By Steven Goddard
No matter what happens with the summer Arctic ice minimum, NSIDC will report that the long-term trend is downwards.
Why? Because of mathematics. In order to reverse the 30 year downwards linear trend, this summer’s minimum would have to be nearly 20,000,000 km². More ice than has ever been directly measured.
In other words, we could have a “Day After Tomorrow” scenario, and the mathematical trend would still be downwards.
Conclusion: You can count on NSIDC to continue reporting a downwards trend, regardless of what happens over the next few years. For now, it will be fun seeing what happens over the next eight weeks.
Gneiss says:
June 27, 2010 at 7:57 am
Nope, it was true as I wrote it. Most scientists have never seen a dime from research grants that involve climate change. And those who have sure are not getting fat.
“Most” you say?
Well then, let us confine our focus to just those individuals who were involved in the ClimateGate affair, and IPCC fiasco, shall we?
Is it your contention that a number of them weren’t paid?
Jack Simmons says:
June 27, 2010 at 4:21 am
villabolo says:
June 27, 2010 at 12:53 am
I’m still waiting for an answer to my question, why should I care whether the ice cap melts or not?
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
My apologies, Jack, for the long delay. I assumed that I had explicitly described the process earlier on this thread but I found only one statement of mine that was kind of general. My complete description must have been posted on another thread so I’ll give you the full run:
I] IMMEDIATE EFFECTS (Starting in about 1-2 decades and increasing in intensity)
1a) White ice REFLECTS 80-90% of solar radiation (depending on condition).
b) Blue ocean ABSORBS 80% of solar radiation.
2) Expansion of open seas in the Arctic Ocean will absorb more sunlight and thus get warmer (estimated 6-9F).
3) Evaporation from the open ocean will occur for two reasons:
a) The ice cap no longer acts as a physical barrier to such evaporation.
b) The increased temperature of the ocean leads to more evaporation.
4) More evaporation amplifies the rain/snow cycle which leads to intensified storms. Global Warming had predicted this situation in the 1990’s for the all the oceans, concluding that we would have the type of intense, “once in 500/1000 year floods that we are experiencing at the present.
5) Rising heat from the Arctic Ocean will disrupt weather patterns that we are accustomed to effecting crop productivity as well as flooding of populated areas.
6) This situation will effect the entire Northern Hemisphere.
II) SECONDARY EFFECTS. THE SIBERIAN PERMAFROST.
1a) Siberia has increased in temperature about 3F in the past several decades leading to a defrosting of the surface of the permafrost. The permafrost is melting throughout extensive areas.
b) This in turn is allowing the decomposition of huge amounts of previously frozen plant material, whose decomposition by a certain class of organism (methanogens) causes the release of enormous amounts of Methane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6aGma0lWAM
2) Methane is a gas with 100 times the heat insulating ability of Carbon Dioxide immediately after its release, dropping down to 60-72 times 20 years later and 25 times 100 years later (It decomposes throughout time).
3) When the Arctic Ocean opens up extensively, and heats up to about 6-9F, a certain amount of that heat will be transferred to areas surrounding the ocean, including Siberia.
4) This further temperature increase from the Arctic Ocean will accelerate the defrosting of the permafrost and increase the heat of the upper defrosted areas. The increased heat will thus accelerate the metabolism of the organisms releasing the Methane.
5) This will create a feed back cycle which by releasing Methane into the atmosphere will further increase temperatures which increases will lead to more rapid permafrost melt.
CONCLUSION:
We’re f***ed.
899 says:
June 27, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Well then, let us confine our focus to just those individuals who were involved in the ClimateGate affair, and IPCC fiasco, shall we?
Is it your contention that a number of them weren’t paid?
VILLABOLO (with eyes rolling) RESPONDS:
They were paid like anyone at NASA. Therefore, by your logic, the moon landing was a fake.
Jim D says:
June 27, 2010 at 1:33 pm
899, why do you assume more evaporation leads to more clouds? It doesn’t follow when the air is warmer too.
I also believe in the Milankovitch cycles, which show how warming and cooling are related to the solar forcing changes due to orbital effects. In that situation CO2 is just responding to the temperature changes.
