anti global warming rhetoric and America's decline

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

acknowledging that both warming and cooling exists is exactly what makes the "it's hot/cold outside" arguments null.

longer term change.

LONG TERM.

Looking outside once is less useful than watching "The Day After Tomorrow".

Deflect with your coherent arguments if you want, that specific one is not.

Jack I've now already explained my initial response. I've posted an article about NASA to back up my position that over the long term the ice caps are not significantly melting no matter how many headlines scream it hysterically and no matter how many green peace commercials show polar bears falling out of the sky which in itself should show how hysterical it all is to begin with.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Ok. But there was no law introduced by EPA, democrats, congress, president, or whatever? Just wish lists and gossip. God, can we ever get past the infers and just be direct and honest.

a reply to: Justoneman

In the US, they don't have to pass a law about environment (which makes it Unconstitutional from what I can tell), the EPA creates a regulation and assesses a fine structure. That is a big problem really because this is currently supported by the courts.

That is the problem with all executive branch run agencys in the past 8 years. The doj, irs and epa have been purposed for a specific agenda beyond what they were created for. In addition they have been used against the current administrations political opponents. See speeches made by lisa jackson, statements from Steven Miller ect...

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing
When we stop listening to scientists...(they almost all believe we're in a warming cycle caused by man) then we're in for hard times. I still choose to believe in Science and not a dimwit on Talk radio. LOL

This IS our problem. We get brainwashed by a media outlet and then believe everything they tell us, no matter if it goes against science or not.

Well, you for one have stopped at the ones you THINK , with maybe only a little actual science knowledge, are the right ones. Many, others of us in the field of science don't agree with them and are in debates in those meetings, period. The power mongers are controlling the narrative and that passes through the brainwashing MSM.

But I don't get my science from blogs, news sites and MSM. I read articles from Scientists and Scientific publications.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing
When we stop listening to scientists...(they almost all believe we're in a warming cycle caused by man) then we're in for hard times. I still choose to believe in Science and not a dimwit on Talk radio. LOL

This IS our problem. We get brainwashed by a media outlet and then believe everything they tell us, no matter if it goes against science or not.

Well, you for one have stopped at the ones you THINK , with maybe only a little actual science knowledge, are the right ones. Many, others of us in the field of science don't agree with them and are in debates in those meetings, period. The power mongers are controlling the narrative and that passes through the brainwashing MSM.

But I don't get my science from blogs, news sites and MSM. I read articles from Scientists and Scientific publications.

Then why are you so misinformed? I think not on purpose, but if you would just reread the posts right above yours for ones you appear to have 'missed' by accident in forming your scientific opinion. We must look at all the material when forming our opinions of the theory.

That information you claim to be seeking has been provided and at this point, I think I can rest my case, thanks.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing
When we stop listening to scientists...(they almost all believe we're in a warming cycle caused by man) then we're in for hard times. I still choose to believe in Science and not a dimwit on Talk radio. LOL

This IS our problem. We get brainwashed by a media outlet and then believe everything they tell us, no matter if it goes against science or not.

Well, you for one have stopped at the ones you THINK , with maybe only a little actual science knowledge, are the right ones. Many, others of us in the field of science don't agree with them and are in debates in those meetings, period. The power mongers are controlling the narrative and that passes through the brainwashing MSM.

But I don't get my science from blogs, news sites and MSM. I read articles from Scientists and Scientific publications.

Then why are you so misinformed? I think not on purpose, but if you would just reread the posts right above yours for ones you appear to have 'missed' by accident in forming your scientific opinion. We must look at all the material when forming our opinions of the theory.

That information you claim to be seeking has been provided and at this point, I think I can rest my case, thanks.

With respect, I could say the same thing. And every article/story/publication denouncing AGW as a hoax can be counter balanced with a solid scientific article stating AGW as a theory at least as solid as evolution or gravity. A lot of times I find those articles against AGW as being written by a scientist funded by big oil, like the Heartland Institute.

