# Working to cope with climate change



## Trakar (May 27, 2012)

*Working to cope with climate change: A guest column by J. Wayne Leonard and Raymond C. Offenheiser*
Working to cope with climate change: A guest column by J. Wayne Leonard and Raymond C. Offenheiser | NOLA.com



> ...When extreme weather hits, communities suffer in myriad ways: homes are destroyed, businesses lost, ecosystems ravaged. As the heads of a national energy company and a global humanitarian organization, we've seen the damages first hand, and engaged in the painstaking and often dangerous work of recovery and restoration. We believe it's time to rally together to recognize the dangers of a changing climate, and to invest in reducing risk and building resilience.
> 
> At Entergy, we have a unique perspective on climate change. Our product -- power -- is vital to the public good. Extreme weather puts the reliability of our product at risk, and we must work with our communities to prepare for and respond to these hazards.
> 
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2012)

AGW is another way of saying EnviroMarxism


----------



## flacaltenn (May 27, 2012)

Thanks for commercial... I already have insurance for weather related issues.. 

Another company trying to look green as a tree frog..


----------



## hortysir (May 27, 2012)

I turned my thermostat down


----------



## yidnar (May 27, 2012)




----------



## whitehall (May 27, 2012)

I never heard of Oxfam but it sounded like a manufactured product ....wrong...Oxfam is part of the global warmist extortion scheme.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2012)

How big is your carbon footprint?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2012)

Munich Re - Corporate Responsibility - Climate change

Putting knowledge to use, devising solutionsIn the financial and insurance sector, Munich Re is a pioneer in analysing the consequences of climate change. We are continually expanding the competence we have gained over decades in order to promote climate-protective solutions, for example, new cover concepts for investors in innovative, climate-friendly technologies. Moreover, we plan to place all our business activities within Munich Re (Group) throughout the world on a climate-neutral basis.

Munich Re has been studying the risks and opportunities posed by climate change since founding its Geo Risks Research Department back in 1974. Our knowledge in this field continued to grow and was concentrated in one place in 2008 when the » Corporate Climate Centre (CCC) was founded. In this network, staff members from all parts of the Group investigate the consequences of climate change and devise pioneering concepts and solutions for climate protection. 

Adapting to the effects of climate change 
Such concentrated competence is a huge help in opening up new fields of business and developing innovative cover concepts for adapting to the effects of climate change. In Munich Re's core business, these include crop failure covers and policies providing protection against flood damage. We also offer a truly unique service for better identifying complex natural hazards: the NATHAN Risk Suite. This made-to-measure product draws on extensive data resources to offer, among other options, precise identification of relatively highly exposed sites throughout the world, also taking into account the changes resulting from climate change


----------



## flacaltenn (May 28, 2012)

Sure Ole Rocks -- tons of money to be made appearing Green. Look at the dancing GE elephants commercials or the Fed Ex forest fairies.. When are you gonna realize you're being punked? GE makes off with BILLIONS in Green Fed giveaways and DEMs pretend they don't know why GE never paid taxes.

The gullible are being hosed.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2012)

Climate Change Science - Science behind climate change | Entergy



> ...The IPCC predicts an increase in sea levels of 3 feet by 2100 due to thermal expansion of the ocean. The areas shaded in red would be underwater.
> 
> Predictions for temperature increases range from 1.8 degrees (best case) to 8 degrees Celsius by 2100 if no action is taken to slow the current growth in global CO2 emissions. The thermal expansion of the oceans due to increased sea temperatures can be estimated, but the key unknown is the rate at which the land ice in Greenland and Antarctica will melt. The water contained in those glaciers represents approximately 39 feet of sea level equivalent. Even a fraction of that melt would be catastrophic.
> 
> ...



Sounds like an accurate and legitimate climate concern message to me.

Greenhouse gas performance and commitment | Entergy



In 2001, Entergy partnered with Environmental Defense and became the first domestic utility to voluntarily enact a five-year plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 2000 levels. Entergy beat the original target by 23 percent while increasing sales 21 percent during the same period.


In 2006, Entergy made a second commitment to stabilize CO2 emissions from its power plants and controllable purchased power at 20 percent below 2000 levels through 2010. Our cumulative CO2 emissions for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 were 122.9 million tons, 4 percent better than our stabilization goal of 127.7 million. Since we made our first stabilization commitment in 2001, we have emitted 327.4 million tons of CO2, which is nearly 17 percent below our cumulative stabilization goal for the eight-year period.


Entergy established a $25 million Environmental Initiatives Fund with 80 percent dedicated to changes in Entergy-owned assets and 20 percent for the purchase of CO2 offsets (e.g., agricultural projects, geologic sequestration or enhanced oil recovery).


Through the EIF, Entergy has made capital improvements on its existing fossil fleet, including coal plants, to improve efficiency. Improvements include increasing production from non-emitting nuclear units through capacity up-rates and increasing capacity factors, and increasing production from more efficient, low-emitting combined cycle gas turbines and combined heat and power resources. 

While I wouldn't call this list profound, they are certainly productive steps in the right direction and demonstrate a sincere effort to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Many major corporations are headed in a similar direction.


----------



## ginscpy (May 29, 2012)

There has always been climate change on planet earth since it was formed, and there always will be until the sun goes nova.


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

Remember when Bush CAUSED Hurricane Katrina.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Munich Re - Corporate Responsibility - Climate change
> 
> Putting knowledge to use, devising solutionsIn the financial and insurance sector, Munich Re is a pioneer in analysing the consequences of climate change. We are continually expanding the competence we have gained over decades in order to promote climate-protective solutions, for example, new cover concepts for investors in innovative, climate-friendly technologies. Moreover, we plan to place all our business activities within Munich Re (Group) throughout the world on a climate-neutral basis.
> 
> ...



In 1974 Climate Change was Global Cooling.

There's money to be made from GlobalWarmerCoolering, what a shocker

LOL What the fuck is a "Climate neutral basis"?  LOL  Did they plan on moving the Sun?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Remember when Bush CAUSED Hurricane Katrina.



And that was just the first of the annual Cat V Hurricanes that struck LA and FL because of ManMadeGlobalWamerCooleringClimateChangeDisruption


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Climate Change Science - Science behind climate change | Entergy
> 
> 
> 
> ...



IPCC is an EnviroMarxist organization that has a policy of redistributing wealth through Climate change.

(this post was made on a Climate neutral basis, the climate was not dramatically altered as a direct or indirect result of this post)


----------



## bobgnote (May 29, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Remember when Bush CAUSED Hurricane Katrina.



GW does a thing, which makes people THINK he enhances storm-surges, since low-pressure is similar to putting your mouth on a gasoline-hose and huffing.  They are caused by a relief, of pressure. 

But what GW really did was say 'nukuler,' a lot.  He was an AGW detractor.  AGW detractors won't let anybody legalize hemp or do CO2-neutral biomass research, and Democrats help them get'r'done, by passing Obamacare, losing the US House, and THEN the Ds tried to pass biomass research, which lost, 2012.  Ds and Rs are NOT doctors.  

Politicians and their pig-appointees are a nuisance, with a big carbon footprint.  Al Gore goes off, at his skeptics, but he really feeds them, when for years, he would not support legal pot, biomass like switchgrass, or re-greening.  Electirc gear-freaks continue to develop gear, which costs a lot, and it relies on coal-fired generators, to re-charge

Meanwhile, warming and acidification are both ACCELERATING.  Storms, desertification, and acidification can all cause mass extinction event 6.  Extinctions are 100 times, headed for 1000 times normal.  Oysters just had a die-off, in the Pacific NW.  The cod were decimated, and they are not recovering.  Reefs, plankton, eggs, little fish, and the entire oceanic food chain are threatened, NOW.

We either get CO2-neutral biomass and genetically engineered plants, to re-green, or we lose food from the oceans, then food from the land.  Hey, those hurricanes and tornadoes are rough.  The sea will come get us, in SF, LA, NYC, Miami, etc.  But the carbonic acid will stop the food chain, including the crops, on land.  Be stupid, if you must, but here comes real trouble.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Remember when Bush CAUSED Hurricane Katrina.
> ...



Did you say "Ocean acidification"?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

Local News | Acidity in ocean killed NW oysters, new study says | Seattle Times Newspaper

Researchers said Wednesday they can definitively show that ocean acidification is at least partly responsible for massive oyster die-offs at the hatchery in Netarts Bay, Ore.

It's the first concrete finding in North America that carbon dioxide being taken up by the oceans already is helping kill marine species.

"This is the smoking gun for oyster larvae," said Richard Feely, an oceanographer and leading marine-chemistry researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle and one of the paper's authors.

Said Alan Barton, another of the paper's authors: "It's now an incontrovertible fact that ocean chemistry is affecting our larvae."


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Local News | Acidity in ocean killed NW oysters, new study says | Seattle Times Newspaper
> 
> Researchers said Wednesday they can definitively show that ocean acidification is at least partly responsible for massive oyster die-offs at the hatchery in Netarts Bay, Ore.
> 
> ...



I thought CO2 was leeching OUT of the oceans in a "Feedback Loop"?  

Having the oceans suddenly absorb more CO2 is mutually exclusive with the central theory of AGW that as we head up the planet by burning fossil fuels the oceans loose their ability to absorb their "Fair share" of CO2

What acid does CO2 make when it enters the water? Can you tell the good people playing along at home?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

New research from last week 18/2012 « AGW Observer

Expected ocean acidification from human actions seems to be unprecedented in the geologic past

History of Seawater Carbonate Chemistry, Atmospheric CO2, and Ocean Acidification &#8211; Zeebe (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abstract: &#8220;Humans are continuing to add vast amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and other activities. A large fraction of the CO2 is taken up by the oceans in a process that lowers ocean pH and carbonate mineral saturation state. This effect has potentially serious consequences for marine life, which are, however, difficult to predict. One approach to address the issue is to study the geologic record, which may provide clues about what the future holds for ocean chemistry and marine organisms. This article reviews basic controls on ocean carbonate chemistry on different timescales and examines past ocean chemistry changes and ocean acidification events during various geologic eras. The results allow evaluation of the current anthropogenic perturbation in the context of Earth&#8217;s history. It appears that the ocean acidification event that humans are expected to cause is unprecedented in the geologic past, for which sufficiently well-preserved records are available.&#8221;

Citation: Richard E. Zeebe, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 40: 141-165 (Volume publication date May 2012), DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105521.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[1] About a quarter of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes into the oceans, where it forms carbonic acid.

As the amount of carbon has risen in the atmosphere there has been a corresponding rise of carbon going into the ocean. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[2] representing an increase of almost 30% in "acidity" (H+ ion concentration) in the world's oceans.[3][4][5]

This ongoing acidification of the oceans poses a threat to the food chains connected with the oceans.[6]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Local News | Acidity in ocean killed NW oysters, new study says | Seattle Times Newspaper
> 
> Researchers said Wednesday they can definitively show that ocean acidification is at least partly responsible for massive oyster die-offs at the hatchery in Netarts Bay, Ore.
> 
> ...



Hmmmmmmm. Why don't they mention this deadly acid, the same one that makes soda fuzz, in the article? What concentrations were observed? What was the ocean pH?

Why didn't they add some trace amount of this mystery acid to the harbor water to see the result?  They could have poured a can of Sprite in the water.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> New research from last week 18/2012 « AGW Observer
> 
> Expected ocean acidification from human actions seems to be unprecedented in the geologic past
> 
> ...



"Humans are continuing to add vast (lolz) amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and other activities. A large (lolz) fraction of the CO2 is taken up by the oceans 

(These are "Scientific papers"? Seriously?)

So there's no "feedback loop" anymore? The oceans are absorbing a "Large fraction" of it....very vague, no?  10%  60%?

Humans are adding vague amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere and the ocean is absorbing (not dispelling in a feedback loop) even vaguer but large amounts of CO2


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Local News | Acidity in ocean killed NW oysters, new study says | Seattle Times Newspaper
> 
> Researchers said Wednesday they can definitively show that ocean acidification is at least partly responsible for massive oyster die-offs at the hatchery in Netarts Bay, Ore.
> 
> ...



But if you wanted to control for soda pop fizz acid, isn't the proper way to conduct the experiment with harbor water and then harbor water with soda fizz acid?


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

Ole Rocks.. You just got to let the Wiki fascination go.. When the oceans start SELECTIVELY taking up JUST the anthropogenic CO2 -- I'll retire and more to higher ground..... 
You sure he wasn't talking about Lysergic Acid DiEthylamide?? 




> Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of *anthropogenic* carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[1] About a quarter of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes into the oceans, where it forms carbonic acid.



I hear that trees simply spit out the MAN-MADE stuff....


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Local News | Acidity in ocean killed NW oysters, new study says | Seattle Times Newspaper
> 
> Researchers said Wednesday they can definitively show that ocean acidification is at least partly responsible for massive oyster die-offs at the hatchery in Netarts Bay, Ore.
> 
> ...



hahahaha. the pacific northwest is full of wackos spewing crazy theories.

oysters live on the beach where pH swings of several tenths are the norm. yet they claim occasional wind storms churn up cooler water that is few hundredths lower than the surface and is killing the larvae. 

there's a sucker born every minute, I suppose.


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> There has always been climate change on planet earth since it was formed, and there always will be until the sun goes nova.



(it is doubtful that the Earth will be around during the solar "burping" period of our star's evolution, but, other than that,...) Indeed there has, what makes you believe this information (re:"There has always been climate change on planet earth since it was formed,..." is new, or relevent information to this discussion?


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Remember when Bush CAUSED Hurricane Katrina.



Can you cite or reference anyone other than pre-teatard conservidiots who have ever stated that Bush caused Hurricane Katrina, or more importantly, why you feel this comment is relevent to this thread's topic of discussion?


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Remember when Bush CAUSED Hurricane Katrina.
> ...



Never heard of any "annual Cat V Hurricanes" that were supposed to strike LA and FL, as any proposal of AGW, can you reference or otherwise support which climate agencies or researchers made this assertion?


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IPCC is an EnviroMarxist organization that has a policy of redistributing wealth through Climate change.



That is a fringe political conspiracy theory, nothing I have ever seen any compelling evidence in support of.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



You missed Al Gores' award-winning documentary? The endless repetition of the "more numerous, more powerful storms" crappola?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

Now Flat, why don't you just continue to demonstrate your incredible stupidity!

Munich Re - Effects during the winter half-year

Winter storms 
The number of intense low-pressure systems forming over the Atlantic and the proportion of westerly weather patterns rose steeply in the period from the 1970s until around 1990. 
Many climate models indicate an increase in severe storms by the end of the 21st century, despite a fall in winter low-pressure systems over the North Atlantic. As a result, Europe&#8217;s overall exposure to winter storms will rise. 
Models show greater exposure to wind, affecting in particular a corridor extending from the UK to central Europe, together with northern France, the Benelux states, Denmark and northern Germany. 
Studies based on a number of climate models project that Germany&#8217;s annual loss ratios for winter storm will increase by more than 100% between the reference period 1960&#8211;1990 and the scenario period 2070&#8211;2100. 
Torrential rain, floods 
Increased westerly air flows during the winter half-year have also resulted in a 20&#8211;30% rise in precipitation over western and southern Germany in recent decades, often bringing torrential rain and floods. 
A climate model analysis by the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg projects an increase in winter precipitation of some 10&#8211;20% between the 1961&#8211;1990 and 2071&#8211;2100 averages for Germany as a whole, and as much as 30% on the North Sea coast, in Schleswig-Holstein and in the Central German Uplands. 
Switzerland has experienced a far higher number of intense precipitation days (minimum 70 mm over a minimum 500 km2 surface area) on the northern edge and in the interior region of the Alps. 
Winter precipitation is projected to increase by some 10&#8211;20% in the Swiss plateau region, southern Switzerland, many parts of Upper and Lower Austria, Burgenland, Styria and Carinthia, most of the Czech Republic, parts of the Slovak Republic and in the Alpine regions of northern Italy.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

That's WEATHER Roxy -- not climate. Jet stream stuff. I was responding to Trakar request for an example of the AGW alarmist message on TRENDS in Cat 5 storms. How we are all gonna die must definately from killer hurricanes who can SENSE that 1 degree in surface temperature.... 

Not rinky-dink bad weather in northern Russia or Europe..


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

Rinky-dinky bad weather in Russia, Australia, USA, Thailand, and many other places that caused many billions of dollars of damage in just two years.

32 Extreme Weather Disasters Caused Over $1B Damage Each In 2011

2011 was a record-breaking year for extreme weather events around the world. There were 32 extreme weather events worldwide that each caused over $1 billion damage. Four disasters cost more than $10 billion each.

Tens of thousands of people were killed in various floods, droughts and severe storms. The drought in Somalia, which helped cause a famine, caused the death of over 30,ooo people; many were children.

There were huge floods in Brazil, Colombia, Pakistan, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines. The worst flood damage of the year, in terms of economic cost, was in Thailand. It amounted to around 18% of the country&#8217;s GDP.

In addition, we reported recently that lawmakers in Thailand are even considering building a second capital or moving Bangkok to higher ground. It would become the first megacity in the world to do so.


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> That's WEATHER Roxy -- not climate. Jet stream stuff. I was responding to Trakar request for an example of the AGW alarmist message on TRENDS in Cat 5 storms. How we are all gonna die must definately from killer hurricanes who can SENSE that 1 degree in surface temperature....
> 
> Not rinky-dink bad weather in northern Russia or Europe..



dont bother arguing with Old Rocks.  with him its always his links are good, your links are bad. his lines of reasoning are perfect, your lines are flawed. 

he never answers questions, he just endlessly and mindlessly puts up the same links. there is no possibility of a dialogue with him.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

Interpreted as, the son-of-a-gun goes to sources.

Again, there was no claim of yearly Cat 5's. However, there is a claim of increased extreme weather events. And that is exactly what we are seeing.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Interpreted as, the son-of-a-gun goes to sources.
> 
> Again, there was no claim of yearly Cat 5's. However, there is a claim of increased extreme weather events. And that is exactly what we are seeing.



You're as slimy as a lungfish.. Just when I thought you had zigged right out of the original issue -- you come back with this... 

How about --- I'm sure you're wrong on this and I will provide the appropriate links when the time suites me?? Why do think your kin are labeled ALARMISTS???


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

Alarmist? It was predicted that we would see an Arctic Ocean nearly clear of ice by 2100. Now it looks like 2030 at the latest, and maybe before 2020. At the end of a double La Nina, the April global temperature stood at 0.30. That is higher than any high prior to 1998.

UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

These 'alarmists' have been proven to be far to conservative in predicting the sensitivity to a rise in temperature, even as mild as the present one. And far too conservative in predicting the response of the cryosphere to that rise. 

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

Ok Ye Old Rocks... 

I don't do forum beat-downs anymore because I started to get night sweats imagining that I was busting on a 12 yr old or a confirmed mental case.. So let's just give you just ONE, then you say --- "I was mistaken flacaltenn, NOW I remember several other times the Alarmists went overboard on hurricanes". We be still friends and everybody gets a nightcap... 

Category 6 Hurricanes? They've Happened - ABC News



> There is no official Category 6 for hurricanes, but scientists say they're pondering whether there should be as evidence mounts that hurricanes around the world have sharply worsened over the past 30 years -- and all but a handful of hurricane experts now agree this worsening bears the fingerprints of man-made global warming.
> 
> *But because of man-made global warming, most hurricane scientists say now we will probably be getting Category 4 and 5 hurricanes more frequently in the coming decades*.



OR -- you could get all cranky and belligerient and start thinking like that Clint Eastwood scene depicts...

"... Now you're thinking do I have ONE link or HUNDREDS. Do you feel lucky punk? Well do ya?"


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



cite and reference any climate agency or researcher who claimed there would be annual Cat V hurricane landfalls in LA and FL, I'll even take a specific quote from the former Vice President's award winning documentary claiming annual Cat V Hurricanes would be striking LA and FL if that's the best you can do, but I've searched the transcript several times and I see nothing that could even be mistaken for that claim.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Category 6 Hurricanes? They've Happened - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How about a single reference that compellingly supports your assertion that anyone we should believe has stated that AGW would lead to annual category five hurricanes to hit the shores of LA and FL?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Ok Ye Old Rocks...
> 
> I don't do forum beat-downs anymore because I started to get night sweats imagining that I was busting on a 12 yr old or a confirmed mental case.. So let's just give you just ONE, then you say --- "I was mistaken flacaltenn, NOW I remember several other times the Alarmists went overboard on hurricanes". We be still friends and everybody gets a nightcap...
> 
> ...



Dumb ass. More frequently does not mean annually. Yes, when dealing with people that have no basis for their statements, I feel very lucky. For I learned to research the science behind the statements I make a long time ago.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2012)

The warmers never want the discussion to be about putting extreme weather into a historical context = fAiL.

Dozens of extremem weather events over the past 150 years worldwide................


NOAA News Online (Story 334)


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2012)

Yes, dozens of extreme weather events over the course of 150 years. Now we get dozens over the course of two years. A bit of a differance.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 30, 2012)

We go through the global warming hogwash every summer, as if it has never been summer before.


----------



## bobgnote (May 30, 2012)

And we get four hot, hotter, hot as hell, and hottest decades in a row, and that doesn't do anything for wingnutskies, who are still trying to sell oil, like Stalin is still alive.  Russia does export oil, nyet?  Assholes.  You cannot get any kind of pig to quit slopping and grow hemp, to save the planet, since Marxists, Christians, Zionists, oil barons, and wingnuts are all for the drug war, to hell with hemp and Henry Ford.

We get the hottest March on record, 2012, and warming isn't earlier, in the year?  Groundhogs is, as groundhogs does.  It's early Springtime, isn't it Phil!

The warming is accelerating, and this must happen, from release of trapped methane and its involvement, as glacial ice yields methane, warmed bodies of water yield methane, and lands formerly covered by permafrost yield more methane, before even one cow farts.

Gee, I am not disappointed at all, how Arctic ice may not completely disappear.  Overall, polar ice is still receding, fast as can be.  Do notice the Antarctic is losing ice, simultaneously, so the Arctic exchange is allowed to slow.  We will see the sea-level rise.

I guess it doesn't matter at all, how carbonic acidification is starting to kill reefs, and this can move to entire ocean species, in a blink.  But wingnuts don't think anybody has to eat, so if the ocean food-chain collapses, and we lose bees, and the Oglalla acquifier fails, and the US breadbasket fucks all up, wingnutskies can all go back to Russia, and beg food from the Ukraine!

Russian Meteorological Center: "There was nothing similar to this on the territory of Russia during the last one thousand years in regard to the heat." | ThinkProgress

Russia&#8217;s Fires & Pakistan&#8217;s Floods: The Result of a Stagnant Jet Stream? | 80beats | Discover Magazine

Shit happens, to wingnutski!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> We go through the global warming hogwash every summer, as if it has never been summer before.



And every decade sees hotter summers and warmer winters. And every decade sees faster glacial recession, more ice, by the gigaton, melted off of Greenland and Antarctica. And every decades sees more of you morons denying what is becoming obvious to everyone around the world.

You started out denying any change at all. Then you, and your obese junkie on the radio, moved on the stating that it was a natural increase, and minor at that. Now you are stating while it may have been pretty warm this decade, we are starting a cooling trend. Yet you present no evidence at all for your statements.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 30, 2012)

Now the goalpost is "find me a statement that hurricanes will hit Florida and Louisiana?" C'mon, the alarm bells have been clanging for 10 years now about STRONGER, LONGER hurricane seasons due to AGW. Sorry you selectively space-out on all that. TRY to find a AGW site that DOESN'T make that claim.. 

As for Trakar's search of Al Gore's movie.. Must have missed the frightening prediction of STRONGER, LONGER, And more frequent hurricanes right here...

Watch An Inconvenient Truth Online - An Inconvenient Truth Scene: Hurricanes, Typhoons And Cyclones - Zimbio


----------



## flacaltenn (May 30, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> And we get four hot, hotter, hot as hell, and hottest decades in a row, and that doesn't do anything for wingnutskies, who are still trying to sell oil, like Stalin is still alive.  Russia does export oil, nyet?  Assholes.  You cannot get any kind of pig to quit slopping and grow hemp, to save the planet, since Marxists, Christians, Zionists, oil barons, and wingnuts are all for the drug war, to hell with hemp and Henry Ford.
> 
> We get the hottest March on record, 2012, and warming isn't earlier, in the year?  Groundhogs is, as groundhogs does.  It's early Springtime, isn't it Phil!
> 
> ...



What exactly is this fantasy about saving the earth with hemp? 



> You cannot get any kind of pig to quit slopping and grow hemp, to save the planet, since Marxists, Christians, Zionists, oil barons, and wingnuts are all for the drug war, to hell with hemp and Henry Ford.



Can you give me ONE respectable mainstream environmental group (Sierra Club, EDF, etc) that claims that burning biomass or biomass products should be a major source of clean green energy? 

If we can cleanly burn hemp to generate power -- why can't we cleanly burn coal?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > And we get four hot, hotter, hot as hell, and hottest decades in a row, and that doesn't do anything for wingnutskies, who are still trying to sell oil, like Stalin is still alive.  Russia does export oil, nyet?  Assholes.  You cannot get any kind of pig to quit slopping and grow hemp, to save the planet, since Marxists, Christians, Zionists, oil barons, and wingnuts are all for the drug war, to hell with hemp and Henry Ford.
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Now the goalpost is "find me a statement that hurricanes will hit Florida and Louisiana?" C'mon, the alarm bells have been clanging for 10 years now about STRONGER, LONGER hurricane seasons due to AGW. Sorry you selectively all that. TRY to find a AGW site that DOESN'T make that claim..
> 
> As for Trakar's search of Al Gore's movie.. Must have missed the frightening prediction of STRONGER, LONGER, And more frequent hurricanes right here...
> 
> Watch An Inconvenient Truth Online - An Inconvenient Truth Scene: Hurricanes, Typhoons And Cyclones - Zimbio



Yes. That was the prediction. And the part concerning stronger and longer has proven to be accurate. We don't seem to be getting that many more, however. But the statement challenged is that Gore or some other person dealing with AGW claimed that Cat 5's would be hitting our coast on an annual basis. You have not shown that at all. In fact, you have only shown what we stated to be true from the beginning. That what was predicted was an increase in strength, longevity, and number.

You are trying to change the statement that you challenged on. Sorry, you flapped yap, and you are getting called on it.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 30, 2012)

Naw -- you're nit-picking and dodging responsibility for BEING an alarmist.. Not to mention ass-kissing your Alarmist in Cheif.. Good Job!!!


----------



## flacaltenn (May 30, 2012)

OLE ROCKS:::


> Do you understand the differance between using cyclic carbon and sequestered carbon? Obviously not.



Of course I do -- Don't think you do unless you can answer my question --



> If we can cleanly burn hemp to generate power -- why can't we cleanly burn coal?




 Do you understand the difference between a foul-mouthed pot-head and The Sierra Club???? 

Please see

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/225475-total-cost-of-nuclear.html#post5364186


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2012)

Gore's AIT was all exaggeration and unsubstantiated predictions of doom. 

that is why fewer and fewer people believe the nonsense now. fool me once.....

I really cant understand how anyone can even remotely support such travesties as AIT or the Hockey Stick. sticking up for frauds and liars makes it very likely that you are a fraud and a liar yourself.


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> ...Can you give me ONE respectable mainstream environmental group (Sierra Club, EDF, etc) that claims that burning biomass or biomass products should be a major source of clean green energy?
> 
> If we can cleanly burn hemp to generate power -- why can't we cleanly burn coal?



Well, environmental groups have more problem with vast monoculture tracts (be it barley, paper-mill pine farms, or power plant feedstock) but many of them do discuss the advantages and disadvantages of biomass power, and generally prefer it to any of the fossil fuels.

Natural Resources Defense Council Biomass Fact Sheet - </TITLE> </HEAD>

Union of Concerned Scientists - USA: How Biomass Works How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

There's a government lab reference as well:
NREL: Biomass Research Home Page

The main difference is that removing all of the carbon from the combustion of coal to produce energy and securely, reliably re-sequestering that carbon in a manner appropriate to keep it out of the environmental carbon cycle makes it uneconomical to use coal for this purpose. I have no problem with private industry funding research to see if there is an economically viable method of achieveing carbon neutral coal combustion (that would be a technology we could market to the world, along with our coal). Currently the capture processes are only fractionally effective and reliable, long-term geological sequestration is unevidenced.


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

IanC said:


> ...sticking up for frauds and liars makes it very likely that you are a fraud and a liar yourself.



Amazing coincidence!

I was just thinking the same thing as I read your post!


----------



## flacaltenn (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > ...Can you give me ONE respectable mainstream environmental group (Sierra Club, EDF, etc) that claims that burning biomass or biomass products should be a major source of clean green energy?
> ...



