Comments on: Why you sound so stupid when you say “global warming has stopped”

By: Internet Marketing

Internet Marketing — Fri, 02 Mar 2018 05:39:18 +0000

After I initially left a comment I appear to have clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and from now on every time a comment is added I recieve 4 emails with the same
comment. There has to be a way you can remove me from that service?

Thanks a lot!

By: proximity1

proximity1 — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:59:25 +0000

29 & 30:

On e-mail notifications of replies–

Typically, in the (body of ) the e-mail, usually at the end, a link is included with the instructions: “If you wish to discontine notifications of replies, click on the link”—

So, read your (current, past or next) mail notice carefully and look for that option, and, if you find it, click on it to indicate that you wish to discontinue the notices. I think this should do the trick.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:28:31 +0000

Fred, the “agreed upon measurement” is the measurement for a specific set of earth system features: Air temperatures just above the surface and sea surface temperatures. Looking at the part of the earth system that involves over 97% of the added heat is not deviating. It is including something very very important.

It is true that the traditional “surface” (as just defined) is the better data set in terms of its density and verifiability. But that does not make 97% of the system go away.

Your comment is invalid.

By: Fred Voetsch

Fred Voetsch — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:14:40 +0000

As an attempt to explain away “the pause” this piece is worthless. You deviate from the standard, agreed upon measurement, surface temperature, for another, ocean heat content.

Switching from one to the other is dishonest for several reasons and anyone who handles critical data can tell you that you need data integrity. While surface temps do not tell us all we would like, we all understand how to compare one recording to any other and surface data is what we live with and what most paleoclimatic reconstructions are based upon.

In summary, cherry picking data points is bad enough but intermixing and cherry picking data TYPES is beyond the pale.

By: corrector

corrector — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 17:31:29 +0000

“When the World is in peril and the people on it in jeopardy, engaging in or taking part of a program of disinformation about climate change should be punishable by fines and incarceration.”

And people still say that warmology has nothing to with fascism.

lol

By: bob

bob — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:57:21 +0000

That’s “safe science” we have to practice..

By: bob

bob — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:44:34 +0000

Thanks Dave! Now I have to think about a CO2 laser… Does a CO2 laser emit only IR? Isn’t a laser more about having a chamber being integral numbers of wavelengths of your desired output frequency? And if you’re shooting Infrared, then I’d ask the french fries under the IR lamp at the food service line if they believe in Climate Change… maybe the ones that don’t won’t burn your mouth!
We have to practice save science, you know… You know someone would volunteer to stand in front of that IR laser!
It’s all fun and games until you burn a hole through someone!
Ok, I just thought of this… my friend owns a laser cutting shop. They have a 19 or 20KVA laser that cuts up to 1/4″ steel plate. I believe it is a CO2 laser…

By: Dave McRae

Dave McRae — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 02:16:35 +0000

Love your work Bob – also an EE so I so get the it’s all radiation to me.

I’ve tried to get deniers to acknowledge the operation of a CO2 meter. On the very rare occasion it works.

I’ve had no luck in getting a denier volunteer to stand in front of a CO2 laser. It would be an amazing experiment – would IR/CO2 deniers burn?

By: bob

bob — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 03:55:37 +0000

I like the drunk postal worker analogy! I’m an EE so it’s all radiation to me. To me, the black body radiation measurement that proved less energy is being re-radiated into space than is incident upon the surface is the clincher. It came out a few years ago and was halted when the satellite constellation measuring it was defunded (I believe).
I’m not so sure your clarification is correct from an EM radiation perspective. Sunlight is absorbed by the surface. More sunlight is absorbed by darker materials. The absorption of EM radiation increases molecular vibration which is heat. Atmospheric CO2 wouldn’t have much of a bearing on the amount of sunlight converted to heat. It will trap it as it is radiated from the surface, though. The entire visible spectrum plus higher and lower frequencies strike the surface constantly. Only a small portion of the
EM spectrum would be Infrared and directly heat atmospheric CO2 en route to the surface. The larger amount of sunlight converted to heat is determined by the albedo of the surface material. If you google “albedo” there are a few good references at the top of the results. Funny thing to cite: Mythbusters had done a piece on the Hollywood myth of the dust storm created by cars driving in circles being able to obscure a hostage transfer between cars. They did it with only visual confirmation from a helicopter, and then they used night-vision goggles. When they tested methods to obscure people to night vision goggles (infrared-sensing) they discharged CO2 fire extinguishers above the actors between the cars. No heat signature of any of the people out of the cars could be detected by the goggle-wearers with the CO2 cloud overhead. I know the denialist crowd wouldn’t believe their own eyes or would consider it a conspiracy, but that is a great (expensive to reproduce) CO2 science experiment caught on video.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:17:17 +0000

Bob:

The sentence you refer to was clumsily written. It said, essentially, that “the amount of sunlight that gets converted to heat radiating back into space is increased by CO2” but what it should have said is “”the amount of sunlight (that gets converted to heat) radiating back into space is increased by CO2” which is still clumsy but correct.

I’ve changed it somewhat but your explanation is here so people can also read that.

I’ve equated, in earlier writing on this, a greenhouse gas to a bunch of random-acting mail sorters. The mail is the IR going back into space, but it has to be sorted first by a number of drunk postal workers, who tend to put the mail in random bins. Most encounters with molecules in the air involve simply being passed on (towards space) but some of the molecules/postal workers pass the “mail” (IR radiation) on in a random direction. The more drunk postal workers/molecules (such as CO2) the more time the IR spends being passed around in random directions instead of in the direction it is supposed to go. It does not take that many drunk postal workers to result in a certain amount of mail taking weeks instead of days to get delivered. If instead of mail it is heat, that means that there will be more heat in the atmosphere than there would be without the greenhouse gases.