# gw is a LIE!



## warriorautotech (Feb 26, 2011)

HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS!  Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change


----------



## Leweman (Feb 26, 2011)

Don't post that crap.  If it doesn't support my already biased claims then its a lie.  The end.


----------



## IanC (Feb 26, 2011)

more like exaggeration and manipulation. I liked this graph though.


----------



## IanC (Feb 26, 2011)

another interesting graph showing an interesting correlation between sea surface temps and CO2 concentration-





the rest of the article- An Interesting Correlation Between Atmospheric CO2 and Sea Surface Temperatures « Debunk House


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 26, 2011)

warriorautotech said:


> HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS!  Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change



Of course, just because every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with you just means that they are all a bunch of Commies, right, Comrade?


----------



## westwall (Feb 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> warriorautotech said:
> 
> 
> > HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS!  Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change
> ...






Who cares.  All the Scientific Societies in the world claimed that Wegener was wrong too, guess what it was them that was wrong.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 26, 2011)

No, they did not claim that Wegener was wrong. They stated, correctly at that time, that there was no known mechanism through which the continents could 'drift' through ocean basalts to their present locations. Wegener's catalogueing of the similiar formations and fossils on both sides of the Atlantic in Africa and South America was a tour de force for his time.


----------



## IanC (Feb 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> No, they did not claim that Wegener was wrong. They stated, correctly at that time, that there was no known mechanism through which the continents could 'drift' through ocean basalts to their present locations. Wegener's catalogueing of the similiar formations and fossils on both sides of the Atlantic in Africa and South America was a tour de force for his time.



fifty years from now they are going to laugh at us for ignoring the natural reasons for climate variance and choosing to worship CO2 instead.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 26, 2011)

Fifty years from now they are going to be asking what dumb asses like you were ever thinking.


----------



## IanC (Feb 26, 2011)

you prophets of doom have been around as long as humans have existed. every other prophesy was wrong but this one is going to come true? riiiiiiight


----------



## westwall (Feb 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Fifty years from now they are going to be asking what dumb asses like you were ever thinking.






Hell, ten years from now the world is going to wonder how you people could be so dense.


----------



## warriorautotech (Feb 27, 2011)

I don't understand how the issue of global warning can be so strongly debated by scientists and still be accepted as fact by so many people.I can,however, understand all the governments accepting it because they can pass environmental laws which require the people to spend money , greed.


----------



## warriorautotech (Feb 27, 2011)

It does appear that popular opinion in our own government may be shifting away from gw.
 We can only hope that they will come to their senses before they (our leaders) completely destroy our own economy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 27, 2011)

Uh, tote, it ain't being debated by real scientists in the context whether it is occuring or not. The overwhelming consensus is that it is occurring and a clear and present danger. The debates at present are on the speed of the changes, and the significance of various feedbacks.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 27, 2011)

*The Great Global Warming Deception *By Bob Ellis on May 28th, 2009 

 The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a video/slideshow presentation which shows once again that worshippers of the religion of global warming are full of hot air.

Al Gore and fellow socialists at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)a political organization, not a scientific oneand elsewhere desperately want people to believe the earth is going through unprecedented warmingand that its all the fault of those evil coal-burning, SUV-driving capitalists.

Unfortunately for them, this crazy idea not only doesnt meet the test of science, it doesnt even pass the smell-test. As a commenter at Free Republic said, ordinary folk can recognize bull feces by the smell and dont need the recipe. But thanks to information such as this report from Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, those who need the recipe to see the light have it.

One of the things they point out is that temperatures were far higher in the past (see graph to the left), long before SUVs or power plants were ever built.  The Vikings colonized Greenland (now covered in ice) and the land was even warm enough to plant vineyards.

Their data also shows a correlation between temperature changes and solar activity.  Imagine that: the big star in the middle of our solar system burning at 11,000 degrees F can actually change the temperature here on earth!  That might also explain the warming occurring on Mars and Jupiter and other planets in the solar system; somehow the apostles of global warming just cant bring themselves to accept that the sun can affect temperatures on earth, though.

You can watch a video presentation of the slides here, or read the entire reportincluding chartshere.

No, there is no need whatsoever for our government to treat the American people worse than belligerent foreign dictators,  to destroy thousands of jobs, to subject the American people to 40% higher electric billsall to possibly lower the temperature by 9/100ths of a degree over 40 yearsall for an empty deception.

The American people need to send a loud and clear message to the socialists in Washington: we wont stand for your phony global warming tax!

The Great Global Warming Deception









*And lets not forget, of course,.....the "consensus" is arrived at by about 2 dozen scientists worldwide!!!*


----------



## driveby (Feb 27, 2011)

If GW is so obvious, why has the name changed from global warming to climate change?.......


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 27, 2011)

Real interesting read here..........on the stark differences between the science of the IPCC and professional science. A passage.............

*First and foremost, Prof. Reiter believes, the IPCC is a creature of government that meets governmental needs and abides by governmental strictures, and does so without public scrutiny. In contrast, studies conducted under the more open auspices of the U.S. government's Global Climate Change Research program, for example, are entirely in the public domain.

Even the peer-review process -- ordinarily designed to ensure rigorous science -- has mutated to meet IPCC needs. In professional science, the names of peer reviewers are kept confidential to encourage independent criticism, free of recrimination, while the deliberations of the authors being critiqued are made public.

"The IPCC turns this on its head," Prof. Reiter explains. "The peer reviewers have to give their names to the authors, but the deliberations of the authors are strictly confidential." In effect, the science is spun, disagreements purged, and results predetermined.

"The Intergovernmental Panel is precisely that -- it is a panel among governments. Any scientist who participates in this process expecting the strictures of science to reign must beware, lest he be stung."*

Bitten by the IPCC








Indeed..............you'd best conform to the beliefs of the body of the IPCC before you even think of applying. And these are the scientists..........those of the IPCC...........that Old Rocks refers to as "real scientists".  Indeed........there is no such thing as "rigorous science" at the IPCC.


Why do you think over 9,000 PHd scientists have called the IPCC science "bogus"???


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 27, 2011)




----------



## Midnight Marauder (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Fifty years from now they are going to be asking what dumb asses like you were ever thinking.


Climate Science has never been wrong. There are NO rational reasons to be skeptical of it:

Rain follows the plow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leading Climate Scientists don't make wild claims:

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

All skeptics are just anti-science.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 27, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Fifty years from now they are going to be asking what dumb asses like you were ever thinking.
> ...




Midnight FTW.................


Look.........most of the public are too disinterested to take a look at what is a highly coordinated political movement which started back in the 1970s'. It never had anything to do with science. Science has always been the vehicle used to fabricate the hoax..........and a brilliant strategy it has been............make no mistake. It has always been about anti-capitalism and world governemnt. Wealth distribution in a nutshell...........and as the years have gone by, lots and lots of corporate entities have climed aboard to get their slice of the pie ( General Electric, first and foremots). Like anything else of this magnitude..........always comes down to following the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> *The Great Global Warming Deception *By Bob Ellis on May 28th, 2009
> 
> The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a video/slideshow presentation which shows once again that worshippers of the religion of global warming are full of hot air.
> 
> ...







Actually the "consensus" is 74 out of 79 climatologists.  That is a fact.  The rest of olfrauds "scientific societies" BS is the leadership of the organizations and not the body of the membership.


----------



## warriorautotech (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Uh, tote, it ain't being debated by real scientists in the context whether it is occuring or not. The overwhelming consensus is that it is occurring and a clear and present danger. The debates at present are on the speed of the changes, and the significance of various feedbacks.
> 
> AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate



uh, d Roc,  I think you only see and hear what the liberal media wants you to. The only thing overwhelming about it is the incredible greed and corruption going on in and around everything related to gw.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Feb 27, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


I don't guess you.... Bothered checking my links?


----------



## Trakar (Feb 28, 2011)

warriorautotech said:


> ...uh, d Roc,  I think you only see and hear what the liberal media wants you to. The only thing overwhelming about it is the incredible greed and corruption going on in and around everything related to gw.



Luckily, science isn't determined by what you pretend to think. If you have an issue with proposed solutions and addressments for the very real issue of global warming, why not engage in a thoughtful consideration of the problems and propose serious means to deal with and address those issues. Sticking one's head in the sand and trying to ignore or deny that there are any issues to address merely eliminates you from having any meaningful contribution to the discussion of how to deal with the widely accepted mainstream scientific realities of AGW and the changes it has, is, and will be causing.


----------



## Trakar (Feb 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> ...Actually the "consensus" is 74 out of 79 climatologists.  That is a fact.  The rest of olfrauds "scientific societies" BS is the leadership of the organizations and not the body of the membership.



Doran et al 2009 seems to contradict your obviously filtered opinion.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf


----------



## warriorautotech (Feb 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> warriorautotech said:
> 
> 
> > ...uh, d Roc,  I think you only see and hear what the liberal media wants you to. The only thing overwhelming about it is the incredible greed and corruption going on in and around everything related to gw.
> ...



Sticking my head in the sand is the last thing I want to do,I have been serious about finding the truth in this since I realized how the repercussions from the gw issue are affecting us so greatly, with laws and taxes and such.After much study on this issue on both sides of it, it is clear that their is obviously some very real problems with the evidence that the climatologists are using to support gw. It is also becoming clear that their are more scientists that disagree with the theory of gw than ones that agree with it. How then do you suggest that I propose a solution when I dont believe there is a problem?
 If global warming was real I would be as supportive of making the necessary changes to protect our environment as anyone, I have nothing to gain by denying truth. 
  I believe that there are many intelligent people on this forum, and as intelligent people, we should always be searching for the Truth which is unchanging, not merely looking for evidence and opinions which only support our own agendas, that is what is wrong with our government.


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> warriorautotech said:
> 
> 
> > HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS!  Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change
> ...



Liar.

They claimed that 2000 scientists agreed. 

I doubt that's all of the scientists in the world.


----------



## Trakar (Feb 28, 2011)

warriorautotech said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Luckily, science isn't determined by what you pretend to think. If you have an issue with proposed solutions and addressments for the very real issue of global warming, why not engage in a thoughtful consideration of the problems and propose serious means to deal with and address those issues. Sticking one's head in the sand and trying to ignore or deny that there are any issues to address merely eliminates you from having any meaningful contribution to the discussion of how to deal with the widely accepted mainstream scientific realities of AGW and the changes it has, is, and will be causing.
> ...



An admirable position, I started to become concerned a few decades ago for very similar reasons, not to mention the costs of dealing with the death, disease, destruction of property, loss of wildlife, business disruption, and the future I was leaving to my children and grandchildren.  



> After much study on this issue on both sides of it,



Which "sides" do you speak of?



> it is clear that their is obviously some very real problems with the evidence that the climatologists are using to support gw.



What problems and evidence are you speaking of? can you cite mainstream science sources for these problems and discussions of evidence?



> It is also becoming clear that their are more scientists that disagree with the theory of gw than ones that agree with it.



again, can you cite legitimate, unbiased references that support these assertions?



> How then do you suggest that I propose a solution when I dont believe there is a problem?



The science factually identifies with empiric evidences the nature of the problem, your beliefs are irrelevent to the facts. I have found there isn't much productivity in discussions with people about their beliefs when they hold cling to those beliefs regardless of empiric evidences and established scientific understandings. If you feel that you know all you care to, or need to, know about the subject and have made your mind up, then there is little sense in further discussion.



> If global warming was real I would be as supportive of making the necessary changes to protect our environment as anyone, I have nothing to gain by denying truth.



so what evidence would you find convincing and compelling in helping you to understand and accept the mainstream science of this issue? 



> I believe that there are many intelligent people on this forum, and as intelligent people, we should always be searching for the Truth which is unchanging, not merely looking for evidence and opinions which only support our own agendas, that is what is wrong with our government.



I see a lot of people say this when they believe that they hold the truth in their understandings, but very few that actually walk the walk, and openly and fairly consider issues they disagree with and actually change their position when their position falters and is shown to be incorrect, hopefully this forum is different, we shall see.


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 28, 2011)

driveby said:


> If GW is so obvious, why has the name changed from global warming to climate change?.......



Cuz they couldn't prove the Earth was warming anymore.

It's like their Universal Health Care became, affordable health care, then when they couldn't prove that ether it just became "Eat this bill and like it".


----------



## westwall (Feb 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> warriorautotech said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...






I suggest you start with the NIWA debacle in New Zealand, it is well documented and the parliamentary hearings on the falsification of the Official New Zealand Temperature record by alarmist activist climatologists is well documented on youtube.  For approximately 9 months New Zealand did not have an OTR due to the fraudulent "adjustments" that the climatologists in charge of the record were performing.

Start there and you will also find the same thing going on with the Australian Temp record and of course just look at a few of the threads here and you will see how Hansen is falsifying the GISSTEMP record.

Also you might want to check the blog of Dr. Judith Curry, once a strong advocate of alarmism, but now that she has seen just how shoddy the work is that the leading climatologists is, she is changing her mind.  

Hiding the Decline | Climate Etc.

This is an article by one the IPCC scientists and he says that GW is no threat to humanity

`Global warming no threat to humanity'

And then of course you could check the Journal of Climate where the Steig et al paper that claied that Antarctica is rapidly warming is ripped to shreds and found to have been derived by bad use of statistical formulae and a whole host of other problems, not the least of which being that Steig himself was one of the peer reviewers of the rebuttal to his paper, which if you know ANYTHING about the peer review process is a HUGE no no.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Enjoy your research.  There is quite literally tons of very good information that debunks the claims of AGW, if only you choose to look.


----------



## Trakar (Feb 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> I suggest you start with the NIWA debacle in New Zealand, it is well documented and the parliamentary hearings on the falsification of the Official New Zealand Temperature record by alarmist activist climatologists is well documented on youtube.  For approximately 9 months New Zealand did not have an OTR due to the fraudulent "adjustments" that the climatologists in charge of the record were performing.



"alarmist activist climatologists well documented on youtube"

doesn't sound unbiased, nor authoritatively referenced 

If you have reference to any official scientific investigations of these issues I would be happy to look them over and account for them in my understandings of the issue. 



> Start there and you will also find the same thing going on with the Australian Temp record and of course just look at a few of the threads here and you will see how Hansen is falsifying the GISSTEMP record.



Again, any unbiased, official documentation or legitimately professional scientific publication source that confirms and supports these allegations would be required to credit this as anything but an unsubstantiated assertion.  



> Also you might want to check the blog of Dr. Judith Curry, once a strong advocate of alarmism, but now that she has seen just how shoddy the work is that the leading climatologists is, she is changing her mind.



Blogs are not legitimate science sources, occassionally science is transmitted through them, but they are unreliable and not held to any standards of accountability or professional legitimacy. If you have some professional science journal study/research by Dr. Curry which supports your assertions, I would be happy to review them.



> This is an article by one the IPCC scientists and he says that GW is no threat to humanity
> 
> `Global warming no threat to humanity'



Third world newspaper op-eds are even less reliable than most blogs with regards to facts and reliability.



> And then of course you could check the Journal of Climate where the Steig et al paper that claied that Antarctica is rapidly warming is ripped to shreds and found to have been derived by bad use of statistical formulae and a whole host of other problems, not the least of which being that Steig himself was one of the peer reviewers of the rebuttal to his paper, which if you know ANYTHING about the peer review process is a HUGE no no.
> 
> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



The link presented is broken, if you provide a functional link I will be happy to review and assess your assertions as to what was actually stated and what was determined.



> Enjoy your research.  There is quite literally tons of very good information that debunks the claims of AGW, if only you choose to look.



So, your focus is on debunking AGW, rather than discovering the truth?

If you are aware of anything that soundly discredits the basic premises of AGW, and provides an alternative explanation for the evidences that AGW presents I would be most interested in looking it over.

American Institute of Physics -  The Discovery of Global Warming
The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

National Academies Press - CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE  AN ANALYSIS OF SOME KEY QUESTIONS 
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions

Scientific American - The Physical Science behind Climate Change
The Physical Science behind Climate Change: Scientific American
(admittedly a popsci magazine as opposed to a rigorous science journal - feel free to exclude it from your considerations if you wish to hold to high standards of science and reliability)

(AAAS) Science -  BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

(AAAS) Science - Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pdf

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA (PNAS) - Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions  Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions

More references available for those interested


----------



## westwall (Feb 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest you start with the NIWA debacle in New Zealand, it is well documented and the parliamentary hearings on the falsification of the Official New Zealand Temperature record by alarmist activist climatologists is well documented on youtube.  For approximately 9 months New Zealand did not have an OTR due to the fraudulent "adjustments" that the climatologists in charge of the record were performing.
> ...