Yeah -- all that's roughly correct. But here's the rub. No matter what bio your massing with, you're gonna combust IT or a derivative of IT. So unless you envision the same sequestration for Biomass as you speak of for coal --  it'aint much greener. 

Now tighten your seat belt for the fun part.. Many eco orgs have listed Biomass as a green alternative for years before actually discovering they don't want to live anywhere near such a plant.. So they've pressured EPA to EXEMPT Biomass from the newest CO2 emissions regulations. Cool huh. Stroke of the pen -- everythings green.. That's led to a lot of new crap on internet about how dam green Biomass generation is.. All with a tiny disclaimer that "we don't count actual combustion emissions because the EPA doesn't either".. 

Upshot of that govt brain-fart is that now they got coal plants wanting to convert to burning any BioMass they can get their hands on so they don't have to look "dirty" anymore for Al Gore. And they'll get away with this charade as long as the Green groups are as technically f'ked up as they are.. 

http://wunc.org/programs/news/archive/tfr081511.mp3/view



> The lawsuit comes shortly after Charlotte-based Duke Energy won a ruling from the North Carolina Court of Appeals saying that it could count burning whole trees in its coal-fired plants toward its state renewable energy mandates.  That ruling from the North Carolina Utilities Commission was being challenged by the Environmental Defense Fund and North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association.   Environmentalists are considering appealing that ruling to the state Supreme Court. State law mandates power companies get 12.5 % percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2021. Gudrun Thompson is the senior attorney for the SELC who was working on the case against Duke Energy. She says there are no environmental safeguards on the practice of cutting forests and burning them for electricity.



*Those silly greenies just CAN'T make up their little minds *--- can they? I'd laugh if it wasn't so seriously f'ked.

See this post linked below for a Sierra Club who once included biomass on it's list of clean green snorky energy..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/225475-total-cost-of-nuclear.html#post5364186

Or how about --

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe796


> Biomass fuels produced only 0.5 percent of the electricity in 2007and caused 2.7 percent of the CO2 emissions



http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/3375/stack-attack



> The group opposes the plant for several reasons outlined on its Web site, www.concernedcitizensofrussell.org, including trucking routes and frequency of travel, river impacts, forest sustainability and, of course, plant emissions. The area already has high levels of air pollution because of its location and geography, according to CCR spokeswoman Jana Chicoine. "This site is ringed by mountains," she says. "You've got a 300-foot smokestack next to a 1,100-foot mountain."
> 
> Emission Impacts
> 
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (May 31, 2012)

BTW --- that NRDC statement is absolutely PATHETIC. What a load of spin and BS...

What else do you expect from a room full of lawyers..


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2012)

No, Flat, you do not understand the differance between cyclic carbon and sequestered carbon. Cyclic carbon is carbon that is already in the system, burning do not add it or remove it from the system. Sequestered carbon, in the form of petroleum, natural gas, or coal, is not presently in the system. When you burn it, you add it to the system. Now there are methods to re-sequester that carbon, but they are very expensive, and of doubtful success. 

We have added carbon to the system to the point where we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and 150% more CH4. We have also added other GHGs, NOx, and many industrial gases that have no natural analogs, and are thousands of times as powerful of a GHG as CO2. In reality, we are well past the equivelant of a 450 ppm CO2 level. And we are starting to see the consequences right now.


----------



## jack113 (May 31, 2012)

Biomass is just another form of carbon when it is burnt and worthless when it is used to replace one form of carbon with another.

America will do what it has been doing since Reagan and sit on the sidelines with global warming and allow all the other countries like China to develop green energy sources and make all the profits while America uses global warming for nothing but campaign donations. In the mean time our children suffer from air born pollution and become weaker with each new generation all because the people world rather play politically correct instead of responsible free thinkers.


----------



## bobgnote (May 31, 2012)

jack113 said:


> Biomass is just another form of carbon when it is burnt and worthless when it is used to replace one form of carbon with another.
> 
> America will do what it has been doing since Reagan and sit on the sidelines with global warming and allow all the other countries like China to develop green energy sources and make all the profits while America uses global warming for nothing but campaign donations. In the mean time our children suffer from air born pollution and become weaker with each new generation all because the people world rather play politically correct instead of responsible free thinkers.



The Sierra Club is a load of geeks, riding their thumbs, on timber and nuker donations.  You cannot get the Sierra Club, to advocate re-greening, for that reason.  You cannot get Al Gore to support legal pot, since he likes to circle-jerk with wingnuts, for money, and they all will come to the foregone conclusion, to construct nuclear power plants.

Look at all the assholes, who don't know biomass digests CO2, when the plant media grows, and the CO2 is released, when it burns, IF it burns!  Hemp makes a lot of food and durable products, in addition to fuels.

I had one wing-nut asshole at another site ask why natural gas isn't CO2-neutral.  Coal and petroleum are former plant-matter, so they are like CO2-neutral biomass, but to burn THAT is ridiculous, since it can be stored, for later generations to use, wisely, when people are smarter and they burn petroleum cleaner and less egregiously, if at all.

Petroleum is not _clean._  Petroleum products like gasoline and pesticides are not for huffing, f-tards.  Huffing breaks chromosomes.  Got B and G cancer?  You have been huffing pesticides and car exhaust.  Sorry!  Clean up.

Why are we not harvesting hemp and switchgrass, when we need to hedge, against CO2-accumulation, which is so bad, never mind how, carbonic acid can destroy the oceanic food chain?  Fuck-tard the wing-nut and his pals need to write off their petroleum agendas.

The methane releases accelerate, the CO2 releases accelerate, the warming accelerates, and the acidification accelerates.  People are letting this happen, _even if fuck-tard people are not the only or primary source, of the pollution._  Fuck-tard people will reform or die.  No TV works, when you break it, me tardies.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Its the jet stream shifting around causing weather changes.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## jack113 (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Its the jet stream shifting around causing weather changes.  Thanks for playing.



You play the republican denial game well but you are to late and the GOP will not gain power again for many decades.

You science denying freaks should be denied the right to have children just so you can throw them under the bus.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Suggesting I would harm my kids is just wrong.


----------



## jack113 (May 31, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> > Biomass is just another form of carbon when it is burnt and worthless when it is used to replace one form of carbon with another.
> ...



Coal. natural gas and oil are all from the same carbon source in different form.

I could care less about the tree hugers wood and paper are a renewable source for many things. Glass is reusable many times over unlike plastic that has to be melted down each time it is used over. Electric cars will be great when we have a green energy supply to support them but for now it just puts a bigger strain on the conventional energy supply that is doing all the damage.

Their are many ways to go green and stop being slaves to the energy cons.


----------



## tjvh (May 31, 2012)

jack113 said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > jack113 said:
> ...



Ride a bike, and stay off our overcrowded highways.


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Yeah -- all that's roughly correct. But here's the rub. No matter what bio your massing with, you're gonna combust IT or a derivative of IT. So unless you envision the same sequestration for Biomass as you speak of for coal --  it'aint much greener.



Well, it certainly doesn't reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but burning biomass does not add carbon to the active environmental carbon cycle either. The carbon in biomass comes from the active environmental carbon cycle, the carbon in coal comes from outside the active environmental carbon cycle and increases the amount of carbon in that active cycle. Burning biomass is like taking a cup, dipping it into a filled bathtub and then pouring the water back into the tub. Burning coal is like turning on the faucet and adding more water from the outside into the tub. 



> Upshot of that govt brain-fart is that now they got coal plants wanting to convert to burning any BioMass they can get their hands on so they don't have to look "dirty" anymore for Al Gore. And they'll get away with this charade as long as the Green groups are as technically f'ked up as they are..
> 
> Lawsuits Focus on Biomass Facilities &mdash; North Carolina Public Radio WUNC



What does Al Gore have to do with anything? I don't see anything to do with green groups in this linked article, it seems to be about couple of attorneys arguing about a dispute between a power company and a local community.



> *Those silly greenies just CAN'T make up their little minds *--- can they? I'd laugh if it wasn't so seriously f'ked.
> 
> See this post linked below for a Sierra Club who once included biomass on it's list of clean green snorky energy..
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/225475-total-cost-of-nuclear.html#post5364186



Not sure if it is a link issue or a misunderstanding, but this looks like a video of some sort of (fallacious) assessment of the Japanese reactors damaged by the earthquake/tsunami, I didn't notice anything about Sierra Club or biomass. 



> Or how about --
> 
> FE796/FE796: Fuel Sources and Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Electric Power Plants in the United States
> 
> ...



Again biomass is carbon neutral in that the carbon released in it's combustion came from the atmosphere in the first place, the only possible way that biomass power generation facillities might be slightly non-neutral, is that some designs use natural gas initiators to ignite the biomass in the stoking chamber of the boilers. I suspect, however that this chart simply doesn't distinguish between carbon sources. 



> Biomass Power and Thermal | Biomassmagazine.com
> 
> "Opposition to biomass power plants in Massachusetts is uniquely strong, organized, gifted, qualified, focused and accomplished, I think, in all the world," she says, adding that the idea of biomass being carbon neutral is a "fairy tale."



Certainly sounds like a NIMBY whackadoodle, but I'd be willing to listen to her arguments and examine her references before passing judgement. 

It is simply broadbrushstroke silly, however to think that everyone who is confused about the facts or eschewing facts to pursue their own personal issues is or ever has been truely concerned about the climate or the environment.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 31, 2012)

LOL

Is this what happens where there's more CO2?

"A TOMATO PLANT AS HIGH AS A 3-STORY BUILDING? That's right!
Japanese physicist Dr. Kei Mori exposed plant life to two of the conditions of the original world ecology - before the Great Flood.

He grew tomato plants under a plastic dome which filtered the ultraviolet rays; and he increased the carbon-dioxide. 

After two years, a cherry tomato plant was 16 feet tall, with 903 tomatoes on it. After six years, the same tomato plant was over 30 feet tall and had produced over 5,000 tomatoes. 

That tomato plant just didn't want to die. Ask yourself now, How long do tomato plants usually live? Perhaps five or six months? They die of old age, destroyed by ultra-violet radiation.

Beyond the Physical Realm: Conditions of The Original World Ecology - Archaeology Newsflash No. 128 - Jonathan Gray


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> BTW --- that NRDC statement is absolutely PATHETIC. What a load of spin and BS...
> 
> What else do you expect from a room full of lawyers..



Exactly what do you find pathetic, spun or BS?

I would appreciate it if you would list the specific statements that you find objectionable.

NRDC: Renewable Energy for America: Biomass


----------



## bobgnote (May 31, 2012)

He grew his tomato plants under a plastic dome . . .

So he didn't significantly increase the CO2-carbonic acid exchange, in the oceans, did he.

I have yet to get an answer, from any wing-nut, about carbonic acidification, which exceeds: 'Ohhh, carbonic acid, scary!'  Wing-nut fuck-tards . . .  the Japanese will miss their tuna, when the tuna cannot breed, anymore, due to acid pollution, in the oceans.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 31, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> He grew his tomato plants under a plastic dome . . .
> 
> So he didn't significantly increase the CO2-carbonic acid exchange, in the oceans, did he.
> 
> I have yet to get an answer, from any wing-nut, about carbonic acidification, which exceeds: 'Ohhh, carbonic acid, scary!'  Wing-nut fuck-tards . . .  the Japanese will miss their tuna, when the tuna cannot breed, anymore, due to acid pollution, in the oceans.



I thought Global Warming was causing CO2 to leech OUT of the warmer oceans in a "feedback Loop"

You realize that the "ocean acidification" and "feedback Loop" are mutually exclusive, right?


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

jack113 said:


> Biomass is just another form of carbon when it is burnt and worthless when it is used to replace one form of carbon with another.
> 
> America will do what it has been doing since Reagan and sit on the sidelines with global warming and allow all the other countries like China to develop green energy sources and make all the profits while America uses global warming for nothing but campaign donations. In the mean time our children suffer from air born pollution and become weaker with each new generation all because the people world rather play politically correct instead of responsible free thinkers.



Biomass - Is Burning It Bad For The Environment? - Biomass - Is Burning It Bad For The Environment? - Global Warming - Zimbio

What is BIOMASS? - What is BIOMASS?

And I did find this from the MA Sierra club, which does explain some of the "non-carbon neutral" statements, and they sound reasonable, but comparing the non-neutral carbon of bio mass to the non-neutral carbon of coal, still leaves biomass as a preferred substitute for coal.

Massachusetts Chapter Sierra Club



> Claims of carbon neutrality for biomass do not account for externalities and full lifecycle accounting of carbon, including harvesting processing and transportation of fuels. Truckloads of biomass fuel would need to be transported on regional roads, adding to diesel particulate pollution and additional fuel use.


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> > Biomass is just another form of carbon when it is burnt and worthless when it is used to replace one form of carbon with another.
> ...



You have some very peculiar misunderstandings about the world.


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Its the jet stream shifting around causing weather changes.  Thanks for playing.



Shifting jet streams are one factor in some types of weather, as are the angle of incident sunlight and length of day (most often associated with "season"), whether or not one lives near a large body of water or mountains, etc.,.

Did you have a point?


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Its the jet stream shifting around causing weather changes.  Thanks for playing.
> ...



SUre did.  Not sure why you missed it.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> LOL
> 
> Is this what happens where there's more CO2?
> 
> ...



Winter's a pain too.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > BTW --- that NRDC statement is absolutely PATHETIC. What a load of spin and BS...
> ...



We don't get our oil from the Persian Gulf.

Glosses over the carbon footprint of moving the biomass to a generation plant.  Also, most facilities of this type are cogeneration plants.

Biomass must be dried in some cases.  That uses energy.

Overlooks many problems that exist currently.


----------



## yidnar (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> *Working to cope with climate change: A guest column by J. Wayne Leonard and Raymond C. Offenheiser*
> Working to cope with climate change: A guest column by J. Wayne Leonard and Raymond C. Offenheiser | NOLA.com
> 
> 
> ...


climate change is part of nature . it has happened in the past ,present ,and will do so in the future !!! you damn leftist are so arrogant !! you not only want total control of our lives and free market system ,you want to control the weather too !!!


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> LOL
> Is this what happens where there's more CO2?...



In some specific and restricted examples, perhaps, but in general, no.

Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals - Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals

United States Geological Survey has this video lesson about increased CO2 and plant responses. - Potential Effects of Elevated CO2 and Climate Change on Coastal Wetlands - USGS Multimedia Gallery: (Video)--Potential Effects of Elevated CO2 and Climate Change on Coastal Wetlands


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Climate Change Science - Science behind climate change | Entergy
> 
> SNIP..



Fuck, y'all are WAY worse than the Jehovah's witnesses and Scientologists.

Take your stupid religion and shove it up your ass.

Seriously.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change &#8211; namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. ~from Trakar's source #1

Let's see, more CO2, water and food means less plants.  Listen to yourself.  lol


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...



In general, no?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change  namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. ~from Trakar's source #1
> 
> Let's see, more CO2, water and food means less plants.  Listen to yourself.  lol



Hey, it's in the "Watchtower," who is he to argue?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...



Uh huh.

They increased CO2 and then turned on the hurricane fans to simulate the CAT V hurricanes that would be spawned by the "manmade global warming", hence lowered plant growth

AGW: It just ain't science


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I thought Global Warming was causing CO2 to leech OUT of the warmer oceans in a "feedback Loop"
> 
> You realize that the "ocean acidification" and "feedback Loop" are mutually exclusive, right?



The oceans are still, currently, a net sink of CO2, as they continue to warm, however, they do become less and less able to hold CO2. In many areas of the globe the warm surface waters have alredy exceeded this threshold and are in fact releasing stored CO2, but there are still enough cold water areas that are still absorbing atmospheric CO2 that the oceans overall are a net CO2 sink, but the amount of CO2 that they can absorb is decreasing as the waters warm.

Feed back loops in complex systems are not so simplistic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...



Ever once in a while, I recommend that Progressives try reading the articles they link to. 

"To understand complex ecological systems, the traditional approach of isolating one factor and looking at that response, then extrapolating to the whole system, is often not correct," Mooney said. "On an ecosystem scale, many interacting factors may be involved."

LOL.

But then they can safely say that a .002% change in Earth atmospheric composition by adding CO2 is melting the ice caps and causing the rising oceans to turn acidic killing sea life in the process

Rising acidic oceans...eeek!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I thought Global Warming was causing CO2 to leech OUT of the warmer oceans in a "feedback Loop"
> ...



That sounds familiar...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUQkbXWwJhQ]&#39;what i win?&#39; the jerk. - YouTube[/ame]

You know you're just making shit up as you go, right?


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Wonder how sweaty these guys get riding their generator bikes to post here?


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> We don't get our oil from the Persian Gulf.



I don't see anything about the originating source of oil on this page?



> Glosses over the carbon footprint of moving the biomass to a generation plant.  Also, most facilities of this type are cogeneration plants.



Typically transportation from mine to powerplant isn't included in coal's carbon footprint either and if you mandate that all vehicles and equipment used in the recovery, processing and combustion of biomass utilize biofuels, they become carbon neitral as well. 



> Biomass must be dried in some cases.  That uses energy.



But not necessarily fossil fuels.



> Overlooks many problems that exist currently.



Every energy source has issues, that doesn't mean that such are insurmountable nor that even with the problems they are undesirable in comparison to coal or oil.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > We don't get our oil from the Persian Gulf.
> ...



They are undesirable to date.  Otherwise they would be is use and at a reasonable cost.

My replies in blue.


----------



## bobgnote (May 31, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I thought Global Warming was causing CO2 to leech OUT of the warmer oceans in a "feedback Loop"
> 
> You realize that the "ocean acidification" and "feedback Loop" are mutually exclusive, right?


You realize your head is way, way up your own ass, don't you?  The smell of your own shit can't be good, for anyone but you.  So don't keep farting and giggling and quoting yourself.  Carbonic acid is in the oceans, not just in your sodas, fatty.

You realize you are in a logic-loop, and you are a loopy wing-nut, who needs to read my other post, in reply to your other stupid post, relative to carbonic acid experiments.  You are blocking the known facts, about carbonic acid exchange, and all connected media.

You do realize quoting yourself shows your head is up your own ass!  How far?  Way, way up in there . . .  Come out, Frankie.  Wash up, join the rest of humanity.

And when you are ready, carbon exchanges to carbonic acid, in water, and your crap about a simple CO2-loop is not relevant or scholarly.


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

yidnar said:


> climate change is part of nature . it has happened in the past ,present ,and will do so in the future !!! you damn leftist are so arrogant !! you not only want total control of our lives and free market system ,you want to control the weather too !!!



What is arrogant is believing that you can do as you please and add billions of tons per year of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and it will have no impact at all. Your right to do as you wish only extends to the point where your actions restrict the rights of others. This isn't about left or right, the "free market" is a liberal economic system (Economic liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). BTW, addressing AGW involves reducing humanity's influence and impacts on the environment, not an attempt to control of manipulate the environment.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I thought Global Warming was causing CO2 to leech OUT of the warmer oceans in a "feedback Loop"
> ...



Please show us how CO2 is permanently trapped in the oceans dimwit.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> > climate change is part of nature . it has happened in the past ,present ,and will do so in the future !!! you damn leftist are so arrogant !! you not only want total control of our lives and free market system ,you want to control the weather too !!!
> ...



Is it climate change or global warming faither?

AGW is all about manipulating data and funding.

None of your theories prove man is the cause of anything.  Just long standing cycles that existed before man.


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change  namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. ~from Trakar's source #1
> 
> Let's see, more CO2, water and food means less plants.  Listen to yourself.  lol



Your reading and comprehension skills appear to be wanting.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change  namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. ~from Trakar's source #1
> ...



Please show how it means anything different.


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You know you're just making shit up as you go, right?



That is your game, I am simply relating the understandings and observations of the mainstream scientific perspective of this issue.


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Is it climate change or global warming faither?



The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was established in 1987 to review the scientifc evidence and understandings regarding the issue of global warming.

Climate change is the process, a gradual warming of the globe is the symptom we are realizing in the modern climate change. 

There is no room for faith in this issue. The science is based on facts, observations and interconnected science understandings that involve most fields of natural science.   



> AGW is all about manipulating data and funding.



that is your unsupported and irrational conspiracy theory



> None of your theories prove man is the cause of anything.  Just long standing cycles that existed before man.



These are simply your false and flawed misunderstandings and arrogant ignorances on display.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Your reading and comprehension skills appear to be wanting.



Do you stand at the bus station in a nice suit handing out the "Watchtower" (or whatever the fuck Gaea publication) to unwilling passers by?

Do you spend your weekends knocking on doors demanding that people repent of their carbon sins and submit to the AGW church, both in obedience and with their wealth?

For the record, your religion is primitive, caveman bullshit. The shamans that you follow are NOT the first shamans to claim that we anger the volcano god and must "sacrifice" lest the village (upgraded to world) be destroyed.

And no, I'm not giving you my virgin daughters to sacrifice.


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Higher levels of atmospheric CO2, counteract the other influences of warmer temperatures, additional water and nitrogenous fertilizers, reducing plant growth by roughly 48% (40/84) compared to these same conditions with lower levels of atmospheric CO2.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You know you're just making shit up as you go, right?
> ...



The dominant group in the study area as been caught manipulating data and methodology.  They are a small group that runs the society where published papers are peer reviewed.  In a most unscientific way, they have supressed opposing views.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



So hothouses are lies and worthless.  lol

You are misreading the paragraph it doesn't say counteract at all.  It says, "combined".  Talk about poor reading comprehension and skills.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 31, 2012)

Trakar said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Is it climate change or global warming faither?
> ...



IPCC, redistributing wealth through climate policy since 1987


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 31, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Change Science - Science behind climate change | Entergy
> ...



LOL! So I guess Entergy Corp is an EnviroMaxist organization as well! Tell me genius how wealth gets redistributed through climate change?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> LOL! So I guess Entergy Corp is an EnviroMaxist organization as well! Tell me genius how wealth gets redistributed through climate change?



Cap & Trade.

Biggest securities fraud in over a century. Literally giving well connected looters license to sell nothing at an enormous price. Goldman Sachs (major contributor to Obama) can sell you indulgences (carbon credits) which allow you to sin (manufacture goods) with the blessing of the church. You can resell the indulgences, giving a fee to the issuing agency.

Like all religions, AGW is ultimately about stealing as much money as possible before getting caught. All fraud boils down to money - global warming is a prime example.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 31, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > LOL! So I guess Entergy Corp is an EnviroMaxist organization as well! Tell me genius how wealth gets redistributed through climate change?
> ...



That's not even how it works.
Goldman Sachs would only be a broker of the sale.

And you may be surprised to know that energy companies do not own the atmosphere.




Hey, BTW, how much damage has SO2 and NxO cap and trade caused us?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> That's not even how it works.



That's exactly how it works.



> Goldman Sachs would only be a broker of the sale.



The sale of nothing for an enormous price.



> And you may be surprised to know that energy companies do not own the atmosphere.



No one is selling the "atmosphere." It is the selling of indulgences. It is good old fashioned fraud.




> Hey, BTW, how much damage has SO2 and NxO cap and trade caused us?



Hard to say, it's all fraud. It's all a means of the well connected using the power of the state to steal from the productive. 

*A* will give* B* nothing,

*C* brokers the deal, collecting a fat brokerage fee.

*C* bribes *A* to pass more laws requiring *B* to buy nothing at very high prices.

In a civil society, this type of corruption is frowned upon. But in the current kleptocracy, it's just the way things are done. The "skeptics" are just Martin Luther nailing the 95-theses to the door of your corrupt church.

AGW is nothing more than a vehicle for fraud and corruption. It's never been more than that. That's why the science doesn't work and inquiry is met with attack. Real science depends on contrary views and challenges. But AGW isn't science, it's dogma and cannot afford legitimate falsification.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 31, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > That's not even how it works.
> ...



They aren't selling "nothing" and they only get paid a comission. A private company would sell the credit to another private comany and the credit allows the bearer to emit a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Depending on the particular form of the system, the initial allowance may be auctioned by governent or it may be free. I favor a free allocation system. It will have the same effect to the environment while not removing net dollars from the private industry. 






> No one is selling the "atmosphere." It is the selling of indulgences. It is good old fashioned fraud.



The sale of a carbon credit represents the sale of the right to emit certain amount of CO2. You do not go to hell for emitting CO2.  Its not an indulgence. 



> > Hey, BTW, how much damage has SO2 and NxO cap and trade caused us?
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to say, it's all fraud. It's all a means of the well connected using the power of the state to steal from the productive.



Hard to say? Gee I thought you were the expert on the downsides of cap and trade systems - and here you're telling me its "hard to say" what negatives were caused by sulfer and nitrous cap and trade? 




> *A* will give* B* nothing,
> 
> *C* brokers the deal, collecting a fat brokerage fee.
> 
> ...




Really? So when Arrhenius published the first paper on the subjec over 100 years ago he was really just the leader of a massive worldwide conspiracy lasting multiple generations?




> That's why the science doesn't work and inquiry is met will attack. Real science depends on contrary views and challenges. But AGW isn't science, it's dogma and cannot afford legitimate falsification.




You gonna show us HOW the science doesn't work? Or is it HARD TO SAY?


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That is your unsupported delusional conspiracy theory, asserting such does not make it compelling or legitimate.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> They aren't selling "nothing" and they only get paid a comission.



You're selling "bugbear farts."  You claim that these have magical properties and only the wise can smell them. Naturally, George Clooney and Matt Damon pontificate about the sweet aroma of the bugbear farts.

That there is no evidence that a bugbear exists is beside the point, the "kool kids" need to show how wise they are, how caring and in-tune, so they smell the farts without question, attacking and snubbing those who would be crass enough to question.



> A private company would sell the credit to another private comany and the credit allows the bearer to emit a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.



Except the first company has to GET the indulgence from somewhere, before the grand game of trading indulgences can commence. 

Will Pope Algore the Malfeasant grant special indulgence on the faithful allowing them to exhale? Seeing how it is a carbon sin to breath, and all....



> Depending on the particular form of the system, the initial allowance may be auctioned by governent or it may be free.



Well damn, we can take nothing, and auction it off.

Ain't fraud sweet?



> I favor a free allocation system. It will have the same effect to the environment while not removing net dollars from the private industry.



It will remove trillions from the economy - that's the whole point. You don't set up securities fraud of this magnitude NOT to loot the fuck out of the economy...

This is the biggest theft in human history, the well connected ripping off virtually the entire globe. About 2 or 3% of the wealth of the entire world will be given to some very crooked fuckers. Pope Algore and scumbags like Michael Mann are just conmen, convincing the stupid that the ripoff is for their own good. Hey, but you can pat yourself on the back, you're saving the village from the wrath of the volcano god.



> The sale of a carbon credit represents the sale of the right to emit certain amount of CO2.



How original.

I wonder why no one has ever thought to sell an indulgence to allow the masses to sin before this?



> You do not go to hell for emitting CO2.  Its not an indulgence.



ROFL

Uh-huh....



> Hard to say? Gee I thought you were the expert on the downsides of cap and trade systems - and here you're telling me its "hard to say" what negatives were caused by sulfer and nitrous cap and trade?



Dude, this is a fraud, a scam, the long-con. The same routine has been used repeatedly throughout history. Call it the volcano god, Gaea, or Anthropogenic Global Warming, it's all the same old con. People just don't bother to learn, to look at history. We're always eager to believe the next apocalypse myth, and to rape, murder and pillage in service of the latest myth.



> Really? So when Arrhenius published the first paper on the subjec over 100 years ago he was really just the leader of a massive worldwide conspiracy lasting multiple generations?



A good con needs some level of plausibility. One thing that is predictable about the climate is that it's in a constant state of flux. We have had papers on every subject from ice ages to population bombs in the last hundred years. I have a popular science from 1965 that shows the flying cars we would all drive by the year 2000. I was told all through High School that California would be falling into the ocean long before I reached adulthood. Nuclear annihilation was right around the corner. Jimmy Carter told me that the Soviets were vastly superior to us, thus we would inevitably fall to them and must appease as a means of survival.

None of it happened, it was all bullshit speculation. Because people love doomsday. Part of it is ego, we grasp that we are going to die, so how can the world still go on without us? Thus the world must be ending.

The con-men The Algore's and Phil Jones, and those holding their leashes, latch on and use this to manipulate the stupid.



> You gonna show us HOW the science doesn't work? Or is it HARD TO SAY?



In my 20's, a Jehovah's witness came to my door to convert me - so that his filthy church could rip me off, since that is the real reason they exist. He went into his silly shpeal. Being young, I foolishly started to debate him, pointing out that they had predicted that Jesus would return in September of 1914, then when it didn't happen, they moved the date, and then came up with the idea that Jesus DID return, but no one noticed. He went into all the dogma points of why I just didn't grasp the wisdom of the fact that Jesus really had returned.