Other climate changes may be due to atmospheric composition changes, such as dust from asteroid impacts or volcanic activity, or CO2 injection by volcanoes or other means.
In the current situation, the atmosphere has more CO2 in it than in the last 15 or so million years. Maybe that will do something? It was certainly a warmer equilibrium 15 million years ago, Greenland had no ice cap, and there were no ice ages. It seems CO2 and temperature go together, and are highly correlated in past climate, but the order can vary.
[1] Is it your contention that warm moist air doesn’t rise?
[2] You’ve still not addressed the Vostok Ice Core data, where it is readily shown that atmospheric temperature changes precede any change in CO2 content.
[3] If anything, CO2 is an indicator gas.
[4] What about Mars? It’s atmosphere is chiefly CO2, and it’s darned cold there!
899 writes,
“Well then, let us confine our focus to just those individuals who were involved in the ClimateGate affair, and IPCC fiasco, shall we?
Is it your contention that a number of them weren’t paid?”
If they’re professional scientists, of course they are getting paid. They are not paid to reach any particular conclusion, however. That’s not how the grants work, or the scientists, or the process itself, across scores of different fields now contributing to climate research.
899 says:
June 27, 2010 at 12:50 pm
So in other words your prime purpose for posting here is essentially nothing other than to put forth CAGW/CC propaganda.
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
My prime purpose for being here is curiosity. I started learning about the issue very recently and was aware of the basic talking points that the skeptics had been using. I still did not know how skeptics presented their arguments in person so I began to observe this site and then started posting on it.
Gneiss says:
June 27, 2010 at 1:28 pm
899 writes,
“And by ‘significant’ I mean to imply just this: It is statistically insignificant such as to not be any kind of agent worth worrying over.
For evidence of just that, consider Mars, the prime atmospheric component gas being CO2, and what’s the mean temp. on Mars? Pretty darned cold.”
Some people, reasoning differently than 899, might believe that Mars’ temperature results from its thin atmosphere, 1/200th the mass of Earth’s; and the fact that it orbits about 50 million miles farther from the Sun.
No ‘global warming’ on Mars, eh?
I seem to recall a recent news story, oh, within the last few years where it was reported by NASA no less, that the outer planets were experiencing a degree of ‘global warming’ of their own, which was happening in a consonant fashion with the Earth.
And you’re given to believe that a ‘thin atmosphere’ will result in less an effect?
I wonder: What is the percent of CO2 gas on Mars, and how does that compare to the quantity of that gas on the Earth?
I will think that Mars probably has more CO2 than does the Earth, and if the CO2 on the Earth is said to have as much effect as you are wont to declare, then again: Why isn’t Mars nice and toasty?
villabolo says:
June 27, 2010 at 1:56 pm
899 says:
June 27, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Well then, let us confine our focus to just those individuals who were involved in the ClimateGate affair, and IPCC fiasco, shall we?
Is it your contention that a number of them weren’t paid?
VILLABOLO (with eyes rolling) RESPONDS:
They were paid like anyone at NASA. Therefore, by your logic, the moon landing was a fake.
But you said they weren’t paid.
Are you now backpedalling?
Gneiss says:
June 27, 2010 at 2:07 pm
899 writes,
“Well then, let us confine our focus to just those individuals who were involved in the ClimateGate affair, and IPCC fiasco, shall we?
Is it your contention that a number of them weren’t paid?”
If they’re professional scientists, of course they are getting paid. They are not paid to reach any particular conclusion, however. That’s not how the grants work, or the scientists, or the process itself, across scores of different fields now contributing to climate research.
But the original contention was that they weren’t getting paid.
And then there’s that ‘professional’ bit: Your so-called ‘professionals’ were involved in no less that collusion, conspiracy, fabrication of data, and unethical conduct.
899 keeps trying,
“No ‘global warming’ on Mars, eh?
I seem to recall a recent news story, oh, within the last few years where it was reported by NASA no less, that the outer planets were experiencing a degree of ‘global warming’ of their own, which was happening in a consonant fashion with the Earth.”
