papafarang wrote:you think I will go through 2000 post of your drivel I've asked you to explain and you can't .simple. no need to go getting all upset about it

You suffer from poor memory, comprehension, or both. You dont have to go through 2000 of my posts - you simply have to go through yours - I answered this question before.

The answer is simple - satellites have different channels which use different wavelengths to measure the various levels of the troposphere.

You have nothing to offer because you simply dont know. You have a religious conviction in a belief you cant explain.

You simply cant explain why you believe terrestrial thermometers are superior to satellites because you dont know and lack the skills to explain what you do.

You are obsessed with fossil fuels but continue to use them when you state cost efficient alternatives are available.

To me that is arrant hypocrisy.

If there is a crisis, as you claim, if there is need for urgent and immediate action to stave off the impact of fossil fuel use, if renewable energy is as advanced and cheap as you claim, why do you not have an electric car?

ronan01 wrote:

papafarang wrote:

ronan01 wrote:

papafarang wrote:

ronan01 wrote:

papafarang wrote:China and India will continue to increase emissions
Global emissions will continue to rise
Coal about 2,500 new coal plants will be built worldwide

are you concerned about global climate change and the increase emissions then ?.

The climate has always changed.
China and India will continue to increase emissions.
Global emissions will continue to rise.
About 2,500 new coal plants will be built worldwide.
There has been no increase in temperature for about 20 years despite massive increases of CO2.

but according to NASA the temp has increased 0.35c since 1996 ? are they wrong ?
climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

According to RSS satellite database there is no global warming from March 1997 to November 2015 (225 months).

Are they wrong?

http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature

upper air temp ? do you mean the stratosphere ? or anything over 5000 ft

"The term "upper air" refers to the part of the atmosphere well above Earth's surface. The temperature of the atmosphere in this region is a fundamental climate variable. Recent changes in atmospheric temperature have been attributed to human-induced climate change. Continued monitoring of atmospheric temperature is critical to advancing our understanding of the sensitivity of Earth's climate to changing atmospheric composition."

http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature

Read the website - particularly multi-channels and Fig 1.[/quote]

This is where I explained to Papafarang how satellites measure temperature. But the poor confused soul neither understood or remembered.

ronan01 wrote:

papafarang wrote:something is happening and no one can really tell us why ?

About the only reasonable thing said so far.

But the "experts" pretend the future temperature can be predicted 100 years from now and the public are to be taxed trillions to reduce it by a miniscule 0.002 degrees. There is greater temperature variation between the top and bottom of the Eiffel Tower.

The temperature has been increasing and decreasing naturally for millions of years, and in more recent times the temperature has been increasing since the little ice age (about 1650).

Natural variation.

Only Obama could say something ridiculous like "today we stopped the oceans rising" and only die hard activists would believe it. Folly.

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm

"Daily averaged temperatures of the Earth are measured by the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) flying on NASA's Aqua satellite. The satellite passes over most points on the Earth twice per day. The AMSU measures the average temperature of the atmosphere in different layers from the surface up to about 135,000 feet or 41 kilometers. During global warming, the atmosphere in the lower atmosphere (called the troposphere) is supposed to warm at least as fast as the surface warms, while the stratosphere above the troposphere is supposed to cool much faster than the surface warms."

https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/

And again I explained to poor old Papafarang of the poor memory and comprehension how satellites measure temperature, and again he failed to understand.

so is there anyone else that don't understand this video, 3 immediate posts by ranting ronan, who does not understand that the satellites gave the data, but scientists couldn't figure out why it was different to other data, until some bright spark realized that the satellites were getting lower, and slower which was not taken into account.
the same scenario of the climategate myth
you can repeat it over and over, but after its been proved wrong, to keep repeating it becomes a lie
https://youtu.be/UVMsYXzmUYk

2,000 or so denialist posts in the map's leading thread. Anthropologists would love this content.

CO2 is essential to life on earth.

All life is carbon based and CO2 is one of the primary sources for this.

There are some brain dead members of society who want to "de-carbonise" the economy and the planet.

"De-carbonising" the economy and the planet is about as stupid as it gets.

Those who want a "de-carbonised" economy and society should hold their breath for a long time ...... a very long time.

THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS ON THE SURVIVAL OF LIFE ON EARTH:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... ssions.pdf

Planet earth chugged along for millions of years, no pollution from mankind except for a few farts and cooking fires. Then came the industrial revolution where man started spewing pollution into the atmosphere, and this has no effect, I think you are the brain dead one Ronan, let common sense prevail please.

oh god what's he found now that he has no idea about, CO2 is good for plants, yes it is, in a controlled environment. the only way these plants can benefit in the long run is if we GM all of them, plus we better find some serious herbicides to control invasive plants

The grasses, as well as many other groups, evolved new mechanisms of metabolism to survive the low CO2 and warm, dry conditions of the tropics over the last 10 million years
wiki
The Poaceae are the most economically important plant family, providing staple foods from domesticated cereal crops such as maize (corn), wheat, rice, barley, and millet as well as forage, building materials (bamboo, thatch, straw) and fuel (ethanol).
wiki

coxo wrote:Planet earth chugged along for millions of years, no pollution from mankind except for a few farts and cooking fires. Then came the industrial revolution where man started spewing pollution into the atmosphere, and this has no effect, I think you are the brain dead one Ronan, let common sense prevail please.

Is CO2 pollution?

ronan01 wrote: by ronan01 » June 21, 2016, 9:45 am

coxo wrote:
Planet earth chugged along for millions of years, no pollution from mankind except for a few farts and cooking fires. Then came the industrial revolution where man started spewing pollution into the atmosphere, and this has no effect, I think you are the brain dead one Ronan, let common sense prevail please.


Is CO2 pollution?

Ahh yes Ronan it is, the main source of human CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels, coal, natural gas and oil, for someone that has taken a mightier than mighty stance on this subject you a certainly seem to lack balance.

coxo wrote:

ronan01 wrote: by ronan01 » June 21, 2016, 9:45 am

coxo wrote:
Planet earth chugged along for millions of years, no pollution from mankind except for a few farts and cooking fires. Then came the industrial revolution where man started spewing pollution into the atmosphere, and this has no effect, I think you are the brain dead one Ronan, let common sense prevail please.


Is CO2 pollution?

Ahh yes Ronan it is, the main source of human CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels, coal, natural gas and oil, for someone that has taken a mightier than mighty stance on this subject you a certainly seem to lack balance.

So every mammal that exhales is creating pollution?

ronan01 wrote: by ronan01 » June 21, 2016, 10:56 am

coxo wrote:
ronan01 wrote:
by ronan01 » June 21, 2016, 9:45 am

coxo wrote:
Planet earth chugged along for millions of years, no pollution from mankind except for a few farts and cooking fires. Then came the industrial revolution where man started spewing pollution into the atmosphere, and this has no effect, I think you are the brain dead one Ronan, let common sense prevail please.


Is CO2 pollution?



Ahh yes Ronan it is, the main source of human CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels, coal, natural gas and oil, for someone that has taken a mightier than mighty stance on this subject you a certainly seem to lack balance.


So every mammal that exhales is creating pollution?

Human made emissions since the industrial revolution, put your classes on.

coxo wrote:

ronan01 wrote: by ronan01 » June 21, 2016, 10:56 am

coxo wrote:
ronan01 wrote:
by ronan01 » June 21, 2016, 9:45 am

coxo wrote:
Planet earth chugged along for millions of years, no pollution from mankind except for a few farts and cooking fires. Then came the industrial revolution where man started spewing pollution into the atmosphere, and this has no effect, I think you are the brain dead one Ronan, let common sense prevail please.


Is CO2 pollution?



Ahh yes Ronan it is, the main source of human CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels, coal, natural gas and oil, for someone that has taken a mightier than mighty stance on this subject you a certainly seem to lack balance.


So every mammal that exhales is creating pollution?

Human made emissions since the industrial revolution, put your classes on.

I did not ask about human made emissions since the industrial revolution, I asked is CO2 pollution.

Your claim is that CO2 is a pollutant, I disagree.

By your thinking every mammal, including humans, that exhales, is creating pollution.

Or do you claim that human made CO2 is pollution, but natural CO2 is not.

Human caused CO2 is estimated to be about 3% of the total. Is the remaining 97% of CO2 not pollution?

ronan01 wrote:Your claim is that CO2 is a pollutant, I disagree.

By your thinking every mammal, including humans, that exhales, is creating pollution.

Or do you claim that human made CO2 is pollution, but natural CO2 is not.

Human caused CO2 is estimated to be about 3% of the total. Is the remaining 97% of CO2 not pollution?

That statement always baffles me, when pointing out "we need to curtail CO2 emissions". I guess most 'climate change / global warmist' weren't paying attention in HS. Without CO2, we wouldn't have - O - , that plant in / out thing which gives us life.

Being a tree hugger may be better use of the 'eco-terrorist's / alarmists' time.

Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a colorless and odorless gas vital to life on Earth.

As part of the carbon cycle, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product

- Wiki

The industrial age hasn't even come close to putting a dent in emissions, as levels and temps were higher before the industrial age. In the grand scale of things, not as warm as previous warming trends, and pretty much right on schedule with the past.

