# The global warming thread. Is it for real?



## CultureCitizen (Jun 5, 2013)

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming. 
For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not. 

Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth. 

What are your point of views regarding global warming?
Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?

( I have my viewpoint but I'll wait until I can post links to voice it ).


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2013)

This is what the Earth's temperature and atmospheric CO2 history looks like.  Given this, how can anyone who has even the slightest grasp of history be alarmed...and how can anyone who has even the slightest grasp of history think that the long upward trend in temperature can be anything but natural?

The climate science frauds are playing the same game today as was played by the bloody priests of old.  They know what the temperature history of the earth looks like just as the bloody old priests knew by celestial markers when the seasons were going to change.  When the time for change came near, they bloody old priests demanded sacrifice and power in order to intervene with the gods to keep nature on an even keel.  The uninformed, uneducated victims of those old priests sacrificed and gave them they power they wanted...even over the ruling class and the seasons changed according to schedule.

Look at the temperature line on the graph below.  In which direction do you think the long term trend is going to be no matter whether man is in residence on the face of the earth or not...and how high do you think the temperature is going to eventually get no matter whether we are here or not?

Climate change is real...it has always been real even back to the beginning of the earth.  At present, the earth is very cold when compared to its historical mean.  Look at the graph and tell me honestly, do you really believe that man is causing the temperature to rise or do you think that the temperature was going to rise anyway and some con men have taken a page from the bloody priests of the past and grabbed a bit of sacrifice and power while the grabbing was good?

The modern con men, like the bloody old priests have tried to grab too much and overplayed their connection to the gods and their predictions, like those of the bloody old priests aren't happening on schedule.  Information is available on a mass scale and like the bloody old priests, the modern con men are facing a populace with more information at their disposal and the questions are beginning to get uncomfortable.  It won't be long before this game is up and a new set of con men pick some other natural event to pretend to control in exchange for sacrifice and power.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
> For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.
> 
> Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth.
> ...





no one doubts that there has been some warming since the Little Ice Age. the argument is how much, and whether any appreciable percentage is caused by mankinds use of fossil fuels. I suggest you peruse some of the older threads to get up to speed on the subject.


----------



## PredFan (Jun 5, 2013)

Scientists have been saying for a few years now that the sun's solar activity has been very unusual, especially sunspot activity. It is well known to anyone with even High School level science knowledge that solar activity is the #1 determinant in our climate.


----------



## NoNukes (Jun 5, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
> For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.
> 
> Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth.
> ...



Do we want to risk whether it is true or not?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jun 5, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
> ...



Same could be said about aliens or dragons, dude. It's a lousy argument to make. Saying, well, it could very well be a feiry tale (it is, climate change isn't) but do you really want to risk it? And at what cost?

Should wwe have carbon taxes? Is that a solution? What is the solution if we dont want to 'risk' it?


----------



## strollingbones (Jun 5, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Scientists have been saying for a few years now that the sun's solar activity has been very unusual, especially sunspot activity. It is well known to anyone with even High School level science knowledge that solar activity is the #1 determinant in our climate.




there are just some things mankind is not in control of....sun spots and solar activity are the biggest threat


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 5, 2013)

One thing's certain... THIS global warming thread is for real.


----------



## PredFan (Jun 5, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> One thing's certain... THIS global warming thread is for real.



I thought about playing on that joke but passed. Thanks for covering for me.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 5, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > One thing's certain... THIS global warming thread is for real.
> ...



Just doin' my job.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2013)

Introduction - Summary

http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/co2_400/mlo_full_record.png


----------



## PredFan (Jun 5, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



One of the things that has made me skeptical of the global warming theory is that it seems like the answer to it that they are pushing on us is socialism.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2013)

Really? The Tesla S is socialism? The windfarms that Scottish Power is building are socialism? Detail in what way converting to an energy system that does not endanger the lives of the future generations is socialism.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> This is what the Earth's temperature and atmospheric CO2 history looks like.  Given this, how can anyone who has even the slightest grasp of history be alarmed...and how can anyone who has even the slightest grasp of history think that the long upward trend in temperature can be anything but natural?
> 
> The climate science frauds are playing the same game today as was played by the bloody priests of old.  They know what the temperature history of the earth looks like just as the bloody old priests knew by celestial markers when the seasons were going to change.  When the time for change came near, they bloody old priests demanded sacrifice and power in order to intervene with the gods to keep nature on an even keel.  The uninformed, uneducated victims of those old priests sacrificed and gave them they power they wanted...even over the ruling class and the seasons changed according to schedule.
> 
> ...



Granted , the Earth has been warmer ( and a lot colder ) in the past.
Those changes didn't end life on earth they just ended with the life of the species that were unable to adapt. 
Still, your post doesn't really answer the question :
  Is global warming occurring ? and even more important is the warming a trend that will continue in the forseeable future. 

  Later on we could debate whether the change is due to human activity or not, and if so if there is a way to "tame" the weather, but none of that is relevant if we can't agree on the basic question : are we witnessing a global warming phenomena ?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 6, 2013)

PredFan said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Ever notice how the liberal solution to every problem is for the government to take more of your money or freedom?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? The Tesla S is socialism? The windfarms that Scottish Power is building are socialism? Detail in what way converting to an energy system that does not endanger the lives of the future generations is socialism.



Tesla motors receives massive subsidies from the federal government, and Scottish Power is entirely a creature created by the British government. Furthermore, wind power in the UK receives massive subsidies from the government.  So, yes, both your examples are socialism.  Both are massive failures.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 6, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really? The Tesla S is socialism? The windfarms that Scottish Power is building are socialism? Detail in what way converting to an energy system that does not endanger the lives of the future generations is socialism.
> ...



What about wikispeed ?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 6, 2013)

A recent study showed that 0.7% - 1.0%  of scientifc papers deny that human activity influences climate change.

So what we know for a fact is that people who work in this field overwhelmingly feel human activity is the key factor.

I think most sensible people will find that worth taking seriously.

It is also interesting that denial only comes from people on the very outer extreme fringe of American right-wing politics, whereas people from right across the political spectrum back AGW. Again, I think that is worth considering.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> So what we know for a fact is that people who work in this field overwhelmingly feel human activity is the key factor.



We also know for a fact that if they didn't publish those "feelings" that the money cow would dry up in a New York minute.  We also know for a fact that "feelings" are not the best way to reach a position on an issue.  We also know that if one wants to hold a certain position and the facts don't support it, that "feelings" will often do just fine for a certain sort of person.

Feelings is what you have because there isn't a single hard, observed, measured, empirical piece of evidence to support the claim that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes warming.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 6, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
> ...





Impossible to know with any degree of certainty, which begs the question. The UN thinks we should do something about it immediately so perhaps we should launch into that today??? What is not well known is that the UN also put a price tag on combating global warming: 76 Trillion dollars = do a little research to see what that involves, including ummmm......... going back to the technology of the 18th century. Pretty cool huh??!!!


But the question is indeed a moot one. It is not even remotely possible world governments are going to do what MIGHT ( operative word) be NECESSARY ( operative word) because we would be looking at a world that looks far different than it does now. It would be unrecognizable. Categorical changes like that only exist in the minds of the connect the dots challenged.  Taxing individuals at well over 50% is not at all politically feasible based upon a hail Mary pass guess about what might be years from now. People on the far left never, ever weigh this as it relates to the science, as if costs were simply an afterthought. Think about our president telling you tomorrow, "Ummmm........but it will cost all of us alot. We will no longer be able to use cell phones. Air travel will cease. We will need to move billions of tons of food across the country, not by train, but by balloons. And by the way......we will all travel to work using golf cart type vehicles. But if we stick together......we will do this!!!"


Yup......that'll fly real well!!!


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 6, 2013)

Well then again , thanks for everyone's contribution here , but what I would like to settle first is if 

A) Global warming is occurring
B) Warming is a thrend that will continue until the next century.

There's really not much point arguing regarding the causes if we can't first have an agreement on these two basic questions.


----------



## joewp (Jun 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Feelings is what you have because there isn't a single hard, observed, measured, empirical piece of evidence to support the claim that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes warming.



Oh yes there is. 

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?


> So according to lab results and radiative physics, we expect that increasing atmospheric CO2 should absorb more longwave radiation as it escapes back out to space. Has this effect been observed? The paper Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries 2001) attempts to find out. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now, I don't know who told ya there was no evidence for CO2 causing warming, but they were also misinformed or maybe even lying to you. 

I'm posting this on the off chance that you're really looking for the answers and not just being a knee-jerk denier, but if you base your doubt of AGW on the false assertion that there's no empirical evidence of CO2 warming the climate, maybe you should re-consider. 

Somehow I doubt you will.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

The most costly aspect of a warmer climate is that we built civilization around the old climate. We located agriculture based on rainfall and our cities typically on shores. We can relocate. It only takes money which we then won't have for other things. 

Of course for the vast majority of the past mankind didn't care about the climate. Now we are very, very sensitive to it. And, there is no doubt that co2 is a greenhouse gas. The higher the concentration in our atmosphere, the less incoming energy gets radiated back into space. That spells warmer. 

Those simple facts, plus the limited supply of the remaining fossilfuels, especially oil, determine mankind's focus for the next 100 years. Our only choice is between orderly and efficiently or chaotically. 

I'm betting on chaos. Sorry kids. The Greatest Generation is gone and we are stuck with the Greediest Generation now.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 6, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> One thing's certain... THIS global warming thread is for real.



This thread only exist in cyber-space.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2013)

joewp said:


> Oh yes there is.



Sorry, but there isn't.  You loons regularly post that crap from SS but inevetably fail to grasp the fact that SS is only giving you half the story, and they are lying about the half that they do give you.

How much creedence can you give a paper that claims to compare OLR from one period to another but only gives you one graph?   Here is the whole picture.

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions. 






The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. All found on the far left side of the graph. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.










Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2. 




joewp said:


> This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.



Contrary to what you believe, the OLR as measured by satellites has been increasing.





NOAA global outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] from annualized monthly means, via the KNMI Climate Explorer




joewp said:


> Measurements of downward longwave radiation
> What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse gases? The energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation. This re-radiated energy goes in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. Hence we expect to find increasing downward longwave radiation as CO2 levels increase.



There are no, and never have been any measurements of downward longwave radiation made at ambient temperature.  The instruments that measure downward longwave radiation are all cooled to a temperature far below that of the atmosphere.  There is no downward longwave radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth.  



joewp said:


> So we have multiple lines of empirical evidence for CO2 warming.



You have no lines of empirical evidence.  You have pseudoscientific fraud.



joewp said:


> Lab tests show CO2 absorbing longwave radiation.



The same lab tests show that CO2 emits lw radiation about a billionth of a second after it has been absorbed.



joewp said:


> Satellite measurements confirm that less longwave radiation is escaping to space.



Satellites measure more long wave radiation escaping into space in spite of increasing CO2.



joewp said:


> Surface measurements detect increased longwave radiation returning back to Earth at wavelengths matching increased CO2 warming.



No measurement of downward LW radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface of the earth has ever been made at ambient temperature.



joewp said:


> And of course the result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.



There is no energy imbalance as evidenced by the lack of warming for going on 2 decades now.  



joewp said:


> Now, I don't know who told ya there was no evidence for CO2 causing warming, but they were also misinformed or maybe even lying to you.



I am afriad that it is you who has been misinformed.  There doesn't exist a scrap of hard evidence to support the claim that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes warming.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 6, 2013)

Ok finally I'm able to post links. My point of view : 
  Global warming is occurring and it will continue. I am not completely certain it is due to human activity but the correlation makes me think it is so.

Now a couple of images taken in the Andes range with a difference of 36 years : 

October - December ( spring - summer ) . Snow made the task of getting down from the mountain an appaling task.





Nowdays going down seems an easy task.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Ever notice when really ignorant fucks don't have an answer, they try to change the format of the debate?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really? The Tesla S is socialism? The windfarms that Scottish Power is building are socialism? Detail in what way converting to an energy system that does not endanger the lives of the future generations is socialism.
> ...



Dumb ass, Tesla paid back every cent of the government loan about two weeks ago. Not only that, they have already sold out their years production. And wind is providing two digit contributions to power in several states right now.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> joewp said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes there is.
> ...



I just know that you are a totally objective scientist and are anxious for all of the data in order to form an opinion based on all of the evidence. Like:

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


----------



## petro (Jun 6, 2013)

Is the global climate changing? Possibly. However it is hard to accept that as I just went through the coldest winter on record and am currently living through a cold spring. 40 degrees I woke up to on June 2 north of Mpls. I would be happy with palm trees in MN.

The globe has gone through many changes to it's climate during its history with massive extinctions as the result. Humanity is the first species that is capable of adapting to these changes, so I don't see this as the sky falling. 

If those are so worried about it, better log off as the  electronic device you us is powered by electricity produced by coal fired plants. Solar and wind power also have environmental costs, and the battery in your electric car is by no means clean energy as lithium mining is  not environmentally friendly, and needs to connect to the grid to recharge. There is no such thing as green, clean energy.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

petro said:


> Is the global climate changing? Possibly. However it is hard to accept that as I just went through the coldest winter on record and am currently living through a cold spring. 40 degrees I woke up to on June 2 north of Mpls. I would be happy with palm trees in MN.
> 
> The globe has gone through many changes to it's climate during its history with massive extinctions as the result. Humanity is the first species that is capable of adapting to these changes, so I don't see this as the sky falling.
> 
> If those are so worried about it, better log off as the  electronic device you us is powered by electricity produced by coal fired plants. Solar and wind power also have environmental costs, and the battery in your electric car is by no means clean energy as lithium mining is  not environmentally friendly, and needs to connect to the grid to recharge. There is no such thing as green, clean energy.



We certainly are capable of adapting. All we need is the will to devote the resources that it will take. I believe that many want to wish it away. They will cause us to lose the opportunity to adapt in a coordinated way and the result will be chaos.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 6, 2013)

> However it is hard to accept that as I just went through the coldest winter on record and am currently living through a cold spring. 40 degrees I woke up to on June 2 north of Mpls. I would be happy with palm trees in MN.



And yet 2012 was the hottest year on record in North America.

There is no scientific doubt at all that temperatures have risen during the past 50 years. It's a clear, undisputed scientific fact.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 7, 2013)

petro said:


> Is the global climate changing? Possibly. However it is hard to accept that as I just went through the coldest winter on record and am currently living through a cold spring. 40 degrees I woke up to on June 2 north of Mpls. I would be happy with palm trees in MN.
> 
> The globe has gone through many changes to it's climate during its history with massive extinctions as the result. Humanity is the first species that is capable of adapting to these changes, so I don't see this as the sky falling.
> 
> If those are so worried about it, better log off as the  electronic device you us is powered by electricity produced by coal fired plants. Solar and wind power also have environmental costs, and the battery in your electric car is by no means clean energy as lithium mining is  not environmentally friendly, and needs to connect to the grid to recharge. There is no such thing as green, clean energy.



Well , if it is a trend and we can't controll weather change ,then we should at least plan for it . I'm sure that weather projections can be made to establish the best course of action : build dams , move people out of certain cities ... etc.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2013)

petro said:


> Is the global climate changing? Possibly. However it is hard to accept that as I just went through the coldest winter on record and am currently living through a cold spring. 40 degrees I woke up to on June 2 north of Mpls. I would be happy with palm trees in MN.
> 
> The globe has gone through many changes to it's climate during its history with massive extinctions as the result. Humanity is the first species that is capable of adapting to these changes, so I don't see this as the sky falling.
> 
> If those are so worried about it, better log off as the  electronic device you us is powered by electricity produced by coal fired plants. Solar and wind power also have environmental costs, and the battery in your electric car is by no means clean energy as lithium mining is  not environmentally friendly, and needs to connect to the grid to recharge. There is no such thing as green, clean energy.



OK. Explain to us in what way lithium 'mining' is less environmentally friendly than coal mining? Do you know how and where we get lithium? I am willing to bet that you are merely repeating the words of an obese junkie on the radio without even a scrap of knowledge about the sources of lithium.

And the majority of the power in Musk's charging stations is going to come from the solar installations in those stations. Not only that, because of the inherent inefficiences of the Carnot Cycle, you will put less CO2 into the air from using electricity generated by coal, that by burning gas or diesel.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.


 
Not among those who have the education, understanding and experience within the relevant fields of knowledge for the question you ask.



CultureCitizen said:


> For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.


 
It is not genuinely debatable. It is possible to discuss some of the details and how those details will play out given various public policy choices that we make from here on out, but whether or not the climate is warming, and the primary reasons for it warming, are simply observational facts not something that can be rationally and logically disputed.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 7, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.



Here maybe. But not much elsewhere.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Yes, we do notice when your warmerist moonbats do that.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 7, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Is global warming occurring ? and even more important is the warming a trend that will continue in the forseeable future.



Refer back to the graph above.  Look at the temperature history of the earth.  Then look at the present.  Then look back at the temperature history of the earth.  Now tell me exactly what a rational person would conclude regarding the long term temperature trend starting today.



CultureCitizen said:


> Later on we could debate whether the change is due to human activity or not, and if so if there is a way to "tame" the weather, but none of that is relevant if we can't agree on the basic question : are we witnessing a global warming phenomena ?



The warming for this particular interglacial started when the ice started melting back some 14,000 years ago.  In that time, it has been warmer than the present, and colder than the present, but during all that time, it has been far colder than the average mean temperature  across the history of the earth.  The short term will be up and down based on whatever forces we still don't come close to understanding happen to be prevalent at any given time but the overall long term trend will be warmer.  What actually drives the climate on planet earth remains to be seen but you can be sure it isn't a trace atmospheric gas and certainly not mankind's meager contribution to the total of that trace atmospheric gas.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I just know that you are a totally objective scientist and are anxious for all of the data in order to form an opinion based on all of the evidence. Like:
> 
> How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?



P.T. Barnum was right...there is one born every minute.  In the case of you warmists, the rate seems to be much higher.  Did you actually read the tripe on that page, or do you just blindly accept it because it meshes with your political point of view.

It starts off with Tyndal and the so called greenhouse gas qualities of CO2.  Do you know what Tyndal actually said about CO2?  Here is a quote from his writings:

"Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources.&#8221;

And do you know what he wrote about the radiative power of CO2 in his experiments?

"carbonic acid gas is &#8220;extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate&#8221;. 

In short, Tyndal knew all those years ago that CO2 was a weak absorber and emitter of IR radiation....as opposed to water which completely overwhelms it in the atmosphere but then there is no political power to be gained by demonizing water vapor is there?

Then it goes on to talk about satellite measurements of OLR.  I gave you the whole picture above and I am sure that you didn't find any difference between the graphs.  You should be able to figure out why your source only gave you one graph and simply claimed a difference..

Then it moves on to downward long wave radiation.  The first paper referenced was wang.  Did you bother to read the abstract.  It described methods to ESTIMATE downward longwave radiation.  Why would there be a need to estimate it if it actually existed.  We certainly have no problem actually measuring incoming radiation from the sun but we can't actually measure downward longwave because it doesn't exist.  

The next paper referenced was Philopona.  Clearly you didn't read that abstract either.  Here are some passages for your consideration:

"Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth's surface so far."  

"Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm&#8722;2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) °C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m&#8722;3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. "

So in Philopona, there, again, were no actual measurements but simply model predicitions.  You guys need to understand that model output is not data.

Evans claims to have measured downward longwave with FTIR spectroscopy.  The AIRS type instruments are the sort of devices used for FTIR spectroscopy and such instruments operate at temperatures between 58K and 145K or between -258C and -128C.  So no downward longwave is being measured from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...what is being measured is downward radiation from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler FTIR instrument.  In short, anything being called actual data proving the AGW hypothesis is falsified and or fabricated.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2013)

As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth&#8217;s surface.&#8221; Source: John Tyndall, 1862

Understanding the Science of CO2?s Role in Climate Change: 3 ? How Green House Gases Trap Heat | Climate Charts & Graphs


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 7, 2013)

My God these climate crusaders are the most predictable boring mother fuckers walking.......week after week, month after month and year after year, the same stale old flim flam. What draws people to such obscene levels of meh? And heres the thing that is most mind blowing.......they do this shit in perpetual manner AND SOLVE FUCKING NOTHING!!! Its like.....hmmm......Ive banged my head against this wall thousands of times now......maybe this one last time and I'll break through. Its fucking fascinating.......they've accomplished exactly ZERO in the real world with their shit. Youve heard of psycho-babble? This is science-babble.


I guess I shouldnt complain.......dont know what I'd do without these freaks in my internet world. Would certainly be a world with far less laughs, thats for sure!!!!


----------



## Saigon (Jun 8, 2013)

Trakar said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
> ...



Exactly, and very well said.

I'm glad to see there is discussion, but as anyone can see from these threads, that debate is largely now limited to people with poor literacy and extreme right-wing views.

Skooks is a perfect example of where Climate Denial is at.


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 8, 2013)

Trakar said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
> ...



I disagree. When two different measurements or measurement methodologies  give different results, the discrepancies need to be resolved. It is the essence of scientific debate.  Further debate arises when said empirical data is used, in one for or another, as a basis for mathematical modeling of non-linear physical systems, like the thermal properties of the atmosphere.


----------



## Wroberson (Jun 8, 2013)

I can't help you here, but the short term trend is for more cooling.  I'm not going to go into HDD's and CDD's as I have something more important to me to discuss in a different thread.  All I can say is that this May had 224 HDD. 2012 May had 126 HDD and May 2011 had 292 HDD, but the 1st 5 months of 2013 HDD total is higher than both 2011 and 2012.

For petro, all I can suggest is that the Meteor of Russia brought in and created a lot of atmospheric ice.  The Solar Cycle is at max causing some of the ice to melt and fall as rain.  I expect the trend to continue.  The reason it will continue is due to a volcano eruption in Alaska.  Soon there will be too must dust pollution in the atmosphere and each particle will be unable to collect enough water to fall as rain.  This will create a mirror and reflect sunlight and heat back into space before it reaches the ground.  On top of this, solar max is ending and the low output according to NOAA should decrease as we begin our trek to solar min.

If you want more on why I believe this cooling trend will continue and eventually get worse for 2014, you'll need to learn more about comet ISON this November and again in January.  The short on this is in November ISON passes through Earth's plane of orbit around the Sun and in January, we pass through the debris field of ice left by ISON as we continue our orbit around the Sun.

Man may play a part in global warming, but there are bigger more powerful nasties that cause total disruption.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 8, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> I disagree. When two different measurements or measurement methodologies  give different results, the discrepancies need to be resolved. It is the essence of scientific debate.  Further debate arises when said empirical data is used, in one for or another, as a basis for mathematical modeling of non-linear physical systems, like the thermal properties of the atmosphere.



Absolutely - I doubt anyone will disagree with that.

But to me it is a bit like the police investigating a murder in that they can use evidence to identitfy the murderer and murder weapon, without necessarily being able to dot every 'i' or cross every 't'. 

We definitely need to understand more about thr heating of oceans, in particular. 

But I don't personally feel that the link between CO2 and temperature can be considered theoretical or debatable at his point.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> But I don't personally feel that the link between CO2 and temperature can be considered theoretical or debatable at his point.



That is a completely stupid statement considering the fact that there has been no warming for going on 20 years now in spite of record increases in atmospheric CO2. That fact not only makes the idea debatable, it seriously calls the hypotheisis into question.  How many years of flatline or cooling must happen before you give up the idea that CO2 is the control knob?  The experts said 10, then they said 15.  15 has come and gone.  How many now?  CO2 follows temperature around...it doesn't lead.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > But I don't personally feel that the link between CO2 and temperature can be considered theoretical or debatable at his point.
> ...



You are completely full of shit. The temperature took a big jump in 1998. That was 15 years ago. Right now, at the outset of a La Nina, May was +0.7 C. That is the highest point that the running mean reached prior to the 1998 runup. 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2013_v5.5.png

If you run a line across the tops of the running means, excluding the 1998 Super El Nino, and across the bottoms of the runing means, excluding Pinitubo, you will get two lines of very similiar slope, for a 34 year period. And that slope is and will continue to be up.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 8, 2013)

> CO2 follows temperature around...it doesn't lead.



Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase.







Figure 3: The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5&#8211;6.5 kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite temperature record (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). The Holocene, Younger Dryas (YD), Bølling&#8211;Allerød (B&#8211;A), Oldest Dryas (OD) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) intervals are indicated. Error bars, 1-sigma; p.p.m.v. = parts per million by volume.  Shakun et al. Figure 2a.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 8, 2013)

correlation  &#8800; causation


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> You are completely full of shit. The temperature took a big jump in 1998. That was 15 years ago. Right now, at the outset of a La Nina, May was +0.7 C. That is the highest point that the running mean reached prior to the 1998 runup.



Denial...even when warmest experts acknowledge the half in warming. Ride that crazy train right to the end of the tracks and off the cliff.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> correlation  &#8800; causation



 They just can't grasp the fact that CO2 follows temperature around.  Not the other way around.  No worries though.  The AGW  crazy train is rubbing out of track mort quickly every day


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. When two different measurements or measurement methodologies  give different results, the discrepancies need to be resolved. It is the essence of scientific debate.  Further debate arises when said empirical data is used, in one for or another, as a basis for mathematical modeling of non-linear physical systems, like the thermal properties of the atmosphere.
> ...



That  is the 'modeling' part of my comment. It is entirely debatable that using a simple one or two linear parameter lab experiment is an appropriate basis for modeling a complex non-linear global circulation system.

I might also point out that it is debatable whether or not your legal system 'preponderance of evidence' metaphor is the best one to refer to.  We start wandering into the subject of mathematical probabilities with the consequences of policies, and drift away from the science. My preferred method for pure empirical science based subjects is to use the Kent scale;


Kent&#8217;s Words of Estimative Probability[2]

Certain 100% Give or take 0% 

The General Area of Possibility   
Almost Certain 93%; Give or take about 6% 
Probable 75%; Give or take about 12% 
Chances About Even 50%; Give or take about 10% 
Probably Not 30%; Give or take about 10% 
Almost Certainly Not 7%; Give or take about 5% 

Impossible 0; Give or take 0% 

Link:
Words of estimative probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Medicine tends to use a coarser version of this type of information analysis, and the legal system-yet another. When it comes to the policy side, the actuarial insurance model is an excellent tool for objectively combining the risks with cost/benefit. We get to ask ourselves how do the benefits of a policy, and the associated cost, compare with similar situtions we face. When I get on an airplane, do I insist on a 0% probability of crashing? (The cost being infinite) And how do these already arrived at decisions and policies relate to the new policy in question.

Anyway, that is where I stand on the subject.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > correlation  &#8800; causation
> ...



Apparently the concept of greenhouse gasses eludes you. No worries, mate.  We've left you behind.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Apparently, the concept of an infinitely diverse, flexible and dynamic ecosystem eludes you.

No worries, mate...Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich proved out to be dead wrong too...You won't be without company.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Sory , but Malthus was not wrong ... you can clearly see what happens when you outgrow your resources is a civilizational collapse. It happened in Easter Island, it happend to the Vikings in Greenland and it happened to the Mayans.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You aren't the first, nor the last, to feel entitled to the truth that you'd prefer. It's a common human ailment. As you sit on the sidelines cheering for your home team, keep in mind though that the universe does not at all care what you personally want. The universe made you the speck that you are and the environment that you are a spec within. 

Life always adapts. Specks sometimes. Your personal decision on that is irrelevant to the outcome. Scientists are learning and doers are doing and mankind has moved on without you. 

Some, like you, on the sidelines, will be booing with you. Fewer every game. Then none. Typically takes a few decades.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


 
Largely irrelevant to the nearly 200 year old basics of AGW, which are built upon fundamental atmospheric radiative transfer physics and identification and sourcing of atmospheric carbon.

More to your point, however, I am not aware of any debatable, significant discrepancy in measurement methodology for any major AGW finding or proposal, at the least, nothing that would rise to the level of calling any of the basic precepts of AGW or climate science in general into question. If you believe that you have compelling evidence of such, please cite and reference that evidence.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Not cheering for any home team...I'm going with the facts.....They're stubborn things.

Fact remains that almost all of history's doom-and-gloomers, most claiming "inarguable facts" to be on their side, have ended up being wrong.

Interesting, though, that you should mention that life adapts, yet somehow, by implication, the entire planet's ecosystem cannot.

Oh, and there are fewer and fewer booing and more and more laughing out loud.....We're laughing at you, not with you.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 8, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Right...Maulthus wasn't wrong.

What date was it that the world population outstripped its ability to feed itself again?...I forget.


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 8, 2013)

Trakar said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Climate Audit


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


 
Linking to a conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blog offers no compelling support for your apparently fringe beliefs and perspective.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 8, 2013)

Trakar said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


Funny...Conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blogs seem good enough for you warmerists, when they favor your story.


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 8, 2013)

Trakar said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Climate audit busted the hockey stick fraud, and you warminist cult members have never gotten over it eh?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


 
I have never sent anyone to a blog to learn science, nor have I ever offered blog postings as support of science understandings. I do not consider blogs to be reliable sources of information. Not that everything on a blog is false, but in general they are unreliable, and bloggers are unaccountable for their mistakes, errors and misstatements.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 9, 2013)

Another link providing further evidence of global warming : 

Greenland Ice Sheet | Surface Melt Data






Though we'll have to wait until august to see if the melting was greater than 2012.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 9, 2013)

BFD.

The Greenland ice sheet melted northward far enough so that Scandihoovian settlers populated its southern regions a few centuries ago.

Whoopee.

Hide the decline.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> BFD.
> 
> The Greenland ice sheet melted northward far enough so that Scandihoovian settlers populated its southern regions a few centuries ago.
> 
> ...



That part has been inhabited since then , but then each year mor land is available due to melting. Now perhaps if you could quote an article describing the extent of ice-free land in greenland during the scandinavian colonisation I would consider your post as a serious argument and not just a rant.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 9, 2013)

If one is serious about knowing what the conditions were during the time the Vikings inhabited Greenland, Jared Diamond has a very well researched book, "Collapse" that covers the subject well.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> correlation  &#8800; causation


 
From Tydall to the present the causation for the warming has been known. Mere reptition of nonsense will not change the statement from being nonsense.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 9, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> If one is serious about knowing what the conditions were during the time the Vikings inhabited Greenland, Jared Diamond has a very well researched book, "Collapse" that covers the subject well.



I've read the book , a very interesting one, but he doesn't go so far as telling the extent of the melt during that time. 

What he does is talk about how their lack of ability to adapt to the changing weather conditions coupled with their unfriendly attitude towards the Inuit caused the colony to disappear.

Hence my interest in this thread . My position is that we are having a weather change ( I'm not getting into the debate of whether it is antropogenic or not ) and we must take some measures to adapt to such change.


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 9, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > If one is serious about knowing what the conditions were during the time the Vikings inhabited Greenland, Jared Diamond has a very well researched book, "Collapse" that covers the subject well.
> ...



We can't afford to. We borrowed the next generations paycheck already.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 9, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > If one is serious about knowing what the conditions were during the time the Vikings inhabited Greenland, Jared Diamond has a very well researched book, "Collapse" that covers the subject well.
> ...


 
You don't have to understand the intricacies of planetary orbits and revolutions to observe that the sun makes its daily passage through the sky and seasons seem to shift with some regularity. It isn't necessary to understand what is forcing climate change to understand that if the trends of the last several decades continue over the next several centuries, there are a lot of changes that will need to be made to deal with the changes that are happening and yet to come.

Understanding does help one to make choices that do not make a bad situation worse, but, for the time being, merely taking the actions that help to deal with the situation at hand and the consequences of accelerating trends is much better than sticking your head in the sand and denying that there is any problem to deal with.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 9, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 
Too bad we used that paycheck to give record profits to the same corporations that are buying politicians and political favors instead of investing it in education, social/physical infrastructure and technology that would have actually earned a return on that investment for those future generations. Simultaneously, we are saddling those generations with increasing carbon burdens and environmental disasters that they will have to pay to deal with so that we can further increase the profits of those same corporations. 

But this is all public policy and would be more appropriately discussed on the public policy (politics) board.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



If there was perfect commerce between all nations on the world we could talk about outgrowing global resouces. 

Even with trade agreements this is not the case. Even more the examples I quoted are notable by the fact that three different civilisations outgrowed their "local" resources. 

Perhaps there is something called alimentary poverty

2013 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by World Hunger Education Service

What do you think is causing it ? Resource bonanza? Lazy people ? Duh

Now wer are not talking just about the ability to feed ourselfes but to obtain other natural resources : water , wood , energy.


----------



## IanC (Jun 9, 2013)

Trakar said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



CA has done afine job of pointing out mistakes and weaknesses that should have been caught in peer review. Anyone who has not learned more about science by reading CA has an issue with comprehension.


----------



## Wroberson (Jun 10, 2013)

I finally have my position.  Not going to include all the references, but the facts are easy to find.

Global warming was caused by Maurice Strong back in 1972.  

Beyond that, I have some facts that the physical acts of man of warming the globe does not exist.

1.  Maurice Strong

2.  Data was altered to produce a number that show the planet is getting warmer to spread fear of an eroding and warming environment

3.  All the fuels we burn, tree we turn into paper we've releases into the air throughout the history of man does not equal the amount of heat that we get from 1 minute of Sunlight

4.  All of the CO2 we put into the air since the dawn of man does not add up to the total amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by decaying trees.

5.  Oil wells in the Arctic do not collect oil, but instead are burnt to create electricity for the people up there.  The black soot from the burning oil falls onto the ice.  The Sun heats the dark soot causing it to heat up.  The heating melts the arctic ice.

All this was done to make a few people money by selling green energy credits to industries so they can pollute as much as they want and claim to have a green or reduced carbon footprint and avoid fines for pollution.

By 2015, your house will be audited.  Home with high energy uses will see higher taxes.

I really suggest that you find some way of creating your own electricity and produce green tax credit to pay for your natural gas usage.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2013)

Trakar said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Except when they are used by competent scientists to direct the general public to ORIGINAL sources and ORIGINAL material or to encourage general understanding of the topic by summarizing the news.. Elitist snobs on the other hands, want US to believe that you are REALLY REALLY reading each and every paper with full understanding without 20 years of sweat or the coaching of others..


----------



## Saigon (Jun 11, 2013)

> Global warming was caused by Maurice Strong back in 1972.



How? Did he exhale about a billion cubic metres of CO2?

Very funny posting, Wroberson!

btw. We'd known about global warming for about a century prior to your guy causing it.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Except when they are used by competent scientists to direct the general public to ORIGINAL sources and ORIGINAL material or to encourage general understanding of the topic by summarizing the news..


 
I wouldn't even make that distinction, it matters not who the author of a blog is, or claims to be. Blogs and blog posts are unreliable, unreviewed and not vetted by qualified and objective field professionals, and those who make them are not accountable to anyone for their claims, assertions and speculations. Scientists are most generally human, and can be prone to the same subjectivity, bizarre beliefs and confirmational biases that plagues virtually all humans. This is what peer-review is for (both pre-publication vetting and the true peer-review which occurs post publication), as others in your field review your work, data and findings. Blogs lack this compulsory reliability and verifiability.




flacaltenn said:


> Elitist snobs on the other hands, want US to believe that you are REALLY REALLY reading each and every paper with full understanding without 20 years of sweat or the coaching of others..


 
I'll leave that little anecdotal assertion for you to prove, I apparently don't have enough interest or experience with "Elitist snobs" to be able to confirm or reject your analysis. 

I've been reading and building my understanding of published journal science since HS back in the early 1960s. I read and used published science papers across many disciplines throughout undergrad, graduate and post-graduate schools. I read journal papers because I enjoy learning of others discoveries and findings, and reading of their findings in their own words is the best way to understand what the researchers were looking for, how they were looking, and what they figured out from their investigations. If I don't understand what they are trying to say, I usually contact them and ask for their help in understanding what they are saying, and they usually respond. They aren't going to teach you calculus through email responses, but as long as you have all the basic tools of education and experience in place and properly ask your questions, they are almost always happy to have someone interested in their work and more than willing to help you understand what they have discovered.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


 
Even experimental failures yield valuable scientific data, I've stated the issues I have with Blog science. It isn't that everything said is in error, it is that all of the information is unreliable.


----------



## IanC (Jun 12, 2013)

Trakar said:


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



climate science is a rather incestuous and inbred bunch. they seldom publically criticize each other because that would 'dilute the message'. not only that but pal review lets through many mistakes that should be caught before publication.

you say there is no accountability on blogs for mistakes but I have seen, over and over again, how blogs like Climate Audit will become interested in a new paper and start to point out errors. the original complaints are typically supplanted by more and more sophisticated criticisms as more opinions are heard and incorporated. 

most laymen have neither the time nor the expertise to critique scientific papers. watching those that do, in blogs, is not only interesting but informative as well. the authors of these papers are encouraged to explain their reasoning, which leads to a back-and-forth exchange that helps everybody. 

how many random people would know that it is incorrect to just add instrumental data onto proxy data? how many of those would know the various reasons why it is wrong and deceiving? how many people know the various scientific definitions of 'significant'? 

I think everybody should listen to as many sides of the issue as possible before making a tentative and maleable decision on what is likely to be the closest version to the truth. while most of us need to use expert authority to explain and refine different positions, that does not mean that we should choose one and then never listen to anyone else ever again.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 14, 2013)

Ian C - 



> I think everybody should listen to as many sides of the issue as possible before making a tentative and maleable decision on what is likely to be the closest version to the truth. while most of us need to use expert authority to explain and refine different positions, that does not mean that we should choose one and then never listen to anyone else ever again.



I couldn't agree more. 

And I do think that most posters, like most people in society, will happily adjust their views as scientific progresses. 

Those that won't have ego invested, and have chosen what they believe based on politics.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 15, 2013)

Well , I didn't really want to delve into the actual causes of global warming, just wanted to discuss if warming was actually  occurring. 

I think the evidence so far points towards warming ( anthropogenic or not ).
Else , could someone point out for the cause of massive glacier melting around the globe ?

Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps some of the warming deniers might be able to explain the phenomena through global cooling ... somehow ?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 15, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Well , I didn't really want to delve into the actual causes of global warming, just wanted to discuss if warming was actually  occurring.
> 
> I think the evidence so far points towards warming ( anthropogenic or not ).
> Else , could someone point out for the cause of massive glacier melting around the globe ?
> ...


Been warming for the last several centuries.

And Thank God, or I'd be under a mile or so of glacier right now!


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Well then again , thanks for everyone's contribution here , but what I would like to settle first is if
> 
> A) Global warming is occurring
> B) Warming is a thrend that will continue until the next century.
> ...










Yes, global warming was initiated 14,000 years ago by causes unknown.  It has continued with periods of alternating warm and cold (but with a general uptrend) since that time.  There have been periods in the recent past when the global temperatures have been far warmer than today, the Holocene Thermal Max was at least 8 degrees C warmer than today and the MWP, the most recent warming, was at least 2 degrees C warmer than the present day.

When one looks at the historical data sets one see's that the global climate is on a cycle of warming and cooling that will last between 200 and 500 years.  We are most likely now entering into a cooling period based on solar activity.  Some scientists predict it will last from 200 to 250 years.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...








40% of the food produced on this planet rots due to incompetence or fraud.  Toss in corrupt politicians and that accounts for the rest.  Paul Ehrlich famously stated back in the late '70's that the human population would begin dying off in huge quantities and surprise, surprise, that never happened.

This planet has been calculated to have a carrying capacity of around 40 billion.  We are at less than a quarter of that.  Further with current population rates the population will level off at around 10 billion WITH NO ACTION BEING TAKEN.

Sometimes it really is best to just do nothing.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 15, 2013)

Its always been a hoax s0n.......and there are about 4 billion posts in this forum that seal the deal.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Well , I didn't really want to delve into the actual causes of global warming, just wanted to discuss if warming was actually  occurring.
> 
> I think the evidence so far points towards warming ( anthropogenic or not ).
> Else , could someone point out for the cause of massive glacier melting around the globe ?
> ...



That's fine if you don't care about the source. At least you don't have a political agenda to sell "sustainable energy" or "population control".. Or if you do -- it doesn't drive your analysis of the warming part of the problem.. 

Seems like about 85% or more of the folks called "warming skeptics" ACCEPT that the world is doing exactly what WestWall says.. 

The rise of man OWES IT"S EXISTENCE to this fact. Our feud is simply over leaping to a very politically convienient theory that CO2 emissions from man is the principle cause of warming for the past 100 years or so. 

So if you're happy now that we ALL agree it IS INDEED a warming climate, you should ask yourself if you wanna this trend or live in a climate where the glaciers are GROWING !!!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



OR --- we could just build 100 nuclear power plants and be perfectly safe from CO2 emissions.. (whattheheck -- it beats WHINING about CO2)..


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Well , I didn't really want to delve into the actual causes of global warming, just wanted to discuss if warming was actually  occurring.
> ...



Easy there mate . 
Let's keep separate concerns. 
Green energy is desireable because it is ecosystem friendly . Period. 
I am not sure if we could controll the weather or if it is desireable. 
What I am certain is that if we are having warming and it is a continued trend ( again without considering the causes ) maybe we should just plan ahead to see how we can cope with the aforementioned warming ( but that , should be the topic of another thread, here I just wanted to set some common ground for future discussion).


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 16, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



We SHOULD plan ahead to mitigate damage. If we can project what degree of damage we expect. Barring setting us back 4 or 5 decades in civilized development, the AGWarmers have no metrics. Just hysteria about 1000s of problems all attributed to a 1degC rise in temperature in your lifetime. 

Part of that "ulterior motive" is to misrepresent and push a list of "alternative energy" sources. A list that has virtually NO source of 24/7/365 power without SEVERE environmental impacts. Geothermal for instance is a DIRTY MINING OPERATION. And as our English enviro-nuts figured out too late -- biomass is burning garbage and trees for power. 

You really didn't answer my question of what problem set you'd rather be facing and fixing.. 

Shrinking glaciers or Growing glaciers.

BTW: CultureCitizen, Are you related to CultureClub??


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

Flac -

Do any non-renewable forms of energy production have severe envionrmental impacts?

How would you compare the potential environmetal impact of tidal with, say, coal or the use of fracking to extract natural gas?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2013)

IanC said:


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


 
Your assertion is inaccurate, and grossly exaggerated in its mischaracterizations and misrepresentations.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

It's strange for me that Ian would describe the entire scientific community, comprising experts in physics, biology, geography, meteorology and chemistry as "inbred" but apparently does not consider the tiny gang of right-wing Climate Deniers opposing them, most of whom have no background in science, to be so.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 17, 2013)

"Lord" Monkton is the poster child for the anti-science denialists. Not a Lord, not a scientist, and, worst of all, not honest at all.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



So, geothermal is a dirty mining operation. Care to back that up with links and sources?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 17, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You really didn't answer my question of what problem set you'd rather be facing and fixing..
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Flac -
> 
> Do any non-renewable forms of energy production have severe envionrmental impacts?
> 
> How would you compare the potential environmetal impact of tidal with, say, coal or the use of fracking to extract natural gas?



Tidal is an ocean floor Cuisinart blender.. I want to see Enviro impact report on the fish, dolphins, turtles, ect --- destroyed in tidal power systems..  We don't have that yet === do we?

Geothermal mining is on your list.. I'd rather have 4 oil or Nat Gas wells near my property than a Geothermal mine. It is FAR DIRTIER operation and not even TRULY "renewable".

Biomass conversion is "burning garbage".. Sold as burning tree by products, and brush, but it always morphs to burning literal garbage. See the outrage from British Greens after they were the useful tools to get a network of "nice clean green Biomass Plants" in their neighborhoods.. They wised up too late.. And so will you... 

Want me to go on? Or is your mind still closed???


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Make Ya a deal OldiRocks. We've done this exact same issue about FOUR FUKIN TIMES now.. You are too senile to remember I suppose.. I post backup from 4 of your favorite sources and you run away.. 

The deal is that if ANYONE ELSE hasn't seen this stuff --- I'll be glad to pull the threads.. 
Or you can search Geothermal Mining and find the discussions right here on USMB.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Flac -
> ...



Um....will you be answering the question at some point?

I'm not proposing biomass nor geo-thermal (except perhaps in places like Iceland, where it makes sense) myself. I consider both forms or energy largely unnecessary for the reasons you state.

On tidal energy the loss of wildlife is a major issue, but also one that can be dealt with. It all depends on the depth of water the turbines are placed at, and research is being done on this. It's more of a teething problem than a threat to the viability of tidal.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



You're going on ignore real soon Pal.. I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION with not one or two weak assertions -- but I MURDERED you with MANY cogent facts --- and you are deflective, unresponsive and close-minded enough to pretend you might win this one..


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

Flac - 

Let's try this again: 

Do any non-renewable forms of energy production have severe envionrmental impacts?

How would you compare the potential environmetal impact of tidal with, say, coal or the use of fracking to extract natural gas?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Flac -
> 
> Let's try this again:
> 
> ...


1) Cost/benefit analysis.

2) Tradeoffs.

3) Potential externalities (real ones, not the fake scare stories fabricated by the anti-fracking whacks).

Three concepts that seem to be entirely alien to the enviroloon and "renewable energy" crowd.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2013)

BTW: the Enviro-Tools are too dense to realize this -- but Geothermal energy is where we LEARNED how to frack.... It's the original fracking operation.... 


Mental Midgets... THey don't realize how stupid they look to folks who are informed...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the science is settled, the politics are not. There is still white noise in the background from those who would prefer that greenhouse gasses didn't exist. 

They are entitled to their fond wishes but GHGs don't care in the least what they want. They just keep absorbing longwave from the earth, and re-radiating it in all directions.

AGW is a fact. Science recognizes it as so. Some politicians and their supporters are wishing that it would go away. It won't as long as we keep burning fossil fuels. And it will continue to keep imposing the science understood consequences on mankind. 

Time to look at economics. They make the choice of ignoring science the most expensive option. End of story.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> BTW: the Enviro-Tools are too dense to realize this -- but Geothermal energy is where we LEARNED how to frack.... It's the original fracking operation....
> 
> 
> Mental Midgets... THey don't realize how stupid they look to folks who are informed...



And yet only two countries have ever introduced large-scale geo-thermal energy, and another two have smaller scale operations. 

I'm not sure where a country like England "learned to frack" from geo-thermal when they have never used it. 

I'm not totally opposed to fracking - but no sensible person is going to complain about the environmental impact of wind, solar or tidal and then pretend natural gas does not have potentially much more serious impacts.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > BTW: the Enviro-Tools are too dense to realize this -- but Geothermal energy is where we LEARNED how to frack.... It's the original fracking operation....
> ...



Depends on what you consider "large-scale".. New Zealand has a track record, so does Iceland and the US as you mentioned. It's on the list of alternatives everytime an eco-naut is asked what do we do without fossil fuels. And that's the point. A large fraction of that list is challenged even by other Green Groups.. 

Don't know how you confused England with my comment about fracking. It was largely learned here in attempts to get higher yield from geothermal mines. 

I will complain about tidal and geothermal and biomass. They are all very marginal and environmentally BAD ideas that have been tolerated WAAAAAY too long on the Green list of alternatives.. I MIGHT even add Hydro to that in the respect that we have overbuilt what is needed for water storage and flood control.. Lots of enviro impacts there and Hydro currently produces the MAJORITY CHUNK of what is considered "sustainable".. 

1/2 the greenies in the country want to tear THEM down as well...


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > BTW: the Enviro-Tools are too dense to realize this -- but Geothermal energy is where we LEARNED how to frack.... It's the original fracking operation....
> ...






Fracking has been around for over 30 years.  Amazingly enough oil companies share info.

I find it amusing you argue "potential" environmental effects of fracking (when there have been none documented in over 30 years) while blissfully ignoring the very real environmental catastrophe that are wind farms every minute they operate.  Your whole viewpoint is so skewed it is amazing.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 21, 2013)

> Depends on what you consider "large-scale".. New Zealand has a track record, so does Iceland and the US as you mentioned. It's on the list of alternatives everytime an eco-naut is asked what do we do without fossil fuels. And that's the point. A large fraction of that list is challenged even by other Green Groups..



New Zealand has a single plant at Waireki, the main impact of which has been to reduce thermal acitivity at tourist resorts in the region, to the extent that local residents have had to stop using bores for their own use.

One report some years back estimated that the plant lost some 90% of the available energy, because the technology is inadequate.

It may be viable in four or five countries, but only in four or five countries. The US maybe one of those, but if it means the end of Yellowstone NP, I doubt it is going to be popular. 

I have no idea why you think tidal is "marginal" - one pilot scheme (in New Zealand again, funnily enough) estimated that in optimal conditions, a single project could produce 1.5 times the energy need of the entire country. 

In other words, a single project in some US states could theoretically power the entire state.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Would you have any links on the "environmental catastrophe that are wind farms" ?
Other than being a threat to birds I don't know how else they can become a catastrophe ...  I can't say the same about deep oil drilling though ( fracking seems clean in comparision).


----------



## Saigon (Jun 21, 2013)

Wall of Spam - 



> "potential" environmental effects of fracking (when *there have been none documented in over 30 years)*



An investigation is underway into why a natural gas well in Wyoming County began spewing highly pressurized fracking wastewater for hours last week.

More than a quarter million gallons came out of the well before it was successfully capped.

After Fracking Wastewater Spill, Residents and Regulators Believe Water is Safe | StateImpact Pennsylvania


----------



## editec (Jun 21, 2013)

SDAG 1998 Field Trip - Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Depends on what you consider "large-scale".. New Zealand has a track record, so does Iceland and the US as you mentioned. It's on the list of alternatives everytime an eco-naut is asked what do we do without fossil fuels. And that's the point. A large fraction of that list is challenged even by other Green Groups..
> 
> 
> 
> ...









  Dude your comprehension of scientific matters is low, I mean low.  New Zealand's population is 3 million, all in a country that stretches from effectively Vancouver BC to San Diego CA, and is 60 miles wide.

The population of JUST Oregon is just shy of 4 million.  California has a population of 38 million, and Washington a population of close to 7 million.  Your little dream might work for a single small state like Rhode Island but you have a sense of scale like the German generals looking at a map of Russia and saying "see, it's only a meter from here to here...."


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...









You piss all over yourself when an oil spill kills a few hundred birds and yet the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands by windfarms sails blissfully over your head.  You are correctly named....closed is an apt description.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Wall of Spam -
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Known Liar-


Yeah?  So?  What happened?  The Earth naturally spews out orders of magnitude more crud than that...every day...   How many hundreds of thousands of birds were killed?  How many hundreds of thousands of bugs were killed?  Once again your grasp of reality is called into question.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Would you have any links on the "environmental catastrophe that are wind farms" ?
> Other than being a threat to birds I don't know how else they can become a catastrophe ...  I can't say the same about deep oil drilling though ( fracking seems clean in comparision).



"other than being a threat to birds"....you don't consider decimating raptor populations as well as migratory bird and bat populations an environmental disaster enough? 

Then there is the fact that winfarms are a particularly ugly blight on large parcels of land and health problems are arising associated with living near them.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 21, 2013)

"Decimating"?

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ... just more of the usual panic and hysterical exaggerations that define the denialist crowd.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Depends on what you consider "large-scale".. New Zealand has a track record, so does Iceland and the US as you mentioned. It's on the list of alternatives everytime an eco-naut is asked what do we do without fossil fuels. And that's the point. A large fraction of that list is challenged even by other Green Groups..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So Al Gore was wrong about how "all we need to do is tap down into the Earth where the temperature is MILLIONS of degrees"?  Why the hell is it part of the litany of ALTERNATIVES then when it's obviously so marginally fieldable and not at all "green"??

Will you ridicule it next time some ECO-FRAUD is out selling that huge list of "alternatives"?
Probably not.. 

There is not a lot of back-up for the statement that tidal could power a whole state. Not without making 18 species of sea life nearly extinct, and being constantly in a state of maintenance, like ANYTHING that is placed on the sea bottom.

You've got 2 maybe 3 actually viable prototypes running in the world right now -- and I've YET TO SEE any MEASURED production charts from them..


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> "Decimating"?
> 
> Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ... just more of the usual panic and hysterical exaggerations that define the denialist crowd.









What was that admiral?  The slaughter of 400,000+ birds per year is A-OK with you so long as it's a windmill doing it but if a oil spill kills 300 that company needs to be punished?

Your head truly is in rectal defilade...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> The slaughter of 400,000+ birds per year is A-OK with you so long as it's a windmill doing it but if a oil spill kills 300 that company needs to be punished?



Hey, keep your weirdo fantasies about mass bird killing to yourself. Don't be projecting them on to sane people. I can't help what you believe, but don't pretend I believe it.

By the way, do you agree with SSDD's claim that windmills kill 90% of all raptors? You'd think someone would have noticed such a decline.

(The modern usage of "decimate" refers to killing 90%. The original Roman version was killing 10%, but modern English reverses that to 90%.)


----------



## Trakar (Jun 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The slaughter of 400,000+ birds per year is A-OK with you so long as it's a windmill doing it but if a oil spill kills 300 that company needs to be punished?
> ...


 
Causes of Bird Mortality
Causes of Bird Mortality « Sibley Guides

Some new studies are suggesting that cats both domestic and feral have been greatly more devastating to bird populations in the US than is estimated in earlier studies like the above.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n1/full/ncomms2380.html


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 21, 2013)

Trakar said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





Oh GAWD!!!


What the fuck happens to people like that........ obsess about shit nobody else gives a rats ass about.

Fascinating.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 21, 2013)

Trakar said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



We did this one TWICE in the past year.. (pretty sure).. The real masses of victims are not birds ---- but bats.. They seem attracted to the fans and the sound pressure alone crushes their little hearts as they fly even NEAR the blades..

Not surprised the cat doesn't care about a few birds getting blended..


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 21, 2013)

Crushing cute bats?

That is down right cruel.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> We did this one TWICE in the past year.. (pretty sure)..


 
Sounds about right, all the references are in my current file (random handful

http://www.cse.org.uk/downloads/file/common_concerns_about_wind_power.pdf

Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC)

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1029-1042.pdf

http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/271/Mensing.pdf


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

Have you ever noticed the double standard with these so called environmentalists?  The reality is they could care less about the environment, they care about power.  The proof of this is demonstrated by dear old trakar here who will forgive any number of bird and bat kills to further his political goal.



"Dead bats are turning up beneath wind turbines all over the world. Bat fatalities have now been documented at nearly every wind facility in North America where adequate surveys for bats have been conducted, and several of these sites are estimated to cause the deaths of thousands of bats per year. This unanticipated and unprecedented problem for bats has moved to the forefront of conservation and management efforts directed toward this poorly understood group of mammals. The mystery of why bats die at turbine sites remains unsolved. Is it a simple case of flying in the wrong place at the wrong time? Are bats attracted to the spinning turbine blades? Why are so many bats colliding with turbines compared to their infrequent crashes with other tall, human-made structures?"

Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines: Investigating the Causes and Consequences


"Researchers at the University of Calgary found that the vast majority of bats found dead at a wind farm in Southwest Alberta suffered severe injuries to their respiratory systems consistent with a sudden drop in air pressure  called barotrauma.1 The findings, published in the most recent issue of the journal Current Biology could potentially have far-reaching consequences on bat populations."

Study Finds Wind Turbines Killing Bats Without Even Hitting Them | CleanTechnica

There is concern for a number of other bat species as well. The Eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) is a state threatened species in Pennsylvania that no summer studies have focused on. In 2003 three bats of this type in New Hampshire were shown to make extensive use of ridge tops for foraging and roosting during a significant portion of the night. Also of concern is the large number of red bats (Lasiurus borealis), hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus), and tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) reported dead at wind farm facilities in West Virginia. It is difficult to gauge the vitality of these elusive species. Without any realistic solution for minimizing impacts to migratory animals, an increase of wind plants in the future will contribute to their decline.

Indiana Bats and Wind Farms

Driving a species to extinction for a political goal is evil personified....


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

Flac - 

And yet you still have not answered my question about the environmental problems with traditional forms of energy production. 

It is one thing to rightly point out the issues with hydro or tidal - another to keep dodging the much more severe problems with coal or even nuclear.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Flac -
> 
> And yet you still have not answered my question about the environmental problems with traditional forms of energy production.
> 
> It is one thing to rightly point out the issues with hydro or tidal - another to keep dodging the much more severe problems with coal or even nuclear.








Windfarms kill orders of magnitude more every year than all the critter deaths caused by big oil for it's whole history.  When are you going to address that?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Have you ever noticed the double standard with these so called environmentalists? The reality is they could care less about the environment, they care about power. The proof of this is demonstrated by dear old trakar here who will forgive any number of bird and bat kills to further his political goal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
None of these links provide anything contradictory to the links I gave which explain these issues in detail, the proper quantification of these impacts and the steps already in place to address these issues and minimize their environmental impacts,...even when such wild-life casualties were a more serious issue the kill rates for wind turbines was still much lower than the kill rates of other human impacts and sources of energy.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever noticed the double standard with these so called environmentalists? The reality is they could care less about the environment, they care about power. The proof of this is demonstrated by dear old trakar here who will forgive any number of bird and bat kills to further his political goal.
> ...







Please give us a total animal kill for all of the oil spills over the last 50 years.  And please provide links.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

I think it's fairly clear to any honest person that the issues with wind and tidal and wildlife are more teething problems than anything game changing. 

With tidal I understand the issues are close to being resolved, and also with wind there are few problems in areas that do not have majaor bat populations.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 22, 2013)

westwall said:


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


 
Are oil spills the only form of harm that fossil fuel energy sources display with regard to environmental impact? What about soot, sulfur emissions, CO2 (per USSC ruling), radionuclides, etc.,. 

Here are a few (of many) comparisons, for those that might actually be interested in the subject:

The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power by Benjamin K. Sovacool :: SSRN

Wildlife and pollution - MarineBio.org

www.napa.vn

Many more available for the interested.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Wall of Spam -
> ...




Wall of Spam - 

I think the honest response from you here would have been "I am wrong about their not having been any major environmental problems with fracking - my mistake". 

And you wonder why so many posters ignore you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Flac -
> ...



Why should anyone try to address that stupidity?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2013)

I'm seeing some record fast backpedaling on the "wind farms decimate raptors!" stupidity. Same old story. Denialists spout hysterical crap, get called on it, and so spout more crap as a smokescreen to cover their retreat.

Oh, the cat/bird studies are some major junk science, making wild claims about each cat killing hundreds of birds each year. They list tallies of _billions_ of birds killed each year, something like about half the total bird population of North America. Yes, supposedly around half of the birds in the USA are eaten by cats each year. It's just crazy.

See, birds fly. That makes them really hard for a cat to catch. Oh, the cats try, but rarely succeed, and usually end up having to eat grasshoppers and cicadas. My cat tries her best to get those birds, and gets about 2 a year. And those are worthless invasive house sparrows, the killing of which is a good thing.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Flac -
> 
> And yet you still have not answered my question about the environmental problems with traditional forms of energy production.
> 
> It is one thing to rightly point out the issues with hydro or tidal - another to keep dodging the much more severe problems with coal or even nuclear.



You have been badgering me and trolling me incessantly here.. I went LAST on this arc.. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7413787-post118.html

Not even interested in being cross-examined by someone who trolls and ignores others..

BTW: when you quote me.. DON"T EDIT THE QUOTE.. *Makes it look like YOURE DOING MORE WORK, then you really are.*.. 
And that's another dishonest practice you have here..


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I think it's fairly clear to any honest person that the issues with wind and tidal and wildlife are more teething problems than anything game changing.
> 
> With tidal I understand the issues are close to being resolved, and also with wind there are few problems in areas that do not have majaor bat populations.








You are batshit fucking crazy if you think that.  Windmills, in a SINGLE year have killed more animals than ALL OF THE MAN MADE  OIL SPILLS EVER!  And you think it's a teething problem....

You are not interested in saving anything except your collectivist state.  YOU are only interested in who you can control.


You have now proven beyond doubt that you too are nothing more than a troll.  A mindless internet twerp with no fucking brains, just a MS DOS program that you run whenever your controller presses the ENTER key.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...






Prove me wrong asshat.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I'm seeing some record fast backpedaling on the "wind farms decimate raptors!" stupidity. Same old story. Denialists spout hysterical crap, get called on it, and so spout more crap as a smokescreen to cover their retreat.
> 
> Oh, the cat/bird studies are some major junk science, making wild claims about each cat killing hundreds of birds each year. They list tallies of _billions_ of birds killed each year, something like about half the total bird population of North America. Yes, supposedly around half of the birds in the USA are eaten by cats each year. It's just crazy.
> 
> See, birds fly. That makes them really hard for a cat to catch. Oh, the cats try, but rarely succeed, and usually end up having to eat grasshoppers and cicadas. My cat tries her best to get those birds, and gets about 2 a year. And those are worthless invasive house sparrows, the killing of which is a good thing.