Nope, it’s not. Short-term Mars climate variations, for example, apparently result from albedo changes, due to huge dust storms that can darken large parts of the surface. See the article actually written by those NASA scientists (Fenton et al. 2007),
“Global warming and climate forcing by recent albedo changes on Mars”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html
A couple of other things worth noting. Longer-term climate variations on Mars likely are dominated by orbital variations much larger than those of Earth. That seems the most likely explanation for regular stratification seen in Mars polar ice layers, for instance. Even in a single Martian year, the distance from the Sun varies by about 27 million miles, compared with 3.5 million miles for our planet (and the layers represent much longer cycles).
But the other thing is — think about this for a minute. The whole premise of this website is that thousands of scientists are mistaken to report that climate is warming on Earth, while we sit here watching the ice melt. If you’re that “skeptical” about the huge amount of evidence we have for Earth’s climate, why instantly believe some half-recalled news report that made a claim about climate change on Mars? Because if seemed to fit with your prejudices?
This feels like arguing with a child, so I’m checking out soon.
“But the original contention was that they weren’t getting paid.”
Nope, that was not my original contention. It’s still there if you want to read it instead of making things up.
“And then there’s that ‘professional’ bit: Your so-called ‘professionals’ were involved in no less that collusion, conspiracy, fabrication of data, and unethical conduct.”
No, they were not.
‘Bye now.
Now we just get 899 arguing with a bunch of people. Anyone else here share 899’s opinions, because 899 is heavily outnumbered. Anyway to answer mine –
[1] yes, warm air rises, but I think you misunderstand convection by linking evaporation rate directly to clouds.
[2] I have said at least three times now, of course temperature can lead CO2. It doesn’t prove or disprove anything.
[3] if anything, there is an equilibrium between temperature and CO2, so unless we remove CO2, the temperature will now rise.
[4] Mars? Turns out it does have more CO2 than earth, but its radiative equilibrium temperature is only 212 K (due to albedo and distance from sun), so this CO2 brings it up to its toasty 227 K surface temp. That’s minus 46 C.
If you are questioning that CO2 even has a radiative insulating effect, there is no hope for you. That’s a far more extreme position than even Lindzen and Spencer who accept that much at least. You should be arguing with them.
Gneiss says:
June 27, 2010 at 3:14 pm
[–snip trash and propaganda–]
But the other thing is — think about this for a minute. The whole premise of this website is that thousands of scientists are mistaken to report that climate is warming on Earth, while we sit here watching the ice melt. If you’re that “skeptical” about the huge amount of evidence we have for Earth’s climate, why instantly believe some half-recalled news report that made a claim about climate change on Mars? Because if seemed to fit with your prejudices?
“Thousands of scientists …”
Thousands of scientists who’ve gone out of their way to dismiss the Roman Warming period, the Medieval Climate Optimum, and the Little Ice Age, in order to propagate an idea so extremely faulted and lacking any degree of scientific validity.
Yeah, those scientists.
The only evidence I need here is that there are monied interests pushing this monster so hard that their grunts issue forth from the MSM daily.
And you never addressed why it was that CLIMATEGATE emails reveal more than just a wee bit of dishonesty on the part of the senders and recipients, what with ‘hiding the decline,’ and that ‘it’s a travesty that the temperature isn’t rising,’ and “Mike’s nature trick.”
And I’m surprised that you didn’t utter those famous last words: ‘The science is settled.’
Now again: What about the Vostok Ice Core data which shows CO2 LAGGING every change in temperature?
Are you saying that there weren’t any changes in the outer planets?
And Why isn’t Mars a hot box what with all that CO2?
Finally you talk about ‘melting ice.’ Would that be the ice in your Koolaid, or the glacier in India that was supposed to be gone in 20 years?
Jim D says:
June 27, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Now we just get 899 arguing with a bunch of people. Anyone else here share 899′s opinions, because 899 is heavily outnumbered. Anyway to answer mine –
[1] yes, warm air rises, but I think you misunderstand convection by linking evaporation rate directly to clouds.
[2] I have said at least three times now, of course temperature can lead CO2. It doesn’t prove or disprove anything.
[3] if anything, there is an equilibrium between temperature and CO2, so unless we remove CO2, the temperature will now rise.
[4] Mars? Turns out it does have more CO2 than earth, but its radiative equilibrium temperature is only 212 K (due to albedo and distance from sun), so this CO2 brings it up to its toasty 227 K surface temp. That’s minus 46 C.