While basking in the warmth and sunshine, mankind had better be concerned about water pollution, and what human population the planet can sustain. All this while thinking about what follows the warming trends........the Ice Age.

Electric vehicles:

https://youtu.be/arQ8_PW-RiA

A Young Person’s Guide to the Greenhouse Effect

"Back in the 1950’s Charles Keeling started making very precise and regular measurements of the amount of various gases in the atmosphere to see if they were changing. He did his experiments on a mountain in Hawaii a long way away from industry and traffic because he wanted to get an idea of what was happening on a global scale.

All the measurements showed that one gas, Carbon Dioxide, CO2, has been steadily increasing all over the world. At the same time the average temperature of the earth has also been increasing (but not quite so steadily).

Because the environment scare and the nuclear war scare were fresh in people’s minds they decided that the two things were connected and that rising CO2 must be causing the temperature to go up. They started calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ like DDT and radioactive fallout. The increase in CO2 is supposed to be due to humans burning coal and oil in industry but there are other explanations for it."

http://blackjay.net/wp-content/uploads/ ... YPGTGE.pdf

I find it incredible that alarmists routinely interchange CO2 and CARBON and talk about CARBON POLLUTION and DE-CARBONISING society.

Just more alarmist dishonesty.

ronan01 wrote:... http://blackjay.net/wp-content/uploads/ ... YPGTGE.pdf

I find it incredible that alarmists routinely interchange CO2 and CARBON and talk about CARBON POLLUTION and DE-CARBONISING society.

Just more alarmist dishonesty.

Well, there's more to this particular story. The link leads to an article by one John Reid, a retired physicist (not a climatologist or oceanographer) from Australia. In fact, the website, "blackjay.net" is Mr. Reid's blog. Much of it seems to be focused on his position that global warming does not exist, which position he says is supported by an impartial statistical analysis of recorded observations of temperature, carbon dioxide levels, etc. As he says in one of his posts there, "I have shown statistically that global average temperature is also a random walk implying that there is nothing unexpected nor unusual about global temperature. There is no need to look for an explanation in terms of CO2 or solar activity or anything else. There is nothing to explain. There has been no climate change, at least not since Termination I which happened 11,000 years ago."

He goes on to say, however, that his paper putting forth this theory "has so far been rejected by the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society and by Tellus A, a prestigious Swedish meteorological journal."

Mr. Reid's primary published forum for his writings seems to be Quadrant, a well-known right-wing Australian publication started in 1956 by the Australian Committee for Cultural Freedom, the Australian arm of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, an anti-communist advocacy group funded by the CIA.

As has been said in this thread before, it's easy to find support for nearly any position somewhere in the world.

Oh golly gosh. Let's hope 01 isn't on the CIA's payroll too. 01 might have gone rogue as I thought the defence establishment in the US considered climate change a threat to US national security. I don't think 01 would be keen to be part of that song and dance. He listens to different music.

Udon Map wrote:

ronan01 wrote:... http://blackjay.net/wp-content/uploads/ ... YPGTGE.pdf

I find it incredible that alarmists routinely interchange CO2 and CARBON and talk about CARBON POLLUTION and DE-CARBONISING society.

Just more alarmist dishonesty.

Well, there's more to this particular story. The link leads to an article by one John Reid, a retired physicist (not a climatologist or oceanographer) from Australia. In fact, the website, "blackjay.net" is Mr. Reid's blog. Much of it seems to be focused on his position that global warming does not exist, which position he says is supported by an impartial statistical analysis of recorded observations of temperature, carbon dioxide levels, etc. As he says in one of his posts there, "I have shown statistically that global average temperature is also a random walk implying that there is nothing unexpected nor unusual about global temperature. There is no need to look for an explanation in terms of CO2 or solar activity or anything else. There is nothing to explain. There has been no climate change, at least not since Termination I which happened 11,000 years ago."

He goes on to say, however, that his paper putting forth this theory "has so far been rejected by the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society and by Tellus A, a prestigious Swedish meteorological journal."

Mr. Reid's primary published forum for his writings seems to be Quadrant, a well-known right-wing Australian publication started in 1956 by the Australian Committee for Cultural Freedom, the Australian arm of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, an anti-communist advocacy group funded by the CIA.

As has been said in this thread before, it's easy to find support for nearly any position somewhere in the world.

Most climatologists (where do you study that?) have little or no knowledge of physics.

Physicist's tend to study thermodynamics, fluid dynamics - you know, the stuff that happens in the physical world. Physicist's need strong mathematical skills.

Physics - The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/physics

And I still I find it incredible that alarmists routinely interchange CO2 and CARBON and talk about CARBON POLLUTION and DE-CARBONISING society.