That's OK, you're clearly biased as well so I guess we're even aren't we.   As far as debunking AGW the climatologists have done that themselves.  I am a geologist and at one time was a firm advocate of AGW, however when I actually started looking into the science behind it i discovered many problems with the basic underlying theory.  Put another way the basic underlying principle of geology and most hard sciences is uniformitarianism.  Thus, if things happened in the past, they will certainly happen again.  Therefore before you can ascribe anthropogenic causes to a particular observed phenomena, you must first eliminate all possible natural causes.  AGW proponents have failed to do this.


----------



## Trakar (Feb 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> That's OK, you're clearly biased as well so I guess we're even aren't we.



Yes, I am biased towards facts, evidences and mainstream scientific methods and understandings. If you embrace these components and feel you can support your assertions with legitimate and compelling references of equal standing to the sampling I've provided, please do so, I am interested in learning that which I do not know. The only thing I tend to reject with very little consideration is closed minded arrogant ignorance.


----------



## jeffrockit (Feb 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> warriorautotech said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



The empiric evidence that "scientist" cling to based on computer models has been debunked many time over.
Friends of Science |

From a Univ of Rochester study:
The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere 1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface  would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.

Not to mention the falsified documents that were uncovered last year. The problem is there is so much wealth to be made and so much to be redistributed if these claims are proved, I am hesitant to believe the hysteria. Just as the news of an ice age in the 70's proved to be a myth, based on evidence uncovered, this is proving to be much of the same.


----------



## IanC (Feb 28, 2011)

trakar-  I think you may be living in an echo chamber. the pieces of evidence you think go together one way can be put together to form other conclusions. Trenberth is wrong in thinking that AGW should be the null hypothesis.

on a different thread I asked what the proxies said about ice and temp levels for 1922. if the proxies dont show a dramatic heat increase and ice decrease then we can safely say that proxy records cant be directly compared to measured temps and ice levels of the present. not unlike the unscientific comparison of proxy temps to modern measurements in the Hockey Stick Graph. especially when they threw away the confounding post 1960 data.

often it is not the evidence that AGW alarmists collect, it is the unsubstantiated conclusions they draw from them. not to mention the large uncertainties that they chose to ignore, especially when talking to the public.


----------



## Trakar (Feb 28, 2011)

IanC said:


> trakar-  I think you may be living in an echo chamber.



I've noticed that people often perceive their own flaws in other's character. Rather than engaging in an unproductive analysis of each other's motivations and influences, I think we might actually make better headway in actually examining evidences and assessing the science. 

If you are going to reject mainstream science as an echo-chamber then you are implying a conspiracy of literally global proportions. I, personally, tend to reject such black helicopter lines of thought, but if you have compelling and empiric evidences of such, I am open to examining and considering them. If however, you are going to offer political blogsites and assorted crank and crackpot pseudoscience nonsense as counterpoint to mainstream scientific journals, organizations, and respected authorities in the field with regards to the proper understandings of the evidence, then we probably aren't going to progress very far.  



> the pieces of evidence you think go together one way can be put together to form other conclusions. Trenberth is wrong in thinking that AGW should be the null hypothesis.



Demonstrate and support, from legitimate sources, this assertion.



> on a different thread I asked what the proxies said about ice and temp levels for 1922. if the proxies dont show a dramatic heat increase and ice decrease then we can safely say that proxy records cant be directly compared to measured temps and ice levels of the present.



There might be a case to be made in this respect, provided we keep the comparison rigorously apples to apples.
Do you have such evidence, or can you cite published science analyses and comparisons that make this case? 



> not unlike the unscientific comparison of proxy temps to modern measurements in the Hockey Stick Graph. especially when they threw away the confounding post 1960 data.



please provide cite and reference for these assertions



> often it is not the evidence that AGW alarmists collect, it is the unsubstantiated conclusions they draw from them. not to mention the large uncertainties that they chose to ignore, especially when talking to the public.



again, assertions apparently flow easily, but I have yet to see any legitimately sourced support for these beliefs and statements.


----------



## westwall (Mar 1, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > That's OK, you're clearly biased as well so I guess we're even aren't we.
> ...







If you consider computer models science then you need to take some geology classes to learn about the limitations of computer models.  I can present historical data that shows everything that is claimed to be evidence of GW, has happened in the past long before man was able to produce large quantities of CO2.

How do you reconcile those well known historical facts with your theory?


----------



## westwall (Mar 1, 2011)

Trakar said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > trakar-  I think you may be living in an echo chamber.
> ...






I suggest you post any particular thing you feel is empirical evidence that proves AGW and we will take it from there.  Please post all relevant links for your proof and we will very happily review what you post and answer with our evidence.

Hows that?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 1, 2011)

Traker posted very revelant links from real scientists, not Youtube amatuers and pretenders such as yourself, Walleyes. 

You claim to be a scientist, a member of the AGU and the Royal Society, then use newspaper editorials and Youtube nonsense to back your positions. Not very scientific at all.


----------



## westwall (Mar 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Traker posted very revelant links from real scientists, not Youtube amatuers and pretenders such as yourself, Walleyes.
> 
> You claim to be a scientist, a member of the AGU and the Royal Society, then use newspaper editorials and Youtube nonsense to back your positions. Not very scientific at all.






He uses almost the exact same biased nonsense as you, mayhap he's a child of yours?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 1, 2011)

Trakar uses data from scientific sources. Perhaps you should try that someday.


----------



## IanC (Mar 1, 2011)

IanC said:


> more like exaggeration and manipulation. I liked this graph though.



that graph shows two nearly identical warming trends. one without CO2 and one with CO2.

we havent had warming since the el nino induced spike of 1998, and we would have had more cooling without the el nino induced spike of 2010. even though CO2 has risen about 5%. when do we start calling BS on CO2 induced out-of-control warming? how many times does that hypothesis have to be busted before this zombie science is officially pronounced dead? global warming to climate change is just moving the goal posts.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 1, 2011)

That is simply ridiculous. The running mean in Dr. Spencer's graph from 2002 to 2007 is higher than any prior peak of the mean save that of 1998.

UAH Update for January 2011: Global Temperatures in Freefall « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## IanC (Mar 1, 2011)

the trends from 1998-2010, 1998-2009, and your specified period of 2002-2007 all show negative trends (eg. cooling)


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2011)

Yo West.....Ian........seems we have a new member of the hopelessly duped in here FTW!!! Kinda gets boring abusing the shit out of Rocks every day!!


----------



## IanC (Mar 1, 2011)

yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.


----------



## westwall (Mar 1, 2011)

IanC said:


> yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.






I think he is/was olfraud.  The two would never post at the same time.  I was posting at the same time traker was and then all of a sudden he disappeared and olfraud took over......very fishy if you ask me


----------



## IanC (Mar 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.
> ...




hahaha. stronger evidence for that than the Hockey Stick. gotta pseudonym Old Rocks?


----------



## Trakar (Mar 1, 2011)

IanC said:


> > I think he is/was olfraud.  The two would never post at the same time.  I was posting at the same time traker was and then all of a sudden he disappeared and olfraud took over......very fishy if you ask me
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your discussion of the science of climate change is so weak that you are left only with personal attacks and conspiracy theories? How terribly sad.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 1, 2011)

IanC said:


> yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.



If it is science, it is supported with journal publications and compelling empiric evidences. Present the journal references which support your claims of contradictory hypotheses and theories, and demonstrate the compelling evidence. Lacking this it isn't a "different side" of climate science, mere politically inspired pseudoscience befuddlement and ranting rhetoric.


----------



## westwall (Mar 1, 2011)

Trakar said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.
> ...






Had the climatologists not corrupted he peer review process I would of course agree with you.  However, in light of the fact that they DID destroy the peer review process I no longer consider them relevent.  The fact that they allowed Steig to be a reviewer on a paper that challenged his findings (a clear violation of the ethics of peer review) reveals that the peer review process is still broken and needs to be revamped completely in their case.

Nice try though, sadly they screwed the pooch and have lost all credibility with legitimate scientists.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 1, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> The empiric evidence that "scientist" cling to based on computer models has been debunked many time over.



I don't think I've mentioned computer models once on any of the threads in which I've commented. If you would like to discuss them we can, but climate models such as the GCMs and aren't empiric evidences, they are merely the tools used to check the theories and evidenciary integrations. 



> Friends of Science |



Interesting site. Do you have a listing of climate science studies and papers its researchers have published in recognized mainstream science journals over the last decade? I can't seem to find any. Are any of these "Friends" currently actively working in the climate research field?   



> From a Univ of Rochester study:
> The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere &#8212;1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface &#8212; would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.



Do you have a link to the paper to support this summary?  

Here are the papers in the current International Journal of Climatology - International Journal of Climatology - Volume 31, Issue 3 - 15 March 2011 - Wiley Online Library

I don't see anything that looks like this alluded to study.



> Not to mention the falsified documents that were uncovered last year.



Cite or reference from a legitimate source?



> The problem is there is so much wealth to be made and so much to be redistributed if these claims are proved, I am hesitant to believe the hysteria. Just as the news of an ice age in the 70's proved to be a myth, based on evidence uncovered, this is proving to be much of the same.



the "70s ice-age" is a myth
"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Concensus" - http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classes/sio217a/sio217afall08-myth1970.pdf

the rest sounds more like conspiracy theory and political rhetoric rather than anything supported by scientifically compelling evidences, but please present any legitimate support you have for these assertions.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Mar 1, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 2, 2011)

In other words, Walleyes, you have no sources. The scientific evidence is all 180 degrees opposite of the position you take. And, once again, you are shown to be a fraud.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> If you consider computer models science then you need to take some geology classes to learn about the limitations of computer models.



If you were going to learn about the limitations of computer models don't you think computational modelling and simulation classes would be more instructive in learning about their limitations and peculiarities? Regardless, I haven't said anything about computer models so far, but if you'd like we can explore the subject as it relates to climate in more detail. I haven't read any scientific study of climate that uses modelling (computer or otherwise) as first order evidence. Computer models are tools used to visualize and analyze datasets. They are used to help support our understandings but they are not a source or keystone of climate science understandings.



> I can present historical data that shows everything that is claimed to be evidence of GW, has happened in the past long before man was able to produce large quantities of CO2.



And?
Climate Science has pretty good understandings of the reasons and mechanisms involved in previous climate changes. Past changes actually have provided a lot of insight into what is currently going on and what is most likely to happen in the future. I'm not aware of any aspect of climate science that says that only man and his activites can affect climate. AGW merely states that the current episode of climate change is is primarily due to the forcing influences of man, with the most predominant of these human forcing factors being the pulling of gigatonnes per year of sequestered carbon (in the form of Coal and Oil) out of the ground and burning it in open cycle combustion which puts that Carbon in the form of CO2 into the atmophere.

"Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research" - http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf


> Stable isotope ratios of the life science elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen vary slightly, but significantly in major compartments of the earth. Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning, the 13C/12C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about 0.0111073 to 0.0110906). In between interglacial warm periods and glacial maxima, the 18O/16O ratio of precipitation in Greenland has changed by as much as 5 parts per thousand (0.0019350.001925). While seeming small, such changes are
> detectable reliably with specialised mass spectrometric techniques. The small changes reflect natural fractionation processes that have left their signature in natural archives. These enable us to investigate the climate of past times in order to understand how the Earths climatic system works and how it can react to external forcing. In addition, studying contemporary isotopic change of natural compartments can help to identify sources and sinks for atmospheric trace gases provided the respective isotopic signatures are large enough for measurement and have not been obscured by unknown processes...





> How do you reconcile those well known historical facts with your theory?



Very well, actually. Those facts are known and integrated understandings of mainstream climatology. It isn't my theory, it is the leading, compellingly supported mainstream climate science position.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> CLIMATEGATE is riddled with Jones and Mann as well as others conspiring to deny opposing views to theirs.  But keep on keeping on, your side is done.  It's just a matter of time and it is all their fault.



That is your conspiracy theory, but it has nothing to do with climate science or the very real and demonstrable climate change that this science studies.


----------



## konradv (Mar 2, 2011)

warriorautotech said:


> HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS!  Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change



There are a number of factors that influence climate.  While the sun is one, GHGs are definitely another.  Tell me what would happen to the extra trapped energy, if GHGs keep rising?  If you can't explain what happens, considering the *LAW *of Conservation of Energy, then either you don't really know anything about the subject, are lying yourself or are falling for a lie spread by others.  Which is it?!?!


----------



## westwall (Mar 2, 2011)

konradv said:


> warriorautotech said:
> 
> 
> > HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS!  Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change
> ...







Because the second law of thermodynamics says that you can't get something for nothing.
You are the one who doesn't understand how it works.  I suggest you go to a university and ask a physicist to explain it to you.


----------



## westwall (Mar 2, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CLIMATEGATE is riddled with Jones and Mann as well as others conspiring to deny opposing views to theirs.  But keep on keeping on, your side is done.  It's just a matter of time and it is all their fault.
> ...






What was that olfraud?


----------



## konradv (Mar 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > warriorautotech said:
> ...



You're getting really boring with your pseudo-scientific rantings.  Warning to others:  Westwall has a very skewed knowledge of science.  Lending any weight to what he says will make you look foolish.

NO, it DOES NOT violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  I think you need to go back and review the subject and then get back to us with your apology.  It's one thing to dispute a theory but now you're disputing Conservation of Energy, a basic* LAW* of physics.  To think we should pay ANY attention to you is ludicrous!!!


----------



## westwall (Mar 2, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






Sure konrad, sure.  Go to a uni and learn something.  Go ahead I dare you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 2, 2011)

Well, that obviously would not work for you, Walleyes, since you already know everything.


----------



## westwall (Mar 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, that obviously would not work for you, Walleyes, since you already know everything.







Far from it olfraud, the difference is I readily admit if I don't know something, you create sock puppets to help you with your arguments...big difference.


----------



## warriorautotech (Mar 2, 2011)

My intention with this thread was not to start an endless debate about who has the best links to scientific proof,that has been done many times already. rather the point I was trying to make was that there is absolutely too much debate about the science behind gw among mainstream scientists for us to accept it as truth and too much questionable behavior surrounding the organizations that promote global warming as fact, such as the IPCC, for us to believe what they tell us.
Its common sense.
 If you want proof of what I say, look it up for yourself, Its out there.  Trakar, if you want to pick this apart go ahead, but I speak the truth.
 I am not saying that global warming doesnt exist, I am saying that their is not enough proof that we are causing it or that it will have the effect that the climatologists are predicting.


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 3, 2011)

Trakar said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > The empiric evidence that "scientist" cling to based on computer models has been debunked many time over.
> ...


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> What was that olfraud?



Your fixated obsession with Old Rocks is noted, if rather bizarre.
I guess since I've already been given to tutoring you on various subjects, I shouldn't neglect psychology.

"Projection" 
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/gollwitzer/04KawaOettGollBargh_ExpImp.pdf


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

konradv said:


> ...It's one thing to dispute a theory but now you're disputing Conservation of Energy, a basic* LAW* of physics.  To think we should pay ANY attention to you is ludicrous!!!



While I generally don't like to interrupt other's imbroglios, I really don't like the implication in your statement that an accepted scientific theory is somehow less complete or reliable than a scientific law. In general, the only difference between the two is that a law refers to and is applicable to a very limited and specific set of conditions and circumstances, whereas theories tend to be a bit broader and more general in their application and scope.

( Law - A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present - Oxford English Dictionary)

(Theory - A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. - Oxford English Dictionary)


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

warriorautotech said:


> My intention with this thread was not to start an endless debate about who has the best links to scientific proof,that has been done many times already. rather the point I was trying to make was that there is absolutely too much debate about the science behind gw among mainstream scientists for us to accept it as truth and too much questionable behavior surrounding the organizations that promote global warming as fact, such as the IPCC, for us to believe what they tell us.



If you don't base your understandings and beliefs on verifiable expert researches and studies, and verifiable facts (empiric evidences) you aren't holding reasoned, rational understandings. Nothing wrong with this when it comes to favorite colors or whether or not you like cats better than dogs. But when you seek to evaluate science, you need to understand that it isn't simply a matter of opinion and preference. The science supporting GW is not under any serious debate among mainstream climate scientists nor even significantly among the scientific community in general. There is no compelling evidence that the IPCC has undertaken any substantial, significant or intentional misconduct or questionable behavior. 



warriorautotech said:


> Its common sense.



common sense is neither common nor sensical, for the most part it is simply what a given individual believes to be true. Typically it consists of whatever folklore, myths and popular misunderstandings are current and prevelant in any individual or group of individuals. 



> If you want proof of what I say, look it up for yourself, Its out there.
> Trakar, if you want to pick this apart go ahead, but I speak the truth.