Nobody has backtracked anything asshat.  Keep on dreaming your little dream.

EDIT:  Actually, check that...the WARMISTS have backtracked a whole bunch lately.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it!


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Flac -
> ...








saggy is a lying troll of the first order.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 22, 2013)

Global warming is a global scam, perpetrated by the so-called global elite which is then packaged and delivered by their poster boy Al Gore, and sold to all the gullible people around the world.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I'm seeing some record fast backpedaling on the "wind farms decimate raptors!" stupidity. Same old story. Denialists spout hysterical crap, get called on it, and so spout more crap as a smokescreen to cover their retreat.
> 
> Oh, the cat/bird studies are some major junk science, making wild claims about each cat killing hundreds of birds each year. They list tallies of _billions_ of birds killed each year, something like about half the total bird population of North America. Yes, supposedly around half of the birds in the USA are eaten by cats each year. It's just crazy.
> 
> See, birds fly. That makes them really hard for a cat to catch. Oh, the cats try, but rarely succeed, and usually end up having to eat grasshoppers and cicadas. My cat tries her best to get those birds, and gets about 2 a year. And those are worthless invasive house sparrows, the killing of which is a good thing.


 
Perhaps your anecdotal experience merely reflects a cat which is an incompetent killer, or much better at concealing its kills than you suspect; regardless, personal dislike or incredulity is not an appropriate measure of scientific validity and certainly insufficient to assess "junk" from "meritorious" science:

http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/live/ec1781/build/ec1781.pdf

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n1/full/ncomms2380.html


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I'm seeing some record fast backpedaling on the "wind farms decimate raptors!" stupidity. Same old story. Denialists spout hysterical crap, get called on it, and so spout more crap as a smokescreen to cover their retreat.
> 
> Oh, the cat/bird studies are some major junk science, making wild claims about each cat killing hundreds of birds each year. They list tallies of _billions_ of birds killed each year, something like about half the total bird population of North America. Yes, supposedly around half of the birds in the USA are eaten by cats each year. It's just crazy.
> 
> See, birds fly. That makes them really hard for a cat to catch. Oh, the cats try, but rarely succeed, and usually end up having to eat grasshoppers and cicadas. My cat tries her best to get those birds, and gets about 2 a year. And those are worthless invasive house sparrows, the killing of which is a good thing.



Scratch an enviro-nut -- find a feral cat justifying random sport killing of "worthless" birds.



> http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...amont_pass/pdfs/2-17-05-press-release-rrw.pdf
> 
> 
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 17, 2005
> ...



10s of thousands --- ONE WIND FARM.. In violation of 4 or 6 laws.. 

But it's a CLEAN kill... Hypocrits....


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 22, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> Global warming is a global scam, perpetrated by the so-called global elite which is then packaged and delivered by their poster boy Al Gore, and sold to all the gullible people around the world.



Any link to support your claim? so far, at least by the evidence provided in this thread global warming seems very real. 

That such global waring is produced by man or that it can be controlled by changing our way of producing energy is still VERY debatable. The warming itself ... not really. But then again , feel free to post your links . I'm sure they will be very interesting.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 22, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is a global scam, perpetrated by the so-called global elite which is then packaged and delivered by their poster boy Al Gore, and sold to all the gullible people around the world.
> ...



If it WAS real AND caused by CO2 -- we know how to fix it without bringing the civilized societies to their knees. Don't have to write $Bill checks to pacific islands, don't HAVE to lie and scare folks like Al Gore does. 

About 100 nuclear plants  (60 just to replace the old ones) would be a great start for doing OUR part. 

*Which is this country more frightened of ?? the "problem"?  Or that viable solution ?*

You could ALSO close the coal plants, tear down the dams and free the salmon, give a finger to the Middle East when we have to capacity to power our transport sector on nuclear made hydrogen, AND (according to you) save the planet from a fatal "fever".

Instead -- we're dicking around with sketchy energy supplements that either take the night and most of the rainy season off or are only available on Tues, Thurs and Friday.

THAT'S what makes it APPEAR to be a scam.. Because instead of engineering our way out of it. The Church of Global Warming is planning Global Redistribution, punishing taxation, reduction in consumption, and all those other "sustainable" items on the agenda.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Flac -
> ...



I'm still not seeing an answer there. 

I'm always baffled by posters who will repeat ad nauseum "I've already answered that" when in a split second they could either provide the post # or simply C&P their own post. 

When you are prepared to look at the environmental impact of all energy forms equaly and objectively, this may be a more interesting discussion.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 23, 2013)

Trakar said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > I'm seeing some record fast backpedaling on the "wind farms decimate raptors!" stupidity. Same old story. Denialists spout hysterical crap, get called on it, and so spout more crap as a smokescreen to cover their retreat.
> ...


 
BTW the "1.43.7 billion birds" mentioned in the second study actually amount to around 3% of the U.S. bird population. Which is reasonable for predation by an invasive predatory species with a population (domestic and feral) of around 100 million or so spread throughout the US.


----------



## Gracie (Jun 23, 2013)

> What are your point of views regarding global warming?
> Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?



My OPINION is we are experiencing a major problem with global warming but most are too afraid to admit it and want to keep their heads in the sand. If they don't acknowledge it, it might go away syndrome. Yeah yeah yeah...the earth has gone thru phases like this before. But "before" there were not billions of people ON the earth raping it.

Done. No use arguing over it. Only makes me stressed out, makes my visits online not very fun and why bother to talk to brick walls?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



U attack me one more time and we're done. You will be filtered out of my conciousness with a single click. 

What part of  ----- 



> There is not a lot of back-up for the statement that tidal could power a whole state. Not without making 18 species of sea life nearly extinct, and being constantly in a state of maintenance, like ANYTHING that is placed on the sea bottom.
> 
> You've got 2 maybe 3 actually viable prototypes running in the world right now -- and I've YET TO SEE any MEASURED production charts from them..



  --------- did you not feel able to address? Do you ever WORK on these threads? 

*Go get me a production chart for a tidal prototype that LOOKS like it could power an entire state without creating 10 or 12 extinct local species... *

Last chance man.. I'm down to ZERO patience with you.. 

WORK DAMMIT -- and not just your MOUTH.....


----------



## Saigon (Jun 23, 2013)

Flac -

Attack you? Where have I ever attacked you on this board?

All I have asked you to do is to address the environmental impacts of TRADITIONAL forms of energy production, as in non-renewables. 

I have yet to see a response.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > I'm seeing some record fast backpedaling on the "wind farms decimate raptors!" stupidity. Same old story. Denialists spout hysterical crap, get called on it, and so spout more crap as a smokescreen to cover their retreat.
> ...


 
Allegations and the filing of legal suits is one thing, but I really didn't understand why you merely posted a decade old ruling allowing a private lawsuit to go forward, instead of the supporting evidences upon which the filing was based or more compelling to your argument, the final ruling and legal findings of the lawsuit as it was settled. That curiosity was sort lived:

"The court concluded that CDB was attempting to challenge the authorization to operate wind turbines granted by the county without bringing an action against the county. Given the impact that a ruling on the merits could have on the ability of the county to accomplish its policy objectives, and the potential for the pronouncement of inconsistent standards and conditions for the operation of the turbines, the county unquestionably was a necessary party to the action.
Since the proper method of challenging the issuance of conditional use permits was by writ of administrative mandate, the time for filing of which had long passed, it was now too late for an action against the county to set aside the conditional use permits that already were issued. The dismissal of the action, therefore, also could be justified by the absence of a necessary and indispensable party.
The court noted in closing that the responsible public agencies had not ignored the effects of the wind turbines operating in Altamont Pass, and that they were seeking to mitigate the harm to birdlife by imposing conditions and restrictions on the operation of the turbines. Any challenge to the adequacy of the measures being taken had to be addressed in an appropriate manner to the agencies that were responsible for regulating those activities. Thus the trial court properly dismissed the action, although its holding in doing so was overly broad."

Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc.

But then, I guess that information was, once again, counter-productive to the narrative and message you were attempting to promote,...seems to be a theme you have developed.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I think it is not just the source of energy which matters but also how efficiently we use that energy. I waste very little energy at home : about 80 kwh per month. But the energy hog in my household is my car : I need 20 gallons of gasoline every month. I think my next car will be a hybrid which will help me cut that amount almost by half. If wikispeed's price goes down a 20% more in the next two years ( and there's a model with a ceiling), I am planning buying one , then the amount of gasoline I use will go down to 1/3 and I will only use 7 gallons of gasoline per month. So there's more than one way of going green.

http://www.wikispeed.com/wikispeed-team-blog/wikispeed-qna-with-le-temps


----------



## Trakar (Jun 23, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> I think it is not just the source of energy which matters but also how efficiently we use that energy. I waste very little energy at home : about 80 kwh per month. But the energy hog in my household is my car : I need 20 gallons of gasoline every month. I think my next car will be a hybrid which will help me cut that amount almost by half. If wikispeed's price goes down a 20% more in the next two years ( and there's a model with a ceiling), I am planning buying one , then the amount of gasoline I use will go down to 1/3 and I will only use 7 gallons of gasoline per month. So there's more than one way of going green.
> 
> WIKISPEED - WIKISPEED QnA with LE TEMPS


 
Very sound and well-reasoned comment (and actions).


----------



## Trakar (Jun 23, 2013)

Gracie said:


> > What are your point of views regarding global warming?
> > Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?
> 
> 
> ...


 
I can empathize with those feelings, my primary purpose in posting to boards like this isn't to try and convince the bricks of anything, it is to provide information and understanding to those board participants and passerbys who may not be aware of the nature of the mainstream science perspective on a lot of issues related to climate change and AGW.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 23, 2013)

Gracie said:


> > What are your point of views regarding global warming?
> > Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?
> 
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more, and I would agree that there is limited value in debating this topic with people who often do not believe their own argumentation and posts (Does Westwall really believe there has never been a fracking accident, or that windmills kill more birds than oil ever has?), but at the same time - there is a lot of humour to be found in these threads.

Where else do we see people claim to know about physics than Stephen Hawking?!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2013)

There are still a lot of people out there who are not aware of the problems developing from the warming. That do not realize how 'extreme' extreme weather can be. And all too many have only heard the message of the right wing nuts on the radio concerning the effects of GHGs.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> I think it is not just the source of energy which matters but also how efficiently we use that energy. I waste very little energy at home : about 80 kwh per month. But the energy hog in my household is my car : I need 20 gallons of gasoline every month. I think my next car will be a hybrid which will help me cut that amount almost by half. If wikispeed's price goes down a 20% more in the next two years ( and there's a model with a ceiling), I am planning buying one , then the amount of gasoline I use will go down to 1/3 and I will only use 7 gallons of gasoline per month. So there's more than one way of going green.
> 
> WIKISPEED - WIKISPEED QnA with LE TEMPS



Those are the kinds of market driven actions that will decide the outcome here. But for your economic votes to matter, they have to be INFORMED votes. Those informed economic votes drive the progress of the market directly to satifaction.. Uniformed votes?? We wander in the desert for 40 yrs living on Manna from Washington D.C.

Which is pretty descriptive of our energy policies over the past 20 years. We're circling in the desert, because there's this "sustainable" movement that flaunts a long list of flawed "alternatives" where NONE of them is a 24/7/365 source of environmentally sound electricity. And now there is "Big Solar" and "Big Wind" and $BILLS a year in subsidies and grants and tax breaks driving a markets that will not SUSTAIN without massive aid. And when Big Wind/Solar fall short --- The "LIST" is pulled out again to show how many false choices are still available.. 

And the costs to the ratepayers for funding both THESE and real RELIABLE back-ups or inefficient storage fixes will POISON future corrected uses of these technologies.. All because of hype and misrepresentation.. 

And that's why, as an environmentalist, I've got a motivation to speak out..


----------



## Trakar (Jun 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is not just the source of energy which matters but also how efficiently we use that energy. I waste very little energy at home : about 80 kwh per month. But the energy hog in my household is my car : I need 20 gallons of gasoline every month. I think my next car will be a hybrid which will help me cut that amount almost by half. If wikispeed's price goes down a 20% more in the next two years ( and there's a model with a ceiling), I am planning buying one , then the amount of gasoline I use will go down to 1/3 and I will only use 7 gallons of gasoline per month. So there's more than one way of going green.
> ...


 
These are your political/ideological beliefs to compellingly support. Attacking others and using pseudoscience argument do not amount to compelling support for anything you state above.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

Gracie said:


> My OPINION is we are experiencing a major problem with global warming but most are too afraid to admit it and want to keep their heads in the sand. If they don't acknowledge it, it might go away syndrome. Yeah yeah yeah...the earth has gone thru phases like this before. But "before" there were not billions of people ON the earth raping it.



Are experiencing?  Name some major problem that we are experiencing that is the direct result of a fraction of a degree of warming over the past 100 years.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

Some people have been told, and do not choose to invest in research to know any differently, that we are entitled to live the life that we want, with no consequences. That God or Ma Nature or Providence, favors humans. 

Of course that is wrong. The universe in no way accommodates us. The laws of physics give humans specifically, and life in general, no quarter. Everybody follows the laws that have been discovered by science or pays the consequences. 

There are now enough of us to impact our world. Enough to matter. 

We have now reached critical mass where we must consider our impact or those who follow us will pay the price. 

Can we? Will we? 

Some have already decided no. They will live their life and if there's a price to pay, someone following will. 

Some have already decided that future generations are as deserving as we are. It is our obligation to consider our impact on them.

Which are you?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > My OPINION is we are experiencing a major problem with global warming but most are too afraid to admit it and want to keep their heads in the sand. If they don't acknowledge it, it might go away syndrome. Yeah yeah yeah...the earth has gone thru phases like this before. But "before" there were not billions of people ON the earth raping it.
> ...



More tornados. More urban coastal flooding.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > My OPINION is we are experiencing a major problem with global warming but most are too afraid to admit it and want to keep their heads in the sand. If they don't acknowledge it, it might go away syndrome. Yeah yeah yeah...the earth has gone thru phases like this before. But "before" there were not billions of people ON the earth raping it.
> ...



1)Katrina,
2) Sandy and a Big drought in central US during 2012. = 100 billion

Hurricane Sandy, drought cost U.S. $100 billion

That's about the whole government spending in education
Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2013 - Charts

As I said before : if we can't controll it we better get prepeared for what's comming. Closing our eyes and denying warming won't help.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...








But, in actual fact there are FEWER tornado's and no coastal flooding that can be attributed to climate change at all....In fact the people who research these things are calling it the "tornado doldrums".








Die große Tornadoflaute: Kein Zusammenhang zwischen Klimawandel und Tornadohäufigkeit | Die kalte Sonne


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...








Yes preparedness is essential.  Of course there were many other storms in the recent past that were worse than Sandy so that just reinforces the need to be better prepared all the way around.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 24, 2013)

```

```



westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Most people believe the evidence of their senses and the news. You only the denial of your ego. That's why you've been left behind. 

Don't worry. As I said yesterday, the strong always carry the weak. The informed, the ignorant. The doers, the risk avoiders. 

We aren't going to put our home at risk because people have monsters in their closets.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Some people have been told, and do not choose to invest in research to know any differently, that we are entitled to live the life that we want, with no consequences. That God or Ma Nature or Providence, favors humans.
> 
> Of course that is wrong. The universe in no way accommodates us. The laws of physics give humans specifically, and life in general, no quarter. Everybody follows the laws that have been discovered by science or pays the consequences.
> 
> ...



The challenge was to name something that is happening due to the fraction of a degree of warming that has happened.  You spew platitudes.  Can you name any actual things that are happening that can be directly attributed to the minute amount of warming that has happened or not....My bet is not.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...



The fact is that there are fewer tornados and who is experiencing more coastal flooding and precisely why?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 24, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is not just the source of energy which matters but also how efficiently we use that energy. I waste very little energy at home : about 80 kwh per month. But the energy hog in my household is my car : I need 20 gallons of gasoline every month. I think my next car will be a hybrid which will help me cut that amount almost by half. If wikispeed's price goes down a 20% more in the next two years ( and there's a model with a ceiling), I am planning buying one , then the amount of gasoline I use will go down to 1/3 and I will only use 7 gallons of gasoline per month. So there's more than one way of going green.
> ...



"where NONE of them is a 24/7/365 source of environmentally sound electricity"

True. So what.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> 1)Katrina,



Was katrina a uniquely large and powerful hurricane, or did it happen to land on an area that was uniquely unprepared for such a storm?



CultureCitizen said:


> 2) Sandy and a Big drought in central US during 2012. = 100 billion



Sandy was a tropical storm within minutes of hitting the coast...it certainly wasn't the most powerful hurricaine to ever hit that area...the challenge is to name something that can be attributed directly to the fraction of a degree of warming in the past century.  You are naming things that have always happened and to a greater degree back when CO2 was at "safe" levels.

And the drought?  Do you think it is worse than earlier droughts?  The research says that droughts are becoming less intense and lasting a shorter time than they did back when the world was cooler.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Most people believe the evidence of their senses and the news. You only the denial of your ego. That's why you've been left behind.



You clearly haven't been looking at the news.  Try it some time.  Get out of your model induced fantasy and take a look around.  The actual world is quite different from that depected by failing climate models.

Weather Trends Show Fewer Tornadoes - abc27 WHTM
The upside of the recent drought? Fewer tornadoes | Chasing the Drought Extra | KansasCity.com
Fewer Tornadoes in Illinois so far for 2013 | WSIU
Weather Trends Show Fewer Tornadoes - KTUL.com - Tulsa, Oklahoma - News, Weather & Sports
2012 could break record for fewest tornadoes | Fox News
Fewer Than Normal Tornadoes So Far in 2013 - KTEN.com - No One Gets You Closer
Iowa on Pace for Slowest Tornado Year in 5 Decades - weather.com


----------



## PMZ (Jun 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Most people believe the evidence of their senses and the news. You only the denial of your ego. That's why you've been left behind.
> ...



I know that your main contribution here is to find statistics that are meant to deny the obvious, but all of the big picture data still says that you continue to be denied what you wish was true. 


Tornadoes of 2013 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I know that your main contribution here is to find statistics that are meant to deny the obvious, but all of the big picture data still says that you continue to be denied what you wish was true.
> 
> 
> Tornadoes of 2013 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



 Maybe you didn't notice the graph from NOAA that clearly shows that the number of tornadoes here is considerably less than normal...not even in the 25th percentile.  Maybe you just don't know how to read a graph.


----------



## westwall (Jun 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I know that your main contribution here is to find statistics that are meant to deny the obvious, but all of the big picture data still says that you continue to be denied what you wish was true.
> ...








I told you he's a troll.  There are a bunch of them so I am monitoring but otherwise ignoring their collective posts, I think it's just one ididot but who knows.  They are as unethical as they come so attempting to debate them is useless.  Best to concentrate on those who are at least authentic people.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> I told you he's a troll.  There are a bunch of them so I am monitoring but otherwise ignoring their collective posts, I think it's just one ididot but who knows.  They are as unethical as they come so attempting to debate them is useless.  Best to concentrate on those who are at least authentic people.



Are any of them authentic people?  I know lots of people of all political stripes,  but in all my life I haven't met any that are actually "like" these warmer muppets we have around here.  These are the least authentic people I have ever run across in my life.  I know you can only be so authentic when you are just words on a page, but even words on a page project a personality of sorts and these warmer sorts on this board don't project anything but tight assed frustration and hate.  Hardly the attributes of authentic people.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2013)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



That all ya got?? No pseudoscience needed to impeach the downright fraud of the "alternative list".. THere's stuff on it that even the Sierra Club is against. And only 2 entries on that list even capable of providing SUPPLEMENTARY electrical power.. 

(Not counting hydro -- which is an example of crap that makes the list that even the Enviros aren't fond of.. Cali for instance BRAGS about it renewable portfolio. But last time I checked over 60% of that was hydro older than John McCain)


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 24, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is a global scam, perpetrated by the so-called global elite which is then packaged and delivered by their poster boy Al Gore, and sold to all the gullible people around the world.
> ...



You want to see a link to support my claim?  How about three links?

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked

Global Warming Hoax Finally Falling Apart

Don&rsquo;t believe the natural global warming stuff; it&rsquo;s global elitesDon&rsquo;t believe the natural global warming stuff; it&rsquo;s global elites

The two main points of what Global Warming / Climate Change is really about is money and to de-industrialize the world.  Like I said before, Global Warming is a Global Scam.


----------



## Rozman (Jun 24, 2013)

I am all for getting away from having to buy all our oil from the Mid east.
So why are Democrats against us drilling for as much oil as we can here?...

They are shoving this green energy down our throats like Obama Care?
Why is that?....


----------



## Rozman (Jun 24, 2013)

It would not shock me to find out that Democrats are heavily invested in Green energy.
Al Gore seems to be getting stinking rich off this.
And remember making money is considered evil by the Libs.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 24, 2013)

Rozman said:


> I am all for getting away from having to buy all our oil from the Mid east.
> So why are Democrats against us drilling for as much oil as we can here?...
> 
> They are shoving this green energy down our throats like Obama Care?
> Why is that?....



Democrats will claim they are against us drilling anywhere in America because they believe that it upsets the ecological balance of the environment.  That's just bullshit.

A reason to consider is if we drilled for oil in America, than that would make us more independant as a nation. We wouldn't have to go overseas anymore.   The so-called global elite does not want America or any nation for that matter to be independant, because when a nation is independant, it is also self-preserving, and that is something the so-called global elite is trying to take away.  The global plan once it is locked into place is for all nations to be dependant on one another, and not just oil. 

Why are they shoving this green energy down our throats like Obama Care?  One word.  MONEY.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I know that your main contribution here is to find statistics that are meant to deny the obvious, but all of the big picture data still says that you continue to be denied what you wish was true.
> ...



Are you going to tell the people of Oklahoma City that they're having a great year?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Really? This is all you've got? I expected more.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 24, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Tell us who wins what by de-industrializing the world. Whatever that means. 

I'll tell you who wins by ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW. Big oil. They bought your mind and you never felt a thing sitting there in the Lazy Boy with the brewski, did you. 

Next life pay more attention in school and less to 24/7/365 political advertising. That way you'll be able to contribute to humanity rather than detract.


----------



## gslack (Jun 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I told you he's a troll.  There are a bunch of them so I am monitoring but otherwise ignoring their collective posts, I think it's just one ididot but who knows.  They are as unethical as they come so attempting to debate them is useless.  Best to concentrate on those who are at least authentic people.
> ...



I agree. I come from a rather large family of 13 siblings. We have all types of personalities and political leanings, some I consider extremes and some moderates. Many of the most extreme are from the multitude of nieces, nephews and cousins, while most of my actual siblings are either liberal or progressive. Only a few true conservatives, and only one Rush/Hanity fan. Hell we even have a few 700 club members and some who get all their news from MSNBC and of course it shows.

In all of that mess, I haven't found a single person as completely false as the sock company we have here. Even the most extreme moonbats I know outside my family and friends are more genuine than these people.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 24, 2013)

The legal system decides some things based on the concept of preponderance of evidence. Stronger evidence that this is true, weaker evidence that that is true. 

If we were to turn the existance and consequences of AGW into a trial based on the preponderance of evidence, the outcome would be unequivocal. There really is no evidence supporting the case of it not existing. None. Not a shred. But would that stop a lawyer, being paid enough, to not take that side? Not for a moment. 

If you're being paid enough who cares about right and wrong?

But, what if the consequences of the decision had life and death implications for mankind? Even the shadiest of counselers would give that some thought. 

In real life it is surprisingly easy to get uneducated folks to take that denial position. Lie to them 24/7/365, pat them on the head for not falling for the truth, give them a common enemy to blame, throw in a couple of closet monsters, and they're yours. 

Sad, but true. 

Big tobacco did it for decades with much less compelling advertising. 

Big oil has one objective. Profit from every ounce of oil, plus other fossil fuels, until the last drop is extracted. That won't happen if mankind realizes the cost of disposing of the waste from every one of those drops. So the stakes are huge. Monumental. 

As a business they have one objective. Make more money despite the cost to others. 

You do the math.


----------



## westwall (Jun 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...







You're not worth the time or the effort.  Trolls aren't.  Goodbye troll.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 24, 2013)

gslack said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



If you are a prime example of humanity, I demand a species change.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Goodbye, idiot.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 24, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> You want to see a link to support my claim?  How about three links?
> 
> Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked
> 
> ...



Thanks.

The first link is just a comment on a survey among scientist about their opinion on global warming. Not very usefull . Particularly, because it is on "anthropogenic global warming" . For the purpose of this thread I am just discussing "global warming" . Finding out if such warming is caused by man or not is too polemic.

In the second link the author of the article claims
"Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon."

That's really an interesting statement , though , he did not provide a single reference to proove his claim , so I had to do my own research . 

First I found this article to support his statement:
Global Warming? Temperature Up 'Very Close to Zero' Over 15 Years | CNS News

Then I found this other article which states the temperature rise is hidden below the sea surface.
Warming over the last decade hidden below ocean surface

Your third article... oh , give me a break . Chemtrails ? really ? I can't really take this article seriously.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > You want to see a link to support my claim?  How about three links?
> ...



So it was "hidden below the ocean surface eh?"  Actually -- that's quite plausible.. Whats not plausible is that the climate study community is too stupid to include the thermal time constants of the ocean in their flawed models... 

No excuse for the hype and hysteria based on so little actual rigorous science.. If the projections were for 1degC rise this century (as it probably should be) -- then this whole topic would be a snooze with no real reason to sweat.. But when you INVENT 6degC this century --- you'd better be sure important factors that can cause a 12 year hiatus in warming are part of your modeling..


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Though I do believe global warming is occurring and glaciars continue to melt in spite of the aforementioned hiatus, I have made no such claim as "6degC this century"

For the time being lets just wait how the melting season ends in Greenland, it has a weird behaviour this year. We'll have to wait untill the end of the melting season to see if this year's melting will surpass the record melting from 2012.


----------



## gslack (Jun 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yes a brilliant idea, I'm sure the general intelligence levels of all other baboons will rise with your leaving. And their butts may not be quite so red either...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Compared to the average year, yes.  You made the claim that warming caused MORE tornados.  Even your own source says that claim is false regardless of your self aggrandizing prattle. 

The slight temperature increase has resulted in fewer tornados, shorter and less intense droughts, fewer wildfires, fewer hurricanes, and fewer floods. All exactly the opposite of warmist predictions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2013)

gslack said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Speak for yourself, fruitloop


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2013)

Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2012 | Swiss Re - Leading Global Reinsurer

2012 was dominated by large, weather-related losses in the US. Nine of the ten most expensive insured loss events happened in the US in 2012.[1] The high insurance penetration in North America meant that USD 65 billion, over half of the USD 119 billion in economic losses in the region, were covered by insurance.

Kurt Karl, Swiss Re's Chief Economist, says: "The severe weather-related events in the US provided a reminder of the value of insurance and the vital role it plays in helping individuals, communities and businesses to recover from the devastating effects of catastrophes. However, large parts of the globe that are prone to weather extremes were not able to rely on financial relief due to low insurance penetration."

Hurricane Sandy was the most expensive event for the year both in terms of economic and insured losses. The Hurricane caused an estimated total of USD 70 billion in economic losses, making it the second most damaging hurricane on record after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Insured losses were approximately USD 35 billion, out of which USD 20 to 25 billion were covered by the private insurance market.

The remaining insured losses were incurred by the National Flood Insurance Program. Losses stemmed from the largest ever wind span recorded for a North Atlantic hurricane, and from the ensuing massive storm surge that caused damaging flooding in a densely populated area on the East Coast of the US. It also led to the worst power outage caused by a natural catastrophe in the history of the US. Hurricane Sandy also struck the Caribbean and stretched as far north as Canada, thereby adding to the loss of lives and property.
.....................................................................................................

Highest ever recorded agricultural loss

Record heat and extremely dry weather conditions in the US led to one of the worst droughts in recent decades, affecting more than half of the country. Severe crop failures in the US Corn Belt resulted in insured agricultural losses of USD 11 billion, including pay-outs from the federal Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) assistance program. This makes the 2012 drought the highest ever recorded loss in agriculture insurance. The record drought in the bread basket of the US highlighted the economic importance of insurance, supporting the economic survival of thousands of farmers.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2013)

Crop Loss Fears Lift Agricultural Insurance Take-Up: Swiss Re | PropertyCasualty360

LONDON (Reuters) - Farmers have spent 20 percent more on agricultural insurance in recent years to protect against crop losses from increasingly frequent bad weather events, according to reinsurer Swiss Re.


The rise in extreme weather disasters, such as the widespread drought in the United States last year, has reduced food output at a time when the world's population is expected to grow by a third by 2050, the world's second biggest reinsurer said in a report on Wednesday.

Global agricultural insurers took in $23.5 billion in annual premiums in 2011, up by a fifth from 2005, in a market dominated by emerging countries, Swiss Re said.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Hurricane Sandy was the most expensive event for the year both in terms of economic and insured losses. The Hurricane caused an estimated total of USD 70 billion in economic losses, making it the second most damaging hurricane on record after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Insured losses were approximately USD 35 billion, out of which USD 20 to 25 billion were covered by the private insurance market.



Hurricaine sandy was the hurricane that wasn't.  You guys lose all your credibility calling sandy a superstorm when it barely even reached the level of tropical cyclone when it landed.  The losses were due to a city that has been hit by storms before not being prepared for another one.  Calling sandy a superstorm is nothing more than fear mongering to those who can't be bothered to take the time to actually look up the truth.

And your drought hysterics are no more than that as well.  Actual science, as opposed to the insurance industry says that droughts in this "warmer" world are becoming less intense and shorter in duration...exactly the opposite of what your fear mongering masters have predicted with their failing models.  

It is interesting how you have taken to consulting with the insurance companies regarding climate change...people who stand to make fortunes off threats of even minor bad weather.  It is like asking the tobacco companies to make predictions on the future health of smokers.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Crop Loss Fears Lift Agricultural Insurance Take-Up: Swiss Re | PropertyCasualty360



And there you have it.  An industry that lives on fear using pseudoscience to generate more fear to make more money...and you support them...you worship at their altar.

The irony drips rocks....it literally drips.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

What if global warming isn't as severe as predicted?
By Rebecca Lindsey
August 3, 2010

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in their most recent report that global surface temperature at the end of this century will probably be between 1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius warmer than it was at the end of the last century.

It&#8217;s natural to question whether we and future generations will regret our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if it turns out global warming isn&#8217;t as bad as predicted. But the best science we have to guide us at this time indicates that the chance that warming will be much larger than the best estimate is greater than the chance that it will be much smaller.

Climate scientists know that there is plenty they don&#8217;t know about the way the Earth system works. Some of the physical processes that models describe are thoroughly well-established&#8212;the melting point of ice, for example, and the law of gravity.

Other physical processes are less perfectly known: when the air temperature is not far below 0 Celsius, for example, will water vapor condense into liquid or ice? Either is possible, depending on atmospheric conditions.

To understand how uncertainty about the underlying physics of the climate system affects climate predictions, scientists have a common test: they have a model predict what the average surface temperature would be if carbon dioxide concentrations were to double pre-industrial levels.

They run this simulation thousands of times, each time changing the starting assumptions of one or more processes. When they put all the predictions from these thousands of simulations onto a single graph, what they get is a picture of the most likely outcomes and the least likely outcomes.

The pattern that emerges from these types of tests is interesting. Few of the simulations result in less than 2 degrees of warming&#8212;near the low end of the IPCC estimates&#8212;but some result in significantly more than the 4 degrees at the high end of the IPCC estimates.

This pattern (statisticians call it a &#8220;right-skewed distribution&#8221 suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.

Our ability to predict the future climate is far from certain, but this type of research suggests that the question of whether global warming will turn out to be less severe than scientists think may be less relevant than whether it may be far worse.

Graph of results http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blo...-as-predicted/


----------



## IanC (Jun 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What if global warming isn't as severe as predicted?
> By Rebecca Lindsey
> August 3, 2010
> 
> ...




Climate sensitivity estimates have been falling like a rock recently. The IPCC has already had to print a correction to the AR4 report on them. Many of the models still assume the larger estimates and it shows in their incorrect projections. 

Edit- I retract my claim, at least temporarily, until I can find s link to support it.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hurricane Sandy was the most expensive event for the year both in terms of economic and insured losses. The Hurricane caused an estimated total of USD 70 billion in economic losses, making it the second most damaging hurricane on record after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Insured losses were approximately USD 35 billion, out of which USD 20 to 25 billion were covered by the private insurance market.
> ...



We elect you to tell those affected by Sandy that their damage was all in their minds. 

The Flat Earth Society is not a new thing. Centuries old actually.

Fear mongering, is that what you're doing? Trying to sell the fear of preparing for what science says is coming as overkill? Your fear. Easy to sell to those who don't believe in science, tough to those who do.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What if global warming isn't as severe as predicted?
> ...



You must be way ahead of the Internet.

The only reported AR4 update that the Internet knows about says this.


"This report provides an update of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), focusing on the physical climate system that in the IPCC work is addressed by its Working Group I. The report considers progress in understanding of the human and natural drivers of climate change, climate observations, attribution, key climate feedback, as well as ocean acidification. Recent developments and near future prospects of climate modelling are also discussed in brief. Some of the key findings that the recent literature brings forth include:"

"Parts of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have shown rapid melt over recent years."

"Solar cycle effects on global temperatures are small compared to anthropogenic forcing"

"More emerging research on the "other CO2 problem", ocean acidification
Climate change may have significant effects on natural carbon sinks"

"The report is written by four leading Nordic climate scientists: Markku Rummukainen, Jouni Räisänen, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen and Halldór Björnsson on behalf of the Nordic ad hoc Group on Global Climate Negotiations. The Nordic ad hoc Group on Global Climate Negotiations prepares reports and studies, conducts meetings and organises conferences to support the Nordic negotiators in the UN climate negotiations. The overall aim of the group is to contribute to a global and comprehensive agreement on climate change with ambitious emission reduction commitments."

As IPCC is working on AR5 due out next year, who is updating AR4?


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Crop Loss Fears Lift Agricultural Insurance Take-Up: Swiss Re | PropertyCasualty360
> 
> LONDON (Reuters) - Farmers have spent 20 percent more on agricultural insurance in recent years to protect against crop losses from increasingly frequent bad weather events, according to reinsurer Swiss Re.
> 
> ...








I notice the reports are not corrected for inflation.  Why is that?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Crop Loss Fears Lift Agricultural Insurance Take-Up: Swiss Re | PropertyCasualty360
> ...



If only there was evidence to support what you wish to be true.


----------



## IanC (Jun 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



A quick google has not turned up the link so I will recind my claim. I believe it was about the use of baysian priors or some such thing.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

Here's as good a detailed description of the findings of science that were sufficent evidence to launch the current development/investment cycle of sustainable energy solutions. 

Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my business this is the handoff between research and development. As this will result in the largest project ever taken on by mankind, it will carry on concurrent with the engineering phase of many specific solutions for a few decades. 

The transportation segment is making serious progress but will go through several phases before emerging fully evolved.

For instance in autos we are entering into the hybrid phase which is evolutionary and will significantly cut down on our oil addiction. That will buy time to create the infrastructure for full electric cars. Which will, eventually be supplemented with more mass transit, probably railed, eventually. 

Just an example of many revolutionary things unavoidably down the road.


----------



## gslack (Jun 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's as good a detailed description of the findings of science that were sufficent evidence to launch the current development/investment cycle of sustainable energy solutions.
> 
> Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



It's another one of wikki's many fluff pieces. It simply regurgitates the IPCC claims.. Your business is forum trolling socko, and that's not a scientific or academic field...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's as good a detailed description of the findings of science that were sufficent evidence to launch the current development/investment cycle of sustainable energy solutions.
> ...



I've read many Wikipedia articles and many of your posts. You are not even in the same zip code as their contributers in the fields of science. You are a political hack entertaining yourself with pretensions of relevance. The Homer Simpson of the blogosphere. 

However you are useful as an example of denier ignorance and for that, I thank you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hurricane Sandy was the most expensive event for the year both in terms of economic and insured losses. The Hurricane caused an estimated total of USD 70 billion in economic losses, making it the second most damaging hurricane on record after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Insured losses were approximately USD 35 billion, out of which USD 20 to 25 billion were covered by the private insurance market.
> ...



11 Facts About Hurricane Sandy | Do Something

10 Harrowing Facts About Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey | The Philly Post

6: Number of schools completely destroyed by Sandy

7 million: Number of people left without power

346,000 homes: Damaged or destroyed

185,000: Number of businesses in New Jersey impacted

41,000: Number of families still displaced from their homes

100,000: Number of storm-related unemployment claims

$18 billion: Amount the federal government has kicked in for debris removal

8,000: Estimated number of jobs lost in November because of Sandy

1,400: Number of sunken vessels in the wake of the storm

800,000: Number of daily and public transit customers affected

Swiss Re is a re-insurance company. They insure the insurance companies. But then, I would not expect you to know that.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Here is the definition of the word de-industrialize, that you are obviously too stupid and/or too lazy to look up a word yourself?

de·in·dus·tri·al·ize/&#716;di&#618;n&#712;d&#652;stri&#601;&#716;la&#618;z/ 
Show Spelled [dee-in-duhs-tree-uh-lahyz] 
Show IPA verb, de·in·dus·tri·al·ized, de·in·dus·tri·al·iz·ing.  
verb (used with object) 

1. to cause to lose industrial capability or strength; make less industrial in character or emphasis. 
2. to deprive (a conquered nation) of the means or potential for industrial growth. 
verb (used without object) 
3. to lose industrial capability or character; become deindustrialized. 
Also, de-in·dus·tri·al·ize;, especially British,  de·in·dus·tri·al·ise. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin: 
188085;  de- + industrialize 


LMFAO.  "_ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW"_  BULLSHIT.  You and many like you are believing and accepting lies that have already been proven wrong.  

_"They bought your mind" _  Wrong again.  I'm not a gullible sheep like you who bought into the whole Global Warming / Climate Change bullshit lies without questioning it, like you.  

Next life why don't you pull your head out of your ass!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Doesn't change the fact that this storm WASN'T Super Anything. A storm like that impacting Florida wouldn't reach the NY Times front page. You're confusing population density and preparedness with meterology and climate. Storm intensity with it's unique path and target.  Just like you did during tornado season -- inventing smarter tornadoes that can zero in on city centers.. 

When you live on a couple islands with 14 Million other folks, you really SHOULD be able to deflect a storm surge like that one.. Might still have lost the boardwalk, but folks wouldn't have been panicked on Staten Island, Long Island or Manhattan Island. Note the predominant feature ISLAND.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...




The sheer arrogance of this little troll is his only charming quality.. 

We the STRONG.. We the WISE.. We the saviours of humanity.. Who is WE?

Is it the enlightened readers of the NY Times? Folks born before 1940? Any Democrat with a pulse? The Class Warriors of the Revolution? 

Or are we witnessing the workings of a deep multiple personality delusion..


----------



## IanC (Jun 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What if global warming isn't as severe as predicted?
> ...



I looked through old threads that I started and found this-



> A recap for those unfamiliar with the story. My complaint about the alteration of the Forster & Gregory 2006 results was rejected on the grounds that it was done to put all the climate sensitivity probability density graphs on the same, uniform prior in sensitivity, basis. Justifying changing a result from a correct to an incorrect basis on the grounds that all the other results were given on that basis seems very dubious to me. But I knew that at least one of the other studies, Gregory 2002, actually had its results shown on the same basis as the original Forster & Gregory 2006 results, being a uniform prior in the climate feedback parameter - that is, a prior inversely proportional to the square of sensitivity. So my letter to Gabi Hegerl complained that the statement that the Gregory 2002 results were stated on a uniform prior in sensitivity basis was incorrect.
> 
> Gabi Hegerl, quite properly, brought my letter to the attention of the IPCC WG1 Co-Chairs, and it was dealt with under the new formal "IPCC protocol for addressing possible errors". The result was the issue of a formal Erratum by the IPCC, stating that Gregory et al "implicitly use a uniform prior on transient climate response". I knew that this was also wrong, but Gabi insisted that the WG1 authors were sure it was right. In fact, Gabi was relying on Myles Allen, who I think was primarily responsible for the use of a uniform prior in sensitivity basis in Chapter 9 of AR4 WG1.
> 
> It took me several months, with the help of another climate scientist, to find out why Myles Allen thought that Gregory et al "implicitly use a uniform prior on transient climate response" and then ultimately to persuade him, and thus Gabi Hegerl, that this statement also was incorrect - and that I had been right all along in saying that in fact this study implicitly used a nearly uniform prior in the climate feedback parameter. Gabi and Myles were not keen to get the IPCC to issue a further Erratum, which would obviously be embarrassing, so I agreed not to pursue the matter further.



- Bishop Hill blog - An error too embarrassing to*correct

this was one entry in a number of blog posts done at the time to try and publicize the shoddy work done by some of the AR4 lead authors on climate sensitivity. while I could find the actual erratum, I did find the definition-




> This protocol is intended to be used only to correct errors that could have been avoided in the context of the information available at the time the report was written.  Its use should be reserved for errors of fact or accuracy. The protocol cannot be used to make changes that reflect new knowledge or scientific information that became available only after the literature cut-off date for the report in question.  It cannot be used to propose the consideration of additional sources not cited in the existing assessment, unless directly relevant to an error of fact or accuracy.  It must also not be invoked to reflect a difference in opinion compared with an author team or a new interpretation of knowledge or scientific information.



incorrect methodology, presented in AR4, acknowledged in a half-assed way by the IPCC working group. Lewis is a published statistician who has come over to climate science on occasion to correct some of the more blatant errors if you consider uniform priors obvious that is .  hahahahaha


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 25, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > You want to see a link to support my claim?  How about three links?
> ...




Your second article, I can't take seriously.  Now the so-called source for all the build-up of heat around the world (Global Warming) is coming from below the ocean surface.    Give me a break.  This is more bullshit that is put out there to try and reinforce the lies, and gullible people around the world will believe and accept it as truth without question.

I found this article that says the Earth has been cooling since 2002.
Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: ?Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ?pause? to the cooling since 2002? | Climate Depot


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Does this post contain all of the evidence that what you wish to be true, is?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You are apparently under the mis-impression that windspeed is the only measure of storm threat. 

GHGs = AGW.

AGW = elevated sea level, unstable climate, severe weather.

That combination destroys ocean port cities and communities. 

This is all part of the consequences of GHGs that you've been denying.

To say nothing of the need to either relocate agriculture to where the water will be or relocate the water to where our old climate farms were established.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



That's what happens when the trapped energy goes to the heat of fusion for melting ice. Just wait. When that's over we'll see some real warming.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That all seems very reasonable to me considering AR5 will be published next year. It should contain all that's been learned since AR4.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



We are witnessing the workings of science by scientists. I suppose that people who know more, and claim it, are being honest, not arrogant. Those that know less and claim more are arrogant.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



You are most definitely a gullible sheep. All cultests are. You get opinions from Rush and Rupert and treat them like news.


----------



## IanC (Jun 25, 2013)

Did you fail to read the definition? They only correct what should have been known at the time of publishing. It was a mistake not new science


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> Did you fail to read the definition? They only correct what should have been known at the time of publishing. It was a mistake not new science



But now I knkw what ECS means.  So thanks for bringing it up.  Otherwise, it is all so dry reading, good for insomniac nights.  Easter egg hunts are more fun. 

*E*aster egg *C*limate *S*cience.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Do you believe what Al Gore preaches about Global Warming?

Do you believe that Global Warming is a serious threat to the planet?

If YOU answered "YES" to any one of the questions, than YOU are a gullible sheep.



If you answered "YES" to both questions than YOU are a gullible sheep.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 25, 2013)

Threadcop here. No reports, but a few were treading on thin ice.

The few things catching notice were insults-without-content posts, which is trolling. Insults with content is a normal post. Don't just make an insult. Add content and make an insult, then you're not trolling and you're fine.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 25, 2013)

Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying fuck? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up. 

If Obama spent a fraction of what he expends on "green tech" towards clean coal processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

This is a seriously demented individual run amok. He is hell-bent on implanting his agenda and dismantling our economy, our way of life, and our country  itself.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> Did you fail to read the definition? They only correct what should have been known at the time of publishing. It was a mistake not new science



Who made the determination of what they should have known at the time of publishing?

You are intent on proving conspiracy. I see no value in that. I believe them to be good science advocates on an honorable mission to get us doing what's required of us rather than what we'd prefer to be. 

I have little patience with irresponsibility.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying fuck? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.
> 
> If Obama spent a fraction of what he expends on "green tech" towards clean coal processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> 
> This is a seriously demented individual run amok. He is hell-bent on implanting his agenda and dismantling our economy, our way of life, and our country  itself.



Your preference for President has nothing to do with science. After all, you preferred Bush/Cheney to Gore/Lieberman when most of America didn't for real good reason. 

If you had lost and we had won we'd have a surplus now instead of a $17T debt.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



If you didn't answer "yes" to both questions, you accept politics over science. Ignorance over knowledge.


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Gee, let's compare it vs. a big storm shall we?  The 1st St. Marcellus Flood struck  West Friesland and Groningen in the year 1219 and killed a minimum of 36,000 people.  1362 saw the 2nd St. Marcellus flood which killed at minimum 25,000 people, turned sections of the mainland of Europe into islands and wiped out entire DISTRICTS.  Sandy is a pip squeak compared to those storms...and they all occurred when CO2 levels were "safe".




Grote Mandrenke Storm - WorldHistoryProject.org


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying fuck? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.*
> 
> If Obama spent a fraction of what he expends on "green tech" towards clean coal processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.*
> 
> This is a seriously demented individual run amok. He is hell-bent on implanting his agenda and dismantling our economy, our way of life, and our country *itself.



Are you sure, because I found this?

LINK: A Coal Subsidy Act?

May 21st, 2009

"According to analysis by Point Carbon, the first category is valued at $314 billion for 2012-2030, the second at $747 billion, the third at $127.4 billion. *Thus, their fiscal estimate is $1 trillion 61 billion dollars in direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels against $127.4 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy."


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Yep, ignorance over science is your mantra...like most religious fanatics.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying fuck? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.*
> ...



After reading that piece of horse shit that you just posted?

Yes- I'm more sure than ever. 

Go find a different bicycle to ride, son.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying fuck? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.
> ...



Ah so that was YOU that was standing next to me at the polling booth!

You know nothing of my "preferences". Wander off son.


----------



## IanC (Jun 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Did you fail to read the definition? They only correct what should have been known at the time of publishing. It was a mistake not new science
> ...




It really isn't as much fun when you have to explain every detail. The IPCC working group was shown an error that should have been picked up in peer review, or at least before it was included in AR4. They then agreed to make a correction but they STILL had it wrong! It is understandable to make one error but they really should have made sure they got it right the second time around.

Clear enough?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 25, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying fuck? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.
> 
> If Obama spent a fraction of what he expends on "green tech" towards clean coal processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> 
> This is a seriously demented individual run amok. He is hell-bent on implanting his agenda and dismantling our economy, our way of life, and our country  itself.




Though I think gas is a relatively clean fuel, I am full of qualms about "clean coal". I 've heard about carbon capture and storage ... the storage part seems messy: gases tend to leak ... plus carbon plants  require mercury which is highly polutant. Dirty , dirty.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Well, that pretty much convinces me that you are wrong.

Thanks for the help.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

*http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/carbon-capture-and-storage-research*

"The Office of Fossil Energy has received $3.4 billion from the Recovery Act to fund research, development and deployment of technologies to use coal more cleanly and efficiently. "

*http://energy.gov/fe/articles/president-requests-6380-million-fossil-energy-programs*

April 10, 2013 - 4:00pm
President Requests $638.0 Million for Fossil Energy Programs

"*The FY 2014 budget request for the Carbon Capture & Storage and Power Systems program is $276.6 million. It also includes $35.0 million for NETL staff to conduct in-house coal R&D."

"Carbon Capture. The Presidents FY 2014 budget requests $112.0 million for carbon capture R&D. "

"Carbon Storage. The Presidents FY 2014 budget requests $61.1 million for carbon storage R&D. "

"Advanced Energy Systems. The Presidents FY 2014 budget requests $48.0 million for advanced energy systems R&D."

"Cross-cutting Research. The Presidents FY 2014 budget requests $20.5 million for crosscutting research."

*Carbon capture and storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

It appears that someone is clueless.


----------



## gslack (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



LOL, and your sock puppetry is as weak as the rest of your trolling..

You haven't read much from me, you just joined a month ago right? ROFL, of course ya did.. You meant since you joined right? Sure socko sure...

Way to out yourself schmuck, but really it wasn't necessary I already knew you were a sock.. 

That wikki article is a fluff piece citing the IPCC distinctly. Wikki can be a good source or it can be crap, it's the nature of an open forum like that. Kind of like your posts are crap yet some others posts here are not..

Sock puppet.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



That is just a statement of how poorly prepared the area was for a storm.  Inexcusable since it has been hit by actual hurricaines in the past.

None of that is a statement as to how bad the storm was because as storms go, it just wasn't.  It barely made it to the status of a tropical cyclone and certainly wasn't a super storm.  Those who think it was should ask the survivors of Camille what a super storm looks like.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> GHGs = AGW.



Lets see the proof of that.  And again, we are all still waiting for one of you wackos to state how much warming you believe is due to man's CO2 emissions.



PMZ said:


> AGW = elevated sea level, unstable climate, severe weather.



That statement is irrelavent till you prove AGW...and state how much of the warming you believe is due to man's CO2 emissions.

Lets see the proof of AGW....practically any hard proof will do.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We are witnessing the workings of science by scientists. I suppose that people who know more, and claim it, are being honest, not arrogant. Those that know less and claim more are arrogant.



What we are witnessing are the mechanizations of the greatest hoaxters ever. One must wonder...when it all comes crashing down and the hoax is exposed...how many of you low lifes will still be around to acknowledge the degree to which you were taken in by pseudoscience.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Threadcop here. No reports, but a few were treading on thin ice.
> 
> The few things catching notice were insults-without-content posts, which is trolling. Insults with content is a normal post. Don't just make an insult. Add content and make an insult, then you're not trolling and you're fine.



Maybe you should review some of your own posting "thread cop".


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2013)

gslack said:


> That wikki article is a fluff piece citing the IPCC distinctly. Wikki can be a good source or it can be crap, it's the nature of an open forum like that. Kind of like your posts are crap yet some others posts here are not..
> 
> Sock puppet.



You really have to chuckle over anyone who references wiki with any seriousness considering thier history in regards to climate articles.  You know they recently found another one of the gatekeepers altering and deleting.  Wiki is as big a joke as skeptical science.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Some people only speak one language. And that's all that they understand. I use whatever language gets through. And I use it regardless of who is happy or angry about it.



But has it changed anyone's behavior? 

The other side thinks that all you understand is force, and that they're putting you in your place, and are declaring how much fun they're having doing it. After a certain point, everyone sounds alike.

I've done it too. We all have. I'm not telling people to be perfect, or running to the mods for every insult. It's not the Clean Debate Zone. But when I see pages of naught but back-and-forth pissing matches without any content, that's a problem.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

mamooth said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Some people only speak one language. And that's all that they understand. I use whatever language gets through. And I use it regardless of who is happy or angry about it.
> ...



It's newly always impossible to save people from themselves. However, I imagine that there are a few engaged here or passing through who still have at least a piece of open mind and some science curiosity. 

If that's true, they have a right to know that both sides of this issue are not equally considered. One is science, the other is politics. One offers evidence, the other offers monsters in the closet.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

BTW slacker. Plants, not life, build themselves from CO2 taken in through their leaves. Animals build themselves by taking in plants, or other animals who eat plants. 

So living things, not "life", are built directly or indirectly from CO2. 

That has nothing to do with the GHG properties of CO2. 

If you have any questions, ask one of the older kids.


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Did you fail to read the definition? They only correct what should have been known at the time of publishing. It was a mistake not new science
> ...



the IPCC working group makes the determination! if they had wanted to stonewall it, nothing would have been done. how on earth is that looking for a conspiracy. if they _had_ ignored Lewis' documentation, that could have led to insinuations of conspiracy. but they didn't. unfortunately they didn't actually get it right when they corrected it either. perhaps I am intent on proving incompetence. incompetency theorist. nah, just doesn't have the same ring to it. besides, I would have too many examples to go after.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Threadcop here. No reports, but a few were treading on thin ice.
> 
> The few things catching notice were insults-without-content posts, which is trolling. Insults with content is a normal post. Don't just make an insult. Add content and make an insult, then you're not trolling and you're fine.



Honestly dude/dudette.. I haven't seen this much primadonna drama since the last time my parents sentenced me to 30 days at Camp Widgewagan for the summer.. 

And THAT'S what YOU consider "adding content"?? Get off my cloud...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Want to threaten me weasel?
> ...



The ignore list is nice. *It filters the noise quite well. If not for your responding to him, I'd hardly know he existed. *

Occasionally, I like to count information entropy. A measure is simply the amount of information per word, paragraph, or post. *You can count whatever you like, as information. *It's a personal, relative measure. *

[info*entropy]=[count of useful info]/[# words, paragraphs, or posts]

Gslack, for instance, is all just emotional info about himself, info of which I have no interest and just gets classified as noise. For all intents and purposes, he's a yapping poodle. If I should bother to count the useful info per post, it is zero. *
[info*entropy]~=0

Gslack doesn't even work as a study in abnormal psychology. *There are a few posters who's rantings acually reveal something. *As information goes, we can count any classification that we want. *If my interest is AWG, then AWG info gets counted and the rest is noise. *If my interest is abby normal
psych, then words like "hurt", "incarcerate", etc get * counted, and the rest is noise. *Thing with gslack is that, even then, there is no info. *"Want to threaten me weasel?" There is no useful or interesting info there.*It is more like a barking poodle. *"Bark,*Bark,*Bark, Bark, Bark", no info, five words.
[info entropy] = 0_info / 5_words = 0.

On the other hand, I spent the last half hour reading a report on temperature measurement adjustments, provided in a link by either mamooth or PMZ. The shear volume of info far exceeded the number of words in the post providing the link. As such, my information measure far exceeded one. *
[info*entropy] >> 1

I've lost my interest in abnormal psych. *The barking poodles are meaningless. *As someone notes, they're not going to change. So the iggy filter is working quite well and I don't feel like I might miss something. *I know I wont miss anything because I've measured the info entropy and it is zero.


----------



## gslack (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> BTW slacker. Plants, not life, build themselves from CO2 taken in through their leaves. Animals build themselves by taking in plants, or other animals who eat plants.
> 
> So living things, not "life", are built directly or indirectly from CO2.
> 
> ...



BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..


LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...

I got something for ya... How about this, maybe CARBON is the basis of CARBON based life forms? MORON...

Dude you're an idiot... Carbon is the basis of carbon-based life forms. Not CO2 CARBON.. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas created from many natural processes on the planet. Processes like volcanic activity, and many others. The gas didn't create the life forms that use it as fuel, the life form evolved to feed on it. Carbon-based life remember? Not CO2 based, but carbon based. 

The planets eco-system adapts to the environment not the other way around...

Some scientist...LOL


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > BTW slacker. Plants, not life, build themselves from CO2 taken in through their leaves. Animals build themselves by taking in plants, or other animals who eat plants.
> ...



I told you to ask some of the older third graders!

Here's question that I can't wait to hear your answer to. 

Where do plants get the carbon that they need to build themselves from?

Wait for it.......wait for it.......


----------



## peach174 (Jun 26, 2013)

It stopped getting warmer 16 years ago.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

gslack said:


> BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..
> 
> 
> LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...
> ...



Holly crap. *I had to un-iggy this one, when I read PMZs reply.

**I just had everyone here read your post. *Most are rolling on the floor laughing. The rest are just stunned. *You made the stoned dude laugh so hard he pissed his pants. *Someone asked, "When do we learn this, third grade?"

CO2 = CARBON diOxide. Get it? *One CARBON and two oxygen. *The plant uses it's magic and uses the carbon leaving O2, the stuff we breath.

I'd feel bad for you if you weren't so obnoxious.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Plants make themselves out of carbon dioxide from the air and water and a few minerals from the soil. They do this with the aid of sunlight, in a process called PHOTOSYNTHESIS, which means putting together with light.


Humans breathe in oxygen (O) and breathe out carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants do the reverse. They breathe in CO2 and breathe out oxygen (O). This is why plant life is an essential part of the worlds ecosystem. Without plants, CO2 levels would rise to intolerable levels. Plants use CO2 for growth. It is the essential building block for photosynthesis (along with light and water). Plants cannot grow without CO2. The current levels in the atmosphere are about 350 parts per million (PPM). It is theorized that millions of years ago, levels of CO2 were about 1,500 PPM. Throughout the years, plants have evolved in many waysand in many ways have stayed the same.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

peach174 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Long, but very interesting. Shows how many scientists are hoping for help from nature in getting us out of the jam that we've put ourselves in. 

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/missing-carbon#page=1


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

peach174 said:


> It stopped getting warmer 16 years ago.
> Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online




If your a statistics nube. *Otherwise, its just another random variation. *It's flattened off, even declined before. *Watch, a few mord years and up it will go.  Everyone hopes you are right. Few are dumb enough to take that bet.






Oh look, it's in the range of the expected error.

You should avoid stock market trading and Las Vegas. Odds aren't your strong suit.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 26, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active]The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The bacteria oxidizes? No...no... that's not right...*

Or the bacteria aids the plant matter in oxidizing? *No, really... Everyone doesn't remember everything....*

Right now, someone here is giving me "are you an idiot" look because I don't know who Jessica Alba is. *Fantastic Four, actress, played the invisible women.

I gladly read below my grade level. *I forget, I never learned it.

Okay... Bacteria oxidizes the plant matter. *Jessica Alba played the invisible women in Fantastic Four. *And plants turn CO2 into O2, somehow using the suns energy to break the molecular bond. **Photosynthesis means "putting together with light". Oh, it is now said the plant relies on quantum processes to channel the photons.


I'm learning now!


----------



## mamooth (Jun 26, 2013)

Every conspiracy theory cult has these little cult videos that want you to watch.

And no one does. If you're not capable of stating and supporting your point yourself, you aren't informed enough to be part of the conversation.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube



Perfect. You're a dummy and you have a dumb explainaton.

Now maybe you can explain photosynthesis to gslack.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Every conspiracy theory cult has these little cult videos that want you to watch.
> 
> And no one does. If you're not capable of stating and supporting your point yourself, you aren't informed enough to be part of the conversation.



What I know for sure is the tempurature trend and statistics, how to fit a line, and what it means. *For some reason, denialists have to deny the temperature with AWG. If the implication is wrong, then there is no warming. *

Then there is the "You aren't a scientist so the science is wrong" and the "They can't explain it all EXACTLY, so it's wrong."

Obvioualy, it builds from the root fact outward. *As things get more detailed and more refined, fewer people know all all of it. *And, unless there are very careful, uncertainties start adding up.

Anyone here work with the IPCC? *Because, if not, for me it was sufficient to verify the temp record and see that the conspiracy theorists a) want to deny that, b) all share this wierd underlying psychology, and c) are kind of obnoxious.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube
> ...



  I guess that simple video was just too complex for you.

I don't need to explain anything to anybody.  Do it yourself.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE, and you're just gullible enough to believe it.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 26, 2013)

So then summarize the video, if it was so simple. State the high points, in your own words, with support.

All the cults tell everyone to watch the cult's videos. 9-11 truthers, birthers, and so on. I see no difference in tactics and style between the denialists and any other cult.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 26, 2013)

This is the Lefty's agenda that has always been against fossil fuels.
They have been wanting to eliminate for a very long time.
In the 70's they tried to push that we were gong into a global ice age. We were all going to freeze.
Now it's global warming.
It's a lie in order to get rid of coal and oil.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Yeah, that's it.  You figured it out.  It's just too complex
for everyone.

"I don't need to explain anything to anybody."  What are you, like eight?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

peach174 said:


> This is the Lefty's agenda that has always been against fossil fuels.
> They have been wanting to eliminate for a very long time.
> In the 70's they tried to push that we were gong into a global ice age. We were all going to freeze.
> Now it's global warming.
> It's a lie in order to get rid of coal and oil.



Yeah, that's it.  In the 70's, they were all 20 and then at 50 they all switched it up on ya'  Same people.

What are you even talking about?


