar minimum is the period of least solar activity in the 11 year solar cycle of the sun. During this time, sunspot and solar flare activity diminishes, and often does not occur for days at a time. This causes the sun to radiate less heat.

So what do YOU think the solar minimum is?

That's exactly what it is and it blows away any "man-made" warming, eventually leading to a mini ice-age. You don't want that.

mell says

Solar minimum is the period of least solar activity in the 11 year solar cycle of the sun. During this time, sunspot and solar flare activity diminishes, and often does not occur for days at a time. This causes the sun to radiate less heat.

So what do YOU think the solar minimum is?

That's exactly what it is and it blows away any "man-made" warming, eventually leading to a mini ice-age. You don't want that.

The low in a 11 year CYCLE will lead to a mini ice-age?
Really?

Heraclitusstudent says

Direct measures providing INCONTROVERTIBLE proofs that the CO2 warms the planet and not the sun:
1 - out bound earth radiations measured by satellites since 70s diminishing in spectrum absorbed by CO2
2 - low atmosphere temperatures increasing more than high elevation temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible.
3 - night temperatures increasing more than day temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible. Well sorry greenhouse effect works at night too.
4 - polar temperatures increasing more than tropic temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible.
5 - winter temperatures increasing more than summer temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible.
etc, etc...

What happen direct sun measurements?
Nah....

How do we know it's greenhouse effect created by CO2?

In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. The 2 datasets were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:




There is a drop in out going radiations around the level known to be absorbed by CO2.
Just coincidence, right?

Looks like a nice coating of UVA on that thing...

anon_37bba says

Virtually no sunspots:

Heraclitusstudent says

That ONE chart is what makes the "Alarmists" narrative fall completely to shit. We're suppose to be concerned about a one degree change in temperatures over a 125+ YEAR time frame??

Really?

If one degree C is so catastrophic to the human race, please explain how people can live year round on the Arctic Circle and how people can live year round at the Equator?

Kinda makes that whole "Going Parabolic" argument total nonsense, doesn't it?

HeadSet says

As many educated Pat netters know, (complete) burning a hydrocarbon releases 2 major green house gases - carbon dioxide and water vapor.

Except no, there is no water vapor released when burning gas.

Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas and is of course necessary for the temperature balance that existed long before we burned CO2. Left to itself it self regulates: water condenses into clouds when cooled and falls back on the surface. It's called rain. There was no reason for that to change until recently.

But of course...as temperature rises, the maximum sustainable water vapor concentration increases by about 7% per degree Celsius. Clouds too depend on temperature, pressure, convection and water vapor amounts. So a change in CO2 that affects the greenhouse effect will also change the water vapor and the clouds. Thus, the total greenhouse effect after a change in CO2 needs to account for the consequent changes in the other components as well. If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the "feedbacks" are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone.

Heraclitusstudent says

HeadSet says

As many educated Pat netters know, (complete) burning a hydrocarbon releases 2 major green house gases - carbon dioxide and water vapor.

Except no, there is no water vapor released when burning gas.

Hmmmm, better check again:

Hydrocarbon combustion refers to the type of reaction where a hydrocarbon reacts with oxygen to create carbon dioxide, water, and heat.
http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Hydrocarbon_combustion

Heraclitusstudent says

the "feedbacks" are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone.

So why don't you answer the questions:
How much has the temp and sea level risen in the last hundred years?
How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe?
If the earth is warming why is the hottest temp ever recorded over a century old?
What is the ideal temp for human habitation?

Still waiting for answers to these important questions.

Heraclitusstudent,

Burning any hydrocarbon does indeed produce water vapor in the reaction. That fact is very easy to check and I suspect was readily know to most readers of this blog.

Just as those thousands of flight over the Christmas season are adding tons of "carbon" to the air, they are also adding tons of "hydro." Time for Goldman-Sachs to start a Hydro Credit Trading Exchange.

By the way, the Earth is gaining more water every day. Each time the orbit passes through comet trails or is impacted by comets themselves, water is collected. Comets and related debris gathered over the Earth's life may be how the water got here in the first place.

Until there is enough hydrogen inside the Sun, I guess that we don't need to worry too much.
The Sun was here way before us, and will be here to send us heat and light for at least another 5 billion years, so if the sunspots reduce their number for a while you don't need to worry because they will be back in a couple of weeks.

This is the same Martin Armstrong that spent 10 years in jail for fraud right? Great source.

We know Mother Nature is out to fuck us. We just have no idea how or when.

The earths axis is wobbling, we're drifting further away from the Sun every year.
Yet through all of this the Ancient Observatory monuments still line up perfectly, how is that possible?
If you have ever done any tile work, being just 1/32 off on a straight line over distance the variance can drift to being inches off over 30 feet. Just imagine how far out of focus the Sun would be over the 1,00's and even 1000's of years since those monuments were made.

The cave in Ireland that once a year, the sun shines through perfectly at the exact same time every year.
In Machupichu there are stones with a hole, and a stone several yards away higher up. Once a year this Temple was used to observe a Star in the Southern Cross.
There's plenty of example of these sites in archaeological sites around the world.

Tenpoundbass says

The cave in Ireland that once a year, the sun shines through perfectly at the exact same time every year.

That's Newgrange (Brú na Bóinne in Irish), a neolithic tomb which is at least 5000 years old. Went there last year. Very cool.