You can see that I'm not just spouting some rhetoric I heard on the TV, I'm looking for the truth.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing
When we stop listening to scientists...(they almost all believe we're in a warming cycle caused by man) then we're in for hard times. I still choose to believe in Science and not a dimwit on Talk radio. LOL

This IS our problem. We get brainwashed by a media outlet and then believe everything they tell us, no matter if it goes against science or not.

Well, you for one have stopped at the ones you THINK , with maybe only a little actual science knowledge, are the right ones. Many, others of us in the field of science don't agree with them and are in debates in those meetings, period. The power mongers are controlling the narrative and that passes through the brainwashing MSM.

But I don't get my science from blogs, news sites and MSM. I read articles from Scientists and Scientific publications.

Then why are you so misinformed? I think not on purpose, but if you would just reread the posts right above yours for ones you appear to have 'missed' by accident in forming your scientific opinion. We must look at all the material when forming our opinions of the theory.

That information you claim to be seeking has been provided and at this point, I think I can rest my case, thanks.

With respect, I could say the same thing. And every article/story/publication denouncing AGW as a hoax can be counter balanced with a solid scientific article stating AGW as a theory at least as solid as evolution or gravity. A lot of times I find those articles against AGW as being written by a scientist funded by big oil, like the Heartland Institute.

You can see that I'm not just spouting some rhetoric I heard on the TV, I'm looking for the truth.

With all due respect, no you can't say the same thing. The truth as best I can tell is what I have been trying to relay to you. I have, we have on ATS, given lots of solid evidence and yet you guys want to say we are wrong and some guy who's team has a series of failed prediction after failed prediction are who you are choosing to go with so far. I see this clearly and many others do too. Why you won't let loose and read it all and not just what the MSM is pushing down our collective throats with all we have been providing here on ATS is beyond logic. You want the 'truth' but you want the 'truth' you have been taught must be the 'truth' is what I see. Theory's that fail to make predictions are no longer considered valid by the Scientific Method.

Here is the flow chart we use for scientific method evaluation:
www.sciencebuddies.org...

Synopsis: When your experiment fails you go back thru the steps to determine the error but you do not ignore the errors.

ETA

The theory of Evolution is still standing as plausible unlike AGW. And it really matters not who has the truth if it is the truth so claiming big oil is not right. That group literally has made trillions of $'s since all this started. They benefited from the taxation scare and the 'they are coming for oil" IPCC people who caused the price to go up. Big oil is running the Gov is what EPA people have shared with us in meetings in the past.

Will ANY liberal who speaks of American decline KINDLY realize it is offensive as we are exceptional.
WE need NOT pay GLOBALISTS a damn sent.
We'll make TECH and SELL it so THEY pay...
www.webwire.com...

originally posted by: amazing




You can see that I'm not just spouting some rhetoric I heard on the TV, I'm looking for the truth.

What do you think of the IPCC "hiding the decline"?

As for me that was a bellwether moment of "figures lie and liars figure". The truth was being smacked around there amazing!

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing
When we stop listening to scientists...(they almost all believe we're in a warming cycle caused by man) then we're in for hard times. I still choose to believe in Science and not a dimwit on Talk radio. LOL

This IS our problem. We get brainwashed by a media outlet and then believe everything they tell us, no matter if it goes against science or not.

Well, you for one have stopped at the ones you THINK , with maybe only a little actual science knowledge, are the right ones. Many, others of us in the field of science don't agree with them and are in debates in those meetings, period. The power mongers are controlling the narrative and that passes through the brainwashing MSM.

But I don't get my science from blogs, news sites and MSM. I read articles from Scientists and Scientific publications.

Then why are you so misinformed? I think not on purpose, but if you would just reread the posts right above yours for ones you appear to have 'missed' by accident in forming your scientific opinion. We must look at all the material when forming our opinions of the theory.

That information you claim to be seeking has been provided and at this point, I think I can rest my case, thanks.

With respect, I could say the same thing. And every article/story/publication denouncing AGW as a hoax can be counter balanced with a solid scientific article stating AGW as a theory at least as solid as evolution or gravity. A lot of times I find those articles against AGW as being written by a scientist funded by big oil, like the Heartland Institute.

You can see that I'm not just spouting some rhetoric I heard on the TV, I'm looking for the truth.