Now I don't argue dogma with fanatics, be they JW's or AGW's. I take the broad view, looking at the scam, the con, not the details of dogma.

No, I won't argue scripture with you, I don't believe your scripture. But I do see your fraud, it's as clear as day, the same fraud that's been used repeatedly for thousands of years.

Luther called you on it, and I'm calling you on it.


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Hothouses only warm the interior environment, they do not manipulate the other factors.

"...But results from the third year of the experiment revealed a more complex scenario. While treatments involving increased temperature, nitrogen deposition or precipitation  alone or in combination  promoted plant growth, the addition of elevated CO2 consistently dampened those increases..."
Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

So your source had conflicting internal issues.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## Trakar (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> So your source had conflicting internal issues.  Thanks for playing.



Nothing internally conflicted in the source, just in your confused misread fail.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 31, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Flat, you do not understand the differance between cyclic carbon and sequestered carbon. Cyclic carbon is carbon that is already in the system, burning do not add it or remove it from the system. Sequestered carbon, in the form of petroleum, natural gas, or coal, is not presently in the system. When you burn it, you add it to the system. Now there are methods to re-sequester that carbon, but they are very expensive, and of doubtful success.
> 
> We have added carbon to the system to the point where we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and 150% more CH4. We have also added other GHGs, NOx, and many industrial gases that have no natural analogs, and are thousands of times as powerful of a GHG as CO2. In reality, we are well past the equivelant of a 450 ppm CO2 level. And we are starting to see the consequences right now.



You know ye Ole Rocks how fond I am of you -- but I'm APPALLED at insistence on defending the indefensible. Biomass for power generation is a dirty environmental mess. It is NOT zero Carbon, just like an EV is NOT zero emissions. But since the EPA can wave a wand and say that the shit that comes out of a BIOMASS incinerator does not stink, you think you can ignore the Sierra Club, ME and other REAL environmentalists and mimic those govt pinheads with all the redefinitions.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 31, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> > Biomass is just another form of carbon when it is burnt and worthless when it is used to replace one form of carbon with another.
> ...



You can ignore the majority of REAL environmental groups like the Sierra Club (not lawyers selling stuffed teddy bears) at your peril.. Biomass is NOT carbon neutral, displaces food crops, contributes NOx and SOx in the smokestack, and uses large amounts of other fuels and water to get it to the fire.. If you had a REAL alternative, one you wouldn't mind living right next to --- the fucktards might listen to you....


----------



## bobgnote (May 31, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> You can ignore the majority of REAL environmental groups like the Sierra Club (not lawyers selling stuffed teddy bears) at your peril.. Biomass is NOT carbon neutral, displaces food crops, contributes NOx and SOx in the smokestack, and uses large amounts of other fuels and water to get it to the fire.. If you had a REAL alternative, one you wouldn't mind living right next to --- the fucktards might listen to you....


I let the Sierras go in the 1990s, when a timber guy got on their board, and a lot of pro-nuclear media showed up, in and around the SC.

If YOU have time, to put up with a shitload that asks for money, has nothing to offer, and strokes in a circle with you, go ahead.  Hit on the SC.  It's for fuck-tards, like you.  You go for whatever they are selling, FT.  I don't.

You are a fuck-tard:  Coal releases sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, biomass must release some NO2.  Your head is far, far up your own ass, claiming SO2 from biomass.  

And if we do not re-green, we will have problems, in traffic.  I bet you don't drive well.

You don't listen because you are a fuck-tard, not from any fault in my logic.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 31, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



IMHO -- the sale of credits was a WONDERFUL invention for REAL pollution because you could assess cost to the act of polluting.. Therefore the credits had economic meaning. With CO2 it's different. It's a fertilizer, it's cow farts, it's the fizz in your beer. REAL hard to find the actual transaction cost with something that doesn't cause measurable damage. 

Should FARMERS and the soda industry and your Grandmother have to participate in carbon credits? Of course they SHOULD --- but with a wave of baton, the minions of Muldur exempted them from the fray -- giving LESS meaning to the remaining players in the marketplace. Grandma wasn't a huge contributor to NOx and SOx pollution, but we have to have a talk with her about her "carbon footprint"..


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You claim that these have magical properties and only the wise can smell them.



Where do I claim that?



> Naturally, George Clooney and Matt Damon pontificate about the sweet aroma of the bugbear farts.


Why are you obsessed with celebrity?



> That there is no evidence that a bugbear exists is beside the point, the "kool kids" need to show how wise they are, how caring and in-tune, so they smell the farts without question, attacking and snubbing those who would be crass enough to question.



I can see you don't want to be taken seriously. So I won't. Now run along and play.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 1, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Really? What was cost of actual polluting in the case of So2 and NxO emissions?

How accurately must the cost of Co2 emission be pinned down before its worth doing anything about?

What would the cost of you getting cancer or heart disease be to your family? Do you have an exact number? If not, you probably shouldn't worry about trying to not get cancer or heart disease. Unless you can figure out the cost of it in exact economic terms - why worry? Just pretend it doesn't exist. And find a blog that supports your viewpoint.



> Should FARMERS and the soda industry and your Grandmother have to participate in carbon credits? Of course they SHOULD --- but with a wave of baton, the minions of Muldur exempted them from the fray -- giving LESS meaning to the remaining players in the marketplace. Grandma wasn't a huge contributor to NOx and SOx pollution, but we have to have a talk with her about her "carbon footprint"..




You're really confusing matters bringing your grandma into the picture. I'd imagine most grannies have relativiely small carbon footprints compared to younger people. What's your point?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 1, 2012)

Grannies with six kids don't have small carbon footprints... They are as bad as a small factory in their carbon footprints. 

How do you accurately monetize CO2 emissions if you don't bring in farmers and grannies? Afterall it's population GROWTH that drives the whole CO2 curve in 1st place don't it? 

The cost of polluting in terms of NOx and SOx (REAL pollution) was largely felt LOCALLY in terms of health risks, acid rain, etc. Quite EASY to monetize it. Nitric acid rain didn't fall far from the source. So you could view the factory location and geo-limit the damage and pretty much assess the cleanup cost. So to speak.. 

CO2 only has meaning as a pollutant on a GLOBAL scale. Try to wrap your mind around the bill from Vanuatu for a Printed Circuit Board manufacturer in Santa Clara, CA. 

PS --- I know the credits markets are by country. But the damage is GLOBAL (or so you say). So how is the value assessed? Will we be liable someday thru the IPCC for actually writing checks to Vanuatu? If so, the credit market better dam well write that check --- Because the UN ain't gonna stick ME with it..


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 1, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Grannies with six kids don't have small carbon footprints... They are as bad as a small factory in their carbon footprints.


a) The typical granny isn't raising 6 kids
b) Footprint per capita is generally lower when you have more people living under one roof.



> How do you accurately monetize CO2 emissions if you don't bring in farmers and grannies? Afterall it's population GROWTH that drives the whole CO2 curve in 1st place don't it?


It gets traded further up in the economic food chain.



> The cost of polluting in terms of NOx and SOx (REAL pollution) was largely felt LOCALLY in terms of health risks, acid rain, etc. Quite EASY to monetize it. Nitric acid rain didn't fall far from the source. So you could view the factory location and geo-limit the damage and pretty much assess the cleanup cost. So to speak..
> 
> CO2 only has meaning as a pollutant on a GLOBAL scale. Try to wrap your mind around the bill from Vanuatu for a Printed Circuit Board manufacturer in Santa Clara, CA.
> 
> PS --- I know the credits markets are by country. But the damage is GLOBAL (or so you say). So how is the value assessed? Will we be liable someday thru the IPCC for actually writing checks to Vanuatu? If so, the credit market better dam well write that check --- Because the UN ain't gonna stick ME with it..





The exact value of the damage doesn't need to be assessed. We just need to know how many credits to issue. The free market determines their price.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

And all this bandying of credits and regulation is a spank-job, without immediate re-greening.  Regulations and credits are for Al Gore and his little lords of skepticism to spank on.

While the spank is moving in a perfect circle, the CO2 has made more carbonic acid, and more ocean species are dying.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> And all this bandying of credits and regulation is a spank-job, without immediate re-greening.  Regulations and credits are for Al Gore and his little lords of skepticism to spank on.
> 
> While the spank is moving in a perfect circle, the CO2 has made more carbonic acid, and more ocean species are dying.



THat makes no sense.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I can see you don't want to be taken seriously. So I won't. Now run along and play.




Hey, but you can pat yourself on the back, you're saving the village from the wrath of the volcano god.

So are you a moron or a fraud? Do you actually believe any of the bullshit your church is shoveling, or are you just hoping to get your hands on some of the loot?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I can see you don't want to be taken seriously. So I won't. Now run along and play.
> ...



When you're ready to have a reasonable discussion like adults so am I.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

I'm issuing saveliberty credits.  Less posting to those who buy them.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> When you're ready to have a reasonable discussion like adults so am I.



What do you see as "unreasonable?" The exposure of the AGW cult as nothing more than securities fraud?

One thing about warmists, they don't like facts.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> What do you see as "unreasonable?" The exposure of the AGW cult as nothing more than securities fraud?
> 
> One thing about warmists, they don't like facts.


Facts are all over the internet, asshole.

Don't believe in AGW?  You are stupid.  Won't move off the subject to carbonic acidification?  You are a goddamn DD.  Won't re-green in time?  You might die, early.

Whether the CO2 buildup is man-made or not is irrelevant, since the carbonic acid is off the hook, and this can stop the oceanic food chain, to shorten all our lives:

Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate

Warming and acidification are _accelerating._  That leads to the hockey 'stick' graph, which you and all the other stupid skeptics rant about, since the warming goes up, recently.  Whether humans did this or not, you have to be stupid to think humans did not maximize damage, since the industrial revolution.  You have to be an asshole, to refuse to notice the acceleration.

You have to be a shtty hockey player, to complain about the 'stick,' when you are a hooker and cross-checker, who keeps dropping hockey puck, all over the place.  AGW skeptics are completely retarded, but they are aggressive at media, for some unknown reason.  Could it be PAC money is funding you all tards?  Is it you are bastard children of retarded papist oil barons?  You don't have a good excuse, for skepticism, except _you suck!_

You can die early, if this all leads to Mass Extinction Event 6.  Go back to Russia, if you want to sell us some more oil, fresh wingnutskis!  Siberia is melting.  Fuckski youski, if you don't pull your headski out of your buttski, and notice, even Russia has to notice AGW:

Technology - Nicole Allan - Siberian Methane Could Fast-Track Global Warming - The Atlantic

If all this CO2 and methane is deadly, and it is getting more deadly, humans have to act.  If warming and acidification are mostly of human origin or NOT, we have to minimize our own effect, and maximize re-greening, anyway, stupid as shit-skeptics!


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

It sure does matter what the source is.  Nature is following some type of cycle, which means WE adapt, not change the Earth.  Nothing exists in a factual manner to demonstrate its manmade.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Facts are all over the internet, asshole.



I've noticed that..

{Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.}

Fact is, Phil Jones is a fraud and a crook.



> Don't believe in AGW?



I believe in the cult - you are a bit like the Jonestown group. What you believe is idiotic, but you are all too real.



> You are stupid.



Perhaps, but at least I'm savvy enough not to fall for the volcano god fraud, same shit that's been used repeatedly for the last 5,000 years - with morons STILL too fucking stupid to catch on to.



> Won't move off the subject to carbonic acidification?  You are a goddamn DD.  Won't re-green in time?  You might die, early.



Oh my god. You mean that if I don't give Phil Jones most of my income, the volcano god will become angry and destroy the village? You mean that my carbon sins not only condemn me, but condemn the WHOLE WORLD??? You mean that if I don't relinquish my  liberty and my wealth to the shamans that **I** will be responsible for the end of the world?

Damn, that's pretty compelling, guess I better buckle under.



> Whether the CO2 buildup is man-made or not is irrelevant, since the carbonic acid is off the hook, and this can stop the oceanic food chain, to shorten all our lives:



Yawn..

Your cult is so very original...








You fucking morons.



> Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate



Holy shit, you mean it's DOOMSDAY????



ohmygodohmygodohmygod....

I think I'll panic, since no one ever predicted doomsday before...

Oh shit, if your stupidfuck doomsday doesn't pan out (and let's face it, the last 30,000 doomsdays didn't) then we always have this one...

{Milky Way, Andromeda galaxies headed for cosmic collision }

Milky Way, Andromeda galaxies headed for cosmic collision | kvue.com Austin

The end is near, the end is near, braaackk.



> Warming and acidification are _accelerating._  That leads to the hockey 'stick' graph, which you and all the other stupid skeptics rant about, since the warming goes up, recently.  Whether humans did this or not, you have to be stupid to think humans did not maximize damage, since the industrial revolution.  You have to be an asshole, to refuse to notice the acceleration.



Well, there you go. Of course it can all be stopped, I just need to support a society that forgoes civilization in favor of a feudal rulership. No cars, no lights, no heat - not for the serfs anyway...



> You have to be a shtty hockey player, to complain about the 'stick,' when you are a hooker and cross-checker, who keeps dropping hockey puck, all over the place.  AGW skeptics are completely retarded, but they are aggressive at media, for some unknown reason.  Could it be PAC money is funding you all tards?  Is it you are bastard children of retarded papist oil barons?  You don't have a good excuse, for skepticism, except _you suck!_



You have to be a fucking moron to fall for the same old con that Shamans were using when we live in caves.



> You can die early, if this all leads to Mass Extinction Event 6.  Go back to Russia, if you want to sell us some more oil, fresh wingnutskis!  Siberia is melting.  Fuckski youski, if you don't pull your headski out of your buttski, and notice, even Russia has to notice AGW:
> 
> Technology - Nicole Allan - Siberian Methane Could Fast-Track Global Warming - The Atlantic
> 
> If all this CO2 and methane is deadly, and it is getting more deadly, humans have to act.  If warming and acidification are mostly of human origin or NOT, we have to minimize our own effect, and maximize re-greening, anyway, stupid as shit-skeptics!



I basically laugh at you fools. Like scientologists, you are so self-righteous, yet so fucking stupid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2012)

It's far more reasonable to suppose that some advanced civilization took part of the Earth's crust and built the Moon than to believe that burning fossil fuels are warming the Earth and causing rising acidic oceans to eat coastlines


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's far more reasonable to suppose that some advanced civilization took part of the Earth's crust and built the Moon than to believe that burning fossil fuels are warming the Earth and causing rising acidic oceans to eat coastlines


It's far more reasonable to believe in devolution of people named Cross-tard, by poor breeding, so tardy keeps going out, in traffic.

It's far more reasonable to believe, fuck-tards tried to cross-breed, but all they got was all the way, to DDD!  When you are a D, don't make it with a D, because if you do, your kid will be DDD!  Cross-tard, pay attention to Mr.Mencia, if you don't read me very well.

Don't believe in acceleration?  OK, then here it comes.  Don't believe in acidification?  OK.  Here it comes.  Don't believe in methane?  OK.  Here it comes, wingnutskis:

Technology - Nicole Allan - Siberian Methane Could Fast-Track Global Warming - The Atlantic

Apparently, a lot of you fuck-tards believe your stupid rants will save the human race.  Neither your rants nor your raw stupidity will suffice.  We re-green, or we die, whether the CO2 and methane are out of your stupid holes or from Siberia or not.  Fuck you!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > When you're ready to have a reasonable discussion like adults so am I.
> ...



Your babbling a bunch of nonsense about bears and volcanoes and in general using jargon that makes it apparent you are more of a blog expert than a scientific one.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 1, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> It sure does matter what the source is.  Nature is following some type of cycle, which means WE adapt, not change the Earth.  Nothing exists in a factual manner to demonstrate its manmade.



What are you disputing is man made? The amount of CO2 emitted by man is more than enough to account for the recent upward trend in atmopsheric CO2 levels.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> {Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.}
> 
> Fact is, Phil Jones is a fraud and a crook.
> 
> ...



The part about 'papist wingnut' really got you going.  You refer to Scientology, you drop 'cult' re AGW, I suppose, and you are suspected of a kind of baptism.  Have you learned to fuck yourself, for Jesus?  Have you learned to bend over, for Father Horn-dog?  What's your religion, if it isn't from St.Wingnut's miserable catechism?  Screw you, for not posting even one link, while taking up half a page, with your huffing and puffing.

You sure do like to elaborately segment quotes, but you fail to offer any links, to event or study reports.  Phil Jones is not a bad reference, but you merely rant, since you are really fucking stupid.  So quote in quote in quote and make farty replies, _asshole._


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

We've beat down every source, every time bobgnote.  Frankly, watching you guys get all hyper is all I'm here for any more.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > And all this bandying of credits and regulation is a spank-job, without immediate re-greening.  Regulations and credits are for Al Gore and his little lords of skepticism to spank on.
> ...



Al Gore refused to support legal pot, his whole time in any office and thereafter.  The prison industry has a carbon footprint, the petroleum industry has a carbon footprint, and to remove any part of their footprint and to get biomass from hemp would be a win.

Regulations like Kyoto and Clean Air Act and credit schemes are just a lot of circle-jerk media, for media geeks like Gore and his adversary, fake-'Lord' Monckton, and for little people attracted by their media, and other people like us to bandy about, on our way to hell, _if we will not immediately adjourn, to re-greening media, including biomass for fuels, food, and durable goods, and for aggressive control, of desertified or polluted areas on land and at sea._

Al Gore's circus simply blocks re-greening, while nuclear power licks its chops, at all the DDs in traffic.  Any compromise media, like credits and regulations blocks re-greening, by diversion.  Does this help?  Having fun arguing with the fuck-tard skeptics, today?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...





When you're ready to talk science instead of celebrity let me know.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > What do you see as "unreasonable?" The exposure of the AGW cult as nothing more than securities fraud?
> ...



I just love the "pay us or you wll die" approach.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> When you're ready to talk science instead of celebrity let me know.


When somebody posts a link to how Al Gore and politicians and regulations generate circle-jerk media, I'll put it right up.  As for science, my links are all good.  Go back and read some.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> I just love the "pay us or you wll die" approach.


Quack, quack, duck.  Got a reference, for instance, to the way regulations and taxes will charge you, without solving any accelerating warming or acidification?

Or are you quacking, at me, without reference to any of that entire quote?  Dive in.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 1, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > And all this bandying of credits and regulation is a spank-job, without immediate re-greening.  Regulations and credits are for Al Gore and his little lords of skepticism to spank on.
> ...



THat actually was one of Bob's most eloquent posts. And totally void of any fucktards.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 1, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > It sure does matter what the source is.  Nature is following some type of cycle, which means WE adapt, not change the Earth.  Nothing exists in a factual manner to demonstrate its manmade.
> ...



Nobody here that I know is denying CO2 is increasing. MOST of who you call deniers acknowledge there is a century of relative warming. 

Keep in mind that MAN stuffs about 30GTons of CO2 into the sky. The earth stuffs 770GTons into the air in the same year. But the earth also SUCKS about 790Gtons back into it. 

What we are convince of is that we don't have a complete GreenHouse theory. That there are holes that need to be filled because of experiments and observations that don't confirm equations and predictions of the warmers. And we (I'm not speaking for everyone, but generally) are APPALLED by the obvious failure of the models and the FRAUD and political shananigans that have been disclosed.. 

You just keep believing we're the nuts...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



Wow -- either the sock is out of character or the weed is running out..


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

It basically falls back on a closed system theory, which doesn't exist in reality.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Wow -- either the sock is out of character or the weed is running out..



Let's see, whose sock would I be, where a load of wingnuts are flying low?  You assholes are each others' socks, with your heads up each others asses, just like my foot-laundry.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Nobody here that I know is denying CO2 is increasing. MOST of who you call deniers acknowledge there is a century of relative warming.
> 
> Keep in mind that MAN stuffs about 30GTons of CO2 into the sky. The earth stuffs 770GTons into the air in the same year. But the earth also SUCKS about 790Gtons back into it.
> 
> ...


I keep believing you're a fuck-tard wingnut, who keeps flying low, with his wingnut pals.

You never post a link, so we can compare irrelevant studies.  Part of that CO2 going back into the Earth ends up as carbonic acid, so if your study is correct, the difference in CO2 you cite as 'SUCK'ed back into the Earth ends up as carbonic acid, which is what I keep telling the smart people is the main problem, for us to attack.

I also keep telling the stupid wingnut-posses about this, but fucktard wingnuts won't post a link, which would get Old Rocks to post again, since he will go check out a wingnut-link and rebut any geek wingnut, who will go for it.  But wingnuts like to hear in detail, all about how they suck, so that is my job, to tell wingnuts, how their lips seal, without posting a damn link, among them.

Whether CO2 is man-made or natural is severally irrelevant, except to stupid wingnuts, since that CO2-cycle is affected by years of human stewardship, which affects the outcome.  Who needs chickenshit criteria, without carbonic acid exchange data?

Wingnut fucktardies, that's who!

If we don't attack the CO2-outcomes, natural or man-made, as long as they are current, we go to hell, in a hand-basket.  The oceanic food chain goes, first, as it is doing, and then shit happens, to us on land.  But wingnuts like to fly around garbage, take it in, and put it back out.  GIGO should be the handle, of some wingnut, at this thread.  Tards!

Your CO2 recital is just more hockey puck, dodging the stick, which is always about to game your puck, right into the goal, of re-greening, when you tards are tired of being tardy all the time.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



You'll have to talk to Reagan about that, it was his idea.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists.  They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

The CO2 measured in the Arctic has passed the 'safe' 350 ppm level, all the way, to 400 ppm:

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

Before the industrial age, CO2 was at 275 ppm.  How's that for a link, wingnutskis and wingnazis?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> The CO2 measured in the Arctic has passed the 'safe' 350 ppm level, all the way, to 400 ppm:
> 
> Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com
> 
> Before the industrial age, CO2 was at 275 ppm.  How's that for a link, wingnutskis and wingnazis?



From your source:

"These milestones are always worth noting," said economist Myron Ebell at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. "As carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, global temperatures flattened out, contrary to the models" used by climate scientists and the United Nations.

Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years.

I thought you said the carbon dioxide stayed in the oceans bobgnote.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

Gonna have a further meltdown on us bob?  Careful you'll cause global warming.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > LOL! So I guess Entergy Corp is an EnviroMaxist organization as well! Tell me genius how wealth gets redistributed through climate change?
> ...



Cap & Trade is largely ineffectual with regards to CO2 and climate issues, at the least, in my consideration; I advocate for direct carbon taxes and would prefer the tax be on the front end of the resource recovery end of the industry. It is easier to impose, fairly assess, and collect, meanwhile, if integrated with scheduled increases it accomplishes the goals of reducing emissions and funding alternative energy research and infrastructure along with a gradual program of adaptation to climate changes. If combined with a national energy bank it gives a means of dealing with local, state and federal climate/energy bonds and personal and corporate loans as well. But that is my personal preference.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists.  They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.



And as usual, you are full of shit. Flap yap and no links. 

AGW Observer


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's far more reasonable to suppose that some advanced civilization took part of the Earth's crust and built the Moon than to believe that burning fossil fuels are warming the Earth and causing rising acidic oceans to eat coastlines



Only to the gullible and arrogantly ignorant.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists.  They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.
> ...



So you link AGW???


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2012)

Real articles from real scientists that have been published in peer reviewed journals. A whole concept that you are completely ignorant of.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists.  They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.
> ...



The author thinks we will be here in 5000 years.  Sort of screws you on the near term end times.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> The part about 'papist wingnut' really got you going.  You refer to Scientology, you drop 'cult' re AGW, I suppose, and you are suspected of a kind of baptism.  Have you learned to fuck yourself, for Jesus?  Have you learned to bend over, for Father Horn-dog?  What's your religion, if it isn't from St.Wingnut's miserable catechism?  Screw you, for not posting even one link, while taking up half a page, with your huffing and puffing.
> 
> You sure do like to elaborately segment quotes, but you fail to offer any links, to event or study reports.  Phil Jones is not a bad reference, but you merely rant, since you are really fucking stupid.  So quote in quote in quote and make farty replies, _asshole._



I, personally, am Roman Catholic. The Church and the Pope understand AGW and have been trying to encourage good stewardship of the planet. It does no good to try and alienate and demonize any large group that is doing what they can to inform and guide people to a proper understanding of science and social/community responsibility.

"Commit to sustainable development, fight global warming, Vatican tells U.N." (2006) - Commit to sustainable development, fight global warming, Vatican tells U.N. - International - Catholic Online

"Global warming threatens worlds security, existence, Vatican tells U.N." (2007) - Global warming threatens worlds security, existence, Vatican tells U.N. - International - Catholic Online

"Catholic Church Goes Green To Counter Global Warming" (2011) - Catholic Church Goes Green To Counter Global Warming | KPBS.org



> SAN DIEGO  The Pope reached across the aisle of all denominations and all nations to address the issues of global warming.
> 
> In a statement on the Vatican website, Pope Benedict XVI made a bold call to action for all people in all nations.
> 
> ...



"Will the Vaticans declaration on global warming have an impact on the overall climate debate?" (2011) - Will the Vatican



> The Pontifical Academy of Science,  the Vaticans non-denominational science panel, has declared that global action on climate change must be undertaken in order to avoid serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases  These warnings are part of a report entitled Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene.  The report was released along with a public address.  The statement urges,
> 
> all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home. [Read the entire statement]
> ...
> rest of this article at title link


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2012)

There are many evangelicals that have looked at the problem objectively and decided that we are not acting as good stewards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Because there are a bunch of the GOP 'Conservatives' denying all of the science that has presented the evidence for AGW, does not mean that the real conservatives are doing the same. We should not stereotype groups of people, that is what the 'Conservatives' wish to do, to politisize this issue completely. It is an issue involving scientific evidence, of which 99%+ says that we are creating a huge problem for our children and grandchildren.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

Yes, the Vatican, bastion of true science through the ages.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Nobody here that I know is denying CO2 is increasing. MOST of who you call deniers acknowledge there is a century of relative warming.
> 
> Keep in mind that MAN stuffs about 30GTons of CO2 into the sky. The earth stuffs 770GTons into the air in the same year. But the earth also SUCKS about 790Gtons back into it.
> 
> ...



I don't believe *you* are nuts (I reserve judgement on some of the others who you seem to agree with), I do believe you have been led astray in regards to the science by arguments that are based more in political associations than in the details and understandings of mainstream science. You appear to actually value and have some science understandings in regards to climate issues. I suggest that there may be value for  both of us to openly and frankly discuss our understandings of mainstream climate science, even assuming that neither of us alters our current opinions and perspectives of this topic, at the least, we will both have a much more clear understanding of where we stand and why our individual understandings are different.

We can start anywhere you'd like, but it would probably help to define our understandings of the science and the most probable consequences of what the science portends before we can talk about resolution and adaptation and the scale and timeframes for such actions.
(it even sounds like a thread topical discussion!)


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists.  They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.



That continues to be your conspiracy theory.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 1, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody here that I know is denying CO2 is increasing. MOST of who you call deniers acknowledge there is a century of relative warming.
> ...



Thanks for vote of confidence? The observation that I'm "not a nut" leaves some wiggle room don't it? 

It's hard to get the politics out of it because I believe that the Global Warming "industry" is motivated by not so hidden desires to limit economic growth to a "sustainable" level and hobble the major economies in order to redistribute global wealth. If you DOUBT this, study how the last UN Climate conference degenerated into a begging contest of world proportions. 

But trust me Trakar -- I TRY to ignore the political battle when I study the topic and it has NOTHING to do with how I assess the science on both sides. There are HUGE holes in the GreenHouse theory, MASSIVE leaps to judgement, and a HUMUNGEOUS effort to co-opt the science process and shut-down dissent. 

I'd be glad to tell you why I've seen enough evidence to doubt that CO2 is the main driver of the warming.. Or why I doubt we can model the progression of the observed warming.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > The CO2 measured in the Arctic has passed the 'safe' 350 ppm level, all the way, to 400 ppm:
> ...



The CEI economist is incorrect, that is why you don't go to a dentist when you need a second opinion about heart surgery.



> For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}
> 
> Since IPCC&#8217;s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}



Projections of Future Changes in Climate - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

Global temperature evolution 1979&#8211;2010 - Global temperature evolution 1979

A human-induced hothouse climate? (atmospheric residence time of AGW CO2) - http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/2/pdf/i1052-5173-22-2-4.pdf


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 2, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > When you're ready to talk science instead of celebrity let me know.
> ...



I'm glad you know how to user hyperlinks.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 2, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> What we are convince of is that we don't have a complete GreenHouse theory.


There are no complete theories of anything.