If you are questioning that CO2 even has a radiative insulating effect, there is no hope for you. That’s a far more extreme position than even Lindzen and Spencer who accept that much at least. You should be arguing with them.
[1] And?
[2] Funny thing: The Vostok Ice Cores don’t say ‘can,’ or ‘could,’ or ‘might.’ The LEAD by temperature is AFFIRMATIVE.
[3] The why isn’t Mars a sweltering hell hole?
[4] That’s all well and fine, but if Mars isn’t having a ‘CAGW’ effect, then neither will Earth. So much for CO2 …
Thank you for playing.
899 says:
June 27, 2010 at 2:26 pm
But you said they weren’t paid.
Are you now backpedalling?
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
WHAAAT? I never said such a thing.
899 says:
June 27, 2010 at 2:12 pm
I wonder: What is the percent of CO2 gas on Mars, and how does that compare to the quantity of that gas on the Earth?
I will think that Mars probably has more CO2 than does the Earth, and if the CO2 on the Earth is said to have as much effect as you are wont to declare, then again: Why isn’t Mars nice and toasty?
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
Could it be because it is much further from the Sun than Earth? A quick Wiki could save some embarrassment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars#Climate
Martian surface temperatures vary from lows of about -87 °C during the polar winters to highs of up to -5 °C in summers.[42] The wide range in temperatures is due to the thin atmosphere which cannot store much solar heat, the low atmospheric pressure, and the low thermal inertia of Martian soil.[101] The planet is also 1.52 times as far from the sun as Earth, resulting in just 43 percent of the amount of sunlight.[102]
[–SNIP–]
Mars also has the largest dust storms in our Solar System. These can vary from a storm over a small area, to gigantic storms that cover the entire planet. They tend to occur when Mars is closest to the Sun, and have been shown to increase the global temperature.[104]
*************************************************************************
SEEMS THAT MAR’S CARBON DIOXIDE ATMOSPHERE IS DOING A DAMN GOOD JOB OF KEEPING IT AS WARM AS POSSIBLE. IN FACT ITS -87C (-124.6F) WINTER POLAR TEMPERATURE IS WARMER.
HERE ON EARTH WE’VE REACHED -129F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coldest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth
Villabolo says:
“SEEMS THAT MAR’S CARBON DIOXIDE ATMOSPHERE IS DOING A DAMN GOOD JOB OF KEEPING IT AS WARM AS POSSIBLE. IN FACT ITS -87C (-124.6F) WINTER POLAR TEMPERATURE IS WARMER.”
Carbon dioxide has little to do with it.
You were on the right track in arguing that the relative distances from the Sun explain the temperature differences between Mars, Earth and Venus.
But then you added an unnecessary and extraneous variable: CO2.
Occam’s Razor says keep it simple. There is no need to add CO2 to the explanation. The temperature differences between Mars, Earth and Venus are fully explained by their distance from the Sun. Mars and Venus have very high CO2 concentrations, and the Earth has almost no CO2 in its atmosphere; less than one part in 2,600. Yet all 3 planets respond to the inverse square law and warm accordingly as a function of their distance from the Sun, whether they have a lot of atmospheric CO2, or practically none.
899,
[1] And look around. There’s a lot of evaporation without clouds.
[2] Yes, agreed. Milankovitch was right. Obviously completely irrelevant for now, as the next ice age wasn’t due for 30k-50k years, and now may not happen at all.
[3] Because you don’t understand Mars or the radiative transfer properties of CO2.
[4] Some people confuse AGW with runaway global warming. I am now assuming you are one of them. They are different. Read up. Science does not support runaway global warming because the CO2 level will stabilize once we stop burning fossil fuels, and once that happens, the temperature will eventually stabilize at a new level.
Hope you learned some of the science here. If not you, others reading this, if anyone is left.
The effects of CO2 on the temperatures of Venus, Mars, and Earth can be summed up thusly:
Mars has a small CO2 greenhouse effect because it has 1/100 th of the atmosphere as earth, thus no pressure broadening of the infared absorption bands, although it has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2.