----------



## gslack (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



LOL, getting your sock to try and sell a story about imaginary people doesn't help you socko.. In fact it makes you look even more desperate..

It's called a carbon cycle not a CO2 cycle.. Idiot...

Read something please...

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now before you go into another of your diversionary speeches and ramble nothing, realize that photosynthesis is the process by which organisms using sunlight convert CO2 and water into fuel to sustain themselves. The waste of this exchange is Oxygen. The carbon is used with water to create basic carbohydrates.

So its CO2 and H2O in and O2 out. Get it yet? CARBO_HYDRATES... THink now... CARBOHYDRATES.. CARBO (carbon) - HYDRATES(H2O or hydrogen and oxygen) MORONS...

Photosynthesis

And yes the the planets eco-system DOES adapt and evolve to fit it's environment not the other way around. Why do you think some plants grow in a rain forest and some grow in a arid environment? Well using your logic it would have to be magic right? No silly socko it's not magic, it's the way life works. Life adapts to it's surroundings.

Today we have a relatively low CO2 content than we have had when Photosynthetic land based plants really took hold (about 425 million years ago). Yet somehow land based photosynthetic plant life is still thriving.. SO what gives? Simple socko, your hypothesis is an ignorant one. Plant's evolved to suit their environment, just as they do now and always will. Meaning they weren't built on CO2, they evolved to use CO2 as a means to create their food. Co2 didn't create life, life evolved and adapted to use CO2...

NOW lets get back to the part where you explain how a self proclaimed scientist, confuses the carbon cycle to be a CO2 cycle? ROFL


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube



Cartoons are the best way to express the intellectual depth of the climate regressive's argument.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

peach174 said:


> This is the Lefty's agenda that has always been against fossil fuels.
> They have been wanting to eliminate for a very long time.
> In the 70's they tried to push that we were gong into a global ice age. We were all going to freeze.
> Now it's global warming.
> It's a lie in order to get rid of coal and oil.



What righty's are required to believe.

Government, science, education, intellect, diplomacy, peace, solutions, taxes, health care, unions, regulation, the future, abortions, other races, religions, sexual preferences, and countries are bad.

The NRA, Rush and Rupert, war, debt, wealth, fossil fuels, the past, heavy armament, and rule by wealthy, white, Christian men, are good.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Where do plants get the carbon that they need to build themselves from?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

peach174 said:


> This is the Lefty's agenda that has always been against fossil fuels.
> They have been wanting to eliminate for a very long time.
> In the 70's they tried to push that we were gong into a global ice age. We were all going to freeze.
> Now it's global warming.
> It's a lie in order to get rid of coal and oil.



Oh, yeah, I remember. The lefties wanted everyone to stop using coal and oil because of a global ice age.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 26, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Your proof of which is?


----------



## gslack (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



LOL, Carbon is all over the place silly socko. In the soil, in rocks, you name it. It's the 4th most abundant element in the universe by mass. Behind Hydrogen, Helium and Oxygen. It's an element socko, it's the base for all known life.. 

Now please spare us the fake scientist BS routine already.. It's getting really old now. As If this bit of stupidity on your part wasn't enough to prove your full of it... WOW man seriously WOW..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > It stopped getting warmer 16 years ago.
> ...



Only problem is that those declines you're seeing pre-1960 don't really count because the CO2 emissions from man at THAT point hadn't started to really contribute to atmospheric RETENTION of CO2. 

We all know how you like to pretend that you're an expert at "regression" and writing "programs" to plot temperature data.. But it's IRREFUTABLE that for at least 12 years, we are having an unprecedented reprieve from any STATICALLY significant Global Warming at all. You HAVE to go back to the 60s to find any pause near as long.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > It stopped getting warmer 16 years ago.
> ...



Did you notice the signifigant cooling trend at the end of your graph in contradiction to the predictions of the models?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 27, 2013)

The rising temperatures do not occur in a linear fashion, rather they are superimposed over the natural variations. So we have had significant dimming from the aerosols put out by China and India, a lower TSI, and several significant La Nina's with not significant El Nino's since 1998. Yet, in that period, we have had the ten hottest years of record. We should have had some significantly cold years, yet we did not.

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2013: +0.07 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



It's not even in the top ten on earth screwball. And it is extremely rare in its elemental form. 

That's why the source required for plants to build themselves is CO2. Not rocks. 

Someone asked the other day if there was any purpose to all of this posting. My purpose is to get you through fifth grade science. Tough job.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



There is no sign of a cooling trend.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> The rising temperatures do not occur in a linear fashion, rather they are superimposed over the natural variations. So we have had significant dimming from the aerosols put out by China and India, a lower TSI, and several significant La Nina's with not significant El Nino's since 1998. Yet, in that period, we have had the ten hottest years of record. We should have had some significantly cold years, yet we did not.
> 
> UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2013: +0.07 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD



I'll ask you again rocks...how far behind the curve do you really reside?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is no sign of a cooling trend.



Of course you don't see it...but I bet you think the emperor's clothes are beautiful.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 27, 2013)

If you're dishonest enough to pretend the persistent La Nina hasn't existed, you could declare there's a cooling trend. But only if you're that dishonest. If you're not dishonest, you have to acknowledge the ongoing warming trend, with most of warming currently going into the oceans, due to the persistent La Nina.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> If you're dishonest enough to pretend the persistent La Nina hasn't existed, you could declare there's a cooling trend. But only if you're that dishonest. If you're not dishonest, you have to acknowledge the ongoing warming trend, with most of warming currently going into the oceans, due to the persistent La Nina.



If a la Nina (or PDO or AMO or TSI) can overwhelm and HALT the massive warming trend of runaway GHgases, then perhaps a rational person would say that the NATURAL contributions to the climate are SEVERELY underrated in the models.. 

But rational isn't what we're getting as a response from the true believers.. Is it Catman?


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > If you're dishonest enough to pretend the persistent La Nina hasn't existed, you could declare there's a cooling trend. But only if you're that dishonest. If you're not dishonest, you have to acknowledge the ongoing warming trend, with most of warming currently going into the oceans, due to the persistent La Nina.
> ...





Yup. Its called hidden variable fraud when you make definitive statements knowing that important factors have been left out or undervalued. Climate models have a severely incomplete list of input factors as well as incorrect weighting.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



He's got you there, carbon is in pencils and diamonds. *That's how fertilizer from Home Depot works. *It's chock full of pencils and diamomds.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...








Looks pretty good for a fit to something as complex as climate.

Oh, wait, look at the end. See, the temp record has been adjusted so that it isn't going up, that way the model can catch up to it.

Yeah, that's it. Yeah.

FAQ 8.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 8: Climate Models and their Evaluation


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2013)

When are these warmers gonna learn to LABEL the models in their graphs?

Kinda like the one that UAH put out? A raft of model runs doesn't mean CRAP unless you know
the assumptions and the authors and the tunings...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> When are these warmers gonna learn to LABEL the models in their graphs?
> 
> Kinda like the one that UAH put out? A raft of model runs doesn't mean CRAP unless you know
> the assumptions and the authors and the tunings...



 It must just drive you crazy, that all your whining and stomping of feet hasn't changed anything for years.  Organizations, scientists, companies, nations, individuals, just keep on getting aboard the AGW hoax band wagon.  

And nobody cares about authors and tunings as long as this goes in






and this comes out







The rest is just noise.

And as long the long term trend is up, global warming. *When the long term trend isn't up any more, then no warming. *So far, its about 100 years of up. *So it's gonna have to be down a lot for a long time before it is not warmimg.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2013)

NO.. That ginormous yellow squiggle of  YELLOW plots is just noise without knowing HOW they differ or what CO2 emission scenario was used, or what was the Climate Sensitivity assumptions or any of a HUNDRED different variables.. That's why you need the author, the paradigm and the tunings.. 

You -- are happy looking at unidentified noise?? Fine.. It speaks loudly about your level of tolerance for picking up crap on the street and consuming it..


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2013)

What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data.  It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional.  They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.

They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> NO.. That ginormous yellow squiggle of *YELLOW plots is just noise without knowing HOW they differ or what CO2 emission scenario was used, or what was the Climate Sensitivity assumptions or any of a HUNDRED different variables.. That's why you need the author, the paradigm and the tunings..*
> 
> You -- are happy looking at unidentified noise?? Fine.. It speaks loudly about your level of tolerance for picking up crap on the street and consuming it..



That's not my job. *It's the IPCC's job to figure out what the noise is.

Last I checked, the ability to see the trend inside the noise is the pinacle of intelligent feedback systems.

That it just drives you crazy and you scream at the wind about it just speaks to your inability to filter out the noise in your own head.

**It must drive you nuts, having to pay attention to all the random thermal noise that plagues your visual system. *And that constant hissing in your ears. And the sudden spike of adrenaline as you catch a glimpse of something, out of the corner of your eye, that looks like a figure standing in the shadow.

It must just drive you nuts. *

It reminds me of my cat, staring at the wall, like he saw something. Oh, and he's so funny, chasing a laser spot around the room. *Can't tellmthe difference between a moving spot of light and a moving bug. *And he never learns. Over and over, we play the game. He's even "caught" it, numerous times. But that moving spot just triggers his reflexes.

Thankfully, human beings are smarter. We are good at filtering out the noise. *At least half of us are better than average. *The other half, not so much.

Having problems with the voices too, are we?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data.  It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional.  They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
> 
> They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.



Who said they were physical data?  Physical data goes in, model data comes out.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data.  It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional.  They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
> 
> They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.



Doesn't even phase him that the end points at 2005 for the temp anomaly don't even agree with his NOAA temp plot? Or that we have to GUESS what the black/red lines really are? Really? couldn't tell a brownie from a cow pie.. 

And if you remember -- this math wiz couldn't figure out that Dr. Roy Spencer's match of models to the temp line was 10 yrs older than this "mystery" plot someone pulled out of some old IPCC report? Or that Dr. Roy provided the EXACT citation for each of the model plots he presented? But he whined that Dr. Roy --- "didn't provide anything new".. 

Time for more "regression" and programming more plot routines I suppose..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data. *It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional. *They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
> ...



You are quite welcome to follow the links, of the embedded image, and find the pages that describe it all. *If you actually understood my point then you would get that I didn't present it for your conviction. *If you want to be convinced, you have to look that up yourself.

Yep, your right, it doesn't phase me that the end points don't match exactly. *It doesn't change that up is up and down is down.

Just drives you crazy when it the long term trend is up and the recent short turn trend is down.

This must just drive you nuts. *











OMG, what does that mean? *How can it go up and down at the same time?

It's crrraaaazzzzy!!!


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

Dr Roy Spencer, the wanna-be climatologist.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data.  It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional.  They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
> ...


The model data is only as perfect and accurate as the imperfect people inputting the data.....Computer models also cannot change themselves by adding relevant data that may have been left out.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data.  It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional.  They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
> 
> They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.



Here's something to ponder. Airplanes start existence as a computer model, and when built they fly. The models predict it and it happens. Of course, Harry Potter can fly too. You've got us there.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



That's why computer models are supervised by scientists. Just like the machines at 7/11 that predict how much change you'll receive.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



That's what I discovered, doing quality control.  Every single quality issue could be traced back to a person.  It was uncanny.  I kept telling them, "Get rid of the people, and the error rate goes to zero."


----------



## gslack (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Dr Roy Spencer, the wanna-be climatologist.



Not very bright are ya ifitzpmzpoopie sock....

About « Roy Spencer, PhD



> About
> Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASAs Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencers work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASAs Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
> 
> Dr. Spencers research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
> ...



Seems he's got some pretty good credentials there.... Let's check another source...

Roy Spencer (scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Education and Career[edit]
> 
> Spencer received a B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of WisconsinMadison in 1980 and 1982.[1] His doctoral thesis was titled, A case study of African wave structure and energetics during Atlantic transit.[3]
> After receiving his Ph.D. in 1982, Spencer worked for two years as a research scientist in the Space Science and Engineering Center at the University of WisconsinMadison.[1] He then joined NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as a visiting scientist in 1984,[2] where he later became a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies.[1] After leaving NASA in 2001, Spencer has been a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UHA).[1] As well as his position at UHA, Spencer is currently the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite, a position he has held since 1994.[1]
> ...



I think he is an expert in his field. More so than you are for certain.. However I feel he is often wrong about GHG theory and his defense of the theory is a terrible mistake on his part, I cannot deny his credentials or right to share his insights...

The difference is I can think he's wrong and say so without trying to belittle his education or experience. You can't seem to do that. Another fine example of why we know you're not a scientist in any way.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I accept truth over the bullshit lies of global warming / climate change.  My decision has nothing to do with politics.

When you mention science, I know that you are reffering to the so-called fabricated "science" that is behind Global Warming /Climate Change.  That science is fraudulent. 

If anyone is ignorant, it's gullible people like you, little sheep.  People who believe in Global Warming / Climate Change without questioning it, is gullible.  People who actually believes and accepts without question that Global Warming / Climate Change is caused by humans, is gullible.  People who believed and accept every word that Al Gore (your god), spoke, is gullible.  

People like you who bought into the lies of global warming / climate change act like they are "high and mighty", "holier than thou", "better than everyone else", because they believe they "are doing something to help the planet".  Gimme a break.  I just think people like that is snobbish and ignorant.

If you consider yourself knowledgeable on the subject of global warming / climate change, than I consider that laughable.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 27, 2013)




----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

Wildcard said:


>



They don't need to, it's in the air.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Well, that puts it all to rest. *Now everyone can go home.


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data.  It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional.  They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
> ...








Physical data does NOT go in.  Ideas go in.  Fiction comes out.  That's why the models have now been completely wrong for the last 15 years and why they were on;y correct so long as the correlation was continuing.  Good scientists can tell you (and it is in fact a scientific maxim) that "correlation does not equal causation" but the warmists have built their entire "science" around correlation.  

That's why it's collapsing so fast....violate a maxim to that extent and when the correlation no longer works you're screwed because you have no real science to fall back on.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2013)

Amatuer Hour, The Cuckoo's Nest or The Gong Show ---- you decide...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



I will have to admit, I didn't consider any of the evidence presented here. 

Which is all of the evidence available leading to the conclusion that AGW doesn't exist.

People are saying loud and clear that they would prefer it not to exist. That's something that we can all agree on. 

It seems though that the universe hears us and considers it all irrelevant whining. Reality doesn't care at all what we want. 

We thought that fossil fuels were the gift of cheap inconsequential energy from the gods. It turns out that we were wrong. Whoops!

It's a good thing that we have science to help us out of the mess that we've made.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it


"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing. 
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."


*Edited for fair Use and link provided*Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## mamooth (Jun 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> If a la Nina (or PDO or AMO or TSI) can overwhelm and HALT the massive warming trend of runaway GHgases, then perhaps a rational person would say that the NATURAL contributions to the climate are SEVERELY underrated in the models..



Only a profoundly irrational person would say something that dumb, given that we measure the huge heat imbalance going into the earth.

I mean, you'd have to be borderline retarded to declare air is the only thing that gets warm. Ocean heating? Denialists simply pretend it doesn't exist.

Okay, denialists aren't necessarily stupid. "Brainwashed" and "dishonest" are also possibilities.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > If a la Nina (or PDO or AMO or TSI) can overwhelm and HALT the massive warming trend of runaway GHgases, then perhaps a rational person would say that the NATURAL contributions to the climate are SEVERELY underrated in the models..
> ...



"Brainwashed" and "dishonest", that is exactly how I view the "gullible sheep" who bought into the lies of global warming.  I guess "misguided" and "ignorant" are two more words to describe as well.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Evidence is such a cruel master. It crushes fiction. It separates us from what we want to be true no matter how hard we want. It shows us not to be entitled. Ordinary. Unpriviliedged. It chains us to reality.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > *If a la Nina (or PDO or AMO or TSI) can overwhelm and HALT the massive warming trend of runaway GHgases, then perhaps a rational person would say that the NATURAL contributions to the climate are SEVERELY underrated in the models..*
> ...



You're making up opposition here. Why ISN'T the La Nina (or PDO or AMO) showing up in the models to the extent that (as you contend) they can cancel the GHGas warming?  What I said is correct. A RATIONAL person would expect something that significant and fundamental to be PART of the modeling.. READ MY COMMENT AGAIN, ditch the warfare, and tell me HOW you can claim that this lull in warming is due to well-known natural events that "were not predicted"?

You OK there? Got a hairball?? You're combative and not making sense.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I think what you sadly just witnessed is more on the order of "slyly evasive" or "odiferously defensive".....


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 27, 2013)

Time to put this whole controversy to rest......

WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING REALLY?  The sun warming the Earth.

WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE REALLY?  The changing of the seasons.

It's just that simple.....


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data.  It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional.  They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
> ...










Here's something to ponder, aircraft start as designs on a sheet of paper or in a computer.  Then they use a computer modeling system that is exceptionally complex and specific (called computational fluid dynamics) to model how those aircraft designs will work in the real world....then a actual physical model is created and TESTED IN A REAL WIND TUNNEL to compare vs the computer model and then after YEARS of testing they build a real aircraft and THAT IS TESTED again, and again, and again before they even take it into the air.

Do you see how much real world testing they do to create that aircraft....something you clowns can't or won't do and your models are so simplistic (as opposed to the CFD models) that they HAVE NEVER accurately modeled ANYTHING.

That's the problem with simplistic models run by simpletons....they don't do anything accurately.

That's why you have lost.


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...










Good question.  How does one twist themselves into such severe knots to explain that which is not happening.  You guys remind me of PRAVDA.

"THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend."

See, even THE head guy says you're full of crap....


Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> Time to put this whole controversy to rest......
> 
> WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING REALLY?  The sun warming the Earth.
> 
> ...



 Wow. So basically, things like "mean" are beyond your scope of knowledge.

Cartoons work for you, though.

And you manage to find the voting location unaided?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


That's about the most harebrained comparison I've heard in quite some time.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


It is called an a-nal-o-gy.

The scientist is like the cashier.
The climate data is like the money.
The computer is like the cash register.
The temperature output is like the change.

See how that works? *The elements of one map to the other.


----------



## gslack (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Plagiarizing from the guardian must be your favorite past time you did in two threads now...


----------



## gslack (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



LOL, it doesn't have to be in elemental form dumbass, your claim of it coming from CO2 states this as well...It's in the soil and it's the basis of life, CO2 breaks down and when it does what happens to it? Jesus you're an idiot...Volcanoes spew out CO2, as well as other natural processes, when that CO2 eventually breaks down what happens to the carbon? It goes back intro the carbon cycle you nincompoop...

ROFL..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So basically, you have no clue how modeling works.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...









Actually I do.  It's you who clearly hasn't got a clue as to what your are babbling on about.

My experience with models is funnily enough in aviation, which was why when you, or your other you, tried to use aircraft modeling as an analog for the BS that is climate modeling, I had to laugh.  You guys are SO FAR out of your element it is just sad.

You parrot what your handlers tell you to parrot, but like a parrot, you don't understand one thing of what you spew....


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Who said they were physical data?  Physical data goes in, model data comes out.



You do...every time you point at the output of a computer model as evidence for AGW or a study whose findings are based on a model.  The models only do what they have been told to do and clearly, they are being told the wrong thing as evidenced by their spectacular failure.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's something to ponder. Airplanes start existence as a computer model, and when built they fly. The models predict it and it happens. Of course, Harry Potter can fly too. You've got us there.



Airplanes don't start out as computer models.  Computer come later in the design process.  And the models are based on a set of physics that are known to produce accurate results.  Would you fly in an airplane based on a computer model that predicts outcomes as well as climate models? If you are going to play with an alogies, at least try to think of one that doesn't, by definition, shoot your point down.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Which is all of the evidence available leading to the conclusion that AGW doesn't exist.



There is no evidence that would lead a rational person to the conclusion that AGW does exist.  Show me one piece of hard, measured, empirical evidence that proves that adding 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...then tell me how much warming that addition will cause.

You keep claiming that it is true, and that all the evidence points to it but when asked for that evidence, you never fail to fail to provide it.  That should tell you something.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."



You guys prove that you don't have a clue when you gobble up that sort of pap and repeat it as if it meant something.  4 Hiroshima bombs per second?  Wow.  And that impresses you? 

I guess you are unaware that the energy from the sun reaching the earth is roughly equal to 1950 Hiroshima bombs per second.  4 more causes you to quake in your boots?  

Hansen already played the Hiroshima bomb game and it blew up in his face.  Guess cook didn't get the memo...or simply assumed that the people hansen scared with his bomb talk would get scared all over again by his.  Here is the math, if you care to see how pitifully idiotic such a scare tactic is.



> Let&#8217;s do the numbers. First, let&#8217;s convert the extra heat into an iconic image people can understand that isn&#8217;t quite as scary: the incandescent light bulb (not the twisty kind). Willis Eschenbach calculated:
> 
> 1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

Oddball said:


> That's about the most harebrained comparison I've heard in quite some time.



Give him a little while, I am sure he can top that.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> So basically, you have no clue how modeling works.



Not sure about him, but it is pretty clear that you don't.  You think that if you just type in data upon data upon data into a computer you get a working model?  Or is the data just what the model works with.  The model itself is the ideas, assumptions, etc., translated into a mathematical language which then digests the real world data.  

If the ideas, assumptions, etc., that make up the model are incorrect, then the output which is the result of the model digesting the real world data will be incorrect as we have clearly seen by the spectacular failure of the models.  Clearly the energy cycle and therefore the AGW hypothesis that the models portray is incorrect or their output would closely mesh with the observation in the real world.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's something to ponder. Airplanes start existence as a computer model, and when built they fly. The models predict it and it happens. Of course, Harry Potter can fly too. You've got us there.
> ...



Add airplane design to the growing list of things that you know nothing about. Complex mechanisms today begin life as 3D CAD models with finite element analysis. 

Climate models are much the same. If this happens what changes does it cause in its immediate locale and how does that spread over time. Only denyers use paper and pencil guesses to keep alive hope for a different answer. 

Science is objective. Hoping for a particular outcome is voodoo.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


It's called dumber that dirt.

Comparing an infinitely diverse and flexible global ecosystem to making change at the 7-11 is so absurd as to be self-evident.....Well, that is except to you.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Who said they were physical data?  Physical data goes in, model data comes out.
> ...



What you consider "their spectacular failure" is the fact that they concluded things different than your wild ass guesses. If the 97% of qualified scientists that accept AGW as the explanation for what can be measured weren't competent and objective way beyond you, the world would be sitting on a precipice fat dumb and happy while doing all of the wrong things instead of preparing for the inevitable future.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Which is all of the evidence available leading to the conclusion that AGW doesn't exist.
> ...



Well, it's a DD and here comes the SS.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



"Comparing an infinitely diverse and flexible global ecosystem to making change at the 7-11 is so absurd as to be self-evident"

And yet denyers do the equivalent here everyday.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


I'm not the one comparing the stupid computer models as analogous to making change as a convenience store, Corky.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Not only is it plagiarized -- it screams phoney excuses. If all those NATURAL events that are so well known are NOT INCLUDED in those marvelous "climate models" -- what good are they? If known ocean cycles and effects can totally mask the warming predicted by the models --- the models are worth jack shit..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Well your double dumber than mud.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



"Stupid" computer models. That says it all, doesn't it? I think that being a climate reactionary fits you like a glove and was inevitable from birth.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
> ...



The earth very well may be warming slightly

So what?

We'll all be just fine so risking doing nothing is a better alternative than being subjected to arbitrary capriciously enforced overbearing expensive government regulation.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Well, let's compare the value of climate models vs the value of what you wish was true, Jack.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's something to ponder. Airplanes start existence as a computer model, and when built they fly. The models predict it and it happens. Of course, Harry Potter can fly too. You've got us there.
> ...



We are already in this airplane, called the climate. And it's changing whether someone models it or not.*

The change has been occuring since the early 1900s.






The "models use natural (e.g. solar) and anthropogenic inputs. Here is a graphic for the inputs to the climate models. Note that both natural (including solar) and anthropogenic effects are included."






"Natural effects only, in blue, are NOT sufficient to produce agreement with the data, especially in the last 30 years. "






And this is one airplane that noone will be disembarking soon.

Climate Models


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



It's tough when one is forced to have to choose between science and extreme conservative media led culthood, isn't it. 

Rush being such an intellectual giant and all. 

When ignorance is the most compelling option that you have, you must have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the way.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Stupid computer models are not scientific standard, you ignoramus putz.

And comparing them to making change, where your only skill needed is the ability to count to 100, is stupid beyond description.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Ignorance huh?

BTW I don't listen to talking heads on the radio nor do I watch them on the idiot box.

You want to talk ignorance?  You're the one stuck in a two dimensional pigeonhole where people either listen to right wing morons and believe what they say or they don't.

In other words you're just another fucking sheep.

If the earth is a few degrees warmer we'll all be just fine.  There will be no biblical catastrophes.

So go back to bed little sheep and rest up for Sunday dinner, you're on the menu.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Those charts don't look at Natural Forcings back far enough.. The total sun irradiance has increased about 1W/m2 on the earth's surface since 1700. Climate change doesn't happen overnight. And limiting those charts to 1900 -- doesn't give a clear picture of the warming that started 1000s of years ago... 

The fact that the solar forcing rise basically stalled a couple decades ago is quite interesting. If I was comparing cash registers to climate models -- I might even say that "correlates well" with a delayed lull in the surface warming..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



As it goes down in flames owing to the fact that it was designed on the back of an envelope, the only good news is that it is nearly empty. But those in it are still convinced that by not believing in gravity, they still have a chance.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









*C*omputer *A*ssisted *D*esign is not a model.......idiot.  It is a drafting table in a computer.  Have you always been this stupid are did you have to have to have  pharmaceutical help?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



"If the earth is a few degrees warmer we'll all be just fine. There will be no biblical catastrophes."

I understand why you would want this to be true. We all do. 

If it wasn't for all of the evidence to the contrary, I'd be right aboard. 

But EVIDENCE, man! It's much more compelling than the cult can ever be. 

Kool Aid is good but EVIDENCE is addictive in the real world. 

So much better than the opinions of entertainers issued for money.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Yes, they are "stupid".  And they are simplistic.  The computer models they use for aircraft design are thousands of times more capable than the best computer climate models and they are dealing with ONE aspect of physics.

Stupid doesn't even begin to come close to how worthless and incompetent the computer climate models are.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Evidence ?

Show me concrete conclusive evidence that a catastrophe was caused by human activity.

The only cultist in our conversation is you.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



"Computer Assisted Design is not a model"

It is though. As real as most supermodels. In fact designs are now called "CAD models" here in the third melenium.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Yes ALL evidence says that warmer is better.  MUCH better.  You live your life in a world of computer models but the real world, and the historical record shows, that it was MUCH warmer during many times in the very recent past.  And in ALL of those times it has been better for ALL LIFE on this planet.

Read a book sometime mr. science and history denier....


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



If we all waited for "concrete conclusive evidence" for anything, much less everything, to act, we'd all be in the belly of the beast early in life. But don't worry. We won't leave you behind.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



The essence of conservative thought. We should have never left the caves. Progress is just so scary.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So much for your evidence. Or do you define evidence as Subjective extrapolation, or is it just Chicken Little syndrome?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I know how you like to pretend that you can fly. Flying though requires intimate knowledge of weather. Pilots are almost addicted to computer models predicting weather, which are the basis for climate models. in fact pilots today wouldn't think of battling gravity without a whole host of computer models. In fact there are many planes that couldn't even fly with only a person at the controls. More computers. 

I'm thinking that the only thing that flies for you are your superhero underpants.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Here's the thing. Evidence is one thing. "Concrete conclusive evidence" is another. See how that works? It's an important point that typically starts to gel around five years old. It's what mom was trying to teach you when she said "hot" hoping that you'd take her word for that.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

The Canary In A Coal Mine.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Location, velocity, acceleration... l, dl/dt, d^2/dt^2(l).

Even small, sustained acceleration means future high velocity. Even small, sustained, velocity means future high location.

When your standing on the edge of a cliff, even small velocity or acceleration means falling off the cliff.

That is how we predict the future, measuring rate of change.






That is high rate of change.

"In other words, the *rate of change is much greater* than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene"

Now we look for the canary in the coal mine and hope it isn't dead yet because this is one coal mine we're not walking out of.


The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier | Mother Jones

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

Climate Desk


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







No, it's not, you ignorant fool.  It is a drafting program in a computer.  It has no modeling capabilities at all.  It Can make cute little animations that show exterior views and the better programs can give you artists views of how it should LOOK.  But they have zero engineering capabilities.

Go to school.  You KNOW nothing.

And it shows....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The state of the art is not much better when you apply a simulator to the output of your CAD... Mostly a waste of time that gives management a false sense of comfort. Just like the enormous number of bogus Excel spreadsheets I have shoved in my face every year -- I've witnessed monumental failures of engineering modeling to certify the performance of a large design.  For small pieces or circuits or physical phenomena it's OK. For hurricane tracking -- OK..  For the climate of a planet --- dubious.


----------



## lynn63 (Jun 28, 2013)

We have many polluted lakes, rivers, etc here in the U.S. that we could do something about it and fix that problem but we don't.  So what makes anyone think that we would do something about making changes to reduce global warming?  At the point that temperature is rising and noticed  its already too late to stop it.

All life since the beginning has an affect on climate due to their daily activities, it cannot be helped as we are all in one big fishbowl of chemical interactions.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Yours is the essence of stupid thought.  Your method of "thought" has led to the collectivization of the farms in Russia with the attendant millions of dead.  Your brand of thought leads to death and destruction and little else.

And that is a simple unarguable fact.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Yes, computer models that are outdated in HOURS.  Weather models have no relation to climate models in the slightest.  they are far more complex than even the best of the climate models.  And they are only good for at most 24 hours.  In the mountains, where I live, they are good for at most 10 hours.  Sometimes not even that long.

You are so full of poo I wonder how you can walk....


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Location, velocity, acceleration... l, dl/dt, d^2/dt^2(l).
> 
> Even small, sustained acceleration means future high velocity. Even small, sustained, velocity means future high location.
> 
> ...








Oh looky....yet more fictional computer models.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Even for hurricane tracking it's very iffy beyond 10 hours...


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


There you have it....No science.

Were there science, you could physically reproduce the results in context...But you can't.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> We have many polluted lakes, rivers, etc here in the U.S. that we could do something about it and fix that problem but we don't.  So what makes anyone think that we would do something about making changes to reduce global warming?  At the point that temperature is rising and noticed  its already too late to stop it.
> 
> All life since the beginning has an affect on climate due to their daily activities, it cannot be helped as we are all in one big fishbowl of chemical interactions.



It IS a shame that the GWarming scam has sucked all the air out of environmentalism for over 2 decades now.. It has greatly defocused our efforts to further pursue wildlife conservation and toxins cleanup.

I think many TRUE environmentalists are coming back to basics and ignoring the hysteria of a 1degC doubling for CO2 into the atmosphere. The theory and the modeling has failed to provide any evidence that the warming from feedbacks will EVER approach the 5 or 6degC that got everyone excited in the first place.. 

To paraphrase Al Gore  ---- "*They played on your fears*"...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Yeah, applied science isn't a strong concept for you.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Oh, I know. *

All we have to do is modify the atmosphere of Mars so it's exactly like the Earth. *And, we can do the same to the Moon. *But we will want to move them both into the same orbit around the Sun. *Gotta be exact. The Moon, in its new orbit, can be the control.*

Then we change the Mars atmosphere by adding more CO2.*

Yeah, that'll do it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Add airplane design to the growing list of things that you know nothing about. Complex mechanisms today begin life as 3D CAD models with finite element analysis.



I suppose you could be more wrong, but I am not quite sure how.  If I am patient, however, I am sure you will show how it might be done.  Do you honestly think that an aircraft manufacturer actually spends the money on a model of a potential project right off the bat?  Well, apparently you do given your stupid comment.  

Contrary to what you may have seen on the comercials, staying at a Holiday Inn Express does not make you an expert at anything.

If you would stop and use your brain for just a second, you wouldn't look half as stupid.  Just think for a second about the requisite steps that must be considered before a model could even be seriously consided.

a)  before even the most basic shape of an aircraft can be considered, one must first consider what one wants the aircraft for.  Fighter?  Cargo?  Passenger?  Private?  Performance?  Aerobatic?  You really think an aircraft goes right into the modelling process before even considering what sort of aircraft it will be?

b)  Once you have determined what the aircraft will be used for, then you must consider the actual job it will be expected to perform.  For that, one must consider the various wing configurations and lifting surfaces available

c) Next you begin the process of selecting and or designing airfoils.  Fixed or perhaps variable wing geometry?  You think it is time for a model yet?  I don't think so.  

d) At this point, you will probably do a 3 view drawing of the aircraft either on paper or in a cad program...but you still aren't to the modelling phase.

At this point, months and hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent and you still aren't ready for modelling yet.

e)  Now you are ready to start making an inborard profile of the aircraft...roughing out where the major components will be...engine position, hydraulics, cables, resivors, fuel etc., etc., etc.

f) Once you have decided where the components will be, long before you ever put a skin on the drawings, you perform a weight and balance analysis....and perhaps a rudimentary stability analysis to determine if some rearrangement is necessary.

g)  make an isometric drawing.

h)  And now, at long last, you have enough data on the aircraft in question to begin to model it...

But even now, you are a long way from having a completed model

And you can bet your ass that if the computer model fails at any point or doesn't jibe with wind tunnel observations, the design is scrapped and they go back to the drawing board before any more money is thrown down the toilet after a flawed project.


Climate science has failed at the modelling process.  The models don't work and rather than go back and reexamine the hypothesis...they insist that their heat is just hiding...


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


All you've applied is a bunch of garbage masquerading as science.

1) Not reproducible in real life, in context...Not testable.

2) No physical static control.

3) Not falsifiable.

4) Not tentative..."The science is settled".

And those are only for of the traditional acid tests of Goebbels warming pseudo-science that it fails.






GIGO.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What you consider "their spectacular failure" is the fact that they concluded things different than your wild ass guesses. If the 97% of qualified scientists that accept AGW as the explanation for what can be measured weren't competent and objective way beyond you, the world would be sitting on a precipice fat dumb and happy while doing all of the wrong things instead of preparing for the inevitable future.



No what I consider a spectacular failure is their inability to produce output that matches observations in the real world....which is undeniably the case.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You keep claiming that it is true, and that all the evidence points to it but when asked for that evidence, you never fail to fail to provide it.  That should tell you something.



Well, it's a DD and here comes the SS.[/QUOTE]

And like every other day, you can't produce the first bit of hard, empirical evidence proving that X amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere produced X amount of warming.  When talking to you guys it is really SSDD.  I keep asking for evidence and you keep being unable to provide it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Ah, yeah, Newton's Second Law of Motion.  Garbage in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an externat force.  But can you PROVE, that it's garbage. Cuz if you can't... well then  It's like a lack of a sign is a sign.  Signentific...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> *C*omputer *A*ssisted *D*esign is not a model.......idiot.  It is a drafting table in a computer.  Have you always been this stupid are did you have to have to have  pharmaceutical help?



Yes, he really is that stupid.  It becomes more evident the more he talks.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Well, you've described perfectly the bullshit pseudo-science of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.

Waytago!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> If we all waited for "concrete conclusive evidence" for anything, much less everything, to act, we'd all be in the belly of the beast early in life. But don't worry. We won't leave you behind.



Well then lets see some empirical evidence that is more than the most simplistic correlation.  How about some observed evidence that adding X amount of CO2 to an open atmosphere will cause X warming.  Surely that has been proven experimentally....no?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> No, it's not, you ignorant fool.  It is a drafting program in a computer.  It has no modeling capabilities at all.  It Can make cute little animations that show exterior views and the better programs can give you artists views of how it should LOOK.  But they have zero engineering capabilities.
> 
> Go to school.  You KNOW nothing.
> 
> And it shows....



He thinks that is a model.  He thinks a model is like the plastic replicas you built as a kid.  If it looks like the finished product might look...it is a model.  Never mind that it has no relationship to what an actual model is.  Understanding what an actual computer model is is so far past his knowledge base that there really isn't even a place to start.  

Hell, he probably has "models" hanging from fishing line in his mom's basement where he lives.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> We have many polluted lakes, rivers, etc here in the U.S. that we could do something about it and fix that problem but we don't.  So what makes anyone think that we would do something about making changes to reduce global warming?  At the point that temperature is rising and noticed  its already too late to stop it.
> 
> All life since the beginning has an affect on climate due to their daily activities, it cannot be helped as we are all in one big fishbowl of chemical interactions.



That sort of important conversation doesn't happen because the AGW hoax sucks all the air from the room and all the treasure from the coffers.  Hundreds of billions that could have been spent cleaing up the environment have been wasted on the AGW hoax.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > *C*omputer *A*ssisted *D*esign is not a model.......idiot.  It is a drafting table in a computer.  Have you always been this stupid are did you have to have to have  pharmaceutical help?
> ...



Well, yes it is a model.  A model is everything from a small physical representation of an object to a dynamic mathematical computer simulation. A model may be a simple equation, a drawing, the digitized representation of an object in a CAD system or the dynamic fluid flow equations in a finite element analysys.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



So basically, you've got nothing. No chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything except "It's pseudo-science" based on no actual knowledge of science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



In what other area of science are you ready to bet the farm and $TRILLs based on using trees and the size of worm holes as thermometers?

The science is pretty clear to me. Doubling CO2 from 250 to 500ppm WILL contribute 1.1DegC in warming.. Everything else regarding the "fragile planet" theories and "warming amplification" is ALL speculation and hand-waving.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...









No, it isn't.  A CAD design is just that a DESIGN.  A model is designed to recreate behavior characteristics in the REAL WORLD.  Period.  Every time you open your mouth you expose your profound ignorance for all to see.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jun 28, 2013)

Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...








No, it isn't speculation.  Speculation requires empirical data to support your idea.  ALL historical data says that warmer is better.  PERIOD.


----------



## gslack (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



A model would be a representation of something, or in the computer modeling sense not only 3D but realistic in it's behavior and actions.

CAD is a 2D computer drafting program. Drafting is a drawing and a drawing is 2D. It can give 3D measurements and draw from various angles to get the idea of how the thing that it represents is to be built, but it is still a 2D drawing. 

To represent 3D you need a 3D modeling program. Notice the fact it is called a modeling program and not a CAD program... Yeah because it's in 3D and not 2D...

For a self-proclaimed scientist you're not very knowledgeable on the simplest of concepts...

You didn't know CO2 breaks down naturally over time, and you didn't know modeling and drafting are different things, and didn't why they are, what was your field again? I bet you got one of those new "green degrees". Something like an associates degree in sustainable developmental bullshit...ROFL


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I speculate on investments and choosing dentists all the time without much empirical data. I do better than 50/50... 

I've actually heard the word "speculate" many times at conferences.. I do believe it's accepted coinage of advanced research...


----------



## gslack (Jun 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The warmer science believes wave-particle duality means its a wave when it suits them but a particle when they need it to be. Hence the farce called backradiation or down welling long-wave radiation. A scientific joke that they sell..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You are on the right track, bullshit does contribute methane.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.



Seems like the feedback loop causes you similar issues with economics. I understand,  feedback systems have always been a pain.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Well, yes it is a model.  A model is everything from a small physical representation of an object to a dynamic mathematical computer simulation. A model may be a simple equation, a drawing, the digitized representation of an object in a CAD system or the dynamic fluid flow equations in a finite element analysys.



I suppose if one is a scientific illiterate, that simplistic definition of "model" is about all one could handle.  For those who grasp science, however, this is the common defnition of the term model.



> A conceptual, mathematical, or physical system obeying certain specified conditions, whose behavior is used to understand the physical system to which it is analogous in some way (after McGrawHill, 1974).(2) A conceptual description and the associated mathematical representation of a system, subsystem, components, or condition that is used to predict changes from a baseline state as a function of internal and/or external stimuli and as a function of time and space (10 CFR Part 960.2).



Sorry, I didn't realise how far behind the curve you actually are.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



OK sure, non reproducible, non causal, conjecture is not evidence.

You should be able to tell me with some certainty what catastrophes will happen in the earth is a couple degrees warmer but you can't.

The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms.

That is a fact.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Yeah, "the human race will survive" isn't a very lofty goal.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's the only goal of evolution is it not?

Face facts sooner or later the human race will become extinct.  It's just a matter of time.  You'll be long gone by then most likely several thousand generations of your progeny will be gone as well so the last humans will be so far removed from you so as to be considered strangers.

Accept it and don't live your life in fear.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



What are you even talking about?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


No, what the warmerists have is no  chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything.

That's why they need bullshit computer models where they control the inputs.


----------



## IanC (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Location, velocity, acceleration... l, dl/dt, d^2/dt^2(l).
> 
> Even small, sustained acceleration means future high velocity. Even small, sustained, velocity means future high location.
> 
> ...





exactly what I have been saying. Marcott's re-worked proxy reconstruction was thoroughly demolished for recent times yet the press release will live forever. itfitzme probably doesn't even know about the problems or the author's statement of retraction due to web based criticisms. or perhaps he does and chooses to ignore it. 

the media loves a new scary climate story but they have no time or interest for setting the story straight after it has been shown to be incorrect.

every time you look at these type of science-by-press-release stories more closely you find dodgy methodology and exaggerated conclusions. every fucking time.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Location, velocity, acceleration... l, dl/dt, d^2/dt^2(l).
> ...



Hoping you would clean up that one..   I'm getting bored with retail hip hop science slide shows anyway..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Location, velocity, acceleration... l, dl/dt, d^2/dt^2(l).
> ...



You can say whatever you want, but no one is gonna believe you.

Cuz according to Nature;

Global temperatures are close to 11,000-year peak : Nature News & Comment

So some prefer






and






Because they don't like

"The temperature trends that the team identified for the past 2,000 years are statistically indistinguishable from results obtained by other researchers in a previous study2, says Marcott. That gives us confidence that the rest of our record is right too, he adds."

and






Which, of course, doesn't change






and I find no retraction, just a lot of screamimg for it. *

*There is this The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, they admitted in a news release over Easter."

From*InvestigateDaily ? New global warming scandal hits climate science

But no link to the news release.

Though you are welcome to post it. Here is the university site.*News Releases | News & Research Communications | Oregon State University

Until then, that's the new, and were sticking to it.

Don't you just hate that you just can't contol everyone? *Damn internet

Maybe you should run for election as Internet Police Chief.

marcott retraction - Google Search

(I'm tempted to post thing just to read you get pissed off. *Oop, did I type that out loud?)


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.
> ...



Comparing a hard science to a soft science and inserting technical talk. I for one, am seriously impressed.


----------



## gslack (Jun 28, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Yeah that teenage, home-schooled, internet scientist is truly full of it, as well as full of himself...A real piece of work..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Does demand follow suppy, or supply follow demand?  It's a feedback loop.

That gslack gave you a thanks... priceless.


----------



## gslack (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL, and what does that mean in this context here? Come on socko quit rambling nonsense already. Your Jeff Spiccoli teaches esoteric science routine passed old a while ago. You too drunk or stoned to make a viable point? Too burned out maybe?

A bit of advice.. Being the smartest guy in your smoking circle doesn't make you smart. It just means you're an imaginative stoner compared to the stoners you hang with. And imaginative doesn't mean smarter,just means you're more full of shit...


----------



## IanC (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



(I'm tempted to post thing just to read you get pissed off. *Oop, did I type that out loud?)??? 

Im no internet policeman. I also prefer not to be the person who puts down link after link after link. there was already quite a few threads  about Marcott13 when it was released, and I dont intend to re-fight that war, we already won. Climate Audit and Real Climate have more than enough info to get you going from both sides, including the admission that the recent end of the graph is not 'robust' and therefore should not be used as evidence. this is contrary to the abstract of the paper and especially to the comments made to the media at the release of the paper.


one of the biggest problems laymen have is the concept of why it is incommensurate to add high sensitivy recent intrumental data to low sensitivity proxy data. scientists do know, that is why 'hide the decline' is such a scandal.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > If we all waited for "concrete conclusive evidence" for anything, much less everything, to act, we'd all be in the belly of the beast early in life. But don't worry. We won't leave you behind.
> ...



The very definition of a greenhouse gas. Have you heard that term?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's not, you ignorant fool.  It is a drafting program in a computer.  It has no modeling capabilities at all.  It Can make cute little animations that show exterior views and the better programs can give you artists views of how it should LOOK.  But they have zero engineering capabilities.
> ...



I certainly agree that Westfall is so far behind the times that it's hard to imagine him successfully flying a kite.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Only if you ignore positive feedbacks.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You've apparently been in a cave for quite some time. Perhaps that's why you're so anxious to drag the rest of us back there.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

```

```



TakeAStepBack said:


> Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.



That's actually been settled for quite some time now. The CO2 is the same CO2 sequestered during the Carboniferous Period, and the impact of its return to the atmosphere is exactly the reverse is of what happened when it was removed from the atmosphere. 

No big surprise. Just the nature of greenhouse gasses.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.





westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Ask the frog in the boiling water if warmer is better.

There is no question that humankind can adapt to a warmer climate. It's just going to take much of our output for a century or so. It's just a matter of rearranging civilization some.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So, if you redefine what CAD means to only that which is obsolete, than your words could be construed as meaningful.

I guess redefining English is no more presumptuous than redefining science.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You betcha. Like all words "speculate" is a fine word in the right context. Like when one is speculating. Otherwise, it's a bad word to use. Like when you're not speculating.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



"The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms."

While I hate to agree with an empty skull, I do fully agree with this statement. 

Unfortunately only some of the human race. And it will take most of our output for a long time. And the slower we move the more costly it will be. 

That's why you see all of this action going on around the world.


----------



## westwall (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...










Yes, we have.  You claim that CO2 will raise temps.  The temps havn't risen for 15 years at least.  Show us an algorithm that explains how that is possible in light of CO2 levels continuing to rise to ever higher levels.


----------



## westwall (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








Name the positive feedbacks and show us your math.


----------



## westwall (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








Says the idiot who has no clue of even the very basics.  You're too funny....


----------



## westwall (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...








Yes, it has been settled for a very long time.  CO2 FOLLOWS increased temperatures by 400 to 800 years.


----------



## westwall (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








Speculate is in the realm of charlatans.....like you.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



There you are. It's those damn computers again. If we could go back to pencil and paper we'd be fat, dumb and happy. 

The dinosauers didn't need computers. They went extinct without them.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Some?...Specifically how many people?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Most?...Specifically how much output?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Costly?..In terms of what?...How were these figures determined?...Source?


----------



## westwall (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








When your computer models are compared vs simply flipping a coin....the coin wins!  How stupid do you have to be to think your computer models are so good when in fact they are crushed by the random flipping of a coin?


Epic fail!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Wow...That's a crappeir straw man argument than we usually see elsewhere on the board.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...




And you, as one opinion, do not matter. The majority of humanity is working solutions now while a small minority, formerly known as the Flat Earth Society, is still waiting for God's email as the only acceptable proof. 

Humanity just can't afford that much caution. We never could, we certainly can't now.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Slackerman Limpnoodle III's 2 cents worth is grossly over valued.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


So, you've been appointed as humanity's spokesman now, Captain Strawman?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I did. You chose not to read it. That's the nature of denialism. Un-natural selection of input. 

Remember, half understanding is not halfway to full understanding but actually more ignorant than not understanding at all because those people know that they don't know. You assume that what you don't know can't hurt you. That's probably true, but it can hurt us if we don't remove your hands from the controls. Which, of course, we've done.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Ahem......


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




What if global warming isn?t as severe as predicted? : Climate Q&A : Blogs


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ```
> ...



So what causes global warming? Is God screwing with the thermostat again? 

What happened 400 to 800 years ago that caused the current CO2 increase?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Every human being that I know speculates almost constantly. Are you the dull witted mediabot that proves that rule?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives. I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

Opinions? Can climate reactionaries be ID'd by the weirdness of their avatars?

They seem middle school boys to me.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



I try to help be science's spokesperson. Somebody has to counter the Flat Earth Society and Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## westwall (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...










What'sa matter boy... you no speaka the English?  SHOW US YOUR MATH!  That's an opinion piece with no math.  Do try and keep up.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc.



PMZ said:


> I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong.


No...That's not how it works...You prove that you're right, with verifiable facts and figures.

Now answer the questions with citations to verifiable sources.


----------



## westwall (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...











That's not the way science works junior.  As Aristotle said.....


*"He who asserts must also prove"*


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Only some of the human race ever survives.
In case you didn't know it, people die every day.

And you aren't going to stop that.

We would have to lose an awful lot to be reduced to the point where it takes all our energy to merely survive.

And a slightly warmer planet won't even come close to doing that.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



That's a ridiculous application of "Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc."

You asked for how many people, you got "hundreds".

You asked for cost, you got "$100B".

Last I checked, all insurance claims are "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

By definition, extreme is beyond the average, by multiple standard deviations. *AWG is "than might have otherwise been expected".

And that's how statistics works.*

It's not Newtonian mechanics.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I should have known that you expected some +'s and -'s and that statistical inference would sail right over your head. 

Teaching people committed to ignorance is not possible. Sorry.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I didn't get the email putting you in charge of how it works. I'm right unless you can prove me wrong is how I work. I'm sick of people who say that science owes them knowledge. Nobody owes you a thing. If you're not capable of keeping up you pay the price.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



If there is one thing that you've made clear, it's that you have no idea of how science works.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



He asked a stupid question and was surprised by a stupid answer. No wonder he's baffled by life.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



"In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives. I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong."

*"He who wants proof, must comprehend science"* - Aristotle's older brother, Promethius.

"You can't just run around saying, 'He who assets must also prove', just because dad said it once.  It actually has to fit the context" - Aristotle's older sister, Debbistotle.

"He who assets must also prove...He who assets must also prove...He who assets must also prove" - Aristotle's younger brother, Samualstotle, running around in circles, waving his hands in the air.

That's the way science works, brother.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


IOW, you got nothing.

Dismissed.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Insurance claims are non sequitur, irrelevant and prove nothing.

I asked for proof and you yo-yos don't have jack schitt.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Nah, you just don't accept actual events as proof. *What you want is every incoming photon and emitted CO2 molecule tagged so someone with a photo-multipler tube and a hot air ballon can identify exactly which photons and which CO2 molecules have caused warming. *Perhaps someone can devise a method for tracing the individual photon energy from molecule to molecule, as the kinetic energy and momemtum are transfered to each individual H2O molecule in the Gulf. *Then that can be traced to the H2O that evaporates to create the Hurricane. *And each H2O, N2, O2, and CO2 molecule that has carried the specific photon energy can then be identified as it impinges on the specific individual that is described by "hundreds". Oh, and while we are at it, each individual serial number from the $200B can be identified.

Otherwise, how can we be sure that particular huricane wasn't caused by all the energy from the natural variability and the AWG energy didn't go into the other hurricane? *How do we know for sure?

Maybe we are all just dreaming. Maybe we are just butterflies dreaming that we are humans. *And later, we will wake up and discover it's all a dream.

Or, if I stick my fingers in my ears, stomp my feet, and say "non-sequiter, post hoc ergo propter hoc", over and over, I can't hear and it's like no one is there at all.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> You can say whatever you want, but no one is gonna believe you.
> 
> Cuz according to Nature;
> 
> ...



Nature's claim was based on the press release before marcott admitted that his paper didn't even address the claim.


Answer to the prime question by marcott:



> Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
> 
> A: *Our study did not directly address this question *because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. *Any small upticks or downticks in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper*.



Based on that statement the MET office withdrew its headline.

Not robust...do you understand what those words mean?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 29, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, and what does that mean in this context here? Come on socko quit rambling nonsense already. Your Jeff Spiccoli teaches esoteric science routine passed old a while ago. You too drunk or stoned to make a viable point? Too burned out maybe?
> 
> A bit of advice.. Being the smartest guy in your smoking circle doesn't make you smart. It just means you're an imaginative stoner compared to the stoners you hang with. And imaginative doesn't mean smarter,just means you're more full of shit...



He sucks at analogy worse than just about anyone else I have ever seen.  Warmers shoud avoid analogy because there simply are none that work when trying to compare climate science to actual science.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


An actual event was the Bruins losing the Stanley Cup...Was Goebbels warming to blame for that too?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



A definition hardly amounts to empirical evidence.  Just because a thing has a defninition does not mean that it does what is claimed of it, or that it even exists.  For example:

*fairy - n - class of supernatural beings, generally conceived as having a diminutive human form and possessing magical powers with which they intervene in human affairs*

Do you believe that fairies exist and do what is claimed of them simpy because the word has a definition?  Apparently, you do.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I did. You chose not to read it. That's the nature of denialism. Un-natural selection of input.



No you didn't.  Here is a chance to prove that you aren't a bald faced liar by reposting it.

The odds are running heavily against you being able to produce.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I guess you didn't notice that the graph said "simulated" climate sensitivity.  Guess you don't know that simulated means not real.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yeah, they were going to run physical test, by changing the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere, over repeated concentrations and other factors, but they decided that would take to long.

Darned UN won't let them have any fun. *And they thought it might be important to get the range intead of just a single observed value.

You think we should stop training airline pilots in flight simulators? *The US military seems to be pretty happy with them for fighter pilots. *I thing NASA trained the shuttle pilots in them too. *Maybe the IPCC guys might have picked up a trick or two from NASA. *Maybe someone at the IPCC might even know someone at NASA, you never know.

Continuous scales are a bit tricky for some folk, eh?

scale model -> drawing -> CAD -> computer modelling -> simulator

Geez, they are different words. *They can't possibly be simular. *Hmmm...similar... simulator....hmmm

identical.... identicalator... Yeah, that's what they need, an identicalator.

How about an exactilator?

Obviously, if their computer system was good enough, they'd call it an exactilation, not a simulation. *Sounds like an admission that it's not good enough. *

I read, in the Climategate emails, one of them calling it a trickilator. *PROOF!!!


----------



## mamooth (Jun 29, 2013)

Oddball said:


> An actual event was the Bruins losing the Stanley Cup...Was Goebbels warming to blame for that too?



Any particular reason you think about Nazis all the time? Is it just a hobby of yours, or has it evolved into a full-blown fetish?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

Ah, blow it out your ass, chunkhead.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > An actual event was the Bruins losing the Stanley Cup...Was Goebbels warming to blame for that too?
> ...



Carefull, or he'll be talking about your ass, next.

Too late


----------



## mamooth (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> That's the nature of denialism. Un-natural selection of input.



Not just denialism, but everything in the right-wing extremist fringe cult.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

Oooo....A stupid leftbat cartoon from those weekly urban arts & entertainment rags!

That'll fix their wagons!


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

Yes.  It's 1/50 degF/CO2ppm.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Oooo....A stupid leftbat cartoon from those weekly urban arts & entertainment rags!
> 
> That'll fix their wagons!



Yeah, you're talking about his ass was way better.

He's an ass Nazi, right?






A chunkhead ass Nazi!

You're so smart.


----------



## MDiver (Jun 29, 2013)

Global warming, a myth?
Yeah.  Those rapidly disappearing glaciers, stronger hurricanes, floodings and fires are just figments of our imagination.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Oooo....A stupid leftbat cartoon from those weekly urban arts & entertainment rags!
> ...


The only one talking out his ass here is you, junior.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

MDiver said:


> Global warming, a myth?
> Yeah.  Those rapidly disappearing glaciers, stronger hurricanes, floodings and fires are just figments of our imagination.



Apparently, it is a progressive chunckhead ass Nazi plot to reduce population by eliminating CO2 in the atmosphere, reducing agricultural output in the midwest, and starving the population because eliminating DDT wasn't fast enough.

Something like that.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Brilliant!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Has the added feature of being true.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Remember, the good ol' days, when your dad use to read to you all about those chunkhead ass Nazis?






You sure must miss that.


----------



## gslack (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Are you claiming I redefined CAD or that it is old and obsolete? LOL, first no redefining necessary schmuck, it's already what I said it was. Second, 2D drating is not obsolete, it's still the basis of pretty much every design you see out there. COntractors don't carry IPADS tothe work site to ensure everything is built to specs, they carry blueprints, and those blueprints are made using CAD...

MORON...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...




Inventor and Inventor Professional | Features | Autodesk

Software for mechanical design and simulation
Autodesk® Inventor® and Autodesk® Inventor® Professional *3D CAD software* provides functionality for advanced mechanical engineering design, *finite element analysis, motion simulation,* data management, routed system and mold design, as well as enhanced CAD productivity solutions.

We've come long way since ammonia developed blueprints.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

CAD Simulation for Designers & Analysts - KeyCreator Analysis

Simple, Fast and Accurate Results for the Simulation Novice
Fast and Accurate True Multi-Physics for the Simulation Analyst
The Simplicity and Speed of Direct CAD
KeyCreator Analysis with Sefea technology allows designers with limited FEA (finite element analysis) knowledge to produce fast and accurate simulation results. *And* Simulation Analysts* can produce sophisticated multi-physics analysis with speed and precision.

Automeshing technology shaves hours off of the *simulation set-up time*. The breakthrough Sefea (SeFEEah) technology produces accurate results using a less dense mesh. * This speeds processing time while using less memory resources, *allowing simulation* on large and complex models that otherwise could not be calculated on an engineering workstation or laptop computer. *Sefea's advanced algorithms give the designer or analyst *superior simulation *speed and accuracy.

KeyCreator Analysis is the first and only integrated CAD/Analysis solution that provides this combination of auto-meshing, processing speed and accuracy. This allows those who are not *Simulation/Analyst *experts to get great results to improve the quality a design early in the process. Using KeyCreator Analysis in the initial design phase will save design cycle time and reduce prototype costs.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Hard numbers, hard evidence, sources.

Bring it, junior.


----------



## gslack (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And what part of 3D is escaping you genius? CAD is computer assisted drafting. 3D CAD would be computer assisted drafting and MODLEING.... 

AND as was said previously a 3D modeling program (like Autodesk) works in 3 dimensions, and a regular CAD program works in 2 dimensions. 

Are you trying to claim that a 2D CAD program is the same thing? LOL most likely you are...

You can nitpick this anyway you want, it won't change a thing. The fact is 2D cad, and 3D modeling are not the same thing. You tried to claim CAD is modeling,it's not, it's drawing or drafting. 3D modeling is modeling.. And Autodesk does both moron...

Jesus you're an idiot... Now can you explain what the hell this proves? Other than the fact you're an idiot? 3D modeling and CAD are not the same things but they can work together. Ever work with either of them? Obviously not. You can use CAD to draw 2D pictures of a #3D object. Then take those pictures and create a 3D model of that object. Then you can alter that object in the 3D modeling aspect to suit whatever you may need, hence modeling moron...

ROFL, please continue to prove my point shithead..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

I think that the wailing of the climate regressives speaks for itself. They have been judged irrelevant by those that understand science. The only allies that they can find are those who don't understand science. 

While they argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the world has moved on. 

They had been told that they are entitled to what they want to be true. They believed, oh how they believed. But it was all a lie. They are entitled to nothing. If they want relevance they have to do what the rest of us did. Work. Study. Learn. Debate. Consider objectively. No free lunches. 

AGW is objective science. They want cheaper science. They want it to be true that returning the carbon dioxide that fossil fuels are made from to the atmosphere from wence it came will be different than when it was last there. Pretty dumb, huh?

But, they consider themselves priviledged. Entitled to what they want. 

Why? Rush and his cohorts told them that they can have what they want if they only believe hard enough. 

What a crock. But appealing to the weak minded. We can't afford to follow the weak minded any more. 

We're moving on. They're staying here because progress is just so scary.

Fine. Don't call us, we'll call you.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I think that the wailing of the climate regressives speaks for itself. They have been judged irrelevant by those that understand science. The only allies that they can find are those who don't understand science.
> 
> While they argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the world has moved on.
> 
> They had been told that they are entitled to what they want to be true. They believed, oh how they believed. But it was all a lie. They are entitled to nothing. If they want relevance they have to do what the rest of us did. Work. Study. Learn. Debate. Consider objectively. No free lunches.


Good thing you don't project....Much.


----------



## gslack (Jun 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I think that the wailing of the climate regressives speaks for itself. They have been judged irrelevant by those that understand science. The only allies that they can find are those who don't understand science.
> 
> While they argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the world has moved on.
> 
> ...



The fact you try and grandstand when you screw up, adding the way you try and dismiss everybody not on your side as "Rush" fans, we can see that your are here simply to troll...

Get a grip moron, you're the tool not us...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 30, 2013)

The Cult of Denialism was born in the final years of the 20th century as a political entertainment/campaign stunt. Clinton had been a very successful and popular President and his Vice President, Al Gore, seemed certain to follow him into the White House. 