Truth is the realm of religion and philosophy.



> I am not saying that global warming doesnt exist, I am saying that their is not enough proof that we are causing it or that it will have the effect that the climatologists are predicting.



Let's approach this from the opposite direction, what evidence would it take for you, personally, to accept that the current episode of climate change is largely due to human factors?


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Matters not if you mentioned it as it is part of the "evidence" being used to prop up this argument for GW or Climate Change or whatever the latest catch phrase is that polls well. Also, the fudged numbers that were uncovered last year adds to the pattern of false or misleading info being used as solid evidence.



We could completely eliminate computer models from the body of evidence, and it would not change the facts that the climate is growing warmer, that CO2 acts to retain heat delivered to the Earth by the Sun, that we are adding increasing accumulations of CO2 to our atmosphere, and that the more we continue to do so the more the climate will warm.

These are each independently established keystones of AGW and they do not require computer models to demonstrate or verify


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2011)

Trakar said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Matters not if you mentioned it as it is part of the "evidence" being used to prop up this argument for GW or Climate Change or whatever the latest catch phrase is that polls well. Also, the fudged numbers that were uncovered last year adds to the pattern of false or misleading info being used as solid evidence.
> ...




skeptics and alarmists both say that the climate is warming
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 is increasing
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 increases temperatures by slowing certain wavelengths of outgoing radiation.

that we can agree upon.

without computer models the highest temperature increase for doubling CO2 is about 1.2C
without computer models and the fixation on CO2 we would assume natural causes were the driving force behind changes in climate because natural causes such as sun output and ocean current patterns match the variability of temperature whereas the linear increase of CO2 does not.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> warriorautotech said:
> 
> 
> > HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS!  Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change
> ...


There you go again with the appeal to authority fallacy.

You global warming crazies are like little boys getting fucked up the ass by a priest just because some authority told you to bend over..

Grow up you stupid pathetic watermelon.


----------



## konradv (Mar 3, 2011)

Muhammed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > warriorautotech said:
> ...



Since authority doesn't impress you how about logic?

*The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation, is scientifically well-documented.

The concentration of those gases have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

If the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?*

Chew on that for a while.  You'll be in good company, since none of the other deniers have managed to satisfactorily answer the question!


----------



## westwall (Mar 3, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What was that olfraud?
> ...






My wife is a PhD psychologist who will quite happily school you on any personality disorder you may have.


----------



## westwall (Mar 3, 2011)

Trakar said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Matters not if you mentioned it as it is part of the "evidence" being used to prop up this argument for GW or Climate Change or whatever the latest catch phrase is that polls well. Also, the fudged numbers that were uncovered last year adds to the pattern of false or misleading info being used as solid evidence.
> ...







And according to the aforementioned Vostock Ice Cores there was a 1000 year period with CO2 levels higher then the current day and there were two periods of warming and cooling that lasted for hundreds of years respectively, all while the CO2 level stayed elevated.  Ask olfraud for that link again.  It was a very compelling study, I kick myself for not saving it and he refuses to repost it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 3, 2011)

Here we go again. Not only can you not read, Walleyes, your memory is defective. 

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009) &#8212; You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today &#8212; and were sustained at those levels &#8212; global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 3, 2011)

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.


----------



## konradv (Mar 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Please try and stay on topic.  We've had this "history lesson" before.  We all remember what you've posted before and it's irrelevant.  Why is it so hard to understand that warming or cooling in the past may have a different cause than in the present?  The question is, if GHGs trap energy, how can we expect anything but a warming, if the trend continues?  Whatever may have happened in the past has nothing to do with this, a basic question of Physical Chemistry.


----------



## westwall (Mar 3, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...






Why are you so anti science konrad?  If the GHG's trap heat, why do the Vostock cores show no correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels?  Hmmmm?  It's a simple question so answer it.  Remember the CO2 levels were HIGHER than now, so the level we are at now is irrelevent.


----------



## k2skier (Mar 3, 2011)

warriorautotech said:


> HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS!  Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change



Ian gets it, GW is happening but he's skeptical of AGW, you don't understand the difference between GW and AGW.

The whole "they changed the name from GW to CC" is utter BS, if anyone has a clue about climate and weather one will be able to understand the relationship between temperature variances and it's effect on the climate.


----------



## warriorautotech (Mar 3, 2011)

Actually, when I referred to gw or global warming on this forum, I was talking about manmade global warming or agw. I am aware that the earths temperature has risen slightly in the past 100 years, I am just not convinced that mankind is the cause of it.


----------



## warriorautotech (Mar 3, 2011)

konradv said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Does anyone know what the co2 concentrations in the atmosphere were 150 or 500 or 2000 years ago?I am talking about the atmosphere, not the ice in antarctica.  97.2% of the co2 in the atmosphere is produced naturally each year, how can we assume that the level never fluctuates 2 or 3% in a hundred or a thousand years. The oceans produce more when they warm up.


----------



## westwall (Mar 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Here we go again. Not only can you not read, Walleyes, your memory is defective.
> 
> Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report
> 
> ...






That's certainly the alarmists POV.  
The real Co2 levels in history


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

IanC said:


> skeptics and alarmists both say that the climate is warming
> skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 is increasing
> skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 increases temperatures by slowing certain wavelengths of outgoing radiation.
> 
> that we can agree upon.



Actual skeptics, such as myself (active, participating carded CSICOP member since 1978), Phil Platt, Michael Shermer, and the vast majority of the rest of the long-time skeptics and skeptical organizations understand and accept the theory of AGW and its portents. Most of the posters here who claim to be skeptics seem to possess little or no actual scientific understanding and by their statements reject the very issues you mentioned.



IanC said:


> without computer models the highest temperature increase for doubling CO2 is about 1.2Cwithout computer models and the fixation on CO2 we would assume natural causes were the driving force behind changes in climate because natural causes such as sun output and ocean current patterns match the variability of temperature whereas the linear increase of CO2 does not.



Please provide cite and reference to peer-reviewed, mainstream science journal (or academic, graduate-level or higher textbook) which supports the underlined portions of your above assertions.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> My wife is a PhD psychologist who will quite happily school you on any personality disorder you may have.



Fantasies about your therapist are non-productive, and it sounds like she's already got her hands full.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 3, 2011)

What Beck states just happens to be at odds with what the Japanese, Russians, Americans, and everybody else that has done research into the past levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. 

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> And according to the aforementioned Vostock Ice Cores there was a 1000 year period with CO2 levels higher then the current day and there were two periods of warming and cooling that lasted for hundreds of years respectively, all while the CO2 level stayed elevated.  Ask olfraud for that link again.  It was a very compelling study, I kick myself for not saving it and he refuses to repost it.



Presuming that you are not misstating the case (I know what are the odds?), I would very much like to examine that paper.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 3, 2011)

High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000[thinsp]years before present : Article : Nature

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 650,000 years1, 2, 3, 4. Here we present results of the lowest 200 m of the Dome C ice core, extending the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by two complete glacial cycles to 800,000 yr before present. From previously published data1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and the present work, we find that atmospheric carbon dioxide is strongly correlated with Antarctic temperature throughout eight glacial cycles but with significantly lower concentrations between 650,000 and 750,000 yr before present. Carbon dioxide levels are below 180 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) for a period of 3,000 yr during Marine Isotope Stage 16, possibly reflecting more pronounced oceanic carbon storage. We report the lowest carbon dioxide concentration measured in an ice core, which extends the pre-industrial range of carbon dioxide concentrations during the late Quaternary by about 10 p.p.m.v. to 172&#8211;300 p.p.m.v.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Here we go again. Not only can you not read, Walleyes, your memory is defective.
> 
> Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report



Ahhh! I am actually quite familiar with that paper and already possess a copy of it. I see that it wasn't an issue of what the paper itself stated, but rather what may be improperly deduced from it, if you distort other climate physics understandings.

For any who may be interested here is a link to the actual paper upon which that article is based:

Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years - http://atripati.bol.ucla.edu/23.pdf

I've got a pretty good idea of what was distorted and presumed here, but will allow those with assertions to make regarding this paper and its findings to state their beliefs before I address the paper, its findings, and those beliefs in more detail.

Thank-you for identifying the paper for me.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> ...Remember the CO2 levels were HIGHER than now, so the level we are at now is irrelevent.



Please provide reference and cite for this assertion.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

warriorautotech said:


> Actually, when I referred to gw or global warming on this forum, I was talking about manmade global warming or agw. I am aware that the earths temperature has risen slightly in the past 100 years, I am just not convinced that mankind is the cause of it.



There is nothing wrong with this position, especially if you are just starting to seriously investigate and explore the subject. It is a sign of healthy scientific skepticism. I began explore the subject several decades ago, and remained fairly neutral on the "A" part of GW until the early part of the decade when the preponderance of evidence overcame my reticence and crossed my personal considerations of "compelling."

The question becomes, where do you turn to find the information you need to make up your mind, and what evidence would it take to help you decide one way or the other?


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

warriorautotech said:


> Does anyone know what the co2 concentrations in the atmosphere were 150 or 500 or 2000 years ago?I am talking about the atmosphere, not the ice in antarctica.  97.2% of the co2 in the atmosphere is produced naturally each year, how can we assume that the level never fluctuates 2 or 3% in a hundred or a thousand years. The oceans produce more when they warm up.



I would suggest you start with the American Institute of Physics' online hypertext linked book "The Discovery of Global Warming," - The Discovery of Global Warming - A History


----------



## IanC (Mar 4, 2011)

Trakar said:


> warriorautotech said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, when I referred to gw or global warming on this forum, I was talking about manmade global warming or agw. I am aware that the earths temperature has risen slightly in the past 100 years, I am just not convinced that mankind is the cause of it.
> ...





I can totally understand how someone could have been very concerned in 2000 about AGW. if that is when you made up your mind about where the preponderance of evidence lay then I can see how you stopped inputting new data except if it supported your view.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2011)

Hmmm......   So the melting of the Arctic sea ice, the accelerated melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps are supposed to convince us that nothing has happened since 2000? Come on, Ian, are you totally blind?

How about the Alpine Glaciers? And then there is the little matter of global temperatures. The running mean from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any previous peak except that of 1998. And the running mean of the peak of 2010 matched that of 1998.

All the data since 2000 shows an acceleration of the warming, and affects that we were not expecting until mid-century or later. Such as the beginning of the clathrate outgassing in the Arctic Ocean. Now you may choose to remain willfully ignorant of the data, but most intellectually honest people do not.


----------



## IanC (Mar 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmm......   So the melting of the Arctic sea ice, the accelerated melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps are supposed to convince us that nothing has happened since 2000? Come on, Ian, are you totally blind?
> 
> How about the Alpine Glaciers? And then there is the little matter of global temperatures. The running mean from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any previous peak except that of 1998. And the running mean of the peak of 2010 matched that of 1998.
> 
> All the data since 2000 shows an acceleration of the warming, and affects that we were not expecting until mid-century or later. Such as the beginning of the clathrate outgassing in the Arctic Ocean. Now you may choose to remain willfully ignorant of the data, but most intellectually honest people do not.




sorry to disappoint you Old Rocks but I believe Mother Nature works on her own schedule. did it warm up last century- yes. but not since1998. has it warmed up and put glaciers in retreat before? obviously yes, just look at the Ice Man. you can look forward to Doomsday if you wish.


----------



## westwall (Mar 4, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And according to the aforementioned Vostock Ice Cores there was a 1000 year period with CO2 levels higher then the current day and there were two periods of warming and cooling that lasted for hundreds of years respectively, all while the CO2 level stayed elevated.  Ask olfraud for that link again.  It was a very compelling study, I kick myself for not saving it and he refuses to repost it.
> ...






So would I, get your buddy olfraud to re-post it.


----------



## westwall (Mar 4, 2011)

Trakar said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > skeptics and alarmists both say that the climate is warming
> ...






Ok, let's take this in order.  What particular field of Science is your degree in?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Well IanC, You have to be careful with GW, especially when it comes to those who profess it. As conventional science is forced to address this subject one building block after another of this sensational "science" topples.
Just a few weeks ago I was railroaded here, and in a "Mythbusters" forum  by dozens of people over bio-fuel, especially the nonsense fermenting corn and making Ethanol...
Now look at the 180 degree turn climate "science" had to make...after real  math & science has examined this  hair-brained technology:
E10-Treibstoff: Die Mär vom Prima-Klima-Sprit - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wissenschaft


> Die Mär vom Prima-Klima-Sprit


=The fairy tale of better climate gasoline


> Die Autofahrer wollen den umstrittenen Biosprit E10 nicht tanken, es ist ein Fiasko für Politik und Mineralölkonzerne - aber ein Segen für die Umwelt, glauben Forscher und Naturschützer. Sie geißeln die Biosprit-Operation seit Jahren als Unfug.



=German drivers refuse to buy E10 (=10% Ethanol)...it is a  fiasco for Politics and the Oil Industry (which was forced to make it) ,....but it is a blessing for environment "science".
For Years now they have exposed the bio fuels as total nonsense..
and so on and on...
I wish to add, *they have only done so* after some real Chemistry, Physics @ Math* had done so years before *they "came to this conclusion"....and looked pretty stupid with all the claims they made before...now we are supposed to forget who pushed this hairbrained scheme onto the public to begin with...
I can tell You with 100% certainty that what ever else their "science" is based on is no different!

And the same happened with the Solar and Wind-power...again every engineer has told them, it will not work as a large scale power grid...
what You currently have in the U.S. are just hobby wind/solar farms when compared to Europe...small scale now and then for a few small towns it`s usable
*but not as a full fledged power grid:
*
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUzDDEg3NKM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUzDDEg3NKM[/ame]

And if You re-examine how the thermo dynamics of CO2 and the Spectroscopic absorption really works, + how glaciers REALLY calve...* and did study Physics&Chemistry then You realize that the dimension of stupidity on which all this crap is based is beyond description*

*I never wanted to say this out loud!...:*
Because superficially thinking  People, *especially those who are not *Students of these subjects,  perceive this as an insult, *where none was intended
*
But unless You study German as a second Language *You will know only second hand science* as far as Physics and Chemistry is concerned!
For Example, tell me how to translate "Schlieren-effekt" before You tell me any different!
"Doppler Effect",,as in Doppler RADAR....same thing, all source documentation about that is in German!
I could easily make a list here > 5000 items long! Just sticking with advanced Physics , *without even going into Chemistry*
The translation is never as good as the original, especially when translating into English, *a language with too many ambiguities *
*Most People I have met in my professional life here who have a degree in Physics or Chemistry did also study German to really go into these subjects to their full depth!
*

*Especially when it almost got the better of You, when we did not translate it into languages other than German:
*

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noayWZWEmys&feature=channel_video_title"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noayWZWEmys&feature=channel_video_title[/ame]
*I suggest You do the same if You want to know about "Global Warming" and what is REAL SCIENCE*


----------



## Trakar (Mar 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> Ok, let's take this in order.  What particular field of Science is your degree in?



On the internet, claims of education and expertise are far too easy to make and far too difficult to proof without the exposure of a lot of personal information, more importantly, such is largely if not entirely irrelevent to the support I requested. I assure you that I can handle any references you can provide, but I promise that I will ask you for help if I run into any big words that I am unfamiliar with.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 4, 2011)

IanC said:


> sorry to disappoint you Old Rocks but I believe Mother Nature works on her own schedule. did it warm up last century- yes. but not since1998. has it warmed up and put glaciers in retreat before? obviously yes, just look at the Ice Man. you can look forward to Doomsday if you wish.



You do realize, don't you, that both 2005 and 2010 presented global average temp anomalies larger than 1998?

NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record


----------



## Trakar (Mar 4, 2011)

IanC said:


> I can totally understand how someone could have been very concerned in 2000 about AGW. if that is when you made up your mind about where the preponderance of evidence lay then I can see how you stopped inputting new data except if it supported your view.



I understand that many intellectually lazy people use that process, a bit of digging, find out what the people I agree with on other subjects think about it and make a decision,...but that has nothing to do with science or skepticism.


----------



## westwall (Mar 4, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, let's take this in order.  What particular field of Science is your degree in?
> ...







Nice dodge, I am a geologist and as I made fairly plain in your little test of my historical knowledge of plate tectonic theory I am well versed in it.  Most of what I posted on the history and the methodology of the theories confirmation is not readily findable on the web.  You have to KNOW what you are looking for you just can't do a shotgun search and hope to find the information.

So once again, what is your field of expertise?  I am interested in what you claim because I can, with a little time, determine whether you are real or not based on your responses to my questions.  Any good scientist can do that.  I was able to determine quite simply that olfraud works for Evraz in Portland based on my questioning.  I am curious what you are going to present.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2011)

Developing the theory [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2011)

Richard Fortey, "Earth, An Intimate History".