> That there are holes that need to be filled because of experiments and observations that don't confirm equations and predictions of the warmers. And we (I'm not speaking for everyone, but generally) are APPALLED by the obvious failure of the models and the FRAUD and political shananigans that have been disclosed..
> 
> You just keep believing we're the nuts...


Holes such as?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe *you* are nuts (I reserve judgement on some of the others who you seem to agree with), I do believe you have been led astray in regards to the science by arguments that are based more in political associations than in the details and understandings of mainstream science. You appear to actually value and have some science understandings in regards to climate issues. I suggest that there may be value for  both of us to openly and frankly discuss our understandings of mainstream climate science, even assuming that neither of us alters our current opinions and perspectives of this topic, at the least, we will both have a much more clear understanding of where we stand and why our individual understandings are different.
> ...



Well, qualifications are a hallmark of a properly made scientific analysis...  Seriously, its not a big thing, I just want to understand where our understandings overlap and where they differ." 



flacaltenn said:


> It's hard to get the politics out of it because I believe that the Global Warming "industry" is motivated by not so hidden desires to limit economic growth to a "sustainable" level and hobble the major economies in order to redistribute global wealth.



I am sure that there are many economic interests in many aspects of public policy that results from the science findings. I believe that there is greater current financial interest in delaying and stalling any dramatic change from the status quo. The most important aspect of this for me is the science. If the science is as rigorous and deep as it appears then then the question really isn't whether we need to act, but rather what direction we need to go and how much of our GDP are we going to have to devote to addressing this issue. I'm sure there are individuals looking toward making a profit off of these investments, just as defense contractors have made out like bandits over the last decade (or five), but I wouldn't expect General Dynamics/Chrysler to not turn a profit on each M1A2. Ultimately, it isn't about the people who see personal advantage or disadvantage in the situation, it is about defining the problem so that we can make policy decisions based upon the best available information. And I see no compelling evidence that the science supporting AGW is being manipulated or controlled by the financial interests who think they might be able to take advantage of that situation (aside from some politicians). 



flacaltenn said:


> But trust me Trakar -- I TRY to ignore the political battle when I study the topic and it has NOTHING to do with how I assess the science on both sides.



science doesn't have sides there is only compellingly supported and uncompellingly supported. 




flacaltenn said:


> There are HUGE holes in the GreenHouse theory,



Greenhouse theory is basic radiation transfer physics that dates back to the 19th century, it is very rigorous and compellingly supported. What do you understand GreenHouse theory to be and what "HUGE holes" do you understand there to be in the GreenHouse theory?   

Please also explain and define each of your following understandings:
"MASSIVE leaps to judgement," 
"a HUMUNGEOUS effort to co-opt the science process and shut-down dissent."



flacaltenn said:


> I'd be glad to tell you why I've seen enough evidence to doubt that CO2 is the main driver of the warming.. Or why I doubt we can model the progression of the observed warming.



Please do. I'd prefer to start with one item at a time so that we can explore each a bit and really try to fully understand where each of our understandings are similar and precisely where they are different.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Real articles from real scientists that have been published in peer reviewed journals. A whole concept that you are completely ignorant of.



You're just an endless loop OR.  We have discussed several times that the greedy climatologists took over the adminstration of the climate society and dictate who can get peer reviewed.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

Trakar said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists.  They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.
> ...



No theory.  It was revealed in emails.  Pretty obvious to all but the faithers.


----------



## jack113 (Jun 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Real articles from real scientists that have been published in peer reviewed journals. A whole concept that you are completely ignorant of.
> ...



So I see you signed up to the Exxon reeducation school.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

jack113 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Denial of the corrupt leadership doesn't bolster your case.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



The Decline Hiders determine who gets peer reviewed


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Real articles from real scientists that have been published in peer reviewed journals. A whole concept that you are completely ignorant of.









http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/


From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim&#8217;s got a diagram here we&#8217;ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I&#8217;ve just completed Mike&#8217;s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith&#8217;s to hide the decline. Mike&#8217;s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


That's right, Pooplemeyer!  I like to find an issue, get a current news item or scientific report, and apply those, to show why we need to re-green, in the case of climate change, AGW, acidification, or even other issues.  

So why don't you tell me, why do you reply, to my posts, in the useless, one-line way you did this twice, which suggests you do not subscribe to either my disgust with Al Gore's refusal to endorse specific re-greening or hemp, or to my disgust with his simultaneous profiteering, at global warming controversy, which has ripened into a real nuisance, while the CO2 has increased, to 400 ppm, in Arctic areas:

Arctic CO2 Hitting 400ppm - Greenland Sets New High Temperature Record for May : TreeHugger

I repeat: Al Gore refused to endorse legal hemp, his entire time, as Senator or Veep.  Al Gore goes up as AGW-mogul, before Congress, and doofuses how he is 'emotional.'  If you like Al, or you are having trouble understanding why his famous intransigence for the drug war swings against CO2-neutral hemp, for CO2 emitters, go ahead and make some specific post about this.  Your one-liners merely suggest you don't think well, but you are afraid to comment, on the context of my posts, expressing disgust, with Gore.

I only suspect you have an issue, which you will not reveal, but here's a link:

Henry Ford And Roudolph Diesel - Hemp History Video

Do YOU have a real comment, which would allow me, to reply to a question you have?  Because you are commenting, without real information, I am inferring you have an issue, you refuse to reveal.  But I am interested, in all this.  Go ahead and spill it.  Is it a girly thing, I don't get to know?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> From: Phil Jones
> To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
> Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
> ...



Hey, Crosstard!  Please post the link you hammered, to get all this shit.  It is squiggly shit, concocted by limey skeptic-trash, isn't it.  Or you would reference this, with a link.

Meanwhile, CO2 has migrated from 275 ppm, at the start of the industrial age, to 400 ppm, currently, at Arctic and Greenland measuring locations.  350 ppm is the maximum safe level.  So your limey 'estimates' are shit and more shit.  Go get links, and I'll post mine, again.  You aren't worth the effort, to copy and paste, given how you never link.

You and your bogus limeys forgot about the carbonic acid exchange, again.  You know, the acid that is crapping up the food chain; oh, THAT acid.  

Yeah, 'thanks,' you stupid, spamming narcissists!  'Cheers,' you are worse, than queers who won't do equality because they like to parade for cops, in every court in the USA.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 2, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > From: Phil Jones
> ...



Can you post one repeatable scientific experiment that shows the effect on temperature and ocean pH of a 125PPM increase in CO2?

I've been asking for years now


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > From: Phil Jones
> ...



This isn't our first introduction to your fantasy bob.  Surprised by the truth huh?  Not to worry, we've found faithers to be throughly brainwashed.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

Post some links, quit posting quote in quote in quote, and address any relevant point, at all.

That should be easy, for smarter retards:
1.  CO2 is increasing, all the way to 400 ppm, past safe limit 350 ppm, posted already;
2.  Methane is getting loose, from formerly frozen areas, posted a lot;
3.  Warming and acidification are accelerating, posted a shitload;
4.  Die-offs are happening, due to the acidification, posted some more;
5.  You dipshit skeptics will do or say anything, to dodge a re-greening agenda, noted.

Fuck you, you refugees from St.Tardy's parochial academy for vacuous anal-compulsives.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > What we are convince of is that we don't have a complete GreenHouse theory.
> ...



You can look up my posts in this very forum. To give you an index, my scientific concerns and doubts boil down to:

1) Never in my science/engineering life have I seen such a complex interdisciplinity problem be boiled down to one nebulous number -- that's the Mean Global Surface Temperature. I DOUBT that we have a sufficiently accurate pre-satellite record of this prior to about 1970. I doubt we could ever agree on that single number because of the difficulty of defining locations, sampling methods, calibrations, irregularities and such. And I doubt that one simple number varying in the 2nd decimal place tells us as much about the problem as the AGW cult wants us to believe. It's more complex than that.

2) I have doubts about the contribution of CO2. In fact, the equation for heating due to CO2 is not linear. It flattens out at a concentration change that we've yet to determined in the atmosphere. But more importantly the greenhouse effect of CO2 alone is determined by it's spectral absorption. The bands at which CO2 insulates heat are almost identical to water vapor except for 1 maybe 2 spots in the spectrum. Therefore -- in the presence of even MODERATE concentrations of water vapor, the effect of CO2 heat is filtered out. See the next item.

3) We know JACK about the spectral emission of our sun.. Attempts to study the emissions bands are difficult to impossible when observing thru the very atmosphere that we're trying to determine filtering properties. That's why our REAL knowledge of shifts in solar spectrum begins about 1980 with the 1st GOOD Orbiting Solar Observatories. It's SO interesting and valuable that every country except Zimbabwe has launched one. We know that power cycles, spot cycles, radiation cycles are over long -- perhaps 12 to 100 year cycles. We've only had the TOOLS for 30 years. You might remember that we KNOW the sun is gonna go thru cycles of color (emissions spectrum) from yellow to red. We don't know about subtle shifts in frequencies that change the "greenhouse power" of various gases in the atmosphere. A simple shift in ONE LINE of that spectra could make almost ANY gas the culprit.. 

4) I can't avoid the obvious attempts to falsify and misrepresent data. Hand-picking trees for tree-rings studies should be a capital offense when this much money and time has been wasted on INTENTIONALLY fraudalent data. THAT -- and the political shenanigans and the masses of 3rd world countries SCREAMING for money in the name of AGW -- just makes me a skeptic by itself.. It's disgusting and the biggest abuse of science in my lifetime.

5) There are important experiments that SHOULD confirm greenhouse theory that don't show the efffect. My favorite is the "night-time cooling" studies done in the deserts without the presence of the sun to simplify the experimental set-up. You SHOULD see night-time low temperatures trending higher with the CO2 increase. The data aren't obvious. A 2nd is that you SHOULD see not only surface, but atmospheric temperature increases tracking as well. THey do -- but nowhere near the GH models.. 

6) A couple degC / century change ought to be something we can mitigate without HOBBLING the entire world economy. Obviously, the promoters of this circus don't WANT to solve it -- or we'd have 180 new nuclear plants in this country yesterday. THAT should tell you how THEY assess the relative risks between the Earth's "fever" and nuclear paranoia. Furthermore, the claims of what we're seeing now range from increased hemmoroids to total annilation -- and are grounded very LITTLE in any real science. They've been debunked, reputed, shot-down repeatedly. The adults are not in charge. 

Let me know if that's enough for you to ALLOW me to be a skeptic. I'd sure appreciate your approval and sanction to question the morons behind the circus..... 

Any one of my list items you want to set me straight on????


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I stand corrected, given the unsupportive character of the evidences offered, this is indeed not a "theory," but merely a very weak hypothesis, lacking in evidences and contradicted by every governmental, academic  and scientific review of the email, the science, and the researchers involved in producing the emails.  



> It was revealed in emails.



The only thing revealed in CRU emails is that researchers are human, and that some denialists will resort to extreme criminal means to distort, lie and libel with regards to those they disagree with.  




> Pretty obvious to all but the faithers.



The only faithers I see are those who are denying science without any compelling evidences simply because they don't like the implications of what the science signifies.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

OK, you went 1,2,3,4,5,6, without a single link.  Maybe your searches are always slow, like mine are, today.  I keep getting the message, 'not connected to the internet,' since a lot of people must be tangled up with happy skeptics, in traffic.

Your head is up your ass, Tard1211.  Meanwhile, eat some number 2:

You don't admit to any carbonic acidification, at all.  Why should you care, about how CO2 has migrated, from 275 ppm (industrial age) to 400 ppm, and acidification is a dire threat?

You don't post links, and my internet is slow, on Saturday.  I don't know why an asshole like you claims to be scientific, much less an engineer, since you haven't a pragmatic bone, in your lousy body, which is squid-like and flexible enough, for your head to fit in your butt.

When the internet works well enough, YOU post some links, punk.  You are like any other punk on parade, in his speedos, who wants bath-houses, because your gay forebears all had bath-houses, and just because we have all heard about your speed and butt-sex and egregious passing of HIV, you object to how the baths had to close!

Aw, the economy might have to get some other numbers, when the petrol companies don't pay you or other idiots, like you, to be idiots, who don't post links.  My internet is punk, today.  YOU go get a link, punk-hole.  You haven't posted a link or a link-reference report, this whole thread!


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can you post one repeatable scientific experiment that shows the effect on temperature and ocean pH of a 125PPM increase in CO2?
> 
> I've been asking for years now



 memory a problem? 

I gave you several such experiments last year when you repeated this trope, surely you haven't forgotten already?! The only difference now is that you've added in a pH stipulation.

Very well, I assume you recall the temperature experiment from before confirming GHG action, so I'll just address the pH issue this time. 

Fill a container to the halfway point with filtered sea-water.

seal, shake well  and let settle, this is your control.

take two additional containers prepared in the same manner. Into one container flush the air and replace with pure Nitrogen. in the other container displace the appropriate amount of atmosphere to correctly approximate a change in atmospheric composition equal to change from pre-industrial levels to current levels (120ppm/280ppm = roughly a 42.9% increase, given today's ~ 400ppm level, that means that you will need to add enough CO2 to bring the containers atmospheric CO2 component to approximately 571ppm CO2). Shake the sealed containers vigorously and then allow them to all sit quietly for about an hour. Using good laboratory procedures carefully extract samples of the seawater and test sample pH with appropriately sensitive pH analysis equipment.

previous experimentation and science understanding indicate that the control will read a pH of about 8.1, the sample from the Nitrogen replacement atmosphere will read significantly higher as the CO2 is depleted in that test sample (how much more will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement), The CO2 enhanced sample will read significantly lower than the control due to the additional CO2 in the sample (again, how much lower will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement).


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> You can look up my posts in this very forum. To give you an index, my scientific concerns and doubts boil down to:
> 
> 1) Never in my science/engineering life have I seen such a complex interdisciplinity problem be boiled down to one nebulous number -- that's the Mean Global Surface Temperature. I DOUBT that we have a sufficiently accurate pre-satellite record of this prior to about 1970. I doubt we could ever agree on that single number because of the difficulty of defining locations, sampling methods, calibrations, irregularities and such. And I doubt that one simple number varying in the 2nd decimal place tells us as much about the problem as the AGW cult wants us to believe. It's more complex than that.



Gratuitous demonization of those who have different understandings than your own predisposes one to not afford proper and appropriate consideration of their arguments and perspectives. If you don't enter such discussions with at the least, a willingness to entertain considerations different than those you currently hold then you are unlikely to learn anything you don't already know.

Again, I would prefer to deal with each issue in detail, one at a time, but as you have listed several at once, I will quip a comment or two upon each one and then we can work our way through the list successively in subsequent more focussed and detailed examination.

My comments on the first item would largely begin with the question of what you state should not be considered an argument from personal incredulity? (Argument from Personal Incredulity - "I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true." For instance, creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.)*



flacaltenn said:


> 2) I have doubts about the contribution of CO2. In fact, the equation for heating due to CO2 is not linear. It flattens out at a concentration change that we've yet to determined in the atmosphere. But more importantly the greenhouse effect of CO2 alone is determined by it's spectral absorption. The bands at which CO2 insulates heat are almost identical to water vapor except for 1 maybe 2 spots in the spectrum. Therefore -- in the presence of even MODERATE concentrations of water vapor, the effect of CO2 heat is filtered out. See the next item.{/quote]
> 
> This seems a confused mix of fact, misunderstanding and error, but explaining and discussing the topic will require a pretty hefty delve into chemistry, physics and atmospheric dynamics. I have no problem in engaging in such a discussion, but it is going to require a bit more than undergrad level understandings in these areas to comfortably absorb and integrate. I'm up for it if you are!
> 
> ...



I'm not trying to straighten you out about anything, I just want to understand what you understand and why, and I will share what I understand and why I have those understandings. Its more about finding out what information and evidence we each use to support the areas were we individually disagree, and what common ground areas we share.

*Skeptics Guide to the Universe - "top 20 logical fallacies" - Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 2, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



I don't really give a shit about Al Gore.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2012)

Trakar said:


> *Working to cope with climate change: A guest column by J. Wayne Leonard and Raymond C. Offenheiser*
> Working to cope with climate change: A guest column by J. Wayne Leonard and Raymond C. Offenheiser | NOLA.com
> 
> 
> ...






It seems your concerns are unfounded.....



On the linkage between tropospheric and Polar Stratospheric clouds in the Arctic as observed by spaceborne lidar

P. Achtert, M. Karlsson Andersson, F. Khosrawi, and J. Gumbel
Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract. The type of Polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) as well as their temporal and spatial extent are important for the occurrence of heterogeneous reactions in the polar stratosphere. The formation of PSCs depends strongly on temperature. However, the mechanisms of the formation of solid PSCs are still poorly understood. Recent satellite studies of Antarctic PSCs have shown that their formation can be associated with deep-tropospheric clouds which have the ability to cool the lower stratosphere radiatively and/or adiabatically. In the present study, lidar measurements aboard the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellite were used to investigate whether the formation of Arctic PSCs can be associated with deep-tropospheric clouds as well. Deep-tropospheric cloud systems have a vertical extent of more than 6.5 km with a cloud top height above 7 km altitude. PSCs observed by CALIPSO during the Arctic winter 2007/2008 were classified according to their type (STS, NAT, or ice) and to the kind of underlying tropospheric clouds. Our analysis reveals that 172 out of 211 observed PSCs occurred in connection with tropospheric clouds. 72% of these 172 observed PSCs occurred above deep-tropospheric clouds. We also find that the type of PSC seems to be connected to the characteristics of the underlying tropospheric cloud system. During the Arctic winter 2007/2008 PSCs consisting of ice were mainly observed in connection with deep-tropospheric cloud systems while no ice PSC was detected above cirrus. Furthermore, we find no correlation between the occurrence of PSCs and the top temperature of tropospheric clouds. Thus, our findings suggest that Arctic PSC formation is connected to adiabatice cooling, i.e. dynamic effects rather than radiative cooling.



http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/3791/2012/acp-12-3791-2012.html


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 2, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You'll have to be more specific about who said what and what they said before I could even begin to anwer that. 



> > > That there are holes that need to be filled because of experiments and observations that don't confirm equations and predictions of the warmers. And we (I'm not speaking for everyone, but generally) are APPALLED by the obvious failure of the models and the FRAUD and political shananigans that have been disclosed..
> > >
> > > You just keep believing we're the nuts...
> >
> ...



I'm sorry, but having a number called the global mean temperature and having it vary in the 2nd decimal place isn't proof or disproof of anythig. Youre 1) point is really just laughable, it boils down to "I feel like this number is silly, and I'm an enigeer, I should know!"


> 2) I have doubts about the contribution of CO2. In fact, the equation for heating due to CO2 is not linear. It flattens out at a concentration change that we've yet to determined in the atmosphere. But more importantly the greenhouse effect of CO2 alone is determined by it's spectral absorption. The bands at which CO2 insulates heat are almost identical to water vapor except for 1 maybe 2 spots in the spectrum. Therefore -- in the presence of even MODERATE concentrations of water vapor, the effect of CO2 heat is filtered out. See the next item.


No one is disputing the non-linear response of atmopsheric IR absorption due to CO2 or any other gas. 



> 3) We know JACK about the spectral emission of our sun.. Attempts to study the emissions bands are difficult to impossible when observing thru the very atmosphere that we're trying to determine filtering properties. That's why our REAL knowledge of shifts in solar spectrum begins about 1980 with the 1st GOOD Orbiting Solar Observatories. It's SO interesting and valuable that every country except Zimbabwe has launched one. We know that power cycles, spot cycles, radiation cycles are over long -- perhaps 12 to 100 year cycles. We've only had the TOOLS for 30 years. You might remember that we KNOW the sun is gonna go thru cycles of color (emissions spectrum) from yellow to red. We don't know about subtle shifts in frequencies that change the "greenhouse power" of various gases in the atmosphere. A simple shift in ONE LINE of that spectra could make almost ANY gas the culprit..


Sorry but solar activity does not correlate to warming since 1980 or so. And 1980 is the year you claim we started having good solar records.







> 4) I can't avoid the obvious attempts to falsify and misrepresent data. Hand-picking trees for tree-rings studies should be a capital offense when this much money and time has been wasted on INTENTIONALLY fraudalent data. THAT -- and the political shenanigans and the masses of 3rd world countries SCREAMING for money in the name of AGW -- just makes me a skeptic by itself.. It's disgusting and the biggest abuse of science in my lifetime.



You'll need to be more speficic about what you're talking about.

Tree rings have diverged from real temperatures since 1960. Its a well known problem. No one has attempted to cover it up or hide that.





> 5) There are important experiments that SHOULD confirm greenhouse theory that don't show the efffect. My favorite is the "night-time cooling" studies done in the deserts without the presence of the sun to simplify the experimental set-up. You SHOULD see night-time low temperatures trending higher with the CO2 increase. The data aren't obvious. A 2nd is that you SHOULD see not only surface, but atmospheric temperature increases tracking as well. THey do -- but nowhere near the GH models..


Please be more specific. "They" and "the GH models" just isn't anything I can validate for myself.


> 6) A couple degC / century change ought to be something we can mitigate without HOBBLING the entire world economy.


??? It is. *Uhh HELLO DUDE, It is the skeptics that claim efforts to curb global warming will hobble the world's economy.* Jeez.


> Obviously, the promoters of this circus don't WANT to solve it -- or we'd have 180 new nuclear plants in this country yesterday.THAT should tell you how THEY assess the relative risks between the Earth's "fever" and nuclear paranoia. Furthermore, the claims of what we're seeing now range from increased hemmoroids to total annilation -- and are grounded very LITTLE in any real science. They've been debunked, reputed, shot-down repeatedly. The adults are not in charge.


 There you have it folks  - the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING MUCH BE INCORRECT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS.

Well that just about does it for me, I've heard enough.


> Let me know if that's enough for you to ALLOW me to be a skeptic. I'd sure appreciate your approval and sanction to question the morons behind the circus.....


 What do you need my approval for?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2012)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can you post one repeatable scientific experiment that shows the effect on temperature and ocean pH of a 125PPM increase in CO2?
> ...



Trakar --
I don't doubt that OA (acidification) is happening. But your little experiment is limited to grade school utility compared to the magnitude of the analysis that is being done. For starters, the OA is primarily a SURFACE phenomenom. And mixing with deep water occurs constantly. In addition, the buffering in the ocean depends on HUGE deposits of Calcium buffering on the floor (tum and rolaids for Neptune). 

Yeah it needs to be understood.. But right now -- the equal logical conclusion is that PH is changing due to FRESH WATER intrusion (much more acidic) -- ie the melting polar ice...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2012)

Non-responsive oopiedoo' --- I got as far as the part where *you CLAIM you don't know who was shouting "shut -up, the science is settled"... *

I need to know whether you still think "all theories are incomplete" or "the science is settled"... 

I WANT to debate/discuss with you --- but don't bait me or waste my time.. I've got to go watch a Nancy Pelosi special -- I hear she's gonna give Al Gore some advice on dating...

Please copy/paste/edit and take out the pretend stupidity.. Gosh I hope it's only "pretend"... THEN I can tell how phoney AGW scientists examined tree rings from 100 cut trees in Russia and hand-picked the 20 or so that fit their theory of lower surface temp. And how THAT data got all exposed in Al Gores' fantasy film that helped win him a Nobel prize... 

Another clue as to how much YOU MIGHT LEARN if you weren't just flirting with me... All that talk I did about spectral absorption of CO2 and the spectrum of solar radiation HAS NOTHING to do with plot of solar irradiance. The learning we have to do concerns the "color" of sunlight and the variation in different bands of frequencies like the visible light, the infra-red and maybe even the UV spectrum... 

Cheers pal --- I know you're trying...


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

Interesting that tree rings are considered gospel up until 1960.  Then those pesky trees became unreliable.  One day solar flares are the Faithers line of defense, the next it means nothing.  Dodging the AGW settled science point was lame at best.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 2, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*Flat, have you ever considered a little research before you embarress yourself? *

Northwest Oyster Die-offs Show Ocean Acidification Has Arrived by Elizabeth Grossman: Yale Environment 360

Ocean acidification  which makes it difficult for shellfish, corals, sea urchins, and other creatures to form the shells or calcium-based structures 
The regions thriving oyster hatcheries have had to scramble to adapt to these increases in acidity.
 they need to live  was supposed to be a problem of the future. But because of patterns of ocean circulation, Pacific Northwest shellfish are already on the front lines of these potentially devastating changes in ocean chemistry. Colder, more acidic waters are welling up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean and streaming ashore in the fjords, bays, and estuaries of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, exacting an environmental and economic toll on the regions famed oysters.
 For the past six years, wild oysters in Willapa Bay, Washington, have failed to reproduce successfully because corrosive waters have prevented oyster larvae from forming shells. Wild oysters in Puget Sound and off the east coast of Vancouver Island also have experienced reproductive failure because of acidic waters. Other wild oyster beds in the Pacific Northwest have sustained losses in recent years at the same time that scientists have been measuring alarmingly corrosive water along the Pacific coast.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar --
> I don't doubt that OA (acidification) is happening. But your little experiment is limited to grade school utility compared to the magnitude of the analysis that is being done. For starters, the OA is primarily a SURFACE phenomenom. And mixing with deep water occurs constantly. In addition, the buffering in the ocean depends on HUGE deposits of Calcium buffering on the floor (tum and rolaids for Neptune).
> 
> Yeah it needs to be understood.. But right now -- the equal logical conclusion is that PH is changing due to FRESH WATER intrusion (much more acidic) -- ie the melting polar ice...


It's been a couple of days, since I tried to get you, fathead, to address carbonic acidification.  Since you are finally after it, hit your own search, and do your own science, if you don't like what somebody did for you, when you have spam after spam post, ignoring carbonic acid.  So now, you want somebody to write a dissertation!

Acid has an affinity for cold water, fathead.  Go ahead and do your own search!  You hang out here, a lot.  You claim to be an engineer.  But you are too fucking queer, to do your own homework.  Unbunch your damn panties and do a search, choo-choo bitch!

Damn!  O.R. popped one right before I replied.  Read O.R., punk!


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...








Ummmmmm, no.....I think you need to keep up with the research there olfraud.


From the 2009 report.....


"Identified water quality/hatchery problems:
 Shellfish hatcheries have historically used coarsely filtered but otherwise untreated seawater for larval culture with few problems, and larval shellfish have thrived in water in the Pacific Ocean and coastal estuaries. Upwelling of deep, cold, nutrient-rich water from the continental shelf off the coast of Oregon and Washington is typical during summer months in this region and drives high primary productivity.

Since 2003, however, higher than normal upwelling increased the extent and intensity of intrusions of deep acidic, hypoxic water off the Oregon and Washington coasts, and contributed to the formation of persistent dead zones. These events have resulted in fundamental changes in the character of our coastal bays, which contribute to high larval mortality throughout the entire year.

These fundamental changes in seawater quality influence a host of complex chemical interactions, many of which are not fully understood. However, recent research has identified at least four potential stressors that adversely affect shellfish larvae:

 Larval and juvenile shellfish are highly sensitive to acidic (low pH) seawater because their shells are formed from calcium carbonate, and dissolves when pH is low.

 Because this hypoxic and relatively acidic up-welled water is coming from deep basins and is cold (8  10 oC), it is saturated with dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen while at the same time being low in oxygen as a result of biological decomposition in the benthic zone. When hatcheries heat this gas-saturated seawater to 25  28 oC in order to meet the temperature requirements of young shellfish, the seawater becomes super-saturated. Preliminary experiments indicate that oyster larvae are very sensitive to gas super-saturation under these conditions.

 A third problem for shellfish hatcheries is the recent increase in the prevalence of a pathogenic bacterium (Vibrio tubiashii or Vt) that seems to out-compete other, more benign species in this distorted environment. Vt infections are lethal to shellfish larvae and juveniles. High levels of mortality in shellfish hatcheries and in the wild have been associated with high levels of Vt in 2006, 2007, and intermittently in previous years, such as in 1998 when environmental conditions favored disease outbreaks.

 There is potential for further stress to oyster seed given the difference between water conditions in the hatcheries where larvae are produced, and quality of water found in the remote settings where larvae set onto cultch (mother shell) are planted in the natural environment for grow-out.

So, in summary the causes are:

1. Deep water upwelling, bringing colder more CO2 saturated water to the surface is the root cause. Colder water holds more CO2, it is basic chemistry.



That deep benthic ocean water doesnt interact with the atmosphere, but it is brought to the surface by changes in ocean current patterns such as ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which have nothing to do with the small (20 Parts Per Million) global increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last decade.

2. Heating of the water to make it suitable for tank aquaculture. They get the soda pop bottle on a warm day effect. The oyster larvae dont like that. No surprise there.