With all due respect, no you can't say the same thing. The truth as best I can tell is what I have been trying to relay to you. I have, we have on ATS, given lots of solid evidence and yet you guys want to say we are wrong and some guy who's team has a series of failed prediction after failed prediction are who you are choosing to go with so far. I see this clearly and many others do too. Why you won't let loose and read it all and not just what the MSM is pushing down our collective throats with all we have been providing here on ATS is beyond logic. You want the 'truth' but you want the 'truth' you have been taught must be the 'truth' is what I see. Theory's that fail to make predictions are no longer considered valid by the Scientific Method.

Here is the flow chart we use for scientific method evaluation:
www.sciencebuddies.org...

Synopsis: When your experiment fails you go back thru the steps to determine the error but you do not ignore the errors.

ETA

The theory of Evolution is still standing as plausible unlike AGW. And it really matters not who has the truth if it is the truth so claiming big oil is not right. That group literally has made trillions of $'s since all this started. They benefited from the taxation scare and the 'they are coming for oil" IPCC people who caused the price to go up. Big oil is running the Gov is what EPA people have shared with us in meetings in the past.

So let's start at Zero.

I'm looking for Scientific Truth. On Climate...where should I turn to first. First research. NASA? That would seem to be a logical choice. They got us to the moon. They talk about a Scientific consensus and list over 200 scientific organizations with a position on Climate Change that man is a leading cause in this warming cycle we're on now.

Tell me why that would be a wrong move?

originally posted by: amazing

So let's start at Zero.

I'm looking for Scientific Truth. On Climate...where should I turn to first. First research. NASA? That would seem to be a logical choice. They got us to the moon. They talk about a Scientific consensus and list over 200 scientific organizations with a position on Climate Change that man is a leading cause in this warming cycle we're on now.

Tell me why that would be a wrong move?

Ok, i think the data has been manipulated by the IPCC people. I know there are lots of Atmospheric Scientist who have stated contradictions. Type those two things in Google and read both sides to decide is my best suggestion. Trust worthiness of the presenters went into my decision.

The stories of Scientist being fired who dare even try to present the data in opposition to the UN's plan, or are being threatened to be so, have been reported here in the numerous threads. We must decide credibility at this point. I support protecting the environment since I was a child and work in the field. I sincerely feel my profession's credibility is under assault by the Gore's and the UN when they present this theory that fails the predictions over and over so, I am here trying to vent.

Global warming is a farce and meant to control people into giving up more hard earned dollars to theives claiming they don't have any money, or enough of it. Bunch of idiots.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing




You can see that I'm not just spouting some rhetoric I heard on the TV, I'm looking for the truth.

What do you think of the IPCC "hiding the decline"?

As for me that was a bellwether moment of "figures lie and liars figure". The truth was being smacked around there amazing!

I think you don't know what you're talking about at all when you claim that.

A) it wasn't the IPCC
B) the 'decline' in question is the divergence of tree rings with temperature measured by thermometers

I note that you have curiously ignored my posts in this thread while responding to rather unscientific comments throughout.

Please prove CO2-caused global warming wrong by simply proving the following three things:
A) CO2 doesn't absorb infrared radiation
B) The stratosphere isn't cooling
C) The troposphere isn't warming

a reply to: shooterbrody

It comes from Hydro-Quebec, a hydroelectric power plant located near the Hudson Bay. The electricity is sold via high tension lines to your house. A counter placed on your house keeps tab of how much electricity you use, and Hydro send you a bill based on that consumption. If you can't pay the bill, they cut your line.

Simple. Right now there's some controversy about the billing and counting, but the electricity is clean nonetheless.

more details: en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing

So let's start at Zero.

I'm looking for Scientific Truth. On Climate...where should I turn to first. First research. NASA? That would seem to be a logical choice. They got us to the moon. They talk about a Scientific consensus and list over 200 scientific organizations with a position on Climate Change that man is a leading cause in this warming cycle we're on now.

Tell me why that would be a wrong move?

Ok, i think the data has been manipulated by the IPCC people. I know there are lots of Atmospheric Scientist who have stated contradictions. Type those two things in Google and read both sides to decide is my best suggestion. Trust worthiness of the presenters went into my decision.