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Intimate-History-Richard-Fortey/dp/0375706208]Amazon.com: Earth: An Intimate History (9780375706202): Richard Fortey: Books[/ame]


----------



## polarbear (Mar 5, 2011)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Typical, look at the "counter arguments"...
one picks 2 Years out of a decade that suit this "science"...Fortune Tellers and Nostradamus "We told You so" Idiots by the way do the same thing, .....
and the other one keeps posting the same retarded URLinks to the same retarded Web-Sites over and over again like a mindless Tibetan prayer- mill.

@"OldRocks" and other assorted Hippie "Scientists" :
 If You cant` answer a question posed in Your own words and all You can do is post the same URLinks to pre-chewed FAQ`s idiotic "counter arguments"  why are You even here in this forum?

*It`s not as if we need You to tell us where to find what in the internet!*

So why don`t You post a few links here that have an answer to these 3 questions..:
1.) Rain water always had and always will have a pH of 6.2 because condensing water absorbs CO2..where is all that CO2 in Your "climatology accounting" methods...?

Do You have even the vaguest idea how titanic the amount of CO2 that goes that way is..?
*Of course You don`t because none of You are able to do simple math* how to solve n reverse from the negative decade Log in g-mol of H+ Ions [grams per Liter] and the
PKa of H2CO3 how huge these amounts are, considering just the constant rainwater supply which keeps our river flow rates what they are!

*And because You can`t find one of You Moron Web Sites that could give You the answer to questions like this, ...
* You are making retarded remarks about people who do know how to calculate that..!

2.) Why is all the CO2 "found" in the atmosphere reported as "Molar, *moisture corrected *ppm" and not as ppm weight per Volume or ppm volue per volume...which would be a heck of a lot lower than the way they choose to report it...

3.) If You have a building with X cubic feet of air how many BtU`s does it take to raise the Temp by 1 Degree?
...then if You add + Y cubic feet of CO2, You still insist that warms up quicker now?

Or are You saying the CO2 we "pumped" into our atmosphere somehow replace the air and the total #of tons of all gasses stayed the same as before?...and the air was somehow replaced by CO2...???...and defied gravity and vanished into outer space...like OldRock`s "oceans" which were once on Mars..!

Even if You have no idea about  Wave & Quantum Physics or Lambert/Beer Absorption laws You should have a few blinking brain cells that signal that there are some *severe defects with Your bird-brain and with this "climate-science"*


----------



## westwall (Mar 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Developing the theory [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]






It's nice to see they mentioned Motonari but my version has far more information and IMO is more entertaining as well as more informative, there is no mention of the Dutch, the Subs, the towed magnetometer Runcorn etc.

In other words you just reinforced what I said, thank you for the assist!


----------



## polarbear (Mar 5, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Developing the theory [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]
> ...



Yeah, that`s how it`s done..somebody like OldRocks will out-do a Geologist with a life long experience in the field by simply posting a URLink to a Geology discussion web site he googled and found!...which is supposed to mean, he knows what he is talking about.

Back to the subject, *"gw is a lie"*
I just want to add this:
CO2 Mol per liter 3.36 × 10&#8722;06 , at   ph  6 that  = 1.6128 grams CO2 per cu-meter Water.
*122.4 tons CO2 per hour,  scrubbed by rainwater that flows just down the Mississippi*
Rainfall Data, Monsoons, India:
http://www.iges.org/india/partha.subdiv.data 

1270.4 mm =1.270 meters Area of India=3287240km2 

*6 733 944 tonnes CO2 that just got scrubbed by 1 single monsoon  over India alone*

United States daily CO2 emissions,latest Data is* 2 6123 595 tonnes CO2 per day 
*

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130&#8211;230 million tonnes (145&#8211;255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.



So You see if rain water would not scrub the CO2 we would have a toxic CO2 concentration on our planet for millions of years already.

The Mauna Loa "climate scientists" refuse to incorporate any CO2 data that does not fit into the "grand picture" they are trying to paint any more than they do it with the temperature data.
*This is all what`s left after they wash it *






And then it`s "computer model washed" some more and quoted by freaked out Internet "educated scientists:...:






And because of the NOAA logo in the pretty picture it must be "science"

"Science" which asserts we are melting so much polar ice that the oceans will rise and rown every body in New York, *but in their "computer model" all that new water stays like distilled water with no salinity and zero %  CO2 content
*

They do the same crap with the CO2 analysis as with the temperature...
*You tell me how You get a 0.1 degree accuracy with garbage data sourced from this*











The blue ones with a maximum accuracy of 1 Degree...You can count with the fingers on one hand...
and the rest is a mess of data where the *in`-accuracy is more than 2 degrees, as an inspection revealed.*













And they feed You garbage that in essence is the same as claiming if You average 1000 cheep Timex watches, 






there is no need for something *only "Oil Lobby  scientists" u*se if they want to measure time with precision accuracy:







They also don`t need any Precision  Spectral Instrumentation to tell You how much CO2 could possibly absorb of the total IR in sunlight:






They take "average temperatures" with methods as shown above and draw You a CO2 graph which _was washed twice from all of the CO data that did not fit the picture and_
"prove" how much more IR the little bit of CO2 absorbs:





And not a single one of these fuck ups have ever even seen a Spectrograph, forget about even knowing how to operate one!
*But publish tons of bullshit all over the internet which is being quoted by utter Morons here over and over again*


----------



## polarbear (Mar 5, 2011)

I`ll just copy and paste a few things here, not that there is any hope TV and Internet "science grads" will comprehend any of it, but there are a few readers here who do have an academics degree in science.
*Pan evaporation data has been collected carefully and very accurately around the globe for ~ 50 years and is on a head on  collision course with the "Global warming" faked data
*:






So a new dooms day prophecy had to be invented "explaining" this huge discrepancy:
*GLOBAL DIMMING for Dim-wits:
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming



> Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960&#8211;1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.[1]
> It is thought to have been *caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action.*




*Yes the same aerosols that have in other enviro-wacko-"science" disappeared and that`s why the ozone hole has closed, have increased again, but changed their mind and instead of attacking Ozone they now dim the planet
*


Want some more examples how this Hippie "science" is full of contradictions...?
You can`t have it both ways, either we warmed up and "melted" the ice on the poles or we cooled down because areosols cause "global dimming" and that`s why the pan rates are down and less solar radiation is causing that...but hey at the poles and with the "ice melt"  the same "logic" gets a bit inconvenient:


Pan evaporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Over the last 50 or so years, pan evaporation has been carefully monitored. For decades, nobody took much notice of the pan evaporation measurements. But in the 1990s scientists spotted something that at the time was considered very strange; the rate of evaporation was falling.[8] This trend has been observed all over the world except in a few places where it has increased.[9] [10] [11] [12]



Of course they can explain that away right easy, assuming they can make an ass out of real science, same wiki "knowledge base"...for morons:


> s the global climate warms, all other things being equal, evaporation will increase and as a result, the hydrological cycle will accelerate [13]. The downward trend of pan evaporation has been linked to a phenomenon called global dimming.[14] [15]In 2005 Wild et al. and Pinker et al. found that the "dimming" trend had reversed since about 1990 [16]



3.4.4.2 Surface Radiation - AR4 WGI Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change


> *The Dimming of the Planet *and Apparent Conflicts in Trends of Evaporation and Pan Evaporation
> There has been an increase in clouds and precipitation, which reduce solar radiation available for actual and potential evapotranspiration but also increase soil moisture and make the actual evapotranspiration closer to the potential evapotranspiration. An increase in both clouds and precipitation has occurred over many parts of the land surface (Dai et al., 1999, 2004a, 2006), although not in the tropics and subtropics (which dominate the global land mean; Section 3.3.2.2). This reduces solar radiation available for evapotranspiration, as observed since the late 1950s or early 1960s over the USA (Liepert, 2002), parts of Europe and Siberia (Peterson et al., 1995; Abakumova et al., 1996), I





*Not even a junior would be caught dead to publish crap like that...*

I am not even going to waste my time typing how retarded this "theory" is and "Wild et al.
the Name could not be more suitable for yet another S.W.A.G.... :
which does not have a snowballs chance in Hell, let`s see* how quickly "Wild et al. Pinker et al." `s tail feathers were ripped out.*

CO2 Science



> Widespread measurements of the flux of solar radiation received at the surface of the earth have been made since the late 1950s, with nearly all of the measurements revealing a sizeable decline in the surface receipt of solar radiation that was not reversed until the mid-1980s (Wild et al., 2005).  During this time, *there was also a noticeable dip in earth's surface air temperature,* after which temperatures rose at a rate and to a level of warmth that climate alarmists claim were both without precedent over the past two millennia, which phenomena they attribute to similarly unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, the most notable, of course, being CO2.
> 
> This reversal of the decline in the amount of solar radiation incident upon the earth's surface, in the words of Wild et al., "is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate."  In what way?  Wild et al. say that "whereas the decline in solar energy could have counterbalanced the increase in down-welling longwave energy from the enhanced greenhouse effect before the 1980s, the masking of the greenhouse effect and related impacts may no longer have been effective thereafter, enabling the greenhouse signals to become more evident during the 1990s."
> 
> ...



*Doh?*


----------



## IanC (Mar 6, 2011)

I agree with polarbear on the topic of CO2 measurements. it is certainly not as cut and dried as we are told.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 6, 2011)

CO2 Now | CO2 Home


----------



## polarbear (Mar 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> CO2 Now | CO2 Home



Typical ! Can You read more than 3 word sentences and comprehend them?
What season is this right now?
Does it look green or white outside this time of the year?
Are there any major rainfalls this time of the year?

Do You think we need You to tell us where to find these idiotic "current CO2 levels"..?
Do You know how big the difference is between "molar moisture corrected CO2 ppm" and
what it actually is in ppm w/v?

Of course You don`t!

I was right when I wrote that neither You or anyone else who falls for all this Hippie "science" _would be able to comprehend anything that was just posted here. _

*Read it!*
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N41/EDIT.php


*Your copy&paste mouse brain answer just underlined that again!*

*All that`s missing is another URLink pointing to a  GW temperature graph in the light of this:*






*And then You will have completed Your certification process as a complete idiot.*


----------



## westwall (Mar 6, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 Now | CO2 Home
> ...






No, he can't.  Nice bitch slap though!


----------



## polarbear (Mar 6, 2011)

@Westerwall, IanC, Mathew,Skookerasbil & many others who rather read about real science..:
A record-high ocean bottom pressure in the South Pacific observed by GRACE


> A record-high ocean bottom pressure in the South Pacific observed by GRACE
> In late 2009 to early 2010, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite pair observed a record increase in ocean bottom pressure (OBP) over a large mid-latitude region of the South East Pacific. Its magnitude is substantially larger than other oceanic events in the Southern Hemisphere found in the entire GRACE data records (2003&#8211;2010) on multi-month time scales. The OBP data help to understand the nature of a similar signal in sea surface height (SSH) anomaly observed by altimetry: the SSH increase is mainly due to mass convergence.


Pazifik: Forscher entdecken riesigen Wasserhügel - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wissenschaft


> Forscher entdecken riesigen Wasserhügel
> Nur sechs Zentimeter hoch - und doch eine Besonderheit: Im Südpazifik war das Meer auf einer Fläche so groß wie Australien monatelang deutlich angeschwollen. Wissenschaftler staunen über den Rekord. Jetzt haben sie die Ursache des Hügels gefunden.
> Die Messungen stammen von den beiden "Grace"-Satelliten, die die Erde in rund 300 Kilometern Höhe umkreisen. Sie messen die Erdanziehung: Orte mit höherer Schwerkraft beschleunigen die Sonden. Den "Grace"-Satelliten und ihrem Nachfolger "Goce" verdanken Forscher genaue Karten der Erdanziehungskraft. Die Atlanten zeigen, wo Bodenschätze, Grundwasser oder Magmaströme liegen, und sie erklären, warum wir an manchen Orten auf der Erdoberfläche weniger wiegen als anderswo.



Okay here they say "Grace" and "Goce" are primarily deployed to detect gravitational force variations to locate valuable metal deposits, magma flow and large underground fresh water deposits. But they have found this 6 centimeter high water hill (in blue color) on the picture above.
Now they realize that these "water-hills" are responsible for prolonged warm water currents that feed the arctic and the antarctic and ...of course bring prolonged mild  temperatures with them.

So now we are all waiting for "climatologists" to find a link between the gravitational disturbance "water hills" and man made CO2.
I`m sure we won`t have to wait long, after holding a summit and smoking a few joints in Holland, where it`s legal,  they`ll come up with yet another  new "theory", which OldRocks will post soon after as a proven fact...
won`t You "OldRocks"..?

I could suggest one, CO2 attracts water...put CO2 in a bottle and submerge the bottle opening slightly below the water surface..You`ll see a
n fountain, ...because there is indeed a strong attraction between CO2 and H2O.!!!
So the CO2 from my V8 van exhaust maybe pulls up the ocean...maybe that`s how Your Martian Oceans went out into space  and were sucked down to earth after Moses made a few smoke signals sacrificing Chickens and goats?......and drowned the evil Arabs who were going to sell crude Oil...


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 6, 2011)

and what else would we expect from biPolar.


----------



## westwall (Mar 7, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> and what else would we expect from biPolar.







Factual information, amusing anecdotes, some damned impressive photographs, relevent links to very useful, informative websites, very interesting videos and some good humor!


What have you got?  More antiquated irrelevent, false alarmist links?  Yep, that's what we thought you had.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 7, 2011)

Thank`s for watching my back. I wonder why "OldRocks" is so fixated on this "bi-polar" thingy, it`s almost as if he has a fetish for some words.
If I had the time for it I would search for the posting where he did his best to ridicule everybody where the  Bio-Ethanol Gas was discussed in one of these climate threads.

I guess he`ll never know how out-dated the "information" really is and these silly  URLinks he keeps here over and over again..:
I wonder if he even reads any news papers that are half ass neutral, because I`m sure that must have been reported by Reuter`s also...the BBC had it, but I kind find it right now in their Archives..,...*it is in there though.*.. The "Der Spiegel" online had it again today, *because in Germany heads are rolling now* over this screwed up "enviro-propaganda-pseudo-science" which had been legislated and have almost ruined Germany`s infrastructure...here is "OldRock"`s hero, Al Gore today...his vote it seems was on August 1994 the deciding vote in the Senate and later again  the deciding vote to legislate a *7.7 Billion$ subsidy* for "Bio-Ethanol" 

And lately Al Gore  did a 180  degree turn.:
*(I think there should be a law holding Bastards like that accountable to the damage they did)*



Streit*über Alternativ-Benzin: Wie Umwelt-Guru Gore zum Biosprit-Gegner wurde - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wirtschaft


> Wie Umwelt-*Guru Gore *zum Biosprit-Gegner wurde



How the Environment Guru-Gore was transformed to a Bio-fuel enemy

But for Years we have been lectured by him and the likes of him, and everybody who said then what finally dawned on him too, was "ignorant" and all kinds of other things...

Well, and that`s the way it`s been going with everything else that has been put to a real world test with this entire lunatic "science".

And some of the "defenders" are still in jungle caves like the Japanese who haven`t heard the news.

If I had the time I would catalog all the crap, this user "OldRocks" has posted in this forum and put it right along side articles just like this one,  to cement his feet,  Mafia style, in the positions he chose and see how well he and his ideas float when reality catches up with the lies.

But unfortunately other than the Mafia nobody does that, else we would have no more problems and no more liberals.
GW and liberal propaganda demands chivalry from their opponents and rely on the fact that You can`t nail pudding to the wall...and that`s what keeps it going


----------



## polarbear (Mar 7, 2011)

I looked around a little bit in the other threads and the bullshit that is quoted & spread by the likes of "OldRocks" and "Chris" has long been abandoned by the very same people they still quote.


Chris said:


> The melting arctic ice won't raise the sea level.
> 
> *The ice in Greenland and Antarctica will.*



I `ve been stationed on Greenland many Years and all of us who went there, thought  that  Greenland was in the Arctic and brought Parkas...
Where is it then, in the tropics?

*Where exactly is ice MELTING and not CALVING in the Antarctic ???????????
*


You guys have no idea how stupid You are! The very "climatologists" You keep quoting had *conceded these claims already over a year ago!*...after their claims had bee scrutinized. That`s the way this whole bullshit works...! You can fabricate a claim in a few minutes, *but it is a lot more work and time consuming to check up on all these wild ass claims*. And that is exactly what these  bullshit-flingers exploit.
So how did that claim with the "thinning and faster melting ice" actually check out...?....:




C3: ? Are Ice Sheets Going To Disappear


> Latest Research From EU Finds IPCC Predictions of 'Ice-Free' Arctic To Be Bogus Alarmism







The left image  indicates the corrected decadal temperature trends, which are miniscule: from -0.5 degrees to +0.5 degrees per decade. The right image  is from the 2009 study, designed to show significant Antarctic warming across the entire continent.