3. A periodic pathogenic bacterium Vibrio tubiashii which seems to follow ocean patterns. What happened in 1998? Oh yeah, the biggest El Niño in modern times.

4. Stress with relocation into a different water environment. Anybody who has ever bought tropical fish, especially salt water fish, knows this problem.

It seems acidic seawater, caused by the ocean absorbing excessive amounts of CO2 from the air isnt in this report."


Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association | Sustainably farmed oysters, clams, mussels & scallops


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

Trakar:



> Please cite and reference the studies and discrepancies you assert. Every study I am aware of in this regard is fully and completely in accord with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application.


I'm dissapointed that you chalk up all my points to ignorance of science. You ASSUME I haven't this. 

Yet YOU let loose with this gem about "every study I'm aware of". Maybe you haven't read enough studies pal. Or maybe your knowledge of the studies is filtered thru the Huffington Post for all I know.

I don't want to play at this level. You should trust ME more and I want to trust YOU more. That way we don't hurl links at each other that maybe we don't understand.

 I DO understand this one however. Lemme do you a big favor tonight -- because after you read the follow study -- you will NEVER again be able to honestly claim that .... 



> Every study I am aware of in this regard is fully and completely in accord with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application.



Per my #Whatever on desert night-time low temperatures correlating with increasing CO2. I can't find the BETTER study that confirms this right now, but this one is easier to read anyway.. 


A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data




> The principal source of infra red radiation is solar during the daytime highs (out of the solar constant of about 1390 W/m2 [1], Approximately 415 W/m2 [2] are in the infra red portion) and terrestrial during the night-time lows. Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.
> 
> 
> Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.



Spoiler alert -- no important correlation with CO2 increase.. 

Read the conclusion first and validate to your hearts content. Researchers are having a hard time confirming the increase in desert night-time lows that SHOULD BE in the temp record as CO2 increases. Maybe because the GH effect is coupled to changes in solar spectrum (my #whatever in the list)???? 

BTW: Pardon my frustration, I've posted this crap for so many different people, that I'm tired of the repetition..


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar:
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Trakars knowledge of the subject is severly limited by a willfull ignorance on his part.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

<WestWall>
Thanks for that save... You'll get credit for the kill back at the base.. 

OleRocks -- Don't make me do this.. it's late and you're forcing me to horse picture upload to USMB for nothing. "... CO2 welling up from deeper, colder waters...." is NOT ACID. It has to disassociate to contribute to PH. In fact, it''s part of the 440GTons of CO2 that the OCEANS contribute to GW every year. (it's a net sink, but what the oceans pump into the atmosphere dwarfs cow farts and man-made crap)

AGW OA occurs at the boundary of the interface. That would be the surface. The measured decrease in PH correlated with AGW effects will be driven now and in the future AT THE SURFACE!! It'll be a hundred years before the depths even see it... 

Ocean Acidification



> Based on the increase of atmospheric CO2 that has already occurred and on future increases, scientists have modeled future seawater chemistry. They have used knowledge of ocean currents and mixing, so that projections can be made for surface and deep waters. Although it is fairly complicated, the illustration in Figure 1 has been displayed in many places to illustrate the modeling of future pH changes.  ..................... The bottom panel of the figure shows the pH in ocean waters from the surface to 4.5 km depth (4500 meters, about 15,000 feet) for the same time period.



Find the picture yourself dammit until I get uploaded...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar:
> ...



LOL.   Funny on your part, Walleyes. Trakar's acedemic background and life expreriances far exceed yours. As the quality of his posts demonstrate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> <WestWall>
> Thanks for that save... You'll get credit for the kill back at the base..
> 
> OleRocks -- Don't make me do this.. it's late and you're forcing me to horse picture upload to USMB for nothing. "... CO2 welling up from deeper, colder waters...." is NOT ACID. It has to disassociate to contribute to PH. In fact, it''s part of the 440GTons of CO2 that the OCEANS contribute to GW every year. (it's a net sink, but what the oceans pump into the atmosphere dwarfs cow farts and man-made crap)
> ...



I posted an observed phenomonem, one studied by real scientists. If you don't like the observations, it still does not change them one whit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2012)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can you post one repeatable scientific experiment that shows the effect on temperature and ocean pH of a 125PPM increase in CO2?
> ...



Couldn't find an experiment at 120PPM CO2.

I understand

And, by the way, the Warmers who have added the "atmospheric CO2 is making the oceans turn acidic" condition, not me.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Speaking of embarrassment.

If believe you've limited an increase in carbonic acid as the culprit, isn't the right way to test with 2 containers of harbor water and in the second you add a wisp of carbonic acid?

That's not what the "Experiment" did


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I don't really give a shit about Al Gore.


Good for you.  But Al's strategic failures or intransigence on hemp, switchgrass, and re-greening lets all these fugitive zombies from the birther debate gather and rile themselves up, so we get all of them, in traffic.  Al is a high-profile guy, so when he screws up, the zombies march.  As long as you like lotsa zombies, Al's not an issue.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really give a shit about Al Gore.
> ...



I see you're off your meds again


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> flacaltenn



Did you miss my reply here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-cope-with-climate-change-13.html#post5385519

or did I miss your response to it?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



I didn't respond to that, since you made a great post.  It needed no response, from me.  I believe I gave it a thumbs-up.  The British are similarly engaged in 'God Save the Queen,' without a bit of help, from me.  They are doing fine; later they will miss me, since I do some things very well, which they consume, but I'm on leave.

I don't do meds.  I understand _strategy,_ which tacticians, such as you, sometimes overlook.  I do big-picture analysis, and I keep my comments concise.  Right now, I am waiting for the birther wingnuts who post over here, to come up with a consensus definition of the famous 'hockey stick' graph, which depicts an anticipated rise, in warming.  After flogging, they might get it posted, and I will issue a tactical reply.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 3, 2012)

westwall said:


> It seems your concerns are unfounded.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please explain your understanding of the relevence of this reference to the discussion of this thread.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



That's funny.. We don't think like that at engineering meetings and skunkworks.. We place value on the contribution, not the credentials..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Did you miss my reply here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-cope-with-climate-change-13.html#post5385519
> 
> or did I miss your response to it?



Wowww.. You're slow on the backswing OopieDoo.. That's the post I'm complaining about. You didn't answer my question, you mangled my comments on solar spectral observations, and otherwise blew off my comments on the premise that I didn't know what I was talking about, but you're not gonna debate.. 

So go back and try again. I'd LOVE to discuss with you. There might be learning accomplished.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Sorry I was talking to flacaltenn, forgot to put it in the post.


Let met guess - 

you're 12?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Did you miss my reply here:
> ...





I answered all of your questions. Here it is again:



flacaltenn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You'll have to be more specific about who said what and what they said before I could even begin to anwer that. 



> > > That there are holes that need to be filled because of experiments and observations that don't confirm equations and predictions of the warmers. And we (I'm not speaking for everyone, but generally) are APPALLED by the obvious failure of the models and the FRAUD and political shananigans that have been disclosed..
> > >
> > > You just keep believing we're the nuts...
> >
> ...



I'm sorry, but having a number called the global mean temperature and having it vary in the 2nd decimal place isn't proof or disproof of anythig. Youre 1) point is really just laughable, it boils down to "I feel like this number is silly, and I'm an enigeer, I should know!"


> 2) I have doubts about the contribution of CO2. In fact, the equation for heating due to CO2 is not linear. It flattens out at a concentration change that we've yet to determined in the atmosphere. But more importantly the greenhouse effect of CO2 alone is determined by it's spectral absorption. The bands at which CO2 insulates heat are almost identical to water vapor except for 1 maybe 2 spots in the spectrum. Therefore -- in the presence of even MODERATE concentrations of water vapor, the effect of CO2 heat is filtered out. See the next item.


No one is disputing the non-linear response of atmopsheric IR absorption due to CO2 or any other gas. 



> 3) We know JACK about the spectral emission of our sun.. Attempts to study the emissions bands are difficult to impossible when observing thru the very atmosphere that we're trying to determine filtering properties. That's why our REAL knowledge of shifts in solar spectrum begins about 1980 with the 1st GOOD Orbiting Solar Observatories. It's SO interesting and valuable that every country except Zimbabwe has launched one. We know that power cycles, spot cycles, radiation cycles are over long -- perhaps 12 to 100 year cycles. We've only had the TOOLS for 30 years. You might remember that we KNOW the sun is gonna go thru cycles of color (emissions spectrum) from yellow to red. We don't know about subtle shifts in frequencies that change the "greenhouse power" of various gases in the atmosphere. A simple shift in ONE LINE of that spectra could make almost ANY gas the culprit..


Sorry but solar activity does not correlate to warming since 1980 or so. And 1980 is the year you claim we started having good solar records.







> 4) I can't avoid the obvious attempts to falsify and misrepresent data. Hand-picking trees for tree-rings studies should be a capital offense when this much money and time has been wasted on INTENTIONALLY fraudalent data. THAT -- and the political shenanigans and the masses of 3rd world countries SCREAMING for money in the name of AGW -- just makes me a skeptic by itself.. It's disgusting and the biggest abuse of science in my lifetime.



You'll need to be more speficic about what you're talking about.

Tree rings have diverged from real temperatures since 1960. Its a well known problem. No one has attempted to cover it up or hide that.





> 5) There are important experiments that SHOULD confirm greenhouse theory that don't show the efffect. My favorite is the "night-time cooling" studies done in the deserts without the presence of the sun to simplify the experimental set-up. You SHOULD see night-time low temperatures trending higher with the CO2 increase. The data aren't obvious. A 2nd is that you SHOULD see not only surface, but atmospheric temperature increases tracking as well. THey do -- but nowhere near the GH models..


Please be more specific. "They" and "the GH models" just isn't anything I can validate for myself.


> 6) A couple degC / century change ought to be something we can mitigate without HOBBLING the entire world economy.


??? It is. *Uhh HELLO DUDE, It is the skeptics that claim efforts to curb global warming will hobble the world's economy.* Jeez.


> Obviously, the promoters of this circus don't WANT to solve it -- or we'd have 180 new nuclear plants in this country yesterday.THAT should tell you how THEY assess the relative risks between the Earth's "fever" and nuclear paranoia. Furthermore, the claims of what we're seeing now range from increased hemmoroids to total annilation -- and are grounded very LITTLE in any real science. They've been debunked, reputed, shot-down repeatedly. The adults are not in charge.


 There you have it folks  - the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING MUCH BE INCORRECT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS.

Well that just about does it for me, I've heard enough.


> Let me know if that's enough for you to ALLOW me to be a skeptic. I'd sure appreciate your approval and sanction to question the morons behind the circus.....


 What do you need my approval for?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > <WestWall>
> ...



Of course it does. OA is a surface phenomenon. That's what the basic science says. YOU on the other hand lept to all kind of conclusions that your "real scientists" didn't intend to say. Are you saying this course content at Univ of Conn is shit? Or can't you read Junior year college content?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Non-responsive oopiedoo' --- I got as far as the part where *you CLAIM you don't know who was shouting "shut -up, the science is settled"... *



I can't answer why someone said something without at least knowing who they are an exactly what it is they said.


> I need to know whether you still think "all theories are incomplete" or "the science is settled"...


It is both in some cases.
example:
It is settled science that if we toss you off the Empire state building, you will fall.
Yet the theory of gravity is not complete.


> I've got to go watch a Nancy Pelosi special -- I hear she's gonna give Al Gore some advice on dating...


OK. So what?


> Please copy/paste/edit and take out the pretend stupidity.. Gosh I hope it's only "pretend"... THEN I can tell how phoney AGW scientists examined tree rings from 100 cut trees in Russia and hand-picked the 20 or so that fit their theory of lower surface temp. And how THAT data got all exposed in Al Gores' fantasy film that helped win him a Nobel prize...


Again, you need to be more specific about the study or persons you're talking about. Names and papers would help. I need to be able to verify the things you are saying.


> Another clue as to how much YOU MIGHT LEARN if you weren't just flirting with me... All that talk I did about spectral absorption of CO2 and the spectrum of solar radiation HAS NOTHING to do with plot of solar irradiance. The learning we have to do concerns the "color" of sunlight and the variation in different bands of frequencies like the visible light, the infra-red and maybe even the UV spectrum...


What do the different colors cause? Its all thermalized when its absorbed by the Earth's surface.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Reposting that original reply unmodified is kind of retarded OopieDoo.. And PROVES to me that you don't want a real discussion.. 

Is the .."science settled and the debate over" ?? Or are all scientific theories incomplete? Which is it ?

BTW GEnius: 


> Sorry but solar activity does not correlate to warming since 1980 or so. And 1980 is the year you claim we started having good solar records.



Even tho I didn't bring up solar irradiance and the graph is irrelevant. There is strong correlation between the two shown on that graph UNTIL about 1980.. As a scientist -- I find that fascinating. Don't you? Why DIDN'T the correlation continue?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> That's funny.. We don't think like that at engineering meetings and skunkworks.. We place value on the contribution, not the credentials..


Damn.  Somebody let a drawling retard get into a skunkworks?  No wonder pigs fly, and experiments are underway, to toss more shit-shapes.  What a contribution, from somebody stupid, stupider, or stupidest.

Wingnuts have a contribution:  One of them claims the 'hockey stick' isn't about accelerated warming, after all, but rather, a tree, and the other claims a difference of opinion, between warmists and skeptics:

Wienerbender: "What a moron. The hockey stick is driven by a single tree. More precisely, the tree designated YADO61. Take that picked cherry away from mann and the hockey stick blows away on the wind like the smoke that it is. They discounted data from a very large number of trees in favor of that particular tree because it showed what they had already decided that they wanted to see before the "study" began."

IanCrapforbrains: "The "Hockey Stick" is shorthand for two ways of thinking about global warming. For anti-carbon crusaders, a 1998 paper and its 1999 follow-up showing temperatures over the past 1,000 years demonstrated the terrible and immediate threat that man poses to the planet. For global-warming skeptics, though, the graph and the name are prime examples of the overblown claims and sloppy science behind much of climatology."

Your wingpunks need your help, fathead!  You admit to the existence of carbonic acid, you are a miserable retard who fails to understand cold-water dissipation affinity of acid, ENSO, upwellings, die-offs, and overwhelming evidence, but maybe your choo-choo, tardytrain-brand of engineering can help your retarded classmates out of their dilemma, at understanding a graph.  You know, the kind with an upswing, at the end of the plot.

I have a contribution.  Why don't you Log Cabin speed-freaks put on your speedos, call the cops, and run a couple of Chinese-fire-drill laps, for their amusement?

After all that fun, who could possibly want to come up, with a consensus, for the 'hockey stick' graph, but I insist, get back to work, and find out why a graph is a tree or ambiguous, or just admit you are gay, go out, parade, dance your gay, neo-con asses off, and try not to pass the dose or burn the planet, assholes!


----------



## Trakar (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yes, of course the experiment is simplistic, but it is given as a repeatable (meaning something people can do in their own garage/basement with easy to acquire equipment - which were the conditions established in previous such "experiment" requests) and demonstrates the basic principles to an individual that seriously rejects many basic principles and findings of physics and chemistry in relation to their application within Climate science understandings.

As to your specific understandings of OA, we can talk about that in more detail, if you'd like.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

AttaBoy Oopie:



> What do the different colors cause? Its all thermalized when its absorbed by the Earth's surface.



Now --- we're talking.... I gotta go kiss some relatives and buy some plants. We'll chat about this when I get back...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

Trakar:



> Yes, of course the experiment is simplistic, but it is given as a repeatable (meaning something people can do in their own garage/basement with easy to acquire equipment - which were the conditions established in previous such "experiment" requests) and demonstrates the basic principles to an individual that seriously rejects many basic principles and findings of physics and chemistry in relation to their application within Climate science understandings.
> 
> As to your specific understandings of OA, we can talk about that in more detail, if you'd like.



I wasn't picking on you.. I like your style. I like simple experiments. Just trying to get to the punchline a little tiny bit faster...


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> I wasn't picking on you.. I like your style. I like simple experiments. Just trying to get to the punchline a little tiny bit faster...


If you meet somebody smart in Tennessee, send 'em over, even if he's a three-dollar-hillbilly, like you.  YOU are not a smart man.  Quote in quote in quote, gumption-junction.

YOU have failed, to understand acid, you finally admitted to OA, but you are an idiot, who won't understand the basic affinity of acid, for cold water, or evidence, of related die-offs, or urgency, for re-greening, but I do have a simple task for you, define the 'hockey stick.'

Then I'll put it up with the other tardy wingpunk rants, and we'll see if a consensus shows.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 3, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Interesting that tree rings are considered gospel up until 1960.  Then those pesky trees became unreliable.  One day solar flares are the Faithers line of defense, the next it means nothing.  Dodging the AGW settled science point was lame at best.



Well, it was in the sixties that CO2 levels and aerosol levels began reaching points where  they began impacting tree growth in ways that are not apparent in tree growth throughout the most species in the late Holocene (last 6-8000years) when CO2 and aerosol levels have been at relatively constant and significantly lower, levels. When you begin dramatically and chronically changing the factors that are responsible for long-term growth, it really isn't unreasonable to expect that the growth rate begins to diverge from historic levels and rates.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with regards to solar flares, but if you are willing to clarify the reference, I am willing to respond to the issue according to my understandings.

I don't know of any science that is settled, in general, the only issues of science that I am aware of that are definitively "settled" are issues that are demonstrated to be false and compellingly contradicted by experiment/observation. 

That said, there are many issues in science where our understanding is compellingly supported by an overwhelming preponderance of the available evidence, the primary principles of AGW (increasing GHG ratios primary forcing of current climate change, anthropogenic sourcing of overwhelming majority of increasing atmospheric GHGs, general applicability of paleoclimate record to guide considerations of the types of effects we can expect from generally similar atmospheric compositions to what we have currently and what we expect if things proceed along any one of several well considered public policy courses of action - including "doing nothing different from what we have so far") is one of these areas that is compellingly supported by an overwhelming preponderance of the available evidence. 

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with being an advocate of alternative understandings or perspectives of the evidences, or even continuing to investigate and even advocate for a personal perspective favoring an alternative climate change hypothesis. There is a big difference, however between individuals preferring to investigate, explore and prefer specific alternate concepts and individuals who try to grab bits and pieces from every alternative they run across trying to cast doubt upon AGW rather than actually advocating for any specific alternative. The former, I may disagree with, but I can generally respect, their perspective as a legitimately considered and reasoned consequence of their specific understandings.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I don't read liberal/conservative idiocy blogs, nor do I get my understanding of science from blogs of any advocacy. But if you'd like to discuss the paper presented in connection with the statements you seem to be trying to support with it, that is a course we can pursue. 



flacaltenn said:


> > Every study I am aware of in this regard is fully and completely in accord with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I simply don't see that there is anything mysterious or at odds "...with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application." I haven't fully read much less processed the actual paper yet, just a very cursory skim so far, I'll get back you after I've had the opportunity to fully read and review the paper, its data/processes, and its findings. Initially, I can't say much about their findings deduced from data covering the '70s-'90s over the Mojave, what I can say is that indications from the Sahara seem to pe in perfect accord with the day/night variations expected and exhibited by enhanced atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/c...NDP_reports/Morocco/Morocco.lowres.report.pdf

Oh, and I fully understand about finding the repetition of addressing the same issues over and over again, often with the same people, to be quite tiresome.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 3, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Couldn't find an experiment at 120PPM CO2.
> 
> I understand
> 
> And, by the way, the Warmers who have added the "atmospheric CO2 is making the oceans turn acidic" condition, not me.



Find? what do you mean?

I was trying to make it an easy to duplicate analogous experiment. If you insist upon the precise differences due to an additional 120ppm CO2, that only requires a few minor adjustments to the experiment. 

Gradually heat the three samples to 95º C and maintain for approximately 30 minutes which should effectively de-gas the seawater. Replace the atmosphere in the first sample with a mix of Nitrogen and CO2 appropriate to equal 120ppm CO2, 280ppm CO2 in the second sample, and 400ppm in the third sample, might even run one at 2000ppm just for grins and giggles, aggitation the sample vigorously, allow to cool to ambient mean temperature, vigorously aggitate one more time, allow sample to settle, measure pH record data. Then repeat the experiment a few dozen times to build up a good preliminary dataset.   

This does not provide a direct analogy to OA, but it does answer your requirements and generally produces results in accord with scientific understandings and considerations regarding many of the primary considerations of ocean acidification through increasing atmospheric CO2 ratios.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Even tho I didn't bring up solar irradiance and the graph is irrelevant. There is strong correlation between the two shown on that graph UNTIL about 1980.. As a scientist -- I find that fascinating. Don't you? Why DIDN'T the correlation continue?



Insolation was largely based upon surface measurements up until the late seventies/early eighties and aerosols largely masked many of the CO2 increase impacts of the time, until the clean air acts in US, Europe and most of the developed world in the '70s began clearing these aerosols out of the atmosphere and the beyond the atmosphere orbital solar obervatories began building much more accurate incident TSI information. The actual divergence of strongly correlated TSI and surface temps begins in the late '40s-mid '50s (when TSI significantly exceeds previous surface temperature correlation ratios - it isn't initially that solar irradiance declined, its that temps began to fall while TSI continued to increase - the signature of masking in association with the wartime activities and industrializations of many parts of the planet to support that war and in recovery from it).


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

AND, fathead has tricked you into working, to sustain his garbage-in, garbage out agenda.

He only wants to compute CO2 increments, to ignore the introduction of sequestered CH4, which results in the predicted upward swing, in warming, but soft!  Fathead and friends want to call anything a 'hockey stick,' and now I would like him to offer his version of 'hockey stick' or even some real graphic analysis, which incorporates the several systems, including carbonic acid and methane.

But fathead is hedging, on all of us, and while you are penning him in, Trakar, let us see what fathead and the wingnut posse come up with.  They won't even clarify their rant, against the dreaded hockey stick, while virtually spamming page after page, with puckey.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2012)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't find an experiment at 120PPM CO2.
> ...



I've been asking for an experiment like this for years and so far, you are the only Warmer who came close to an honest answer.

You have to wonder, why arent the labs and universities conducting experiments like this?  

I suspect its because adding 120 PPM CO2 does not raise temperature nor does it acidify the oceans


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I've been asking for an experiment like this for years and so far, you are the only Warmer who came close to an honest answer.
> 
> You have to wonder, why arent the labs and universities conducting experiments like this?
> 
> I suspect its because adding 120 PPM CO2 does not raise temperature nor does it acidify the oceans



Maybe the answer is you have your head up your butt, and you want an incremental CO2 experiment, which may not even be relevant, since what we all want is an explanation for added methane, which accelerates warming, and for carbonic acidification, which absorbs CO2, but it kills oceanic life.  You are looking for something stupid, not valuable, until we have a model, with all the exchanges, which you resist, with spam.

An increase in atmospheric CO2 of 120 ppm will increase carbonic acid concentrations, and putting that much in water will increase carbonic acid even more, stupid-as-stupid can be!  Anybody you ask for anything cannot possibly take you seriously.  Anybody who reads this thread end-to-end can see what a bitch you are.

Now that Trakar came up with an experiment, you need to go perform it, but we know you aren't that interested, you only wanted to take us all off, but Trakar got it out of the way and popped a list of tasks, at you, Crosstard.

Yeah, right, you'll go right over to special class lab and whip this up.  Fuck you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Because the increase in GHGs in our atmospheres increased absorbtion of infrared that would have normally been reflected and radiated back into space. The effect well predicted by Arrhenius in 1896.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...







Yes, he certainly is able to appeal to authority with the best of them.  Not so much on original thought though.  As far as life experiences go i am happy to post photo's from all over the globe showing my experiences and have done so.  I have yet to see anything from him or you.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It seems your concerns are unfounded.....
> ...







It destroys a central underpinning of the AGW theory.  Knock out the foundation and the theory collapses....as it is doing worldwide.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







No, the theroy for AGW is unfounded because observations don't matchup to the predictions.  And have never done so....well at least where the AGW crowd made a prediction on one side.  They have made so many predictions on both sides that of course they'll get those correct, however all that really accomplished was to show that it is a pseudo science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

<Trakar>


> I simply don't see that there is anything mysterious or at odds "...with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application." I haven't fully read much less processed the actual paper yet, just a very cursory skim so far, I'll get back you after I've had the opportunity to fully read and review the paper, its data/processes, and its findings.



You haven't read it yet, but you don't see anything inconsistent. Let me help you... 

Did you miss Figure 1 where the night-time low temps in an arid desert don't even RESPOND to CO2 increases like they should in your FLAWLESS AOGCMs? Says above the Figure...


> A least squares times series for the annual highs, lows and mean temperatures as well as the annual precipitation were computed. From these least squares derived time series TI was computed in the usual manner. As figure 1 illustrates, once individual station errors are minimized, there is a very strong correlation between precipitation and the TI of .77.* However, the correlation between CO2 and TI is essentially nonexistent at -0.04*


  Seems like scientists who try to confirm CO2 greenhousing effects AT NIGHT have a hard time even finding the effect. This study is over a 60 year period. There are other similiar studies confirming. And this is but one example of where the models and theory seem to fail. I only threw up a short list of "holes" in your flawless complete and irrefutable science. Here's the CONCLUSION to this ONE mystery from the study... TI stands for Thermal Inertia -- shorthand for storage of heat between the daytime highs and the night-time lows. 



> It has been shown that the metric TI correlates well with the greenhouse effects of water vapor as indicated by precipitation. It was further demonstrated that TI could be used to discriminate between an increase in atmospheric thermal inertia (greenhouse effect) and an increase in input energy. This property was used to demonstrate that the warming trend between 1973 and 1994 was due to increases in input energy and not increases in thermal inertia. *There was no significant correlation between the rise in CO2 and the TI metric.
> 
> The lack of correlation between the rise in CO2 and TI, suggest either the rise in CO2 has not appreciably increased any greenhouse effect, or atmospheric CO2 has not been increasing over New Mexico.*
> 
> ...



That latter part .... "...it may be that the effective excitation bands bandwidth are SO NARROW that there is no appreciable energy retained." This couples with my OTHER LISTED skeptical concern about what we know in terms of Solar spectrum and trends in shifts of important spectral lines. We've only had access to accurate measurements of this for about 30 years as I'm about to explain to my buddy and pal OopyDoo when we chat about the width and placement of absorption bands in GH gasses.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

<flacaltenn>


> Non-responsive oopiedoo' --- I got as far as the part where *you CLAIM you don't know who was shouting "shut -up, the science is settled"... *



<Oopydoo>


> I can't answer why someone said something without at least knowing who they are an exactly what it is they said.



See my answer below about WHO is trying to stop debate over AGW and disenfranchise science. 

<Oopydoo>


> Again, you need to be more specific about the study or persons you're talking about. Names and papers would help. I need to be able to verify the things you are saying.



My reply about Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore was in response to WHO EXACTLY was screaming about the science being settled and the debate was over. I simply can't believe you've managed to miss the whole CHORUS of people trying to short-circuit science. Is is because you idolize them or because you're embarrassed by them? Tell me the truth -- were you honestly unaware of the MASSIVE efforts to shove this AGW down our throats, hide the fraud and stop the debate? Were you unaware of all the demogoguing by folks like Pelosi and Gore?

<flacaltenn>


> I need to know whether you still think "all theories are incomplete" or "the science is settled and the debate is over"...



<Oopydoo>


> It is both in some cases.
> example:
> It is settled science that if we toss you off the Empire state building, you will fall.
> Yet the theory of gravity is not complete.



You can honestly claim the relationship between gravity and other forces is not known. You can even probably claim that's it's incomplete. But it is a proven tool that works empirically. The predictive value is immense.

This is no where near the mess and uncertainty that man-made global warming (AGW) is in. We now have YEARS of studies built on intentionally falsied and manipulated data that will linger out there and add to confusion. Not to mention the fact that studies that FAIL to corrobate the religious mantra of AGW are largely ignored. And a pantheon of pinhead politicians trying to shut down folks that are truely trying to take the blinders and search for REAL reasons for the warming.

<flacaltenn>


> Another clue as to how much YOU MIGHT LEARN if you weren't just flirting with me... All that talk I did about spectral absorption of CO2 and the spectrum of solar radiation HAS NOTHING to do with plot of solar irradiance. The learning we have to do concerns the "color" of sunlight and the variation in different bands of frequencies like the visible light, the infra-red and maybe even the UV spectrum...


<OopyDoo>


> What do the different colors cause? Its all thermalized when its absorbed by the Earth's surface.



Here's the fun part for me. The whole concept of a GH gas is that it DOES act as a blanket and storage to increase surface heating. However every gas contributes to this "heat filtering" in a different way. Most all of them except water vapor have very narrow color bands where they have any greenhouse effect at all. Take a look at the chart below. Just consider the horizontal "color" and the vertical axis "heat retention" for practical purposes.