The stories of Scientist being fired who dare even try to present the data in opposition to the UN's plan, or are being threatened to be so, have been reported here in the numerous threads.

Names, please?

The U.N's role in the IPCC is administrative, not political: they are conference organizers, and that's it. IPCC personnel are scientists who have full-time jobs in science all over the world, and get together for a conference & writing session.

I have personally heard from scientists who have been in the IPCC sessions. They said the political influence from political entities and governments was towards the direction of diffusing the responsibility & magnitude of the problem. I remember one reporting pressure from Saudi & Chinese to make a graph less clear.

We must decide credibility at this point. I support protecting the environment since I was a child and work in the field. I sincerely feel my profession's credibility is under assault by the Gore's and the UN when they present this theory that fails the predictions over and over so, I am here trying to vent.

It doesn't! The theory is backed by enormous and comprehensive sets of observations and analysis as well as understanding of basic physics. I don't want it to be true, but it is. The increase in long-wave radiation from increased greenhouse effect is an experimental fact, not a theory. It is physically impossible for global warming not to happen.

I personally knew people who worked in the field (e.g. attend and present at AGU conferences and publish), and by the early-mid 1990's, the evidence was already clear and convincing to almost all scientists, and the only ones left were "cranks".

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

What does it matter what the change is from? That is just deflection. What made us the top species on this planet is adaptability. We have lost that, all we fund is war. Good future there.

It's a deflection from the charges that it's man made and that we must stop using wood burning stoves? That may fly in California but not in Montana or Wyoming where people would die without wood burning stoves. I have a friend who relies on one every day in the winter so I really wish people would stop with this argument.

Wood burning stoves give out ground level pollution which is hazardous to health, but if the wood was grown from recently planted trees, it is carbon-neutral, because the carbon released in the burning of the wood was absorbed by the tree during its growth. And correctly, actual scientists say that it is fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) which are causing the primary problem.

originally posted by: Justoneman
The oceans are holding less and less carbon because they warm up is right but the reason it warmed is simply geothermal,

Huh? The oceans are getting more acidic, and they are holding more carbon, while simultaneously being warmed.

and therefore Sun driven.

Geothermal is the opposite of Sun driven.

Boy these guys are going to have egg on their faces as it gets cooler the next few decades.

Why will that happen?

originally posted by: Greven
...

Like always, you are making up your own conclusions reached by fallacious arguments you always love to make.

Let's start.

originally posted by: Greven
Lower Troposphere: +0.12 C/decade
As the lower troposphere warms, it prevents more heat from reaching higher altitudes. However, there is still heat being trapped up a bit higher, because CO2 is well-mixed:
...

First of all, you are ignoring the fact that the Sun's visible light has been increasing which has been warming the Troposphere...

Declining solar activity linked to recent warming

The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years.

Quirin Schiermeier
...
Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.
...
"We're seeing — albeit limited to a very short period — a very interesting change in solar irradiation with remarkably similar changes in ozone," says Haigh. "It might be a coincidence, and it does require verification, but our findings could be too important to not publish them now."
Sun surprise

The full implications of the discovery are unclear. Haigh says that the current solar cycle could be different from previous cycles, for unknown reasons. But it is also possible that the effects of solar variability on atmospheric temperatures and ozone are substantially different from what has previously been assumed.
...

www.nature.com...

This strange behavior from our sun didn't stop in 2007.



www.ssl.berkeley.edu...

Not to mention that you are ignoring the fact Earth's magnetic field has been weakening, or the other changes Earth is undergoing such as the increase activity of geothermal warming, and the global increase in seismicity which point to a fact that people like you want to ignore. Earth is going through changes that are bound to be affecting it's climate.

You are ignoring the fact that cosmic x-rays from outside the solar has been increasing.





You are ignoring the fact that even with what is supposed to be a decrease in activity in our sun, somehow it's soft x-ray emissions have been increasing.