*No matter what claim You do check out, it turns out to be either  totally faked or "computer model"..."data", *whatever the fuck that is...as if it is acceptable to feed fake data into a totally stupid computer model, where the only laws of physics are the ones that suit your claims.
Even what "climatologists" call Peer Review has been re-defined by them, meaning the claims + fake data is being "reviewed" by "climatologists"...excluding all other established science...
And when it is reviewed by others, then so far "climatologists" took one beating after another..
.of course that can be explained.*..all other scientists are in a conspiracy with the "Oil Lobby"...*
So here is a real Peer Review, a procedure that any scientist than "climatology" finds when examining these SAWG`s...:
C3: 1 Peer-Reviewed Studies

Even "White et al. had to drop their claims in the meantime and try to use man made aerosols and "global dimming" ...; which was the "Global dimming" cop-out...another wild ass guess which quickly was incorporated as a "proven fact" in theses idiotic computer models to "explain" the  true temperature data...
Yet "OldRocks" and "Chris" even now keep quoting the same stupid temperature trends the fakers have long since abandoned and wish now they had never published these...just like the "Bio Fuel" claims.

*And now  this latest fraud about the "accelerated ice melt" was exposed as well*



> 2010 Study By Arctic Experts Refutes AGW Hypothesis of Polar Warming Amplification From CO2
> The nine researchers *[White et al. 2010] *examined all the evidence and research related to Arctic temperatures and determined *that current Arctic temperatures are well within natural variability and no CO2-induced "polar-amplification" is to be found.*




"OldRocks" and some others are not  exactly up to (escape)-speed with this "science" and the quotes they use become outdated and replace with newer wild ass guess theories...


And it goes on and on, no matter which wild ass claim You check up on...:


> This new peer-reviewed research regarding the Hudson Bay sea ice issue indicates there is actually no trend of earlier sea ice breakup in the area. The data analysis does show, though, a one-time shift to an earlier breakup date during late 1980's, but no trend prior or post to that event that can be attributed to AGW causes.
> 
> "Working with passive microwave data obtained from the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer on-board the Nimbus 7 satellite, plus three Special Sensor Microwave/Imager instruments onboard Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellites -- as well as Canadian Ice Service sea-ice charts that are considered to be "more accurate than passive microwave data for estimates of ice concentration, particularly in the presence of surface melt,".....t*he two researchers from the British Antarctic Survey found that "there has clearly not been a continuous trend in the [time of sea-ice breakup] data, and the change is best described by a step to 12 days earlier breakup occurring between 1988 and 1989,* *with no significant trend before or after this date." *...



Well somebody with a lot more patience than I`ll ever have took the trouble and made an up to date list of the latest crap claims and how they faired:
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-antarcticgreenland-about-to-totally-melt/]C3: ? Are Ice Sheets Going To Disappear[/COLOR]

@"OldRocks" here again is how glaciers "melt"...fuck, are there no limts to Your stupidity?..






*I showed this to a grade 6  school class today...not a single Kid nor the regular teachers had any problems understanding this...*

Have You ever looked at the gradient iso-topic lines of Greenland where your climaquackery likes to observe "CO2 glacier melting"...?, 






*of course not, but I`ll post one here, put on your blindfold!
*







*Even a 12 year old would understand it:
*
Glacier Movement



> Why do they move?
> 
> Once a mass of compressed ice reaches a certain thickness, usually around 20 meters / 66 feet thick, it becomes so heavy that it begins to change shape and move. The pressure from the sheer bulk of the ice, combined with the pull of gravity, causes the glacier to flow downhill very slowly - creeping along and bending like an ice river.



*I.Q. definition...:*


> intelligence quotient: a measure of a person's intelligence as indicated by an intelligence test; the ratio of a person's mental age to their chronological age (multiplied by 100)




*We all know Your mental age,*  all we need is for You to volunteer us Your *chronological age *

I looked into Your personal profile just now ..:
He does not seem to like You very much:






> glew
> Dude! You got something to say then bring it to the flame zone...otherwise, stay out of my profile.




And about yourself  You say..:



> I am an active, pretty much physically average man.
> Portland, Ore.
> Occupation
> Millwright, in a steel mill



As far as estimating Your I.Q. , so maximum Your chronological age is 64 and minimum ~25. The school class I showed this stuff today were 11 year olds but they understood it.
So let`ds give You a 10, that would put You between 40 and 15 on the I.Q. scale.
Moron = by definition I.Q. Range 51-70...I have mistakenly called You a Moron so far, 
That won`t happen again. You are squarely center range...:Imbecile ---- IQ 26-50
*And You a millwright?...no way! 
*

So in which of these Steel Mills in Oregon You work in, as a "Millwright"?.... as You say







I got some friends right next door from you, on the Comox Military Base across the border and maybe Your personal claims need to be checked out the same as the quackology You keep posting here ..
Naah let`s just do it this way..:

A *REAL* millwright would know this:
*When do You not use a welder in DC mode..?*

Having a little trouble finding it in Wikipedia?...
Well I guess someone in Portland will eventually tell You, *like a real Millwright!*
Whatever, I don`t need to wait. A while ago when we were discussing Windmill power grids *You had no idea about phase angles and power factors*. I never checked into Your profile then..and a* real millwright* would have never replied as stupid as you did, because a* real millwright has to know* elementary stuff like that

But now that I know where You are I also know where You get all these crackpot Ideas from. 
Portland is even worse than Vancouver.* Nothing but dope-heads and and a dope farm on almost any hill side facing south. 
Nowhere else have I seen so many basket cases STONED in the middle of the day in the middle of the road*






*And what the fuck would someone in Portland know about the arctic other than the internet garbage You keep  posting here. *
*In Portland and Vancouver You can wear shorts and play golf in January, pick "magic mushrooms" and get stoned!
*
*I don`t believe for 1 second You are a millwright, way more likely is You are selling the same stuff You are growing and smoking.*
I `m willing to bet You run an "indoor grow greenhouse" in Your basement and have solar panels on Your roof, hoping the power consumed by your UV growing lamps does not tip off the hydro man and the cops.
Of course You being another GW Apostel explains your solar panels..but did You know that in BC the RCMP uses Helicopters with UV sensitive scanners that look for stray UV light coming out of houses, especially what comes out of basements!
*You can spot it from +10 000 feet!*
They do that since solar panels on roof tops are more common. Before that it as mostly the indoor dope growers that used these, nobody else did with hydro in Canada being dirt cheep!
Take it from me, *it is true,* because we (, my buddies in the Military @ Comox) lend them the scanners and the Helicopters!
I`ve even been along for some joy rides. Dale Gibson, a real big-shot (as in Gibson`s Landing) in Sechelt  on the Sunshine Coast not far from where You are got nailed only 4 Years ago just like that!
*I enjoyed every second of it !*
*So You better buy a lot of duct tape and hope You did not miss even the slightest gap!*


----------



## konradv (Mar 8, 2011)

SO, medical marijuana, proves or disproves AGW?


----------



## Trakar (Mar 12, 2011)

westwall said:


> Nice dodge, I am a geologist and as I made fairly plain in your little test of my historical knowledge of plate tectonic theory I am well versed in it.  Most of what I posted on the history and the methodology of the theories confirmation is not readily findable on the web.  You have to KNOW what you are looking for you just can't do a shotgun search and hope to find the information.
> 
> So once again, what is your field of expertise?  I am interested in what you claim because I can, with a little time, determine whether you are real or not based on your responses to my questions.  Any good scientist can do that.  I was able to determine quite simply that olfraud works for Evraz in Portland based on my questioning.  I am curious what you are going to present.



No dodge, simply irrelevant to the discussion, and something that is ultimately without possible verification with out sharing personal information that goes beyond what I generally share with people I don't know on public internet discussion boards. I source and support my understandings with mainstream science and academic references. 

As far as my personal understandings, though a bit rough around the edges after four decades, I can still manage at least graduate level understandings in various maths, chemistry and physics with perhaps lessor undergraduate level understandings of computer networking, astronomy, biology and health sciences, though most of the decades since my last rigorous degree work has been spent in the US Military and the private sector as a government contract management specialist helping smooth the efforts and coordination between private groups who bid for government research and initial development contracts and the government agencies offering the contracts. Much more business (paperwork and red tape) than science but such is the pursuit of a paycheck.    

As stated before, if you use any big words I don't understand or for which I can't find an appropriate explanation, I've no problem asking about it. This isn't about personal qualifications, this is about mainstream scientific understandings and the support of one's statements with verifiably authentic and reliable mainstream science references and evidences in a compelling manner.


----------



## IanC (Mar 18, 2011)

trakar- have you examined the story behind these two pictures? one is the faulty paper that made the front page of _Nature_ and the other is the paper that destroyed the use of faulty methodology in that first paper. which one got more publicity? which one went through peer review which actually looked at the paper? and most importantly, which paper didnt get retracted from _Nature_ and which paper couldnt get published in _Nature_?


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2011)

IanC said:


> trakar- have you examined the story behind these two pictures? one is the faulty paper that made the front page of _Nature_ and the other is the paper that destroyed the use of faulty methodology in that first paper. which one got more publicity? which one went through peer review which actually looked at the paper? and most importantly, which paper didnt get retracted from _Nature_ and which paper couldnt get published in _Nature_?






And even more importantly which paper was reviewed by the author of the original study?  A clear violation of the peer review process and ethics in general?  Trakar could care less what the evidence is, he is a blind fool following other blind fools who are in it either for money or power.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 21, 2011)

westwall said:


> And even more importantly which paper was reviewed by the author of the original study?  A clear violation of the peer review process and ethics in general?  Trakar could care less what the evidence is, he is a blind fool following other blind fools who are in it either for money or power.



Here is a complete review of the entire GW crap, as summarized by CBC News Canada, the BBC + DW International. CBC had aired this already 3 times.
Scientists of many different disciplines ranging from Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Glaciologists, *Scientists who are ACTUALLY STATIONED in Climate Research Stations* , bot the arctic + the ant-arctic, sampling ice cores + much else  have to say about "man made Global warming".
It`s what I have been posting as text, but it`s probably a lot more "user friendly"as a documentary film.
It`s 44 minutes long, but well worth the trouble to download & watch with no interruptions or distractions.

CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 21, 2011)

*A very good article by Eric Steig.*

RealClimate: West Antarctica: still warming

Does all of this mean that I think O&#8217;Donnell&#8217;s results are all wrong? Certainly not. I think that they are right to have retained more EOF patterns than we did, though the main impact of this is only in capturing the strong Peninsula warming.*** It is also quite likely that O&#8217;Donnell et al.&#8217;s results are more accurate than ours for the satellite era, during which most of the problems I have discussed above are less likely to arise. Although their results show much smaller trends, they agree well with the spatial patterns in weather forecast reanalysis data products (NCEP2, ERA-40) during the satellite era. This is a nice, largely independent validation of those products, and suggests that it is okay to use those products &#8212; which include detailed information on atmospheric circulation changes, for example &#8212; for investigating the causes of the temperature trends. This is something that quite a few of us have been working on, but there has always been the nagging problem that we don&#8217;t really know how much we can trust NCEP and ERA products at high southern latitudes. O&#8217;Donnell et al. should certainly be cited in support of such work.

In summary, even if their results are taken at face value, O&#8217;Donnell et al. 2010 doesn&#8217;t change any of the conclusions reached in Steig et al. In West Antarctica where there is disagreement, Steig et al, 2009 is in better agreement with independent data, and O&#8217;Donnell et al.&#8217;s results appear to be adversely affected by using procedures known to underestimate trends. Thus while their results may represent an improved estimate for the trends in data rich regions &#8212; East Antarctica and the Peninsula &#8212; it is virtually certain that they are an underestimate for West Antarctica. This probably means going back to the drawing board to write up another paper, taking into account those suggestions of O&#8217;Donnell et al. that are valid, but hopefully avoiding their mistakes.


----------



## IanC (Mar 21, 2011)

Steig's face saving article is hliarious. His mangled methodology was called out as soon as it appeared, too bad it wasnt critically peer reviewed before it was published. The crew at Real Climate 'dared' the skeptics to write a better paper and they did, although at least one of the reviewers (Steig, as it turns out) demanded many changes and slowed the peer review process immensely. After the editor took Steig off the review panel and subsiquentially published the paper, Steig and the crew at Real Climate publically criticized the paper for a change in methodology that he DEMANDED to be made!

As far as Steig saying that both studies say the same thing- they dont. Steig's methods took all the warming in West Ant and the penninsula and smeared it into the main continent. ODonnell properly used the data to show slight warming in the west and none overall in the continent. He also showed that Steig was absurdly wrong. For Steig to say that ODonnell and him both show the same results is just more of the unethical distortions that the hockey team is known for.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 21, 2011)

Feb was .44c 

wont be within the top 15 this year.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2011)

Slight warming, Ian, old boy? A slight warming that results in tens of giga tons of melt as observed by the Grace satellites. 

They are both measuring a warming. A warming that is resulting in the breakup of ice sheets on the perimeter of the continent, in the speeding up of the continental glaciers that deliver ice to the sea.


----------



## Douger (Mar 22, 2011)

warriorautotech said:


> HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS!  Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change


You are a typical murkin moron. I have farms in central and south America ( with an *A*)
The coffee you buy at 7/11, on yopur way to the garage, has to be grown nearly 1000 feet higher than it was 20 years ago.
I know. It's a lie because Glenn Beck didn't say anything about it.
I don't give a fuck if it's the sun or murka or China.......or Jupiter The pollution needs to stop.
It's just that simple.
Man made or not. Going "Green" can't be a bad thing.


----------



## westwall (Mar 22, 2011)

Douger said:


> warriorautotech said:
> 
> 
> > HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS!  Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change
> ...






You're a typical imbecile who doesn't understand simple concepts like over farming an area.  They have had to move up becaue they have depleted the soils doofus.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > warriorautotech said:
> ...




See, that`s exactly what I mean, buzzword talk and every square millimeter of technical territory behind their buzzwords ist a total unknown.
Farmers only fertilize with "N.P.K."  while their crops had sucked out all the other trace minerals out of the soil for a century.
Even criminals who grow pot know better and feed-back all the other trace minerals any plant needs.
And where exactly have "giga tons of ice" melted as the other chief moron claims?
Had he actually watched the documentary I linked he would have heard every glaciologist and geologist who is permanently stationed in the antarctic, and the arctic where I was stationed saying exactly what I have been posting.
*During a prolonged cold period it NEVER SNOWS at the poles *...but the glaciers keep on calving, down the steep slopes and the tide breaks up the solid ice that had slid down these slopes..*.FUCK ALL IS MELTING*

The only time it snows at the poles is *when warm air moves in. and then the glaciers build up.*
Reality is exactly the other way around as "experts" who never even been there imagine it!
Almost all of Canada works the same way as at higher latitudes...
Warm air from the south moves in and we have an instant snow storm.
If we sit as most of the time, under our (brutally cold)  arctic high pressure systems, then we have *>than - 30 C, blue sky, and no trace of precipitation*

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk[/ame]

That is what happens when "it warms up, up North"..!!!...it "warmed up" to -15 on that day, thanks to some air You guys in the U.S. who had pity for us sent to Canada. *As You can see on the Doppler Radar we also had 1 inch/hour fresh snow*, because it "warmed up" 


Fuck I have been stationed many years, year round Summer and Winter at CFS Alert and Northern Greenland..*.and the ice mass mechanism  works EXACTLY as the documentary video says it does.  *

*Up north or in the antarctic it works EXACTLY THE OTHER WAY AROUND WITH SNOW STORMS AS IN THE U.S.  where all these armchair experts sit and write about "shrinking ice" at the poles*

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#


----------



## westwall (Mar 22, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Douger said:
> ...






Nice video!  Thanks for reminding me why I live here and not there!


----------



## polarbear (Mar 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0462407994295#
> 
> Nice video!  Thanks for reminding me why I live here and not there!