Note that CO2 has GH power only at very specific wavelengths or colors. And the important part is that all but one (maybe two) of the colors are the same colors that water vapor trap on.. (Other props like heat capacity matter, but let's focus on spectrum). 

Now sunlight is generally "all colors". Photographers consider it a "white reference". But it also has "nooks and crannies" where not all color strengths are equal. And our ability to catalog the changes in color strength was limited until satellites because the very gases we are trying to study ruined the measurement at the earth surface. You have to go above the atmosphere to accurately watch for fluctuations in frequency bands (colors) or make a lot of perilous assumptions about the filtering property of the atmosphere. 

Bottom line -- if there are long term or short term shifts or cycles in the power that sun puts out at specific color lines -- it will change the absorption effect of the gases. We don't have enough years of satellite data yet to even begin to guess how they vary. 

Secondly, the overlap of the CO2 absorption bands with the water vapor bands means that the higher GH "power" of CO2 is EXTREMELY sensitive to the amount of water vapor. Even tho CO2 is a "more powerful" GH gas -- water vapor by fraction of atmosphere dwarfs it and MAY completely mask the effect in some cases. 

That's why (coming in full circle) those desert night-time Low temperatures are so important. GH theory says that night-time lows should be getting higher and tracking CO2. 
And the desert part is important because you remove the effect of massive amounts of water vapor in the air. So nightime removes the sun effects, desert removes the water vapor effects. 

They are having a hard time confirming ANY tracking under those conditions.. 
Any ONE unconfirmed observation about ANY theory is a killer til it's explained or the theory is modified. Those are the rules..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



*Bullshit. At the time that you people were saying CO2 has no affect, and that there is no warming, Dr. Hansen wrote this paper. His predictions are pretty much spot on.*

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't picking on you.. I like your style. I like simple experiments. Just trying to get to the punchline a little tiny bit faster...
> ...



I only want to respond your crap that's relevent to science forum. your wasting major energy with all the rest of the B.S. I MAY be in Tenn now -- but I spent 20+ years in Silicon Valley, a stint at Kennedy Space Center, and about 5 years in complicated areas we can't even discuss. 

I acknowledged OA as a concerning problem. I haven't yet signed on to your leap of faith that it's all due to man-made additions of CO2. If you read (and understood  my posts, you'd know that there are MANY excellent alternate explanations.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Even tho I didn't bring up solar irradiance and the graph is irrelevant. There is strong correlation between the two shown on that graph UNTIL about 1980.. As a scientist -- I find that fascinating. Don't you? Why DIDN'T the correlation continue?
> ...



Not totally in evidence. If the particulate, aerosols, War Effects? (are you serious? only war effect I can think of that's relevant is atomic testing) had an effect on ground measurements of TSI -- it would work to LOWER THEM.

UNLESS -- the assumptions they were using to adjust the data based on guesses about the atmosphere were garbage. The divergence I see is consistent with advent of OSObservatories which set the record straight. At least for TSI. Still doesn't rule out TSI or my hunch that we don't know Jack about temporal changes in THE SPECTRUM of SI except for a meager 30 year record. 

Don't really care about the graph. It only illustrates how sketchy historical records and proxies can get..


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








  Fucking Sylvia Brown is more accurate than Hansen you dip shit.


----------



## dsolo802 (Jun 3, 2012)

westwall said:


> Fucking Sylvia Brown is more accurate than Hansen you dip shit.


Don't dis Sylvia. She is spot on - as far as we can tell.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I posted a whole article from over 30 years ago. You can go through the artcle and pick out major errors if you can find any. 

All you have done is posted yap-yap with no referances. Notice the referance to the opening of the Northwest Passage?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I've been asking for an experiment like this for years and so far, you are the only Warmer who came close to an honest answer.
> ...



Two things are obvious from your post:

1. You still haven't pointed to a single experiment that demonstrates any of what you've described. How much will pH drop be adding 120PPM CO2 to the atmosphere? Do they make numbers that small? Can you give us a ball park estimate?

2. You need to come to terms with your homosexuality. It's 2012. It's OK for you to come out


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > YOU have failed, to understand acid, you finally admitted to OA, but you are an idiot, who won't understand the basic affinity of acid, for cold water, or evidence, of related die-offs, or urgency, for re-greening, but I do have a simple task for you, define the 'hockey stick.'
> ...


Hey, asshole.  If I caught you on the payroll, anytime, anywhere, you'd be gone, you worthless shit-dangler.

You don't even read my posts.  Which is why I have to keep cluing you.  Our information of global warming is not sufficiently cumulative, to understand the entire effect of human stewardship, since any time frame, but we can have a good idea, if we don't re-green, we will join the endangered species list.

My position is and remains, so what about what percentage of emissions are human, when humans have been despoiling for so long, one lousy graph won't do the job, and you are wasting time with your spectral masturbation, since I keep seeing your posts, and you haven't tracked any of your stupid information, to include reflectivity or absorption indices, based on atmospheric density, with any sort of breakdown, with distance from sea-level.

You are a pompous shithole, daisy-chaining with your asshole-blow-buddy, Intestinalwally, who at least knows he should try to blow people off, instead of smear and stain, while spamming thread after thread.  Wally knows he's a dumbshit, _don't you, Wally._  You keep trying to convince whoever reads your crap you have value.  But you are shitty.

Really, you are a shitty asshole, who shouldn't have stolen money, mistakenly paid to you and people like you, who are ripoffs, and you deserve to be imprisoned, for fraud, I am certain, if you took any money, for anything you claim, as science.  Fuck you and your fucktard-wingpunk posse.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Refer to figure 7.  None of it is correct.  That's the only prediction in the whole paper that is meaningful, and it's wrong on all counts.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 4, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> <flacaltenn>
> 
> 
> > Non-responsive oopiedoo' --- I got as far as the part where *you CLAIM you don't know who was shouting "shut -up, the science is settled"... *
> ...




Sorry, I had expected you meant  *scientists* had said this. Are we debating science? At any rate, what exactly is it that Gore and Pelosi said that got your panties all up in a bunch? Why are you and the skeptics so obsessed with Democratic celebrities?



> <Oopydoo>
> 
> 
> You can honestly claim the relationship between gravity and other forces is not known. You can even probably claim that's it's incomplete. But it is a proven tool that works empirically. The predictive value is immense.
> ...



I'm curious - do you even realize that you haven't provided evidence of any falisified data?



> Not to mention the fact that studies that FAIL to corrobate the religious mantra of AGW are largely ignored.


*
You mean like how you're ignoring them right now by not even mentioning their authors and the year of publication?*



> And a pantheon of pinhead politicians trying to shut down folks that are truely trying to take the blinders and search for REAL reasons for the warming.



Sorry but how does the existence or lack thereof of "pinhead politicians" prove or disprove anything scientific?



> <flacaltenn>
> 
> 
> > Another clue as to how much YOU MIGHT LEARN if you weren't just flirting with me... All that talk I did about spectral absorption of CO2 and the spectrum of solar radiation HAS NOTHING to do with plot of solar irradiance. The learning we have to do concerns the "color" of sunlight and the variation in different bands of frequencies like the visible light, the infra-red and maybe even the UV spectrum...
> ...



The GH effect is caused by radiation on its way OUT of the Earth's atmopshere being trapped, not on its way IN. The radiation leaving the Earth has been thermalized and does not possess the same spectra as the sun.



> Secondly, the overlap of the CO2 absorption bands with the water vapor bands means that the higher GH "power" of CO2 is EXTREMELY sensitive to the amount of water vapor. Even tho CO2 is a "more powerful" GH gas -- water vapor by fraction of atmosphere dwarfs it and MAY completely mask the effect in some cases.
> 
> That's why (coming in full circle) those desert night-time Low temperatures are so important. GH theory says that night-time lows should be getting higher and tracking CO2.
> And the desert part is important because you remove the effect of massive amounts of water vapor in the air. So nightime removes the sun effects, desert removes the water vapor effects.
> ...


Sorry but I'm not going to look up the studies you are referring to for you. If you want to talk about something where a scientist with a name thought of it and wrote about it in a paper that can be read and verified that would be great. 


While you're at it, please tell me what *your* calculation is for the GH forcing due to CO2.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Two things are obvious from your post:
> 
> 1. You still haven't pointed to a single experiment that demonstrates any of what you've described. How much will pH drop be adding 120PPM CO2 to the atmosphere? Do they make numbers that small? Can you give us a ball park estimate?
> 
> 2. You need to come to terms with your homosexuality. It's 2012. It's OK for you to come out



1.  I don't have the lab, to do an experiment, which would show exactly what you ask.  The acid is present, it has cold-water affinity, and it is killing animals.  Since you are an insincere queer, who has AIDS-denial and no fear of HIV and no fear of global warming or acidification, you claim 120 ppm CO2 is somehow an experiment we all have to go out and do for you, when this has to be set up, to show exchange from atmosphere to ocean to acid, and I don't have that, and you're a queer on beer, who a day later is ignoring how Trakar spelled out an experiment for you, you punk weasel, so you forgot, anyway;

2.  Eat your own queer shit and die, punk.  You and your wingpunks won't come to grips with the bottom line of warming or acidification, which is the planet is sick, we are losing species, and you think your tinfoil-hat media indicates the planet is not in trouble, with exactly the same lies tricks told, by dead queers, who were shooting speed and having unprotected sex, while pushing their dose, all the way to full-blown AIDS;

3.  You and your wingpunks' pants are on fire, in traffic.  You dose-pushing geek from a Log Cabin closet, don't forget to eat your own queer shit and die!  To deny global warming and cumulative human stewardship problems, ass-creep neo-cons are all over the message boards, flaming out their butts.  Lie some more, queer assholes.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Your babbling a bunch of nonsense about bears and volcanoes and in general using jargon that makes it apparent you are more of a blog expert than a scientific one.



AGW has nothing to do with science. This is religion, not science. 

Science is a process of discovery and refinement. In science, questioning is critical. Something like AGW, where questioning of dogma is met with harsh penalty is religion, where the clergy fears anyone looking too closely.

Let's face it, Mann, Jones, Gore, and Rajendra Pachauri are *PROVEN* frauds, yet what your church bases your claims on are driven by these men. No wonder those who question the church find that they cannot be published and are fired from jobs - the clergy knows that legitimate science reputes what the church teaches, rather than supports it.

So why would I debate AGW? To convince you that it's a fraud? You already know it's a fraud, and you don't care. So like the JW's and Scientologists, you deserve and get only derision from me.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 4, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> The part about 'papist wingnut' really got you going.



It's possible that Catholicism is just as stupid as the AGW cult, but no one is making laws based on Catholic doctrine, so it isn't a concern to me.



> You refer to Scientology, you drop 'cult' re AGW, I suppose, and you are suspected of a kind of baptism.



Scientology may not be quite as nutty as the AGW morons, but they are pretty fucked up.



> Have you learned to fuck yourself, for Jesus?



Why would a composite mythological figure want someone to fuck themselves?

Of course, if you were rational, you wouldn't follow the AGW cult.

You just *C*an't* U*nderstand *N*ormal *T*hought...



> Have you learned to bend over, for Father Horn-dog?  What's your religion, if it isn't from St.Wingnut's miserable catechism?  Screw you, for not posting even one link, while taking up half a page, with your huffing and puffing.



I understand that you are weak of mind, it's why you follow a cult. While your cult teaches that those who deny are heretics teaching strange faiths, the truth is that most of us would prefer rational inquiry based on demonstrable fact and sound experimentation.

It's called "science," you really wouldn't understand.



> You sure do like to elaborately segment quotes, but you fail to offer any links, to event or study reports.  Phil Jones is not a bad reference, but you merely rant, since you are really fucking stupid.  So quote in quote in quote and make farty replies, _asshole._



Phil Jones is a proven fraud - and you are a drooling moron licking the diarehha from his anus as is so typical of your stupid cult.

You going out tonight to burn down the lab of some heretic denier who found evidence of yet more fraud by your church?

{WASHINGTON - Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful. The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 - hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035. }
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=5237de54-802a-23ad-428d-bf84f5695d1b

{...more than 50 per cent of observed glaciers in the Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable.
"Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability or global sea level," the authors concluded.
Dr Bookhagen said their report had shown "there is no stereotypical Himalayan glacier" in contrast to the UN's climate change report which, he said, "lumps all Himalayan glaciers together."
Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has remained silent on the matter since he was forced to admit his report's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was an error and had not been sourced from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It came from a World Wildlife Fund report.
He angered India's environment minister and the country's leading glaciologist when he attacked those who questioned his claim as purveyors of "voodoo science".
The environment Minister Jairam Ramesh had cited research indicating some Himalayan glaciers were advancing in the face of the UN's claim.}

<daveinboca>

Your religion is a fucking fraud, we all know it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2012)

<OopieDoo>


> I'm curious - do you even realize that you haven't provided evidence of any falisified data?



Don't need to. I ASSUME i'm talking to someone who's been following the GW debate from BOTH a scientific and social perspective. Am I WRONG about that Oopiedoo?


<OopieDoo>


> The GH effect is caused by radiation on its way OUT of the Earth's atmopshere being trapped, not on its way IN. The radiation leaving the Earth has been thermalized and does not possess the same spectra as the sun.



Not in THIS universe it doesn't.. Works both ways. Just like a greenhouse does. Maybe you need to camping in the desert and see the difference in temp between a night with clouds and a clear night.

You can't SEE infrared as heat -- but it's radiating back into the atmosphere at night. (know how night vision goggles work ooppie?) (there is a difference between heat propagation and IR prop, and BOTH are in play)

I've posted ON THIS THREAD a sample study  trying to confirm the GH effect at night and in the desert (without solar irradiation and water vapor) -- and it's not getting confirmed that CO2 is the culprit.. From the chart i gave on absorption spectra, the top line is total absorption of the greenhouse. Works in either direction. And it would only take subtle shifts of solar radiation spectrum to fall into or away from those gaps in "heat retention" to change the surface temperature.

<OopieDoo>


> Sorry but I'm not going to look up the studies you are referring to for you. If you want to talk about something where a scientist with a name thought of it and wrote about it in a paper that can be read and verified that would be great.
> 
> 
> While you're at it, please tell me what your calculation is for the GH forcing due to CO2.



You don't need to look it up.. I've already posted and discussed one sample in this very thread. You either didn't read thru or you didn't know what you were looking at. Here's a hint.. I've bolded the important parts.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5390257-post229.html

So maybe oopy trying to have a real discussion on this is a waste of my time and yours. Did you even read the conclusion (and the credentials) of THAT scientist? And DON'T come back here and whine that it's just one study or scientist. I've already stated that there multiple studies of that type and this is but ONE example where AGW theory has failed. 

There is probably GH forcing due to man-made CO2.. I believe it's NOT the primary of GW. Neither do I believe the current models or the dire predictions of hemmoroids and calamity DUE to the warming that we are experiencing.. Einstein didn't measure the speed of light to confirm. Einstein didn't really do any experiments. All he did was observe and ponder.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> I understand that you are weak of mind, it's why you follow a cult. While your cult teaches that those who deny are heretics teaching strange faiths, the truth is that most of us would prefer rational inquiry based on demonstrable fact and sound experimentation.
> 
> It's called "science," you really wouldn't understand.
> 
> ...



You are a miserable, punkass bullshitter.  Warming is here.  It's getting worse.  Stupid people like you want to blame somebody for it, but fuck you, here it is, anyway.

97% of the world's glaciers are receding, CO2 is at 400 ppm in the Arctic, 350 ppm is maximum safe level, 275 ppm was 19th Century level, carbonic acidification is killing oceanic organisms, including plankton, eggs, little fish, oysters, and reefs, threatening the entire food chain, sequestered methane is issuing from heating land and sea areas, and the warming and acidification is accelerating.

You ranting peace of shit, I don't read Phil Jones, I just didn't oppose you, for dropping his name, but you are a punk, who needs to quit blowing padres and read some science.  When you wipe padre-spunk off your stinking gob, ask the cleric to sock you up a post, in exchange.  Get some real religion up here.  Then you can fuck yourself and talk religion.  Not yet.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Two things are obvious from your post:
> ...



The planet isn't sick, you are.  You are making yourself suffer needlessly by suppressing your homosexuality. Trust me, nobody cares. You could sign up for RuPaul's Drag Race and nobody here or in your life would give a crap, but you might be happier

I didn't say that YOU had to do the experiment, I just thought that with all of these colleges and universities all signed on to AGW, you'd think at least ONE of them would have done an experiment showing the expected drop in pH per increase in CO2.

How many gigatons of addition CO2 are added every year from "Manmade global warming"?

What percentage of that is absorbed by the ocean?

What percentage of the newly absorbed CO2 is converted to Carbonic acid?

What is the pH of Carbonic acid

What is the pH of the ocean?

What is the expected drop in ocean pH as a result of the newly added carbonic acid (do they make numbers that small?)

Work that out for a bit


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 4, 2012)

Have to like the concept of CO2 allowing solar radiation into the atmosphere, but blocking it on the way out.  lol

Then they jump up and down and say,  but...but...there's MORE CO2 now..........  priceless


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 4, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> You are a miserable, punkass bullshitter.



And if you could, you would burn me at the stake as a vile heretic.

I understand exactly how you think and what you would do, I have Iran as a model of Warmer thinking.



> Warming is here.  It's getting worse.  Stupid people like you want to blame somebody for it, but fuck you, here it is, anyway.



In 4.5 billion years, there has been only one constant to the Earth's climate, constant change.

You fuckwits with your "volcano god cult" think that the wind shifting direction is proof of Gaea becoming angry at your carbon sins.

Listen up, fuckwit - back when this same scam was pulled for the village next to the volcano, guess what? The volcano was real.

What wasn't real was the bullshit the Shaman promised. Giving him your virgin daughter so he could rape her and then murder her by throwing her in, that had no effect on whether the volcano would erupt.

You fuckwits want to sacrifice everything to the shamans, but you're way too fucking stupid to comprehend that they have no control over the climate and any "sacrifice" is just a means of enriching themselves and giving more power to the ruling caste, whom they serve.



> 97% of the world's glaciers are receding, CO2 is at 400 ppm in the Arctic, 350 ppm is maximum safe level, 275 ppm was 19th Century level, carbonic acidification is killing oceanic organisms, including plankton, eggs, little fish, oysters, and reefs, threatening the entire food chain, sequestered methane is issuing from heating land and sea areas, and the warming and acidification is accelerating.



AND THE LORD SHALL STRIKE DOWN...

You fucking moron.



> You ranting peace of shit, I don't read Phil Jones,



You do follow his church, faithfully.



> I just didn't oppose you, for dropping his name, but you are a punk, who needs to quit blowing padres and read some science.  When you wipe padre-spunk off your stinking gob, ask the cleric to sock you up a post, in exchange.  Get some real religion up here.  Then you can fuck yourself and talk religion.  Not yet.



Fuckwit, you're a stupid guy who has convinced yourself that reciting this hokey religion will make you appear wise.

What you don't grasp is that it only impresses other fuckwits.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 4, 2012)

The worthless bob is going on ignore.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 4, 2012)

Somebody want to bring their 4x4 over to my house and drive me to buy charcoal?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 4, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> The worthless bob is going on ignore.



I think he's kind of fun.

The perfect example of the AGW cultists. Stupid as a stump and brainwashed to the point of rejecting any evidence that refutes his faith.

I'm encouraging him to spew his vomit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The worthless bob is going on ignore.
> ...



I second that motion.. BobG does science like Debby does Dallas. 

This notion that only the high priests of AGW care about the earth or the environment gets really sketchy. I can't tell whether Bob really cares or not. If the Garden of Eden returned, ole bob and his congregation would still be hating on everyone.. Just like I don't know whether Al Gore values the earth and the environment or his wallet..


----------



## Trakar (Jun 4, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You have to wonder, why arent the labs and universities conducting experiments like this?



They have been done in jr. High general science demonstrations and High School level chemistry and physics classes for most of the last 50 years (where I first ran into such dmonstrations) and in variation are frequently a part of undergrad chemistry and physics classes in most community colleges and universitys across the nation.  



> I suspect its because adding 120 PPM CO2 does not raise temperature nor does it acidify the oceans



We don't have to rely upon suspicions, follow the course of the experiments as tens of millions of students do each year and analyze the data. So far, when the experiement is followed with the proper attention to detail, rigorous laboratory methodology, and precision in data recovery the findings are in accord with and support both CO2's GHG properties and the pH shifts in accord with the absorption of CO2 into aqueous solutions. It's not magic, it's basic science fully in accord with mainstream science understandings.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2012)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You have to wonder, why arent the labs and universities conducting experiments like this?
> ...



Actually, in all the years I've been asking I've only seen one experiment that uses a 100PPM increase in CO2. It was from Centenary College of Louisiana and I have to thank Old Rocks for finding it. 

I asked OR if he had the results of the test -- he didn't.

So I called the college and spoke to one of the professors David Davies and Ernest Blakeney, (I forget which one I spoke to). He said the the other professor came up with the idea for the experiment and he seems to have disappeared. No one has seen him or heard from him.

If you have a similar experiment, please feel free to post it.

Most of the "Experiments" pump up the control container with 500,000PPM of CO2 and don't adjust for increased pressure.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2012)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You have to wonder, why arent the labs and universities conducting experiments like this?
> ...



Except that the CLAIMS for damages due to AGW and the related OA are NOT based simply on the amount of man-made CO2 added to the atmosphere. Climate scientists ADMIT that with only man-made contributions of CO2 -- nothing much interesting would happen.. The DOOM and GLOOM projections require the Feedback mechanisms of melting glaciers, changes in the thermal transport zones in the seas, clouds etc caused by the marginal warming. These things exist, and make the calculus ASTRONOMICALLY more difficult to handle. 

And I say marginal warming because the change from 280ppm all the way to 560ppm of CO2 only projects about a 1.4degC increase at the surface using simple stuff like the CO2 forcing function and a GUESS about the climate sensitivity..






So my pal -- it aint' as simple as focusing on CO2 concentrations alone. All those experiments will give you qualitative confirmation of the effect. No enlightment on whether to worry about it..


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The planet isn't sick, you are.  You are making yourself suffer needlessly by suppressing your homosexuality. Trust me, nobody cares. You could sign up for RuPaul's Drag Race and nobody here or in your life would give a crap, but you might be happier
> 
> I didn't say that YOU had to do the experiment, I just thought that with all of these colleges and universities all signed on to AGW, you'd think at least ONE of them would have done an experiment showing the expected drop in pH per increase in CO2.
> 
> ...



Fuck you, Crosstard bitch.  Hit search, if you don't know all that shit, from memory.  I am surprised anybody would do anything you suggest, since you are like any other meth-freak who turns tricks.  I wouldn't have anything to do with you, out of this house.

You watch the drag races; I don't.  You want to drive your dose into the planet; I neither have nor want some dose.  You think the planet isn't sick; I say you are queer as a three-dollar-hillbilly, and you are every bit like swishes who used to trick, shoot speed, and trick some more, all the way past HIV, to full-blown AIDS.  So eat shit, punk.  

I am not sick.  Actually, I am healthy and athletic.  Eat shit and die, Crosstard.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> It destroys a central underpinning of the AGW theory.  Knock out the foundation and the theory collapses....as it is doing worldwide.



Please explain in detail your understanding of the central AGW underpinning you feel this paper destroys and specify in the paper the statements and evidences that you feel refute or destroy this underpinning.

(other than an attempt to attack AGW in general, I still don't see the relevence of this paper to the discussion topic of this particular thread's subject)


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Westwall has done this repeatedly. Stating that a paper refutes the major premises of AGW, yet when called to point out why this is so, he is silent,or launches into a political lecture condemning all of we "liberals".


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Your babbling a bunch of nonsense about bears and volcanoes and in general using jargon that makes it apparent you are more of a blog expert than a scientific one.
> ...



OK. People that have committed scientific fraud in peer reviewed journals have that fraud exposed in the same journals by other scientists. So, give us the articles, the journals they were published in, by whom written, and the dates.

Otherwise, be exposed for the big mouthed brainless yap-yap you are.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > The part about 'papist wingnut' really got you going.
> ...



*You are an idiot, and we all know it.*

Global warming: New study says Himalayan glaciers not melting as fast as previously predicted, at least for now « Summit County Citizens Voice

SUMMIT COUNTY  Glaciers in the Himalaya are not shrinking as fast as once predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Some glaciers in the Karakoram Range have grown slightly in the past decade, according to a team of European researchers who recently completed one of the most detailed surveys of the region to-date.

But there are still valid concerns about variability that could leave some valleys dry, at least on a seasonal basis.

The majority of the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking, but much less rapidly than predicted earlier, said Tobias Bolch, of the University of Zurich and Dresden University of Technology.

Bolch said the earlier predictions were based on erroneous mapping. The newest study, published in Science, is based on satellite data showing that glaciers in the Himalayas and Karakoram cover a total area of about 40,800 square kilometers  about  twenty times larger than all glaciers of the European Alps put together,but as much as twenty percent smaller than was previously assumed.

Along with satellite data, the researchers added all  existing measurements of length, area and volume changes and mass budgets into their calculations.

Some of the measurement series on length changes date back to 1840, and measurements of glacier mass budget that instantaneously reflect the climate signal are rare. Overall, the researchers recorded average length decreases of 15 to 20 metres and area decreases of 0.1 to 0.6 percent per year in recent decades, as well as an average 40 centimeter lowering of glacier surfaces.

The detected length changes and area and volume losses correspond to the global average,  Bolch said.

For the regions in the northwestern Himalayas and especially in the Karakoram Range, the researchers noted very heterogeneous behavior in the glaciers. Many of them are dynamically unstable and prone to surges that largely occur independently of climatic conditions.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> OK. People that have committed scientific fraud in peer reviewed journals have that fraud exposed in the same journals by other scientists.



Bullshit. The "journals" don't publish studies that examine flaws in AGW dogma. Don't you remember Climategate? This was one of many exposed frauds, that "peer reviewed" journals were openly suppressing any studies that found flaws in AGW - and that heretics were openly denied publication in a direct assault on their professional and academic standing. 

Further, these "peer reviewed" journals that we are supposed to trust, openly covered for the fraud of Rajendra Pachauri, only pressure from Anthony Watts forced the IPCC and THEN the American Journal of Science to admit that the Himalayan glacier melt was a complete fabrication.

The truth is, as you well know, science has no place in climatology. Psychologists have more accurate and dependable methodology. Hell, astrologists do as well.



> So, give us the articles, the journals they were published in, by whom written, and the dates.
> 
> Otherwise, be exposed for the big mouthed brainless yap-yap you are.



Already did, yapper.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> SUMMIT COUNTY  Glaciers in the Himalaya are not shrinking as fast as once predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
> 
> Some glaciers in the Karakoram Range have grown slightly in the past decade, according to a team of European researchers who recently completed one of the most detailed surveys of the region to-date.




Haven't "shrunk as fast?"

Uh no, they've fucking GROWN...

ROFL

Open fraud, but you still believe - your faith is strong.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 4, 2012)

Sorry, lost a couple of lengthy responses in progress and have already spent my personally alotted time for such play each day, I'll start over on pg 14 tomorrow and see if I can catch up.
(apologies - work calls interrupted play and contributed to distractive loss of posts) I'm going to skim quickly through rest of watched threads and I'll see you all tomorrow.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Sorry, lost a couple of lengthy responses in progress and have already spent my personally alotted time for such play each day, I'll start over on pg 14 tomorrow and see if I can catch up.
> (apologies - work calls interrupted play and contributed to distractive loss of posts) I'm going to skim quickly through rest of watched threads and I'll see you all tomorrow.



No fair PREPARING for a response.. Nobody else here does. You're not taking this shit seriously are you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SUMMIT COUNTY  Glaciers in the Himalaya are not shrinking as fast as once predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
> ...



USGS Release: Glaciers Retreating in Asia (8/25/2010 10:33:00 AM)


Many of Asias glaciers are retreating as a result of climate change.

This retreat impacts water supplies to millions of people, increases the likelihood of outburst floods that threaten life and property in nearby areas, and contributes to sea-level rise.

The U.S. Geological Survey, in collaboration with 39 international scientists, published a report on the status of glaciers throughout all of Asia, including Russia, China, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan.

Of particular interest are the Himalaya, where glacier behavior impacts the quality of life of tens of millions of people, said USGS scientist Jane Ferrigno. Glaciers in the Himalaya are a major source of fresh water and supply meltwater to all of the rivers in northern India.

As glaciers become smaller, water runoff decreases, which is especially important during the dry season when other water sources are limited. Climate change also brings warmer temperatures and earlier water runoff from glaciers, and this combined with spring and summer rains can result in flood conditions. The overall glacier retreat and additional melt can increase the amount of water dammed in the vicinity of a glacier, and the added pressure enhances the likelihood of disastrous outburst flooding.