The political line up:

Republican strengths: A popular 24/7/365 propaganda machine through Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Monica Lewinski. 
Republican weaknesses: No qualified candidates. 
Democrat strengths: Clinton's success and popularity. Gore's environmental vision. 
Democrat weaknesses. Clinton's penchant for Monica.

The Republican strategy was simple and obvious. Use the propaganda network to drag Clinton down by his, ahem, weakness. And turn Gore's vision into a sinister plot, both through the manipulation of the public by the propaganda network. In other words, lower the street cred of the strong Democrat team down to below that of the weak Republican team. 

It seemed, at first, destined to fail, and, it did by popular vote. However several Supreme Court justices owed their career to Bush Sr so, in the end, we had our first Supreme Court appointed President. 

As the country spiraled downward by an inept administration, it became necessary for the GOP to double down on their strategy to get, OMG, Bush re-elected. And they did.

But the Cult of Denialism took on a life of its own. For one thing it is the kind of political challange that invites partisanship. It pits business against the people, rich and poor against the middle class, responsible people against irresponsible, industrialized countries against developing countries, past and present against the future, science against politics, states potentially benefitting from either the "new" climate or the energy infrastructure transformation against those negatively impacted.

All in all, quite a free for all. But, in the end, a necessary adaptation by humanity to a new environment. The very definition of evolution. 

All of the real issues now are in the realms of engineering and business and politics in a technological slugfest to determine which solutions fare best in the race up the learning curves. Lots of contenders. Lots of big buck betting. Lots of losers and a few very big winners. The stuff that capitalism thrives on, but government must lead to make sure that it's the big picture that we are pursuing and not just the unstructured whims of the marketplace. 

Exciting times. Defining times. The best and worst of human traits in battle for the future. 

Fossil fuels had their time on stage and we always knew they were of limited supply. Our relentless quest for more for more and more people is largely based on unlimited inexpensive energy and we are entering the times of more and more costly fossil fuels. More costly to extract, transport and process, and more costly to dispose of their waste. 

Times they are a'changing. Relentlessly. Inevitably, progressively. Opportunity and risk abound. Not for the faint hearted.


----------



## westwall (Jun 30, 2013)

Yes, the times they are a changing.  McIntyre (who you so despise because...well he's right and kicks your collective asses to the kerb at every opportunity) was correct yet again and Briffa et al were as usual WRONG!


Hey Ya! (mal) McIntyre was right  CRU Abandons one tree Yamal Superstick



This must be personally satisfying for Steve McIntyre, though I doubt the folks at RealClimate will have the integrity to acknowledge that he was right, and they were wrong.

It seems that in the latest publication from CRUs Keith Briffa, they decided to leave out those elements (The most influential tree in the world) Steve identified that led to the Yamal Superstick.




Hey Ya! (mal) McIntyre was right ? CRU Abandons one tree Yamal Superstick | Watts Up With That?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The Cult of Denialism was born in the final years of the 20th century as a political entertainment/campaign stunt. Clinton had been a very successful and popular President and his Vice President, Al Gore, seemed certain to follow him into the White House.
> 
> The political line up:
> 
> ...


What an amazing concept for a "based (kinda-sorta) on a true story" melodramatic teleplay!

You should be able to sell that to a teevee network for a mint!


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yes, the times they are a changing.  McIntyre (who you so despise because...well he's right and kicks your collective asses to the kerb at every opportunity) was correct yet again and Briffa et al were as usual WRONG!
> 
> 
> Hey Ya! (mal) McIntyre was right &#8211; CRU Abandons one tree Yamal Superstick
> ...




Reality has never been an obsticle to rent seeking carbon sequestration cabals. Obama just laid forth his plan to put the entire coal industry out of business based on a lie. There is money to be made by the fascisti!.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yes, the times they are a changing.  McIntyre (who you so despise because...well he's right and kicks your collective asses to the kerb at every opportunity) was correct yet again and Briffa et al were as usual WRONG!
> 
> Hey Ya! (mal) McIntyre was right  CRU Abandons one tree Yamal Superstick
> 
> ...



McIntyre is a loser.


----------



## gslack (Jun 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The Cult of Denialism was born in the final years of the 20th century as a political entertainment/campaign stunt. Clinton had been a very successful and popular President and his Vice President, Al Gore, seemed certain to follow him into the White House.
> 
> The political line up:
> 
> ...



No link, no citation, no proper attribution of any kind, it's plagiarism no matter how you slice it...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 30, 2013)

"Areas projected to see the most significant increase in heavy rainfall are in the tropical zones around the equator, particularly in the Pacific Ocean and Asian monsoon regions.*

Some regions outside the tropics may have no rainfall at all. The models also projected for every degree Fahrenheit of warming, the length of periods with no rain will increase globally by 2.6 percent. In the Northern Hemisphere, areas most likely to be affected include the deserts and arid regions of the southwest United States, Mexico, North Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, and northwestern China. In the Southern Hemisphere, drought becomes more likely in South Africa, northwestern Australia, coastal Central America and northeastern Brazil. "

NASA - NASA Study Projects Warming-Driven Changes in Global Rainfall


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "Areas projected to see the most significant increase in heavy rainfall are in the tropical zones around the equator, particularly in the Pacific Ocean and Asian monsoon regions.*
> 
> Some regions outside the tropics may have no rainfall at all. The models also projected for every degree Fahrenheit of warming, the length of periods with no rain will increase globally by 2.6 percent. In the Northern Hemisphere, areas most likely to be affected include the deserts and arid regions of the southwest United States, Mexico, North Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, and northwestern China. In the Southern Hemisphere, drought becomes more likely in South Africa, northwestern Australia, coastal Central America and northeastern Brazil. "
> 
> NASA - NASA Study Projects Warming-Driven Changes in Global Rainfall


Well, the models have almost all been wrong to this point, why would that preposterous heap of bullsqueeze be any different?


----------



## westwall (Jun 30, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the times they are a changing.  McIntyre (who you so despise because...well he's right and kicks your collective asses to the kerb at every opportunity) was correct yet again and Briffa et al were as usual WRONG!
> ...







And yet....*HE BEAT YOUR SILLY ASS!*


----------



## westwall (Jun 30, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "Areas projected to see the most significant increase in heavy rainfall are in the tropical zones around the equator, particularly in the Pacific Ocean and Asian monsoon regions.*
> 
> Some regions outside the tropics may have no rainfall at all. The models also projected for every degree Fahrenheit of warming, the length of periods with no rain will increase globally by 2.6 percent. In the Northern Hemisphere, areas most likely to be affected include the deserts and arid regions of the southwest United States, Mexico, North Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, and northwestern China. In the Southern Hemisphere, drought becomes more likely in South Africa, northwestern Australia, coastal Central America and northeastern Brazil. "
> 
> NASA - NASA Study Projects Warming-Driven Changes in Global Rainfall









Hansens a *L*oser!


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 30, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "Areas projected to see ....
> 
> NASA - NASA Study Projects Warming-Driven Changes in Global Rainfall



Nasa? 

"In a far-reaching restatement of goals for the nations space agency, NASA administrator Charles Bolden says President Obama has ordered him to pursue three new objectives: to re-inspire children to study science and math, to expand our international relationships, and to reach out to the Muslim world.  Of those three goals, Bolden said in a recent interview with al-Jazeera, the mission to reach out to Muslims is perhaps foremost, because it will help Islamic nations feel good about their scientific accomplishments." Obama?s new mission for NASA: Reach out to Muslim world | Nation | San Francisco Examiner


I don't see anything about 'Climate' in there. Nasa is now just another Obama political tool. They don't do science anymore.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 30, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Not picking on you Skull, I have PMZ on ignore (Thank the Lord)  and only get occasional glances at his brilliance and commitment to saving us --- the undeserving masses of flat earth skeptics. So I have to tap other posts. But YOURS made me consider a proposition.. 



> Only some of the human race ever survives.
> In case you didn't know it, people die every day.
> 
> And you aren't going to stop that.


So ---- WE ( a new imaginary "we" like the one in PMZ's head) should propose what WE would do with the $1Trill in CO2 mitigation that's going down the crapper with PMZ's team. And project how many folks WE'RE gonna save with that money.. 

Removing dictators, building up economies, giving folks tools to FEED THEMSELVES, educate themselves, end SLAVERY and clean up the environment in general. 

It's OUR "we" --- against the imaginary "we" that this troll imagines. We'll present proposals at the UN and put it up for a vote. 99.5% chance that OUR "WE" wins..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > "Areas projected to see the most significant increase in heavy rainfall are in the tropical zones around the equator, particularly in the Pacific Ocean and Asian monsoon regions.*
> ...



So you prefer Dr Spencer's view eh?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 30, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > "Areas projected to see ....
> ...



Yeah, no science in rocket science.  Brilliant.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


I prefer physically verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable science...Models ain't science.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Yeah, not like those IPCC models, real like Dr. Roy Spencer's real model that he runs on an Excel spreadsheet.

"In my new book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the Worlds Top Climate Scientists, *I show the results of experiments with a simple climate model that runs in an Excel spreadsheet.* The model is meant to illustrate how natural monthly-to-yearly variability in global (a) cloud cover and (b) surface evaporation can affect our satellite observations of (1) temperature and (2) total radiative flux."

Simple Climate Model Release, Version 1.0 « Roy Spencer, PhD

Geez, you are an idiot.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2013)

Don't give shit.

Where is your physically verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable science fuckchop?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I particularly like "Models ain't science." I think that it's the pass phrase to get into the Flat Earth Society Bar and Grill.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I don't know of you've been outside in the last decade or so, but your "team" has already lost. Nobody is investing in what you want to be true. All of the money is going into mitigating the consequences of what is true. Not that anyone expects you to ever acknowledge your inability to understand and accept science. That would require learning on your part.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


OK, Mr. Wisenheimer...Since when did computer models become an acid test for proven, verifiable and repeatable science.

What specific date?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



*OH*



*THE*




_*IRONY!*_


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Don't give shit.
> 
> Where is your physically verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable science fuckchop?



Sure you don't  Explains the neg rep.  Must be because you secretly like me.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You are a hairball.

Mathematical models have been a big tool of science for hundreds of years.

Using computers to do the mathematical heavy lifting to make the math models useful probably started in the '40s.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Don't give shit.
> ...



Not sure what a neg rep is exactly but if you get one from a neg source does it net positive?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Over half a century ago, apparently.

*Wiki says*; "Computer simulation developed hand-in-hand with the rapid growth of the computer, following *its first large-scale deployment during the Manhattan Project in World War II *to model the process of nuclear detonation."

*"The scale of events being simulated by computer simulations has far exceeded anything possible (or perhaps even imaginable) using *traditional paper-and-pencil mathematical modeling.*"






Mr. Wisenheimer<=>Oppenhiemer. *It's just seems like some people are intentionally stupid, refusing to accept what they already know. Could be coincidence.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

Ignorance is a marketable commodity. It can be directed, in a democracy, towards supporting what's good for the few, at the expense of the many. Rush Limbaugh, as just one example, has been paid over a billion dollars to create a pool of malleable ignorance which the GOP can access to stay in the government that they are committed to destroy. 

There is simply no other explanation for the election of a completely dysfunctional Congress with the lowest approval level of any other in history.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Ignorance is a marketable commodity. It can be directed, in a democracy, towards supporting what's good for the few, at the expense of the many. Rush Limbaugh, as just one example, has been paid over a billion dollars to create a pool of malleable ignorance which the GOP can access to stay in the government that they are committed to destroy.
> 
> There is simply no other explanation for the election of a completely dysfunctional Congress with the lowest approval level of any other in history.



"Leaving Fox News has turned out to be a pretty good business move for Glenn Beck. By the end of this year, 18 months after he got out of the 24-hour cable news business and struck out on his own as an internet broadcasting pioneer, Beck will have doubled the revenues of his company, Mercury Radio Arts, from $40 million to $80 million, according to The Wall Street Journal."

So says Forbes .. WSJ .. *

Glenn Beck Closes In On The $100 Million Mark - Forbes

Still, that's just hear-say... (read-write?)


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Don't give shit.
> Where is your physically verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable science fuckchop?



Nothing but whining about the form of the model. *It's built up as computer code rather than written on a piece of paper. Instead of F=ma, it's;

01: Program
02: 5-> mass
03: 9.8-> acceleration
04: mass*acceleration -> force
05: Print "Mass","Force","Acceleration"
06: Print mass,force,acceleration
07: end program

Same thing, different language. 

And, it is observable, repeatable, and*falsifiable. The model matchs the climate or not. *The climate measures change, the input changes, the output changes, the output matches or doesn't match the remaining climate measures.

And last I looked, we don't have an extra planet that we can terraform and do experiments on. *So, we measure the control variables as the population varies CO2 and the dependent variable, global mean temperature.

Oh, I get it. *You're issue is the control variable. *You just don't like not having direct control. *It's just a control issue for you. *That fits.  That's the trouble with abussive personalities.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> And, it is observable, repeatable, and*falsifiable. The model matchs the climate or not. *The climate measures change, the input changes, the output changes, the output matches or doesn't match the remaining climate measures.
> *
> And last I looked, we don't have an extra planet that we can terraform and do experiments on. *So, we measure the control variables as the population varies CO2 and the dependent variable, global mean temperature.*
> 
> Oh, I get it. *You're issue is the control variable. *You just don't like not having direct control. *It's just a control issue for you. *That fits.  That's the trouble with abussive personalities.


Translation: The *theory* (and that's granting it some wide latitude) of anthropogenic Goebbels warming is not repeatable on demand and in context, not falsifiable and physically observable...To go with there being no static control.

IOW, no science.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Yes, it's a negatively correlated proxy for reality.

Here is his intelligent rep response;

"	The global warming...	06-30-2013 08:26 PM	Oddball	blow me, troll"

Why is it always "ass" and "blow me" with these guys?  Latent homosexual tendencies?  You'd think that they'd get that they are the ones that always bring it up. First he's all about you're ass.  Now he's propositioning me.  He needs to get himself a boyfriend. They can ge married in CA now.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

What's with your rank stupidity and endless trolling?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > And, it is observable, repeatable, and*falsifiable. The model matchs the climate or not. *The climate measures change, the input changes, the output changes, the output matches or doesn't match the remaining climate measures.
> ...



i.e, you don't know what science is. *

Oh, how about the astronomical sciences. *

F =G* m1*m2 / r^2

And they can't actually move planets into different orbits, so they are stuck with dealing with different planets of different masses in different orbits. *And yet, after plugging Newton's, Keppler's and Einstien's physical laws into a computer model, they have proven that the inputs, models, and outputs match the real world. *Empirical real data, repeatable, falsifiable, and verifiable science. *Welcome to the 21st century.

Oh, how about geological science. *Seems to be pretty successful in finding oil. *Beats just randomly poking holes in the ground. *Instead, they have these complex seismic and geological models they run through computers to narrow it down. *"and up from the ground comes bubblin' crude, black gold...."

Or are you now redefining what science is? 

Translation: You're a Goebbel, chunkhead ass blower.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> What's with your rank stupidity and endless trolling?



What is with the mindless and endless comments that say nothing about the real world? *Where is the math? *Where is the data? *Definitions beyond you're own head? Anything?

You don't even know what a "troll" is except your four year old, emotional definition of "I don't like it." and you brain dead response of "You're a stupid, chunkhead, Goebbel, ass troll. So blow me, you stupid stupidity stupid blow troll...".  Stomp..stomp..stomp. Whaaaa!


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > What's with your rank stupidity and endless trolling?
> ...


The definitions that seem to be over your head are repeatability, quantification, control sample and falsifiablity, at least...All of which are  long standing acid tests for real science.

The best you can do is point at your stupid (yes *STUPID*) computer models, which have never been right to date....That and troll like the wormy little troll that you are.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



The best you can do is continuously repeat "computer models...I don't like them." And, "You're stupid." *Yet, not once have you presented anything that resembles scientific knowledge.  Anything, one little scientific equation.

How about the mathematical sciences, refered to as a pure science? How about computer science?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

Well, if you're going to rely on stupid computer models that have never (and I do mean never) been right, along with discounting traditional tried-and-true scientific methods out-of-hand,  then it only follows that you're stupid.

If the shoe fits....


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Well, if you're going to rely on stupid computer models that have never (and I do mean never) been right, along with discounting traditional tried-and-true scientific methods out-of-hand, *then it only follows that you're stupid.
> 
> If the shoe fits....



Says who? *You? *Because you've deciced AWG is wrong, ergo the computer model is wrong. *Ergo, computer models aren't science. *That's bassackwards reasoning. *

I'll give you a clue, it's not the model that's wrong...It's [blank]. A three letter word that rhymes with "poo".

A computer model is simply another form of a mathematical model. It has revolutionized the sciences because it has unleashed it from being reliant on simple algebraic, linear models and openned up the realm of dealing with computational, procedural algorithms and non-linear mathematical models. It has been particularly effective in the ability to deal with statistcal data which is extremely computationally intensive.

F = m * a is the same whether you use pen and paper, a slide rule, a calculator, or a computer. *Using it and getting 5*3 = 12 says nothing of the science and everything of the person doing the computations.

You are mistaking science for the calculator. *If you calculate 3 * 5 = 12 and then measure 15, hey, verified wrong. *If you calculate 3*5=15 and measure 15, then verified right.

Repeatable, measurable, falsifiable, and verifiable. *Pencil, sliderule, calculator, computer, it doesn't matter. You're confusing the science for the tools. *You're confusing them because you are just looking for something you can call "stupid". *But here's a clue, you don't define reality.

I just checked Wikipedia, under science. *Nope, you were not in there. Computer modeling was, not Oddball.

The difference between you and a scientist is you try force reality to fit your feelings while a scientist lets their feelings fit reality. *It is called "learning".

Repeatedly saying, "You're stupid" don't make it so.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Well, if you're going to rely on stupid computer models that have never (and I do mean never) been right, along with discounting traditional tried-and-true scientific methods out-of-hand, *then it only follows that you're stupid.
> 
> If the shoe fits....



Mankind has created an awesome computer model that reflects reality. *It is comprised of millions of individual computers, all interconnected on this thing called the interweb. And it models the real world and the mind of man. How close it gets to reality is entirely dependent on the input it receives. *

I input F=ma+e or GDP = PQ, and it models reality perfectly, as a model of a model of physical mechanics and national economy.

The BEA does surveys and enters data and the internet produces 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Google maps, part of the internet, models the geography of the physical world. *

But this model of our world is only as good as the data that it is give, only as good as it's weakest link. *So everytime you post, it more resembles the kind of computer model that you so complain about.

Case in point.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

Blablablabla.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that you have no actual physically producible, quantifiable, falsifiable proof of your hypothesis.

The rest is just a bunch of smoke blowing...Which you don't do particularly well either.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Blablablabla.
> 
> None of that has anything to do with the fact that you have no actual physically producible, quantifiable, falsifiable proof of your hypothesis.
> 
> The rest is just a bunch of smoke blowing...Which you don't do particularly well either.



Blablablablabla.

Yes, it is measurable, falsifiable and repeatable. *You seem to be completely unwilling to accept the reality of this. *All you have done is played word games with the definition of model and science, desperately trying to avoid the reality that






leads to






which when all the science is brought to bear on it, yields






and






The independent, driving data goes in. The dependent, driven prediction comes out. *The predicted output matches the actual driven data, within the level of accepted uncertainty. And with every new year, every new set of additional data, every new satellite, every new run of CRAVE, new set of data from ARGO, the model gets better.

The largest unknown now is national policy. The science is way past that.

But I get your problem, you can't distinguish between*
anon=-3.08+0.0092*CO2,*
F=ma,*
"chunkhead", and
"blablabla".

It all just sounds the same to you. As a model of reality, the noise in your head exceeds the input.

On the other hand, I now do

anon=-3.08+0.00922*CO2

from memory.

Which is why I get smarter and you just stay ignorant.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

Arguing with the hairball is futile. He's been knighted by Rush Limbaugh as an educated patriot useful for blindly supporting lost causes that benefit the few at the expense of the many. 

Actually, the "good boy" thing is how I train my dog with equal results. He does what I ask him to. Now that I've trained him, telling him "bad boy" for doing what I ask him is like water off a duck's back. He knows what he's been told to do and is incapable of any other reasoning.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Arguing with the hairball is futile. He's been knighted by Rush Limbaugh as an educated patriot useful for blindly supporting lost causes that benefit the few at the expense of the many.
> 
> Actually, the "good boy" thing is how I train my dog with equal results. He does what I ask him to. Now that I've trained him, telling him "bad boy" for doing what I ask him is like water off a duck's back. He knows what he's been told to do and is incapable of any other reasoning.



Learning from his mistakes works.  It's the null hypothesis route.  I do the best I can to prove he has some relevance.  Then when it fails miserably, I know.

When it gets boring, I go the positive feedback route elsewhere.

I'm waiting for some demonstration of this logarithmic CO2 function.  To get there, though, seema to require abandoning other denier claims. The whole AWG science is a complete package.  What the do is make one assumption for temp=log(co2) requires one assumption that then abandons other denier hypothesis.  We can't have negative feedback, temp driven CO2 and the recent temp v CO2 all at the same time.


----------



## westwall (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Blablablabla.
> ...








Those are ALL derived from models.  And the models have been proven to be less than worthless.

You'll have to do better if you wish to be taken seriously.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Yeah, still living in fantacy land, I see. *Try saying something specific.

Like how you can't accomplish it. *That's the real fact, you can't.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



How else would you understand climate dynamics other than modeling it?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


By coming up with repeatable, verifiable, quantifiable methods to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

But all you have are imperfect models, designed to get the result you're getting...And they keep getting it wrong.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Blablablabla.
> ...


And all I have are the very words of your High Priests...
*
"The fact is that we can&#8217;t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can&#8217;t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."*

~Keven Trenberth, UCAR

BBC, to Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia:"*Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?*"

Jones: "*Yes...*"



And I didn't even need no pretty colored charts and graphs!


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



What's your theory that explains what you believe to be true about that?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



AGW has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of those equipped to understand the necessary science. I assume that like I, there are many topics that others understand way beyond you too. Or do you believe that you are equipped to understand everything that all others know?


----------



## westwall (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...









Ummmmmm, first you have to build a useful model.  *NONE* of the ones used today are.  Not one....


A paper published today in Climate of the Past finds climate models are unable to reproduce the temperatures of the mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum when CO2 levels were about the same as today [400 ppm]. The authors find the models simulate a global mean temperature 4°C less than determined from climate proxies, and "an equator to pole temperature gradient which is at least ~ 10°C larger than the reconstruction from proxies." The authors acknowledge "a major climate problem" between the model world and the real world reconstructions. The paper adds to hundreds of other peer reviewed publications indicating that there are fundamental flaws in the climate models, including sensitivity to CO2, feedbacks, and heat transfer assumptions. Prior papers have also found that climate models are unable to reproduce the Medieval Warming Period, or the 20th & 21st century climate, much less the future.

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/3489/2013/cpd-9-3489-2013.pdf


"The Guardian, 14 June 2013: Climate scientists and meteorologists are meeting next week to debate the causes of UKs disappointing weather in recent years.

The Met Offices temperature forecasts issued in 12 out of the last 13 years have been too warm. None of the forecasts issued ended up too cold. That makes the errors systemic and significant.

"Which begs other, rather important questions. Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centres predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?""

Met Office brainstorms UK bad weather | UK news | The Guardian


A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds, once again, that climate models get the core assumptions wrong and that the fabled 'hot spot' is still missing. All climate models predict the tropical troposphere will warm the fastest to produce a 'hot spot,' yet observations from satellites and 28 million weather balloons confirm that there is no hot spot, and that the surface has warmed more than the tropical troposphere. This new paper confirms that "The modeled [tropical tropospheric] trend is significantly higher than that of the measured ones, confirming that the vertical amplification of warming is exaggerated in models." The authors "suggest that the vertical amplification of warming derived from modelled simulations is weighted with a persistent signal, which should be removed in order to achieve better agreement with observations." Most likely, that "persistent signal" that "should be removed" from the models is the core assumption of an anthropogenic 'hot spot' present in all climate models.

Plausible reasons for the inconsistencies between the modelled and observed temperatures in the tropical troposphere - Varotsos - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

And on, and on, and on......a litany of climate model failures.  Whenever they are compared vs the real world they always, ALWAYS fail.

That's the difference between us sceptics and you religious anti-science nutters.  We actually look at your track record...you rely on "faith".


----------



## westwall (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








No, it hasn't.  It has been "proven" to anti-scientific religious nutters who rely on faith....not science.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Yeah, and if you use standard mechanical physics models, you can't account for the frictional*losses. And yet, you love mechanical physics. It fit's your over simplified definition of science.

So here we have*






And what you are talking about, is that little flat spot at the very end. Yet it is still within the range of the acceptable model error.

So your saying, it's off by 2% so it is wrong. *They are saying, it's off by 2% so were improving it.

It's the difference between knowing what you're talking about and not.

You don't have a clue.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


What I'm talking about are two people who admitted that their models were wrong and changed them after the fact.

This is what's known as "moving the goalposts"....Or, as I like to call it, sub-prime science.

Helpful hint: If Michael Mann gets on the PA and unexpectedly calls everyone to a special meeting in the pavilion, don't go.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

"And I didn't even need no pretty colored charts and graphs!"

We'll, that explains it.  You seem to believe you can do it without using math.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Not one said, "our models are wrong" that's that noise in your head I'm talking about. *Nor is it "moving the goal post" when the kicker gets the football between the two uprights and it's not dead center. All he has to do is get it between the uprights.

It's you saying that the other team has to get the football through a tire, strung between the uprights because you don't like the score.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


No theory...Those are_* their*_ words, not mine.

Sorry you're such a blind follower that you cannot see when your own High Priests are admitting that they're wrong.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

"BBC, to Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia:"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?""

Do you even know what "statistically significant" means?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

Do you know what "move the goalposts" means?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You don't even understand what those quotes say, the complete opposite of what you think they say. Both say that the temperature measurements aren't good enough and the models are right.

The first one clearly says, it's the temperature measurement. *And the second say, we can't tell from the temperature measurements because it's not statistically significant.

You're so desperate to prove you're right, you can't even read what they say

You even highlighted it, " but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." *DATA!!!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Do you know what "move the goalposts" means?



Do you know what data is?

Statistically significant?

A graph?  Clearly not, to you it's a pretty picture.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2013)

I know what people making shit up after the fact to try and cover their asses is....And this is it.

You warmerists are just like the mother of the neighborhood red-headed hellion, who swears up and down that her Billy boy is a little angel!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Yeah, they were going to run physical test, by changing the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere, over repeated concentrations and other factors, but they decided that would take to long.



The problem is that in climate pseudoscience, not actual tests are ever done.  Corelation and outright fabrication are all that's necessary.



itfitzme said:


> You think we should stop training airline pilots in flight simulators? *The US military seems to be pretty happy with them for fighter pilots. *I thing NASA trained the shuttle pilots in them too. *Maybe the IPCC guys might have picked up a trick or two from NASA. *Maybe someone at the IPCC might even know someone at NASA, you never know.



Damn but you are a stupid fuck.  There are literally volumes of hard, empirical data in use that make a simulator analogous to flying the aircraft it is simulating.  *Lets see the volumes of hard empirical data that make those simulated numbers analogous to anything measurable in the real world.*


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Oooo....A stupid leftbat cartoon from those weekly urban arts & entertainment rags!
> 
> That'll fix their wagons!



Ever notice how unfunny leftists cartoons are?  In my whole long life, I doubt that I have seen more than half a dozen leftists cartoons that actually manage anything resembling humor.  Tight assed hysterics...nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2013)

MDiver said:


> Global warming, a myth?
> Yeah.  Those rapidly disappearing glaciers, stronger hurricanes, floodings and fires are just figments of our imagination.



Strawmen as far as the eye can see.  Neither global warming, nor climate change are the issue.  The issue is whether either have anthropogenic origins...therein lies the myth...and the lies.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the times they are a changing.  McIntyre (who you so despise because...well he's right and kicks your collective asses to the kerb at every opportunity) was correct yet again and Briffa et al were as usual WRONG!
> ...



Except that every time he goes up against climate pseudoscience, he wins.  If he is kicking your collective asses and is a loser, then how far in the depths of looserdom do you guys reside?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 2, 2013)

The real question is what force can make others feel entitled to be right? Especially people who know little science vs 97% of qualified scientists. 

It is a rhetorical question, as the world of doers, those that count, are already placing their bets and cheering for the energy technologies that they think have the best learning curves. 

And the politicians of the world are working on ways to get those who need to use our atmosphere as a dumping ground to pay at least the monetary cost of mitigating the physical damage that they're causing. 

So, there is no longer anything that will change due to the whining of the Cult of Denial Chapter of the Flat Earth Society, but, still, they persist in the entitlement to be right that someone must have granted them.

It's just plain crazy.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 2, 2013)

Oddball said:


> I know what people making shit up after the fact to try and cover their asses is....And this is it.
> 
> You warmerists are just like the mother of the neighborhood red-headed hellion, who swears up and down that her Billy boy is a little angel!



Sounds like a personal problem.

We will keep in mind that you make up shit to cover your ass.


----------



## westwall (Jul 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The real question is what force can make others feel entitled to be right? Especially people who know little science vs 97% of qualified scientists.
> 
> It is a rhetorical question, as the world of doers, those that count, are already placing their bets and cheering for the energy technologies that they think have the best learning curves.
> 
> ...








wrong again...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 2, 2013)

Here we go, the American Institute Of Physics. *These folk might know something about science.

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 2, 2013)

Here is a nice graphic;


----------



## PMZ (Jul 2, 2013)

For all intents and purposes there are on earth a fixed number of carbon atoms. They all have to be someplace. Generally "someplace" includes the oceans, living tissue, underground, or in the atmosphere. 

Generally, those in living tissue collect there as living things grow, and are returned to the oceans, land, or atmosphere at death. if the total amount of living material stays reasonably constant, relatively the same number of atoms recycle through lives of various plants and animals. 

Plants use photosynthesis to change carbon dioxide to oxygen, and use the carbon to build tissue. 

Animals eat the plants, or other animals that eat the plants, and breath in oxygen, and use some of the carbon to build tissue, and exhale the rest as carbon dioxide. 

Balance.

The climate that we have built civilization around was created during the Carboniferous Period when a significant number of carbon atoms were prevented from recycling through life at death and were, instead, sequestered underground. 

Burning fossil fuels returns them into the atmosphere. 

If, or more probably when, we burn all that fossil fuel then the total carbon content of earth will be divided among only three places. The oceans, the atmosphere, and living tissue. 

Assuming that the total of living tissue stays relatively constant, that leaves only the atmosphere and oceans to act as carbon sinks to replace the fossil fuels that once sequestered so many of them. 

Those that go into the atmosphere will warm the climate. Those that go into the ocean will acidify the water. Thus both environments will be altered. Species will adapt. Some will thrive, some will go extinct as a result. 

Mankind, being the only species that creates his habitat, will have to recreate it to suit the new climate. 

The only real control we have left is to leave some of the carbon forever sequestered underground. 

To the degree that we don't do that, the climatic changes that we will have to adapt to will be more drastic.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> For all intents and purposes there are on earth a fixed number of carbon atoms. They all have to be someplace. Generally "someplace" includes the oceans, living tissue, underground, or in the atmosphere.*
> 
> ...
> 
> To the degree that we don't do that, the climatic changes that we will have to adapt to will be more drastic.



That's a great picture. The bio-geological life of a carbon atom.

Can we paint a picture over a larger time scale, one that picks up the Carberiferoius period? How were the continents arranged? How much more carbon was in CO2 atmospheric gas and in vegitation? What was the predominant climate driver; sun; CO2? *What factors were responsible for Earth entering and exiting the period?

Can we get a picture of how solar energy is cycled in and out of carbon molecule forms? *Is CO2 the "ground state" for energy storage?

-------

*CARBON*






Life in the Beginning

"Life, as we know it, revolves around the chemical element carbon. In the early universe, as some stars reached the end of their life cycle, they exploded, and elements were ejected. One element in particular, carbon, proved to be a remarkable element and went on to play a dominant role in the origin and evolution of life. Its chemical properties allow it to bond with itself as well as a wide variety of other elements. This allowed it to build many different compounds of varing forms, shapes and complexities, and form nearly 10 million known compounds. Many thousands of these are vital to life processes."

-------

*ENERGY*






The Energy Story - Introduction

"Energy is one of the most fundamental parts of our universe.

We use energy to do work. Energy lights our cities. Energy powers our vehicles, trains, planes and rockets. Energy warms our homes, cooks our food, plays our music, gives us pictures on television. Energy powers machinery in factories and tractors on a farm.

Energy from the sun gives us light during the day. It dries our clothes when they're hanging outside on a clothes line. It helps plants grow. Energy stored in plants is eaten by animals, giving them energy. And predator animals eat their prey, which gives the predator animal energy."

-------

*CARBONIFEROUS*






The Energy Story - Chapter 8: Fossil Fuels - Coal, Oil and Natural Gas

"There are three major forms of fossil fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. All three were formed many hundreds of millions of years ago before the time of the dinosaurs  hence the name fossil fuels. The age they were formed is called the Carboniferous Period. It was part of the Paleozoic Era. "Carboniferous" gets its name from carbon, the basic element in coal and other fossil fuels.

The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago. At the time, the land was covered with swamps filled with huge trees, ferns and other large leafy plants, similar to the picture above. The water and seas were filled with algae  the green stuff that forms on a stagnant pool of water. Algae is actually millions of very small plants.

Climate during the Carboniferous Period

"North America was located along Earth's equator then, courtesy of the forces of continental drift. The hot and humid climate of the Middle Carboniferous Period was accompanied by an explosion of terrestrial plant life. However by the Late Carboniferous Period Earth's climate had become increasingly cooler and drier. By the beginning of the Permian Period average global temperatures declined by about 10° C."

"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

*Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."











Carboniferous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geological history of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Carboniferous Period

-------

*PANGEA*






Prehistoric Life During the Carboniferous Period

"Climate and geography. The global climate of the Carboniferous period was intimately linked with its geography. During the course of the preceding Devonian period, the northern supercontinent of Euramerica merged with the southern supercontinent of Gondwana, producing the enormous Pangea, which occupied much of the southern hemisphere during the Carboniferous. This had a pronounced effect on air and water circulation patterns, with the result that a large portion of southern Pangea wound up covered by glaciers, and there was a general global cooling trend (which, however, didn't have much effect on the coal swamps that covered Pangea's more temperate regions). Oxygen made up a much higher percentage of the earth's atmosphere than it does today, fueling the growth of terrestrial megafauna, including dog-sized insects."

-----*

*ATMOSPHERE*

Introduction - Summary

" Four main influences are known, and combining these gives quite a good match to the observations (orange curve in A). The known influences are: irregular El Niño fluctuations in the upwelling of deep cold waters in the tropical Pacific Ocean, which cool or warm the air for a few years (purple curve in B); sulfate smog particles emitted in volcanic eruptions, such as El Chichón in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991, which bring temporary cooling (blue curve); a quasi-regular cycle in the Suns activity that changes the radiation received at Earth (green curve); and human ("anthropogenic") changes  primarily emission of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, but also other greenhouse gases and pollution such as smoke, and land-use changes such as deforestation (red curve). "






-----

*OCEAN*

http://www.terradaily.com/m/reports...e_change_linked_to_ocean_circulation_999.html






"Where are the main ingredients of climate? Not in the Earth's tenuous atmosphere, but in the oceans. The top few meters alone store as much heat energy as the entire atmosphere, and the oceans average 3.7 kilometers deep. Most of the world's water is there too, of course, and even most of the gases, dissolved in the water."

A "survey discovered eddies bigger than Belgium that plowed through the seas for months. "

""We may not be given a warning until the CO2 loading is such that an appreciable climate change is inevitable," a panel of experts explained in 1979. "The equilibrium warming will eventually occur; it will merely have been postponed.""

------

*HOCKEY STICKS*

The geologic time scale is tremendous. Carbon dioxide, oxygen, water, and temperature are balanced to support the life cycle.

The Carboniferous periid was 300,000,000 years ago. The time scale represented by the hockey stick graphs are 1,000 and 10,000 years.











The time scale of AWG is 100 years.






The long term climate engine is a combination of both atmosphere and ocean. * The continents have moved over 300 million years. The ocean currents have adjusted accordingly. *Dominant life forms have changed, from the dominant flora of the carboniferous, through the dinousors of the jurasic, to life as we know it today.*CO2, oxygen, and temperatures have changed over this geological history. *It has done so over spans of a million*years.

The rate of change of the last century is the concern. *


----------



## Oddball (Jul 3, 2013)

We have pretty colored charts and graphs, so don't fuck with us!


----------



## PMZ (Jul 3, 2013)

Oddball said:


> We have pretty colored charts and graphs, so don't fuck with us!



Trouble is, yours are drawn on the sidewalk in chalk.


----------



## gslack (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Here we go, the American Institute Of Physics. *These folk might know something about science.
> 
> The Discovery of Global Warming - A History



LOL, so you are some kind of relative to oldsocks... ROFL, it's one of his old standby links. He used to pull that one out of his butt until it was pointed out it was a self-promotion of SPencer wearts own book, and not a scientific paper of any sort. Just because it's hosted on the AIP website, doesn't make it a scientific paper, nor does it make it correct. ANd the fact the writer of the book is head of their history of physics department, tells the tale..

Can we expect more of this oldoscks rehashing? If so can we call you newsocks?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 3, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go, the American Institute Of Physics. *These folk might know something about science.
> ...



Clearly unable to learn. A gross embarassment to American education. How do people get out of school knowing this little? And what little he knows is mostly wrong! 

And Slackerman Limpnoodle III is, we assume, allowed on the streets without adult supervision! Shameful!


----------



## PMZ (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > For all intents and purposes there are on earth a fixed number of carbon atoms. They all have to be someplace. Generally "someplace" includes the oceans, living tissue, underground, or in the atmosphere.*
> ...



Everything is connected.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

Running out of oxygen

Okay, this is either funny, or not.

*Steadily Diminishing Oxygen |*

Considering impications of the Keeling Curve, the author writes;

"It&#8217;s what happens when we burn it. It combines with oxygen and locks the oxygen up into chemical compounds that are either unbreathable or even poisonous. So I wondered, is the level of oxygen in our atmosphere diminishing? And guess what, kiddies? Not only is it diminishing, but the rate is increasing."

Now, not to worry too much. *The Jurrasic period dinasours, enjoyed a 15% level, 200my ago. *And they were big.






The level of oxygen now is 20.95%. *So, we have a ways to go. *Still, it's a funny thought. *Worth the effort to calculate the amount of O2 removed for each ton of CO2 added.

I see he didn't do the calculations.  Bet he catastophizes a lot.  Seems to be a common trait among catastophizers, scalimg error.


----------



## westwall (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > For all intents and purposes there are on earth a fixed number of carbon atoms. They all have to be someplace. Generally "someplace" includes the oceans, living tissue, underground, or in the atmosphere.*
> ...









The rate of change of the last century is a fiction made up by the fevered imaginations and through the incredibly flawed computer models of those self serving fraudsters.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go, the American Institute Of Physics. *These folk might know something about science.
> ...



Yeah, the head of the history of physics department, writing a book about the history of physics. *It's a conspiracy, I tell you!!!

Brilliant!


----------



## westwall (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








Yes, it is.  The UN and a few politicians have figured out that green sponsored authoritarianism is THE way to control the masses.  They will lie cheat and steal in their attempt to force this bullshit down our throats...

The final link appeared in Science so there you have a supposed scientific Journal advocating for one world government to combat something that has been shown to not exist.  That's why the MSM and propagandists like you exist to try and convince the people of a fiction....all so you can get more power.



"Humans: the real threat to life on Earth"

Humans ? the real threat to life on Earth | Environment | The Observer


&#8220;That climate change demands the attention of global leaders is no longer in doubt,&#8221; he stated.

&#8220;Those who are dealing with the impact of climate change on a daily basis do not need a lecture from the rest of the world on how climate change has profound human consequences -- they see this every day.&#8221;

Instead, &#8220;there is need for the global community to start solving the problem,&#8221; said the President."

Commonwealth Secretariat - More action needed to combat climate change, says Guyana&#8217;s president


Population policy needed for the UK in order to combat climate change

Population policy needed for the UK in order to combat climate change


"Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of Earth's sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2). Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change (3). This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship." 

Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance


----------



## Oddball (Jul 3, 2013)

Cut a Goebbels warming moonbat and watch a misanthropic eugenicist bleed.


----------



## westwall (Jul 3, 2013)

Yes, it is. The UN and a few politicians have figured out that green sponsored authoritarianism is THE way to control the masses. They will lie cheat and steal in their attempt to force this bullshit down our throats...

The final link appeared in Science so there you have a supposed scientific Journal advocating for one world government to combat something that has been shown to not exist. That's why the MSM and propagandists like you exist to try and convince the people of a fiction....all so you can get more power.



"Humans: the real threat to life on Earth"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/30/population-growth-wipe-out-life-earth


&#8220;That climate change demands the attention of global leaders is no longer in doubt,&#8221; he stated.

&#8220;Those who are dealing with the impact of climate change on a daily basis do not need a lecture from the rest of the world on how climate change has profound human consequences -- they see this every day.&#8221;

Instead, &#8220;there is need for the global community to start solving the problem,&#8221; said the President."

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/news/190676/163079/170885/161007presofguyana.htm


Population policy needed for the UK in order to combat climate change


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-07/bmj-ppn072308.php

"Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of Earth's sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2). Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change (3). This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship." 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6074/1306.summary


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

OMG!!  Oxygen is measurably going down.


----------



## gslack (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Nah quit being so melodramatic socko. Weart's just an opportunistic guy in love with seeing his work in print. Hence his "career change" that took him to where he is today. He found out there was no fame, power or money to be had as a mediocre physicist, and decided to become a historian instead????  LOL, he went from physics to history and why? Only one reason I can think of, he sucked at physics... But that's why you anti-science ding dongs love him...LOL


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

There is a standardised test in psychology, the MMPI. *It is a battery of 567 questions and accurately categorizes an individuals personality on a number of scales. *It is an accurate indicator of peronality dissorders. *The test is empirically based.*It includes things like*"I do not read every editorial in the newspaper everyday" and "I would like to be a singer". *

There is no theory that explains why it works, it just does. *The devised thousand of questions, examined previously diagnosed patients, ran the correlations, and selected out the predictor variables.*

It is testable, observable, falsifiable and repeatable.*That is statistics, that is science. *


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> No, it hasn't.  It has been "proven" to anti-scientific religious nutters who rely on faith....not science.



Amazing...every one of the warmist nutters believes that AGW has been proven and yet not a single one of them can ever provide anyting that even remotely resembles actual proof, and most of the stuff that they believe constitutes proof is laughable...the rest is just sad.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> There is a standardised test in psychology, the MMPI. *It is a battery of 567 questions and accurately categorizes an individuals personality on a number of scales. *It is an accurate indicator of peronality dissorders. *The test is empirically based.*It includes things like*"I do not read every editorial in the newspaper everyday" and "I would like to be a singer". *
> 
> There is no theory that explains why it works, it just does. *The devised thousand of questions, examined previously diagnosed patients, ran the correlations, and selected out the predictor variables.*
> 
> It is testable, observable, falsifiable and repeatable.*That is statistics, that is science. *


I knew that there had to be some sort of explanation for the pathological behavior of the warmerist scaremongers.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > There is a standardised test in psychology, the MMPI. *It is a battery of 567 questions and accurately categorizes an individuals personality on a number of scales. *It is an accurate indicator of peronality dissorders. *The test is empirically based.*It includes things like*"I do not read every editorial in the newspaper everyday" and "I would like to be a singer". *
> ...



You already lost. Makes you a loser.  You should learn to quit while you're behind.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

Deaths from heatwaves surged to 136,000 in the 10-year period from fewer than 6,000 the previous decade, mainly a result of extreme temperatures in Europe in 2003 and in Russia in 2010, according to the WMO. A total of 511 disasters related to tropical cyclones killed 170,000 people and caused $380 billion of economic damage. Deaths from storms and floods fell.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

WMO, onboard the AWG conspiracy

"The decade was the warmest for both hemispheres and for both land and ocean surface temperatures. The record warmth was accompanied by a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and accelerating loss of net mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from the world&#8217;s glaciers. As a result of this widespread melting and the thermal expansion of sea water, global mean sea levels rose about 3 millimetres (mm) per year, about double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. Global sea level averaged over the decade was about 20 cm higher than that of 1880, according to the report."

2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> WMO, onboard the AWG conspiracy
> 
> "The decade was the warmest for both hemispheres and for both land and ocean surface temperatures. The record warmth was accompanied by a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and accelerating loss of net mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from the worlds glaciers. As a result of this widespread melting and the thermal expansion of sea water, global mean sea levels rose about 3 millimetres (mm) per year, about double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. Global sea level averaged over the decade was about 20 cm higher than that of 1880, according to the report."
> 
> 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > WMO, onboard the AWG conspiracy
> ...



That's all you have, bs.


----------



## gslack (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> There is a standardised test in psychology, the MMPI. *It is a battery of 567 questions and accurately categorizes an individuals personality on a number of scales. *It is an accurate indicator of peronality dissorders. *The test is empirically based.*It includes things like*"I do not read every editorial in the newspaper everyday" and "I would like to be a singer". *
> 
> There is no theory that explains why it works, it just does. *The devised thousand of questions, examined previously diagnosed patients, ran the correlations, and selected out the predictor variables.*
> 
> It is testable, observable, falsifiable and repeatable.*That is statistics, that is science. *



LOL, the MMPI evolved silly. MMPI, then MMPI-2, and so on until now its an MMPI-RF. It has about 317 questions. They are used in many ways, but one of the most recognizable ways is to check people's personality profile before giving them a security clearance. 

It's not a coo-coo test socko. It's a test to tell what type of personality traits you most likely have, and it's anything but fool proof.It can be used to see if you have certain personality traits that are a red flag for other more serious issues, but it's not a miracle test for all psychoses...

For instance did you know that blacks tend to score 5 points higher on the test? Not exactly very liberal/progressive sounding there buddy...

Dude at least try and read something about what you're going to BS about...


----------



## gslack (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> WMO, onboard the AWG conspiracy
> 
> "The decade was the warmest for both hemispheres and for both land and ocean surface temperatures. The record warmth was accompanied by a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and accelerating loss of net mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from the worlds glaciers. As a result of this widespread melting and the thermal expansion of sea water, global mean sea levels rose about 3 millimetres (mm) per year, about double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. Global sea level averaged over the decade was about 20 cm higher than that of 1880, according to the report."
> 
> 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes



REALLY??? The UN bodies are on board with the UN? SHOCKING...

Dude you didn't even know the WMO is part of the UN did you... LOL

Follow your own links once socko..

WMO in Brief - World Meteorological Organization (WMO)



> *The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations. *It is the UN system's authoritative voice on the state and behaviour of the Earth's atmosphere, its interaction with the oceans, the climate it produces and the resulting distribution of water resources.


----------



## gslack (Jul 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yes don't bother defending your position at all just ramble and keep on talking. No one will notice you avoided what was said....YAWN.. You're boring me socko..


----------



## mamooth (Jul 3, 2013)

Ruh-roh. Someone has turned all pink. Guess there's no point in laughing at him now.


----------



## gslack (Jul 3, 2013)

Why did you go crying to a mod again? He'll be back soon I'm sure. They allow the 17 rep sock army to stay...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)




----------



## westwall (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> There is a standardised test in psychology, the MMPI. *It is a battery of 567 questions and accurately categorizes an individuals personality on a number of scales. *It is an accurate indicator of peronality dissorders. *The test is empirically based.*It includes things like*"I do not read every editorial in the newspaper everyday" and "I would like to be a singer". *
> 
> There is no theory that explains why it works, it just does. *The devised thousand of questions, examined previously diagnosed patients, ran the correlations, and selected out the predictor variables.*
> 
> It is testable, observable, falsifiable and repeatable.*That is statistics, that is science. *









And, so long as it is used properly it works very well.  Target, on the other hand used it to test for worker suitability and were sued because of that practice and they lost quite badly.  And yes, dear child, there most certainly WAS a theory behind its creation.


----------



## westwall (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Deaths from heatwaves surged to 136,000 in the 10-year period from fewer than 6,000 the previous decade, mainly a result of extreme temperatures in Europe in 2003 and in Russia in 2010, according to the WMO. A total of 511 disasters related to tropical cyclones killed 170,000 people and caused $380 billion of economic damage. Deaths from storms and floods fell.








Ten times that number die from cold every year.  You'll have to do better....


EVERY year we have a public health emergency in England  called winter. Every year, the increase in deaths during winter months is measured, assessed, published and analysed, and every year the figures are shocking.

In London, an average of 3,710 Londoners die every year as a result of living in a cold home, and there are over 23,000 additional emergency hospital admissions and almost 93,000 additional outpatient attendances. In England in 2008/9 there were 35,000 excess winter deaths. Many of these deaths and illnesses are preventable. The elderly have the greatest increase in deaths in winter, with 20,200 more deaths in the UK among those aged over 75 years during the winter of 2005/6 compared with non-winter months.


Shocking Annual Death Toll from Cold Homes is Preventable - IHE


----------



## westwall (Jul 3, 2013)

Funny how you guys have avoided this post like the plague...

The evidence is clear.  The AGW "movement" is about the control of people (and the economic enslavement of them as well) and nothing else.  



Yes, it is. The UN and a few politicians have figured out that green sponsored authoritarianism is THE way to control the masses. They will lie cheat and steal in their attempt to force this bullshit down our throats...

The final link appeared in Science so there you have a supposed scientific Journal advocating for one world government to combat something that has been shown to not exist. That's why the MSM and propagandists like you exist to try and convince the people of a fiction....all so you can get more power.



"Humans: the real threat to life on Earth"

Humans ? the real threat to life on Earth | Environment | The Observer


&#8220;That climate change demands the attention of global leaders is no longer in doubt,&#8221; he stated.

&#8220;Those who are dealing with the impact of climate change on a daily basis do not need a lecture from the rest of the world on how climate change has profound human consequences -- they see this every day.&#8221;

Instead, &#8220;there is need for the global community to start solving the problem,&#8221; said the President."

Commonwealth Secretariat - More action needed to combat climate change, says Guyana&#8217;s president

Population policy needed for the UK in order to combat climate change

Population policy needed for the UK in order to combat climate change

"Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of Earth's sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2). Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change (3). This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship." 

Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance


----------



## IanC (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


>



I find it interestin that tide gauges show a 2mm per year rise for over a hundred years and exactly when satellite altimetry came on line in the 90's it jumped to 3mm.  And don't even get me started on how the methodology was changed in the late 00's tomaintain 3mm per year.

One set of data is more accurate than the other.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Your "competition" here are lessons in why scientists need to be objective. They're not, and so they run around and insist that there is some explanation that makes what's right, wrong, or what's wrong, right.

Talk about a waste of time. 

Although I think that acting goofy is their point. They're really trying to prove that their politics is stronger than their science.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> Funny how you guys have avoided this post like the plague...
> 
> The evidence is clear.  The AGW "movement" is about the control of people (and the economic enslavement of them as well) and nothing else.



At this point I still have my doubts regarding the extent in whiich global warming is caused by man ( 30%-70% ?  who knows.)

But I can't agree with your statement. If you put solar panels in your roof and a solar heater you become less dependent on the government and the big corporations which may feel tempted to increase the price of electricity arbitrarily. 

The same happens if you get a diesel or a hybrid car, you become less dependent on oil companies an the tax asociated with gasoline.

How can such a measure be about "control of the people"? 

Of course, solar is not an option for everyone. Someone living in Seatle might find a hard time harvesting energy from the sun , but someone living in the southwest will surely recover the investment quickly enough.

We already have enough "control of the people" with the American government storing every email and social network profile for their own purposes. I certainly don't think a little bit of alternative energy production can make things worse.


----------



## gslack (Jul 4, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how you guys have avoided this post like the plague...
> ...



You mean the government that gives you a tax deduction based on things like adding solar panels to your home?

And of course you mean the oil corporations who also make diesel? And  again the big government that is giving out tax deductions on hybrid cars as well...

Whether we like it or not, fossil fuels are what runs the world. SO far nothing has been a viable alternative. In the future who knows,but right now you can no sooner avoid fossil fuel use,or the big corporations that control it, or the big government which you will have to depend on for more public transportation the more you try and avoid driving your car.


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how you guys have avoided this post like the plague...
> ...








Part two of my post was where the rich people pushing these "green" energy systems get to relieve you of your money.  Please note I've had a solar system for nearly 30 years now and it is OK as an emergency backup system, but it could never run my house on its own.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 4, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how you guys have avoided this post like the plague...
> ...



To the extent that it requires adaptation by mankind, it's immaterial what the cause is. 

And it is all "natural". At worst man's only role is in harvesting the energy nature stored in fossil fuels, and restoring the natural pre Carboniferous climate.

The role of science is not to indict mankind, but rather predict the future so that we create some lead time to do what has to be done.

The big government boogieman that's advertised 24/7/365 on the media is meant for "control of the people" and is obviously effectively doing so. 

Capable government is a natural consequence of too many people, too much pressure on limited resources, and technology. 

The real danger is too weak government not able to organize what needs to be done for mankind to have much of a future.


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...










Show us ONE centralized authoritarian governmental system that has ever worked.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



There are several  in the world today that haven't failed yet.

Show us one democracy that has failed.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 4, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how you guys have avoided this post like the plague...
> ...



"Of course, solar is not an option for everyone"

There has never been one answer for everyone. When I'm in NY most of our power is hydro from Niagra Falls, along with some wind and nuclear. When in FL it's primarily from a gas fired co-generation plant with some PV solar and nuclear thrown in. 

In California it's much more concentrated solar and wind. 

My Prius keeps me mostly free of big oil but I also have a mini-van for heavy lifting. 

I don't A/C FL much in the summer or heat NY much in the winter. 

One size never has or will fit all.


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Name them.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



North Korea for one. What democracies have failed?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 5, 2013)

gslack said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



In california with tier3 consumption the cost is about 30 cents per kwh.
That's way above the cost for solar . So even without tax deduction you are better off with solar than connected to the grid ( yes you can't be off grid the whole time , but in the mid term you will save money ).

Above that you have the fact that you can generate your OWN energy. How does that make you more dependent? I am franky puzzled.

Yes of course oil companies produce diesel but you will need less diesel than gasoline.
This hybrid yields 48 mpg in cities 
Toyota Prius Research All Models and Prices - MSN Autos

And this amazing diesel car yields 88 MPG
HYUNDAI i20 1.1 CRDi Blue 75PS 5dr - CO2 84g/km

So yes you are still *less* dependent on oil companies with a diesel than with a regular gasoline car... kind of obvious.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yes of course , big companies will allways want a share on an area where there is proffit.
But then the same happens with big oil and big pharma companies.
This is no different. 
My point here is that you as a solar panel owner are at least more independent, not more dependent .
I think no tax deduction is needed. Cheap fuels are being depleted and the shift to solar or wind will come naturally as the fuel prices continue to go up 

Finally the main reson to shift to this technologies should be ecology and health and not GW.

Pic from China:


----------



## westwall (Jul 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









  You truly are batshit crazy aren't you.  A country who's citizens are resorting to cannibalism is far from a successful one.  Just wait till the board finds out this little post of yours!lmao

"New reports of starving North Koreans resorting to cannibalism come amid renewed tensions between Pyongyang and Washington

A North Korean man suffering starvation was put to death after it was learned he ate two of his children, a new report claims. While the mans wife was away, he reportedly killed his eldest daughter and then his son after he had witnessed the murder. We have meat, he told his wife on her return."


Read more: New reports of starving North Koreans resorting to cannibalism come amid renewed tensions between Pyongyang and Washington - NY Daily News

SEOUL, South Korea  Freighters carrying aid shipments of rice and instant noodles are being sent to North Korea, the first food aid the South Korean government has sent to the North since President Lee Myung-bak was elected here in early 2008. 


U.S. envoys are finalizing arrangements for the first U.S. government food aid shipment to impoverished North Korea in three years.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/world/asia/26korea.html?_r=0


U.S. finalizing North Korea food shipment in China - World - CBC News


----------



## westwall (Jul 5, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...









Most of those plumes are steam.  There are certainly particulates in there as well, but the VAST majority of that picture is nothing but water.  Scare photo's like that fail on multiple points.  You'll have to do better.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> Most of those plumes are steam.  There are certainly particulates in there as well, but the VAST majority of that picture is nothing but water.  Scare photo's like that fail on multiple points.  You'll have to do better.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/w...tal-degradation-in-china-is-growing.html?_r=0

Air Pollution Linked to 1.2 Million Premature Deaths in China
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/w...on-linked-to-1-2-million-deaths-in-china.html

Scary enough ?  

Luckily the US has had a shift from coal to gas in recent years which has effectively reduced the overall US pollution.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Weimer Republic
French republic
Zimbabwe
Most African countries


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Egypt was supposedly democratic. Is the recent event a kinda form democracy transition between leaders?

What is missing from these democracies that yields failure? Were they really democratic in the full sense that we are use to?


----------



## gslack (Jul 5, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



So then you are stating a personal solar panel system is a viable alternative to conventional grid power? Really? And you want to explain how that's going to be possible with the future heading towards plug-in cars? 

And you just missed the point. Diesel made by the same people your previously said you could get independence from by going diesel or a hybrid... A hybrid still uses petroleum products...

You're not advocating independence, you're advocating cutting back a bit.Not exactly the same thing is it...

And as I said before, the pipedream, idealistic fantasies aren't going to cut it and the dismissing of reality doesn't help your cause..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 5, 2013)

There are several in the world today that haven't failed yet.

Show us one democracy that has failed.

I would have said that it was obvious that "failed", in this context, means been replaced, by the governed, with something better. A violent takeover of any government by another party or leader or philosophy doesn't mean the the original government failed, it merely means that it wasn't robust enough to maintain authority. 

Thus the North Korean government still has power over North Korea. And there have been democratic governments overthrown. 

And this is why the conservative vision of a weak US government makes no sense to realists.

What lasts are strong governments hired and fired by the people in a democratic way. The control of strong government of, by, and for, the people. Not the weakening of government to the point where it can be overthrown.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There are several in the world today that haven't failed yet.
> 
> Show us one democracy that has failed.
> 
> ...



Or drowned in a bathtub.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There are several in the world today that haven't failed yet.
> 
> Show us one democracy that has failed.
> 
> ...



The Seven Samuri is a great movie.

Seven Samurai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is obvious that a farmer is less efficient if he must both farm and defend his land.  The first greatest increase to efficiency has been division of labor.  Defence and farming are a division of labor issue that increases efficiency.  And this extends to division of power, apparently, in some fashion.

I find the Egypt curious.  Apparently they have a division of power between the elected government and the military.  We will see how this plays out.  It seems to put a twist to how a democratic state is maintained.

It has to be supported by law and law is enforced.  US democracy exists because it is written into the Constitution which creates the government that enforces it.  Drowning the US govt is drowning the Constitution, democracy and the free market.  They don't exist without the govt.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

*"Just wait till the board finds out this little post of yours!"*

Well, now that provides some insight into a personality.  What age is that?


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 5, 2013)

It's complete bullshit.

The climate has changed so dramatically over the course of millions of years, and there weren't apes driving SUV's. Whatever effect human endeavors have on the climate are infinitesimal if there is any effect at all. 

Pollution and toxic waste are a separate issue, and no sane person thinks it has no relevance, but the whole global warming cult is being used to reduce the quality of life for the most prosperous people.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Just when I thought this troll encounter couldn't get any creepier... 

Bring in the dogs, keep your fingers in your pockets and Good Luck...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 5, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Don't ya just love it when folks who are sucking public dollars to install solar and operate a power company with subsidies start claiming how "independent" they are? 

You are paying for grid back-up to be there 24/7 so when it's NIGHT or cloudy or you have 4 inches of snow on your panels, the FULL CAPACITY of fossil fuel or nuclear or hydro is there to back you up.

And --- the govt is forcing the power companies to take your energy FIRST -- causing those RELIABLE generators to take a loss idling their plants. 