NEW OBSERVATIONS OF THE SOLAR 0.5 – 5 KEV SOFT X-RAY SPECTRUM

AMIR CASPI1,3, THOMAS N. WOODS1, and HARRY P. WARREN2
1 Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80303, USA

2 Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375, USA
Received 2014 October 28; accepted 2015 January 23; published 2015 March 18
ABSTRACT
...
These measurements show that the highly variable SXR emission is orders of magnitude greater than that during the deep minimum of 2009, even with only weak activity. The observed spectra show significant high-temperature(5–10 MK) emission and are well fit by simple power-law temperature distributions with indices of ∼6, close to the predictions of nano flare models of coronal heating. Observations during the more active 2013 flight indicate an enrichment of low first-ionization potential elements of only ∼1.6, below the usually observed value of ∼4, suggesting that abundance variations may be related to coronal heating processes.
...

www.ssl.berkeley.edu...

The sun itself is reacting weirdly to something that is affecting not only Earth, but other planets and moons with an atmosphere in the solar system which are undergoing not only dramatic climate changes, but have been undergoing dramatic warming.

This is happening at the same time we see other activity in the sun weakening.

originally posted by: Greven
So go on, prove these three things:
1) CO2 doesn't absorb infrared radiation
...
If you can do these three things, then you will disprove CO2-driven global warming. Anything less will be met with ridicule.

You actually think that I did not notice your obvious attempt at using generalized claims such as "prove that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared radiation"... Just because it does doesn't mean it absorbs as much radiation as you and the AGW scientists claim... More so when time and again GCMs have been shown to be wrong...

originally posted by: Greven
2) The troposphere isn't warming

I guess the fact that the sun's visible light and soft x-ray emission has increased which has been corroborated to have been warming the Troposphere just swoosched above your head huh?... If you quickly turn around and look above you you might still notice the "swoooshing" that keeps passing above your head meanwhile you yell "it must be CO2, it must be mankind causing climate change"...

originally posted by: Greven
3) The stratosphere isn't cooling

wow... I guess Greven is completely oblivious to the fact that there are many natural factors that account for cooling in the upper atmosphere.

For example, solar flares and cmes, apart from releasing billions of tons of solar particles into the Earth also cause shockwaves which not only heats and expands the upper atmosphere but it also causes the formation of nitric oxide which rapidly cools and shrinks the upper atmosphere.

www.colorado.edu...

Or how about the fact that meanwhile the sun's activity has recently been warming the Troposphere, the decline of other solar activity has cause the upper atmosphere to cool?

A Puzzling Collapse of Earth's Upper Atmosphere
"This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years," says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). "It's a Space Age record."

The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.

"Something is going on that we do not understand," says Emmert.
...

science.nasa.gov...

(continued below)

Of course, let's not forget "the Stratosphere".

By Astrobio - Sep 5, 2009

Scientists Uncover Solar Cycle, Sratosphere, and Ocean Connections
...
“The Sun, the stratosphere, and the oceans are connected in ways that can influence events such as winter rainfall in North America,” says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, the lead author. “Understanding the role of the solar cycle can provide added insight as scientists work toward predicting regional weather patterns for the next couple of decades.”

The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, and by the Department of Energy. It builds on several recent papers by Meehl and colleagues exploring the link between the peaks in the solar cycle and events on Earth that resemble some aspects of La Nina events, but are distinct from them. The larger amplitude La Nina and El Nino patterns are associated with changes in surface pressure that together are known as the Southern Oscillation.
...
The team first confirmed a theory that the slight increase in solar energy during the peak production of sunspots is absorbed by stratospheric ozone. The energy warms the air in the stratosphere over the tropics, where sunlight is most intense, while also stimulating the production of additional ozone there that absorbs even more solar energy. Since the stratosphere warms unevenly, with the most pronounced warming occurring at lower latitudes, stratospheric winds are altered and, through a chain of interconnected processes, end up strengthening tropical precipitation.
...

Stratosphere Cycles with the Sun

That's what happens normally when the sun's overall activity increases. But this time around the sun is acting, and reacting weirdly. The energy the sun is releasing affects the Troposphere the most, but it is not warming the stratosphere as much which can account, alongside other changes occurring in Earth's atmosphere and in the region the solar system is entering which can account for the cooling in the stratosphere.

It is also a known fact that changes occurring in the upper atmosphere affects lower atmospheric layers.