Sure my friend,...! Thanks for rubbing that in! You have probably enjoyed a few rounds on the golf course already?...while I have to wait ~ 3 or 4 more months.
*I also know what You Americans are saying about Canada...: "6 months of winter and  6 months of poor sledding"*

But hey I could rub in that You are already struggling with Your greenhouse gas spewing lawnmower while mine is still under a snow drift...
I just watched that documentary again and could not help but notice who the main speakers on behalf of the United States were...It`s another thing You, others and I are not supposed to notice, let alone mention!
My God (I wish there was one) almost *in every democratic country around the globe* we manage to elect the dumbest people to "lead" us and make these kind of fruit cake decisions.
Again, it`s not our nuclear technology or our established science that is wrong and needs an overhaul,...*it`s our news media that needs a serious overhaul*
By the way (Japan today) :


> Den Arbeitern am havarierten Atomkraftwerk Fukushima-Daiichi ist ein wichtiger Schritt gelungen: Alle sechs Reaktoranlagen haben zum ersten Mal seit der Erdbebenkatastrophe vor eineinhalb Wochen wieder eine Verbindung zum Stromnetz



All 6 plants have been re-connected to the power grid
And only now this has been mentioned,...it was not just the flooding of the Backup Diesel power plant which caused the cooling system failed but also this :


> Fukushima wurden nach Angaben des Betreibers von einer 14 Meter hohen Flutwelle getroffen. Das sei mehr als doppelt so hoch, als Experten bei der Planung der Anlagen erwartet hatten.



Fusshima has been overwhelmded by a 14 Meter high Tsunami, twice as high as what was considered at the planning stage when this facility was constructed.
In other words,* the ~ #9R ground shock-waves had nothing to do at all with any of the system failures, it was the flooding!*
So how would that Japan nuclear event be an issue inside continental North America?..
Where would this "tsunami"  come from which would jeopardize  our reactor systems ?...Our swimming pools and bath tubs?
A perfectly legitimate question if the Japan scenario is used to shut down yet another energy source as intended with these childish computer models that the IPCC uses to make the case, that  our SUV`s and BBQ`s melt both poles...
Soon the claims will be expanded from the "flooded New York" Adobe photo editor pictures  to nuclear power plants going super nova cartoon videos on TV and Youtube, , because they will also be flooded in a  "Japan Syndrome" from the  contemporary biblical  Noah prophecy ice melt  floods.
Did You notice how much crap these claims turned out to be how our ocean water levels have allegedly "climbed an average of 2/ 100`th of an inch per year"... as if You could *actually measure something like that to begin with...!*
Yet another example of "computer model" garbage in/garbage out...
*Meanwhile actual measurements and forensics have shown that sea water levels have fallen by more than 20 cm over the last 200 years to date 2011 !
*
Reminds me of that "mistake" they had to admit to with the Himalayan glaciers, where "GW Science" was out by a few X 10`s how much "computer model ice" is melting.
They took the actual 20 cm/200 years reversed the figures, fucked up in the cm to inch conversion and published it after reversing the the minus to a plus sign.


----------



## westwall (Mar 22, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk
> ...







The media here have mentioned it a few times but it allways gets drowned out by the other hysteria.  The thing that has not been widely reported was the reason why the failure happened in the first place was the Japanese only had the one backup system and they ignored the tsunami threat.  Had they mounted some diesel generators on top of the containment buildings there would have been zero problems.  It was case of the Japanese getting lax becaueof their innate arrogance that makes them think they have it all figured out.  Same thing happened during the Kobe quake.

Every now and then Mother Nature bitchslaps the Japanese to let them know they really havn't figured it all out yet.  It's terribly sad that so many have to lose their lives for the lessons to be driven home.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> The media here have mentioned it a few times but it allways gets drowned out by the other hysteria.  The thing that has not been widely reported was the reason why the failure happened in the first place was the Japanese only had the one backup system and they ignored the tsunami threat.  Had they mounted some diesel generators on top of the containment buildings there would have been zero problems.  It was case of the Japanese getting lax becaueof their innate arrogance that makes them think they have it all figured out.  Same thing happened during the Kobe quake.
> 
> Every now and then Mother Nature bitchslaps the Japanese to let them know they really havn't figured it all out yet.  It's terribly sad that so many have to lose their lives for the lessons to be driven home.



Yes I too wish they had been bitch-slapped in a different way. I wished that way back when Japan shamelessly started plagiarizing everything from Cameras to Wankel engines;....and branded these "marvels of Japanese Technology" with their own names
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-MY-LwmEWI&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-MY-LwmEWI&feature=related[/ame]
@ Youtube the top comment got my attention:


> Imagine how many cool things we would have it we didn't defeat&#65279; the Axis of Evil.


"OldRocks" and his strange reasoning likes to celebrate that

But nevermind him, Japan`s  nuclear technology also came from a Xerox copier, unfortunately as it seems now, at a time  when the toner cartridge went too  dry to get a good copy,

But it sure looks as though this earth quake rattled a lot more than just Japanese real estate turf.
Check it out what Google serves up with their search popularity weighted search engine:


> japan +global warming
> *About 14,400,000 results *(0.07 seconds)


japan +global warming - Google Search

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made ? The Register


> Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
> *One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. *



http://www.google.com/search?q=japan+%2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs=#q=japan+%2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&prmd=ivns&ei=2F2JTdb-C6GS0QG0z5mODg&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d0da709d28d6ead8]japan +global warming - Google Search[/



> *Is Japan a Leader in Combating Global Warming? The Wind-Power Problem*
> Japan is routinely depicted as a leader in addressing the global community's ominous energy and environmental challenges. A recent issue of Newsweek, for example, incorrectly assumed that Japan had the "feed-in tariff" mechanism that Germany in particular has used to vault itself into global leadership
> In the country that hosted the Kyoto Protocol and wrote the book on solar policy, the wind-power industry has ground almost to a halt. Among the culprits: policy, cost and technology challenges.



Global Warming Questioned amid Japan Quake, Tsunami, Christian News, The Christian Post


> Global Warming Questioned amid Japan Quake, Tsunami
> As the Japan earthquake and tsunami ignite talks of global warming, a recently released Gallup poll indicates a growing number of Americans believe the warnings about Global warming are exaggerated.
> japan tsunami
> Sunday, March 13, 2011.
> ...



Newsbytes: Japan


> Newsbytes:* Japan&#8217;s Tsunami Threatens The Global Warming Movement[*
> The nuclear emergency is Japan will be a disaster for global warming activists. For a start, Japan&#8217;s own emissions will most likely rise in the medium term, now that so many nuclear plants &#8211; one of the most greenhouse-friendly power sources &#8211; have been knocked out: &#8216;Analysts think Japan will compensate for the shutdown of its 10 nuclear reactors by relying more heavily on traditional fossil fuels.&#8217;
> Carbon dioxide emissions in Germany may increase by 4 percent annually in response to a moratorium on seven of the country&#8217;s oldest nuclear power plants, as power generation is shifted from nuclear power, a zero carbon source, to the other carbon-intensive energy sources that currently make up the country&#8217;s energy supply.
> The main problem with energy supply systems is that for the last 100 years, governments have insisted on meddling with them, using subsidies, setting rates, and picking technologies. Consequently, entrepreneurs, consumers, and especially policymakers have no idea which power supply technologies actually provide the best balance between cost-effectiveness and safety.



How Japan&#8217;s tsunami threatens the global warming movement | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


> *How Japan&#8217;s tsunami threatens the global warming movement*
> For a start, Japan&#8217;s own emissions will most likely rise in the medium term, now that so many nuclear plants - one of the most greenhouse-friendly power sources - have been knocked out:      Analysts think Japan will compensate for the shutdown of its 10 nuclear reactors by relying more heavily on traditional fossil fuels.      It can choose from a variety of sources. The majority of Japan&#8217;s energy is produced by power plants fired by coal, most of it from Australia. It burned 37,500 tons of coal in 2009. Japan also consumed 3.3 trillion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas that year, imported mainly from Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia.      Japan also operates natural gas-burning generators and a number of aging, oil-fired plants that can be cranked up when demand for energy peaks



*I want to add that Japan has bought out every ton of coal ever produced by the gigantic Tumbler Ridge coal mines in BC Canada*

But back to the articel:



> I don&#8217;t think Earth Hour will have the same resonance again in Japan.
> 
> The conclusion: Japan will have to learn from this disaster how to make its nuclear power stations even more invulnerable. And global warming activists - or those who don&#8217;t dream of mud hits - should pray they succeed.




Japan Just Wasted $78 Billion On 'Fruitless' Projects To Solve Global Warming


> *Japan Just Wasted $78 Billion On 'Fruitless' Projects To Solve Global Warming*
> Gus Lubin | Feb. 15, 2011, 9:09 AM
> Japan spent an impressive $78 billion on global warming research in the past six years. However, none of 214 projects produced effective results, according to an official report featured in Japan Times.
> This "fruitless" spending is under scrutiny as the government suffers under a heavy debt burden.



Yeah looks like some jerks who really deserve it are getting bitch-slapped. The world smelled the coffee and woke up
It goes on an on like that, and the only diverging Google hits are from as far back as 2007.
Looks like the Kyotiodic assembly was the last time we saw such an array of international assholes assembled on Japans soil. The Hollywood nuclear disaster scenario buzzword "China Syndrom"  has given birth to an IPCC disaster syndrome namely the real world word, the "Japan Syndrome"


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 22, 2011)

Trakar said:


> warriorautotech said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



This post as much as any hilights that a lot of people really don't have any perspective on this issue. 

First terminology: it isn't really accurate for one side or the other to say that don't believe in global warming, in the literal sense of the term that is. Of course the earth is warming, just as it has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled as it has in a cyclical manner for millions of years. What people I guess are saying when they say the believe or don't believe in global warming is that they believe or don't believe man is primarily the drive behind it. 

So when true believers like dumb as rocks claims all scientific organizations have signed off on global warming or their's scientific consensus on global warming, that's rather misleading. It would not surprise at all that all those scientific bodies agree the earth is warming. That's something fairly observable. Does every credible scientific body agree that man is causing it? I don't believe so.

And whether we should actually do anything about climate change really does depend on that. Because if it is getting warmer, yes it will be something that will have many negative consequences from more flooding in coastal regions to more erratic weather. But if we aren't the cause of the warming, what right does man have to monkey with earth's thermostat just because the change will be inconvenient for him? Who ever said man should not have to adapt to a changing environment.

We as a species simply have the right perspective on climate change to make a credible statement one way or the the other as to what we should do about it. You can't credibly discuss it by looking at climate change through man's eyes and history. Man has been here the mere blink of an of earth history. Do none of you true believers not get how much life on this planet would suck for humankind had we evolved a few 10 of thousands of years earlier during the ice age. Most of this planet was rather inhospitable.  Even when were in warm cycle that lasts several thousands of years, the avg. temp on this planet is something like mid 50 degrees. More perspective? Look at how we have adapted to deal with a mostly cold planet; all of our heavy clothes that we wear, the buidlings we have to keep us warm. Without the technology of those things we would likely not survive on this planet. Not because it's too warm, but because it's too damn cold most of the time. If you really had to focus on just surviving like every other animal on this planet, how long could you do it with no clothes or shelter. Not very long. You'd have to move move wear it was warm. You'd have to migrate to other climates. Think about it people people. Most of us have to heat our homes most of the year at a temperature WARMER than the air outside.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > warriorautotech said:
> ...



Site one that says otherwise.


----------



## westwall (Mar 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...






Who cares.  They make millions and millions of dollars chasing the dragon of AGW.  The work is easy (no scientific protocols to require real work, your friends are able to support whatever BS you decide to come up with, the various journals are no longer following proper peer review processes, write some silly paper with a lot of "coulds" and "maybe's")
so why rock the boat.  They get to live very comfortable lives without having to actually work.

If I wasn't ethical I could have done that too.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



The American Physical Society for starters. 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/27/american-physical-society-reviewing-its-climate-stance/


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2011)

*What kind of bullshit are you pedeling?*

Climate Change

National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth&#8217;s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth&#8217;s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2011)

*Post from a known liar and you appear to be a liar. The APS is has been one of the strongest voices concerning AGW, and remains so. As do almost all scientific societies. For they deal in reality, not in "the way things ought to be".*
APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society&#8217;s Current Climate Change Statement « Physics Frontline

APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society&#8217;s Current Climate Change Statement
The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society&#8217;s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming. The Council&#8217;s vote came after it received a report from a committee of eminent scientists who reviewed the existing statement in response to a petition submitted by a group of APS members.

The petition had requested that APS remove and replace the Society&#8217;s current statement. The committee recommended that the Council reject the petition. The committee also recommended that the current APS statement be allowed to stand, but it requested that the Society&#8217;s Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) examine the statement for possible improvements in clarity and tone. POPA regularly reviews all APS statements to ensure that they are relevant and up-to-date regarding new scientific findings.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2011)

Now that you have been educated on Watts' lies, care to find a real scientific society that states that AGW is non-existant?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 23, 2011)

Wont be within the top 15 this year at the rate it is going.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *What kind of bullshit are you pedeling?*
> 
> Climate Change
> 
> ...



So they say it's inconvtrivertible (a statement I find unikely any true scientist would make) yet say they need to do more research as to what effect man has on the climate. If it's so fucking incontrevertible that what man did caused it, why the need to do more research on how man caused it?


----------



## westwall (Mar 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Post from a known liar and you appear to be a liar. The APS is has been one of the strongest voices concerning AGW, and remains so. As do almost all scientific societies. For they deal in reality, not in "the way things ought to be".*
> APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Societys Current Climate Change Statement « Physics Frontline
> 
> APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Societys Current Climate Change Statement
> ...






I love the comments section below the report, did you bother to read any of them olfraud?  Here's the first one.....

 "Henry A. Miranda, Jr.
Posted December 6, 2010 at 3:12 PM | Permalink | Reply
I commend George White for his 9/2009 piece entitled, Testing the AGW Hypothesis that was accessed through your comments on the subject entry of 3 Dec/10. It is a concise, cogent, and eminently logical independent analysis of this important topic utilizing 25 years of satellite data, (from the NASA GISS website), as referenced therein.
He directs attention to the seasonal variability of relevant atmospheric parameters extracted from these voluminous data, as opposed to the yearly average values thereof, (which has lead to the gratuitous assumption by the IPCC analysts that all such seasonal changes, when integrated over the Earths surface over any given year, are so small as to be ignored). Instead, by examining the Earths Albedo and its components on a seasonal basis, (as well as hemispheric asymmetry and other oceanic temperature considerations), he derives an atmospheric feedback parameter value that differs markedly from that on which the IPCC analysis is based.
His results which not only strongly dispute the IPCC position but also indicate the origin of the error need to be explored further, rather than relegated to oblivion, as AGW activists are wont to do in this politically-charged atmosphere.
In this vein, I urge all interested scientists to read The Great Global Warming Blunder, by Roy W. S;pencer (Encounter Books, 2010), which expands on the above short-term atmospheric feedback mechanism by presenting an admittedly heuristic study utilizing satellite data in which atmospheric water content, (in the form of cloud-cover) is used to derive a similar positive feedback value. Another tome, Unstoppable Global Warming, by S. Fred Singer and Tennis T. Avery, (Lowell and Littlefield, 2007), provides a much broader perspective on this controversy by shedding light on the several overlapping epochal Solar Flux variations as the ultimate determinant of global warming, (and cooling), over many, many millenia of the Earths thermal history."


The third comment is likewise illustrative of the general feeling of the membership of the APS....

The APS is wildly misdirected by insisting CAGW is something to worry about. The reason is misunderstood feedback, as Lindzen described in his recent congressional testimony. In the final analysis, the difference between CAGW alarmists and CAGW skeptics is that an alarmists believes the climate system has a gain of 1 and 11% positive feedback, while the skeptics believe that the climate system has a gain of about 1.4 and about 18% negative feedback.

From Bode, 1/Go=1/Gc+f, where Go is the open loop gain, f is the feedback fraction and Gc is the closed loop gain. Solving for Gc, Gc=1/(1/Go-f). For Go=1 and f=+0.11, Gc=1.12 and for Go=1.4 and f=-.18, Gc=1.12. Applying a gain of 1.12 to the average solar constant of 341.5 W/m^2 results in 382 W/m^2, corresponding to about 287K. The data tells us that the open loop gain is certainly greater than 1 and would be 1 iff the Earth had no atmosphere and an intrinsic albedo of 0.


And let't take a look at the fourth comment shall we?....

As an APS member I feel uncomfortable with the Society statement on climate. It appears to be politically charged and does not stand up to the standards of scientific proof that we require in physics.


And then we have the most damning of all....

Tom Fuller
Posted November 12, 2009 at 11:37 PM | Permalink | Reply
Could someone clarify for me who voted on this? Was it the membership or just the Council?

 Tawanda
Posted November 13, 2009 at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Reply
The Council voted for it.