While most glaciers in Asia are in recession, some glaciers have been found to advance. Some of the advancing glaciers are surge-type glaciers, which move forward more rapidly than average in a short period of time. The reason for this is being studied by glaciologists, and is likely due to unique and local condition

Glacier studies in each area started at different times depending on accessibility of glaciers and scientific interest. For example, the earliest description of glaciers in China was in 630 A.D., while studies in the Caucasus area of Russia began in the mid 1800s and modern studies in Nepal started in the 1950s.

The time period for retreat also differs among each glacier. In Bhutan, 66 glaciers have decreased 8.1 percent over the last 30 years.  Rapid changes in the Himalaya is shown in India by the 12 percent retreat of Chhota Shigri Glacier during the last 13 years, as well as retreat of the Gangotri Glacier since 1780, with 12 percent shrinkage of the main stem in the last 16 years.

Glaciers in Russia and in the four republics once part of the Former Soviet Union have the largest area of glaciers in Asia, covering 30,478 square miles, which is about the size of South Carolina. The glaciers of China have the second largest area of glaciers in Asia, covering 22,944 square miles, which is about twice the size of Massachusetts. In Afghanistan, the more than 3,000 small mountain glaciers that occur in the Hindu Kush and Pamir mountains provide vital water resources to the region.

This report was a collaboration between U.S. and foreign authors, the most knowledgeable glaciologists for each geographic region covered, said USGS scientist Richard S. Williams, Jr. The USGS published historical and modern data authored by local experts. Some analyses of past climate conditions were conducted by studying ice cores from high-mountain areas of Asia.

This report is the 9th in the series of 11 volumes to be published as the USGS Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World. You can view other publications in this series online.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



OleRocks: Are you saying that you are COMPLETELY UNAWARE of any REAL FRAUD in conjunction with the AGW cover-ups? Well -- today's your lucky day. You're about to get reamed by reality. You'll never be able to make that claim again. Unless you're lying.. 

Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world' - Telegraph



> Coming to light in recent days has been one of the most extraordinary scientific detective
> stories of our time, bizarrely centred on a single tree in Siberia dubbed "the most
> influential tree in the world". On this astonishing tale, it is no exaggeration to say, could
> hang in considerable part the future shape of our civilisation.
> ...



Somewhere at some time I HAD the graphs for every tree in the Siberian study and you can CLEARLY see how they were cherry-picked for the fraud. I'd love to know which cloud I put that in. (might have been in one of the Lomborg books).

If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach OleRocks -- you don't care a WIT about science, peer-review, credentials, etc. You'd be nothing but a blathering idealogue. I'm serious -- these guys ought to have their credentials revoked.. 

Can you IGNORE ALL THIS? I'm sure you will... You're trying to ignore it already I'd wager.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 4, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Sorry, lost a couple of lengthy responses in progress and have already spent my personally alotted time for such play each day, I'll start over on pg 14 tomorrow and see if I can catch up.
> (apologies - work calls interrupted play and contributed to distractive loss of posts) I'm going to skim quickly through rest of watched threads and I'll see you all tomorrow.



Translation:  Darn!  I thought if I said science three times you guys would turn into mice.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Somewhere at some time I HAD the graphs for every tree in the Siberian study and you can CLEARLY see how they were cherry-picked for the fraud. I'd love to know which cloud I put that in. (might have been in one of the Lomborg books).
> 
> If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach OleRocks -- you don't care a WIT about science, peer-review, credentials, etc. You'd be nothing but a blathering idealogue. I'm serious -- these guys ought to have their credentials revoked..
> 
> Can you IGNORE ALL THIS? I'm sure you will... You're trying to ignore it already I'd wager.



Yeah, yeah, asshole.  Now that you are tired of your shit attempt to voodoo up some ozone from GHGs, you assholes all co-opted the entire concept of 'hockey stick,' which is clearly related to _anybody's warming acceleration graph,_ to some shitty tree.

If you all weren't Crosstard Frank and IntestinalWally's fans, you wouldn't try this shit.  Michael Mann got credit for it.  So fucking what.  It's a graph, with an upswing, since the sequestered methane is going to make the temperatures rise, faster than simple CO2 and sundry accelerants.  If Fathead hadn't claimed to be a bitchin' engineer and turned out to be a queer hillbilly, I wouldn't have to call you all bitches, as many times as I do this.

Al Gore, every scientist worth a shit, O.R., Trakar, Oopie, Rolling Thunder, etc., and I all would draw you a stick.  See if you bitches read, any better than you could, yesterday:

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet More Studies Back Hockey Stick: Recent Global Warming Is Unprecedented In Magnitude And Speed And Cause | ThinkProgress

Why do all the fucktards think they can move to the tree-theory of hockey stick?  Did you guys get tired, of trying to prove GHGs will actually help cool the earth, with voodoo spectral-analysis?  Come on, assholes.  A graph has a line or two plotted, and some guy's tree is not the theory, which is generic.  Shall we go over why Fathead is completely full of shit, again?  Let there be light, Fathead.  You're FIRED!  Haha.

Bitches.  Michael Mann is just one guy, on the ice.  Cross-check your damn tree, up yours.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








A little dated there olfraud.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> We don't have to rely upon suspicions, follow the course of the experiments as tens of millions of students do each year and analyze the data. So far, when the experiement is followed with the proper attention to detail, rigorous laboratory methodology, and precision in data recovery the findings are in accord with and support both CO2's GHG properties and the pH shifts in accord with the absorption of CO2 into aqueous solutions. It's not magic, it's basic science fully in accord with mainstream science understandings.



I believe I have looked at every one of them that can be found on video and none of them are showing anything like a greenhouse effect.  They are mostly proving the ideal gas laws and at least one is providing unarguable proof that CO2 molecules can't absorb the emission of other CO2 molecules.  None demonstrate a greenhouse effect or anything like a danger from absorption by the oceans.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Fuck you, Crosstard bitch.  Hit search, if you don't know all that shit, from memory.  I am surprised anybody would do anything you suggest, since you are like any other meth-freak who turns tricks.  I wouldn't have anything to do with you, out of this house.



He knows goober.  The point is that you obviously don't know.  If you did, you wouldn't be ranting as if you were off your meds.  If you actually knew, then you would really have to be an idiot to believe that CO2 represents any danger to us.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Old Rocks has been informed by me about many breaches of integrity by his heroes in climate science. he starts off by posting his same batch of links, then he tries to change the subject, then he simply refuses to respond.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2012)

The Warmers made hockey sticks from Mann's tree rings.

True story


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 5, 2012)

Have any of you guys ever read the word f-tard in a scientific journal?  The Faithers just get more shrill and unbalanced as the world understands the fraud that has been committed.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have to rely upon suspicions, follow the course of the experiments as tens of millions of students do each year and analyze the data. So far, when the experiement is followed with the proper attention to detail, rigorous laboratory methodology, and precision in data recovery the findings are in accord with and support both CO2's GHG properties and the pH shifts in accord with the absorption of CO2 into aqueous solutions. It's not magic, it's basic science fully in accord with mainstream science understandings.
> ...



OK, Wienerbender, look at these and see if absorption happens:

Analyzing CO2 Exchange Between Air and Oceans - Softpedia

Wikipedia is doing a big edit because the subject is extremely dynamic and important:

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/ocean.pdf

"Although the instrumentation is still being developed . . ."  Wait and see, Wiener!

CO2 gas exchange and ocean acidification studies in the coastal Gulf of Maine « Ocean acidification

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RealClimate: The Acid Ocean

High acidity infiltrates the oceans - USATODAY.com

Here's the thread, where I wrote the OP, and some queen-of-the-seas named Quantum ("I am gay, and stupid.") Windbag is diverting the thread, with his openly gay agenda, no links, no reading of the OP, no issues, no reason, lots of wingpunkery, see page 3:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...nd-to-co2-emissions-or-we-get-in-a-fight.html

Don't forget to read something.  If you keep trying spam and daisy-chain posse tricks, you meet guys like Queen Bag.  If you meet guys like Queen Bag, you get outed.  If you get outed, you might as well admit to me, exactly what you daisy-chaining wingpunks are.  We know what that is, don't we.  Es verdad!  Read, bitches.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhere at some time I HAD the graphs for every tree in the Siberian study and you can CLEARLY see how they were cherry-picked for the fraud. I'd love to know which cloud I put that in. (might have been in one of the Lomborg books).
> ...



I gonna leap to the assumption that you really DO care and that you've followed the "climategate" story.. Why is this important? Because these folks were in the LEADERSHIP of the AGW science. They kept much of the data TO THEMSELVES. Other people studying the topic had to use THEIR PAPERS, THEIR CONDITIONED DATA, and THEIR CONCLUSIONS to further the science studies. SO --- as a result gnotetard, we have not just THEIR WORK, but dam near a decade of DERIVATIVE work that is now suspect and mixed shit.. Thousands of researchers WASTED THEIR TIME with crappy data and crappy references..

THAT'S why they ought to be stripped of credentials and forced to teach ethics for the rest of their careers..

BTW: Why do you think a Wiki link to "hockey stick" would change my mind? I posted the UK Telegraph journalistic story of the fraud that includes the hockey stick -- did they lie or misrepresent anything or didn't you read it or do you think that Wiki is the ultimate scientific referee? Which is it -- enfant terrible?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 5, 2012)

It took us awhile, but slowly and steadily we have shown real science and logic to prevail over deception and fraud by the Faithers.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, lost a couple of lengthy responses in progress and have already spent my personally alotted time for such play each day, I'll start over on pg 14 tomorrow and see if I can catch up.
> ...



LOL! serious enough to label it "play." 

Practically, yes, I take the issue of climate change extremely seriously, and a large part of both my personal and professional life revolve around addressing the issues of climate science and the changes that climate change are bringing to our families, nation, and planet. I don't take this board too seriously, but it is a good place to research and explore fringe hyperpartisan reactions to more mainstream concepts and considerations. Now let me get back into character...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Sounds to me like your copping to the fact that your livelihood DEPENDS on the assumption of man-made climate change. That's an important disclosure dontcha think? I'm not poking you about it -- but perhaps it does make a diff to some of us who ARE actually pretty economically and politically neutral (but SERIOUS) about the topic... Carry-on...


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world' - Telegraph



You do realize that these are libelous lies and malicious fairytale distortions from top to bottom, don't you?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have to rely upon suspicions, follow the course of the experiments as tens of millions of students do each year and analyze the data. So far, when the experiement is followed with the proper attention to detail, rigorous laboratory methodology, and precision in data recovery the findings are in accord with and support both CO2's GHG properties and the pH shifts in accord with the absorption of CO2 into aqueous solutions. It's not magic, it's basic science fully in accord with mainstream science understandings.
> ...



Try looking in science journals and texts instead of political advocacy youtube presentations.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> ...BTW: Why do you think a Wiki link to "hockey stick" would change my mind? I posted the UK Telegraph journalistic story of the fraud that includes the hockey stick -- did they lie or misrepresent anything or didn't you read it or do you think that Wiki is the ultimate scientific referee? Which is it -- enfant terrible?



They lied and misrepresented virtually every statement in the article. Not surprising, however, expecting journalism from the Telegraph is about as silly as expecting accuracy in its American twin publication, the Weekly World News


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I have seen nothing politically neutral about your interests in this topic, in fact, your beliefs and understandings seem entirely and fringely partisan in nature and character. I do invest to protect the future of my family and while many of my investments do reflect my understandings of the world and business in particular, none of my investments depend upon the realities and demonstrable fact that human CO2 emissions are the primary forcing agent of modern climate change.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> ...Even tho I didn't bring up solar irradiance and the graph is irrelevant. There is strong correlation between the two shown on that graph UNTIL about 1980.. As a scientist -- I find that fascinating. Don't you? Why DIDN'T the correlation continue?



Other factors changed (Atmospheric CO2 levels, aerosol concentrations, etc.,) - 

"On the Divergence Problem in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes" - http://webcenter.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/trl/downloads/Publications/divergence2007.pdf

"Increased temperature sensitivity and divergent growth trends in circumpolar boreal forests" - http://web1.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/trl/downloads/Publications/2005WILMKGL023331.pdf

"Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes" - Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes

"Long-term changes in tree-ring  climate relationships at Mt. Patscherkofel (Tyrol, Austria) since the mid 1980s" - Long-term changes in tree-ring

Many more available


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > ...BTW: Why do you think a Wiki link to "hockey stick" would change my mind? I posted the UK Telegraph journalistic story of the fraud that includes the hockey stick -- did they lie or misrepresent anything or didn't you read it or do you think that Wiki is the ultimate scientific referee? Which is it -- enfant terrible?
> ...



NOW -- your objectivity falls to shreds... I've SEEN the data from every tree in that Siberian forest. I witnessed their obviously fraudulent selection of the ones that fit their objectives. I've also seen studies trying to confirm ANY accuracy in that tree ring data from Siberia and it isn't there. (Briffa was FORCED to release the raw data set after ClimateGate) There is no defense of the indefensible. Yet you try.. 

Anyways -- on top of all that -- From some other source.. 

"I think that I shall never see
A thermometer as bad as a tree."


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Not talking about your investments.. I'm talking about your ".... professional life revolve around the .. issues of climate change"..


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 5, 2012)

Doubt over man-made climate change is mainstream.  A steadily increasing number too.

Go back to your task masters and tell them we understand and will not be silent Trakar.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Doubt over man-made climate change is mainstream.  A steadily increasing number too.
> 
> Go back to your task masters and tell them we understand and will not be silent Trakar.


Hey, sock.  Put up a link and some information, and quit spamming a bunch of shit.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> You do realize that these are libelous lies and malicious fairytale distortions from top to bottom, don't you?



Filthy heretics, speaking words that impugn the church.

Are you planning violence against them?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Doubt over man-made climate change is mainstream.  A steadily increasing number too.
> ...



Perhaps the GNote should spend some time actually commenting and debating on the work we "skeptics" are doing here. Or can't you think for yourself based on your mastery of the subject? 

Never really responded to :::
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5398138-post276.html


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> > I simply don't see that there is anything mysterious or at odds "...with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application." I haven't fully read much less processed the actual paper yet, just a very cursory skim so far, I'll get back you after I've had the opportunity to fully read and review the paper, its data/processes, and its findings.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't read it yet, but you don't see anything inconsistent. Let me help you...



My actual words are listed above, and while they don't appear to need translation to me, they are different in meaning than your paraphrase of my intent. 

I see no compelling support for the assertions of the author in the data or described technique of data analysis. I see nothing that compellingly challenges mainstream climate science understandings or the physics of atmospheric radiation transfer. I see unfounded speculation based upon incomplete incidental data rather than the types of data required to produce a valid and complete TI assessment, the simplistic peak-trough measurements for TI work fine when you are trying to figure out the thermal inertia of a block of concrete, but the process is a bit different when we are talking about trying to measure the TI of a turbulent block of sky, where the mass of air you are measuring is not the same mass of air at mid-afternoon (~high temp.) and pre-dawn (low temp), there seem to be several inappropriate misapplications of standard theory, processes and modelling, but I've only made it through my first good solid read of the "paper." I use quotes there because technically this really isn't in the form of research paper beyond some sectional layout similarities, and I guess since it wasn't intended to be a science research paper, there is nothing wrong with that, but in its current form I'd be very surprised if it ever made it beyond editorial review yet alone preliminary peer-review in any professional science journal.     



> ...That latter part .... "...it may be that the effective excitation bands bandwidth are SO NARROW that there is no appreciable energy retained." This couples with my OTHER LISTED skeptical concern about what we know in terms of Solar spectrum and trends in shifts of important spectral lines. We've only had access to accurate measurements of this for about 30 years as I'm about to explain to my buddy and pal OopyDoo when we chat about the width and placement of absorption bands in GH gasses.



It is indeed an oft repeated trope among the pseudoscience cranks, but it simply isn't an accurate portrayal of what extensive observation and experiementation over the last 150 years or so have demonstrated.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > > I simply don't see that there is anything mysterious or at odds "...with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application." I haven't fully read much less processed the actual paper yet, just a very cursory skim so far, I'll get back you after I've had the opportunity to fully read and review the paper, its data/processes, and its findings.
> ...



Pardon me --- but you haven't said ANYTHING important here. It is one of MANY similiar studies that fail to confirm surface temps correlating with increase in CO2. The construct of the experiment is BRILLIANT (as oppose to weak bleating about "peaks and troughs") because it virtually removes solar irradiation and water vapor. 

As for you dismissing the Carbon Spectral Asorption Band arguments as "trope amongst cranks" -- I see you have no grounded foundation in basic physics or graph reading. Even tho CO2 is a POWERFUL GHG -- It's abilities are limited to a few spectral lines that MIGHT be vulnerable to shifts in solar spectrum.. You fail to grasp the fact that the CO2 filtering effects in W/m2 are logarithmic and WILL SATURATE at a point where no more Solar irradiance can fill that spectral filtering. The fact that those lines largely overlap with water vapor makes it MUCH more suspect the proposition that CO2 concentrations ALONE are adequate for modeling climate change or are the principal driver of observed warming..  

You'd be loath to dismiss ANY set of studies that all contradict the "mainstream understanding" of anything. The guy is qualified. His set-up is brilliant and he IS measuring the correlation of surface temps with CO2 concentrations. 

Gee I thought this was as simple as a fish tank and a bottle of CO2 and few barbie dolls... 
Which is it Trakar????


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> OK, Wienerbender, look at these and see if absorption happens:



Where did you ever get the idea that I don't think absorption happens.  Of course CO2 absorbs IR.  That is self evident when you look at its absorption spectra.  What you don't seem to realize is that it is also self evident when you look at its emission spectra that it isn't hanging on to any of that energy it absorbs.  It emits what it absorbs and it emits it at a slightly lower frequency that is out of the absorption range of other CO2 molecules.

CO2 doesn't cause warming because it has no mechanism by which to cause warming.

It is clear that you don't understand any of this and are just a parrot for whoever you percieve to be on your side politically.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


>



Something is either funky with your graph or you are focused on the wrong region of the spectrum (I suspect a bit of both). First, the vast majority of emitted solar energy (98%) is within the visible light spectrum (400 - 700 nanometers) which would be light to the left of the 1 on your bottom scale. This light is absorbed by the Earth, and re-emitted in the near infra-red 5-15 µm with peak emission at 10µm. The terms at the top of the graph are incorrect, 98% of the radiated energy from the Earth exist within 5 or so ticks either side of the 10µm frequency on the graph, and the CO2 absorption band should be centered at 14.9µm.




Black Body (Plank) curves for the Sun and Earth

The American Institutes of Physics has a more complete discussion of the details and physics involved at The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> I gonna leap to the assumption that you really DO care and that you've followed the "climategate" story.. Why is this important? Because these folks were in the LEADERSHIP of the AGW science. They kept much of the data TO THEMSELVES. Other people studying the topic had to use THEIR PAPERS, THEIR CONDITIONED DATA, and THEIR CONCLUSIONS to further the science studies. SO --- as a result gnotetard, we have not just THEIR WORK, but dam near a decade of DERIVATIVE work that is now suspect and mixed shit.. Thousands of researchers WASTED THEIR TIME with crappy data and crappy references..



Good description of the error cascade that is known as climate science.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Try looking in science journals and texts instead of political advocacy youtube presentations.



I have and there isn't the smallest shred of evidence there that CO2 can in any way drive the climate.  The closest thing to evidence you guys have is the pathetically inept output of computer models that have the biases, misrepresentations, and deliberate lies of at least two decades of climate pseudoscience written into their code.  CRAP IN CRAP OUT.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



possibly some small contributions directly from warzone destruction, firestorms in major european and far eastern cities, but the overwhelming majority was from the industrial ramp up and greatly increased electrical and transportation applications.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Have to like the concept of CO2 allowing solar radiation into the atmosphere, but blocking it on the way out...



Your likes and dislikes are irrelevent. Our atmosphere is relatively transparent to visible wavelength light. The ground tends to absorb visible wavelength light and re-emit much of the energy it gains from absorbing such in the form of IR energy. Our atmospheric gases tend to diffuse and absorb IR energy warming the atmosphere and delaying the re-emission of that energy back into space.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> So my pal -- it aint' as simple as focusing on CO2 concentrations alone. All those experiments will give you qualitative confirmation of the effect. No enlightment on whether to worry about it..



"Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth's Climate History"


> Earth's climate history potentially can yield accurate assessment of climate sensitivity. Imprecise knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change is the biggest obstacle to accurate assessment of the fast-feedback climate sensitivity, which is the sensitivity that most immediately affects humanity. Our best estimate for the fast-feedback climate sensitivity from Holocene initial conditions is 3 ± 0.5°C for 4 W/m2 CO2 forcing (68% probability) . Slow feedbacks, including ice sheet disintegration and release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by the climate system, generally amplify total Earth system climate sensitivity. Slow feedbacks make Earth system climate sensitivity highly dependent on the initial climate state and on the magnitude and sign of the climate forcing, because of thresholds (tipping points) in the slow feedbacks. It is difficult to assess the speed at which slow feedbacks will become important in the future, because of the absence in paleoclimate history of any positive (warming) forcing rivaling the speed at which the human-caused forcing is growing...



http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120508_ClimateSensitivity.pdf

Long-term sensitivity which includes slow feedback equilibriums is another matter and looks to be somewhere between 4-6ºC per doubling.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2012)

So 50PPM is lethal to the planet?  That's .005% change of atmospheric composition.

Surely there must be a lab experiment that shows how much the temperature will increase by making a .005% change to the total atmosphere, right?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You have either been misled or in your politically oriented certainty are simply mistaken, but the above is inaccurate and fallacious. When you relax and can manage to type without constantly slipping into what appear to be emotion driven rhetorical caps, I will be happy to discuss and do my best to explain any science that you are having problems properly understanding.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Currently, my professional life predominantly revolves around managing my investments (working on my fourth retirement, hoping this one takes) - though I have been dabbling in teaching and have had a few offers from universities here in the NW, I just don't think I have the tolerance to deal with the arrogantly ignorant as a required daily routine.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Doubt over man-made climate change is mainstream.  A steadily increasing number too...



Even if we stick to popular polls this statement is inaccurate:

In U.S., Global Warming Views Steady Despite Warm Winter


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that these are libelous lies and malicious fairytale distortions from top to bottom, don't you?
> ...



Exactly how would acting irrationally alieviate or correct the inappropriate and improper behavior of another?


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world' - Telegraph
> ...








If that is so why the hell did they try so hard to prevent the release of the information?  Seems to me they are the ones trying to hide something and that is criminally actionable.
It will be interesting to see what sort of legal trouble they will be in if it is shown that they have been commiting academic fraud on the taxpayers dime.  I can see a whole host of criminal charges being levelled in that case.

I am really delighted that mann sued Dr. Ball.  we are going to get A LOT of info that will be very useable in those cases when they finally get filed.  mann et al will be doing some seriously hard time.

How's your buddy Gleick doing?  Any word on criminal charges yet?


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...







Good question, I see many cases where the AGW crowd in an endeavor to halt discussion of their poor scientific methodology are resorting to attempts to classify scepticism as mental disease and other methods that are renowned in totalitarian states to control the populace.

Yep, you're in with a _real_ wonderful group there.  How many times have you guys made threats against sceptics?  Oh let me count the times.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Most all science researchers are, by definition, Skeptics. The pseudoscience denialism displayed by the vast majority of those who have tried to politicize the science and subvert it to political ambitions, are not skeptics.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

Ah Walleyes, you really work so hard to earn the title, dumb fuck.

No, there will be no criminal charges against any of our scientists. Just the very foolish ideologues that cannot acknowledge physical reality when it clashes with their ideology calling names, and demonstrating their foolishness.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah Walleyes, you really work so hard to earn the title, dumb fuck.
> 
> No, there will be no criminal charges against any of our scientists. Just the very foolish ideologues that cannot acknowledge physical reality when it clashes with their ideology calling names, and demonstrating their foolishness.



Now I've heard it all..  "OUR SCIENTISTS"? What -- you have season tickets to the CRU lecture series or something?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Real dissapointing Trakar. I thought you had the juice what with all that bluster about AOGCMs and all. Have you ever SEEN the graphs for the trees from that Siberian study? Wouldn't it be easy to discuss why it's IMPOSSIBLE that any fraud was committed? 

It's obvious that you're bluffing because my politics have NOTHING, NADA to do with my informed views. In fact, you'll rarely find me in any of partisian feces throwing on this board. And when you DO -- there's nothing Demo or RePub about my views. Maybe important to you -- irrelevent to the HORRENDOUS act of scientific deception that has occured in this field. We're done -- unless in your words --- you can tell me why those desert nighttime studies aren't germane and how the Telegraph got TreeGate all totally wrong..


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> ...It's obvious that you're bluffing because my politics have NOTHING, NADA to do with my informed views. In fact, you'll rarely find me in any of partisian feces throwing on this board. And when you DO -- there's nothing Demo or RePub about my views. Maybe important to you -- irrelevent to the HORRENDOUS act of scientific deception that has occured in this field. We're done -- unless in your words --- you can tell me why those desert nighttime studies aren't germane and how the Telegraph got TreeGate all totally wrong..



"Bluffing" about what?

You claim no political views and yet almost every reference you've provided so far, has come from far fringe conservative and libertarian political advocacy sites, your arguments repeat (repleat with derogatory political framing and epithets), near verbatim, the terms these political advocates make. 

The only "desert nighttime study" you've offered so far is a meandering opinion discussion piece more than anything resembling an actual research study and the Telegraph piece is like most Telegraph pieces libelous claptrap design to pump sensationalism to their target fringe and sell ad space.

I'm more than willing and able to discuss any aspect of the science that you seriously wish to discuss, likewise if you want to talk about public policy related to climate change, I'm more than willing to share and discuss my considerations. None of the rest really interests me,  one way or the other.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

Swear to Buddha, Trakar and O.R., you guys must not have actually met fucktards before, or you'd take every opportunity to cuss these fucks, but I can understand, some people just don't pick up that style.

Wienerbitch went down, today.  He posted an earlier version of the Pacific NW oyster die-off, with the now-discarded speculation bacteria or whatever were involved; he didn't realize he was posting a carbonic acid-related event, right under where Crosstard Fuckbitch was ranting at me about how carbonic acid goes carbonate, so it won't kill, and Wiener tried to lay on the 'fuck-yous,' etc.  Maybe he doesn't know whose sock he wants to be.  Why don't you help the dummy out, Wallybitch?  You can teach your little idiot socks, to wait ten lines, post shit, insult, tard-rant, neo-con cheer, rah-rah, fart.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2012)

<Trakar>



> The only "desert nighttime study" you've offered so far is a meandering opinion discussion piece more than anything resembling an actual research study and the Telegraph piece is like most Telegraph pieces libelous claptrap design to pump sensationalism to their target fringe and sell ad space.



It's obvious that you don't do science. Those desert nightime are brilliant work. You didn't read it or couldn't hack the trivial math or don't know the diff between science and what you call "an opinion piece". 

Let me just clue you in.. I've got over 25 years in advanced research and development. (not in this field tho) I've given invited papers at some of the most prestigous shindigs in my fields. I know how science works. And you're bluffing.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Let me just clue you in.. I've got over 25 years in advanced research and development. (not in this field tho) I've given invited papers at some of the most prestigous shindigs in my fields. I know how science works. And you're bluffing.


Who in the world would pay you, for 25 minutes?  Go back over your shit, at this forum!

1. Tree theory of hockey stick, never mind methane, particularly Arctic methane-triggered runaway global warming;
2. Complete horseshit about your bogus light-theories, as you try to fudge a way, to make the rising amount of low-level water-vapor and whatever, into a tinfoil hat, for the planet, but you've been huffing worse than ozone;
3. Lots and lots of fellowship, with fucktard wingpunks, who you should be socking, but one of them (Wienerbitch) tried to post an earlier, flawed version of the Pacific NW oyster die-off story, with an incorrect theory, about a bacterial infection, but it was _carbonic acid,_ in upwelling cold water, which killed the oyster larvae.

You keep refusing to go over, to the AMEG site, which O.R. posted, you cannot read Wikipedia or any other source, which explains the 'hockey stick' graph, and so you are like a gay bulldog, hanging on and humping the tree-theory, of warming upswing graphic source media.  The methane releases will cause the departure, from steady rise, due to CO2 proliferation.

Why don't you just admit you are in love with Quantum Windbag, and you and Queen of the seas can go drink sodas, at the beach, fuck each other, and see who's the talk, and who's the sock?  You and Q-bitch need to sort each other out, and then get back here.