Wind and solar are nothing but SUPPLEMENTS to the grid. CAN'T reliably power an advanced civilization.. Your advantage?? Cali is destined soon NOT TO BE "an advanced civilization"...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 5, 2013)

Pete7469 said:


> It's complete bullshit.
> 
> The climate has changed so dramatically over the course of millions of years, and there weren't apes driving SUV's. Whatever effect human endeavors have on the climate are infinitesimal if there is any effect at all.
> 
> Pollution and toxic waste are a separate issue, and no sane person thinks it has no relevance, but the whole global warming cult is being used to reduce the quality of life for the most prosperous people.



Great guess, but completely wrong. Questions like this are why we have science. Science has done it's job and told us what the problem is, and predicted what we can expect in terms of consequences. 

Politicians, and engineers and businesses are working on solutions which will lead to the minimum cost future of energy and the minimum impact consequences. 

The Flat Earth Society represented here is cheering for the failure of everybody. 

We have democracy to deal with them and it increasingly will.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

Absorbtion leads to radiative efficiency, radiative forcing, radiative effect and climate sensitivity.

According to the Beer-Lambert Law the proportion of radiation absorbed upon passing through a distance x of a medium is

1 &#8722; e^(&#8722;ax)
*
where a is a parameter that reflects the concentration of the absorber and its radiative efficiency. The parameter a is the product of two terms. One is the concentration &#961; of the absorber and the other is a characteristic of the absorber &#945;, called its radiative efficiency.

a is a parameter that reflects the concentration of the absorber and its radiative efficiency. The parameter a is the product of two terms. One is the concentration &#961; of the absorber and the other is a characteristic of the absorber &#945;, called its radiative efficiency.

When there are more than one greenhouse gas the value of a is

a = &#931; &#945;i&#961;i*
*
where &#945;i and &#961;i are the radiative efficiency and linear density of constituent i.

*Radiative forcing is the change in the energy input to the Earth's climate system over some period of time due to some external change. It is measured in watts per square meter (W/m²). It is a useful concept and leads to the definition of the climate sensitivity parameter &#955;, i.e.,

&#955; = &#916;Ts/&#916;F*
*
where &#916;Ts is the change in the Earth's global mean surface temperature and &#916;F is the radiative forcing.

radiative forcing is, to a reasonable approximation, a logarithmic function of CO2

&#916;F=RF=beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref)

Climate sensitivity*

s = dT(ln2/ln(2C/C))=dT and

s=&#955; = &#916;Ts/&#916;F

RF=&#916;F=beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref)

Which yields,

s=&#955; = &#916;Ts/(beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref))

rearranging,

&#916;Ts= s*(beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref))

We make*adjust the constants so we have a doubling*and use






radiative effect= RE*

and*

RE_2-RE_1=&#916;= ¥*&#916;Ts=¥*(T_2-T_1)

&#916;=*&#955;*(£*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref))/ln(2)

to solve for s*£=*&#955;*£

s, or &#955;, is climate sensitivity

£ is a constant that was maintained when the form was adjusted to be "doubling". *It is simply a scaling factor.

This*

&#916;= ¥*&#916;Ts=¥*(T_2-T_1)= &#955;*(£*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref))/ln(2)

¥*(T_2-T_1)= &#955;*(£*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref))/ln(2)

¥*&#916;Ts=¥*T_2-¥*T_1

= ((&#955;*£)/ln(2))*(ln(2*CO2_ref)-ln(CO2_ref))

suggesting

¥*T_2= ((&#955;*£)/ln(2))*(ln(2*CO2_ref))

¥*T_1= ((&#955;*£)/ln(2))*(ln(CO2_ref))

And with a litte effort, we can tie*radiative forcing, radiative effect and climate sensitivity together.

That just leaves tying %absorbtion and*radiative efficiency to*radiative forcing, radiative effect and climate sensitivity.

%absorbtion and radiative efficiency are related by

%absorbtion=1 &#8722; e^(&#8722;&#931;(&#945;i&#961;i)x)

x is distance,*&#961;i is*concentration of the absorber and*&#945;i is the radiative efficiency*of the absorber

Radiative forcing, radiative effect and climate sensitivity are related by

s=&#955; = &#916;Ts/&#916;F is climate sensitivity
s=&#955; = &#916;Ts/(beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref))

&#916;F=RF=beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref) is radiative forcing

RE is radiative effect,  where

&#916;= ¥*&#916;Ts=¥*(T_2-T_1)= &#955;*(£*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref))/ln(2)

£ and ¥ are scaling constants to make sure it all worked out.*These tie temperature in, along with anomoly, and relate £/(¥*ln(2)) to T,*&#955;*and CO2 as

£/(¥*ln(2))=T/(&#955;*ln(CO2_ref)).

All in all, it gives the ln function as a concequence of*%absorbtion=1 &#8722; e^(&#8722;ax), a consequence that will be quite a trick to back into.

This will be a consequence of how the (1-e^t) effect of thermal equilibrium which will tie black body radiation which will yield a poisson distribution. *This is a consequence of the normal distribution of quantum mechanics which, as is shown in queuing theory, yields the poisson distribution.

IanC's on a right track with the billiard ball thing.**Somewhere, I ran across a powerpoint that detailed the modes of oscilation for CO2. *

We might consider viewing the gas as a black body radiator.*At thermal equilibrium, they will emit at the same rate of absorbtion.

There are a few ways to get there, that's science, internally consistent.

Maybe just look up*Beer-Lambert Law.

And it all just seems like a bit too much work to show how it ties together such that, over small changes in CO2, like 300 to 380, the change is nearly linear.*

--_

Saturation, Nonlinearity and Overlap in the Radiative Efficiencies of Greenhouse Gases

 http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/5539/2009/acp-9-5539-2009.pdf*


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 5, 2013)

All democracies fail.  It's built in.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." 
The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage


----------



## westwall (Jul 5, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Most of those plumes are steam.  There are certainly particulates in there as well, but the VAST majority of that picture is nothing but water.  Scare photo's like that fail on multiple points.  You'll have to do better.
> ...







Oh goody!  More amorphous claims with no hard data to support them!  Here's the deal, pollution is bad, there's no denying that.  However, the claims made by your environmentalist writers are likewise harmful because they lead uninformed people to do really, really, stupid and destructive things.  

To whit look up the history of MTBE and how they did MORE environmental damage in ten years to the state of California than all the oil companies have to the WORLD in 100 years.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

Beer-Lambert law seems to be the basis of absorbtion/radiative physics of gases.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer&#8211;Lambert_law

Yuck!  Tell you what, while you'all are reading the Beer-Lambert Law, I'll be reading some beer bottle labels.


----------



## westwall (Jul 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Oh, I don't need luck with the quad trolls.  They're their own worst enemy.


----------



## westwall (Jul 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There are several in the world today that haven't failed yet.
> 
> Show us one democracy that has failed.
> 
> ...








I see.  Your definition of a successful government is one that can destroy its citizenry at will.  Good to know....


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> All democracies fail. *It's built in.
> 
> "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."*
> The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
> ...



*"vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,"*

How's that suppose to work?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> All democracies fail.  It's built in.
> 
> "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
> The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
> ...



Put another way, you believe that mankind is incapable of freedom in the long term. Incapable of self rule. Mankind will default to tyranny. 

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, mine is that mankind evolves culturally year by year. Future performance may be different from past experiences. 

Of course both of our opinions are immaterial. We'll just have to wait forever to find out the entire future of humanity.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There are several in the world today that haven't failed yet.
> ...



In today's world, any country that is to maintain it's place in the world must be strong enough militarily to prevent being taken over by others. Or so undesirable in location and wealth that nobody would benefit from taking them over.

Apparently your idea is that any country strong enough to survive will turn on itself and conquer it's own populace. Of course, that brings up the question of why?

Americans are fortunate to have the military strong enough to resist all outside threats, with a Constitution and democracy that makes the government a tool of the people rather than vice versa. 

Not to say that there are no threats. The biggest one of course is represented by people like you. People whose minds have been bought by a minority of Americans, through media, in an attempt to compromise American democracy by allowing the few to obtain the votes of the many through the use of propaganda (or it's politically correct name, advertising). 

Democracy has one protection against that, education, the informed electorate. Apparently, in the past, we've been only marginally effective at keeping education ahead of the threat.

Will we be able to improve that marginal performance to a level of robustness that keeps democracy safe? 

Americans hope so. Those conspiring to turn our democracy into a plutocracy hope not. 

We will see.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > All democracies fail. *It's built in.
> ...



"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."

Can anyone think of even one of the "world's great civilizations" that only lasted 200 years?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 5, 2013)

gslack said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



YOU are missing the point : a diesel car uses 3 times less fuel than a gasoline one. 
If you can't do basic math... there's no point in arguing with you. 

Solar cells can have batteries to provide energy overnight... and yes you need a sunny place to use them efectively.


----------



## westwall (Jul 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








North Korea is incapable of providing enough food for its own people.  NK is also incapable of fending off an attack from South Korea if they chose to attack so it fails that test of yours as well.  Our REPUBLIC was turned into a plutocracy when the Federal Reserve Act was passed.  It just takes time to subvert a Constitutional Republic.  That was the intent of our Founding Fathers.  

The Democratic Party is destroying this country at 100 MPH while the Republicans are doing it at 75 MPH.  Not too much of a choice, but there still IS a choice.  Under your rules the PEOPLE will have NO choice.  

Which clearly is how you want it.  So...how does your government differ from a plutocracy?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 5, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



It would take a tractor trailer full of batteries/electronics to get ONE supermarket thru the night. ASSUMING that their solar installation was providing about 2.5 times the required load during the day. There is no credible ENVIRONMENTALLY sensitive way to store solar electric.. 

(except to use solar for making fuel -- which stores the energy in the fuel)

So what you got in solar is a SUPPLEMENT that cant' be counted on to run a modern civilization..


----------



## prepster (Jul 5, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
> For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.
> 
> Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth.
> ...



GW is real, but our understanding of it is incomplete so long as a definitive theory of everything does not exist on the matter.  In a more nuanced sense, global warming is primarily the result of a complex interplay of anthropogenic forcing and natural forcing, with anthropogenic forcing being the biggest contributor, although we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation.  At the same time, natural forcing could have more of an impact upon GW than previously thought, as indicated by recent released models, the increased understanding of the ability of the deep ocean to act as a carbon sink (which is not good either), and a more clear conceptualization of the impact of water vapor and the cloud cover it creates.


----------



## gslack (Jul 5, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



And diesel is made from the exact same source... Again you are advocating cutting back, and NOT independence, which was your previous claim...

LOL, and batteries can't keep a hospital, a supermarket, a police department, a fire department, or any other institution you can think of running... 

What part of that being a fantasy, is confusing you?

And there we see your nature.. You ask for debate, but when you get it, you accuse me of an inability to do simple math and pout.. Look dude we got enough crybabies on this forum, try something new..


----------



## gslack (Jul 5, 2013)

prepster said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
> ...



Another "new" guy... How expected...


----------



## prepster (Jul 5, 2013)

gslack said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



How are you, gslack?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The founders designed a plutocracy of white wealthy Christian males. 150 years later we had followed their Constitutional process and ammended it to become a democracy by granting universal suffrage. A "Republic" is a government without a monarch. I personally don't see that aspect ever changing as long as we prevent people like you from being led by your cult to bring it about.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 5, 2013)

"how does your government differ from a plutocracy?"

Democracy is government of, by, and for the people. All of the people. 

Plutocracy is government of, by, and for some of the people. In the case of those creating your cult, the very wealthy.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

The single greatest threat to democracy is an erosion of access to voting.


----------



## prepster (Jul 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The single greatest threat to democracy is an erosion of access to voting.



^This, now back to the topic of the thread.

GW is for real (or more bluntly, the sh*t).

/thread


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

prepster said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
> ...



It's a bit better than that on the correlation and causality thing.  Correlation and causation aren't mutually exclusive.  If A causes B and B is correlated to A at an R^2 of 76.4%  , then A is causing 76.4% of B.  And as atmospheric CO2 does cause global temperature increase, as demonstrated by Beer-Lambert, then the correlation is causal.  It then becomes a matter of figuring out what the rest is or, if the absorbtion physics indicatea it should be more, what's offsetting it.

It's like if my radiator is losing fluid and there is a leak in the hose, I know that the hose is causing the loss of fluid.  If the fluid loss from the hose isn't sufficient to account for all the fluid loss from the radiator, there must be another leak.

So yeah, what you said.  I'm just tightening up "*we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. "*  It just seems to imply that the correlation doesn't prove the causality. It really is that it takes correlation and a mechanism together to prove causality.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 5, 2013)

prepster said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
> ...



I'll buy most of that.. Makes you a "moderate" Neanderthal Climate Change denier.. 
You should have fun being so rational and open-minded here.. Good luck.. 

Welcome...


----------



## prepster (Jul 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



R^2 is the coefficient of determination.  It is a measurement for the prediction of future outcomes or the testing of hypotheses.  Scientifically speaking, we cannot definitively, as in one-hundred percent, prove that the dependence of two or more variables in a climate change model effect global warming. We can, however, get pretty damn close, so our R^2 value should be rather large and robust, but because anything outside of set mathematical models are imperfect, we must almost account for exogenous factors (lets use this term for things not known within the models rather than, say, not within the models in general), hence why our understanding of GW is true but incomplete.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Following a post like that is like being the marching band behind the Sheriff's Mounted Police Patrol.. Without the brooms and the shovels in between.. We're talking piles of horseshit... How's your acting career coming guy???


----------



## prepster (Jul 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



I accept the current report of the IPCC.  I just know that recent models that have come out are showing new developments and are uncovering new factors that we do not fully comprehend just yet, but we will as more robust studies are carried out.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

prepster said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The single greatest threat to democracy is an erosion of access to voting.
> ...



Yeah!!

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%.






That's one numeric answer.  We can get another using a linear fit, but absorbtion physics says it's logarithmic.  It really builds from the in atmosphere temp v CO2, adds in the absorption physics, then it is just a matter of figuring out what the remaining 23.6% is.  The other issue is if the physics says CO2 should be more or less than the observed 76.4%, what is offsetting the measured value and why that is correlated to the CO2.

But isn't that what the PhD guys get paid to do, so we can worry about picking up our double moca expresso on the way to work?


----------



## prepster (Jul 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I have taken statistics classes before, so there is no need to explain the names of the measured values.  Just saying.  As for my worries regarding global warming/climate change, I do worry about the science, because it is the science that must be correct for the efforts of people like myself, who are the activists, to be on the right side of history.  I wish I had a better understanding of the science; sadly, I am deficient in my ability to wrap my head around the physical, natural, and formal sciences, one of the many shortcomings of my intellectual capacity.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



It's not happening Clyde.. Not working at all.... 

WHAT did you correlate? Where is the data? 

What is the error on your linear fit to that scattergram of CO2 v Temp? Rsq variance? Did you try higher order fits? 

Give it up -- it ain't even amusing anymore...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

prepster said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > prepster said:
> ...




That's cool. It's a) a general audience forum b) it is personally worth the repitition.

With so much involve in AWG, and not being a climatologist, finding something definative and as simple as possible has been tricky. *Are the temp and CO2 measures accurate and precise enough? *Does the correlation demonstrate causality? *Do all the other issues raised have merit? *How good is that regression fit in predicting future outcome?

Beyond that, I just see the IPCC as a black box. *Data goes in and out pops a prediction model. *It is interesting seeing how good their fit is.  

The rest is just so much noise. (i.e. Hansen is.... Gore is ....)


----------



## prepster (Jul 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I agree and understand.  Personally, I absolutely hate the talking heads attempting to simplify but also sensationalize the global warming/climate change discussion and debate. I do not need a shock and awe campaign to conclude that global warming/climate change is something that must be mitigated. That is why Al Gore, in my opinion, has no authority analyzing models and making prognostications from them, and that is why he suffered utter pwnage when he was forced to rescind some of the predictions he made. Leave the science to the scientists, and the activism to the activists.  If you are a skeptic on the science behind something, research it for yourself, but do so through rigorous study, not unintelligent say so and heuristic-like deductive reasoning.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 6, 2013)

prepster said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > prepster said:
> ...



Someone has to do the promotion.  Division of labor.  Most product/manufacturing companies seperate design and marketing.  It lets the design guys focus on the engineering while the marketing guy focuses on the customer.  Inevitably, the marketing guy will make some
promise the designers can't keep.  It all works out in the end.


----------



## westwall (Jul 6, 2013)

I see the quad trolls have grown a fifth!  Pretty pathetic.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 6, 2013)

prepster said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > prepster said:
> ...



Yeah, the physics isn't well presented.  But knowing the stats and what it means when CO2 correlates to temp anom to 76% is a big deal.  You know that the connection cannot be denied.  And you can regress on solar cycles, methane, whatever you can come up with, to see what you get.  CO2 is the big one.

There is good history of AWG on the *The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources* website.  

Beyond that, it's the Beer-Lambert Law that is the underlying basic physics. Shine light through a gas and see how much gets absorbed.  It all energy conservation after that.  Light energy, IR in particular, turns into heat, molecular vibrations.  The details of the physics, as presented on Wiki, are mind numbing.

Then comes the final question, so it's warming, is that so bad?

That isn't a physics issue, it's a biology issue.  One question is if agriculture can handle climate change. Our food basket was developed over thousands of years. There was big progress in the early 1900's.  And the more we look into it, our food basket is integrated into a tunes ecosystem.  AWG is likely to be a costly issue, at the least.  

The whole of the science is a bit to much for one person to understand at the scientific level we would like.  At some point, you just have to decide who to trust.  If you don't trust anyone, your screwed.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 6, 2013)

jared diamond- Guns, germs and steel.


----------



## gslack (Jul 6, 2013)

prepster said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > prepster said:
> ...



I'm fine how about you sock number ??? What are we up to now? You guys need a life..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 6, 2013)

prepster said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > prepster said:
> ...



Very few people understand completely the science behind AGW. That's equally true of so many topics in today's uber specialized world. What's strange is how most of those topics are fully accepted by the lay world as things to be left to the experts. 

The difference with AGW? It's been made political by those with agendas that they believe trump the importance of dealing with what's real.

Science can't be sold to those who aren't sufficiently educated in it. Politics can be. 

So AGW, for the huge majority of us, is rejected or accepted based on "faith", either in politics for the denialists or in science for the realists.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



And cutting back does not yield independence? 
Imagine the oil consumption was cut by 1/3 in America .
Wouldn't that reduce oil imports and make America less dependent on foreign oil imports.

There's research being made to make hydrolisis cheap. The alternative to batteries is to produce hydrogen and use it as a fuel.

Cheaper green energy storage solution invented by Calgary profs
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/s...logy-water-electrolysis-calalyst-calgary.html


----------



## PMZ (Jul 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



We have a life. Preparing for a future. 

Counting socks is the kind of life that's left when you leave your opinions to others rather than determine your own.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



"Then comes the final question, so it's warming, is that so bad?"

The biggest thing to me is that it's both unknown, and therefore risky, and for sure different than the climate that we built civilization around. We have already lost many lives and much treasure to AGW's consequences. Will that rate increase? Will it become catastrophic? Will it remain as currently?

Also we know that humankind's reaction to stress can vary all over the map. From our finest hours to our worst. So as hard as the effect of climate change on weather is to predict, the behavior of all of us to food or water shortages is more so. 

Our predecessors went through lives much harder than ours and flourished. Our successors have harder times to look forward to also. Will they find the character to rise above the circumstances that we left them? 

I'm thinking that the next 100 years will shed real light on mankind's future possibilities.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> jared diamond- Guns, germs and steel.



Wonderful book about our checkered past. Mostly irrelevent to the future however. We have evolved. 

What a tale though could be woven of the next few centuries when the chase for resources can't be resolved by exploration and colonialization but can only be resolved by cooperation.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 6, 2013)

prepster said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > prepster said:
> ...



IMO Al Gore was a prophet and pioneer. They rarely fare well but many who follow reap the benefit of their courage. 

The time when AGW was completely a matter of opinion, needed people like him to fuel the science that was necessary to resolve the issue. He ended up on the right side of the issue when the science was over. 

Just like George Washington and Abe Lincoln and M. L. King and Nelson Mandela he was the right person at the right time and on the winning side. Winners get to write history.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 6, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



It's sort of amazing that some people believe that the path to sustainable energy will be straight when the path to carbon based energy wandered all over the place. Or that the path to sustainable energy will be pure burdon while the path to carbon based energy was all opportunity.


----------



## prepster (Jul 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I study and work in the field of politics, so I do not rely on the politics of AGW and GW/CC in general for my information.  The majority of my knowledge on GW/CC comes from the IPCC, and the UCS.  I know the consequences of listening to talking heads who try to integrate the science and politics, and the end-result is usually them being wrong.  As another poster said, it is best to have division of labor.  Scientists need to be scientists, and activists need to be activists.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 6, 2013)

prepster said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > prepster said:
> ...



Politics is an extremely important ingredient in the mix necessary to minimize the total cost of the required transition from energy from life based intermediates, to energy more directly from our only real source, the sun.

But politics has no role in the definition of the problem. That can only be done by science.

Science and engineering of course both have roles in solving the problem as well as defining it.


----------



## prepster (Jul 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Of course, and that is where us activists come in.  Also, we do not simply need to be working with governments to make the transition from fossil fuels and no self-sustainable and self-regulating energy usage to renewables and self-sustainable and self-regulating energy usage.  Some of the greatest strides in the environmental movement in recent years have been in changing corporate policies so that they are geared towards sustainable development.  Civil society organizations that play an strong role in actual conservation and preservation efforts, like the Audubon Society and World Wide Fund for Nature, must play a key role as well.  

Lastly, we have to think beyond addressing the environmental issues of the USA.  Our country has a greater desire to combat environmental degradation than, say, India or China.  The environmental movement needs to become a more global phenomenon than a domestic one, and that will start when we start heeding the warnings of scientists, and the advice of the sincere activists against environmental degradation, that being individuals in global civil society.  In this regard, I use the last UN Rio+20 Conference as an example of the divide between grassroots activists, governments, and governments' pertinent institutions.  In authoritative fashion, hundreds of environmental civil society organizations, including the most notable, 350.org, walked out of their plenary meetings in protest of the weak nature of the eventual conference outcome document.  With that being said, activisms transcends the political sphere; it is a holistic effort.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 6, 2013)

prepster said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > prepster said:
> ...



The US is, by far, the biggest single contributer to the current problem. China and India will pass us someday. Many other countries have contributed virtually nothing to the problem but will suffer the consequences. That's a global political nightmare that probably has no solution. 

But, we can be leaders in, and take opportunity from, the technology that will ultimately solve the problem.

Among our abundant resources are solar and hydro and wind, all fuel-less energy sources. We also have an abundance of people educated to participate in the solution, and much investment wealth. 

What are the obstacles? As near as I can see only dysfunctional politics. We have a Congress that we elected that accomplishes nearly nothing and has for decades. We have a business structure that is focused on profits today rather than growth.

It is within the power of we, the people, to fix our mistakes, and enjoy the fruits of world leadership as we have in the past. 

Can we earn that leadership role? We are acting like the answer is no, we can't. It's too hard.


----------



## westwall (Jul 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...







Of course you do.  Your scientific understanding is every bit as poor as his.  As they say "birds of a feather'...


----------



## westwall (Jul 6, 2013)

prepster said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > prepster said:
> ...








The I suggest you take a look into how poorly the IPCC does their science.  PMZ made a very ignorant statement when he claimed that very few understand the "science" of AGW.
He made that statement because he doesn't understand the first thing about science or the scientific method.  The scientific method was created so that political talking heads COULDN'T politicize science.  There would always be a check for a bad scientist in that EVERY EXPERIMENT MUST BE REPEATABLE .....BY ANYBODY.

If a experiment is not repeatable it is not real.  It is pseudo-science.  That's why the "theory" of AGW is failing so profoundly.  They ignored the scientific method for the benefit of their pocketbooks and their politics.  They chose activism over science.

I dare you to take a look at the claims made by the prophets (because that's what they are...religious prophets) of AGW.  They claimed that because of global warming there would be no snow in winter.  Then when that claim was demolished by Mother Nature they claimed that global warming would create MORE snow.  Do you understand that that makes the "theory" untestable?

Do you even know what that means?

Do you understand how that instantaneously invalidates everything they have ever claimed?  From a scientific standpoint?  

Do yourself a favour...take a look at a basic scientific encyclopedia, learn some of the terms....anyone with a brain can understand the basics.  Then look at how the AGW prophets violate every basic scientific rule there is....


----------



## westwall (Jul 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









China surpassed the US in pollution long ago.  If you're going to make such a ridiculous claim I suggest you put it in the appropriate fantasy forum.  You see prepster, they fail even the basics...in everything...and yet the ignorant still take them seriously.  However, those with a brain have moved on...



China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter


China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
> For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.



There may be a lot of debate in political and economically based circles where many of the participants have a strong vested interest in continuing their profits from the sales of fossil fuels, but there is no longer any debate on the reality of anthropogenic global warming among the actual experts in scientific circles. The illusion that there is still any real debate on this basic point in the world scientific community is just an artifact of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign intended to prevent or delay any effective action to impose the very necessary limits on carbon emissions. A propaganda campaign, BTW, that is very similar to the one conducted by the American tobacco industry to delay warning the public on the negative health effects of smoking even after the medical evidence was completely clear to the actual medical researchers.

*The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:
There is unequivocal evidence that Earths lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.*
(source)


----------



## westwall (Jul 6, 2013)

What a laugh.  The AMS in their POLITICAL statement claim that "science based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty" which is code for the worthless science of AGW "theory" is so bad that* "EVERY PREDICTION WE HAVE EVER MADE HAS FAILED, BUT BELIEVE US ANYWAY" *

What a joke they have become...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 6, 2013)

westwall said:


> what a laugh.  The ams in their political statement claim that "science based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty" which is code for the worthless science of agw "theory" is so bad that* "every prediction we have ever made has failed, but believe us anyway" *
> 
> what a joke they have become...




**prove it!**


----------



## prepster (Jul 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Well, it depends upon what you are measuring and how you are measuring it.  I believe on a per capita basis, US C02 emissions are the highest in the world, with China and India right behind us.  Overall, China recently surpassed us in terms of C02 emissions.  However, C02 emissions are only part of the problem, albeit the largest problem.  Other issues include deforestation and biodiversity destruction.  On those fronts, especially deforestation, the US is not the main culprit, as the EPA shows that forestry in this country actually serves as a net carbon sink.

With that being said, I prefer to frame combatting environmental degradation in a global context, as in that regard, we can truly make a difference on a planetary scale.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > what a laugh.  The ams in their political statement claim that "science based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty" which is code for the worthless science of agw "theory" is so bad that* "every prediction we have ever made has failed, but believe us anyway" *
> ...



Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The walleyedretard clings to his denier cult dogmas without any regard to any facts or evidence. Anyone who is actually following the science knows that many of the early predictions proved accurate and that the main way that they have "_failed_" was in being too conservative. The climate scientists didn't expect the Arctic ice cap to melt away so soon or so rapidly, they didn't expect that Greenland would begin melting so fast or so much and they didn't expect that Antarctica would begin losing ice mass so soon. In many other areas things are happening much faster than they expected 30 or 40 years ago. Don't expect the denier cultists to acknowledge that though, no matter how much evidence you show them. Their cultic myths and dogmas seem much more real to them in their little private bizarroworld than what is actually happening in the real world.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Oh, I know.  It's really dark where they keep their heads.  It is very odd. 

I just enjoyed making larger font than he.


----------



## westwall (Jul 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








Show us an accurate prediction.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 7, 2013)

Deniers offer no proof. Only poitical cynicism. Not a problem as only they are paying attention to what they wish was true. 

So what are they saying? Burning fossil fuels doesn't create CO2 as waste? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gasses don't absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation? Energy balance is a myth? They have evidence that something has changed since the last time that we had the projected levels of GHG in the atmosphere and therefore they will act differently this time than last?

No. They say that they wish GHG's at the projected levels were benign. They would prefer the climate not to change. They wish that the past was guaranteed forever. 

Now that's big ego!


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Deniers offer no proof. Only poitical cynicism. Not a problem as only they are paying attention to what they wish was true.
> 
> So what are they saying? Burning fossil fuels doesn't create CO2 as waste? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gasses don't absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation? Energy balance is a myth? They have evidence that something has changed since the last time that we had the projected levels of GHG in the atmosphere and therefore they will act differently this time than last?
> 
> ...









You are absolutely correct.  The AGW cult has *never* produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory".  A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers offer no proof. Only poitical cynicism. Not a problem as only they are paying attention to what they wish was true.
> ...



Those are your pathetic denier cult myths and, as always, they are totally wrong. You're just too brainwashed and retarded to look at the evidence, no mater how many times it is shown to you.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 7, 2013)

I found this article which is kind of good news / bad news. 

Major methane release is almost inevitable - environment - 21 February 2013 - New Scientist

1) permafrost will not melt just yet.
2) It will melt when we get a rise of 0.7 degrees in the global temperature ( some 50-70 years in the future.

... so we still have time to take some measures to cover ourselves from this upcomming disaster.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



One of the statistical inferences that we've all pretty much accepted is that smoking increases one's odds of getting lung cancer. From this, is it possible to say that Uncle Harry's lung cancer was caused by his smoking? 

Absolutely not. He may have been one of those unlucky enough to get lung cancer whether or not he smoked. 

Does that mean that it's safe to smoke? Absolutely not. The correlation between the incidence of lung cancer between smokers and non-smokers is clear. 

Same with extreme weather and AGW.

The more fossil fuels that we burn, the higher will be the concentration of GHG's in the atmosphere. The higher the concentration of GHG's, the warmer our climate will be. The warmer our climate is, the more extreme our weather is. 

There simply is no evidence to the contrary. if you have evidence, report it. If not, accept it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> You are absolutely correct. *The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory".* A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.






westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



So you can't prove it. *Come on, one, just one little old failed prediction. You said it, now back it up or eat your own bs.*

Your all talk and avoidance, living in a little fantacy land of unicorns, glitter and trolls. *Like a little teenage girl.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







And yet you can't present a single repeatable experiment, nor can you give us one single piece of empirical data to support what you say.  Hell, you're so fucking stupid you don't even know what empirical means.

And we should listen to a troll like you why?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

Frankly, in '09 I examined this an understood that, at least, the warming part was true.  The deniers were cherry picking data.

I was not clear on the anthro part or the future consequences.

A month or so ago, I wasn't exactly sure about it all.  Thanks to the deniers here, I know now.  They couldn't have done a better job of convincing me that the anthro part is absolutely correct.  And given their near perfect negative correlation with the facts, they serve as my best predictor of the future of climate change.

I think, perhaps, the predictions have underestimated global warming by failing to account for the amount of hot air the deniers produce.

How is it that some people can do worse than random chance? You have to really work at it.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> I found this article which is kind of good news / bad news.
> 
> Major methane release is almost inevitable - environment - 21 February 2013 - New Scientist
> 
> ...









Oh my gosh, the fact that the temps during the Holocene Thermal Maximum were 8 degrees warmer (at minimum) than today, and nothing bad happened back then doesn't give you pause?

I mean c'mon dude you're supposed to be a thinking person right?  then why the hell don't you think.  It's not hard.  Only the anti science prophets of doom don't want you to think.  That's why they try and prevent any discussion about their ridiculous theory.

A thinking person, and as we all know the quintuple trolls don't think, would wonder why it is that the sceptics (who are the supposed anti science "deniers") want for there to be the maximum amount of information exchange and the maximum amount of research into the claims.  While the supposed science supporters are the ones who wish to go full PRAVDA and deny ANYONE the ability to do research that even might be against their precious little theory.

You want anti-science religious dogma with a dose of totalitarian politics thrown in...I give you the anti-scientific revisionists who kick and scream and whine and snivel any time their so called science is challenged.

EVERY claim they have ever made when it has actually been looked at has failed the test.  Every single one and yet you religious fanatics ignore that and continue on with your anti scientific persecution of those who disagree with you.

That's politics, not science, and is the lysenkoism of this era.  Look it up.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Dude, you can't produce a single one that hasn't.  You just keep trying to distract from that.

There is your single task.



westwall said:


> You are absolutely correct. *The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory".* A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.



*Show us one prediction that has not been accurate.*

If you can't you are all bs.  You want to make vague and unsubstantiated statement, you just don't want to stand by them.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Frankly, in '09 I examined this an understood that, at least, the warming part was true.  The deniers were cherry picking data.
> 
> I was not clear on the anthro part or the future consequences.
> 
> ...








Wrong as usual....


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...










You made the claim idiot.  That means you have to back it up.  That's the way science works jackass.  Look up the scientific method some time.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You made the claims.

Back up your statements of



westwall said:


> *"every prediction we have ever made has failed, but believe us anyway"*



and*



westwall said:


> *The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory".*



Back em up.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








I don't have to.  You made the claim that they are accurate.  Show us.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I don't have to.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

The basis for AWG

The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.






That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Alternatively graph






zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators


----------



## PMZ (Jul 7, 2013)

People educated and interested in science seem typically interested in sharing the insights that their education and experience allow them. And learning more in the process. Natural, I guess. 

Clearly we see among these pages a lot of that going on. Some of it effectively, depending both on the recipient and the scientist. Some of it a waste of everybody's time and effort.

While there are many perspectives from which to approach the extent to which ongoing teaching efforts should be pursued, the most pragmatic is political. 

Politically, the efforts to find the least expensive path to, and the least expensive satisfaction of the demand for, sustainable, benign, and efficient energy to the point of use are underway. Doers are doing. Perhaps not as effectively as could be, but progress is rarely pretty. In typical fashion, the path is bumpy, twisty, with never ending uphills and many fewer compensatory downhills. 

When the customer says "yes" it's best to stop selling. 

Here's one stake in the ground as a record of progress. 

Google "Cresecent Dunes power tower, Tonopah, Nevada".

110 megawatts, with zero fuel costs, zero ongoing emissions, matched to peak demand from Las Vegas, 12 hours per day.

The Flat Earth Society will never go away, but in our democracy they've already been rendered irrelevent. Impotent. 

The action now is in progress, not stasis. The discussion is about engineering and investment, not the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. 

Our past and future will be as different as night and day. We've learned again not to take Mother Nature for granted, and to use our unique intelligence to solve our problems realistically. Not based on what we wish was true. 

Progress.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 7, 2013)

The fourth is past, of course, but the time is always right for a reminder to those who would drag us down. 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/v/6TPgJSZf5Vw?version=3&autohide=1&autoplay=1[/ame]


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

Solar power - Sacramento Municipal

"SMUD has been a leader in solar power for more than 25 years. SMUD built the nations first utility-scale solar array at Rancho Seco in 1984, which generated enough electricity to power 2,200 single-family homes or 3.2 megawatts."

SMUD produces 19% of its power through*green technology.

*(LINK:SMUD SOLAR SACRAMENTO CA)*






SMUD

Sacramento Municipal Utility District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## IanC (Jul 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The basis for AWG
> 
> The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical.
> 
> ...





while I believe CO2 has had some small part in the warming trend, I _know_ that your graphs exaggerate both the magnitude and the correlation by choosing the optimum offsets and scales to maximise the visual effect. you are taking one factor out of many and theorizing that it is the main controlling agent of temperature. not only does CO2 not totally control temperature but to a large extent temperature controls CO2.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The basis for AWG
> ...



They exaggerate nothing. *It is simply scaling. Any "exaggeration", or lack thereof, is an artifact of your own mind.

This the correlation.






There is no exaggeration there. And it demonstrates the time dependent graph.

It looks like it is causal because it is causal. *When things are causal, they appear correlated. *Causality proves correlation.

It is one thing to say, "you are taking one factor out of many and theorizing that it is the main controlling agent of temperature. " *It is another thing to demonstrate it. *

You are quite welcome to pull down data on solar variances, sum spots, earth orbit, methane, cow farts, volanic eruptions, and whatever you cam think of. *Others have done that work. *I've gone through the effort. *You haven't.

*You may claim that temp drive CO2. *But then you have to demonstrate what drive temp. *Oh, wait, but CO2 still does drive temp. *That fact doesn't change. *And now all you have is feedback.

Oh, but fossil fuel does release CO2, so there is no need for temp to increase atmospheric CO2, unless you mean the actual burning of the fuel.

So you've demonstrated nothing and added nothing. *Except to say you don't like the obvious facts, so you choose to not know.

You are, as usual, making the argumemt that if you don't know it, then it is inherently, and magically unknowabled. *Far from it, the knowledge requires to things; that nature makes it knowable and that we choose to know it. *Either one will make it unknowable. *But your failing is not nature's failing. *


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I found this article which is kind of good news / bad news.
> ...



Well, actually no.....but that is because you're a liar who just makes up your nonsensical pseudo-scientific "_facts_" as you go along.

The Holocene Thermal Maximum did not happen globally at the same time like the current anthropogenic global warming. It had recognized causes that are definitely not what is causing the current abrupt warming trend. Different areas warmed at different times and during the time when some areas were warmer than the present, other areas were cooler than now. The Arctic regions, due the change in axial tilt, showed the most warming compared to current temperatures while the mid latitudes showed little or no warming and the Southern Hemisphere was mostly cooler than the present temperatures within the recognized HTM time period for northern hemisphere warming.

*Holocene climatic optimum*
From Wikipedia, the *free* encyclopedia
(excerpts)

*The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.

Global effects





Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right. Note that the recent warming is not shown on the graph.

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole. The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.[4]

This climatic event was probably a result of predictable changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) and a continuation of changes that caused the end of the last glacial period.

The effect would have had maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during boreal summer. The calculated Milankovitch Forcing would have provided 8% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, tending to cause greater heating at that time. There does seem to have been the predicted southward shift in the global band of thunderstorms called the Intertropical convergence zone.

However, orbital forcing would predict maximum climate response several thousand years earlier than those observed in the Northern Hemisphere. This delay may be a result of the continuing changes in climate as the Earth emerged from the last glacial period and related to ice-albedo feedback. It should also be noted that different sites often show climate changes at somewhat different times and lasting for different durations. At some locations, climate changes associated with this event may have begun as early as 11,000 years ago, or persisted until 4,000 years before present. As noted above, the warmest interval in the far south significantly preceded warming in the North.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 7, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...





So exactly who cares about this shit except for the OCD climate crusaders?


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The basis for AWG
> 
> The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical.
> 
> ...







Wrong.  That is correlational, not empirical.  Learn the difference dummy.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The basis for AWG
> ...



*empirical

"1 : *originating in or based on observation or experience *<empirical data> 2 : *relying on experience or observation alone* often without due regard for system and theory"

Merriam-Webster Search

Theoretical is the speed of electromagmetic waves being a concequence of Maxwells equations. *Emprical was measuring the speed of light. Theoretical electromagnetic wave speed plus empirical light speed is empirical demonstration that light is likely an electromagnetic wave.*

Empirical measured CO2 absorption plus empirical correlation of temp anomoly and CO2 equals emprical proof of CO2 causing temp anomoly.*

*Correlation is, by definition, empirical. It can't be anything else. *It is two observed and measured physical quantities. It is exactly what empirical means. Anything less would be measuring only one variable and saying, "it changes for some unknown reason." *"Correlation" equals "Empirical", *you moron.* *

You can't redefine words to change reality. *It don't work that way. You simply demonstrate yourself as being psychotic.

BTW, how are you doing with the other stupid things you've said



westwall said:


> what a laugh. The ams in their political statement claim that "science based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty" which is code for the e science of agw "theory" is so bad that *"every prediction we have ever made has failed, but believe us anyway"*





westwall said:


> You are absolutely correct. *The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory".* A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.



Got proof yet?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The basis for AWG
> ...



You are the dummy, walleyed, and your profound misunderstanding of science is once again apparent. While it is true that correlation does not *necessarily* imply causation, it is also true that events that have a causal link are almost always strongly correlated.

*Correlation does not imply causation*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

*Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

Usage

In logic, the technical use of the word "implies" means "to be a sufficient circumstance." This is the meaning intended by statisticians when they say causation is not certain. Indeed, p implies q has the technical meaning of logical implication: if p then q symbolized as p &#8594; q. That is "if circumstance p is true, then q necessarily follows." In this sense, it is always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation."

However, in casual use, the word "imply" loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; where there is causation, there is likely to be correlation. Indeed, correlation is used when inferring causation; the important point is that such inferences are made after correlations are confirmed to be real and all causational relationship are systematically explored using large enough data sets.

Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of "correlation does not imply causation," deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation (as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete.[1] While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:[4]

"Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."

"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[21]  they are observed to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy  dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not suggest causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[21]
In conclusion, correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence... But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship...*


****************************************


----------



## PMZ (Jul 7, 2013)

Many would like to believe that because correlation alone does not prove causation, it denies it. Not at all. Correlation plus theory strongly supports causation. A very inconvenient fact for many who are hoping for a different truth for AGW.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...






You confused me with a bunch of fonts. (Or I got confused).

Correlation is, inherently, empirical. Two quantities are measured with respect to time. This is as basic as it gets. *The two are then correlated. There is no theory, simply that they are correlated.

The same two quantities are maniputated in a laboritory test tube. *They are correlated and shown to be causal.

The first correlation is demonstrated to be causal by the second correlation.

AS CO2 ABSORBES IR RADIATION IN THE LABORATORY, IT ABSORBS IT EVERYWHERE. CO2 DOESN'T MAGICALLY CHANGE IT'S PROPERTIES OUTSIDE. IT IS A TWO STEP EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION. *THIS IS A FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF SCIENCE. IT IS CALLED REALITY.

1 + 1 = 2

It is that simple. *The whole thing is based on empirical evidence. *The second empirical causal correlation relationship demonstrates that the first is causal.

It is that simple. *Anything simpler, and we just abandon science as having no application.

The fonts, following my post, felt like I was being yelled at.

And this statement, "That is correlational, not empirical" is about as fundamemtally stupid as they come.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Many would like to believe that because correlation alone does not prove causation, it denies it. Not at all. Correlation plus theory strongly supports causation. A very inconvenient fact for many who are hoping for a different truth for AGW.









Then you'll have no problem explaining the pause in the temperature rise.  Or telling us the mechanism for the cold trend we're about to enter.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Many would like to believe that because correlation alone does not prove causation, it denies it. Not at all. Correlation plus theory strongly supports causation. A very inconvenient fact for many who are hoping for a different truth for AGW.
> ...



So you have a magic crystal ball that tells you there is " cold trend we're about to enter."  Please share, with the world, this magic.  Is it your magic crystal cherry ball picker?  The one where you keep doing the same thing, hoping for different results?

Prove "a cold trend we are about to enter."  Add that to the list of other bs you can't prove.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Everyone who can read and write more than one sentence.  So not you.


----------



## gslack (Jul 8, 2013)

Stop trolling web forums and go and harness the amazing energy waiting in CO2... Just build it and you can call it a day.. No more fake personas, no more trolling, no more googling obscure terms or vernacular you don't understand... You can just build the CO2 enery doubling heat engine and there's your proof...

Go on expert, build it...


----------



## gslack (Jul 8, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



BLUNDER!!

You're back dude... What's up with the disappearing act? And the rep? I think you ran off and got some trolls..They reek of your influence; lying, making bold claims they do not defend, inability to defend a position, Crying, insulting, proclamations of their brilliance despite they never show anything but ignorance...

I got a few days to kill now, so I think maybe I will spend a bit more time here..LOL


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Many would like to believe that because correlation alone does not prove causation, it denies it. Not at all. Correlation plus theory strongly supports causation. A very inconvenient fact for many who are hoping for a different truth for AGW.
> ...



Though I am no climate scientist, I will venture a posible explanation. 

If you have a glass with ice and put it in the sun, you will get a temperature rise at first. But then as the ice Melts the colder water from the melting will bring the temperature down for a while. Eventually, as the ice gets thinner and thinner the temperature will go up again. 
So my hypothesis here is that temperature has stabilized in part due to the ice melting. 344 billion tons of ice melting might be doing the trick of keeping down the temperature a bit. 

So far , all the chart's I've seen show that glaciers continue to melt despite the "temperature stabilization", and of course , I could be totally wrong. But I think the idea is plausible enough to make further research.


----------



## westwall (Jul 8, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Your theory has some problems.  Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now.  Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.



http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png


----------



## IanC (Jul 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





At least CC's idea has some plausibility. Unlike Trenberth's theory that the missing heat magically appears under 700 meters of ocean. Of course the one thing going for Trenberth is that the rise in ocean temperatures down there is only thousandths of a degree, leaving lots of room to adjust the numbers.  Do any of the warmers want to defend our ability to measure that in the ARGO era, let alone back to the 50's?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Many would like to believe that because correlation alone does not prove causation, it denies it. Not at all. Correlation plus theory strongly supports causation. A very inconvenient fact for many who are hoping for a different truth for AGW.
> ...



Explaining your denier cult myths and misunderstandings is very easy, walleyed. You're a deluded, brainwashed retard.

There is no "_pause_" in the Earth's warming, there is just a temporary slowdown in the rate of increase in surface air temperatures, as more of the extra heat that the increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are trapping has been transferred into the oceans. *Global warming is actually still accelerating*.

And we're not "_about to enter_" any "_cold trends_" either, you poor bamboozled moron.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Sorry if you got confused about that but, in fact, I was talking to the walleyedretard, not you. He's the ignorant fool who imagines that correlation somehow denies causation just because correlation doesn't necessarily mean that there is a causal link. He is very ignorant about science but, like many of the denier cultists who post on this forum, he is a sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, so he falsely imagines that he understands way more than he actually does.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 8, 2013)

One might notice that all of the posts put up by Rolling Thunder are littered with many of the following terms......

*"assumption"

"may be the result of....."

"prediction"

"has been calculated"

"possible"

"likelihood of..."

"possible causative relationship"

"surely hints at...."*


Ummm......only the dummies see this stuff and use "science" in the same sentence!!!!!


But don't take my word for it.......go check any of the Rolling Thunder posts ( cant miss them.....done in 72pt font!!). But all of his stuff is slam dunk science......any evidence to the contrary = nothing but fabrications.


Indeed........when people start connecting the dots on this shit, it makes perfect sense!! Nobody knows shit about shit!!!


Yet tomorrow, these mental cases would have us go back to 18th century lifestyles!!! Only heres the thing.......I don't see it happening!!! Do you??






This debate about warming.......did it stop.......has it gotten worse.......is it in a holding pattern?? Its nothing more than an exercise in group navel contemplation......a veritable science hobby. Internet Romper Rooms!! Hundreds of thousands of posts in this forum and what has changed in the public policy domain? DICK.......in fact, coal is now booming in Europe, Cap and Trade is dead, renewable subsidies have all but ended in England and France and act as life support here in the US......... and also in the US, fracking is exploding as natural gas vaults decades into the future and most notable, investment in green markets has plummeted in the last 3 years!!! In EVERY SINGLE assessment of energy 2-3 decades out, renewables continue to be a sliver of the energy market.( less than 10%)









Nobody cares about the science s0ns!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 8, 2013)




----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

We will, of course, have to move to sustainable energy at some rate. The only question is, how much should we add AGW mitigation and extreme weather recovery costs to the bill for the priviledge of moving slowly? 

More carbon in the ground means less in the oceans and atmosphere. Should we take it out, then outfit fossil fuel plants for CO2 sequestration to put it back?

What will be the impact on civilization of having no carbon based feedstocks for plastics, roads, pharmaceuticals, etc? 

So many big expensive questions for the Flat Earth Society to ignore.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Yeah, perhaps if we use the proper noun, first letter capitalization format, "*W*alleyed".

Excellent, I have been aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect since grammer school. Now I've got a name for it. *I didn't know it was a specific case of the illusion of superiority. *As originally described to me, *it is that, given a little knowledge, they consider themselves to be smarter than the expert in the subject.

The sheer magnitude of Walleyed's arrogant ignorance, stupidity, so exceeds random chance that it must come from decades of practice. It is stunning.*

His saying that correlation is not empirical demonstrates he has absolutely no clue, has never collected data and validated a principle. *

I've met a few simple folks, ones who are aware they are simple, keep things simple because they are still functional. *Like Forest, they are admirable in being smart about being simple.*

I had a mathematics genius prove the equality of correlation. He resolved it to A/|A|=B/|B|. Those are vectors, any abstract set. *That would be, of course, for 100%. I didn't ask for partial correlation, so I got what I asked for. He was a social boob, but not arrogant.  He wasn't even dismissive.

This math genius's social ineptitude was interesting as it would make you cringe when displayed in a normal social setting, like everyone going out for lunch or a cocktail party. *He'd just manage to say the wrong thing, the wrong way, to the wrong person, repeatedly. He knew it, he just couldn't help it. *Yet, when on stage for open mike night, at the local comedy bar, it actually came off as funny.

The arrogance is a seperate quality, even quantifiable. Walleyed is internally self-reinforcing. Faced with dissonance, he grabs ahold of whatever will change the feeling, then manipulates his perception of reality so the feeling will hold. *Ergo, "That is correlational, not empirical", completely abandoning even the most basic grasp of reality, that of making two sets of empirical measures and then correlating them. *

It just amazes me as his insanity goes all the way to the most basic connections to reality, things that are so simply obvious that we wouldn't normally give them a second thought. *They are simple and fundamental postulates that the likes of Plato and Aristotle philosophised about and are presented, in passing, to a fifth grader.

Walleyed is literally dumber than a fifth grader.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You are on the right conceptual track. *I can't find the term that labels the heat absorbed by ice as it changes phase to water.**It is the seems to be the opposite of the*heat of fussion. "Latent heat" is an associated term.

Obviously, the correlation between the demonstrated phase change of water, plateau of temperature rise, melting of the Earth's ice, and recent appearance of a plateau in the global mean temperature is a solid association.

Testing the hypothesis then becomes a matter of counting the heat added and the ice melted. It isn't a matter of whether the process you define is correct. *It is correct. *It is a question of the magnitude of the effect. We can guarantee that the climate guys have checked your hypothesis.

The only detail that you need to adjust is that, during the phase change,

&#916;T=0 rather than*&#916;T<0.

The temperature stops rising, in your glass of water, during the phase change. *It stops at exactly the freezing point of water. *Thermometers may be calibrated using an ice bath. Simply, you fill a thermous, or other insulated container, with an mixture of crushed ice and water. *You let the temperature stabilize and put the thermometer in it. *The thermometer better read 0 degrees C, or within the range of error given how well you have designed your ice bath.

Making a Proper Ice Bath | ThermoWorks

Of course, the ocean is salt water, so the phase change temperature for Earth ice is a bit different. And who knows, maybe the difference in the make up of sea water and Earth ice could give some &#916;T<>0. *

What is that system, fresh water and salt water glaciers and ice shelfs along with salty sea water? *We could expand the ice bath and experiment with different combinations. *Or we can go theoretical. *My hypothesis is that*&#916;T=0, regardless.

The devil is in the details.


----------



## tjvh (Jul 8, 2013)

The global warming thread. Is it for real? 

The *thread* is definitely real, as for global warming... Not so much.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Though I am no climate scientist, I will venture a posible explanation.*
> 
> If you have a glass with ice and put it in the sun, you will get a temperature rise at first. But then as the ice Melts the colder water from the melting will bring the temperature down for a while. Eventually, as the ice gets thinner and thinner the temperature will go up again.*
> So my hypothesis here is that temperature has stabilized in part due to the ice melting. 344 billion tons of ice melting might be doing the trick of keeping down the temperature a bit.*
> ...



Since about 1950-60, the heat that has been absorbed by the earth has gone into heating the ocean (~90%), heating the atmosphere and land surface, *and melting sea and land ice.*

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

So, yeah, melting land and sea ice is taken as large enough to be considered.

Total heat absorbed is the difference between heat in and heat out.

The total heat absorbed goes into four basic places. Earth atmosphere and land, sea and land ice, upper ocean, and deep ocean. We have been measuring three of the four directly, and with increasing precision. *Any remaining heat is in the remaining location. *It is because energy is conserved.*

So the deep ocean is.







The rest is in the realm of figuring out the dynamics that govern how the heat is transfered between the four constituent components. (Earth core not included, which makes five)

It is literally as simple as A=B+C+D+E. And as A, B, C, and D are known, then E=A-(B+C+D). *The climate guys can worry about how to calculate it precisely. *The oceanographers can worry about how to measure it accurately.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ears-new-study-of-oceans-confirms/?mobile=wp*

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ming-actually-still-accelerating-no-lull.html


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> So many big expensive questions for the Flat Earth Society to ignore.




Yup....thanks,.....we flat earthers believe only stupid ass mental cases think it feasible to spend 76 trillion ( UN $ estimate ) to go green. Too.....we think going back to candles, horse and buggy and having no cell phones or air conditioning is gay. Yeah......lets all go back to the Pony Express!!!

Indeed....we flat earthers think it a bit more reasonable to wait for advanced technologies to be developed and be used to meet our energy needs, while the climate crusaders are all in on 19th century technologies of solar power and windmills.

Ummm.......which begs the ?. Who exactly are the flat earthers here?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Has another* BIG* problem.

The planet's ecosystem is not a glass of ice water...It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Wrong again, Walleyed!! You can't read a graph.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You simply can't get anything right.*

* *2013 Wintertime Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Fifth Lowest on Record *

*"The new maximum &#8212;5.82 million square miles (15.09 million square kilometers)&#8212; is in line with a continuing trend in declining winter Arctic sea ice extent: nine of the ten smallest recorded maximums have occurred during the last decade. The 2013 winter extent is 144,402 square miles (374,000 square kilometers) below the average annual maximum extent for the last three decades."

The graph says no such thing.

1) *This graph says that the area is less in 2013 than in 2001. *So, it doesn't say, "trending normal.






2) Energy going into the phase change of Earth ice is for ALL of it, Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland, ice sheets, sea ice, glaciers, etc.

2a) This says*Arctic sea ice extent has trended down.

*Arctic Sea Ice Extent*

"June 2013 was the 11th lowest June in the 1979 to 2013 satellite record, 760,000 square kilometers (293,000 square miles) above the record low in 2010. The monthly trend is -3.6% percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average (also -3.6% per decade relative to the old 1979 to 2000 baseline)."

*GRAPH: URL HERE*

2b) *This says Arctic ice volume is down.

*Arctic Sea Ice Volume*

"The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure. *Monthly averaged ice volume for September 2012 was 3,400 km3. This value is 72% lower than the mean over this period, 80% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 2.0 standard deviations below the 1979-2011 *trend"






2c) *Nasa has Artic sea ice down.

*Nasa Arctic sea ice*






2d) *Nasa says Antarctia and Greenland land ice volume is down.

*Anarctica sea ice volume*






In short, sea ice in extent and volume are down. Land ice volume for both Greenland and Antarctica are down.

How do you manage to have unknowledge?  Perfectly correlated wrong, negative IQ?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > So many big expensive questions for the Flat Earth Society to ignore.
> ...




"...we flat earthers think it a bit more reasonable to wait for advanced technologies to be developed"

When do you expect the engineers of the world to run out of new ideas? How many lives and billions should we sink into AGW mitigation and extreme weather recovery while we're waiting? Sun and solar and hydro get energy more directly from our only source, the sun, than millions of years old life that failed to rot. Yet you call them obsolete technologies. 

I think that the Flat Earth Society is a very apt name for your cult. 

You think that politics speaks the truth and science lies. How clever is that?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Where did you get the idea that negative feedbacks are more likely than positive feedbacks?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 8, 2013)

Where did you get the idea I said that?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Where did you get the idea I said that?



This is why I warn against making vague and overly general statements like, "It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions."

Not only is what you say incomprehensible to others, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Do list, for us, a fraction of the trillions of potential feedback, both positive and negative, and compensatory reactions.

Because, if you can't list a reasonably large number to back up "trillions", that is more than 2,000,000,000,000 of them, then you're just throwing words together out of pretense.  

Just .0000001% of them, and you can group identifiable, similar, yet reasonably different sets.  Say sets no larger than 1000 items.

Or are you just saying "trillions", as in "gadzillion".  "Trillions" is, after all, the one word that you used which is specific, a number.

And I have to wonder, if you can't be specific, add something meaningful and intelligent, why bother posting at all.  What use are you?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you get the idea I said that?
> ...


Right....Against making vague statements like what Goebbels warming could-may-might-possibly end up portending for humankind....Oh wait, that's your hustle.

Nonetheless, there are trillions -yes, trillions- of possible interactions and compensatory reactions to what you claim is happening, which render your inflexible and, yes, STUPID computer models completely irrelevant.

I'm not the one whose hypothesis stems from the proposition that the planet's ecosystem is basically static....You are.

Jam that in your pipe and smoke it.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Anyone who calls science, "subversive", puts himself squarely in the category of ignorant.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



So you really don't know of any, but you know there are trillions.  So many, you can't even begin to count then.  Not even begin.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Anyone who calls science, "subversive", puts himself squarely in the category of ignorant.


Which science did I call subversive?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Knowing basic math (i.e. exponents) and knowing that there are hundreds of various and sundry interactions and possible compensatory outcomes all interacting with one another, one doesn't need to name all the various individual potential mitigating factors to come up with trillions.

You Goebbels warming zombies couldn't win Powerball in 500 years, yet seem to be able to say for certain  what the entire planet's ecosystem is going to be like (well, might-maybe-could-may) in 50.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Yeah, but you don't know the "sundry interactions".  And the combinations of zero take zero at a time is zero.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Yeah, and neither do you.....Which makes your stupid computer models stupid.....Stupid...


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> Your theory has some problems.  Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now.  Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.
> 
> http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png



As I said , I could be wrong. Nevertheless your arguments need some checking too :

1) The chart has the title "extent" what about the depth?
2) Most of the melting doesn't come from the artic (where most of the ice is already under the sea, but from greenland, and greenland has been melting steadily. 
3) Th other source of the melt is west antartica .

... your turn.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You seem a bit vague on the concept of the difference between vague and specific. *You are confusing is with accuracy, precision, confidence level, and probability.

I haven't said anything about a hypothesis of the planet's ecosystem being static.  You're having of those alcohol delusions again.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> The planet's ecosystem is not a glass of ice water...It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions.



Come on oddball. 

Yes , and the solar system doesn't have just one gravitational influence , and yet that doesn't stop us from modeling the Earth's orbit using mostly 3 bodies : The Sun , the Earth and the moon.

Now name a feedback and compensatory factor which can account for the 300 billion tons of melted ice ( that would mean something different from warming which is melting those 300 billion tons each year ).


----------



## Oddball (Jul 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


I'm confusing nothing.

The people spouting the vagaries (i.e. could, may, might, possibly, _*IF*_ etcetera) are the Malthusian declinist misanthrope scaremongers like you.

You have no precision, accuracy or even probability....Then again, you don't even have a static control group, repeatability, quantifiability, falsifiability or any other traditionally accepted measure of provable science.

I can get better guesses form the Old Farmer's Almanac.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The planet's ecosystem is not a glass of ice water...It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions.
> ...


Non sequitur.



CultureCitizen said:


> Now name a feedback and compensatory factor which can account for the 300 billion tons of melted ice ( that would mean something different from warming which is melting those 300 billion tons each year ).


Planetary wobble, varying nature of the magnetosphere, varying solar output, the elliptical/oscillating orbit around the sun, the fact that the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second....Those are just off the top of my head.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Here is specific;

"Recently analysts, government officials, and the media have drawn increasing attention to the escalating frequency, severity, and costs over and above fire suppression associated with large-scale forest wildfires [1]  including losses of human lives, homes, pets, crops, livestock and environmental damage. "






"The bodies of 19 elite firefighters overtaken by a raging wildfire in central Arizona were recovered and taken to the Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office today, Prescott Fire Chief Dan Fraijo said."

What did you say were the "trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions" in that trend?

Oh, you must mean feedbacks like dead fire fighters *results in more burned acreage, thus fewer acres to burn, so fewer fires. *

Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center

Bodies of 19 Firefighters Killed in Arizona Wildfire Recovered, Taken to Medical Examiner's Office - ABC News


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



There you go, now you're getting specific.   No of them are feedbacks, but they at least have the possibility of creating variability in global temp.

And here is a graph which shows the solar variability as a part of temperature change.






It does and has varied.  So far, it isn't an overall comtributing factor in mitigating the upward temperature trend.  

I wonder what the future varation is with respect to predictable factors. It has a curious upward trend, so far.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You got proof it ain't?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2013)

Pretty colored charts of computer models aren't proof.

I never thought anyone cold be a lower slimy piece of shit than Rudy Ghouliani, hiding behind the victims of 9/11&#8482; as a platform for his run at the presidency.

Yet, here you are, you low slimy piece of shit.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Pretty colored charts of computer models aren't proof.
> 
> I never thought anyone cold be a lower slimy piece of shit than Rudy Ghouliani, hiding behind the victims of 9/11 as a platform for his run at the presidency.
> 
> Yet, here you are, you low slimy piece of shit.