So you see olfraud, real scientists who didn't vote for the political statement of the APS.  The COUNCIL voted for it, not the general membership...just like I have pointed out to you all along.  Thank you for posting a link that makes it crystal clear that it is the leadership and NOT THE SCIENTIFIC MEMBERSHIP who vote for this sort of nonsense.


----------



## parkinson1963 (Mar 23, 2011)

2010 Study By Arctic Experts Refutes AGW Hypothesis of Polar Warming Amplification From CO2
The nine researchers [White et al. 2010] examined all the evidence and research related to Arctic temperatures and determined that current Arctic temperatures are well within natural variability and no CO2-induced "polar-amplification" is to be found.

no it doesn't

Quote from actual article
"Climate is continually changing on numerous time scales, driven by a range of factors. In general, longer-lived changes are somewhat larger, but much slower to occur, than shorter-lived changes. Processes linked with continental drift have affected atmospheric circulation, oceanic currents, and the composition of the atmosphere over tens of millions of years. A global cooling trend over the last 60 million years has altered conditions near sea level in the Arctic from ice-free year-round to completely ice covered. Variations in arctic insolation over tens of thousands of years in response to orbital forcing have caused regular cycles of warming and cooling that were roughly half the size of the continental-drift-linked changes. This glacial-interglacial cycling was amplified by the reduced greenhouse gases in colder times and by greater surface albedo from more-extensive ice cover. Glacial-interglacial cycling was punctuated by abrupt millennial oscillations, which near the North Atlantic were roughly half as large as the glacial-interglacial cycles, but which were much smaller Arctic-wide and beyond. The current interglaciation, the Holocene, has been influenced by brief cooling events from single volcanic eruptions, slower but longer lasting changes from random fluctuations in the frequency of volcanic eruptions, from weak solar variability, and perhaps by other classes of events. Human-forced climate changes appear similar in size and duration to the fastest natural changes of the past, but future changes may have no natural analog.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2011)

Well Walleyes, once again you prove yourself unable to read. How many times does this make that you post an article you claim disproves AGW, only to find that authors are stating a position 180 degrees from what you claim they are?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *What kind of bullshit are you pedeling?*
> ...



Climate Change

Climate Change Commentary
(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose of the following commentary is to provide clarification and additional details.

The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earths climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the suns radiative output, changes in Earths orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.

The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling. However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century. (Source: Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions)

...........................................................................

The last sentence in the second paragraph articulates an immediate policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to deal with the possible catastrophic outcomes that could accompany large global temperature increases. Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2. Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.

The third paragraph, first sentence, recommends an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on Earth's climate. This sentence should be interpreted broadly and more specifically: an enhanced effort is needed to understand both anthropogenic processes and the natural cycles that affect the Earth's climate. Improving the scientific understanding of all climate feedbacks is critical to reducing the uncertainty in modeling the consequences of doubling the CO2-equivalent concentration. In addition, more extensive and more accurate scientific measurements are needed to test the validity of climate models to increase confidence in their projections.


----------



## westwall (Mar 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well Walleyes, once again you prove yourself unable to read. How many times does this make that you post an article you claim disproves AGW, only to find that authors are stating a position 180 degrees from what you claim they are?






  Really?  I think you need your daily dose of thorazine there.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2011)

Human-forced climate changes appear similar in size and duration to the fastest natural changes of the past, but future changes may have no natural analog.

APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society&#8217;s Current Climate Change Statement « Physics Frontline


----------



## westwall (Mar 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Human-forced climate changes appear similar in size and duration to the fastest natural changes of the past, but future changes may have no natural analog.
> 
> APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Societys Current Climate Change Statement « Physics Frontline







Yep the COUNCIL, not the membership.  Here are a few of their comments.  Overwhelmingly these real scientists are angry at the COUNCIL adopting the political statement.

"Henry A. Miranda, Jr.
Posted December 6, 2010 at 3:12 PM | Permalink | Reply
I commend George White for his 9/2009 piece entitled, Testing the AGW Hypothesis that was accessed through your comments on the subject entry of 3 Dec/10. It is a concise, cogent, and eminently logical independent analysis of this important topic utilizing 25 years of satellite data, (from the NASA GISS website), as referenced therein.
He directs attention to the seasonal variability of relevant atmospheric parameters extracted from these voluminous data, as opposed to the yearly average values thereof, (which has lead to the gratuitous assumption by the IPCC analysts that all such seasonal changes, when integrated over the Earths surface over any given year, are so small as to be ignored). Instead, by examining the Earths Albedo and its components on a seasonal basis, (as well as hemispheric asymmetry and other oceanic temperature considerations), he derives an atmospheric feedback parameter value that differs markedly from that on which the IPCC analysis is based.
His results which not only strongly dispute the IPCC position but also indicate the origin of the error need to be explored further, rather than relegated to oblivion, as AGW activists are wont to do in this politically-charged atmosphere.
In this vein, I urge all interested scientists to read The Great Global Warming Blunder, by Roy W. S;pencer (Encounter Books, 2010), which expands on the above short-term atmospheric feedback mechanism by presenting an admittedly heuristic study utilizing satellite data in which atmospheric water content, (in the form of cloud-cover) is used to derive a similar positive feedback value. Another tome, Unstoppable Global Warming, by S. Fred Singer and Tennis T. Avery, (Lowell and Littlefield, 2007), provides a much broader perspective on this controversy by shedding light on the several overlapping epochal Solar Flux variations as the ultimate determinant of global warming, (and cooling), over many, many millenia of the Earths thermal history."
The third comment is likewise illustrative of the general feeling of the membership of the APS....

The APS is wildly misdirected by insisting CAGW is something to worry about. The reason is misunderstood feedback, as Lindzen described in his recent congressional testimony. In the final analysis, the difference between CAGW alarmists and CAGW skeptics is that an alarmists believes the climate system has a gain of 1 and 11% positive feedback, while the skeptics believe that the climate system has a gain of about 1.4 and about 18% negative feedback.

From Bode, 1/Go=1/Gc+f, where Go is the open loop gain, f is the feedback fraction and Gc is the closed loop gain. Solving for Gc, Gc=1/(1/Go-f). For Go=1 and f=+0.11, Gc=1.12 and for Go=1.4 and f=-.18, Gc=1.12. Applying a gain of 1.12 to the average solar constant of 341.5 W/m^2 results in 382 W/m^2, corresponding to about 287K. The data tells us that the open loop gain is certainly greater than 1 and would be 1 iff the Earth had no atmosphere and an intrinsic albedo of 0.

And let't take a look at the fourth comment shall we?....

As an APS member I feel uncomfortable with the Society statement on climate. It appears to be politically charged and does not stand up to the standards of scientific proof that we require in physics.

And then we have the most damning of all....

Tom Fuller
Posted November 12, 2009 at 11:37 PM | Permalink | Reply
Could someone clarify for me who voted on this? Was it the membership or just the Council?

Tawanda
Posted November 13, 2009 at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Reply
The Council voted for it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2011)

Well, if the majority of members feel the council is wrong, then they can vote the council out. But that is not happening, is it. In fact, the real working physicists involved in this field pretty much state to the man that AGW is real. Of course, there are those like Lindzen and Singer that are also happy to tell you that tobacco has no ill effects, also.


----------



## IanC (Mar 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, if the majority of members feel the council is wrong, then they can vote the council out. But that is not happening, is it. In fact, the real working physicists involved in this field pretty much state to the man that AGW is real. Of course, there are those like Lindzen and Singer that are also happy to tell you that tobacco has no ill effects, also.




Old Rocks- you have a very strange way of looking at things. 'Appeal to Authority' is the highest form of logic to you. Next in line is 'ad hominem'. Then comes 'trivial truths' to mask 'non sequiturs'.

I wish scientific organizations were apolitical but they are not. especially at the top organizational levels. the scientific consensus depends on what questions are asked, and who is allowed to answer. 



> The scientific consensus about global warming turns out to have a lot more to do with manipulating the numbers
> How do we know theres a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2,500  thats the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2,500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.
> 
> To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered they were mistaken  those 2,500 scientists hadnt endorsed the IPCCs conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCCs mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCCs conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
> ...



there you have it, the methodology and numbers behind 97% consensus on AGW.

I could go on and on about the exaggerations and distortions that we are subjected to everyday from climate science but what is the point? those who care enough to look into the subject either accept the story like Old Rocks, or become suspicious because of the flase claims like me. its up to everybody to decide for themselves


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 24, 2011)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if the majority of members feel the council is wrong, then they can vote the council out. But that is not happening, is it. In fact, the real working physicists involved in this field pretty much state to the man that AGW is real. Of course, there are those like Lindzen and Singer that are also happy to tell you that tobacco has no ill effects, also.
> ...



Where is the link to your quote? And you know damned well that the 75 of 77, the 77 are the scientists publishing on the subject in peer reviewed journals in the last couple of years. Scientists with degrees in atmospheric sciences.

Are you afraid to post a link to a lying article such as that? Perhaps you are posting from 
Watts once again? Or Monkton?


----------



## westwall (Mar 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Oh yeah, they are peer reviewed in a science that has become a laughing stock, in journals with no iota of integrity or ethics.  Yep those are some mighty fine scientists there... 

Remember when it was said that only the high priests of the religion could possibly hope to interpret the "WORD OF GOD" to the poor uneducated peons of the world?  Remember that?  Well your high priests are not better educated then the peons of the world any more and the peons of the world can now add and subtract and do all sorts of magical things that the high priests of old were exclusively trained to do.

Now we all can, and like the secular revolt of old, we have caught them lying.


Oh yes, I hope Ian won't mind but the quote came from one of your favourite websites..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=90&&n=646

And it originated from
My post @ 51 should have referenced Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, Jan 3, 2011. My apologies.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 24, 2011)

Hey Rocks......in the bigger picture of things ( which you clearly dont get)................


*YOU LOSE*


*Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global Warming*Thursday, March 24, 2011

Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global Warming


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 24, 2011)

*lose*


You can talk about weather anomolies, temperatures and glaciers until the cows come home. If the folks think the "man-made" shit is bogus, might was well be doing exercises in navel contemplation. Cap and Trade is beyond dead..........so nobody cares anymore.


----------



## IanC (Mar 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





hahahahahahahahahaha. glad to see you are hellbent to prove what I said about you is true! appeal to authority, then ad hominem, and implied trivial truth because you prefer the 77 instead of the 3146. QED

you are correct in saying that I should have tracked down the original source (thanks Westy) but this topic has been discussed in detail before, when it came out. there was also a more detailed survey done which showed the questions and the breakdown of answers. but that was not my point. my point was that 'consensus' was declared, first by claiming 2500 scientists at IPCC, which evaporated upon inspection. then that grad student thesis, which is cherry picking. 

Old rocks- what you dont seem to be able to understand is that science is about observing and then deriving meaning from the data. your heroes decide what they want to find and then torture the data until it confesses. even more importantly, your heroes wont retract anything even when it has been shown to be wrong. why does Steve McIntyre have to keep playing detective after almost 10 years? why isnt climate science open, transparent and especially, _self-correcting?_that is what your 'authority' and 'expertise' is supposed to be all about. cutting out errors and closing in on the truth. why then does climate science keep getting schooled by amateurs, and even then refuse to admit mistakes until forced. the head of the IPCC scoffed at being told that it was improbable that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 for Christ's sake. voodoo science indeed!



> But, according to a report in New Scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCCs chairman, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as voodoo science lacking peer review.
> 
> He adds that we have a very clear idea of what is happening in the Himalayas.
> 
> ...


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2011)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...






Ian, they understand and they don't care.  The goal is control of human life not pollution control.  Thus science doesn't matter.  Politics is what it's all about.


----------



## IanC (Mar 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Where is the link to your quote? And you know damned well that the 75 of 77, the 77 are the scientists publishing on the subject in peer reviewed journals in the last couple of years. Scientists with degrees in atmospheric sciences.
> 
> Are you afraid to post a link to a lying article such as that? Perhaps you are posting from
> Watts once again? Or Monkton?



you know, I really dont care _who_ says something. I care about the _ideas_ that are being spoken.

as far as your need to be told by a 'higher authority' as to what to think, I would be interested in your thoughts about what the InterAcademy Council had to say about the IPCC


> Those who challenge the IPCCs authority are often ignored. Numerous science academies have blessed its efforts, so who are we to question? This week those academies began to act like grownups in relation to this wayward child. The report, authored by a committee assembled by the InterAcademy Council (a collection of science bodies from around the world), blows smoking holes through just about everything the IPCCs chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has been telling us. [113-page report PDF]





> PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE
> In February 2008 Pachauri declared to a committee of the North Carolina legislature (as he has in many other contexts before and since), that:
> 
> we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry [the] credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we dont settle for anything less than that. [bold added]
> ...





> Another key recommendation is that, from now on, IPCC lead authors should document that they have considered the full range of thoughtful views, even if these views do not appear in the final IPCC reports. The InterAcademy committee observes that the IPCCs embarrassing Himalayan glacier error could have been avoided had it merely listened to its own expert reviewers. The mistake was noticed, but the IPCC did not change the text.
> 
> In that instance alone, the IPCC system failed in three ways. First, the IPCC authors chose to rely on an unsubstantiated claim in a non-peer-reviewed document. Then these authors failed to take seriously the feedback from the IPCCs expert reviewers  who pointed out that peer-reviewed material contained more cautious and equivocal conclusions. Finally, the review editors for that chapter failed to ensure that the expert feedback was properly addressed.


Pachauri Defrocked « NoFrakkingConsensus


----------



## IanC (Mar 25, 2011)

of course the IAC panel investigating the IPCC wasnt exactly open and transparent either



> Which brings me to Hilary&#8217;s lonely campaign to secure a satisfactory explanation regarding the missing submissions to last year&#8217;s InterAcademy Council (IAC) examination of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Please read her blog posts here and here.
> 
> The short version is that, when the IAC report appeared at the end of last August, it said that &#8220;more than 400 individuals&#8221; had responded to a questionnaire and that &#8220;a compilation of all of the responses, with identifiers removed, is available.&#8221;
> 
> ...


The Missing Questionnaires « NoFrakkingConsensus


----------



## IanC (Mar 25, 2011)

or how about the credentials of those extra-special, super-de-dooper experts that work for the IPCC? 



> In 1994, Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. She was 25 years old. Her first academic paper wouldn&#8217;t be published for another three years. It would be six years before she&#8217;d even begin her doctoral studies and 16 years before she&#8217;d graduate.
> 
> IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri says this about how IPCC authors are selected:
> 
> ...


The Strange Case of Sari Kovats « NoFrakkingConsensus

well, at least she finally did get her PhD in 2010. sixteen years after the IPCC hired her as an expert.


----------



## IanC (Mar 25, 2011)

Richard Tol's blog about working on the next IPCC report. IPCC5 Key Economic Sectors and Services

Old Rocks-  still think your heroes like Mann and Jones and the IPCC dont have feet of clay?

I actually like a lot of what the IPCC has to say, when its not quoting climate models or quack gray literature. or spouting off on politics. but the people who did most of the work, rather than the figureheads added for diversity and world inclusion, were pretty good overall. but I wouldnt believe everything they say because they are an 'authority'.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 25, 2011)

*Walleyes;

Oh yes, I hope Ian won't mind but the quote came from one of your favourite websites..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news...=2&t=90&&n=646*


Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change

So how come that 97 % of the experts agree that the current warming is not natural but a consequence of burning fossil fuels?

First, it is because all our data show that the global mean temperature is increasing, that the glaciers and the arctic ice are melting and therefore sea levels are rising.

Second, we know that burning fossil fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The properties of CO2 were first studied by John Tyndall in the late 1850s. Tyndall was an experimental physicist interested in how different gases absorb heat. John Tyndall's observations were remarkable. His pioneering work eventually inspired physicists to develop the theory of quantum mechanics, but his results about CO2 also led Arrhenius in 1896 to the conclusion that burning fossil fuel will result in global warming. So climate science is a very old science indeed; we have known about CO2 for more than 150 years.

Nowadays we know how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere by using it as our global garbage bin for fossil fuel. All our climate observations show a global increase in temperature. This increase is consistent with the well established properties of CO2.

Taking this into account it is no longer surprising that 97% of the professional sceptics working in the area of climate science agree that we are currently witnessing man-made climate change. The only question remaining is, what do we do? Ignore the facts or generate energy from other sources?

*So, once again Walleyes is lying. The quote was not from the article in Skeptical Science but from the comments. 

Ian and Walleyes seem to be into lying by indirection. Time after time we have seen Walleyes post an article from a peer reviewed source, and claim it said something 180 degrees from what it stated. I guess he assumes that no one will bother to read the source.

