Oh hai guise. I'm sure I'll see you guys around more now that El Nino has died down. It's only weather if its a cold snap.

Remember guise, you are the informed ones. You know, the people who think that Venus is so hot because it has more CO2. Keep fighting the good fight.

It is Global Climate Change. Having cold winter in Southern California (in the opinion of one individual) or having marine layer lead to below average temperature days but on the whole not much different from usual (in the opinion of another individual) is not going to tell you anything about local climate Global Climate Change. Data from across the globe on the other hand is useful to debate the case.

Neither are a few hot months caused by a temporary weather event. None of these 'record highs' are caused by AGW, they are caused by the el nino, which has ended recently.

Thanks for playing.

Lol @ totally inappropriate levels of certainty. Have you just giving up trying to convince anybody that knows anything?

San Diego and Los Angeles have very different climates. Surely a Southern Californian is familiar with the term "microclimate?"

El Nino is a cooling event.

You don't think CO2 is the reason why Venus is warmer on average than Mercury despite being farther from the sun?

Yeah, except that we are setting records with a significantly weaker El Nino than the one in 1998. El Nino/La Nina noise cancels out over the long run and you can see the trend over the last 30 years is around .16 deg C/decade.

Hey bro, I'll introduce you to this crazy equation called PV=nRT. P is almost 0 on Mercury, and Venus' P is more than 90 times than Earth's. It's not hard.

.16 deg C/decade over thirty years isn't significant. Temps were almost at normal before the el nino event. While you can argue that the temp increase is not entirely due to el nino, a large proportion is.

CO2 warms the planet, its true.
I saw a documentary on the science channel. There was a point in the world's history where the entire planet was an ice ball. There were no clouds in the sky because all the water was ice, the surface was white so the majority of sun rays were reflected. It was a big mystery in the science community, how we ever got out of this period. Volcanoes over millions of years dumped CO2 into the atmosphere and eventually the planet warmed up.
NOW MAY I ASK YOU WHY HAS THE PLANET NO BECOME 550 DEGREES CAUSE ITS BEEN LIKE A BILLION YEARS SINCE THEN AND VOLANCOES STILL ERUPT AT THE SAME RATE.

I already know the answer to the question, thats why i put a period there.
Eventually the ice melted into the water and the water into clouds and the clouds rained down and took c02 out of the atmosphere. The more c02 that goes into the atmosphere the hotter it gets the more precipitation there is, the more rainfall there is, no more co2 gets taken out of the atmosphere. The hotter earth gets the faster co2 will be taken out the atmosphere. Is the moral of the story.

Well thanks for answering my question. You are ignoring something very significant. Try using the left hand side of your equation to figure out what happens to the temperature of an oven when you turn it on.

"Most astronomers believe that Venus's high surface temperature can be explained by what is known as the greenhouse effect. A greenhouse lets in radiant energy from the sun, but it prevents much of the heat from escaping. The thick clouds and dense atmosphere of Venus work in much the same way. The sun's radiant energy readily filters into the planet's atmosphere. But the large droplets of sulfuric acid present in Venus's clouds -- and the great quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- seem to trap much of the solar energy at the planet's surface."

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html

Volume isn't fixed LDO.

We are just in a temporary warm spell between ice ages, and all the donations to Al Gore to the contrary will not change that!

When you turn on an oven?

Actually we are in a temporary low entropy state on the way to eventual heat death.

I don't know what you mean by significant. The trend is statistically significant, if that's what you mean. If you mean that the amount of warming so far isn't a problem, then I'd agree. The problem is that more warming is coming.

As for El Nino, it is just one way that heat is transported around the system. It's not unreasonable to assume more El Ninos relative to La Ninas during a warming trend of whatever cause. However, more El Ninos cannot increase Ocean Heat Content, so your theory that El Nino is responsible for the warming trend is falsified by the OHC trend over the last few decades.

My point is that this part is much more important than the CO2 part. If you go up in Venus atmosphere to the point that the pressure, it's only a few degrees warmer than earth.

If you think that CO2 is what causes Venus to be warmer than Mercury, then you would expect Mars, with an atmosphere made of 95% of CO2, to be much warmer than it is. It's not however, because the Martian atmosphere is so thin.

Thicker atmospheres regulate temperature better than thinner ones. Think of it as a bigger blanket.

95% is meaningless. What is the absolute quantity of CO2? It isn't much at all since Mars' atmosphere is much, much thinner than Earth's.

You're very right when you say quantity is important.

And you're very wrong if you think pressure accounts for the differences between Earth and Venus and Mars.

Not entirely, but ~90% of the differences do. Like you said, quantity matters. At the surface of Venus with a pressure 92x of Earths, it's 462 degrees C. At earth's pressure, it's around 40-70 degrees C.

Watching the latest Frontline about the vaccine industry and possible links to autism. Basically zero epidemiological studies have shown a link between the MMR triple-shot vaccine, or the mercury-based Thimerisol preservative - and the onset of autism. And the one study in 1982 that showed some link has now been discredited by the journal it was published (some of the kids in it were recommended by a lawyer who was suing the pharmaceutical industry). In the case of Japan autism actually went up a little after they replaced the MMR shot with 3 separate vaccines in 1993.

But of course, emotional Moms aren't swayed. They don't care about science, they just know their kid got a shot then developed autism soon after. All scientists are part of a self-motivated govt. cover-up of course.

Literal quote: "I don't give a **** about what the MMR [study] said. My kid got six vaccines in one day and he regressed. You don't have any science that can show me that the regression wasn't triggered by the six vaccines."

For some strange reason it made me think of this thread. Damn scientists. Are they good for anything?

it makes me think of this thread too suzzer99, but I think it's your side that is like the over cautious moms that ignores science

i'm sitting there reading that and am just like ok at some point he is going to tie this to mmgw right?