You are a moron. *Those firefighters were in Arizona, not in New York. It happened this weekend. *And if you weren't such a self centered, whiny little prick, you'd be as well aware of it as the rest of the county. *19 firefighters got caught in a firestorm in the midst of the worst drought season in Arozona history, a drought contibuted to by climate change.*

And if you gave a shit about any thing else but your next six pack, you'd stop being such a pussy, hiding behind your vague and generalize bulshit.

You don't like theoretical models, you don't like empirical evidence.  In other words, your to much of a pussy to deal with reality.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Planetary wobble, varying nature of the magnetosphere, varying solar output, the elliptical/oscillating orbit around the sun, the fact that the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second....Those are just off the top of my head.



Planetary wobble : It is cyclic so the ice melting should at least correlate with the wobble cycle... I don't think so.

The elliptical /oscillating orbit around the sun... very very small variation over a long period of time... I don't think its plausible. 

the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second... maybe... if we were passing through a high radiation zone , that would be plausible. 

Varying solar output: again , cyclic (11 years if I recall correctly )... maybe, I think that's an interesting factor , but there would have to be some correlation.


----------



## westwall (Jul 9, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Your theory has some problems.  Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now.  Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.
> ...










Antarctic sea ice is actually thicker than the AGW cultists thought.  In fact this one discovery DOUBLED the known extent of Antarctic sea ice.


Antarctica Growing From The Bottom Up : Discovery News


Greenland again huh?  We'll ignore the fact that it was much warmer 800 years ago and go with the 150 year cycle that has been deciphered as the cause of the ice melt.

"Jet stream changes cause climatically exceptional Greenland Ice Sheet melt

The research team at the GrISResearch from the University of Sheffield has shown that unusual changes in atmospheric jet stream circulation caused the exceptional surface melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) in summer 2012.

An international team led by Professor Edward Hanna from the University of Sheffields Department of Geography used a computer model simulation (called SnowModel) and satellite data to confirm a record surface melting of the GrIS for at least the last 50 years - when on 11 July 2012, more than 90 percent of the ice-sheet surface melted. This far exceeded the previous surface melt extent record of 52 percent in 2010.

The team also analysed weather station data from on top of and around the GrIS, largely collected by the Danish Meteorological Institute but also by US programmes, which showed that several new high Greenland temperature records were set in summer 2012.

The research, published today in the International Journal of Climatology, clearly demonstrates that the record surface melting of the GrIS was mainly caused by highly unusual atmospheric circulation and jet stream changes, which were also responsible for last summer's unusually wet weather in England."


Jet stream changes cause climatically exceptional Greenland Ice Sheet melt - News releases - News - The University of Sheffield


West Antarctica is one third of the continent.  However the warming is only occurring on the peninsula, and even there the rise is covered by the error bands.  The warmest period averages 1-2 degrees C and has been that way since measurement began.  The "warming is detectable only in statistics....not on the thermometers.

Because the Antarctic Peninsula, which reaches north of the Antarctic Circle, is the most northerly part of Antarctica, it has the mildest climates within this continent. Its temperature are warmest in January, averages 1 to 2°C, and coldest in June, averages from -15°C to - 20°C. Its west coast from the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula south to 68 degrees South, which has a maritime Antarctic climate, is the mildest part of Antarctica Peninsula. Within this part of the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures exceed 0°C for 34 months during the summer, and rarely fall below -10°C during the winter. Farther south along the west coast and the northeast coast of the peninsula, mean monthly temperatures exceeding 0°C for only 12 months of summer and average around -15°C in winter. The coast of the Antarctic Peninsula south of 63°S is generally much colder with mean temperatures exceeding 0°C for only 01 months of summer and winter mean temperatures ranging from 5 to 25°C. The colder temperatures of the southeast, Weddell Sea side, of the Antarctica Peninsula are reflected in the persistence of ice shelves that cling to the eastern side.[9][10]

Precipitation varies greatly within the Antarctic Peninsula. From the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula south to 68 degrees South, precipitation averages 3550 cm per year. a good portion of this rain falls as rain during the summer, on two-thirds of the days of the year, and with little seasonal variation in amounts. Between about 68°S and 63°S on the west coast of the Antarctica Peninsula and along its northeast coast, precipitation is 35 cm or less with occasional rain. Along the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula south of 63°S, precipitation ranges from 1015 cm. In comparison, the subantarctic islands have precipitation of 12 m per year and the dry interior of Antarctica is a virtual desert with only 10 cm precipitation per year.[10

Antarctic Peninsula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your turn...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The first article does not say anything about the ice being thicher than thought. * It simply refines the understanding of how the measured thickness forms.

The second says nothing with regard to the 50 year trend

The total volume of land ice is as shown






And clearly, on a seasonal basis, the volume decreases and increases. But it decreases more than it increases, with each cycle.

You are simply, and desperately, trying to force short term weather variability into having meaning in the long term climate. The long term trends remain the same, regardless of how the seasonal variations occur, variability betwen regions, or how the heat moves about the globe.

Indeed, the massive Greenland melt actually goes towards supprting heat being absorbed by ice melt, though we have no specific value to assign so no indication of scale.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

Yep, Greenland experiencex exceptional warming due to the combination of climate change and unique weather patterns.

"Greenlands surface melting in 2012 was intense, far in excess of any earlier year in the satellite record since 1979. In July 2012, a very unusual weather event occurred. For a few days, 97% of the entire ice sheet indicated surface melting. "

"Warm conditions in 2012 were caused by a persistent high pressure pattern that lasted much of the summer. Since September, temperatures have remained warmer than average, but dropped well below freezing as autumn and winter arrived. We review the years events, and introduce some general characteristics of the Greenland ice sheet"

"Overall, melt extent was the largest in the satellite record since 1979, and melting lasted almost two months longer than average. This was the first year in the satellite record that the entire ice sheet experienced melt at some point in the season."

"A major signal of climate change for Greenland is the steady climb of these facies uphill as melt seasons and summer temperatures increase. The changes in facies also pre-condition the surface of the ice sheet for even more melting."

"*The data from 1991 to 2012 show that some locations in western Greenland have warmed 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) during summer, while some locations along the west and northwest coasts of Greenland warmed as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) during winter."

An intense Greenland melt season: 2012 in review | Greenland Ice Sheet


----------



## PMZ (Jul 9, 2013)

The rest of the universe is a long ways away for us to gather evidence from and about, but the state of human knowledge so far is that there is one thing about earth that is unique. 

Life in general, and human knowledge that resulted from it, specifically. What brought that about? Climate. Both the static and dynamic aspects of it have been truly the cradle of life. 

Life, thanks to evolution and natural selection, is pretty robust and resilient. Now that life on earth is ubiquitous, I doubt that our bumbling could put it all at risk. We could change it substantially, but not erase it. 

Human knowledge though is a luxury that we can only invest in after all necessities have been satisfied. 

Consider a world whose climate is changing in such a way that basic human necessities are put at risk for some of our immense population. What will people do in order to survive? What will those not at risk have to do to protect their position?

What we know beyond the shadow of any doubt is that our current energy infrastucture is changing the climate, and will increasingly continue to. 

What we don't know with certainty are the weather consequences of that, and even less certain are the human and lower life form's reactions to the stress of something as essential as weather different than what brought us this far. 

We can only speculate. But the speculation has to consider the entire range of possibilities in order to plan for the best outcome. Which could be much worse than what we have become accustomed to. 

The next few hundred years will be epic and define forever the role of human knowledge in both endangering and potentially saving, life. It has become our game. 

While some would say that our future is apocalyptic, others will believe that the human knowledge that brought us here can also get us through.


----------



## westwall (Jul 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The rest of the universe is a long ways away for us to gather evidence from and about, but the state of human knowledge so far is that there is one thing about earth that is unique.
> 
> Life in general, and human knowledge that resulted from it, specifically. What brought that about? Climate. Both the static and dynamic aspects of it have been truly the cradle of life.
> 
> ...








Wrong on almost every count.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Planetary wobble, varying nature of the magnetosphere, varying solar output, the elliptical/oscillating orbit around the sun, the fact that the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second....Those are just off the top of my head.
> ...



And yet... When science is asked what pulled our primordial asses out of 3 consecutive ICE AGES -- the best answer is not cow farts or SUVs -- it's "planetary wobble" and natural cycles.. It's all there in our oldest ice records.. A mile of ice over Albany started melting because of ___________?

Solar influences are NOT well known.. You cannot accurately measure solar output from the ground and separate Watts from atmospheric absorption.. We have BARELY a 20 year record of sat data.. And it's NOT the 11 yr sun spot cycles. It's the Total Solar Irradiation number that has increased the temp forcing at the surface by 1W/m2 since the mid 18th century.. 






[/IMG]

The "squigglies" you see on the chart are individual "sun spot cycles".. But it's the TREND line of TOTAL irradiation that is ignored and discounted by the AGW clergy. 1W/m2 is approx 33% of the warming that we are trying to account for. You mention TSI --- "they" automatically start deflecting about sun spot cycles. WITH THE TSI removed --- of course... Just watch. Some cheesehead will post a "sun spot activity" chart within the next 10 posts... 

And please note the "leveling off" of TSI towards the end of 20th century..  Popular AGW mythology today is just discovering the huge thermal "storage" effect of the oceans and even the land. They just discovered the diff btwn POWER (w/m2) and ENERGY (accumulated over time). So TSI is the ONE INDICATOR that would suggest a "pause" in the warming cycle that we are JUST NOW --- observing.. 

Now that is also "correlation" not a proof.. But that correlates BETTER with observations than just mere CO2 vs Temp for the past 20 years. Just with a delay due to "thermal inertia"....  

We need ANOTHER 20 yrs of solar measurement from space to even BEGIN to understand the nuances of the PRIMARY source of thermal energy to the planet. Even a small shift in the SPECTRUM of solar radiation ---- could operate on the Greenhouse "window" and be a primary cause of warming or cooling.. What "color" is our sun??? How stable is THAT? 

We don't have enough data to comment..

But let's ALL LEAP to conclusions based on fear and politics -----eh??


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Your theory has some problems.  Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now.  Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.
> ...



I don't argue about "sea ice". The game is rigged by the definitions.. Sea Ice Extent (SIE) is usually defined as a fixed patched of ocean with MORE than 25% ice.. That's A LOT of open water, and tells you more about storms and currents -- than it does about climate. 

If you go for VOLUMES --- there are other problems with that. The best measurement is probably "surviving age" and that can't be measured from satellite.. (to my knowledge).


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Planetary wobble, varying nature of the magnetosphere, varying solar output, the elliptical/oscillating orbit around the sun, the fact that the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second....Those are just off the top of my head.
> ...


Nobody asked what you thought was plausible...You wanted a list of possible mechanisms and feedbacks, and I gave it to you.

Then, any/all of those in concert, to go with the billions of other Earth-bound variables and feedbacks....Which cannot all be possibly accounted for in any of the warmerist scaremonger models.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Yep, Greenland experiencex exceptional warming due to the combination of climate change and unique weather patterns.
> 
> "Greenland&#8217;s surface melting in 2012 was intense, far in excess of any earlier year in the satellite record since 1979. In July 2012, a very unusual weather event occurred. For a few days, 97% of the entire ice sheet indicated surface melting. "
> 
> ...



You have obviously been listening to the fear mongering regarding Greenland instead of reading the published, peer reviewed literature.  If you had been reading the peer reviewed literature, you would not be promoting doom and gloom and gyrating hysterically trying to instill fear in others.  If you had been reading the peer reviewed literature, you would be asking yourself why idiots are always taken in by fearmongers.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Greenland Ice Sheet Growing 5.4 cm/yr



> According to an article published in Science, the thickness of the Greenland ice sheet as a whole has been growing at the rate of 5.4 cm/yr (following correction for isostatic uplift). The only areas thinning are selected coastal areas exposed to periodic warm ocean oscillations. This change is also consistent with the natural behavior of ice sheets.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows 'dramatic slow down of ice loss in southeast Greenland'



> A paper published online yesterday in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds "the loss rate in southeast Greenland for the more recent period has become almost negligible, down from 109 ± 28 Gt/yr of just a few years ago. The rapid change in the nature of the regional ice mass in southeast and northwest Greenland, in the course of only several years, further reinforces the idea that the Greenland ice sheet mass balance is very vulnerable to regional climate conditions."  Global warming allegedly due to greenhouse gases would not be expected to cause such regional interannual variability in Greenland ice loss, thus pointing to shifts in weather instead.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Greenland was much warmer in the past & is less vulnerable to thaw than previously thought



> A new paper published in Nature finds from ice cores that Greenland was 8C warmer than the present during the last interglacial period from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. The authors also find "only a modest ice-sheet response to the strong warming," during which the ice sheet was 130 meters lower than the present. Needless to say, no "tipping point" occurred when Greenland warmed by more than 2C, as claimed by climate alarmists.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows Greenland was warmer during the 1930's and 1400's than the present



> A new paper published in Climate of the Past reconstructs Greenland temperatures over the past 800 years and shows that reconstructed temperatures were higher in the 1930's and 1400's than at the end of the record in the year 2000. The paper also finds Greenland temperatures correlated to "solar-induced changes in atmospheric circulation patterns such as those produced by the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation (NAO/AO)." The Medieval Warming Period 1000 years ago is not included in this 800 year reconstruction, but Greenland ice cores demonstrate that the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian, and other unnamed warming periods were all warmer than modern Greenland temperatures.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Search results for greenland



> A new paper from the 2011 Antarctic Science Symposium presents new ice core data from Greenland and finds that not even the southern portion of Greenland was ice-free during the Eemian period, despite temperatures much higher than the present (5°C or 9°F) lasting for 16,000 years (from 130,000 to 114,000 years ago). Meanwhile, alarmists such as Richard Alley (buddy of Michael Mann at Penn State) and James Hansen claim "The entire ice mass of Greenland will disappear from the world map if temperatures rise by as little as 2°C." Note global temperatures have recovered by a mere 0.7°C since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 and have been flat to declining since 1998.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Greenland Istorvet icecap was smaller than the present 1000 years ago



> A paper published today in Quaternary Science Reviews examines fossilized plants at the edge of the Istorvet ice cap in East Greenland and determines the ice cap "was smaller than the present from AD 200 to AD 1025." The ice cap subsequently grew during the Little Ice Age [LIA] and then retreated to the present size significantly larger than was present during the Medieval & Roman warming periods.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Greenland was 2?3°C warmer than today 4000 years ago



> A paper published today in Quaternary Science Reviews finds west Greenland was "2&#8211;3°C warmer than today" from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago and that "summer temperatures were warmer than present by at least 7,100 years ago." According to the authors, "the local Greenland Ice Sheet margin was most retracted behind its present position between 6,000 and 5,000 years ago." The paper corroborates ice core data from central Greenland indicating that Greenland was significantly warmer than the present several times over the past 8,000 years despite "safe" levels of CO2. This paper and many others demonstrate that alarmist claims of a 2°C "tipping point" for the Greenland ice sheet are nonsense.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Greenland surface melt was due to natural variability



> Last summer, the mainstream media breathlessly reported that a brief 4-day surface melt over the Greenland ice sheet represented evidence of man-made global warming. However, a paper published today in The Cryosphere finds that "the recent warmer summers over [the Greenland ice sheet] cannot be considered as a long-term climate warming but are more a consequence of [the natural North Atlantic Oscillation] variability affecting atmospheric heat transport." In other words, the brief Greenland surface melt was related to natural variability rather than alleged man-made global warming




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows Greenland has cooled ~2.5C over past 8,000 years



> A paper published today in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs temperatures from ice cores and finds the Greenland ice sheet has cooled about 2.5C over the past 8,000 years. Needless to say, no "tipping point" was triggered as claimed by climate alarmists when Greenland was more than 2C warmer than the present.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows no correlation between CO2 and Greenland temperatures over past 7,200 years



> A recent paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews shows no rational nor consistent relationship between CO2 levels and July air temperatures in West Greenland over the past 7,200 years. The authors also find "summer temperatures were 2-3°C warmer than present" between 6,000 and 4,000 years ago.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows W Greenland glacier retreat has decelerated about 50% over past 70 years



> A new paper published in The Cryosphere examines historical length changes of glaciers in W Greenland from 1800-2010 and finds "the average rate of retreat was largest in the first half of the 20th century." Data from the paper shows the average rate of retreat peaked at 25 meters per year during the 1930's and has decelerated to about half that rate over the past 70 years. Note glaciers have been generally retreating for 20,000 years since the peak of the last major ice age, and since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds an accelerating increase of snow accumulation on Greenland



> A paper published today in The Journal of Climate reconstructs snow accumulation of the Greenland ice sheet from 1600-2009 and finds "a 12% or 86 Gigaton/yr increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate."




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Melting ice caps update: New paper shows no change in elevation or mass of ice cap at Northern tip of Greenland



> Warmists tell us the effects of AGW should be most evident at the poles. A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research closely examines the Flade Isblink Ice Cap at the northern tip of Greenland using data from two satellites from 2002-2009 and finds a slightly positive/near zero change in surface elevation and no change whatsoever in mass. However, according to the experts at The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, this entire ice cap has completely disappeared.



And the list of published papers that contradict your alarmist handwaving goes on and on.  No point, I suppose in posting more as you aren't likely to read what I have already given you.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

*
*"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

 "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

*- Albert Einstien
*


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

Climate change's heat intensifies drought in the USA

"While drought has several causes, climate scientists say global warming is a long-term contributor that could be exacerbating current conditions, especially in the already-arid Southwest. They say it will likely do more damage in the future. Why? Higher temperatures cause more water to evaporate, and unless there's enough rain to offset it, the ground dries up.

More heat is on the way, too. U.S. temperatures are expected to rise 3 to 10 degrees by 2100, partly because of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases emitted in the burning of fossil fuels, according to a draft copy of the third National Climate Assessment, a federal report compiled by hundreds of government and academic scientists. As a result, the report expects summer droughts to intensify in most U.S. regions as well as enduring water shortages in the Southwest, Southeast and Hawaii."

USA TODAY


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Climate change's heat intensifies drought in the USA
> 
> "While drought has several causes, climate scientists say global warming is a long-term contributor that could be exacerbating current conditions, especially in the already-arid Southwest. They say it will likely do more damage in the future. Why? Higher temperatures cause more water to evaporate, and unless there's enough rain to offset it, the ground dries up.
> 
> ...



Can you offer any proof that the climate change you reference is due to the activites of man?  That's the $64 dollar question and the answer is that you can not.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

*Another liberal university climate change presentation - University of Arizona*

"*Average annual temperature in the Southwest has mimicked the global pattern.* Seasonal patterns are also important as some processes respond to climate of specific periods. For example, snow melt in the spring, and observed increases in this seasons temperatures have caused *the peak in streamflow to occur earlier in the year and the amount of snow measured on April 1 to decline.*

Changes in precipitation are also discernable. *Since 1958, average annual precipitation has decreased in most of Arizona but has increased in New Mexico* (Figure 2).

There also have been indications that *the strong westerly jet stream that directs storms in the Southwest during the winter has shifted north* in the spring since the 1970s. Less precipitation and warmer conditions worsen drought, which is natural and common to the area. A comparison of the drought experienced in the early 1950s to the recent drought period between 2000 and 2003, for example, suggests that a major difference is that *temperatures in the spring and early summer are warmer in the 2000s, which more rapidly parches the landscape and primes it for fires, among other potential impacts.*

Indicators of changes in the climate range from *shifts in the timing of flower blooms to the amount of water continue in snowpack to the number of heat waves and days with temperatures that exceed 100 degrees F.*"







*Damn you, University Of Arizona.*





Climate Change in the Southwest | Climate Assessment for the Southwest

Coincidence or preponderance of evidence? You decide...


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2013)

The planet's climatic history didn't begin in 1958, Corky.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2013)

ItFitzMe:::



> Changes in precipitation are also discernable. Since 1958, average annual precipitation has decreased in most of Arizona but has increased in New Mexico (Figure 2).



Gee.. There's no actual limit to what that miniscule amount of CO2 can do --- is there?

Moving the rain from Arizona to New Mexico.. What? Not enough SUVs or beer in New Mexico?

Hysterical shit.. And it smells of desperation...

Go read about prolonged droughts in the SW being a FEATURE of that area.. And "Drought" in the desert, means it rained 3 times -- instead of the normal 4 times that year..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> *Another liberal university climate change presentation - University of Arizona*
> 
> "*Average annual temperature in the Southwest has mimicked the global pattern.* Seasonal patterns are also important as some processes respond to climate of specific periods. For example, snow melt in the spring, and observed increases in this season&#8217;s temperatures have caused *the peak in streamflow to occur earlier in the year and the amount of snow measured on April 1 to decline.*
> 
> ...



Even before the AGW induced drought started affecting the refill rate of the aquifers that our agriculture depends on, we were overdrawing from that account. 

Groundwater depletion, USGS water science


----------



## PMZ (Jul 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> ItFitzMe:::
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Miniscule" means way too small to effect. That is apparently not true of 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 9, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change's heat intensifies drought in the USA
> ...



How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 9, 2013)

Just  so nobody expects the science deniers to go away soon. 

The first proposals that the earth was spheroidal were made in the fourth century BC, about 2400 years ago. There are still people disagreeing with that. 

Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on that, mankind should have no problem completely mitigating the problem that we've caused well befor the last science denier dies off.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2013)

The flat-Earfers are the warmerist fundamentalists. who claim that all the sages and elites within the church have all the knowledge, while the peasants are mere knaves, unable to comprehend the greatness and profundity of their eminence.

Good example of projection and transference, though, Dudley.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Just  so nobody expects the science deniers to go away soon.
> 
> The first proposals that the earth was spheroidal were made in the fourth century BC, about 2400 years ago. There are still people disagreeing with that.
> 
> ...



They all seem to agree with Slacksack, that plants get carbon from diamonds, coal, and pencil lead in the ground.  So it's kinda hard to take them seriously.  Obviously, actual science is secondary.


----------



## gslack (Jul 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Just  so nobody expects the science deniers to go away soon.
> ...



The fact you lie about what I said continually, despite the fact I have repeated it several times to both of your personas and on multiple threads, shows what a pathetic liar and troll you are..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Climate change's heat intensifies drought in the USA
> 
> "While drought has several causes, climate scientists say global warming is a long-term contributor that could be exacerbating current conditions, especially in the already-arid Southwest. They say it will likely do more damage in the future. Why? Higher temperatures cause more water to evaporate, and unless there's enough rain to offset it, the ground dries up.
> 
> ...



Saw an update on the "permanant drought" in the southwest this morning.

Up to 600% of the normal precipitation is predicted this week.  Let me guess....in climate science bizarro world, permanant drought causes more rain.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> "Miniscule" means way too small to effect. That is apparently not true of 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2.



That isn't at all what minuscule means.  I find myself having to provide definitions for you quite often for very common words.  Do you always just make up definitions to suit your needs?

Can you say how much warming might be expected from an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm...and can you say how much of that increase is directly due to man...and how much temperature increase is directly due to man's contribution?

If you expect to be believed, these are very basic questions and should have ready answers...and if the answers prove wrong, then the hypothesis, of course is wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The fact that you rely on skeptical science for your info sums up what sort of person you are.  They talk up our contribution of atmospheric CO2 in pretty scary terms that are designed to scare the uneducated.  Clearly you are scared.  Science, real science that is isn't meant to be used to scare school children and uneducated luddites.  Real science is meant to bring people closer to understanding the world around them. 

Here is how a real scientist (as opposed to a fear monger) presents that same information without the completely fabricated fear factor.  So now show me the hard proof that our 14 parts per million contribution to the atmospheric CO2 is responsible for any climate change at all...and then tell me how much change, you believe is due to that 14 parts per million.


----------



## gslack (Jul 10, 2013)

It's rained everyday this month and the last week of june here in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much state wide, and I remember a lot of rain up in canada recently as well.. Yet at the same time there was a drought in the southwest .. And that's proof of AGW??? LOL, like a friend of mine says,if it's hot it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, rain, warming, drought, warming...LOL


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> It's rained everyday this month and the last week of june here in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much state wide, and I remember a lot of rain up in canada recently as well.. Yet at the same time there was a drought in the southwest .. And that's proof of AGW??? LOL, like a friend of mine says,if it's hot it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, rain, warming, drought, warming...LOL



Know what you mean....I haven't put 300 miles on my motorcycle this summer....sure be glad when this drought is over so the sun can start shining.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> The flat-Earfers are the warmerist fundamentalists. who claim that all the sages and elites within the church have all the knowledge, while the peasants are mere knaves, unable to comprehend the greatness and profundity of their eminence.
> 
> Good example of projection and transference, though, Dudley.



"who claim that all the sages and elites within the church have all the knowledge, while the peasants are mere knaves, unable to comprehend the greatness and profundity of their eminence."

A clear indication that numb nuts here is unable to distinguish between the role of scientists in science vs laypeople and political entertainers.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > "Miniscule" means way too small to effect. That is apparently not true of 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2.
> ...



You've been given all of that data and information many times. You know that. You hope that if you keep asking, someone will be fooled into thinking otherwise. I think that it's more likely that they will think that you're functionally illiterate.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It's interesting to see that you say "Here is how a real scientist (as opposed to a fear monger) presents that same information without the completely fabricated fear factor" then show a video that only demonstrates to little kids that "ppm" is a small number/ratio.

That Asian pilot was only low and slow by small numbers too.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> It's rained everyday this month and the last week of june here in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much state wide, and I remember a lot of rain up in canada recently as well.. Yet at the same time there was a drought in the southwest .. And that's proof of AGW??? LOL, like a friend of mine says,if it's hot it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, rain, warming, drought, warming...LOL



How much could it possibly cost to move our agriculture to where the water has moved or our water to where agriculture is? Maybe we can use the keystone pipe line?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Just  so nobody expects the science deniers to go away soon.
> ...



"Slacksack". Good name.

Let's see. Diamonds are very rare. Pencil lead is manufactured. We're very busy turning coal into atmospheric CO2 which is rearranging our weather.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2013)

Let's all be scared of the weather.. 

Heard on the news this morning, this is the 4th coldest EVER start to July in Middle Tennessee.. 

Almost 8 degrees below average... TIme to panic folks.. 

((Wait for my retraction when it starts hitting high 90s again  -- it'll never happen. Just like we never hear the retractions for all those droughts and those hurricane seasons that never materialize))

Its all voodoo.. Medicine man stuff.. Booga Booga...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Let's all be scared of the weather..
> 
> Heard on the news this morning, this is the 4th coldest EVER start to July in Middle Tennessee..
> 
> ...



If you are going to cite every contrary weather report as evidence denying AGW, you're going to be a busy boy. 

It's away more productive to invoke climatology to support meteorology than vice versa.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Why tell such obvious lies?  I guess it is true that one can only concoct a lie that one believes is good enough to fool himself.  The quality of your lies is very telling.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The flat-Earfers are the warmerist fundamentalists. who claim that all the sages and elites within the church have all the knowledge, while the peasants are mere knaves, unable to comprehend the greatness and profundity of their eminence.
> ...









Ahhhh, but we're not the ones claiming that climatology is so "complex" that only a climatologist can understand it.  You see sonny that's where the religious aspect of your little fraud enters in.  Back in the bad old days it was the High Priest who knew the word of God.

Now it is your climatologists..supposedly.... of course a statistician demolished one of your peer reviewed papers in less than a day...but who pays attention to that.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Everybody but you, here, remembers the times that you've been given what you've asked for, except, apparently, you. 

Functional illiteracy or dementia? 

Doesn't matter. The real world has moved on. 

Don't worry, we'll carry you across the finish line as, I assume, has always been done for you.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



If you don't know the difference between the Word of God, and the findings of science, you are in a class by yourself. 

Who told you that climatology was so simple that you are capable of understanding it? Did they charge you for that advice? Did you pay them either in money or rapt attention that they can sell to advertisers?


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Ohhhh, but I DO know the difference.  It is you clowns who don't.  You have turned a science that was once called climatology into a cult based belief system.  In other words it has been morphed into a religion.

Need help with that?  

It requires you to believe that only the climatologists can understand the "science"- High Priests.

It requires you to suspend all thought and to blindly accept what those same climatologists tell you to believe-Scripture.

It demands that unbelievers be persecuted and or killed for their heresy- Inquisition.

It makes the claim that man is being punished for his perfidy-The WORD OF GOD.

Yep, climatology is a full blown religion now.  I don't see any science in there at all.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> It's rained everyday this month and the last week of june here in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much state wide, and I remember a lot of rain up in canada recently as well.. Yet at the same time there was a drought in the southwest .. And that's proof of AGW??? LOL, like a friend of mine says,if it's hot it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, rain, warming, drought, warming...LOL



You need to figure out photosythesis before you move on to more complicated subjects.  There is a reason you have to go to grammar school before highschool, and highschool before college.  You shouldn't have dropped out of school.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It is science. You don't see it because doing so would expose your ignorance of it. Perhaps if you ignore it with more rigor, you'll learn about it. That seems to be the strategy that your homies here are using. 

Don't worry. We'll carry you.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > It's rained everyday this month and the last week of june here in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much state wide, and I remember a lot of rain up in canada recently as well.. Yet at the same time there was a drought in the southwest .. And that's proof of AGW??? LOL, like a friend of mine says,if it's hot it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, rain, warming, drought, warming...LOL
> ...



I think that when you say "dropped" out you are being charitable. That implies voluntary.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

Executive Summary Of AGW, climate change.

AGW is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical. And the temperature change is driven by the CO2.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.






That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact. In the laboratory, IR radiation can be demonstrated as absorbed by CO2.

CO2 is the same everywhere, that is why it has been identified as being a unique molecule. *If it changed, it would be something else. So, in the atmosphere, it acts just like in the laboratory.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Now, since 1880, temperature has gone up.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Alternatively graph is shown here;






This gives two parametric equations, CO2 and temperature as functions of time. *Of course, time doesn't cause things. Time is simply a property of reality that measures change.

To get the correlation accurately and precisely, we plot temperature anomoly as a function of CO2.






Now, we can determine how the temperature anomoly is related to CO2.

The chi square for the ln fit is 0.459 and the chi square for the linear fit is 0.453. So the linear fit is slightly better, but probably within the measurement errors. The climate sensitivity searched to 2.29 away from 3. The linear parameters searched to -3.176 and 0.009468.

An alternate regeression may be found at;

Temp v CO2 Correlation

This regression analysis, is based on this data






Which yields

"The data points covered the period from 1880 to 2007 inclusive, so there were N = 128 data points. The regression line I found was:

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%."

Now here we have a nice ln fit of

"Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2" where CO2 is ranging from 290.7 to 383.6. *lnCO2 ranges from 5.6723 to 5.9495."

Or we can go with either; anom=-3.176 + CO2 * 0.009468 for the more precise data or;*anom=-3.08 + CO2 * 0.00922 for the full data.

A line fit or a log fit works as well.*Basically, in atmosphere, over the range of CO2 and temp anomoly, the two are indistinguishable, within the bounds of variability due to other factors. *These are accurate.

As the CO2 is coming from fossil fuel use and accounts for the increase in temperature, the conclusion is easy. It isn't complicated. *

And it accounts for all but 23.6% of the variability when just examining CO2. *The rest comes from other factors.

A more refined, and precise, regression analysis of CO2, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, El Nino, etc., yields






When all relevant factors are calculated, that is "added", using a number of methods, the combined results are






And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;






The science, in it's details, is far more complex than this overview. *It involves the work climatologists, geologists, oceanographers, and biologists. *Each of these broad categories has specialists, scientists that focus on very specific details of their field, much like there are different medical doctors; surgeons, pediatricians, and podiatrists. *

All these people spent 12 years, in school, before college. *They spent 4-5 years on a bachelor's degree, two more for a master's, focused on their specialty, and onother two on their doctorate. *Then they worked, in their field, with and under other professionals. *All this was to learn the scientific that starts with Pythagorous, scientific knowledge going back more than 2000 years.

As the study progresses, the regression becomes more refined. *Like Einstien refined Kepler, Kepler refined Newton, Newton refined Galileo, Galileo refined Copernicus, and Copernicus refined Pythagorus, the science keeps refining the prediction. *Pythagorus was right, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and Einstein were all right. CO2 is correct, and solar, volcanos, ozone, and sulfates were added, to get closer and closer. *What was accurate is now even more precise.

This is what you get. This is science. Like a heart surgeon can successfully stop a heart, open a chest, install a new valve, and have the patient walk away healthy, it is able to predict the future to a reasonable level of certainty. And that reasonable certainty guarantees that the climate will change.

Anyone can whine and complain about what doesn't make sense to them. *You didn't spend two decades learning two centuries of detailed, and precisely described, specialized, science. *You are not going to recreate 2000 years of science, reading Wikipedia. *You can't predict the changes. Some of you don't even know what photosynthesis is.

These changes will not be exactly the same, everywhere. *AGW causes climate change. Climate change causes changing weather patterns.

There will be increased drought, sea level rise, flooding, changes in precipitation, longer summer seasons, movement of *mobile species, extinction of others, increased forest fires, and other effects. *And, worst of all, it will strain our mature agrigultural industries in providing for the current populations as crop yield falls as a result of droughts and changing precipitation patterns.

At this point, some of you will be full of whiny complaints about each and every point. In your mind, it is all wrong. *It isn't. *You just don't get it. *You will never get it because you simply refuse to learn what has been figured out already. You will spend your life trying to reinnvent 2000 years of science, science that takes two decades to just grasp a specific specialty. *

We can lead a horse to water, but we can't make him drink.

Others, smart enough to not try to reinvent science, will get it. You now have a complete understanding of AWG. *You are smart enough to just remember it, knowing that it is succinct enough. You can see the forest for the trees. *You can now move forward because you have the mind of an executive.

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

JMF:itfitzme


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




You said it doesn't come from CO2.  You said it isn't the CO2 cycle, it is the carbon cycle. You said it comes from the ground, soil carbon.  So, that would be, by your description diamonds, coal, pencil lead, carbon fibers, and fullerene.

I realize that you don't remember what you write.  I do.  I actually remember the bullshit that you post, even though you can't... That is if I bother to waste time reading it.  Sometimes, it is worth a laugh.

And either your denialist buddies agree with you, or are happy to jus let you be an idiot.  Either way, they demonstrate that actual science is secondary.  They would rather let you be an idiot than correct the science.

Which is why I can use denialism as a negatively correlated predictor of anything scienfe related.  Because deniers would just as well deny photosythesis as anything else.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change's heat intensifies drought in the USA
> ...



No one ever claimed it never rains in the desert. It does.  The bitch of it is that plants, except for cactus, can't survive intermittent rain.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> It's rained everyday this month and the last week of june here in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much state wide, and I remember a lot of rain up in canada recently as well.. Yet at the same time there was a drought in the southwest .. And that's proof of AGW??? LOL, like a friend of mine says,if it's hot it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, rain, warming, drought, warming...LOL



Yeah, cuz when the weather service wants to know if it will rain in different parts of the US, they just call Slacksack.  That's science.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So, basically, you have no clue how to explain your position, can't read, and need to post someone elses video.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Everybody but you, here, remembers the times that you've been given what you've asked for, except, apparently, you.



Actually, it must only be you who remembers in that plate full of spaghetti you call a brain.  Of course, if you have posted such material, you can repost it here and kill two birds with one stone.  You can prove me wrong and prove that you are not a liar.

Since you won't be reposting any such material since you never posted it in the first place, everyone gets to see you, once again, get caught in a lie.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2013)

Hey either one of the mental midget trolls.. 

We got 50 pages here.. You've been faithfully regurgitating how SOLID AND DEFINED AGW theory is..............

*Will one of you tell me what the Mean Global Surface temperature is gonna be in 2100???? 

What will the anomaly be in 2020?

Please show your work.....* 

Assume no govt interventions, allowing the market to determine energy choices. Remembering that OUR CO2 emissions are less TODAY then they were in 1998 WITHOUT any superhero PMZ types saving us from ourselves and WITHOUT $Trills in tax dollars we don't have.

PMZ gonna have to PM the answer to me.. I aint EVER taking that insane clown off ignore..


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Really?  Where is it?  Show it to me.  Science is based on the Scientific Method.  Show me in the Scientific Method where no discussion is allowed for a so called "settled" science.  Hell show me ANY science that is "settled".

I must say I am VERY pleased that you are so desperate that you spend so much time here trying to convert the pagans to your religion.  We must be doing a bang up job 'cause you are here all the time!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Plenty of discussion goes on in science. But you have to actually have a knowledge of science that is at the level necessary for the discussion. *It's like when the whole family gets together for Thanksgiving. *The grownups sit at the grownup table and the kids sit at the kids table.

If I were to sit at a table of professional climatologists, I'd shut the f up. *The difference is eight years, at least, to a PhD plus more time spent working in the field.

Newton's Laws of motion are settled. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity. *These are settled. *There are huge amounts of science that is settled. *To get a bachelor's and master's degree in any particular scientific field and specialty, all you study is settled scientific principles.

You have to know the difference between what is settled and what isn't.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> AGW is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical. And the temperature change is driven by the CO2.



Every ice core ever done shows that CO2 follows temperature.  You have it ass backwards right out of the gate.  




itfitzme said:


> That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact. In the laboratory, IR radiation can be demonstrated as absorbed by CO2.



That CO2 also emits what it has absorbed is a fact.  A CO2 molecule has no capacity to hold on to or trap IR.  The emission spectra of a CO2 molecule is the opposite of its absorption spectrum indicating that it isn't holding on to anything.  IR goes in..IR goes out.  No warming.



itfitzme said:


> CO2 is the same everywhere, that is why it has been identified as being a unique molecule. *If it changed, it would be something else. So, in the atmosphere, it acts just like in the laboratory.



And it can't be demonstrated in the laboratory that additional CO2 results in warming any more than it can be demonstrated out in the real world.  The only place additional CO2 actually results in warming is in computer models.



itfitzme said:


> Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.



There is no empirical demonstration.  



itfitzme said:


> It's really just that simple.



You are really just that simple.  What you take as evidence is nothing more than evidence of the fact that you don't have even a tenuous grasp of the science.  Describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 causes warming without contradicting a law of physics.



itfitzme said:


> Now, since 1880, temperature has gone up.



Coming out of the little ice age, one would expect as much.  Of course the temperature has not yet reached the temperatures before the little ice age so what is your point?



itfitzme said:


> If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.



Well....we know that the world was warmer than the present prior to dipping into the little ice age...and the world has regained some of the temperature that it lost during that period so we should expect that either it will continue to warm at least to the temperature it was before the beginning of the little ice age or maybe it will start getting cold again.

The point is that the warming is perfectly natural...it has happened before...and there is nothing going on in the climate today that even begins to test the boundries of natural variation.  



itfitzme said:


> This gives two parametric equations, CO2 and temperature as functions of time. *Of course, time doesn't cause things. Time is simply a property of reality that measures change.



Back to claiming cause and corelation are the same thing.  They are not.  Again, ice cores tell us that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.




itfitzme said:


> The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%."



Every other factor?  Are you kidding?  We don't even have a handle on the in/out energy budget of the planet and you are claiming that "every other factor" that can effect temperature during this time span has been accounted for.

I AM LAUGHING OUT LOUD IN YOUR FACE.  THAT HAS TO BE THE SINGULAR MOST STUPID STATEMENT EVER ISSUED ON THIS BOARD....ALL TOPICS INCLUDED.  WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, AT THIS STAGE IN SCIENCE, OTHER THAN A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT, WOULD CLAIM THAT WE EVEN KNOW EVERY FACTOR THAT CAN EFFECT TEMPERATURE, MUCH LESS THAT THEY HAVE ALL BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN FAILING CLIMATE MODELS?  YOU ARE AN IDIOT.




itfitzme said:


> As the CO2 is coming from fossil fuel use and accounts for the increase in temperature, the conclusion is easy. It isn't complicated. *



It is fiction and you have told a dandy story.  To bad there isn't a shred of empirical, measured data to back it up.



itfitzme said:


> When all relevant factors are calculated, that is "added", using a number of methods, the combined results are



We don't know what all of the relavent factors are.  Making claims that we do is a sign of your faith, not of your knowledge.  At this point, we don't even know what we don't know.  If you believe that we have a firm enough grip on the climate to know what all of the relative factors are, then you are a fool.




itfitzme said:


> All these people spent 12 years, in school, before college. *They spent 4-5 years on a bachelor's degree, two more for a master's, focused on their specialty, and onother two on their doctorate. *Then they worked, in their field, with and under other professionals. *All this was to learn the scientific that starts with Pythagorous, scientific knowledge going back more than 2000 years.



So what?  MD's spend a hell of a lot more time in school that climate scientists and they just found out that stomach ulcers were not caused by stress after mistreating how many millions of people?

Chemists have far more education that climate scientists and just recently the found out that quasicrystals do indeed exist after poo pooing the idea for decades.

Geologists are better educated than climate scientists and it hasn't been that long ago that they finally accepted the reality of plate tectonics.

Remember eugenics?  It was all the rage and the consensus was that it would advance mankind at a pace never before imagined.  You couldn'teven find anyone who would acknowledge that they were ever on the bandwagon after WWII.

And the list could go on and on listing off topics in which for a short while, the consensus was exactly wrong.  In short, education is no assurance of being right.  



itfitzme said:


> Others, smart enough to not try to reinvent science, will get it. You now have a complete understanding of AWG. *You are smart enough to just remember it, knowing that it is succinct enough. You can see the forest for the trees. *You can now move forward because you have the mind of an executive.



Since climate science has abandoned the scientific method, there is no science there to reinvent.


If the preceeding jibberish is what constitutes proof of AGW in your mind, then your mother has my deepest sympathy for having born an idiot.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Once again...Really?  Newtonian physics is settled is it?  Why the need for the Feynman Constant?  General Relativity is settled is it?  Show me the work.  I have a PhD from Caltech.  What you got Willis?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> So, basically, you have no clue how to explain your position, can't read, and need to post someone elses video.



My position is that CO2 does not cause warming and for all your talk, you still have not given even the smallest bit of empirical proof that CO2 causes warming, much less proof that mankinds small contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 has any effect at all.

I ask you how much of the fraction of one degree of temperature increase we have seen in the past 100 years that you believe is due to that 14 parts per million and you have no answer and then go on to claim that we know and have accounted for every factor that could effect the temperature on planet earth.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Executive Summary Of AGW, climate change.
> 
> AGW is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical. And the temperature change is driven by the CO2.
> 
> ...


We've all seen those charts and graphs, Skeezix..Ooooooooollllld news.

When any one of them have been physically bench tested, accounting for all the possible terrestrial and extra-terrestrial variables, repeated  and compared against a physical static control group, you come get us.

In the meantime, all you have is a multi-colored popcorn fart.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



"I have a PhD from Caltech."

The most frightening thing that I've read in a decade.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I hope that we can settle this tonight so we'll know whether to let airplanes fly in the morning. If they're built according to designs that are just WAGs instead of settled aeronautical science, I'd vote for keeping them on the ground.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Oh, give it up.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Executive Summary Of AGW, climate change.
> ...



"you come get us."

We decided to leave you behind a long time ago and you have demonstrated zero evidence that that was not a good and necessary decision.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure that giving it up would require more intelligence and education than they can muster.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > So, basically, you have no clue how to explain your position, can't read, and need to post someone elses video.
> ...



You are completely free to maintain your position. Forever. However, with no more credibility than you've demonstrated so far, the rest of us have wisely decided to move on without you. You stay here. We'll send someone back to get you some day. We promise.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > AGW is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical. And the temperature change is driven by the CO2.
> ...



There's just no question that science is so unreliable we should abandon it here and move to voodoo.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



They're all pissed off because not a single scientist asked Rush Limbaugh for his opinion. Not a single one.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



_*"We"*_?!?!....You got a turd in your pocket?



PMZ said:


> ...and you have demonstrated zero evidence that that was not a good and necessary decision.




That's not how science works, buttpipe.

You prove that you're right...With quantifiable, verifiable and repeatable scientific evidence.

The doubters are under no obligation to accept your pseudo-scientific Malthusian declinist fable at face value and disprove it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Give it up. *You lost already. *Now you are just making yourself look too stupid to know when to quit.

If your not sure, go ask Dr. Roy.  He can model it for you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2013)

Hey ItFitzMe:

I'm thinking of changing my Avatar pix.. 

What do ya think of this one??? 






I like that limp part at the end better than yours....


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


There's nothing to give up.

You Malthusian declinist misanthropes have absolutely no objective, reproducible, quantifiable, verifiable and falsifiable science.

You're the one who needs to give up, Dudley.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey ItFitzMe:
> 
> I'm thinking of changing my Avatar pix..
> 
> ...



Do a linear regression and see what you get.

Let us know what the coefficients, p-value, R^2, and confidence intervals for the regression line are.

Do both the line and log fit.  That'll be interesting.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Bla bla bla bla bla.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey ItFitzMe:
> ...



I KNOW what I will get for the past decade.. There's nothing there. But it's not unique.. There was also nothing from about 1935 to 1975.. 

Too bad I can't have THIS VIDEO as an avi.. You can see the trend line averaged over 10 years wander all over the place.. From "nothing" to significant and back to "nothing"... 


Global Warming: Temperature vs CO2 concentration on Vimeo


That's what ya got ---- nothing..


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Zero...Zilch...Skiff...Bupkis...Nada...Diddly-poo...O-fer......Jack shit.....

That's what you got, Gomer.....Give it up.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Cherry picking isn't how it works. *You use all the data or you don't do it at all. *And, you have to verify tue statistical significance, or it means nothing. If you want to do the science, you have to do it right. *Otherwise, don't do it at all.

Because, when you do it wrong, you get bs like that video, or this






Look, if you want to be an idiot, that's fine by me. The world will keep getting warmer either way.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Funny....Cherry picking works when you warmerist doomsayers are engaging in the practice, to create your stupid computer models.

Not funny as in "ha-ha", but Dane Cook funny.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> And yet... When science is asked what pulled our primordial asses out of 3 consecutive ICE AGES -- the best answer is not cow farts or SUVs -- it's "planetary wobble" and natural cycles.. It's all there in our oldest ice records.. A mile of ice over Albany started melting because of ___________?
> 
> Solar influences are NOT well known.. You cannot accurately measure solar output from the ground and separate Watts from atmospheric absorption.. We have BARELY a 20 year record of sat data.. And it's NOT the 11 yr sun spot cycles. It's the Total Solar Irradiation number that has increased the temp forcing at the surface by 1W/m2 since the mid 18th century..
> 
> ...



Flacaltenn,
  If you want to stablish a correlation it would be  best if you provided a chart showing both solar irradiation and global temperature ... putting just the solar irradiation just isn't right. Looking at your chart the variation looks impresive , until one takes a close look at the numbers. The lowest is 1360 , the highest is 1362... a variation of 0.14% in solar radiation.






...and yet , yes , solar activity is a valid factor. Which doesn't let me discard human activity as another important factor. 



flacaltenn said:


> But let's ALL LEAP to conclusions based on fear and politics -----eh??


Perhaps you have not seen my previous posts. 
AWG vs WG is just an academic debate right now. 

The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.

Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.


The real reason for using "green energy" is political....Most allll of the "green energy" producers are big corporate interests, like GE.

Quit being a rube.



CultureCitizen said:


> Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.


OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

Ah, "Establish".... had to read "stablish" four times.  Kept getting "stable-ish"...

Apparently, "stable" is used to mean "precision" in some fields.  Now it is "accurate" and "stable" as well as "accurate" and "precise".  New one for me.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.
> ...



Yeah, cuz CO2 does cause warming and I'll take the IPCCs model over your non-prediction any day.  I know what they are doing.  All you have is "It's stupid".

Besides, it is a lot easier to start a fire than it is to put one out.  Someone already proposed the dumb idea of setting coal mines on fire to warm things up.  Oh, wait... were doing that, one lump of coal at a time.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And yet... When science is asked what pulled our primordial asses out of 3 consecutive ICE AGES -- the best answer is not cow farts or SUVs -- it's "planetary wobble" and natural cycles.. It's all there in our oldest ice records.. A mile of ice over Albany started melting because of ___________?
> ...



That's a reasonable outlook actually.. I'm a moderate skeptic. I believe the contribution from CO2 has been blown waaaay out of proportion and the contributions from other climate drivers have been purposely manipulated to minimize them.. 

Which brings me to --- I don't accept ANYTHING from skepticalscience.com unless I first don a complete Class 3 biocontainment outfit and respirator. I posted the accepted merging of proxy records and recent measurements, and skepticalscience does a hachet job on dates and ranges with values I've never seen before. It's called data mangling.

Although 0.14% of Solar radiation might sound trivial --- it works out to about 1.0W/meter2. Which is about almost 1/3 of the 3 or 4W/m2 that we're looking for to explain the rise. 

But what's interesting to me is that the AGW clan is NOW trying to explain away why the warming is taking a pause. So they suddenly discover that the earth land and oceans take a while to heat and cool.. And we might NOT be looking for a correlation with IMMEDIATE time coincidence. THere might be a considerable DELAY between the power forcing function being applied and a temperature change GLOBALLY. So WHEN did the TSI start to level off? About 20 or 30 years ago. How long are the AGW clan now saying the oceans will take to absorb heat and equalize? About 20 to 40 years..

Anyway -- you're right. At some point (((Some say in the next 22 yr solar cycle))) we might be glad that we warmed the planet by 1degF in your lifetime.. 

The climate isn't as fragile as AGW theory says it is. And that's a good thing..

PS.. I would love to see "green stuff" get adopted for the right purposes. Wind and Solar are NOT right as grid generators. They would do a bang-up job for desalinization, or fuel production or production of other things OFF GRID that do not demand 24/7/365 CONSTANT delivery to load demands. Don't know if you've read my stuff -- but I'm a huge proponent of using wind/solar for making hydrogen OFF GRID. Solves multiple problems at once..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Hey.. Don't lecture me about "*USING ALL THE DATA*"... you pretender wanna be.

YOU'RE the one with an avi that missing the last EIGHT YEARS of data aren't you?????
MINE is missing nothing.... 

So when are gonna replace your AVI eh? Gonna wait another year? If you were a scientist using ALL THE DATA -- you'd do it tonight wouldn't ya?


Hypocrit....


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Um...That's not science.

That's appeal to authority, appeal to ignorance, false equivalence, non sequitur  and rank stupidity all rolled onto one post.

Good effort, though.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



It hasn't "taken a pause".  It is still within the bounds of the predicted variance.  What you can't explain is over 100 years, 1880 to 2000+, of warming that is caused by increasing CO2.  

I get it at 0.00922 with Excel, at a p-value that is almost zero, and 76% R^2.  When the IPCC does it, including El Nino, volcanos, sulfates, solar output, and CO2, their's is way better than I could ever hope for. And I know what they are doing, because I know how the science works.

All you have is some rough calculations of based on solar output that the IPCC already includes, and no predictions, no confidence levels, and cherry picking of data.  And you still have, by your calculations, 66% to go.

Why not do it the right way and do the multivariate regressions?  The statistics was developed decades ago.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Off topic break.. Just dawned on me.. 

"Drinking wine, Eating Cheese, Catching Rays"  good golly you're FRENCH aintcha? 
Or wannabee French living in Napa Valley...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Horseshit... Complete and utter horseshit... 

The warming HAS taken a pause.. BY ANY measure of significance over at LEAST the last 12 years. We are looking at the 0.0XdegC/decade digit to see any significance.

The only P-value you've ever taken is on the poddy.. 

You "get it at 0.00922" FOR WHAT???? exactly.. 

If you're talking about the 33% figure that I tossed for TSI influence on surface radiative forcing.. I don't have 66% to go.. I can pull the exact same horseship that your AGW heroes pull and claim that my 33% is AMPLIFIED by their projected Climate Sensitivity amplifications of 4 and 5 that they pulled out of their P-Values on the poddy.

What works for amplifying CO2 --- works to amplify ANY OTHER RADIATIVE FORCING function don't it???


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



It is medical science when I let my doctor do the medicine. It is meterogical science when I let the weatherman tell me the likelihood of rain.  It's automotive science when I buy a car from Ford.  It is climate science when I see what climatologists predict will be the climate.

It is ignorance when everytime you post, all you have to say is "It's stupid".

And yes, when it comes down to between you or science, science is the authority.

I will take the authority of my doctor's medical science over your ignorance any day because I am smart enough to know I'm not a medical doctor.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.
> ...



I insist the real reason for using green energy *should be* reducing pollution, yes , large corporations will beneffit , but that is just the nature of capitalism. Some companies will do worse ( oil companies ) and others like GE will do better. No rocket science there.

If we find the Earth is going to enter a cooling we will find a way to heat it up. 
It is easier to heat it up than to cool it down .


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



No you can't. You can't account for 95% of the variation, or even 76% of the variation. *You are up to 33.3% so far. *Now you need El Nina, volcanic eruptions, ozone, sulfates, and CO2.

Then maybe you will get to this






But you will never get this






Or







Until you have all that, you have't got shit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 11, 2013)

Of course I can.. Climate Sensitivity numbers apply to ANY change of Watts/m2 at the earth's surface.. 
What's good for the goose --- is BETTER for the gander.. 

U gonna update your avi tonight?? Eh  toadster??


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> It hasn't "taken a pause".  It is still within the bounds of the predicted variance.  What you can't explain is over 100 years, 1880 to 2000+, of warming that is caused by increasing CO2.
> 
> I get it at 0.00922 with Excel, at a p-value that is almost zero, and 76% R^2.  When the IPCC does it, including El Nino, volcanos, sulfates, solar output, and CO2, their's is way better than I could ever hope for. And I know what they are doing, because I know how the science works.
> 
> ...



I do recall a couple of charts showing the average surface temperature stabilizing during the last 12 years or so. 

As per my hypothesis ( glaciar melts cooling down the Earth) , I am waiting until the end of the summer to see the total greenland ice melt. If the melt is almost as big as last year's melt I think my hypothesis could be plausible . If the melt is lower, it will most likely be wrong ( e.g. there is some other factor contributing to Earth's cooling)... so let's wait and see how things play out.


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








If they built airplanes with computer models of your quality the plane would burst into flames as soon as the engines were fired up.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Great, you take your solar, stick in a forcing that you can prove to some degree of confidence, plot your predicted values against the actual anomaly, and we'll compare them. Hell, if you do better than the IPCC, we will all help you *get it published.

Shit, Watts will help you.  He sure could use a leg up.


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








Rush uses Spencer.  He's a turd too.  Doesn't compare to the likes of you anti-science deniers though.  You guys take the cake...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Go figure out the difference between a ppb and a ppm.  Start with which is larger.


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








You're OK being an idiot?  Well if that floats your boat then I guess you can be a full blown idiot.  You do that pretty well......everything else not so good


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Right, that's what you say when you have nothing usefull to add.

Maybe you can do some "yo mama" jokes for us.

Like yo mama thinks one plus one is one dick in each end.  Or yo mama thinks one plus one is banging Slacksack and Flatulance at the same time.


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...








Actually it is far easier to cool it down.  Detonate enough nukes and the particulates in the atmosphere will cool this place right down.  Warming it back up would be far, far beyond our ability.  I do agree on the renewables.  I just want them to compete on a level field.  We should use the fossil fuels we have (because they are way cheaper than the renewables and will be for the foreseeable future) and research the renewables in a proper way.

The problem with renewables is the government chooses who wins and who loses, thus there is no consequence for having a bad product.  Why do you think the solar industry hasn't advanced beyond what it was when I installed my solar system 28 years ago.  When I built my system I was able to get 11% efficiency which is fine for emergencies but you can't run a home off of it.  I also have a water wheel and that is awesome till winter kicks in.

Solar now is averaging 13%.  After that many years that is simply ridiculous.


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Ummmm, I'm the one that pointed it out to YOU nimrod.  You're really not good at this are you trolling blunder!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I just asked for a number.

Yeah, your the one that thinks ppb is bad and ppm is good.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



When are you going to reveal your "objective, reproducible, quantifiable, verifiable and falsifiable science"?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"What works for amplifying CO2 --- works to amplify ANY OTHER RADIATIVE FORCING function don't it???"

Is this a seed of incipient learning?

Yes Virginia. Greenhouse gases all work that way. The more molecules in the atmosphere, the more back radiation. The more back radiation, the less outward radiation. The more back radiation, the more energy returning to earth. The more energy returning to earth, the more imbalance with incoming solar radiation, and the more heating. The more heating, the higher becomes the global long term average temperature. The more warm the earth becomes, the more energy gets forced through the GHGs. Until, balance is once again restored. 

It's a beautiful thing, unless you've built an entire civilization around the old climate.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


I'm not the one claiming that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are going to be the complete ruin of mankind, you are....Therefore the onus is on you to provide proof.

Are really this dense or are you just playing stupid?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



The efficiency is what it is depending on materials. Reducing the cost is what everybody is working on. Very successfully. And energy storage.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



"I insist the real reason for using green energy should be reducing pollution"

I insist the real reason for using green energy should be reducing the total cost of satisfying our energy demand. Big oil has worked hard to obscure most of the cost of our present antiquated system in order to maximize their profits and move as much of the real cost as possible to the tax payer. Like the cost of the consequences of disposing of all of their waste. We can do so much better.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > It hasn't "taken a pause".  It is still within the bounds of the predicted variance.  What you can't explain is over 100 years, 1880 to 2000+, of warming that is caused by increasing CO2.
> ...



I've read that while Greenland contains a huge amount of the worlds polar ice, weather dictates that it will be among the last to melt. That's why deniers so focus on it. By the time that it's turn to melt is unavoidable, our goose will already cooked.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



They used to be built from much less certain models. The fact that they no longer are is called progress.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



So without any science that explains what's right, you just somehow intuitively know what is wrong. Intuitively. That sounds to me exactly as likely to be right as a blind guess. Merely that which you want to be true. 

In other words, of zero credibility. 

That's exactly there are no doers paying any attention to the likes of you. The investors and engineers and politicians are doing what our future demands  instead of participating in your circle jerk.


----------



## gslack (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



LOL, dude do you actually read some of the crap you write?

You must be high.. You just tried to pass off responsibility to prove your own claim using circle talk... Damn man, sober up..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Another, classic example, of nothing. Not. A. Thing. 

Are there really people out there who believe that posts like this say anything at all other than to attest to Slacksack's lack of character as well as his inability to debate even the most rudimentary science?


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...







Sure they are.  I have been actively researching a replacement for my system as it is worn out so I have almost 30 years of reference material to review.  Cost is down thanks to tax subsidies.  Take those away and the cost is actually more.  Storage has improved but not by a great deal.  Maybe 15% over the last 30 years.  You think that's good? 

Efficiency is based on design _and_ materials.  The theoretical maximum efficiency is 28%, the best I've ever seen in the lab is 24% but the best available for the general public is 13%.  Once again a 2% increase in efficiency over 30 years is pathetic.  But I can see your standards are low....very, very low.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



More of what you wish was true. 30 years ago thin film PV didn't even exist. Concentrated PV didn't exist. Both are huge cost reductions. I think that your lack of research skills cost you big time.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

Reported price data for more than 150,000 installed PV systems (Section 2) show that, among systems installed in 2011, the median reported price was $6.13/W for residential and small commercial systems 10 kW capacity or less, and $4.87/W for commercial systems larger than 100 kW (Figure 1).1 The capacity-weighted average reported for installed price of utility-scale PV systems completed in 2011 was $3.42/W. These data are a lagging indicator relative to the price of systems being installed or quoted today.
&#8226; The reported prices for systems installed in 2011 correspond closely to the results of bottom-up modeling of the overnight capital cost of PV systems quoted in the fourth quarter of 2010 (Q4 2010), which estimate an installed price of $5.90/W for 4.9-kW residential systems, $4.74/W for 217-kW commercial rooftop systems, and $3.93/W for 187.5-MW fixed-tilt utility-scale systems.2 Owing to installation time requirements, Q4 2010 price benchmarks are the most appropriate comparison for 2011 reported price data.
&#8226; Reported installed prices of U.S. residential and commercial PV systems declined 5%&#8211; 7% per year, on average, from 1998&#8211;2011, and by 11%&#8211;14% from 2010&#8211;2011, depending on system size. Preliminary data and bottom-up analysis suggest that the price reductions have continued in 2012. Specifically, bottom-up analysis for systems quoted in Q4 2011 (and installed in 2012) yields installed prices of $4.39/W for 5.1-kW residential systems, $3.43/W for 221-kW commercial rooftop systems, and $2.79/W for 191.5-MW fixed-tilt utility-scale systems, corresponding to a 25%&#8211;29% year-over-year reduction compared to Q4 2010 benchmarks.
&#8226; These figures are in line with analyst downward-trajectory projections for expected market pricing of PV systems and components in 2012, which also anticipate continuing reductions in component and system pricing beyond 2012. Analysts estimate that the global module average selling price will decline from $1.37/W in 2011 to approximately $0.74/W by 2013 and that inverter prices will also decline over this period. Analyst projections do not exist for balance of system (BOS) costs; however, the fact that PV system prices are substantially lower in Germany than in the United States, despite having similar module and inverter prices, suggests that substantial BOS cost reductions are possible for U.S. systems as well.