Mann, Jones, Hansen, and the rest of the scientists studying global warming are doing real research. Even Spencer's data confirms what they are stating. All you fellows have is a lying ex-TV weatherman with no degree, and a couple of paid for whores who also went before Congress to testify that tobacco was harmless.*


----------



## polarbear (Mar 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Walleyes;
> 
> Oh yes, I hope Ian won't mind but the quote came from one of your favourite websites..
> 
> ...



Did it ever even occur to You how silly  You and Your "science" are, right down to the foundation. And You keep quoting the "late 1850 founding father" Tyndall who`s job was to stoke ovens , but who was desperate for attention.
@ that time the procedure to get the rats out of a ship was to catch one, singe the fur an release the alarmist rat. This is supposed to trigger the grand rat alarm which should cause a rat panic, that the ship is on fire....and yield a rat free ship before You set sail. 

*This is 2011 and the Tyndall occult members are still behaving like the alarmist rats.*

With every post You underline how little You know..especially about science, yet You see Yourself in a role to make scientific judgment calls. ...based on crap like this...
this is the web-page You kept quoting over and over, like a Tibetan prayer mill:

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


> Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry *might someday* bring a global warming. *Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. *
> 
> "Heat as a Mode of Motion"* he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject,** for he was an ardent Alpinist* (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence &#8212; *hotly debated among scientists of his day* &#8212;
> 
> Beginning with work by* Joseph Fourie*r in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere *might trap* the heat received from the Sun.



So he took a nature hike and that made him a "glaciologist"....

I`ll pause here because Fourier was a serious Mathematician and what he said turned out to be true, but in no way did Fourier in any of his works ever make any silly statements about a few extra ppm of CO2 out powering the effects  of the other 99.996 % of gasses our atmosphere consists of.



> Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that *could trap* heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. *The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. *Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)



You have even way less of a clue of Physics that Tyndall could possibly have in 1859 when he made this "careful laboratory work" his occult members like to call it.
To determine how "scientific" that was or not was does not even  require any expertise in Physics,...
So lets take a look at some things that Tyndall was totally ignorant of in 1859 when he --- 
". In 1859, his careful laboratory work".
MIT Spectroscopy Lab - History


> Experimental Contributions to Spectroscopy
> H.A. Lorentz and P. Zeeman (1902) discovery of the splitting of spectral lines in magnetic
> J. Stark* (1919)* discovery of the splitting of spectral lines in electric fields
> C.V. Raman* (1930*), the first to demonstrate spectral line shifts due to inelastic light scattering (Raman effect)
> ...



Even though we have all that REAL science  today Tyndall "science" morons keep playing the global warming alarm rats, as if none of the above scientists ever existed.

Just one look at the Nobelariate of that "science" was enough for most americans to realize what kind of "science" that is:





And  today`s Tyndall...Michael Mann...:

Climate Scientist, Heated Up Over Satirical Video, Threatens Lawsuit - FoxNews.com



> *Climate Scientist, Heated Up Over Satirical Video, Threatens Lawsuit*
> The Penn State climate professor who has silently endured investigations, hostile questioning, legislative probes and attacks by colleagues has finally spoken out. He says he'll sue the makers of a satirical video that's a hit on You Tube.
> 
> Their response: Bring it on.
> ...



Mention "climate change" and "overwhelming evidence" in the same sentence in Congress today and You have one of these rare moments of good spirited bi-lateral agreement ...
and even the speaker can`t suppress laughing..:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXnPjjCu-kY&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXnPjjCu-kY&feature=related[/ame]

"GW science" and peer review...? *this "science" cant even make it past 6 graders any more*
When did You drop out of school ?
 I guess soon You`ll be doing what NASA, NOAA and many others are doing,...they are setting new records for deleting web pages!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/noaa-deletes-an-inconvenient-kids-science-web-page/


> NOAA deletes an &#8220;inconvenient&#8221; kids science web page
> Posted on November 3, 2009 by Anthony Watts
> 
> Hadley CRU isn&#8217;t the only government agency that deletes web content related to climate. NOAA/NWS Southern Region Headquarters has gotten into the act. An interesting thing happened today. NOAA deleted an educational web page about an experiment you can do with CO2.



But that one is insignificant, create an account with the "way back" search machine that digs out deleted web pages and who wrote them, + the content..
and You`ll get a much better picture who is trying to *create an impression, they never agreed with this GW crap..:*
http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

*And check out what NASA, NOAA has been deleting at a record pace. concerning man made global warming*
The previous record was the Stasi (State Security Police) of the former Communist East Germany, just before it collapsed

Here is a typical example:


> NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image LabMethane's Connection to Global Warming (9/12/2006)
> Methane is a simple compound made of carbon and hydroge. This gas comes from ordinary sources, like cattle herds and garbage dumps. On a planetary scale it also has a significant impact on climate. As it builds up in the atmosphere, it traps energy from the sun like a layer of insulation. *Carbon dioxide does much the same thing-it causes global warming by trapping heat*


*Deleted!
*


> Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
> Committee on Oversight and Government Reform - Black Carbon and Global Warming - On Thursday, October 18, 2007, the Committee held a hearing to examine the climate change and other impacts of black carbon emissions. Black carbon is better known as soot and results from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass. The Committee received testimony about the significant global and regional effects of black carbon, its sources, and the positive effect reductions in emissions would have on both climate change and public health worldwide. Video provided by the U.S. House of Representatives.



*Deleted*

Today you can find* way more deleted web pages *from institutions like *NASA, NOAA, and all sorts of government  committees and a shitload list of Universities * in a desperate bid to save face, *than any other search word for deleted web pages would net You.*
"Global Warming", "Climate Change", "Greenhouse Gas", "Glacier melting"..*.they top all other categories in the number of recently deleted web pages...try it out Yourself!*

Everybody all over sudden wants to pretend they never got conned by Michael Mann
http://www.archive.org/details/HurricanesAndGlobalWarming-Dr.KerryEmanuel


> *Hurricanes and Global Warming- Dr. Kerry Emanuel*


*DELETED*

http://www.archive.org/details/Agci-GlobalWarmingAndRisingSeaLevelBeachfrontInKansas782


> In this talk, Professor Mark Meier of the University of Colorado, offers some of the best scientific hypotheses about future effects of global warming. This is part of the Walter Orr Roberts Public Lecture Series presented by the Aspen Global Change Institute. Recorded on August 6, 1990 in Aspen, CO.



*DELETED* *DELETED* *DELETED* *DELETED* *DELETED* *DELETED* *DELETED* *DELETED*

and so on and on...get used to it or :
*Page not found
We&#8217;re sorry, the page you have requested is not available. **Page not found
We&#8217;re sorry, the page you have requested is not available. **Page not found
We&#8217;re sorry, the page you have requested is not available. *
*Page not found
We&#8217;re sorry, the page you have requested is not available. *
Here is just a small Sample what has been deleted, from 2005 to date, every time someone mentioned NASA and GW together...: 
Searching for "NASA + Global Warming"...deleted web pages
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=nasa%20climate%20change
*and there are way more, if You go back to 1990
*



> Climate Change and Polar Ice - NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
> Water covers more than 70% of our planet's surface and largely governs so many things from climate change to the sustenance of life on earth. What you may not realize is the vital importance played by the solid part of our planet's water inventory. Note: Are We Wakin



it goes on and on...
every time You quote your f-ing idiots links here over had over again we`ll quote You a 5 mile List of what NOAA and NASA is deleting what they had on "Global Warming"..."Greenland Ice" ...hey there are hundreds of possible word combinations !


"OldRocks"...You are up the creek without a paddle and don`t even know it You ficking idiot!
You are not here to learn anything,.....nor would You be capable.
The best way to explain Your presence is as a rat that singed it`s own fur to get some attention from other rats who are stupid enough to react to yet another idiot, desperate for attention..just as Tyndall was  in his time...and today`s Tyndalls,...and "leading GW scientist"  Michael Mann 
Only Tyndall was not as moronic as You are, *because at his time none of the science* for his "careful laboratory work" even existed...
now it does, but it`s apparently too complicated for rats and alarmist rats to comprehend
that a whiff of CO2 or a whiff of burnt fur odor means the world or a ship is in "overheating mode".
But please, by all means keep writing here and don`t quit smoking pot...it`s hard to find good comedy elsewhere...
We would all miss You!

Incidentally, the title of this thread is all wrong, GW is not a lie, it`s a joke
...But a joke far too expensive to laugh about


----------



## polarbear (Mar 25, 2011)

Yeah I were any of them I`d delete that too, these were "NASA scientists" and that was
in a "how to"... Data collection manual

Monthly means of selected climate variables for 1985 - 1989

*look at the cluster fuck of data collection points in Europe, South America, the populated U.S.*
almost every data point is where a large city is and *2 lonely points for Greenland and the entire arctic region
*

And when I posted the same things in words and the pictures I snapped all over Greenland and Ellesmere where I had worked  many years,summer AND WINTER and knowing* who and what is up there and who or what is not...*




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6NUk4UIw8M&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6NUk4UIw8M&feature=related[/ame]
*some Moron here* kept quoting what other morons who are now "deleted NASA scientists" say what`s going on up there...
The data point on the west side of Greenland, that`s our base up there and no one from NASA ever requested daily temperatures from us...I know that with 100% certainty.
The other point at the NE tip, that is just a temporary Summer site were we go now and then to check on some battery banks on microwave dishes...nobody I know ever went there, took a thermometer along and phoned "Your NASA climate scientists" and told them what the temp. there was!
and don`t get a hardon "OldRocks" over "the flooded river" in the Pentagon Video...that River has been doing that long before there was a base there...
I even posted pictures of it when I registered here..*.there are sediment banks of that river  going back thousands of years that show how high this river was,...long before man ever built the first CO2 "spewing" chimney!*


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Walleyes;
> 
> Oh yes, I hope Ian won't mind but the quote came from one of your favourite websites..
> 
> ...







  Jeez olfraud you sound like a little baby, "mommy he's lying to meeeee"  I never said it was from the article clown, I said it was from one of your favorite websites.
Try using a little reading comprehension.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 25, 2011)

BiPolar. Fitting.


----------



## IanC (Mar 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said-  Time after time we have seen  Walleyes post an article from a peer reviewed  source, and claim it said something 180  degrees  from what it stated. I guess he assumes that no  one will bother to read the source.

doesnt he realize that the data in a paper can often be used to come to much different conclusions than the author's? thats the whole point of science, to find the best explanation. McIntyre examined the papers leading to The Hockey Stick and found that data had been chopped off from the beginning and the end to hide the fact that proxies dont support Mann's theory of unpresedented warming. Who's conclusion is more correct?


----------



## acc_69 (Mar 26, 2011)

"Climate Change" (or what we used to call "the weather").


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 27, 2011)

acc_69 said:


> "Climate Change" (or what we used to call "the weather").



acc........welcome aboard. Stop in again. This forum is the shit for entertainment.............got some real mental cases on here who believe without a second thought that record cold temperatures are a clear sign of global warming. Every time there is a weather anomoly somewhere? Guess what?? Too............and even more entertaining is that these k00ks think they are dominating the debate!! The real mental cases like Old Rocks and Chris were on here a couple of weeks ago blaming the Japan tsunami on global warming!!! Shit is great bro.........you cant make shit up like this!!!

Enjoy..........


----------



## acc_69 (Mar 27, 2011)

Hi skookerasbil and thanks.  Global Warming suddenly became Climate Change to correspond with lower, not higher temperatures in countries such as ours.  Convenient.  Due to the length of our recent winters in Scotland, the councils experienced rock salt shortages, due to the sheer amount needed to keep the main roads treated.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 27, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> acc_69 said:
> 
> 
> > "Climate Change" (or what we used to call "the weather").
> ...



What do you mean "you can't make up shit like that"? Because you just did, you lying asshole.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 27, 2011)

acc_69 said:


> Hi skookerasbil and thanks.  Global Warming suddenly became Climate Change to correspond with lower, not higher temperatures in countries such as ours.  Convenient.  Due to the length of our recent winters in Scotland, the councils experienced rock salt shortages, due to the sheer amount needed to keep the main roads treated.



Sheesh. What lower temperatures? Overall, in line with natural variations, the temperature on a global scale is still going up. And the ice caps and alpine glaciers are still melting. 

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2011)

from Spencer's site-





where is the accelerating temperature increases? OMG, we're all going to fry! perhaps if we just turn off the electricity and gas and quietly starve to death Gaia will be pleased and return the Earth to its pre-0.7C increase climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2011)

Note the upturn that we are presently experiancing. Also, with just 0.7C increase, we have the ice on both poles melting at an accelerating rate. And almost all of the alpine glaciers melting.

The melting of the permafrost is well documented in the Alaskan, Canadian, and Siberian arctic. The release of CH4 and CO2 from that is also well documented. The release of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean Clathrates is also documented. 

All of this from only a 0.7 C increase in temperature. And the present increase is from the CO2 level in the atmosphere from 30 to 50 years ago. We won't feel the full affects of the present level for another generation or two.

Undoubtedly you are a younger person than I am. You will see more of the effects of the warming than I will. Then you can explain why you were so blind to your grandchildren.


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Note the upturn that we are presently experiancing. Also, with just 0.7C increase, we have the ice on both poles melting at an accelerating rate. And almost all of the alpine glaciers melting.
> 
> The melting of the permafrost is well documented in the Alaskan, Canadian, and Siberian arctic. The release of CH4 and CO2 from that is also well documented. The release of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean Clathrates is also documented.
> 
> ...



and yet the world didnt burn up during the MWP or the Roman Warm Period or any of the warm periods (often called Optimums) that happened earlier.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2011)

The study that Westwall presented from ocean sediments indicated only a 0.2 C warming for that period. Less than 1/3 of todays warming. Yet you constantly point to that as a major warming. 

And you know damned well that no one has said the world is going to burn up, or any of the other garbage that you in denial throw out. What has been said is that a world with about 7 billion people depending on an uncertain climate for it's daily bread is a recipe for disaster. The last 12 months is an example of that. Even if the agricultural disasters were the result of natural variation and had nothing to do with AGW, it should be a wake up call to the vulnebility of our present population to disruption of the food supply.


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The study that Westwall presented from ocean sediments indicated only a 0.2 C warming for that period. Less than 1/3 of todays warming. *Yet you constantly point to that as a major warming. *And you know damned well that no one has said the world is going to burn up, or any of the other garbage that you in denial throw out. What has been said is that a world with about 7 billion people depending on an uncertain climate for it's daily bread is a recipe for disaster. The last 12 months is an example of that. Even if the agricultural disasters were the result of natural variation and had nothing to do with AGW, it should be a wake up call to the vulnebility of our present population to disruption of the food supply.



where have I pointed to that study? 

there is lots of evidence that people prosper in times of warmth. civilization often took giant leaps forward in them because people had time to do other thing rather than just struggle to survive. the weather events of the last year are nothing out of the ordinary as can be easily seen by simply reading newspaper headlines from the last few hundred years.

you have worked yourself into a frenzy over AGW and so see 'the signs' of the sin of man in everything that happens. go back to a more normal organized religion so that you wont have to be tormented every day.


----------



## westwall (Mar 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The study that Westwall presented from ocean sediments indicated only a 0.2 C warming for that period. Less than 1/3 of todays warming. Yet you constantly point to that as a major warming.
> 
> And you know damned well that no one has said the world is going to burn up, or any of the other garbage that you in denial throw out. What has been said is that a world with about 7 billion people depending on an uncertain climate for it's daily bread is a recipe for disaster. The last 12 months is an example of that. Even if the agricultural disasters were the result of natural variation and had nothing to do with AGW, it should be a wake up call to the vulnebility of our present population to disruption of the food supply.







That's incorrect, you alarmists are allways claiming that the world is going to warm out of control.  You point to every time there was warmth as a period of catastrophe and mass extinctions.

So sorry for you that the PETM was in fact a period of rapid increase in biodiversity.  The terrestrial life blossomed and spread all over the place.  The only thing that died was a foraminefera that was indeed driven into extinction....that's your mass extinction, a tiny critter that wasn't able to compete.  All the other forams did extremely well but you focus on the one that didn't to support your mantra of catastrophe.  The very essence of cherry picking data to support your failed cause.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 30, 2011)

Saw this and laughed my ass off...........a major headline on DRUDGE right now ( viewed by 30 million by midnight by the way!!!!)

*"Sierra snows so deep, cant find houses!!!"*

The News Tribune (Lite) - Near-record Sierra snow good news to parched Calif






More bad news for the k00ks!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 30, 2011)

Yo Rocks.......Im sure folks are going to see that report and say, "Shit......fcukking global warming is killing us!!!"


----------