Earth has a medium effect due to enough atmosphere for a modest pressure broadening of the CO2 absorption bands as well as other gases in the atmosphere to be warmed by CO2 molecules by collisions, as well as other greenhouse gases such as water vapor.
Venus has the highest greenhouse effect due to the large pressure broadening effect of the high pressure CO2 dominated atmosphere.
The actual climate and temperatures on each of the planet is determined by several factors including the distance from the sun, the albedo of each planet, the actual pressure of CO2 in each atmosphere, the presence or lack thereof of other gases, greenhouse and otherwise, in the atmosphere, as well as axial tilt and geometries of their respective orbits.
But don’t take my word for it Skeptics, go study up on it.
Bob,
Thank you for capitalizing ‘Skeptics.’ As I’m sure you know, the only honest scientists are skeptical scientists.
Now, in your analysis above, you can delete the effect of CO2. The results will be the same: Venus will be the hottest because of its close proximity to the Sun, the Earth will have the Goldilocks climate, not too hot, not too cold, but ju-u-u-u-st right; and Mars will be relatively cold.
So try to get off the fixation on harmless, beneficial CO2, which is a non-entity when it comes to affecting planetary heating and/or cooling.
Any effect from CO2 is too small to precisely measure; it is really that insignificant. The other factors you listed all have a much greater effect on temperature; additional CO2 has almost no effect. Once you accept that fact, the pieces will fall into place.
Smokey says:
June 27, 2010 at 5:45 pm
[–SNIP–]
But then you added an unnecessary and extraneous variable: CO2.
Occam’s Razor says keep it simple. There is no need to add CO2 to the explanation. The temperature differences between Mars, Earth and Venus are fully explained by their distance from the Sun. Mars and Venus have very high CO2 concentrations, and the Earth has almost no CO2 in its atmosphere; less than one part in 2,600. Yet all 3 planets respond to the inverse square law and warm accordingly as a function of their distance from the Sun, whether they have a lot of atmospheric CO2, or practically none.
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
Really now, Smokey? Let’s take a closer look at those planets. Starting with one you left out:
1) MERCURY. Temperatures: Day 801F; Night -297F.
2) VENUS. Temperature: Day and Night 860F.
2X distance from Sun than Mercury therefore .25 the solar radiance.
3) EARTH. Temperature: Average range 104F>-40F; Extreme range 134.06F>-128.2F
4) MARS. Temperature: DAY 23F (extreme 80.6F, probably in the Southern Hemisphere). Also an extra 54F during Southern Hemisphere summer than the Northern Hemisphere summer.
NIGHT -124.6F (extreme -289 at poles).
1.52X distance from Earth=.43 amount of solar irradiance relative to Earth.
__________________________________________________________
VENUS/MERCURY DISCREPANCY:
PLEASE ANSWER THIS ONE BEFORE YOU EVEN RESPOND TO THE MORE DETAILED MARS ISSUE. THE VENUS ISSUE IS FAR EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. IT SHOULD THEREFORE BE EASIER TO RESPOND TO, RIGHT?
Why is Venus 60F hotter than Mercury when Mercury is much closer to the Sun??? It is half the distance, which means it get’s 1/4 the solar irradiance. 1/4 the energy gets you 60F more temperature!?!?
__________________________________________________________
THE MARS ISSUE AND MARS/EARTH COMPARISON:
It is obvious from the below quotations that Mars has highly variable temperatures for various reasons such as a thin atmosphere that heats up and cools down quickly. It also has extreme orbital gyrations relative to the Earth’s that can increase the temperatures. Furthermore it has long lasting dust storms that could actually heat up the planet (see the citation and quotation below).
THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE FOCUSED ON. The temperature differences between Mars and Earth are: Mars: -124.6F>23F; Earth: -40>104F.
BEFORE YOU ASSUME ANYTHING ABOUT THE RATIO please keep in mind that both the Fahrenheit and Centigrade scales are arbitrary in their definition. The actual temperature you have to take into account when doing a comparison is ABSOLUTE O. Absolute O is -459.67F. And you must also keep in mind that Mars gets .43 times the solar energy as the Earth.