From: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56776.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:
			
		

> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.
> ...



I insist the real reason for using green energy *should be* reducing pollution, yes , large corporations will beneffit , but that is just the nature of capitalism. Some companies will do worse ( oil companies ) and others like GE will do better. No rocket science there.

If we find the Earth is going to enter a cooling we will find a way to heat it up. 
It is easier to heat it up than to cool it down .[/QUOTE]

When there is a genuine monetary gain to be had by producing workable green energy, then we will have workable green energy...not before.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When there is a genuine monetary gain to be had by producing workable green energy, then we will have workable green energy...not before.[/QUOTE]

We're there now when you assign all of the attributable costs to fossil fuels. The only advantage that they have now is that they are existing plant. The costly disadvantages are fuel, fuel transport, the consequences of waste disposal and supply security. 

We'll need more energy in the future because of growth and the transition to electric cars. 

Nobody is or will invest in fossil fuel energy any more. 

All growth is and will be sustainable.

The only question is how long before we tear all of the obsolete plant down.


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



We're there now when you assign all of the attributable costs to fossil fuels. The only advantage that they have now is that they are existing plant. The costly disadvantages are fuel, fuel transport, the consequences of waste disposal and supply security. 

We'll need more energy in the future because of growth and the transition to electric cars. 

Nobody is or will invest in fossil fuel energy any more. 

All growth is and will be sustainable.

The only question is how long before we tear all of the obsolete plant down.[/QUOTE]








As usual you ignore the one major problem with "sustainable' societies.  Eventually they will experience a natural disaster and when that happens they collapse.  It has happened un-countable times throughout history, and just like you guys ignore science, you also ignore history. 

Just don't come whining to us when you can't get any food at the supermarket.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 11, 2013)

So PMZ believes that we will have green energy when we value it.. When it can be monetized.. 

I say it has to EXIST first... 


Sheeeezzzzzzzzzzz.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We're there now when you assign all of the attributable costs to fossil fuels. The only advantage that they have now is that they are existing plant. The costly disadvantages are fuel, fuel transport, the consequences of waste disposal and supply security.
> 
> We'll need more energy in the future because of growth and the transition to electric cars.
> 
> ...



Thank you, Miss South Carolina!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 11, 2013)

L.....M.....B.....O


Even "Nature" magazine ( of all places) is even saying climateology predictions are frequently incorrect.....their record "abysmal".

yuk......yuk.........

Climate change: The forecast for 2018 is cloudy with record heat : Nature News & Comment


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> L.....M.....B.....O
> 
> 
> Even "Nature" magazine ( of all places) is even saying climateology predictions are frequently incorrect.....their record "abysmal".
> ...



Do you understand what "near term" means?  Or does everything just kinda mush up into one fuzzy mess in your mind?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > L.....M.....B.....O
> ...




Actually s0n......since the science really doesn't matter, not a lot to mush up, thus, I don't give a rats ass about "near term"......"long term" or "terminal". Only care that I'm winning!!












[/URL][/IMG]








































20 years of nutter bomb throwing about the impending catastrophy and how much have the goalposts been moved?

zero inches!!!




Heres to mush winning!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 11, 2013)




----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 11, 2013)




----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

Don't know what you're talking about except some hallucination in your own mind.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...










As usual you ignore the one major problem with "sustainable' societies.  Eventually they will experience a natural disaster and when that happens they collapse.  It has happened un-countable times throughout history, and just like you guys ignore science, you also ignore history. 

Just don't come whining to us when you can't get any food at the supermarket.[/QUOTE]

Do you have any idea what the word "sustainable" means?

Given that,do you think that temporary solutions are superior to permanent solutions?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> So PMZ believes that we will have green energy when we value it.. When it can be monetized..
> 
> I say it has to EXIST first...
> 
> ...



Keep those eyes shut tight. If you don't see it, it doesn't exist.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We're there now when you assign all of the attributable costs to fossil fuels. The only advantage that they have now is that they are existing plant. The costly disadvantages are fuel, fuel transport, the consequences of waste disposal and supply security.
> ...



You continually clarify why you are irrelevant to any discussion here. Your avatar, your name, your idiocy, your home brewed science. The world left you behind decades ago for good reason.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> L.....M.....B.....O
> 
> 
> Even "Nature" magazine ( of all places) is even saying climateology predictions are frequently incorrect.....their record "abysmal".
> ...



What are all of the non-climatologists predicting?


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > L.....M.....B.....O
> ...








Continued cooling for the next 20 years at minimum.  Worst case scenario is a 200 year cold trend leading to another Maunder Minimum.  We'll have a good gauge on that within the next 5 years.....though based on how rapidly the climatologists have been backing away from their "onward and upward" temp meme, they may already think it's happening.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> As usual you ignore the one major problem with "sustainable' societies.  Eventually they will experience a natural disaster and when that happens they collapse.  It has happened un-countable times throughout history, and just like you guys ignore science, you also ignore history.
> 
> Just don't come whining to us when you can't get any food at the supermarket.



I find it hard to recall any "sustainable societies" from the past, let alone a sustainable society which has collapsed. 

To the best of my knowldge sustainable societies are a new development . 

I would appreciate if you supported your statement with some examples , and links ( or book references ).


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 11, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Heres to mush winning!!!!



I took a look at your charts . Strange I've got other costs for 2017

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So acording to my link solar is 2.5 times more expensive than gas. 
And wind is 50% more expensive than gas but has a price which can be comparable with  coal. 


If solar can go down from 0.15 to 0.10 it will be cheaper to have cars fueled by solar + electricity than gasoline.

Convert gallon to kilowatt-hours - Conversion of Measurement Units

1 gallon @ 3.6 ( the average us price ) = 36 kwh
This means the price of energy 1 kwh using gasoline is 0.10.

And please , don't get me started with batteries. I expect they will not be needed by 2015.

Cheaper green energy storage solution invented by Calgary profs - Technology & Science - CBC News


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > As usual you ignore the one major problem with "sustainable' societies.  Eventually they will experience a natural disaster and when that happens they collapse.  It has happened un-countable times throughout history, and just like you guys ignore science, you also ignore history.
> ...








ALL societies from antiquity would classify as sustainable.  Read about them and learn....


----------



## gslack (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



LOL, they state facts about YOU moron... You are a pathetic lying troll, who cannot write a coherent and sensible post. Sequestered CO2 rather than carbon, the long-winded rants or speeches that talk in circles and say nothing, and you just tried to deny your responsibility to prove your own arguments validity...

Yeah, that's you that did that socko...ROFL


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Heres to mush winning!!!!
> ...



The last one is rocket fuel.  Use to do that as a kid. Of course, it was crude and the instructions didn't include liquifying is and creating a rocket, just  collecting the gasses in test tubes.

" For example, the shuttle uses liquid hydrogen as its fuel and liquid oxygen as the oxidizer. The hot gases produced by the combustion escape rapidly through the cone-shaped nozzle, thus producing thrust" -Nasa-

The huge white plume is simply water, as the oxygen combines with hydrogen.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Wow...you really suck at the critical/analytical thinking thing, dontcha?

I don't need intuition to recognize that you have no science that passes scientific acid tests, which have been the standard for literally centuries.

The onus is on you and the warmerists scaremongers to prove yourselves right, with physically quantifiable, verifiable and reproducible evidence, not upon anyone else to prove a negative.

That's how science works, Miss South Carolina.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Nobody is required to exceed the standard that you present.

So, you're stupid is sufficient as proof for you.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Nobody said about exceeding them, Captain Strawman.

Problem is that you warmerist goobers can't come anywhere close to meeting those standards.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Like i said, by your standards of proof, "You're stupid."


----------



## Oddball (Jul 12, 2013)

I have repeatedly told you my standards...Which are also standards of science that have stood for hundreds of years.

If you continue claiming that you have science when your "science" can't even get in the same area code as those standards, yet carry on as though your "science" is incontrovertible, then you are stupid...Stupid.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



BS.

"Collapse", Jared Diamond
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Succeed-Revised-Edition/dp/0143117009]Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: Revised Edition: Jared Diamond: 9780143117001: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> I have repeatedly told you my standards...Which are also standards of science that have stood for hundreds of years.
> 
> If you continue claiming that you have science when your "science" can't even get in the same area code as those standards, yet carry on as though your "science" is incontrovertible, then you are stupid...Stupid.



LOL. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world says your 'Standards' are bullshit. 

Love it when the anti-science crowd claims science.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> I find it hard to recall any "sustainable societies" from the past, let alone a sustainable society which has collapsed.
> 
> To the best of my knowldge sustainable societies are a new development .
> 
> I would appreciate if you supported your statement with some examples , and links ( or book references ).



Every tribe of nomadic or semi nomadic hunter gatherers have been, by defninition, sustainable societies...and history has shown time and time again that a natural disaster, even a small one by our standards is enough to send them into extinction.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Nobody said about exceeding them, Captain Strawman.
> 
> Problem is that you warmerist goobers can't come anywhere close to meeting those standards.



So far, he can't even recite the statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and say how it might apply to the greenhouse effect hypothesis.  Most sixth graders could do that if asked.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Why would anyone pay attention to the climate predictions of non-climatologists? That's the equivalent of going to a Fortune Teller.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Again your limitation is language. "Sustainable" means capable of existing for the long term. Anything that can't exist over the long run is called "unsustainable".


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



The onus is on anyone who asserts anything to provide evidence that what they are asserting is supported by real factual evidence and a plausible theory that explains logically how the evidence in the context of the theory leads to the assertion. You are asserting that AGW does not exist and have been completely unable to supply any evidence of that, or a theory as to how GHGs in the atmosphere avoid causing AGW. 

In other words, loser, you got nothing. 

And based on that fact, you get nothing, as in terms of respect. 

You've earned every bit of it.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I find it hard to recall any "sustainable societies" from the past, let alone a sustainable society which has collapsed.
> ...



Every sustainable anything has demonstrated that by sustaining.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Heres to mush winning!!!!
> ...



You certainly have that last part right. Battery Buggies will be viewed as an interesting antique in 40 years IF we just allow a hydrogen fuel sector to develop naturally in the market. ALREADY showing great signs in Europe and 4 Major car manufacturers are going into PRODUCTION qty of fuel cell cars by 2015.. 

It not only solves the enviro concerns of battery disposal/recycling, but it fixes charge times, grid loading, AND can be the solution for using solar and wind OFF GRID --- to make hydrogen. That would be a perfect way to store energy from these flaky sources.

I'll take some Govt research funds for pure H2 R&D, but the FEDs need to BACK OFF trying to WISH engineering into fruition and meddling with winners and losers...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody said about exceeding them, Captain Strawman.
> ...



"Admitting heat to be a form of energy, the second law asserts that it is impossible, by the unaided action of natural processes, to transform any part of the heat of a body into mechanical work, except by allowing heat to pass from that body into another at a lower temperature. Clausius, who first stated the principle of Carnot in a manner consistent with the true theory of heat, expresses this law as follows: -
It is impossible for a self-acting machine, unaided by any external agency, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature."

"Thomson gives it a slightly different form: -"

"It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects."

"And again, later on in The Theory of Heat (page 328), Maxwell has this to say:
One of the best established facts in thermodynamics is that it is impossible in a system enclosed in an envelope which permits neither change of volume nor passage of heat, and in which both the temperature and pressure are everywhere the same, to produce any inequality of temperature or of pressure without the expenditure of work.
A more modern statement of this classical second law may look more complicated, but means the same thing:
Processes in which the entropy of an isolated system would decrease do not occur, or, in every process taking place in an isolated system, the entropy of the system either increases or remains constant
That version of the 2nd law comes from the textbook An Introduction to Thermodynamics, the Kinetic Theory of Gases, and Statistical Mechanics (2nd edition), by Francis Weston Sears, Addison-Wesley, 1950, 1953, page 111 (Chapter 7, "the Second Law of Thermodynamics").
*The phrase isolated system means that neither energy nor matter may enter or leave the system*; it is an embodiment of the word "unaided" as used by Maxwell & Clausius. If the system is not isolated, then energy can get in, and so can "aid". Hence, isolation is required to uphold the restriction "unaided". The manner in which the "transition" is accomplished is irrelevant; all possible transitions are allowed."

"In the earlier paper On the Definition of Entropy, we already encouterd the equation that defines change in classical entropy, S = Q/T. The 2nd law contrains the change in entropy (S) so as to give us the fundamental equation for the 2nd law, in classical thermodynamics."

From http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy2.html


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Wake up!  Pay attention Miss South Carolina!  You must MEET the standards set by the scientific community.  You havn't.  Your standards are SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER than would be acceptable for even a high school lab class.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



My Prius adjusts its energy storage or release about every second depending on braking, acceleration, incline, speed and torque demands, wind, etc. That requires batteries.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...








Until they failed.  The societies that succeeded..the ones we read about, are those that provided more for their citizens.  Those are the societies that had a built in safety margin.
The ones you talk about are those that we know of thanks to archeology.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



We have, you haven't. What you think those standards are is completely irrelevent as you have no scientific credibility. You have thrown whatever credibility most people give out of respect for other's opinions away by demonstrating that you don't meet minimum standards for education or understanding.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...







Your limitation is intellectual honesty.  The enviro classification is the same that has witnessed countless societies fail throughout the millennia.  There is no "sustainable".  There is "we produce more than we need so that when the disaster happens we can weather it...or we don't".


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...







I see you were looking in the mirror when you made that statement there mr. troll.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



If they failed they were not, by definition, sustainable.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Is that really the best that you've got? Really?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 12, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I have repeatedly told you my standards...Which are also standards of science that have stood for hundreds of years.
> ...


Right...._*Every single solitary*_ scientist and university is on board with the hoaxers, and their complete lack of traditionally accepted scientific method.

That's why the Oregon Petition has over 31,000 signators.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Your limitation is intellectual. 

Sustainable means capable of being sustained. Therefore our global supply of multimillion year old plants that were prevented from rotting by temporary conditions is not sustainable. Sun and wind and water energy is.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I assume that one of those signatures was yours. Look at your avatar. 'Nuff said.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








OK, Mr. troll.  Lay out what a sustainable society looks like.  Present what and how the food is created and transported.  The same for energy, water and hosing.  We'll ignore the other things for now.  Just start with these.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



What you need to keep avoiding is that you have nothing. No evidence. No theories about how GHGs avoid AGW. No credibility. Standards aren't even relevant in the absence of all of that.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



A sustainable society is one that survives for a long time numbnuts.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

Glimpse of Troll wisdom to get me thru the day... 



> That's exactly there are no doers paying any attention to the likes of you. The investors and engineers and politicians are doing what our future demands instead of participating in your circle jerk.



So while your Dear Leader of Central Planning is lowering the height of the oceans by providing $BILLIONS to Billionaires making trophy-scale Battery Buggies for Millionaires, the overall and power tool using set with the help of science and engineering are making an economic dynamo out of the bleak Dakotas by finding and creating energy, jobs and growth. IN SPITE of all the impediments thrown in their way.. 

And your group of serial science abusers are discovering that warming is NOT expected to be instantaneous and be constantly tracking of CO2 -- but that the earth actually STORES thermal energy. 
((Duh, why did THAT take climatologists, 20 yrs to discover the diff between power and energy??))

So they are training WALRUSES to dive to the depths to discover the "lost warming"..  That last part WAS NOT a joke. (OK, they are pinipeds, not walruses, but It's still funny.)

Yep -- we are safe.. The investors are bailing from the baloney speculations in wind and solar, there's nothing else green on the list to argue about and we can start letting the MARKET and SCIENCE discover the future again...  

Glad you're covering our sorry asses...  This is why you're still on "ignore"....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



So in spite of your appeal to complexity, the second law means that it is not possible for energy to move from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state.  Now once again, how does that apply to the stated hypothesis of the greenhouse effect?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Glimpse of Troll wisdom to get me thru the day...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Guess he is unaware of the long, and growing list of failed green projects and businesses that his so called "doers" are foisting on us.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Glimpse of Troll wisdom to get me thru the day...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"And your group of serial science abusers are discovering that warming is NOT expected to be instantaneous and be constantly tracking of CO2 -- but that the earth actually STORES thermal energy. "

Glad to see that some learning has actually taken place here. 

The thermodynamics of earth leaves behind a great deal of evidence that we call weather. That's what makes dumping our fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere so expensive. 

That GHGs require AGW in proportion to the concentration in our atmosphere is a given. The process by which systems earth makes that adjustment is called weather. The time constant for completing the adjustment is unknown because creating a comprehensive very long term weather forcast is probably beyond current computer technology much less climatology. And, every day, we up the concentration. 

Anybody who pays attention to news knows that we, the tax payers, are already paying high costs for damages to our civilization by AGW enhanced extreme weather. 

They also know that we are making giant strides of progress in converting the sun's energy to usable power directly without going through the unsustainable process of burning ancient life material. And paying for the consequential extreme weather damages to civilization. 

We are facing the largest project mankind has ever taken on. We created the urgency to do it, but have always recognized that the old technology, fossil fuels, was never sustainable. So we always knew that this reckoning was coming. 

Now it's here.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Nobody here is surprised that you are unable to grasp what everybody experiences every day. It requires some science that is, very apparently, way beyond your education and intellect. So be it.

Given that, your only alternative is to grasp the faith of the cavemen for commonplace occurances, like thunder for instance, that was beyond their science. 

It's magic.

If you find that approach unsatisfactory, the alternative is education. Quite a bit given your starting point. 

Your decision.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Glimpse of Troll wisdom to get me thru the day...
> ...



The learning curve is another common place reality that people who worship the past portray as the bogieman. 

If one sits very still and refuses to act on knowledge, it can be avoided.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Glimpse of Troll wisdom to get me thru the day...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's more accurate to say that we are carrying "(y)our sorry asses...".

Why? It's just the way of progress. The strong carry the weak.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Glimpse of Troll wisdom to get me thru the day...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah ha. A clue. The cult is so afraid of the "Dear Leader of Central Planning" that they want to avoid planning and progress altogether and just hide in the woods hunting and gathering. 

Adequate for woodchucks perhaps but quite a bit short of humanity's capability and promise.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







That doesn't answer the question nimrod.  DEFINE in practical terms what it MEANS to YOU.  The one constant that holds amongst all of you halfwits is you are long on rhetoric but when you are asked a specific question or are asked to present a measurable metric you flee and hide.

I'm not letting you do that this time.  Tell us what a "sustainable society" means to YOU and how life looks like in your society.  C'mon junior, now is your chance to shine!


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Glimpse of Troll wisdom to get me thru the day...
> ...







No, anyone with a brain KNOWS that today is the same as yesterday is the same as the decade before that, is the same as the century before that.  There are no more frequent or more powerful storms.  That is a fiction created by idiots like you who wish to steal money from the middle class and poor because you're too fucking lazy to do real work.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Glimpse of Troll wisdom to get me thru the day...
> ...








No, we've just witnessed the murder of over 100 million of our fellow citizens of this planet to ever believe that your Maximum Leader cares about anything other than power and wealth. 

If you really cared about humankind then you would be spending the money being wasted on this fraud on the space program to develop a asteroid destruction/movement system that would prevent a asteroid from hitting this planet because as we have seen THEY DO have the ability to end life on this planet.  Global warming NEVER could.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

Another WE / THEY statement from the Troll / Miss America candidate.. 



> They also know that we are making giant strides of progress in converting the sun's energy to usable power directly without going through the unsustainable process of burning ancient life material. And paying for the consequential extreme weather damages to civilization.



Are you making the case that current commercial PV is substantially different from 20 yr old PV in ANYTHING except maybe price and durability and a slight increase in efficiency? 

1)  What is the enlightened plan for solar powering the planet ABOVE +40 lat and BELOW -40lat??

2) What is the enlightened plan for solar powering the planet the other 17 hours a day beyond solar peak?

3) What is the enlightened plan for solar powering the planet on rainy days? 

4) What is the enlightened plan for solar powering the planet when tax dollars are not MASSIVELY supporting the economics of solar?

5) When the enlightened subvert engineering and force 100Mill US battery wagon vehicles onto the electric grid, what is the enlightened plan for building out a 25% in capacity with a technology currently supplying less than 2%?

6) What is the enlightened plan for IMPORTING all of this technology from overseas and STILL being able to maintain our balance of trade? 

7) How much of the energy budget for NYCity or Chicago do the enlightened believe can come from solar in 2020?

8) How much of a reduction in the Global Mean Surface Temperature do the enlightened forecast in 2050 due to solar installation?

Gotta tell ya man.. You are one deluded Princess. You deserve the Miss South Carolina sash for the garbage generalizations you are swinging here. Good thing you're on ignore. 

Can I ask a favor of you? While you're filling USMB with the pages of beauty queen declarations that I get glimpses of here --- could you kick in a buck or two to pay for your server space? 

It would help make your massive repetitive DUMPS here more "sustainable"....


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Over the past century, sea level has risen. *CO2 has risen. *Temperature has risen. *Sea and land ice have decreased. *Sea surface temperature has risen. And "PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s"

We just can't infer a trend yet.






Yes, it is different.

So, it is incorrect to say, "today is the same as yesterday is the same as the decade before that, is the same as the century before that. *There are no more frequent or more powerful storms."

Everyone has a brain. Monkeys have brains. Lizards have brains. It's not the brain that counts, it's how you use it.

The only thing that remains constant, is your ignorance. Unfortunately, you have destroyed your brain.

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Global Warming and Hurricanes


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Here's one of the great things about mankind. When we want to know about, or be more certain about, any topic, we search out and question those that are most likely to know reality rather than just guess at it. We call the traits of those who know, credibility. 

You have none in the field of science. Demonstrably none. Zero. Nobody who has read your act here would even think about you as a source of reliable science. 

Unless what they know about science is as little as you know. 

So here's a credible source about the increase in extreme weather associated with the energy imbalance due to AGW.

New Study Links Current Events to Climate Change - weather.com

Now I'm sure that your reaction to this will be to yammer more nonsense that you wish was true. 

Take my word for it that nobody outside of your cult is paying any attention at all. 

Of course a better use of your time would be education.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



For about the dozenth time today numbnuts it means what the English language defines it to mean.

"A sustainable society is one that survives for a long time."

Why are you trying so hard to redefine it? It's like science. It is what it is, not what you want it to be. 

When this is all over you are going to be surprised to have learned that you're not king of any mountain. You're pretty ordinary and pretty short on science and English apparently.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Another WE / THEY statement from the Troll / Miss America candidate..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are literally millions of smart people making progress right now on every one of those questions. 

There are a handful in your cult trying to impede that progress because you are incapable of understanding it. 

That's been demonstrated here over and over and over again but you keep hoping for a different answer.

There is no different reality numbnuts! There never will be! 

Some are leading, most are following, and a few of us are keeping the cult out of the way!

That's the entire story. If you want to learn more get educated!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Another WE / THEY statement from the Troll / Miss America candidate..
> ...



REALLY?? So where are the million working on making solar work at NIGHT? Or when it's raining? Or above the 40 lat line? 

Got company names working on keeping the sun up longer? Obliterating cloud cover? Automatically cleaning bird shit and snow off the panels? Millions huh? 

How long have you been "seeing" these millions of "leaders"? Does it hurt?



> There is no different reality numbnuts! There never will be!



Yes there is.. There is your deluded kingdom of individual hallucinary visions --- and REALITY.. REALITY IS --- Solar (or wind) is NOT AN ALTERNATIVE to what we got now.. 

So what else you got in your enlightened hallucination you think is leading?


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Nope.  It hasn't changed.  You present me with ANYTHING that you thinks supports your cause and I will present a worse example of that same thing that has happened long ago...before evil CO2 ever got to "dangerous" levels.

Go ahead....I dare you...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Another WE / THEY statement from the Troll / Miss America candidate..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I Googled "Enlightened" for you.

Here it is;

*The Enlightened Ones*

"Who are the Illuminati? Do they really control the world? And how do you join?"

"Once, the Illuminati were barely a rumour. An ancient conspiracy manipulating humankind for their own dark purposes, they were the hidden hand behind history. They infiltrated the corridors of power via groups like the Freemasons, starting revolutions and toppling kingdoms. They gained control of the international banking system, allowing them to covertly rule the world"

*LINK &#8594;The Enlightened Ones*

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur lectus mauris, tincidunt eget porttitor id, aliquam id elit. "

*LINK &#8594; The Enlightened*

See, once you have your term, you google it.

Perhaps this is the problem, you make up the wrong terms. They don't reflect reality.  Try starting with "reality".

Google:Reality

Or try "UN sustainable agenda"

Google:UN sustainable agenda


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So the concepts of "the same" and "different" are difficult for you.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



What is your point?  That we should get rid of automobiles because the alternator won't start the car?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



MAYBE --- you would have GOTTEN the point if you didn't edit it out of the quotes.. 

It was right there in front of your nose.. I was tired of pages of VAGUE crapping from PMZ -- so I asked the deluded one to expound on this gem... 



> They also know that we are making giant strides of progress in converting the sun's energy to usable power directly without going through the unsustainable process of burning ancient life material. And paying for the consequential extreme weather damages to civilization.



Both of you knumbknuts believe this is all a WE/THEY problem and that Nirvana awaits if you trolls could just organize and esponged the planet of me and the other "undeservings".. 

PAGES AND PAGES about the voices in his head. I thought I might learn something about the Promised land --- but instead found that PMZ just IMAGINES there are millions of folks working to solve the problems of installing solar to power NYCity thru SNOWSTORMS and in the DEAD OF NIGHT.... 

It was worth a shot --- and EXTREMELY informative about the level of understanding of your basic trolling eco-whack egomaniac.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Nope, the graph doesn't say that.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








Present your case chicken.  I have given you very simple parameters.  You made the claim NOW YOU HAVE TO PROOVE IT.  That's the way science works.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I pretty sure you're gonna lose this one pal.. If you believe that Global change of 0.9degF in your entire lifespan (or less) has made the weather more dangerous ---- 

You really shouldn't move south of Peoria.. The extra energy in the system might just kill you after a week in Huntsville...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Don't you ever leave the basement?

Crescent Dunes | SolarReserve


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The graph says that wind + solar COMBINED is NOT an alternative to reliably powering our civilization.. It's ME that says that PMZ has a serious problem with voices in his head..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I've never been exposed to a group so committed to exposing their ignorance!

Although I imagine that every significant invention in our history had them. 

Imagine what the numbnuts said about the Wright Bros or the early auto people.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That's not solar PV --- It's a lot more expensive and complex. It's solar thermal heating. And subject to the same siting and usage limitations that I questioned above. At night, the production efficiency is VERY LOW and probably needs a fossil fuel PEAKER to keep the turbines going. LESS efficient at night than using that nat gas fossil fuel DIRECTLY to power the grid.

You got a daily production chart for a SIMILIAR PLANT? I'd love to see it and the supplemental energy it takes to make it thru the night and a day or two of cloud cover.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I think that if mankind had not historically ignored people like you we'd still be hunting and gathering. That would have been the safe path. No risk. Daily pain, of course, but we'd get used to that. And we wouldn't have all of these problems that require education and thinking to solve. 

Don't worry though. Despite your ignorance we'll carry you across the finish line like always. The strong carry the weak. The educated, the ignorant. The doers, the naysayers. The imaginative, the dull.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Your memory just goes to crap when you get upset. That works for you. *If you can't remember being an idiot, then you must not be an idiot.

You made the claim.



			
				Walleyed said:
			
		

> No, anyone with a brain KNOWS that *today is the same as yesterday is the same as the decade before that, is the same as the century before that.* There are no more frequent or more powerful storms.*That is a fiction created by idiots like you who wish to steal money from the middle class and poor because you're too fucking lazy to do real work.



You are full of unsupported claims.  I don't have to do any more than meet or exceed your standards of proof.  You make unqualified, over generalized and unsupported statements.  I exceed this standard repeatedly.

That you are scientifically illiterate is your personal problem.

Your inability to remember anything is your personal problem.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



If you had had your adult supervisor research the plant for you, you'd know that it can be configured for any demand cycle. For Las Vegas the shortfall was noon to midnight. So that's what it does. 

Part of your disability is that you can't distinguish between progress and solution. When mankind makes progress over enough time, we arrive at solution. That's what separates those who accomplish from those who fail. 

Loser.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

I hope for the sake of humanity that the loser cult here consists of one sub-standard human and the rest are socks. To accept the idea of they each represent a full sub-standard human would require me to substantially lower my regard for the human race.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"That's not solar PV"

A spark of thought in an otherwise spectrum of only dullness. 

It's concentrated solar with energy storage. Other perple are working on concentrated PV. There are many varieties of each. Some are working on amorphous thin film PV. Some on crystalline.

Here's some stuff completely beyond your flaccid imagination.

http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=arpa-e-site-page/view-programs


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



THat's not true.. It's storage component stretches an 8 or 10 hour day of solar production into a 12 or 14 hour day ---- MAX at lower power output.. Try that trick anywhere but in the Las Vegas desert. 

*It HAS to be in the middle of freaking nowhere, because there's a 1/4 MILE diameter beam of concentrated sunlight that would ROAST A PIGEON at 1000 degF right out of the fricking sky !!! Is THAT the environmental bar that the ENLIGHTENED HAVE??? That it's OK for you "grown-ups" to build DEATH RAY TOYS, but fracking for Nat gas is just too dangerous? *

It also depletes a couple 100 acre-feet of water in a f-ing desert per year.. And the molten salt storage DOES has SERIOUS enviro and safety concerns.. 

This would be the HEIGHT of enviro hypocrisy right here on display.
Go ahead --- try to get a permit for one of those in Cleveland.. Or even better Chicago.. 

You really still haven't answered even ONE of the questions I posed to you.. I've just discovered you have very little concern for the environment.. You just want to DICTATE how we misuse it --- dontcha?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"It's a lot more expensive and complex."

It's simpler than a coal plant. Much simpler than a nuke.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

Flatulance said:
			
		

> Got company names working on keeping the sun up longer? Obliterating cloud cover?



Yeah, because that is how we measure progress, by absurd and unrealistic goals.

You should look into a concept called "SMART".

*S*imple, *M*eaaurable, *A*ttainable, *R*elevant, *T*imely

SMART criteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See, "keeping the sun up longer" is not a very *SMART* goal.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"THat's not true.. It's storage component stretches an 8 or 10 hour day of solar production into a 12 or 14 hour day ---- MAX at lower power output.. Try that trick anywhere but in the Las Vegas desert. "

That was the demand that they were asked to satisfy. If they had been asked to satisfy 24 hour demand they would choose more salt storage. 

Were you thinking of solar in Seattle or something? All power plants are built in the most cost effective place for them.

I don't know if you've ever noticed tall towers with wires on them. That's how we move electrical energy from where it's made to where it's used. We call it the grid. Much cheaper than moving coal.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Flatulance said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Programs like that with nifty anacronyms like SMART are usually designed for the intellectually impaired.. Must explain why you think S.M.A.R.T. and Grover from Sesame Street are sheer genius... 

Absurd and unrealistic goals.. Pretty much covers the "alternative energy" concept....


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"This would be the HEIGHT of enviro hypocrisy right here on display.
Go ahead --- try to get a permit for one of those in Cleveland.. Or even better Chicago.. "

Why would you want to?

Of course, when AGW peaks, Chicago and Cleveland may well be deserts.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's a fucking DEATH RAY and you love it.. Sitting on a massive store of MOLTEN HOT FERTILIZER.. In the desert --- consuming water.... 

If you were competent, you'd be aware of how much energy you would lose off the generation -- by trying to stretch the salt storage out to 24 hours.. Ain't gonna be a selling point junior.. I'm certain of that. 

You got nothing.. I still got those 8 or 9 questions about your "vision" of a of solar future that you're not answering.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Flatulance said:
> ...



"Absurd and unrealistic goals.. Pretty much covers the "alternative energy" concept..."

Much better to do nothing until the planet is uninhabitable and the fossil fuels are gone. Then move on to another planet.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Why would I want to?? I don't... YOU think the enlightened have this solar solution NAILED and I'm your biggest problem.. That's a mental deal pal... Certified denial.. You are what you hate... 

Answer the original QUESTIONS.. Or you're back on ignore.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



No --- the brainless rabble voices in MY HEAD say ---

BUild 100 new nuclear plants TODAY and convert the transport sector from gas to Hydrogen produced with sketchy, unreliable wind and solar OFF GRID... Solves a DOZEN of the problems your imaginary "millions" are struggling with... 

Maybe ever consider that YOU'RE the one standing in the way of the do'ers???????


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The thing that you're missing is that nobody cares about what you want. You have nothing to offer in return. The only people who care in the least about your delusions are the other cult members.

Do you think that there were people outside of Jonestown paying rapt attention to the Rev's Kool Aid recipe? I think not. 

Mankind has dealt with the dull since there's been mankind. It is a complete waste of time to people who accomplish stuff. We all know it. 

Take your whining to the next cult meeting and whine to them. They might nod off waiting for their turn to whine to you, but that's the best that you're going to do.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Flatulance said:
> ...



You are the one imagining keeping the sun up longer and obliterating clouds, Grover.  Try to focus on realistic things.  Demonstrates you to be "intellectually impaired".


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I think there are some good test beds for your ideas. Japan for the nukes and the builders of the Hindenburg for the H2. 

Call us when you've made the sales.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Stop being charitable. Not "impaired" but "vacant".


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Don't even think that I'm wasting my time on you. If there was no danger that others could be misled by the cult, you'd be on everyone's ignore list except for the cult's.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...






Answer the questions silly person.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Get educated, ignorant person. That's what I had to do.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









  Sure you are junior, sure you are.  You couldn't write a thesis to save your life.  Now, once again...answer the questions...silly person..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I just don't understand why people who chose not to get educated think that those of us who have owe them an education. 

Especially in this day when so much is available on the Internet for those who are willing to invest the time and have the cognitive wherewithal. 

I have no trouble teaching folks who want to learn. I've done that professionally. On the other hand I have no patience with those who think that they are above learning and are entitled to know without effort. 

You've been exposed, just here, to a wealth of real knowledge. Some real expertise, and declared yourself unwilling to learn. As my parents used to say: you've made your bed, now lie in it.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Good thing you don't project....much.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Sure thing junior, once again ANSWER the questions.  We all know you can't, so it's not surprising you're duckin' and jivin', but we are entertained by your bluster...really we are!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Sure thing junior, once again ANSWER the questions.  We all know you can't, so it's not surprising you're duckin' and jivin', but we are entertained by your bluster...really we are!



He can't say what the Second Law says about energy moving from a high entropy state to a low entropy state and how it applies to the greenhouse hypothesis either.  Must have written a couple of thousand words so far dodging the straight forward statement of the Second Law, and will probably write a few thousand more before he finally just runs away from the topic altogether.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sure thing junior, once again ANSWER the questions.  We all know you can't, so it's not surprising you're duckin' and jivin', but we are entertained by your bluster...really we are!
> ...



There aren't many defendable topics when you envision yourself as some kind of SuperHero with a following of millions and don't have time to answer any questions about why youre dressed in tights, standing in the food court and reciting an Abbie Hoffman rally speech from the 60s..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

It seems like the reason that the cult has avoided education is that they never learned that the reason that people invest the time to get educated is to increase their ability to contribute. To answer questions. To accomplish.

So they hang around places like this making foolish statements, asking stupid questions, hoping to find a shortcut way to catch up with others and stop making fools of themselves. 

But, their oversized egos get in the way. They can't shake the idea that they already know it all.

Those of us who have made the investment in education get sucked into their game, trying to make sure that those who come here to learn, aren't shortchanged by getting misinformation from the cult. 

What irritates me is that this could be a place of very meaningful exchange between knowledgeable people. How great would that be? How useful would that be? How informative would that be?

We can't let the schmucks of the world take that away.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It seems like the reason that the cult has avoided education is that they never learned that the reason that people invest the time to get educated is to increase their ability to contribute. To answer questions. To accomplish.


OK...SO why don't you answer any questions?



PMZ said:


> So they hang around places like this making foolish statements, asking stupid questions, hoping to find a shortcut way to catch up with others and stop making fools of themselves.
> 
> But, their oversized egos get in the way. They can't shake the idea that they already know it all.


You really need to Google and understand the term "Freudian projection".

Here, I'll help...

2a. Freudian Projection

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.


  "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

 "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."

 "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

 "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."

 "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."

 "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

Basic Human Psychology 1: Neurosis, Projection and Freudian Projection



PMZ said:


> Those of us who have made the investment in education get sucked into their game, trying to make sure that those who come here to learn, aren't shortchanged by getting misinformation from the cult.


Ibid.



PMZ said:


> What irritates me is that this could be a place of very meaningful exchange between knowledgeable people. How great would that be? How useful would that be? How informative would that be?


What irritates you is that you have been called on your bullshit and don't have so much as a rudimentary understanding of anything, that you can't even vamp worth a shit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like the reason that the cult has avoided education is that they never learned that the reason that people invest the time to get educated is to increase their ability to contribute. To answer questions. To accomplish.
> ...



Open and shut case Doc.. I'm goin troll-less again.. If you get any SPECIFIC  answers from this head case about what "the plan is" that we're obstructing --- PLEASE PLEASE alert me first --- then the media.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"I'm goin troll-less again.."

Victory. One down, 3 or 4 more to go and then we can have meaningful discussion here among educated, responsible people.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like the reason that the cult has avoided education is that they never learned that the reason that people invest the time to get educated is to increase their ability to contribute. To answer questions. To accomplish.
> ...



Go rustle your jimmies.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 12, 2013)

We're not laughing with you...We're laughing _*AT*_ you.

Thanks for playing....Johnny has a case of Bardahl for you as a parting gift.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> We're not laughing with you...We're laughing _*AT*_ you.
> 
> Thanks for playing....Johnny has a case of Bardahl for you as a parting gift.



What you're doing is of absolutely no interest to me. Unless you're leaving this forum. Go yammer to those who will agree with you because they don't know any better. Gomer in, Gomer out.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 12, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4]Monty Python-The Black Knight - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...








I hate to inform you but you will never ever get rid of me.  I am going to haunt every ridiculous, uninformed, troll post you make.  Get used to seeing me around because I find silly people like you entertaining as hell!


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Monty Python-The Black Knight - YouTube







Yep, the Black Night describes these silly people to a T!  Good call!


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Well westwall, precisely I am making the statement because I have read and learned. 

Romans, were not a sustainable society . Ecocide was common as in the Coliseum up to 5,000 animals could be killed in a day. Deforestation famine and starvation were common place. 
See the book "Imperial Rome" from Time Life page 46.

Mayans weren't sustainable , the population increased until a drought brought famine and war. 

The Rapa Nui weren't sustainable, they ended with the forests in their island.

The Mongols were sustainable somehow, but lack of a central government made their empire get split and decline. 

So stop ranting and give an example of a "sustainable" society from the past, with references.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I find it hard to recall any "sustainable societies" from the past, let alone a sustainable society which has collapsed.
> ...



I can agree partially with that. That's not history , but prehistory. 
Art came and went several times in the past precisely because of the collapse of those nomadic groups. 
It would be hard to make a case arguing that it was their sustainability that put them into that situation. I can think of many other factors which are more important:
  Small numbers ( the tribes rarely had a population above 5,000 members ). 
  Lack of written language. 
  Lack of technology ( other than basic stone working and producing fire ).


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It would help the discussion if you provided references.
Old Rocks and I have already provided reference disproving your hypothesis:
Romans , Mayans, Rapa Nui, Anazasi, none of them were sustainable.
Mongols were sustainable in a rather uncanny manner, to date they have been the only civilization to successfully conquer Russia in a winter campaign.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Really?  The Romans existed for longer than the US has been around.  The Eastern Roman empire lasted for 5 times longer than the US has been around.  They were marcher states for the majority of that time.  They failed when they stopped working and became welfare  (sustainable) states.  The Mongol Empire was the least "sustainable".  So long as Temujin was around they were THE marcher state to end all marcher states.  They conquered more than the known world...but, by the time of Kublai, they were no longer Mongol, they were Chinese.  They had adopted the Chinese culture completely and once again became a welfare state and failed.  Though as an interesting aside it was a law that a direct blood descendant of Temujin be in the government till the present day.  Se HE was sustainable in a bizarre way.

Read some history.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



How could you have done all of that reading if you don't know simple word definitions like the difference between "welfare" and "sustainable"?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> Really?  The Romans existed for longer than the US has been around.  The Eastern Roman empire lasted for 5 times longer than the US has been around.  They were marcher states for the majority of that time.  They failed when they stopped working and became welfare  (sustainable) states.  The Mongol Empire was the least "sustainable".  So long as Temujin was around they were THE marcher state to end all marcher states.  They conquered more than the known world...but, by the time of Kublai, they were no longer Mongol, they were Chinese.  They had adopted the Chinese culture completely and once again became a welfare state and failed.  Though as an interesting aside it was a law that a direct blood descendant of Temujin be in the government till the present day.  Se HE was sustainable in a bizarre way.
> 
> Read some history.



The Romans were a simple city-state for longer than the US has existed. 
By 330 they were not much more than a handfull of provinces tied together. No surprise Alexander the Great didn't bother in conquering them.
It was not until 260 BC that they became a respectable power with the punic wars. 
By 400 AD there was not much left of the Roman Empire. 

Romans down was mainly caused by war and corruption . They were not sustainable they depended largely on Egypt for grain and on their conquests for cheap labour (slaves) and gold.
The Byzantine empire lasted very long, but by 718 it was reduced to Greece , southern Italy and modern Turkey after several years of wars with the Arabs.

In spite of your rant  you fail to make the point on how historic "sustainable" societies from the past have collapsed.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  The Romans existed for longer than the US has been around.  The Eastern Roman empire lasted for 5 times longer than the US has been around.  They were marcher states for the majority of that time.  They failed when they stopped working and became welfare  (sustainable) states.  The Mongol Empire was the least "sustainable".  So long as Temujin was around they were THE marcher state to end all marcher states.  They conquered more than the known world...but, by the time of Kublai, they were no longer Mongol, they were Chinese.  They had adopted the Chinese culture completely and once again became a welfare state and failed.  Though as an interesting aside it was a law that a direct blood descendant of Temujin be in the government till the present day.  Se HE was sustainable in a bizarre way.
> ...



Where you the one that cited Jared Diamonds book? As good an explanation as I've seen on why civilizations who fail, do so. They don't consider sustainability and consume without thought necessary resources until they're gone. They fail because they don't plan to be sustainable.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Where you the one that cited Jared Diamonds book? As good an explanation as I've seen on why civilizations who fail, do so. They don't consider sustainability and consume without thought necessary resources until they're gone. They fail because they don't plan to be sustainable.



Though I've read the book , the one who quoted it was "old rocks".
An enticing reading.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

I gotta go with "If a civilization failed, it wasn't sustainable" as a sweeping, vague, over generalization.  If we just have to make vague and generalized statement, that seems right.   

I consider anything at the 60% level as being an over generalization.  It is 10% over fifty fifty, 20% more than the lesser 40%. 90% is my minimum for a generalization.

I am sure, if we listed civalizations and the reason for failure, it will be a hard caae to say that 90% of them failed because of being sustainable.  I am sure it would be a hard case to be made that most sustainable civilizations failed for reasons of being sustainable.  If anything, and I am not a historian by any stretch of the imagination, I still feel confident in suggesting that any societies we might find that were "sustainable" failed when they were obliterated by some outside invading army.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Where you the one that cited Jared Diamonds book? As good an explanation as I've seen on why civilizations who fail, do so. They don't consider sustainability and consume without thought necessary resources until they're gone. They fail because they don't plan to be sustainable.
> ...



Which book?  I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel."  It was excellent, especially considering the same theme was repeated over, and over, and over, and over again. 

If Beethoven had been a writer and anthropologist, his fifth book would have been just like it.  Du, du, du, duuuu. Du, du, du, duuuu. Du, du, du, du. Du, du, du, du. Du, du, du,du.....


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...







I do.  You STILL havn't given us what your definition of, and examples of life in your "sustainable" world.  Get to work troll.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  The Romans existed for longer than the US has been around.  The Eastern Roman empire lasted for 5 times longer than the US has been around.  They were marcher states for the majority of that time.  They failed when they stopped working and became welfare  (sustainable) states.  The Mongol Empire was the least "sustainable".  So long as Temujin was around they were THE marcher state to end all marcher states.  They conquered more than the known world...but, by the time of Kublai, they were no longer Mongol, they were Chinese.  They had adopted the Chinese culture completely and once again became a welfare state and failed.  Though as an interesting aside it was a law that a direct blood descendant of Temujin be in the government till the present day.  Se HE was sustainable in a bizarre way.
> ...







Rant?  Give us a description of life for the average Roman citizen after Princeps,  until the reign of Marcus Aurelius.  No historic civilization was ever "sustainable".  That's the point.  They were either expanding or collapsing.  That is the nature of societies.  It is only in the minds of the delusional that such a concept even exists.

Here's a clue, mankind is a brute.  He fights and takes things until he gets to old and tired to continue.  Then some young buck comes along and takes up the reins.  It is only in the minds of silly people that these basic instincts are ignored.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Where you the one that cited Jared Diamonds book? As good an explanation as I've seen on why civilizations who fail, do so. They don't consider sustainability and consume without thought necessary resources until they're gone. They fail because they don't plan to be sustainable.
> ...







An utterly simplistic read.  No wonder you like it.  He ignored vast amounts of information just on the Greenland Vikings in one case, just so he could make his case. 

Cherry picking in the extreme.  I suggest you look at some of the more recent peer reviewed archeological information that has come out over the last ten years.

That's the problem with all of you.  You read something that just touches the surface and somehow think you're experts all the while ignoring the vast ocean of information that's out there.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I gotta go with "If a civilization failed, it wasn't sustainable" as a sweeping, vague, over generalization.  If we just have to make vague and generalized statement, that seems right.
> 
> I consider anything at the 60% level as being an over generalization.  It is 10% over fifty fifty, 20% more than the lesser 40%. 90% is my minimum for a generalization.
> 
> I am sure, if we listed civalizations and the reason for failure, it will be a hard caae to say that 90% of them failed because of being sustainable.  I am sure it would be a hard case to be made that most sustainable civilizations failed for reasons of being sustainable.  If anything, and I am not a historian by any stretch of the imagination, I still feel confident in suggesting that any societies we might find that were "sustainable" failed when they were obliterated by some outside invading army.








, Having problems with coherence I see...


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I gotta go with "If a civilization failed, it wasn't sustainable" as a sweeping, vague, over generalization.  If we just have to make vague and generalized statement, that seems right.
> 
> I consider anything at the 60% level as being an over generalization.  It is 10% over fifty fifty, 20% more than the lesser 40%. 90% is my minimum for a generalization.
> 
> I am sure, if we listed civalizations and the reason for failure, it will be a hard caae to say that 90% of them failed because of being sustainable.  I am sure it would be a hard case to be made that most sustainable civilizations failed for reasons of being sustainable.  If anything, and I am not a historian by any stretch of the imagination, I still feel confident in suggesting that any societies we might find that were "sustainable" failed when they were obliterated by some outside invading army.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 13, 2013)

Y'all are trying waaaay too hard here.. 

Our Birkenstock brethren define "sustainable" more along the lines of an ant colony than an empire.
My work in 3rd party politics has put me in close proximity to the core of the sustainable cult.. 

You could try to read the 42 references to sustainability in the Green Party platform, but when you get to "sustainable space travel" --- I think you'd give up.. ((I'm NOT JOKING --- it's IN THERE !!!))

*They use that word like a Valley Girl uses "totally".*.. It has NO SPECIFIC meaning. Only a reference to things THEY approve of and like.. Building a deck -- is NOT sustainable.  Little tiny cute COMMUNITY BASED tire factories are sustainable --- 6 giant ones are NOT.. Militaries and defense --- UNSUS.. Social Justice SUS.. 

Providing african tribes with solar powered radios is sustainable.. *Allowing* them electricity to run a clinic or an ambulance for 24 hours a day is not.. 

It's all about control and dictating HOW the environment gets used. If THEY like it --- sustainable. If not --- it's unsustainable.. Doesn't matter if it works well or works at all. Or what the economic impacts are.

Here's a sample of eco-left preaching... From the pages of the Green Party Platform.. 



> 4. Sustaining our quality of life, economic prosperity, environmental health, and long-term survival demands that we adopt new ways of doing business. We need to remake commerce to encourage diversity and variety, responding to the enormous complexity of global and local conditions. Big business is not about appropriateness and adaptability, but about power and market control. Greens support small business, responsible stakeholder capitalism, and broad and diverse forms of economic cooperation. We argue that economic diversity is more responsive than big business to the needs of diverse human populations.



It's only about power and control to decide how resources get allocated by them... They have no freaking idea how stuff works.. Just how they want to WILL IT to work with political power.

THey don't give a dump about SURVIVABILTY or freedom or choice...


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2013)

Sustainable = Broke-ass subsistence dirt farmers.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 13, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Sustainable = Broke-ass subsistence dirt farmers.



You were soooo close.. 

Sustainable = Broke-ass HAPPY subsistence organic HEMP farmers...


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> An utterly simplistic read.  No wonder you like it.  He ignored vast amounts of information just on the Greenland Vikings in one case, just so he could make his case.
> 
> Cherry picking in the extreme.  I suggest you look at some of the more recent peer reviewed archeological information that has come out over the last ten years.
> 
> That's the problem with all of you.  You read something that just touches the surface and somehow think you're experts all the while ignoring the vast ocean of information that's out there.



Although I can't vouch for his research on Vikings, I have several books and documentaries on the mayans. And his findings coinceed with the current arqueological findings of Mayan decadence. 

Also, in Rapa Nui the harsh truth is self-evident if you take a look at the island: it has no trees at all. The explotation of their forests was not sustainable and brought them to a civilizational collapse. 

What I find so unsettling about your comments is the fact that you haven't provided a single reference to support your statements.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Sustainable = Broke-ass subsistence dirt farmers.
> ...



Discover the 10 most sustainable countries | SWU Starts with you

Sure , those darn lo-tech swiss farmers ... I am sure they will be the main cause of a near-future contrywide collapse.

We might as well export them to China and use them as a WMD. I am sure that will bring the chinese on their knees:
   Please  send us a nuke , but don't send us any more swiss farmers


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 13, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > An utterly simplistic read.  No wonder you like it.  He ignored vast amounts of information just on the Greenland Vikings in one case, just so he could make his case.
> ...



Are  "trees" our problem here? The sustainable folks TODAY want to grow stuff just to burn it for power.. In a failed attempt at logic and math -- they account for that as "zero carbon" and sustainable.. I think maybe the folks on Rapa Nui were just executing their 200 yr sustainability plan..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 13, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Wow... I am so inspired. I'm gonna go ride my bike up and down the Swiss Alps and pat myself on the back when I carry my organic veggies in a reusable cloth bag.. 

IS THAT what this is about? A high enough standard of living so that you can AFFORD to waste money on massive Solar installations in Switzerland? Count me and my SUSTAINABLE 48 foot sea-going yacht in dude....


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You might be surprised, but I agree with you on biofuells mostly.

Switchgrass is the only plant that has a good energy ratio ( 5 to 1 by most accounts), of course, the downside is it uses arable land which can be used to produce food so it must be used sparingly.

Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Yep... I think that should be the goal ... achieveing champagne sustainability. 

Why in the world would we settle for anything less than that ?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 13, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



I don't have a problem in theory with biofuels -- just haven't met any I like that don't distort the food markets. I DO HAVE a tremendous objection to that entry on the list of "sustainable energy" projects called biomass conversion tho.. The math for zero carbon sucks and BURNING stuff ends up getting green eco tools the equivalent of garbage incinerators in their neighborhoods. 

To me -- the academic excersize of looking for historical clues doesn't matter. Each successive wave of civilizations learns to utilize the enviro differently. Again -- it's pretty simple. 

Non-Renewable resources put into the public commons and managed collectively ends up in disaster. Private ownership of resources and market pricing ends up conserving them much more effectively.. 

The wildlife preservation in Africa was a complete disaster when large game preserves were in collective hands. When it was discovered that eco-tourism was a boon and preserving was profitable --- much better outcomes have been seen.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Y'all are trying waaaay too hard here..
> 
> Our Birkenstock brethren define "sustainable" more along the lines of an ant colony than an empire.
> My work in 3rd party politics has put me in close proximity to the core of the sustainable cult..
> ...







Oh, I think we all know that.  I just want to hear from them what sustainable means...to them.  It speaks volumes that they have refused to answer that very simple request.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > An utterly simplistic read.  No wonder you like it.  He ignored vast amounts of information just on the Greenland Vikings in one case, just so he could make his case.
> ...







Nor have you


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> Oh, I think we all know that.  I just want to hear from them what sustainable means...to them.  It speaks volumes that they have refused to answer that very simple request.


The term is vague on purpose.....Then, to close the loop on the circular reasoning, you'll get a response like "if I have to explain, you wouldn't understand".


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



"3-Norway

Norway has the ambicious goal of compensation all emissions until 2030 by financing sustainable projects in developing countries. The country also inaugurated the first highway integrated with a network of hydrogen fueling stations in the world."

Isn't that interesting, rocket fuel. Oxygen is everywhere. Wonder what the emmisions are like, aside from the obvious water.

Yeah, at least in general, according to the Great Wiki, hydrogen manufacturing tends to use fossil fuels to manufacture it.  PMZ posted, (I think it was PMZ) a current rssearch on catalysts for efficient hydrolysis of water.  Hydrolysis is easy enough, with electricity. Two cathodes and two collecting vessils, you can do it at home. So, in theory, solar cells will do it, if you have enough.  I suspect that the reason we don't see it is that it is cost prohibitive.  To many PV to achieve the power to run the compressors that would compress the hydrogen into a liquid.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



That would be the plan.. To use renewables OFF GRID as hydrogen refineries.. There is a lot of breakthru work right now on replacing expensive expendable electrodes with cheaper nanomaterials. There have been some estimates, that you could this AT HOME for under $1000 and make enough hydrogen to get to work and back. 

Why you don't see more of it --- is that there was a bait and switch on fuel cells goin on for a decade. The marketing yarn was hydrogen fuel leaving only water as a byproduct. But instead, most current fuel cells work off nat gas instead because of the available distribution. When prices of fuel cells come down -- they will be the superior power source for transportation.. And investors will flock to building out the H2 infrastructure. 

It'll be another Dakota shale oil deal where IN SPITE of govt restrictions and funding to the competitors --- H2 fuel cells and solar/wind powered H2 refineries will solve MORE issues than batteries and an entire new electrical grid..

<<< EDITED TO ADD >>>

BTW: H2 for fuel cells is NOT getting compressed into a liquid.. Or frozen.. Just compressed ENOUGH to economically use the volume of the container...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Why you don't see more of it --- is that there was a bait and switch on fuel cells goin on for a decade. The marketing yarn was hydrogen fuel leaving only water as a byproduct. But instead, most current fuel cells work off nat gas instead because of the available distribution. When prices of fuel cells come down -- they will be the superior power source for transportation.. And investors will flock to building out the H2 infrastructure.
> 
> It'll be another Dakota shale oil deal where IN SPITE of govt restrictions and funding to the competitors --- H2 fuel cells and solar/wind powered H2 refineries will solve MORE issues than batteries and an entire new electrical grid..



That sort of energy will come about when there is a genuine profit motive in creating it.  Government subsidies and wishful thinking will never make it happen.  The best and brightst...the real "doers" will be coming out of the woodwork with ideas and innovation that we can't even imagine today when there is real money to be made in that sort of energy production.  The projects funded by government will look like kids playing with Lincoln Logs compared to the developmen that will happen when there is real money to be made as opposed to government subsidy handouts and tax incentives.  All that can generate is play...the work will happen when, as always, there is real money to be made.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 14, 2013)

What do you call folks who use the word "sustainable", here, often, have read the definition here several times, and still have no idea of what it means?

Things that not sustainable are.......let's hear it kids..........unsustainable. As in no future. 

This is the knuckledraggers wish for humanity. No future. 

I can't think of a better reason to leave the cult stewing in their own juices and move on to intelligent conversation which, by definition, excludes them.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 14, 2013)

*UN Agenda 21*

Agenda 21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agenda 21 - United Nations, Sustainable Development

*ISO 14000*

ISO 14000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ISO 14000 - Environmental management - ISO


*Google:Agenda 21*

*Google:ISO 14000*


----------



## PMZ (Jul 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Why you don't see more of it --- is that there was a bait and switch on fuel cells goin on for a decade. The marketing yarn was hydrogen fuel leaving only water as a byproduct. But instead, most current fuel cells work off nat gas instead because of the available distribution. When prices of fuel cells come down -- they will be the superior power source for transportation.. And investors will flock to building out the H2 infrastructure.
> ...



The advantage of the unsustainable society that you call for is that nobody has to solve weighty problems like that. A kingdom of the ignorant. Use up and die. No thinking required.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> Nor have you



Oh , but I have. My point was that societies from the past were not sustainable ( in ecologic terms) and that for the first time we have the oportunity to create a sustainable society.
 ...  I provided two references : A book from time-life and the book collapse.

You seem to have disregarded both references.

By contrast the position you and oddball are defending is that sustainable societies from the past were unstable and their sustainability ( in ecologic terms ) made them unstable. 

So far Flacaltenn has provided the best argument : that pre-agricultural societies were unstable. Though I can see other factors which played against them , so their sustainability was not their true weakness from my point of view.

Anyhow , this part of the thread seems to be going nowhere... but feel free to post any links to support your viewpoint .


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nor have you
> ...



Actually, I was gonna unsubscribe UNTIL it got into DEFINING the plans that PMZ has evoked for 50 pages now.. ((I really don't know since he's the only poster I have on ignore, but he's failed MISERABLY,  multiple times on specifics for me))

I think this IS germane. And WestWall is correct that a definition of the "plan" is owed here.

And here is the problem.. If you take the Green Party EXPANSIVE definitions and misuse of the term "sustainability" literally (same for the UN which is the primary purveyor of AGW lore and fiction) -- then at least the ECONOMIC definitions of sustainability takes us RIGHT BACK to those more primitive societies that were systemically UNSUSTAINABLE.. 

Why?

Because instead of concentrating the enviro effects of say paint manufacturing to 6 or 8 major producers, their naive agenda would have 15,000 smaller, cuter, cuddly paint shops open up on a COMMUNITY scale.. All barely scraping the efficiencies of scale to eek out a survival.. AND the enviro nightmare of PAYING FOR and instituting enviro remediation and prevention at all those sites.. 

Please explain how that isn't the exact WRONG prescription to "sustainability".. Or how it DOESN'T lead us back to the tribal mistakes of all those failed ancient subsistence cultures.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What do you call folks who use the word "sustainable", here, often, have read the definition here several times, and still have no idea of what it means?


Because it's purposefully vague, to the point that you can make it mean whatever you want...Which is the point.



PMZ said:


> Things that not sustainable are.......let's hear it kids..........unsustainable. As in no future.


Thanks for providing an example for the class, Miss South Carolina...Good job. 



PMZ said:


> This is the knuckledraggers wish for humanity. No future.
> 
> I can't think of a better reason to leave the cult stewing in their own juices and move on to intelligent conversation which, by definition, excludes them.


Broad brush, ad hominem straw man argument....You hit the trifecta.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jul 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Actually, I was gonna unsubscribe UNTIL it got into DEFINING the plans that PMZ has evoked for 50 pages now.. ((I really don't know since he's the only poster I have on ignore, but he's failed MISERABLY,  multiple times on specifics for me))
> 
> I think this IS germane. And WestWall is correct that a definition of the "plan" is owed here.
> 
> ...



The thread is diverting from its original intent. I am wondering if it would be worthwile putting it in a separate thread. 

While I ponder such decision I think it would be usefull for the purpose of any further discussion to agree on the definition of sustainable : 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Definition

The simple definition "sustainability is improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems

I'll stick to that for the time being.