Then there is the fact that "somehow" the "big bad CO2" hasn't increased temperatures as much as the AGW theory claims, and in fact, even the AGW scientists are scratching their heads as to "where the heat went".

Some have tried, and will continue to try to claim that the oceans have suddenly and magically absorbed all the energy that CO2 is supposed to absorb... This despite the fact that for the last 18 years CO2 levels have increased by 39ppm, yet CO2 failed to increase in temperatures from 1998-2016 by ~0.4 degrees C as has been claimed CO2 would cause.

Yet these same people are ignoring the fact that geothermal activity, seismic activity have been increasing, at the same time Earth's magnetic field has been weakening which points to the fact that Earth's core is changing dramatically.

A 'hydrothermal siphon' drives water circulation through the seafloor

Researchers Find Major West Antarctic Glacier Melting from Geothermal Sources

Mid-ocean ridge eruptions as a climate valve Maya Tolstoy

Although some scientists think these events are rare, others think such underwater volcanic activity is more common than presumed so far.

Fire under the ice

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

Geothermal Heat Flux and its Influence on the Oceanic Abyssal Circulation and Radiocarbon Distribution

The changes in geothermal heating was also found to have increased in the 1980s.

The geothermal heating of the abyssal subarctic Pacific Ocean

Yet geothermal heating has also been found to have continued increasing in the Pacific ocean.

Bottom water warming in the North Pacific Ocean

Masao Fukasawa1, Howard Freeland2, Ron Perkin2, Tomowo Watanabe3,5, Hiroshi Uchida1 & Ayako Nishina4

Ocean Observation and Research Department, Japan Marine Science and Technology Centre, Yokosuka, 237-0061, Japan
The Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, British Columbia, V8L 4B2, Canada
Far-fisheries Laboratory, Japan Fisheries Agency, Shimizu, 424-8633, Japan
Faculty of Fisheries, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, 890-0056, Japan
Present address: Central Fisheries Laboratory, Japan Fisheries Agency, Japan

Correspondence to: Masao Fukasawa1Howard Freeland2 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]

Top of page
Abstract

Observations of changes in the properties of ocean waters have been restricted to surface1 or intermediate-depth waters2, 3, because the detection of change in bottom water is extremely difficult owing to the small magnitude of the expected signals. Nevertheless, temporal changes in the properties of such deep waters across an ocean basin are of particular interest, as they can be used to constrain the transport of water at the bottom of the ocean and to detect changes in the global thermohaline circulation. Here we present a comparison of a trans-Pacific survey completed in 1985 (refs 4, 5) and its repetition in 1999 (ref. 6). We find that the deepest waters of the North Pacific Ocean have warmed significantly across the entire width of the ocean basin. Our observations imply that changes in water properties are now detectable in water masses that have long been insulated from heat exchange with the atmosphere.

www.nature.com...


The increase in geothermal heat has been melting glaciers, warming the bottom of many parts of our oceans and causing changes in the circulation of our oceans which also affects the Earth's climate and weather.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Like always, you are making up your own conclusions reached by fallacious arguments you always love to make.

Let's start.

First of all, you are ignoring the fact that the Sun's visible light has been increasing which has been warming the Troposphere...

www.nature.com...

This strange behavior from our sun didn't stop in 2007.

www.ssl.berkeley.edu...

Not to mention that you are ignoring the fact Earth's magnetic field has been weakening, or the other changes Earth is undergoing such as the increase activity of geothermal warming, and the global increase in seismicity which point to a fact that people like you want to ignore. Earth is going through changes that are bound to be affecting it's climate.

You are ignoring the fact that cosmic x-rays from outside the solar has been increasing.

You are ignoring the fact that even with what is supposed to be a decrease in activity in our sun, somehow it's soft x-ray emissions have been increasing.

www.ssl.berkeley.edu...

The sun itself is reacting weirdly to something that is affecting not only Earth, but other planets and moons with an atmosphere in the solar system which are undergoing not only dramatic climate changes, but have been undergoing dramatic warming.

This is happening at the same time we see other activity in the sun weakening.