To conclude the Mars/Earth comparison: When you contrast the temperature ranges of both planets RELATIVE TO ABSOLUTE O at -459.67F with half the Sun’s energy it becomes obvious that the differences DO NOT NEGATE the effect of Carbon Dioxide when you take into account Mars’ thin atmosphere; cooling as well as heating and long lasting dust storms (see Wikipedia citation below); orbital gyrations; and lack of heat retaining oceans.
In fact, if Mercury is REGULARLY -297F in its nighttime compared to Mars REGULAR average of -124.6F and Polar EXTREME of -289F then this implies that whatever Carbon Dioxide is present is actually keeping it from taking a drastic plunge in temperature.
__________________________________________________________
SMOKEY SAID: “Occam’s Razor says keep it simple.”
This misinterpretation of Occam’s razor is common. You are assuming that the simplest theory HAS to win out. What it really says is that you should not multiply explanations beyond what is necessary to PROPERLY answer the question. A simpler explanation, as the below quote shows, could be wrong. It’s “simplicity” does not make it a superior argument. Here is a proper explanation of the principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
“In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[4][5] In the scientific method, Occam’s razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[6][7][8][9]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Controversial_aspects_of_the_Razor
“Occam’s razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may[34] (note that simplest theory is something like “only I exist” or “nothing exists”).”
“The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory.[35] Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one. It is this fact which gives the lie to the common misinterpretation of Occam’s Razor that “the simplest” one is usually the correct one.”
“For instance, classical physics is simpler than more recent theories; nonetheless it should not be preferred over them, because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects.”
*************************************************************************
MARS QUOTES & CITATIONS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars#Temperature
“In southern spring and summer variance is dominated by dust storms, which increase the value of the night low temperature and decrease the daytime peak temperature,[14] resulting in a small (20C) decrease in average surface temperature, and a moderate (30C) increase in upper atmosphere temperature.[15]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars#Climate
“Mars also has the largest dust storms in our Solar System. These can vary from a storm over a small area, to gigantic storms that cover the entire planet. They tend to occur when Mars is closest to the Sun, and have been shown to increase the global temperature.[104]”
bob says:
June 27, 2010 at 6:59 pm
“The actual climate and temperatures on each of the planet is determined by several factors including the distance from the sun, the albedo of each planet, the actual pressure of CO2 in each atmosphere, the presence or lack thereof of other gases, greenhouse and otherwise, in the atmosphere, as well as axial tilt and geometries of their respective orbits.”
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
Thank you Bob.
Jim D says:
June 27, 2010 at 6:00 pm
899,
[1] And look around. There’s a lot of evaporation without clouds.
[2] Yes, agreed. Milankovitch was right. Obviously completely irrelevant for now, as the next ice age wasn’t due for 30k-50k years, and now may not happen at all.
[3] Because you don’t understand Mars or the radiative transfer properties of CO2.
[4] Some people confuse AGW with runaway global warming. I am now assuming you are one of them. They are different. Read up. Science does not support runaway global warming because the CO2 level will stabilize once we stop burning fossil fuels, and once that happens, the temperature will eventually stabilize at a new level.
Hope you learned some of the science here. If not you, others reading this, if anyone is left.
[1] Just because you don’t perceive of clouds, it does not for even an instant mean that they aren’t there.
[2] Whatever assumptions on your part do not in any way connote any kind of belief on anyone else’s part.
[3] Because you’ve drunk the AGW Koolaid
[4] There is absolutely NO SUCH THING as ‘runaway global warming.’ It didn’t happen in the past, it isn’t happening in the present, and it won’t happen in the future for the simple reason that what you proclaim to be possible is IMPOSSIBLE in nature.
There is no way to get more energy out of a system than was put into it. Maybe you and Hansen should go patent the idea and see how far it gets at the U.S. Patent office!
899,
Good we agree on a few things. Clouds come and go. Temperature can precede CO2. Runaway global warming can’t happen. My work is done here.
Great, internet shouting by someone referring to themselves in third-person form. Are (C)AGW proponents that desperate to try to make sure their message gets heard, or perhaps just desperate period?
Gee, it’s not like there’s a shortage of sites where they can easily get out their (C)AGW message. Are they now hitting up this one to do their own preaching, in the third person and loud?