----------



## gslack (Jul 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> *UN Agenda 21*
> 
> Agenda 21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



I was waiting to find what your real purpose here is, thanks for finally letting it out...

So you're no scientist as you claimed, you're an activist BS artist... Got it, now I can treat you like one and stop bothering trying to correct your BS pseudo-science..

And what group of people will benefit most from Agenda 21 and what groups will not?

I'll give you a hint, you are screwed... Social parasites living off the system, while they spam web forum and tweak all night such as yourself are doomed under AGnda 21. Poor African countries? Doomed. Third world? Doomed.

Agenda 21 is about ensuring the way of life of the select few, and not the world. Here's an example. They speak of sustainable populations, yet they do not mention how this will be attained? Are they going to pressure nation governments to adopt some form of birth control system? Who will be limited in this? Who decides? They don't say out right, but what they do say is things like "sustainable agriculture" which will mean getting back to an agrarian society where communities farm their own food and resources. Sounds fine but then what about people who cannot do this? What about people who live in an area that makes this impossible? What about people whose jobs prohibit the extra time? Well they can't say this but they are gone..

If they want to really do as they imply, they would man up and tell third world countries that live almost nomadic existences that THEY need to join the 20th century, stop having kids irresponsibly and settle down, or else they won't be able to save them from themselves. But they can't do that, because the very people who helped pen this Agenda 21, are the elite classes of many of those countries.

This about saving the resources for them, not for the world. A real world plan would involve real world discussions and wouldn't use deception...


----------



## Oddball (Jul 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > *UN Agenda 21*
> ...


Cut an envirowhack and hear a eugenicist scream.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I was gonna unsubscribe UNTIL it got into DEFINING the plans that PMZ has evoked for 50 pages now.. ((I really don't know since he's the only poster I have on ignore, but he's failed MISERABLY,  multiple times on specifics for me))
> ...



Both the UN and the Green Party then stretch the definition of "ecosystem" to include both macro and micro economics as "ecosystems".. Thereby extending the reach of their "sustainability" judgement to virtually every aspect of life. And a few weird reaches to space travel, women's issues, and social justice.. 

I'll stick with the more comprehensive progressive plans that lay out a roadmap for sustainability.. 

Don't know why you waited 50 pages to pull the plug on the discussion.. It's been the underlying mantra of PMZ for all those pages.. I figured we're owed an adequate explanation of the "enlightened plan" that we are supposedly obstructing.. 

50 pages of accusations and sociopathic projection later, we still don't know who We or They are --- or what it is that the "doers" and "achievers" have in mind.. 

My guess is --- only his shrink really knows.. 

If its important to you and you think it is more brilliant than what I'm observing -- please start a thread. It would be presumptuous of ME to do start one -- simply to ridicule the naive and vacuuous excuses that are made to obtain and wield power over society..


----------



## gslack (Jul 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



He's a perfect example of the "green" movement. An idiot, no clue as to what he's really supporting, he just hears "it's good for (throw in whatever oppressed feeling social-economic group you choose), and good for the planet, and he's all about that.. Reality? It's whatever he makes it. Conscious thought? To him emotional content is better...

They are part of a massive group of media-reliant, often medicated, always upset and angry, lacking true education in favor of following a system, people who have all the passion for things in the world but lack the patience to think it through and the grasp of reality to know what it really means.

They think like children, because mentally that's what they are. Usually pampered by parents, or raised by grandparents, living off them or the system, feeling they are just overlooked by society despite having so much to offer. The fact they don't really have much more to offer than anybody else never enters their mind. Juveniles with a savior complex and delusions of being "the good guys" flood their minds 24/7. God forbid they actually used their minds to think rather than memorize PR from one of the "good guys" groups like the Sierra CLub or any of the other groups out there...

That's why they get on here and right away try and establish themselves as some kind of "expert" in the field of discussion. A physicist when it's called for, or anything that can give them the air of superiority. They need that because if they have to debate the topic under their own knowledge and merit, they know it will fail. Just like the media they worship, they believe in the perception of things over the reality if it's uncomfortable or hard.

That's how groups like the Sierra Club get a following. On socially-inept mental juveniles who cry "freedom" at every perceived slight on their own or similar social-economical class or group..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

*Department Of Energy Report On Climate Change And Energy Supply*-USATODAY







2012 was the hottest year on record; the worst drought in generations covered more than half the country; record wildfires swept across western states; and an intensified Superstorm Sandy devastated communities in the East.

The report cites prior climate-related energy disruptions. Last year in Connecticut, the Millstone Nuclear Power Station shut down one reactor because the temperature of water needed to cool the facility  taken from the Long Island Sound  was too high. A similar problem caused power reductions in 2010 at the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey and the Limerick Generating Station in Pennsylvania.

Reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains last year cut California's hydroelectric power generation 8%, while drought caused the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to stop the transport of oil and coal along the Mississippi River, where water levels were too low, according to the report. Also, in September 2010, water levels in Nevada's Lake Mead fell to a 54-year low, prompting a 23% loss in the Hoover Dam's generation.

In Texas, which is suffering a three-year drought that now affects 87% of its land, conflicts are arising over the water-intensive process of extracting oil or natural gas from shale deposits, known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. In 2011, Grand Prairie became the first in the state to ban city water for fracking. Other municipalities have restricted water use for that purpose.

Nationwide, 47% of fracking wells are in water-stressed areas, according to a report in May by Ceres, a Boston-based non-profit that promotes corporate sustainability.

Climate change has created an increased risk of shutdowns at coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants. Why? Changes in the climate mean decreased water availability -- which affects cooling at thermoelectric power plants, a requirement for operation.*

There are also higher risks to energy infrastructure located along the coasts thanks to sea level rise, the increasing intensity of storms, and higher storm surge and flooding.

Power lines, transformers and electricity distribution systems face increasing risks of physical damage from the hurricanes, storms and wildfires that are growing more frequent and intense.*

Air conditioning costs will rise due to increasing temperatures and heat waves, along with the risks of blackouts and brownouts in regions throughout the country.

USA TODAY

U.S. Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and Extreme Weather | Department of Energy

Climate Change: Effects on Our Energy | Department of Energy


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



There's the golden nugget in highlight above.. Where were you with that 50 pages ago??


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> *Department Of Energy Report On Climate Change And Energy Supply*-USATODAY
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you can use all this "settled science" to tell us WHERE AND WHEN the next ABNORMAL tornado outbreak or hurricane season or drought is gonna happen and be --- we'll start listening.. Right now -- it's Medicine Man class drama and "I told you so's" ex post facto.

1DegC in a lifetime.. Extra energy in the system.. You want extra energy?? Move to the tropics... 

You even had to reinvent the name of your road show to change the PR campaign.. Desparate measures for desparate times..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > *Department Of Energy Report On Climate Change And Energy Supply*-USATODAY
> ...



Tell me when and where the next outbreak of influenza is going to hit the US this next flu season.  How about the next traffic accident tomorrow?  The next fire in your city?  How about the next robbery?

Your questions are irrelevant.  No rational, intelligent, adult expects absolute certainty.  It is childish.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Actually mr pretend scientist.. The CDC and WHO make VERY ACCURATE predictions of the next flu season.. That's why the flu shots are planned and prepared based on INTELLIGIENCE and forecasting.. Same with planning city services. Done pretty dam efficiently.. 

Hey !! Here's $1TRill.. Go mitigate the next Climate Change disaster BEFORE it happens..

Give me your task list and expenditures..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



That's right, it is, intelligence and forecasting, planning for future contingencies based on past experience and current science. *Just like the CDC, WHO, and city services.

The WHO says;

*"It is now generally acknowledged that the global climate is changing, as the earth becomes warmer. This change has the potential to affect human health in a number of ways, for instance by altering the geographic range and seasonality of certain infectious diseases, disturbing food-producing ecosystems, and increasing the frequency of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes."

WHO | Climate change

The CDC says;

Potential Climate Change Health Effects

 Heat-Related Morbidity and Mortality
 Asthma, Respiratory Allergies, and Airway Diseases
 Vectorborne and Zoonotic Diseases
 Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke
 Weather-Related Morbidity and Mortality
 Foodborne Diseases and Nutrition
 Waterborne Diseases
 Human Developmental Effects
 Mental Health and Stress-Related Disorders
 Neurological Diseases and Disorders
 Cancer

CDC - Climate and Health Program - Homepage

CDC - Climate Change and Public Health - Health Effects

Yes, that is the idea, keep people from dying.  It is what adults do.  Adults mitigate potential disasters from happening.  Like getting a flu shot BEFORE you gey the flu. Preventing heart attacks by lowering cholestoral and blood pressure.  Inspecting buildings and making sure fire extinguishers are available.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



*US Mayors Climate Change Agreement*

"Under the Agreement, participating cities commit to take following three actions:*
- *Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns;*
- Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol -- 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and*
- Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which would establish a national emission trading system"

The foregoing list includes the names of 1060 mayors from the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, representing a total population of over 88,962,982 citizens.

Mayor	City	State
Bill Ham Jr.	Auburn	AL
Edward May	Bessemer	AL
Loretta Spencer	Huntsville	AL
Gary Fuller	Opelika	AL
George Evans	Selma	AL
Jimmy Lunsford	Troy	AL
Walter Maddox	Tuscaloosa	AL
Mark Begich	Anchorage	AK
Bruce Botelho	Juneau	AK
Jeffrey Jacobson	North Pole	AK
Stanley Tocktoo	Shishmaref	AK
Marko Dapcevich	Sitka	AK
John Insalaco	Apache Junction	AZ
Ronald Oertle	Bisbee	AZ
Jackie Meck	Buckeye	AZ
Jack Hakim	Bullhead City	AZ
Joseph Donaldson	Flagstaff	AZ
Steven Berman	Gilbert	AZ
James Cavanaugh	Goodyear	AZ
Scott Smith	Mesa	AZ
Paul Loomis	Oro Valley	AZ
Bob Barrett	Peoria	AZ
Phil Gordon	Phoenix	AZ
Robert Walkup	Tucson	AZ
Allen Affeldt	Winslow	AZ
Dani Joy	Eureka Springs	AR
Lioneld Jordan	Fayetteville	AR
Raymond Baker	Fort Smith	AR
Mark Stodola	Little Rock	AR
Patrick Hays	North Little Rock	AR
Beverly Johnson	Alameda	CA
Allan Maris	Albany	CA
Carmen Vali-Cave	Aliso Viejo	CA
Michael Machi	Arcata	CA
Tom O'Malley	Atascadero	CA
Charles Marsala	Atherton	CA
Robert Kennedy	Avalon	CA
Lori Donchak	Beaverton	CA
Elizabeth Patterson	Benicia	CA
Tom Bates	Berkeley	CA
Stephen Webb	Beverly Hills	CA
Jef Vander Borght	Burbank	CA
Terry Nagel	Burlingame	CA
Mary Sue Maurer	Calabasas	CA
Jack Gingles	Calistoga	CA
Daniel Furtado	Campbell	CA
Dennis Norton	Capitola	CA
Scott Gruendl	Chico	CA
Dennis Yates	Chino	CA
Stephen Padilla	Chula Vista	CA
James Shelby	Citrus Heights	CA
Peter Yao	Claremont	CA
Robert Jehn	Cloverdale	CA
Joanne del Rosario	Colma	CA
Mark Peterson	Concord	CA
Lisa Moore	Cotati	CA
Alan Corlin	Culver City	CA
Orrin Mahoney	Cupertino	CA
Crystal Crawford	Del Mar	CA
Janet Lockhart	Dublin	CA
Nancy McNally	El Cajon	CA
Janet Abelson	El Cerrito	CA
Gary Davis	Elk Grove	CA
Larry Bragman	Fairfax	CA
Harry Price	Fairfield	CA
Robert Wasserman	Fremont	CA
Tim Raboy	Galt	CA
Al Pinheiro	Gilroy	CA
Karen Davis	Glendora	CA
Roberta Cooper	Hayward	CA
Jason Liles	Healdsburg	CA
Roger Meadows	Hemet	CA
Sam Edgerton III	Hermosa Beach	CA
Catherine Mullooly	Hillsborough	CA
Gil Coerper	Huntington Beach	CA
Jim Janney	Imperial Beach	CA
Beth Krom	Irvine	CA
Arthur Madrid	La Mesa	CA
Carol Federighi	Lafayette	CA
Toni Iseman	Laguna Beach	CA
Melody Carruth	Laguna Hills	CA
Milt Robbins	Laguna Woods	CA
Joseph Esquivel	Lakewood	CA
John Murray	Lemoore	CA
Beverly O'Neill	Long Beach	CA
Valorie Carpenter	Los Altos	CA
Breene Kerr	Los Altos Hills	CA
Antonio Villaraigosa	Los Angeles	CA
Joe Pirzynski	Los Gatos	CA
Jeff Jennings	Malibu	CA
Skip Harvey	Mammoth Lakes	CA
Richard Montgomery	Manhattan Beach	CA
Bruce Delgado	Marina	CA
Kelly Fergusson	Menlo Park	CA
Anne Solem	Mill Valley	CA
Marc Hershman	Millbrae	CA
Chuck Della Sala	Monterey	CA
Benjamin Venti	Monterey Park	CA
Patrick Hunter	Moorpark	CA
Michael Metcalf	Moraga	CA
Dennis Kennedy	Morgan Hill	CA
Janice Peters	Morro Bay	CA
Laura Macias	Mountain View	CA
Jill Techel	Napa	CA
David Smith	Newark	CA
Carole Knutson	Novato	CA
Ronald Dellums	Oakland	CA
Daniel Cort	Pacific Grove	CA
James Vreeland Jr.	Pacifica	CA
Stephen Pougnet	Palm Springs	CA
Judy Kleinberg	Palo Alto	CA
Steve Culleton	Paradise	CA
Bill Bogaard	Pasadena	CA
Pamela Torliatt	Petaluma	CA
Jennifer Hosterman	Pleasanton	CA
B. Stephen Toben	Portola Valley	CA
Thomas Long	Rancho Palos Verdes	CA
Jon Harrison	Redlands	CA
Mike Gin	Redondo Beach	CA
Barbara Pierce	Redwood City	CA
Grace Vargas	Rialto	CA
Gayle McLaughlin	Richmond	CA
Ronald Loveridge	Riverside	CA
Jake Mackenzie	Rohnert Park	CA
Susan Seamans	Rolling Hills Estates	CA
Kevin Johnson	Sacramento	CA
Dennis Donohue	Salinas	CA
Patrick Morris	San Bernardino	CA
Larry Franzella	San Bruno	CA
Carl Morehouse	San Buenaventura	CA
Jerry Sanders	San Diego	CA
Julie Ruelas	San Fernando	CA
Gavin Newsom	San Francisco	CA
Juli Costanzo	San Gabriel	CA
Ron Gonzales	San Jose	CA
Shelia Young	San Leandro	CA
Dave Romero	San Luis Obispo	CA
John Lee	San Mateo	CA
Albert Boro	San Rafael	CA
Miguel Pulido	Santa Ana	CA
Marty Blum	Santa Barbara	CA
Patricia Mahan	Santa Clara	CA
Cynthia Mathews	Santa Cruz	CA
Robert Holbrook	Santa Monica	CA
Jane Bender	Santa Rosa	CA
Aileen Kao	Saratoga	CA
Ronald Albert	Sausalito	CA
Sarah Gurney	Sebastopol	CA
Kurt Zimmerman	Sierra Madre	CA
Michael Noll	Signal Hill	CA
Lesa Heebner	Solana Beach	CA
Doug McKesson	Sonoma	CA
Richard Garbarino	South San Francisco	CA
Edward Chavez	Stockton	CA
Otto Lee	Sunnyvale	CA
Dennis Gillette	Thousand Oaks	CA
Frank Scotto	Torrance	CA
Craig Vejvoda	Tulare	CA
Anthony Intintoli, Jr.	Vallejo	CA
Jesus Gamboa	Visalia	CA
Morris Vance	Vista	CA
Abbe Land	West Hollywood	CA
Christopher Cabaldon	West Sacramento	CA
Owen Newcomer	Whittier	CA
Sam Salmon	Windsor	CA
Woody Fridae	Winters	CA
Cynthia Saucerman	Yountville	CA
Richard Riddell	Yucaipa	CA
Helen Klanderud	Aspen	CO
Leroy Duroux	Basalt	CO
Mark Ruzzin	Boulder	CO
Michael Hassig	Carbondale	CO
John Hickenlooper	Denver	CO
Barbara Davis	Dillon	CO
Sidny Zink	Durango	CO
Bernie Zurbriggen	Frisco	CO
Bruce Christensen	Glenwood Springs	CO
Stu Ferguson	Gunnison	CO
George Whitt	Ignacio	CO
Laura Farris	Nederland	CO
Frank Breslin	New Castle	CO
Ross Aragon	Pagosa Springs	CO
John Pryor	Telluride	CO
Alan Bernholtz	Town of Crested Butte	CO
Nancy McNally	Westminster	CO
Sydney Schulman	Bloomfield	CT
Bill Finch	Bridgeport	CT
Wiliam Kupinse, Jr.	Easton	CT
Kenneth Flatto	Fairfield	CT
Craig Henrici	Hamden	CT
Eddie Perez	Hartford	CT
Susan Mendenhall	Ledyard	CT
Elizabeth Paterson	Mansfield	CT
Mark Benigni	Meriden	CT
Sebastian Giuliano	Middletown	CT
James Richetelli, Jr.	Milford	CT
John DeStefano, Jr.	New Haven	CT
Wade Hyslop Jr.	New London	CT
E. Patricia Llodra	Newtown	CT
Benjamin Lathrop	Norwich	CT
Rudy Marconi	Ridgefield	CT
Dannel Malloy	Stamford	CT
James Miron	Stratford	CT
R. Scott Slifka	West Hartford	CT
Jean de Smet	Willimantic	CT
Carleton Carey, Sr.	Dover	DE
Vance Funk, III	Newark	DE
James Baker	Wilmington	DE
Adrian Fenty	Washington	DC
Donald Wolfson	Atlantic Beach	FL
Susan Gottlieb	Aventura	FL
Ben Nelson Jr.	Bonita Springs	FL
Eric Feichthaler	Cape Coral	FL
Frank Hibbard	Clearwater	FL
Rebecca Tooley	Coconut Creek	FL
Debby Eisinger	Cooper City	FL
Donald Slesnick, II	Coral Gables	FL
Scott Brook	Coral Springs	FL
Paul Vrooman	Cutler Bay	FL
Robert Anton	Dania Beach	FL
Tom Truex	Davie	FL
Albert Capellini, P.E.	Deerfield Beach	FL
Jeff Perlman	Delray Beach	FL
Juan Carlos Bermudez	Doral	FL
Michael Thomas	Edgewater	FL
John P. "Jack" Seiler	Fort Lauderdale	FL
James Humphrey	Fort Myers	FL
Robert Benton, III	Fort Pierce	FL
Pegeen Hanrahan	Gainesville	FL
Samuel Ferreri	Greenacres	FL
Michael Yakes	Gulfport	FL
Joy Cooper	Hallandale Beach	FL
Julio Rubaina	Hialeah	FL
Roland Via	Holly Hill	FL
Mara Giulianti	Hollywood	FL
Kenneth Schultz	Hypoluxo	FL
John Peyton	Jacksonville	FL
Robert Vernon	Key Biscayne	FL
Morgan McPherson	Key West	FL
Jeff Clemens	Lake Worth	FL
Ralph Fletcher	Lakeland	FL
Patricia Gerard	Largo	FL
Samuel Brown	Lauderdale Lakes	FL
Richard Kaplan	Lauderhill	FL
Norman Anderson	Layton	FL
Sanna Henderson	Leesburg	FL
Frank Talerico	Margate	FL
Harry Goode, Jr.	Melbourne	FL
Manuel Diaz	Miami	FL
David Dermer	Miami Beach	FL
Shirley Gibson	Miami Gardens	FL
Wayne Slaton	Miami Lakes	FL
Lori Moseley	Miramar	FL
Bill Barnett	Naples	FL
Sally Mackay	New Smyrna Beach	FL
Kevin Burns	North Miami	FL
Raymond Marin	North Miami Beach	FL
Steven Arnst	Oakland Park	FL
Buddy Dyer	Orlando	FL
John Mazziotti	Palm Bay	FL
Jack McDonald	Palm Beach	FL
Eric Jablin	Palm Beach Gardens	FL
Thomas Mills	Palm Beach Shores	FL
Eugene Flinn	Palmetto Bay	FL
Michael Udine	Parkland	FL
Emma Shoaff	Pembroke Park	FL
Frank Ortis	Pembroke Pines	FL
Cindy Lerner	Pinecrest	Fl
Rae Armstrong	Plantation	FL
Lamar Fisher	Pompano Beach	FL
Patricia Christensen	Port St. Lucie	FL
Lou Ann Palmer	Sarasota	FL
Clarence Anthony	South Bay	FL
Horace Feliu	South Miami	FL
Edward George	St. Augustine Beach	FL
Norman Edelcup	Sunny Isles Beach	FL
Steven Feren	Sunrise	FL
Manny Marono	Sweetwater	FL
John Marks	Tallahassee	FL
Beth Flansbaum-Talabisco	Tamarac	FL
Pam Iorio	Tampa	FL
Beverley Billiris	Tarpon Springs	FL
Mary Maloof	Treasure Island	FL
Thomas White	Vero Beach	FL
Lois Frankel	West Palm Beach	FL
Eric Jones, Jr.	West Park	FL
Scott Newton	Wilton Manors	FL
Arthur Letchas	Alpharetta	GA
Heidi Davison	Athens	GA
Shirley Franklin	Atlanta	GA
Deke Copenhaver	Augusta	GA
William "Bill" Floyd	Decatur	GA
Joe Macon	East Point	GA
C. Jack Ellis	Macon	GA
Jere Wood	Roswell	GA
Otis Johnson	Savannah	GA
Jason Buelterman	Tybee Island	GA
William Kenoi	Hilo	HI
Mufi Hannemann	Honolulu	HI
Bernard Carvalho, Jr.	Kauai	HI
Charmaine Tavares	Maui	HI
Jon Anderson	Bellevue	ID
David Bieter	Boise	ID
Susan McBryant	Hailey	ID
Jared Fuhriman	Idaho Falls	ID
Roger Chase	Pocatello	ID
Raymond Miller	Sandpoint	ID
Jon Thorson	Sun Valley	ID
John Scmitt	Algonquin	IL
Donald Sandidge	Alton	IL
Thomas Weisner	Aurora	IL
Mark Eckert	Belleville	IL
Robert Lovero	Berwyn	IL
Donald Peloquin	Blue Island	IL
Roger Claar	Bolingbrook	IL
Brad Cole	Carbondale	IL
Ross Ferraro	Carol Stream	IL
Richard Daley	Chicago	IL
John Miller	Collinsville	IL
Harriet Rosenthal	Deerfield	IL
Martin Maylan	Des Plaines	IL
David Mingus	East Peoria	IL
Gary Niebur	Edwardsville	IL
Ed Schock	Elgin	IL
Thomas Marcucci	Elmhurst	IL
Lorraine Morton	Evanston	IL
Robert Jackstadt	Glen Carbon	IL
Robert Donaldson	Hazel Crest	IL
Michael Belsky	Highland Park	IL
William McLeod	Hoffman Estates	IL
Richard Hofeld	Homewood	IL
Arthur Schultz	Joliet	IL
S. Michael Rummel	Lake Forest	IL
Edwin Plaza	Lake in the Hills	IL
William Mueller	Lombard	IL
William Borgo	Manhattan	IL
Jason Briscoe	Minooka	IL
Donald Welvaert	Moline	IL
Chris Koos	Normal	IL
Gene Marks	Northbrook	IL
Dave Heilmann	Oak Lawn	IL
David Pope	Oak Park	IL
Daniel McLaughlin	Orland Park	IL
Brian LeClerca	Oswego	IL
Rita Mullins	Palatine	IL
John Ostenburg	Park Forest	IL
Howard Frimark	Parkridge	IL
Shawn Connors	Pecatonica	IL
Donald Baker	Peru	IL
James Waldorf	Plainfield	IL
David Blanton	Rock Falls	IL
Mark Schwiebert	Rock Island	IL
Kenneth Nelson	Rolling Meadows	IL
Al Larson	Schaumburg	IL
Kenneth Beasley	South Roxana	IL
James Narczewski	Spring Valley	IL
Timothy Davlin	Springfield	IL
Laurel Prussing	Urbana	IL
Rae Rupp-Srch	Villa Park	IL
David Brummel	Warrenville	IL
Robert Sabonjian	Waukegan	IL
William Rahn	Westmont	IL
Christopher Canning	Wilmette	IL
Mark Kruzan	Bloomington	IN
James Brainard	Carmel	IN
Fred Armstrong	Columbus	IN
Jonathan Weinzapfel	Evansville	IN
Graham Richard	Fort Wayne	IN
David Wiant	Garrett	IN
Scott King	Gary	IN
Susan Murray	Greencastle	IN
Bart Peterson	Indianapolis	IN
Thomas Galligan	Jeffersonville	IN
Chuck Oberlie	Michigan City	IN
James Garner, Sr.	New Albany	IN
Sally Hutton	Richmond	IN
Stephen Luecke	South Bend	IN
Jon Costas	Valparaiso	IN
Joseph Stahura	Whiting	IN
Timothy Burget	Altoona	IA
Ann Campbell	Ames	IA
Clark Kauffman	Audubon	IA
Jeff Bowen	Aurelia	IA
Virgil Murray	Bellevue	IA
Jon Crews	Cedar Falls	IA
Kay Halloran	Cedar Rapids	IA
James Erb	Charles City	IA
Les Aasheim	Clive	IA
Jim Faussett	coralville	IA
Karen Johnson	Crystal Lake	IA
Edwin Winborn	Davenport	IA
Donald Arendt	Decorah	IA
T.M. Cownie	Des Moines	IA
Roy Buol	Dubuque	IA
Maurice Welsh	Fairbank	IA
Edward Malloy	Fairfield	IA
John Bork	Grafton	IA
Thomas Patterson	Hiawatha	IA
Ross Wilburn	Iowa City	IA
Linda Anderson	Lawler	IA
Jeff Nitzschke	Lawton	IA
Donald Fischer	Neola	IA
William Hansen	Rake	IA
Dan Recker	Sageville	IA
Richard Hunt	Shenandoah	IA
Craig Berenstein	Sioux City	IA
Eric Nielsen	Spirit Lake	IA
John Hartman	Steamboat Rock	IA
Roger Noble	Wapello	IA
Rick Messerschmidt	West Des Moines	IA
Jerry Sullivan	Windsor Heights	IA
Conrad Grunwald	Woolstock	IA
John St. Clair, Jr.	Fairway	KS
Joe Reardon	Kansas	KS
Kenneth Bernard	Lansing	KS
Dennis Highberger	Lawrence	KS
Carl Wilkes	Merriam	KS
Laura McConwell	Mission	KS
Ron Shaffer	Prairie Village	KS
Steve Petrehn	Roeland Park	KS
Jeff Meyers	Shawnee	KS
Bill Bunten	Topeka	KS
Karen Johnson	Westwood	KS
Allen Roth	Westwood Hills	KS
Elaine Walker	Bowling Green	KY
William May, Jr.	Frankfort	KY
Jim Newberry	Lexington	KY
Greg Fischer	Louisville	KY
Tom Watson	Owensboro	KY
Todd Eberle	Prospect	KY
Michael Sadouskas	Villa Hills	KY
Edward Randolph, Jr.	Alexandria	LA
Melvin Holden	Baton Rouge	LA
Gail Lark	Grand Coteau	LA
C. Ray Nagin	New Orleans	LA
Michael Hurley	Belfast	ME
Wallace Nutting	Biddeford	ME
Wayne Dorr	Bowdoinham	ME
James Rowe	Cape Elizabeth	ME
Cathy Breen	Falmouth	ME
Wayne Berry	Kennebunk	ME
Donald Fiske	Kennebunkport	ME
Laurent Gilbert, Sr.	Lewiston	ME
Jay Legore	Montville	ME
James Cohen	Portland	ME
Mark Johnston	Saco	ME
Claude Morgan	South Portland	ME
Daniel Lief	Town of Cranberry Isles	ME
Paul LePage	Waterville	ME
Carl Winslow	Yarmouth	ME
Ellen Moyer	Annapolis	MD
Sheila Dixon	Baltimore	MD
Carroll Jones	Brunswick	MD
Margo Bailey	Chestertown	MD
William Hudnut III	Chevy Chase	MD
Adam Ortiz	Edmonston	MD
Sidney Katz	Gaithersburg	MD
Peter Fosselman	Kensington	MD
Craig Mayor	Laurel	MD
Larry Giammo	Rockville	MD
Barrie Tilghman	Salisbury	MD
Jonathan Herman	Sykesville	MD
Kathy Porter	Takoma Park	MD
Paulina Knibbe	Acton	MA
David Hildt	Amesbury	MA
William Scanlon	Beverly	MA
Thomas Menino	Boston	MA
James Harrington	Brockton	MA
Kenneth Reeves	Cambridge	MA
Michael McCall	Chelmsford	MA
Dan Mylott	Fitchburg	MA
John Bell	Gloucester	MA
Christine Forgey	Greenfield	MA
Muriel Kramer	Hopkinton	MA
John Reilly, Jr.	Hull	MA
Michael Sullivan	Lawrence	MA
Dean Mazzarella	Leominster	MA
William Martin, Jr.	Lowell	MA
Richard Howard	Malden	MA
Nancy Stevens	Marlborough	MA
Michael McGlynn	Medford	MA
Robert Dolan	Melrose	MA
Scott Lang	New Bedford	MA
John Moak	Newburyport	MA
David Cohen	Newton	MA
Mary Clare Higgins	Northampton	MA
James Ruberto	Pittsfield	MA
Keith Bergman	Provincetown	MA
Kimberley Driscoll	Salem	MA
Joseph Curtatone	Somerville	MA
Charles Ryan	Springfield	MA
Maureen Valente	Sudbury	MA
Alfred Gaechter	Truro	MA
Susan Kay	Weymouth	MA
Joe O'Brien	Worcester	MA
John Hieftje	Ann Arbor	MI
John Godfrey III	Battle Creek	MI
Marilyn Stephan	Berkley	MI
Daniel Paletko	Dearborn Heights	MI
Kenneth Cockrel, Jr.	Detroit	MI
Samir Singh	East Lansing	MI
Robert Porter	Ferndale	MI
Dayne Walling	Flint	MI
George Heartwell	Grand Rapids	MI
Albert McGeehan	Holland	MI
Hannah McKinney	Kalamazoo	MI
Virg Bernero	Lansing	MI
Tony Tollefson	Marquette	MI
Susan McGillicuddy	Meridian Township	MI
Stephen Warmington	Muskegon	MI
James Walter	Pittsfield Charter Township	MI
Peter Strazdas	Portage	MI
John Chirkun	Roseville	MI
James Ellison	Royal Oak	MI
Gretchen Driskell	Saline	MI
Brenda Lawrence	Southfield	MI
Norma Wurmlinger	Southgate	MI
Robert Sisson	Sturgis	MI
Lawrence Mawby	Suttons Bay	MI
Cameron Priebe	Taylor	MI
David Flaisher	Township of West Bloomfield	MI
Linda Smyka	Traverse City	MI
James Fouts	Warren	MI
Carl Solden	Waterford	MI
William Wild	Westland	MI
Paul Schreiber	Ypsilanti	MI
Mary Hamann-Roland	Apple Valley	MN
William Ojala	Aurora	MN
Thomas Stiehm	Austin	MN
Richard Lehmann	Bemidji	MN
Tim Willson	Brooklyn Center	MN
Craig Pulford	Buhl	MN
Elizabeth Kautz	Burnsville	MN
Michael Jugovich	Chisholm	MN
ReNae Bowman	Crystal	MN
Herb Bergson	Duluth	MN
Mike Maguire	Eagan	MN
Nancy Tyra-Lukens	Eden Prairie	MN
James Hovland	Edina	MN
Peter Lindstrom	Falcon Heights	MN
Linda Loomis	Golden Valley	MN
Rick Wolff	Hibbing	MN
Steve Cook	Hutchinson	MN
Shawn Mason	International Falls	MN
George Tourville	Inver Grove Heights	MN
Katie Himanga	Lake City	MN
Judson Marshall	Mahtomedi	MN
Jeff Kagermeier	Mankato	MN
Diana Longrie	Maplewood	MN
Ron Anderson	Milan	MN
R.T. Rybak	Minneapolis	MN
Janis Callison	Minnetonka	MN
Gary Skalko	Mount Iron	MN
Ray Melander	Nevis	MN
David Beudet	Oak Park Heights	MN
Nancy Carroll	Park Rapids	MN
Donna Dummer	Red Wing	MN
Ardell Brede	Rochester	MN
William Droste	Rosemount	MN
Craig Klausing	Roseville	MN
Mark Campbell	Sauk Rapids	MN
Dave Kleis	St. Cloud	MN
Chris Coleman	St. Paul	MN
Molly Park	Sunfish Lake	MN
Stephen Abrahamson	Tower	MN
Gary Burger	Turtle River	MN
Steve Peterson	Virginia	MN
Roy Srp	Waseca	MN
Paul Auger	White Bear Lake	MN
Jerry Miller	Winona	MN
William Hargis	Woodbury	MN
Cara Burnside	Arcola	MS
Johnny DuPree	Hattiesburg	MS
Harvey Johnson, Jr.	Jackson	MS
John Smith	Meridian	MS
Corey Holmes	Metcalfe	MS
Fred Reeves	Port Gibson	MS
Ed Neelly III	Tupelo	MS
Linda Goldstein	Clayton	MO
Darwin Hindman	Columbia	MO
Harold Dielmann	Creve Coeur	MO
Robert Lowery, Sr.	Florissant	MO
Les Smith	Gladstone	MO
Michael Hallauer	Houston Lake	MO
Mark Funkhouser	Kansas City	MO
Mike Swoboda	Kirkwood	MO
Michael Potter	Lake Saint Louis	MO
Robert Steinkamp	Liberty	MO
Mark Langston	Maplewood	MO
Gene Bruns	North Kansas	MO
Michael Schneider	Overland	MO
Gary Richardson	Parkville	MO
Dennis Todd	Pleasant Valley	MO
David Bower	Raytown	MO
James Beck	Richmond Heights	MO
Kathleen Rose	Riverside	MO
Francis Slay	St. Louis	MO
Len Pagano	St. Peters	MO
James Hobbs	Sunset Hills	MO
Joseph Adams	University City	MO
Ron Tussing	Billings	MT
Karen Jacobson	Bozeman	MT
James Smith	Helena	MT
John Engen	Missoula	MT
Elizabeth Scanlin	Red Lodge	MT
Jerry Ryan	Bellevue	NE
Coleen Seng	Lincoln	NE
Jim Suttle	Omaha	NE
James Gibson	Henderson	NV
Oscar Goodman	Las Vegas	NV
Susan Holecheck	Mesquite	NV
Robert Cashell	Reno	NV
Tony Armstrong	Sparks	NV
Jim Bouley	Concord	NH
J. Michael Joyal	Dover	NH
Brian Walsh	Hanover	NH
Dale Pregent	Keene	NH
Karen Hill	Lebanon	NH
Frank Guinta	Manchester	NH
Donnalee Lozeau	Nashua	NH
Steve Marchand	Portsmouth	NH
John Larochelle	Rochester	NH
Harry Fuerstenberger	Alexandria Township	NJ
Kevin Sanders	Asbury Park	NJ
Bob Levy	Atlantic City	NJ
Peter Donoaghue	Atlantic Highlands	NJ
Joseph Doria, Jr.	Bayonne	NJ
Jason Varano	Bayville	NJ
Ronald Jones, Jr.	Beachwood	NJ
Jason Varano	Berkeley Township	NJ
Raymond McCarthy	Bloomfield	NJ
John Collom	Bordentown	NJ
William Curtis	Borough of Bay Head	NJ
Martin Konkus	Borough of Point Pleasant	NJ
Stephen Schueler	Bradley Beach	NJ
Joseph Scarpelli	Brick	NJ
David Scapicchio	Budd Lake	NJ
Chuck Chiarello	Buena Vista Township	NJ
Susan Gartland	Caldwell	NJ
Jerome Inderwies	Cape May	NJ
Bernard Platt	Cherry Hill	NJ
Gerald Calabrese	Cliffside Park Borough	NJ
Sophie Heymann	Closter	NJ
David Stout	Cranbury	NJ
Daniel Aschenbach	Cranford	NJ
James Carroll	Demarest	NJ
Philip Hussa	Denville	NJ
Robert Bowser	East Orange	NJ
J. Bollwage	Elizabeth	NJ
Michael Wildes	Englewood	NJ
Wendell Pribila	Ewing Township	NJ
Steven Weinstein	Fair Lawn	NJ
Thomas Charles	Frelinghuysen Township	NJ
Thomas Bassford	Galloway Township	NJ
William Kanyuck	Greenwich Township	NJ
Domenick Stampone	Haledon	NJ
Paul Marino	Hamburg	NJ
John Bencivengo	Hamilton	NJ
Ronald Francioli	Hanover	NJ
John DeRienzo	Haworth	NJ
Meryl Frank	Highland Park	NJ
Robert Patten	Hightstown	NJ
Serena DiMaso	Holmdel	NJ
Timothy McDonough	Hope	NJ
David Nettles	Hopewell	NJ
Vanessa Sandom	Hopewell Township	NJ
Wayne Smith	Irvington	NJ
Karen Hershey	Island Heights	NJ
Jerramiah Healy	Jersey City	NJ
Alberto Santos	Kearny	NJ
Michael Ryan	Lake Como	NJ
David DelVecchio	Lambertville	NJ
Mary Heveran	Leonia	NJ
Richard Gerbounka	Linden	NJ
Richard DePamphilis III	Linwood	NJ
DiAnne Gove	Long Beach	NJ
Adam Schneider	Long Branch	NJ
Gina Genovese	Long Hill Township	NJ
Mary Garvin	Longport	NJ
Carl Block	Manahawkin	NJ
Michael Fressola	Manchester	NJ
Timothy Chell	Mantua	NJ
John Galloway	Maple Shade	NJ
Michael Becker	Margate City	NJ
Randy Brown	Marlton	NJ
Gerard Scharfenberger, Ph.D.	Middletown	NJ
Sandra Haimoff	Millburn	NJ
Edward Remsen	Montclair	NJ
Thomas Arnone	Neptune	NJ
Ronald Dancer	New Egypt	NJ
Cory Booker	Newark	NJ
John Hogan	Northvale	NJ
Joanne Cocchiola	Nutley	NJ
Salvatore Perillo	Ocean City	NJ
Paul Kennedy	Ocean Gate	NJ
Daniel Van Pelt	Ocean Township	NJ
Michael Luther	Parsippany-Troy Hills	NJ
Anthony Persichilli	Pennington	NJ
Christopher Boyle	Pine Beach	NJ
Fred Costantino	Pine Hill	NJ
Brian Wahler	Piscataway	NJ
Peter Voros	Pittsgrove	NJ
Sharon Robinson-Briggs	Plainfield	NJ
Vincent Barrella	Point Pleasant Beach	NJ
Mildred Trotman	Princeton Borough	NJ
Bernard Miller	Princeton Township	NJ
Pasquale Menna	Red Bank	NJ
David Pfund	Ridgewood	NJ
Joanne Atlas	Ringwood	NJ
George Conard Sr.	Riverside	NJ
Dave Fried	Robbinsville	NJ
Louis Sceusi	Rockaway	NJ
Ginny Betteridge	Runnemede	NJ
Louis D'Arminio	Saddle Brook	NJ
Brian Levine	Somerset	NJ
Brian Gallagher	Somerville	NJ
Frank Gambatese	South Brunswick	NJ
Jordan Glatt	Summit	NJ
Elie Katz	Teaneck	NJ
Peter Rustin	Tenafly	NJ
William Rainey Jr.	Township of Elk	NJ
Paul Brush	Township of Toms River	NJ
Douglas Palmer	Trenton	NJ
Brenda Restivo	Union	NJ
Roberto Romano	Vineland	NJ
Paul Moriarty	Washington Township	NJ
Joseph Tempesta, Jr.	West Caldwell	NJ
Joseph DiDonato	West Milford	NJ
John McKeon	West Orange	NJ
Shing-Fu Hsueh	West Windsor	NJ
Andy Skibitsky	Westfield	NJ
Donald Carroll	Alamogordo	NM
Martin Chavez	Albuquerque	NM
Sam Hammons	Capitan	NM
Ken Miyagishima	Las Cruces	NM
Bryan Olguin	Peralta	NM
Thomas Swisstack	Rio Rancho	NM
L. Ray Nunley	Ruidoso	NM
David Coss	Santa Fe	NM
James Marshall	Silver City	NM
Bobby Duran	Taos	NM
Gerald Jennings	Albany	NY
Steve Bellone	Babylon	NY
Matthew Ryan	Binghamton	NY
Sandra Frankel	Brighton	NY
Brian Foley	Brookhaven	NY
Byron Brown	Buffalo	NY
Ellen Polimeni	Canandaigua	NY
Linda Puglisi	Cortland Manor	NY
Leo A Wiegman	Croton on Hudson	NY
Scott Seskin	Dobbs Ferry	NY
Ralph Suozzi	Glen Cove	NY
John Richmond	Glens Falls	NY
Paul Feiner	Greenburgh	NY
Wayne Hall	Hempstead	NY
Shawn Hogan	Hornell	NY
Richard Tracy	Hudson	NY
Mary Ellen Heyman	Irondequoit	NY
Dennis Flood	Irvington	NY
Carolyn Peterson	Ithaca	NY
Jamie Rogers	Lake Placid	NY
Jeffrey Oppenheim	Montebello	NY
J. Michael Cindrich	Mount Kisco	NY
Ernest Davis	Mount Vernon	NY
Noam Bramson	New Rochelle	NY
Michael Bloomberg	New York	NY
Vince Anello	Niagara Falls	NY
John Sheilds	Nyack	NY
John Nader	Oneonta	NY
Thom Kleiner	Orangetown	NY
William Hanauer	Ossining	NY
George Motz	Quogue	NY
Robert Duffy	Rochester	NY
Eugene Murray	Rockville Centre	NY
Thomas Michael	Saranac Lake	NY
Scott Johnson	Saratoga Springs	NY
Brian Stratton	Schenectady	NY
Mark Epley	Southampton Village	NY
Scott Russell	Southold	NY
Matthew Driscoll	Syracuse	NY
Drew Fixell	Tarrytown	NY
Michael Esmay	Upper Nyack	NY
Timothy Julian	Utica	NY
Michael Newhard	Warwick	NY
Michael Manning	Watervliet	NY
Joseph Delfino	White Plains	NY
Statish Mohan	Williamsville	NY
Philip Amicone	Yonkers	NY
Terry Bellamy	Asheville	NC
Richard Stanley	Beaufort	NC
Deborah Stoltz-Thompson	Bethania	NC
Carl Bartlett	Black Mountain	NC
Loretta Clawson	Boone	NC
Jimmy Harris	Brevard	NC
Stephen Ross	Burlington	NC
Mark Chilton	Carrboro	NC
Harold Weinbrecht	Cary	NC
Kevin Foy	Chapel Hill	NC
Anthony Foxx	Charlotte	NC
Robert Austell	Cherryville	NC
Barbara Melisila	Chimney Rock	NC
Jerry Walker	Clyde	NC
Scott Padgett	Concord	NC
John Woods	Davidson	NC
Oscar Harris	Dunn	NC
William Bell	Durham	NC
Ray Shaw, Jr.	Flat Rock	NC
Jennifer Stultz	Gastonia	NC
Keith Holliday	Greensboro	NC
Robert Parrott	Greenville	NC
Donald Mullen	Highlands	NC
Sandy Moore	Indian Trail	NC
Rick Murphrey	Kings Mountain	NC
Buddy Ritch	Kinston	NC
Dan Pugh	Lewisville	NC
Bobby Huitt	Lincolnton	NC
T.A. Bayliss, III	New Bern	NC
Barbara Cotton	Oak City	NC
Earl Cindrich	Pilot Mountain	NC
Richard Wallace	Pleasant Garden	NC
Charles Meeker	Raleigh	NC
Frederick Turnage	Rocky Mount	NC
Susan Kluttz	Salisbury	NC
Donald Davis	Snow Hill	NC
A.D. (Zander) Guy, Jr.	Surf City	NC
J. Alan Peoples	Tryon	NC
Larry Lammert	Village of Bald Head Island	NC
Vivian Jones	Wake Forest	NC
Gavin Brown	Waynesville	NC
Bill Saffo	Wilmington	NC
J. Allen Joines	Winston-Salem	NC
Dennis Walaker	Fargo	ND
Michael Brown	Grand Forks	ND
Juan Borja Tudela	Saipan	MP
Donald Plusquellic	Akron	OH
Toni Middleton	Alliance	OH
Paul Wiehl	Athens	OH
Kenneth Patton	Brooklyn	OH
Janet Creighton	Canton	OH
Mark Mallory	Cincinnati	OH
Frank Jackson	Cleveland	OH
Edward Kelley	Cleveland Heights	OH
Michael Coleman	Columbus	OH
Rhine McLin	Dayton	OH
Raymond Hull	East Palestine	OH
Thomas Longo	Garfield Heights	OH
John Fender	Kent	OH
Donald Patterson	Kettering	OH
David Berger	Lima	OH
Robert Brooker	Marshallville	OH
Francis Cicchinelli Jr.	Massillon	OH
Thomas O'Grady	North Olmsted	OH
David Handwerk	Orrville	OH
Dean DePiero	Parma	OH
William Robertson	Rittman	OH
Tom Johnson	Somerset	OH
Georgine Welo	South Euclid	OH
Karen Fritschel	Stow	OH
Carleton Finkbeiner	Toledo	OH
Marlene Anielski	Walton Hills	OH
Michael O'Brien	Warren	OH
Janet Kenyon	West Salem	OH
Dennis Clough	Westlake	OH
Robert Weger	Willoughby Hills	OH
Jay Williams	Youngstown	OH
Howard Zwelling	Zanesville	OH
Cindy Rosenthal	Norman	OK
Chuck Mills	Shawnee	OK
Sharon Konopa	Albany	OR
John Morrison	Ashland	OR
Denny Doyle	Beaverton	OR
Bruce Abernathy	Bend	OR
Charles Tomlinson	Corvallis	OR
Kitty Piercy	Eugene	OR
Richard Kidd	Forest Grove	OR
Wade Byers	Gladstone	OR
Shane Bemis	Gresham	OR
Tom Hughes	Hillsboro	OR
Jack Hoffman	Lake Oswego	OR
Lori Hollingsworth	Lincoln City	OR
Jeremy Ferguson	Milwaukie	OR
Alice Norris	Oregon City	OR
Tom Potter	Portland	OR
Sally Harrison	Vernonia	OR
Ed Pawlowski	Allentown	PA
John Callahan	Bethlehem	PA
John Fetterman	Braddock	PA
Patrick Loughney	Dunmore	PA
Sal Panto, Jr.	Easton	PA
Joseph Sinnott	Erie	PA
Raymond Heller Jr.	Forest Hills	PA
Stephen Reed	Harrisburg	PA
Sandra Green	Kutztown	PA
Rick Gray	Lancaster	PA
Chuck Pascal	Leechburg	PA
Ronald Smith	Lower Makefield	PA
John Butler	Marple Township	PA
Thomas Kramer	Millbourne	PA
Thomas Grady	Narberth	PA
Dennis O'Brien	Newtown	PA
Geoffrey Henry	Oxford	PA
John Street	Philadelphia	PA
Luke Ravenstahl	Pittsburgh	PA
Thomas McMahon	Reading	PA
Christopher Doherty	Scranton	PA
Richard Snell	Towanda	PA
Edward Hozza Jr.	Whitehall Township	PA
Thomas Leighton	Wilkes-Barre	PA
C. Kim Bracey	York	PA
Carlos Méndez	Aguadilla	PR
William Perez	Aibonito	PR
Francisco Lopez	Barranquitas	PR
Hon. William Miranda-Marin	Caguas	PR
Edwin Garcia Feliciano	Camuy	PR
José Carlos Aponte Dalmau	Carolina	PR
Rolando Velazquez	Cayey	PR
Angel Malave Zayas	Cidra	PR
Jose Santiago-Rivera	Comerio	PR
Edgardo Velez	Guayanilla	PR
Hector O'Neill García	Guaynabo	PR
Pedro Garcia Figueros	Hormigueros	PR
Marcelo Trujillo Paniss	Humacao	PR
Carlos Delgado Altieri	Isabela	PR
Jorge Gonzalez Otero	Jayuya	PR
Alfredo 'Papo' Alejandro	Juncos	PR
Edwin Santiago	Las Marías	PR
José Aviles	Moca	PR
Jorge A. Santini	San Juan	PR
Alan Gonzalez	Utuado	PR
Edgar Santana	Vega Baja	PR
Abel Nazario	Yauco	PR
James Doyle	Pawtucket	RI
Dennis Canario	Portsmouth	RI
Angel Taveras	Providence	RI
Scott Avedisian	Warwick	RI
Joseph Riley, Jr.	Charleston	SC
Larry Abernathy	Clemson	SC
Robert Coble	Columbia	SC
Knox White	Greenville	SC
D. Welborn Adams	Greenwood	SC
T Randall Halfacre	Lexington	SC
Doug Echols	Rock Hill	SC
Joseph McElveen, Jr.	Sumter	SC
Mary Pearson	Huron	SD
Jerry Krambeck	Spearfish City	SD
Ron Littlefield	Chattanooga	TN
Sam Sallee	Cookeville	TN
J.H. Graham, III	Crossville	TN
Thomas Miller	Franklin	TN
Betty Superstein	Manchester	TN
Karl Dean	Nashville	TN
Paul Hendricks	Signal Mountain	TN
Joe Chow	Addison	TX
Dr. Robert Cluck	Arlington	TX
Will Wynn	Austin	TX
Becky Miller	Carrollton	TX
Ben White	College Station	TX
Douglas Stover	Coppell	TX
C.L. Brown	Corsicana	TX
Laura Miller	Dallas	TX
Perry McNeill	Denton	TX
Joe Ochoa	Edinburg	TX
John Cook	El Paso	TX
Mary Lib Saleh	Euless	TX
Sim Israeloff	Fairview	TX
Michael Moncrief	Fort Worth	TX
E. Michael Simpson	Frisco	TX
Ronald Jones	Garland	TX
Richard Ward	Hurst	TX
David Begier	Hutto	TX
Susie Houston	Laguna Vista	TX
Elizabeth Flores	Laredo	TX
Bill Whitfield	McKinney	TX
J. Baumgardner	Mount Vernon	TX
Pat Evans	Plano	TX
Joe Vega	Port Isabel	TX
Gary Slagel	Richardson	TX
Phil Hardberger	San Antonio	TX
A. David Marne	Shavano Park	TX
Robert Pinkerton Jr.	South Padre Island	TX
David Wallace	Sugar Land	TX
Steve Mayo	Texarkana	TX
Scott Bradley	Westlake	TX
David Sakrison	Moab	UT
Dana Williams	Park City	UT
Ralph Becker	Salt Lake City	UT
Robert Gray	South Salt Lake	UT
Bob Kiss	Burlington	VT
Mary Hooper	Montpelier	VT
William Euille	Alexandria	VA
Ron Rordam	Blacksburg	VA
David Brown	Charlottesville	VA
Stephanie Clark	Covington	VA
Thomas Tomzak	Fredericksburg	VA
Joe Frank	Newport News	VA
Paul Fraim	Norfolk	VA
Dr. James Holley	Portsmouth	VA
L. Douglas Wilder	Richmond	VA
Howard Packett	Salem	VA
William Sessoms, Jr.	Virginia Beach	VA
Jeanne Zeidler	Williamsburg	VA
Peter Lewis	Auburn	WA
Darlene Kordonowy	Bainbridge Island	WA
John Idsinga	Battle Ground	WA
Grant Degginger	Bellevue	WA
Mark Asmundson	Bellingham	WA
Cary Bozeman	Bremerton	WA
Joan McGilton	Burien	WA
Paul Dennis	Camas	WA
Mike Flowers	Carnation	WA
George Martin	Clyde Hill	WA
Nancy Conard	Coupeville	WA
Gary Haakenson	Edmonds	WA
Ray Stephanson	Everett	WA
Gary Jensen	Ferndale	WA
Ava Frisinger	Issaquah	WA
James Lauinger	Kirkland	WA
Virgil Clarkson	Lacey	WA
David Hutchinson	Lake Forest Park	WA
Don Gough	Lynnwood	WA
Mark Foutch	Olympia	WA
Richard Hildreth	Pacific	WA
Rosemarie Ives	Redmond	WA
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler	Renton	WA
Michele Petitti	Sammamish	WA
Greg Nickels	Seattle	WA
Robert Ransom	Shoreline	WA
Matthew Larson	Snoqualmie	WA
Mary Verner	Spokane	WA
Bill Baarsma	Tacoma	WA
Steven Mullet	Tukwila	WA
Ralph Osgood	Tumwater	WA
Royce Pollard	Vancouver	WA
Stacee Sellers	Washougal	WA
David K Cooper	Yarrow Point	WA
James Akers	Fayetteville	WV
Ronald Justice	Morgantown	WV
Barbara Hickman	Oak Hill	WV
Lance Dom	Shepherdstown	WV
Fred Schnook	Ashland	WI
Larry MacDonald	Bayfield	WI
Sandy Decker	Evansville	WI
Thomas Clauder	Fitchburg	WI
Michael Neitzke	Greenfield	WI
John Antaramian	Kenosha	WI
Mark Johnsrud	La Crosse	WI
Dave Cieslewicz	Madison	WI
Dennis Kropp	Menomonie	WI
Tom Barrett	Milwaukee	WI
Jack Chiovatero	New Berlin	WI
Frank Tower	Oshkosh	WI
Gary Becker	Racine	WI
Don Richards	River Falls	WI
Andrew Halverson	Stevens Point	WI
Dave Ross	Superior	WI
Irene Blakely	Washburn	WI
Larry Nelson	Waukesha	WI
Theresa Estness	Wauwatosa	WI
Jeannette Bell	West Allis	WI
Mark Barron	Jackson	WY

The Agreement - Mayors Climate Protection Center


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

You were saying?


----------



## gslack (Jul 15, 2013)

Spam the boards all you like socko, it won't change a thing.. You're a douchebag activist trying to pretend his way through a discussion on the science. Fake...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> Spam the boards all you like socko, it won't change a thing.. You're a douchebag activist trying to pretend his way through a discussion on the science. Fake...


Troll. 

 Photosynthesis is the process plants use to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and use it to create short and long chain carbohydtrates, like simple sugars and It is part of the carbon cycle.  CO2 and water become sugar and oxygen. When plants die, they decay and become soil carbon, carbohydrates in the soils. Plants get their carbon from CO2.

It doesn't take a scientist to know that.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

It is dissonance preparedness month.

"In fact, even 60 percent of climate-change doubters favored preparations, the survey found. Researchers collected opinions between March 3 and March 18 via an online questionnaire, using a nationally representative sample of 1,174 American adults, both English and Spanish speaking.

The survey asked about climate-change beliefs and support for adaptation strategies to help coastal areas cope with the rising sea levels and frequent, intense storms that a warmer world could bring. The results showed that 82 percent of Americans are in favor of preparation."

Even Doubters Want to Prepare for Global Warming : Discovery News


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You're deflecting because you made a silly comment about the flu.  And you can't really justify the "global weirding" incarnation that is now in vogue.. Can't tell us crap about when and where the droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes will occur.. 

What good are you?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> It is dissonance preparedness month.
> 
> "In fact, even 60 percent of climate-change doubters favored preparations, the survey found. Researchers collected opinions between March 3 and March 18 via an online questionnaire, using a nationally representative sample of 1,174 American adults, both English and Spanish speaking.
> 
> ...


When rich asshole liberoidals start selling off their beachfront property in the Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, South Beach and Malibu, you come get us.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...







The brothers grimm are pretty useless.  They trot crap out like that list of mayors like it is actually meaningful.  Oh well, the amusement value alone is what keeps me coming back!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You said, "The CDC and WHO make VERY ACCURATE predictions of the next flu season."

I posted the CDC and WHO statements on climate change.  That is the complete opppsite of deflecting.  You are deflecting by attempting to claim I am deflecting.  That would be projection, classic.

You will do anything to deny.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I even gave the guy who plays a scientist on TV ---  $1TRILL to go spend on Global Weirding.

He could parcel that out to mayors with their hands out.. 

But he still won't tell us what to prepare for.. He's just been told that a 1degC in 80 years is ALREADY responsible for every weather story on the front page. And every plague of mankind is getting worse. 

Not his fault man.. He's just the tool.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You're a real hoot.. Did you READ your last post? Did it make sense to you? 

Do you remember the excuse that you couldn't make projections on global weirding because it's like predicting the flu? 

I challenge you about Global Weirding --- You deflect to talk about the flu.. 
I correct you about the flu --- you change it back to Global Weirding.. 

WestWall was right. This is too amuzing to pass up....


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...








Of course he didn't read his own post.  he couldn't understand it when he cut and pasted it so why bother reading it?  Sheesh man, you give these clowns far too much credit!


----------



## cathycollie (Jul 15, 2013)

If you still don't know you'll be dead before you get it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

cathycollie said:


> If you still don't know you'll be dead before you get it.



You lost? The WebMD forum is down the hall to the right....


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yeah, between the two of you, you couldn't be intelligently prepared to boil water.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

So what happened to that interesting discussion about the grand *sustainability* plan?? 

That's what I want to know...


----------



## gslack (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Spam the boards all you like socko, it won't change a thing.. You're a douchebag activist trying to pretend his way through a discussion on the science. Fake...
> ...



LOL, well you didn't know it until I explained it to you socko.. In fact you even tried to imply I made up "soil carbon" just a little bit ago...

ROFL, so you admit I was right? Good of you now you can stop lying about what I said sometime soon?

LOL, freaking Saigon in drag is what you are socko. Same MO to a tee. He likes to lie about what people say as well, even when his own posts show it for a lie, he does it anyway.. Sound familiar? LOL


----------



## gslack (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> So what happened to that interesting discussion about the grand *sustainability* plan??
> 
> That's what I want to know...



His ability to fairly debate his "sustainability" propaganda is as limited as his scientific ability. he doesn't care, he's a child out to save the world because he's the good guy...ROFL


----------



## Oddball (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> So what happened to that interesting discussion about the grand *sustainability* plan??
> 
> That's what I want to know...


It got lost in its own nebulousness.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...







And you are incapable of creating a coherent sentence.  Thanks for proving my point!


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

```

```



flacaltenn said:


> So what happened to that interesting discussion about the grand *sustainability* plan??
> 
> That's what I want to know...



I think that you're going to have a hard time selling your plan for an unsustainable, IOW, temporary, civilization.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

The world has been getting warmer since about 1880.  

The primary cause is the Greenhouse Effect acting on gases produced by the human combustion of fossil fuels.

And I think Al Franken was completely correct.


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...



LOL,it was your plan silly socko.. YOU are the one pushing for it here..


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The world has been getting warmer since about 1880.
> 
> The primary cause is the Greenhouse Effect acting on gases produced by the human combustion of fossil fuels.
> 
> And I think Al Franken was completely correct.



BS... It's got warmer,and it leveled out.And before that it got cooler, then warmer, or warmer then cooler... SAme thing over and over..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The world has been getting warmer since about 1880.
> 
> The primary cause is the Greenhouse Effect acting on gases produced by the human combustion of fossil fuels.
> 
> And I think Al Franken was completely correct.



You are now responsible for anything and everything ever said by climatogists and political proponents of climate change, from the "global cooling" of the 1970's to Al Gore, the IPCC, Trebek, Hansen, and more...

Tag...  You're it.


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The world has been getting warmer since about 1880.
> 
> The primary cause is the Greenhouse Effect acting on gases produced by the human combustion of fossil fuels.
> 
> And I think Al Franken was completely correct.







Wrong.  The Little Ice Age ended around 1850.  Notice what it was called.  LITTLE ICE AGE.  That means it was COLDER than normal.  How much of the warming AFTER the end of the LIA was just getting us back up to "normal"?  And what exactly IS normal?  If you look at the paleoclimate history 90% of the Earths temperature has been HIGHER than it is now.  So one can safely say that we are actually in an ABNORMALLY COOL period of Earths history.

But that would be science and you guys don't "do" science.


----------