You actually think that I did not notice your obvious attempt at using generalized claims such as "prove that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared radiation"... Just because it does doesn't mean it absorbs as much radiation as you and the AGW scientists claim... More so when time and again GCMs have been shown to be wrong...

originally posted by: Greven
2) The troposphere isn't warming

I guess the fact that the sun's visible light and soft x-ray emission has increased which has been corroborated to have been warming the Troposphere just swoosched above your head huh?... If you quickly turn around and look above you you might still notice the "swoooshing" that keeps passing above your head meanwhile you yell "it must be CO2, it must be mankind causing climate change"...

originally posted by: Greven
3) The stratosphere isn't cooling

wow... I guess Greven is completely oblivious to the fact that there are many natural factors that account for cooling in the upper atmosphere.

For example, solar flares and cmes, apart from releasing billions of tons of solar particles into the Earth also cause shockwaves which not only heats and expands the upper atmosphere but it also causes the formation of nitric oxide which rapidly cools and shrinks the upper atmosphere.

www.colorado.edu...

Or how about the fact that meanwhile the sun's activity has recently been warming the Troposphere, the decline of other solar activity has cause the upper atmosphere to cool?

science.nasa.gov...

(continued below)

Same old bull#, still spamming the crap out of threads with irrelevant quotes, still pretending to know what you're talking about.

More 'light' could indeed warm the troposphere. More light would also warm the lower stratosphere, ceteris paribus. I don't think you understand the greenhouse effect very well. More solar radiation would warm both the troposphere and the stratosphere. Yet, the lower stratosphere is cooling.

X-rays are absorbed way up in the atmosphere, so I don't see the relevance.

Ah, so you finally admit CO2 absorbs infrared. I would say that's progress, but it's quite glacial. Regardless of the magnitude with which CO2 warms the atmosphere, would you at least agree some quantity of CO2 would be sufficient to heat the planet (ex: 10,000 ppm)?

Clearly that UAH/temperature graph shows warming. Also, I have some bad news for you about your graph. Per your favorite source (UAH data, which has been revised to make more recent temperatures lower), this year is running at +0.52 Celsius year-to-date... That's with TLT data, which is a conglomeration and modeling of a big chunk of the troposphere that inherently would show lower ground temperatures. NASA on the other hand is showing +1.02 Celsius year-to-date, though it is a different baseline. I suppose the graph is 5-yr averages to further distort things, but whatever.

A relevant quote:

The ABSOLUTE accuracy of the measurements is not nearly as good… probably no better than about 0.5 deg. C. But since each deep-layer measurement of the atmosphere includes individual air layers spanning tens of degrees, even small errors in the microwave absorption theory will translate into that much uncertainty. -- Dr. Roy Spencer

The Ionosphere is not the lower Stratosphere. The Thermosphere is not the lower Stratosphere and the fact that you seem to think these are in any way related is #ing hysterical. You don't have a clue. That's been apparent since you defended that completely bogus 'study' written by a lunatic - and please everyone go read this thread if you think ElectricUniverse somehow knows what he's talking about as it's absolutely hilarious.

Here's a clue. Again, ridicule.

Oh, and ozone in the atmosphere is like 15ppm in the stratosphere... if you want to argue that CO2 is too little to do anything but that ozone is plentiful enough to drastically alter things...

Anyway, CO2 has increased temperatures quite a lot. Arctic sea ice literal worst-case scenario of not much ice during summer prediction was like 2016 plus or minus 3 years (2013-2019), and it damn well could happen in 2017. I hope not. The extent models are woefully optimistic in their prediction.

I suppose that doesn't cause a great problem, but now Antarctica also very far below average sea ice extent... completely reversing the 'growth' there that you and those who support your ideas have crowed about in the past. Of course, sea ice extent in Antarctica isn't a terribly worrisome thing; it's a continent surrounded by ice rather than an ocean covered in ice. The worrying thing is the increasing potential for rapid continental melt there.

Please do expound on how impactful these undersea volcanoes and vents are. If you want to prove somehow that these are the culprit, then provide a reasoning.

Oh, and a reminder, please answer why the stratosphere is cooling at a rate of almost a third of a degree Celsius per decade. That is far too consistent for an 11-yr cycle.