Haha, just kidding.  Nobody needs you guys, but you might like each other.  Maybe you do, already.  Look at the shit you write, about how some fools maybe paid you, instead of let you hang out.  Disgusting.  If you can't fool me, why are you shoving at Trakar?

Didn't you read why he is in no hurry, to teach, again?  Assholes like you are _everywhere!_  Some of 'em are even stupider and more brazen at bullshit, than you are, and you are mighty gay and steppin'.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

Guess the smiley.  Which of these will work?  Here's some science for you and your wingpunks, Fats:

   :doink:  :ugly:   :fart:   eace:   :bitch:      :imho:  :cop:   :burnout:   :ace:


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

Trakar said:


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







The only group to have politicized it is the AGW crowd.  When the evidence started going against them they have resorted to pal review and blocking any papers that didn't adhere to the "approved" theory.  That's not science, that's dogma, and dogma is religion baby.


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah Walleyes, you really work so hard to earn the title, dumb fuck.
> 
> No, there will be no criminal charges against any of our scientists. Just the very foolish ideologues that cannot acknowledge physical reality when it clashes with their ideology calling names, and demonstrating their foolishness.







You mean like your side that tries to block any scientific paper that doesn't tow the line?  You mean like Hansen falsifying the historic data sets to make his theories work?
You mean like Gleick stealing someones identity to steal private information and then forging a document in an endeavor to sully their image?  And you clowns defend that sort of unethical behavior?

And you expect us to care a bit about what you fools have to say?  Really?  That's not science.  That's religious dogma of the worst kind.


----------



## jack113 (Jun 6, 2012)

Doubt over climate change is personal opinion based on corporate propaganda on non scientific observations to support corporate destruction of our environment to make bigger profits off their brainwashed followers.

Hacked emails is theft not science punishable by imprisonment and when the British finish their investigation into this criminal activity the criminals will be locked up.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 6, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Most all science researchers are, by definition, Skeptics.



Then by definition, AGW is NOT science. 



> The pseudoscience denialism displayed by the vast majority of those who have tried to politicize the science and subvert it to political ambitions, are not skeptics.



You mean the pseudoscience of global warming.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 6, 2012)

jack113 said:


> Doubt over climate change is personal opinion based on corporate propaganda on non scientific observations to support corporate destruction of our environment to make bigger profits off their brainwashed followers.
> 
> Hacked emails is theft not science punishable by imprisonment and when the British finish their investigation into this criminal activity the criminals will be locked up.




Oh, well then all of the fraud revealed by the emails will be striken from the public record...

ROFL

You cultists are a hoot.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> It's obvious that you don't do science. Those desert nightime are brilliant work. You didn't read it or couldn't hack the trivial math or don't know the diff between science and what you call "an opinion piece".
> 
> Let me just clue you in.. I've got over 25 years in advanced research and development. (not in this field tho) I've given invited papers at some of the most prestigous shindigs in my fields. I know how science works. And you're bluffing.



If your postings are any reflection of the character and quality of your academic and professional work, color me quite unimpressed and underwhelmed at your achievements. The only thing I have to judge you and your statements by are the words you put up on this board, and quite frankly they don't matchup well with what you assert nor with even very well with undergraduate introductory general science skills and understandings. As stated before, if you wish to talk climate science I am more than happy to do so, likewise with regard to public policy based upon climate science.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 6, 2012)

westwall said:


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



I'm not sure where you learned the art of discussion and persuasion, but libelous lies and perverse distortions of reality do not make adequate substitutes for compelling evidences and valid supporting references for your assertions.


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

jack113 said:


> Doubt over climate change is personal opinion based on corporate propaganda on non scientific observations to support corporate destruction of our environment to make bigger profits off their brainwashed followers.
> 
> Hacked emails is theft not science punishable by imprisonment and when the British finish their investigation into this criminal activity the criminals will be locked up.








Yes, and  they will find that it was an inside job.  I find it amusing that you care more about the release of information (that had been requested for YEARS via FOIA requests and ILLEGALLY denied) but blissfully ignore the revelation of illegal and un-ethical behavior on the part of the scientists involved.

You're a wonderful example of how low humanity has fallen.


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > It's obvious that you don't do science. Those desert nightime are brilliant work. You didn't read it or couldn't hack the trivial math or don't know the diff between science and what you call "an opinion piece".
> ...








You are no more than a cut and paster.  You have yet to look at the mathmatics of what he posted and either prove or disprove them.

Fail on all levels.


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

Trakar said:


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







The TRUTH is the ultimate defence against a claim of libel or slander.  Guess which side will win in a court of law?  Yes that's right, the sceptics will because we really do have science on our side unlike you.  I have given quite a bit of money to Dr. Balls defence and as I am an expert witness I also gave him pointers on what to ask for in discovery.

Mann is screwed.  He has tons more money than Dr. Ball does, he has suzukis fraudulent organisation behind him, and he is going to lose and lose big, and he's going to drag all of you down with him.  You should thank him for being such a narcissistic nimrod that he put the case into a court of law, something we were having a hard time doing.

Go's to show that you guys ain't so bright after all.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

Hey Wally, you are nothing but a Log Cabin queen, quoting excessively, then you wait 10 lines, issue shit, and do it again and again.  This forum may not call your shit 'spam,' but hey, we know you are a shitty spammer.  You need a Nimrod for an avatar, Wally.  That SR-71 was too fast, for you.   

Oh, look, Queen Wally grandly proclaimed, without a link, again.  Bitch.


----------



## jack113 (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> > Doubt over climate change is personal opinion based on corporate propaganda on non scientific observations to support corporate destruction of our environment to make bigger profits off their brainwashed followers.
> ...


Hacking is a criminal offense not release of personal information by the owner. Your standard propaganda straw man does not fly outside your own little brainwashed mind.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 7, 2012)

Wally and Jack, do you mind introducing your topic, with a link?  You are diverting the thread, without an introduction, for a page, now.


----------



## Intense (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> *Working to cope with climate change: A guest column by J. Wayne Leonard and Raymond C. Offenheiser*
> Working to cope with climate change: A guest column by J. Wayne Leonard and Raymond C. Offenheiser | NOLA.com
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmmmm.... Climate change???? Isn't that why we live in houses? We incorporate both heaters and air conditioners to battle the elements, huh.  Who knew?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 7, 2012)

Intense said:


> Hmmmmm.... Climate change???? Isn't that why we live in houses? We incorporate both heaters and air conditioners to battle the elements, huh.  Who knew?


You live in a _berm-house,_ up today's tornado-alley and affected areas, or you will can get spun over to Oz in a NY-second.

You live in a submarine, in NOLA, which will be the first US city, to go under water and stay there, in our lifetime.  Then go parts of NYC, SF, LA, Miami, etc.

You need to notice how species are going extinct, at a rate exceeding 100 times normal, headed for 1000 times normal, and die-offs are happening, at an alarming rate, 2012.  Oceanic acidification can take out the food chain.  Even the air-conditioned with their heads up each others butts will notice, when food chains fail.

Hmmmmm, can't ask Meat about Bain, can't mention Mormonism, he has CRS about Bullygate, and when he did anything economic, he acquired, re-financed, cut jobs, and dove.

I guess you guys who give a shit about Obamney hobbling for President in a sack-race didn't ask either of the two heads, what about climate change.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 7, 2012)

jack113 said:


> Hacking is a criminal offense not release of personal information by the owner. Your standard propaganda straw man does not fly outside your own little brainwashed mind.



Awwww.

Your priests got caught balls deep in the pooch. Makes it hard to claim they aren't fucking the dog, so you attack those who opened the door without knocking.

ROFL

You cultists are a bunch of fucking frauds. The emails prove it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 7, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Wally and Jack, do you mind introducing your topic, with a link?  You are diverting the thread, without an introduction, for a page, now.



bugnuts, aren't they brain-dead cultists, just like you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2012)

Ah yes. Brain dead cultists. All of the Scientific Societies in the world, all of the National Academies of Science, and all of the major Universities in the world are brain dead cultists. Only you people in your little tin foil hats have avoided the damaging brain waves. We understand perfectly. 

Now take the pretty little pills the nice nurse has for you, and go back to your rubber room.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 7, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Wally and Jack, do you mind introducing your topic, with a link?  You are diverting the thread, without an introduction, for a page, now.
> ...


Uglybitch08, you didn't introduce the topic or the people in it, and you didn't link.  You are diverting the thread, to an off-topic area, which maybe you and Jack know, but you don't have the right to claim some vague, unlinked e-mail hack issue is related to the OP.  Since your off-the-wall hack with Jack isn't related to the OP, go post it as a separate thread.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 7, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> You live in a _berm-house,_ up today's tornado-alley and affected areas, or you will can get spun over to Oz in a NY-second.



Today's tornado alley and affected areas?  You really are the major league dupe aren't you.  Here, have some published, peer reviewed papers that put that lie to bed.

AMS Journals Online - Normalized Damage from Major Tornadoes in the United States: 1890&#x2013;1999

AMS Journals Online - Deaths in the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City Tornado from a Historical Perspective

Does Global Warming Influence Tornado Activity?








bobgnote said:


> You live in a submarine, in NOLA, which will be the first US city, to go under water and stay there, in our lifetime.  Then go parts of NYC, SF, LA, Miami, etc.



You believe in all the boogie men don't you.  What a rube.  How long has photography been around?  Have you ever looked at very old photos of well known coastal areas?  Ever notice that sea level in the 1800s looks like sea level today?  Ever look at any early maps of coastal areas?  Ever notice that if you compare those maps to modern maps they look very much alike?  Sea level rise is not any more a matter of concern today than it has ever been.



bobgnote said:


> You need to notice how species are going extinct, at a rate exceeding 100 times normal, headed for 1000 times normal, and die-offs are happening, at an alarming rate, 2012.  Oceanic acidification can take out the food chain.  Even the air-conditioned with their heads up each others butts will notice, when food chains fail.



99.9999% of all the species that have ever lived on earth are extinct.  Since you claim that species are going extinct at a rate 100 times normal, tell me if you can which species have gone extinct in the past 25 years?  50 years?  100 years?  And the reason they have gone extinct.

You just gobble up whatever pap the envirowackos are offering, don't you?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes. Brain dead cultists. All of the Scientific Societies in the world, all of the National Academies of Science, and all of the major Universities in the world are brain dead cultists. Only you people in your little tin foil hats have avoided the damaging brain waves. We understand perfectly.
> 
> Now take the pretty little pills the nice nurse has for you, and go back to your rubber room.



And with all that clout one would think that you could produce at least one piece of hard, observable, repeatable evidence linking the activities of man and the changing global climate.  Considering that you can't, if you had any critical thinking skills at all you might begin to wonder why.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 7, 2012)

Don't see much outrage over salt lakes drying up do you?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 7, 2012)

<trots out manipulated data>

<dusts off peer reviewed predictions, which have not happened>


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

wirebender said:


> 99.9999% of all the species that have ever lived on earth are extinct.  Since you claim that species are going extinct at a rate 100 times normal, tell me if you can which species have gone extinct in the past 25 years?  50 years?  100 years?  And the reason they have gone extinct.
> 
> You just gobble up whatever pap the envirowackos are offering, don't you?



Summary Statistics


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > 99.9999% of all the species that have ever lived on earth are extinct.  Since you claim that species are going extinct at a rate 100 times normal, tell me if you can which species have gone extinct in the past 25 years?  50 years?  100 years?  And the reason they have gone extinct.
> ...



That is a list of threatened species, not extinct ones dimwit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 7, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Actually I won't intellectually satisfied unless I see little toe-tags saying "Killed by Man-Made Climate Change"..


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



My apologies, this was link to the site, I had assumed that everyone here was internet competent enough to explore the site and locate the link on this mainpage that referre to the individual lists of extinctions since the last list issued. I see my assumptions were overly generous in their assessments of competency.

try -   http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2011_2_RL_Stats_Table6a.pdf

http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2011_2_RL_Stats_Table6b.pdf


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> My apologies, this was link to the site, I had assumed that everyone here was internet competent enough to explore the site and locate the link on this mainpage that referre to the individual lists of extinctions since the last list issued. I see my assumptions were overly generous in their assessments of competency.
> 
> try -   http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2011_2_RL_Stats_Table6a.pdf
> 
> http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2011_2_RL_Stats_Table6b.pdf



Your screw up and excuses are dually noted.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 7, 2012)

Here's some more dead fish, this time in Japan:

Massive fish kill outside Tokyo in Chiba &#8212; &#8220;The sight is somewhat apocalyptic&#8221; &#8212; &#8220;Almost looks like a carpet of sardines&#8221; (PHOTOS)

"There are tons and tons of dead sardines washing up on the shore [at the fishing port of Ohara in Isumi City of Chiba Prefecture]

. . . the port looks completely filled with fish &#8211; it almost looks like a carpet of sardines. It doesn&#8217;t seem likely that any fishing boats will be setting sail from this port soon. There are also, of course, the usual posts and comments on the internet on how this could be an omen, a sign of a coming great natural disaster."

The exact cause of this die-off is undetermined.


----------



## Intense (Jun 7, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Don't see much outrage over salt lakes drying up do you?



 How long have they been drying up again?


----------



## Intense (Jun 7, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZzKUt4OtE8]In A Yugo - Paul Shanklin - YouTube[/ame]
In A Yugo - Paul Shanklin


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > You live in a _berm-house,_ up today's tornado-alley and affected areas, or you will can get spun over to Oz in a NY-second.
> ...



*Now just why do you thing ol' Bent did not include years past 2000?*

Tornadoes of 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page documents the tornadoes and tornado outbreaks of 2011. Extremely destructive tornadoes form most frequently in the U.S., Bangladesh and Eastern India, but they can occur almost anywhere under the right conditions. Tornadoes also appear regularly in neighboring southern Canada during the Northern Hemisphere's summer season, and somewhat regularly in Europe, Asia, and Australia.

There were 1,897 tornadoes reported in the US in 2011 (of which 1,704 were confirmed). 2011 was an exceptionally destructive and deadly year for tornadoes; worldwide, at least 577 people perished due to tornadoes: 12 in Bangladesh, two in South Africa, one in New Zealand, one in the Philippines, one in Russia, one in Canada, and an estimated 553 in the United States (compared to 564 US deaths in the prior ten years combined).[2] Due mostly to several extremely large tornado outbreaks in the middle and end of April and in late May, the year finished well above average in almost every category, with six EF5 tornadoes and nearly enough total tornado reports to eclipse the mark of 1,817 tornadoes recorded in in 2004, the current record year for total number of tornadoes.

553 confirmed fatalities is also the second-most tornadic deaths in a single year for tornadoes in US history. This total is due in large part to the 325 tornadic deaths that occurred during the April 2528, 2011 tornado outbreak across the Southeastern United States and the 160 tornadic deaths in the 2011 Joplin tornado.[3]


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Now Traker, you do have to remember what you are dealing with here. Spoon feed, and not to much at once.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes. Brain dead cultists. All of the Scientific Societies in the world, all of the National Academies of Science, and all of the major Universities in the world are brain dead cultists. Only you people in your little tin foil hats have avoided the damaging brain waves. We understand perfectly.
> ...



*Oh my. Thousands of papers showing evidence of climate change from all over the world, from scientists from almost every country in the world. But an anonamous internet poster just knows so much more than all of them that we should accept his yap-yap with no evidence presented at all.*

AGW Observer

National Climate Change

U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2°F over the past 50 years and is projected to rise more in the future; how much more depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted globally and how sensitive the climate is to those emissions. 
Precipitation has increased an average of about 5 percent over the past 50 years. Projections of future precipitation generally indicate that northern areas will become wetter, and southern areas, particularly in the West, will become drier. 
The amount of rain falling in the heaviest downpours has increased approximately 20 percent on average in the past century, and this trend is very likely to continue, with the largest increases in the wettest places.
 Many types of extreme weather events, such as heat waves and regional droughts, have become more frequent and intense during the past 40 to 50 years.
 The destructive energy of Atlantic hurricanes has increased in recent decades. The intensity of these storms is likely to increase in this century.
 In the eastern Pacific, the strongest hurricanes have become stronger since the 1980s, even while the total number of storms has decreased.
 Sea level has risen along most of the U.S. coast over the past 50 years, and will rise more in the future. 
Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent.
 Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly and this is very likely to continue.


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Oh boy, thousands of pal reviewed papers.  Big deal.  When you have papers on dead polar bears being reviewed by the mans wife color me not impressed by your appeal to authority.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Now just why do you thing ol' Bent did not include years past 2000?[/B]



The graph sitting right above that response went out to 2011... Gosh OleRocks are you fracturing under seismic strain or somethin'?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Can't read, Can't think -- generally dysfunctional I guess.. He asked you for ONE LINK to man-made causes. Not the plot to "The Day After Tomorrow"..


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Summary Statistics



I don't see anything there answering the questions I asked about extinctions, and don't see even the first bit of hard evidence of increased extinctions due to climate change there.  If you want to look credible, posting links to hand wringing hysterics isn't necessarily the best way to go.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Actually I won't intellectually satisfied unless I see little toe-tags saying "Killed by Man-Made Climate Change"..



That's sort of what I was looking for and I never would have even asked the question had I not already known beforehand that the answer to the question of how many species have been driven to extinction by modern climate change is zero.  It is interesting, and f'ing sad to note that our raptors and the raptors across the globe are steadily dwindling due to wind turbines and those who claim to love the earth more than anything are seeking legal loopholes that would allow further reducing their numbers without penalty.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> *Oh my. Thousands of papers showing evidence of climate change from all over the world, from scientists from almost every country in the world. But an anonamous internet poster just knows so much more than all of them that we should accept his yap-yap with no evidence presented at all.*



And not a single one with anything like hard evidence that links the activities of man to the changing climate.  The discussion isn't over whether the climate is changing or not rocks, it is over whether we are responsible and to date, not a shred of hard evidence can be provided that lays the blame on us.  

Hell, you don't even know what the discussion is about.



Old Rocks said:


> &#8226;Sea level has risen along most of the U.S. coast over the past 50 years, and will rise more in the future.



This one is priceless and brings your gullibility into sharp relief.  Here rocks, have a look at what 140 years of dangerous sea level rise looks like in La jolla, California.  You are such a gullible putz.






[/IMG]


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 8, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now just why do you thing ol' Bent did not include years past 2000?[/B]
> ...



Tornado data is still blowing in, for 2012, Fatfuck.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

wirebender said:


> This one is priceless and brings your gullibility into sharp relief.  Here rocks, have a look at what 140 years of dangerous sea level rise looks like in La jolla, California.  You are such a gullible putz.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How can we be assured that these were taken at precisely the same tide phase?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Summary Statistics
> 
> I don't see anything there answering the questions I asked about extinctions, and don't see even the first bit of hard evidence of increased extinctions due to climate change there.  If you want to look credible, posting links to hand wringing hysterics isn't necessarily the best way to go.



The question asked, which this was intended to respond to was: 





wirebender said:


> ...tell me if you can which species have gone extinct in the past 25 years?...


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 8, 2012)

wirebender said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I won't intellectually satisfied unless I see little toe-tags saying "Killed by Man-Made Climate Change"..
> ...



Let's look at the cool graph Fatass loaded, showing 450,000 years of CO2 and temperature fluctuations, plotted on top of each other, so anybody can see the CO2 levels out both peaks and troughs, of warming and cooling trends, by forcing activity.

Take a look at the last 180 years or so, of CO2 measurements.  We are due, for another drop in CO2, which _usually_ drops, after it levels off, at about 280 ppm.  But not after the 18th Century, when the industrial revolution happened.  The red line shoots up, to 400 ppm CO2, which can only be attributed to human defoliation and emissions:






Extinctions are difficult to review because the non-anthropogenic extinctions are difficult to calculate, but the science is reviewable:

Background extinction rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Background extinction rates are typically measured three different ways. The first is simply the number of species that normally go extinct over a given period of time. For example, at the background rate one species of bird will go extinct every estimated 400 years.[5] Another way the extinction rate can be given is in million species years (MSY). For example, there is approximately one extinction estimated per million species years.[6] From a purely mathematical standpoint this means that if there are a million species on the planet earth, one would go extinct every year, while if there was only one species it would go extinct in one million years, etc. The third way is in giving species survival rates over time. For example, given normal extinction rates species typically exist for 510 million years before going extinct.[7]

Extinctions are _way above any sensible rate_, and therefore, die-offs and extinctions are to be noticed, as significant, anyway:

Has the Earth

With the steep decline in populations of many animal species, from frogs and fish to tigers, some scientists have warned that Earth is on the brink of a mass extinction like those that occurred only five times before during the past 540 million years.

Each of these Big Five saw three-quarters or more of all animal species go extinct.

In a study to be published in the March 3 issue of the journal Nature, University of California, Berkeley, paleobiologists assess where mammals and other species stand today in terms of possible extinction, compared with the past 540 million years, and they find cause for hope as well as alarm.

If you look only at the critically endangered mammals  those where the risk of extinction is at least 50 percent within three of their generations  and assume that their time will run out, and they will be extinct in 1,000 years, that puts us clearly outside any range of normal, and tells us that we are moving into the mass extinction realm, said principal author Anthony D. Barnosky, UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology, a curator in the Museum of Paleontology and a research paleontologist in the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology.

If currently threatened species  those officially classed as critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable  actually went extinct, and that rate of extinction continued, the sixth mass extinction could arrive within as little as 3 to 22 centuries, he said.

Nevertheless, Barnosky added, its not too late to save these critically endangered mammals and other such species and stop short of the tipping point. That would require dealing with a perfect storm of threats, including habitat fragmentation, invasive species, disease and global warming,

So far, only 1 to 2 percent of all species have gone extinct in the groups we can look at clearly, so by those numbers, it looks like we are not far down the road to extinction. We still have a lot of Earths biota to save, Barnosky said. Its very important to devote resources and legislation toward species conservation if we dont want to be the species whose activity caused a mass extinction.

Coauthor Charles Marshall, UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology and director of the campuss Museum of Paleontology, emphasized that the small number of recorded extinctions to date does not mean we are not in a crisis.

Just because the magnitude is low compared to the biggest mass extinctions weve seen in a half a billion years doesnt mean to say that they arent significant, he said. Even though the magnitude is fairly low, present rates are higher than during most past mass extinctions.

The modern global mass extinction is a largely unaddressed hazard of climate change and human activities, said H. Richard Lane, program director in the National Science Foundations Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the research. Its continued progression, as this paper shows, could result in unforeseen  and irreversible  negative consequences to the environment and to humanity.

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

As usual, the good information ended up in Nature Magazine, March 3, 2012.  Here is a June 2012 article:

TLC Home "The Sixth Extinction is Underway: Are You Worried Yet?"

"There is a holocaust happening. Right now," writes Jeff Corwin, author of 100 Heartbeats, in the Los Angeles Times. "And it's not confined to one nation or even one region. It is a global crisis. Species are going extinct en masse." Corwin goes on to explain:
"Every 20 minutes we lose an animal species. If this rate continues, by century's end, 50% of all living species will be gone. It is a phenomenon known as the sixth extinction. The fifth extinction took place 65 million years ago when a meteor smashed into the Earth, killing off the dinosaurs and many other species and opening the door for the rise of mammals. Currently, the sixth extinction is on track to dwarf the fifth."

"Whether they're big or small, extinctions change the world," writes Tracy V. Wilson at HowStuffWorks.com, before adding that the background rate of extinction is somewhere between one and five species per year. Today, however, "the extinction rate appears to be anywhere from 100 to 1,000 times greater than that."

"The causes of this mass die-off are many: overpopulation, loss of habitat, global warming, species exploitation (the black market for rare animal parts is the third-largest illegal trade in the world, outranked only by weapons and drugs)," writes Corwin. "The list goes on, but it all points to us."

Once again, we're the bad guys; but so what?

Extinction is more than just dinosaurs and dodos. Every species plays its role in the delicate balance of our eco-system. Lose one and well, let's just say the slope gets mighty slippery. So if you're not losing sleep over the sixth extinction, let's talk about honeybees. We may not give honeybees much thought but a fair portion of our food relies on them (specifically commercial honeybees) at the critical early stages of its development. This is why the sudden disappearance of honeybees, a.k.a. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), is all the more alarming. Jasmin Malik Chua at TreeHugger.com tells us: "The bee losses are especially distressing in light of a study last year that concluded that pollinators such as bees, birds and bats affect 35 percent of the world's crop production, increasing the output of 87 of the leading food crops worldwide."

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

Earth Is A Planet In Crisis Conservationists Claim As Wildlife Numbers Fall And Consumption Rises | World News | Sky News

Earth is a planet in crisis with wildlife populations declining by more than 30% in the past four decades, conservationists claim.

A new report examined how more than 9,000 populations of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians and fish are faring.

It comes in the face of record over-consumption of natural resources with serious implications for human health, wealth and well-being.

Freshwater creatures in the tropics have seen the worst declines, of around 70%, while tropical species as a whole have seen populations tumble by 60% since 1970.
In Asia, tiger numbers have fallen 70% in just 30 years.

Wildlife is under pressure from ever-growing human demand for resources, the study by WWF, the latest Living Planet report from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and the Global Footprint Network said.

And research into demand for water revealed 2.7bn people live in areas that suffer severe water shortages for at least one month of the year.

People are exploiting resources such as water, forests and fisheries and putting greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere at a much higher rate than they can be replenished and pollution absorbed.

The "ecological footprint" of human activity was 50% higher than the capacity of the Earth's land and oceans in 2008, the most recent year for which figures are available, with people living as though we have a planet and a half to sustain us.

Rising population and consumption means that by 2030, two planets will not be enough to meet human demand, threatening the resources including food, freshwater and a stable climate that people need to survive, the report said.

WWF-UK's chief executive David Nussbaum said the underlying cause of declines in nature was the rate of human consumption.

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

 _*There you have it.  In the last 200 years, CO2 took an unscheduled jump, way up, to 400 ppm, when it was on schedule, from the last four trends, to move down, to the trough equilibrium, but humans were multiplying, polluting, and defoliating, a whole wicked lot.  The cumulative human impact is killing species, and the recent die-offs we see are from a human-affected environment, which is fucking up, in tune with recent egregious human interventions.

Yeah, some of the die-offs will be from algae, not pollution, directly.  Yeah, humans don't issue all the CO2.  But humans cut or burned the forests, which burn faster, when polluted by human-caused acids.  Cop to it, people.  You are responsible, for damage done, by previous generations.  We need to re-green.*_


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 8, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Tornado data is still blowing in, for 2012, Fatfuck.



Well, you've got it all figured out, bugnuts. There were no tornadoes before 2012. Conservatives caused them with carbon sins and questioning Obamacare....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> How can we be assured that these were taken at precisely the same tide phase?



Maybe you can refute it by holding your breath until you turn blue?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> How can we be assured that these were taken at precisely the same tide phase?



All you need do is look at the tide marks on the rocks.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 8, 2012)

If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.



Correct -- we'd have 120 NEW nuclear plants and cut our GHGs to ZERO tomorrow. Tear down the dams, close some coal plants, and get back to economic growth. 

And all this B.S. about tree rings, EF10 tornadoes, Al Gore, and other meaningless jabber would go away..


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > How can we be assured that these were taken at precisely the same tide phase?
> ...



That is what caused me to question the issue.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.
> ...



Actually 500 net nuclear facilities would be a starting requirement, and I'm all for a move to that. Let the Corps of Engineers build and maintain them, the DoE operate them and the DoD secure them. That is baseload power, that can be linked through a modern, national power grid. Not that this alone would address global climate change, but it would be a good first step for our nation in addressing our own current and future energy needs in a manner that is consistent with climate change issues.


----------



## Intense (Jun 8, 2012)

Abstract

The intensive research of recent years on climate change has led to the strong conclusion that climate has always, throughout the Earth's history, changed irregularly on all time scales. Climate changes are closely related to the Hurst phenomenon, which has been detected in many long hydroclimatic time series and is stochastically equivalent to a simple scaling behaviour of climate variability over time scale. The climate variability, anthropogenic or natural, increases the uncertainty of the hydrological processes. It is shown that hydrological statistics, the branch of hydrology that deals with uncertainty, in its current state is not consistent with the varying character of climate. Typical statistics used in hydrology such as means, variances, cross- and autocorrelations and Hurst coefficients, and the variability thereof, are revisited under the hypothesis of a varying climate following a simple scaling law, and new estimators are studied which, in many cases, differ dramatically from the classical ones. The new statistical framework is applied to real-world examples for typical tasks such as estimation and hypothesis testing where, again, the results depart significantly from those of the classical statistics.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie




INTRODUCTION
In the last two decades, climate change has been the subject of intensive scientific
research, focusing on the understanding of factors, mechanisms and processes related
to climate, and on modelling the climate at the global scale using the so-called
Downloaded by [74.72.255.152] at 12:22 08 June 2012
Demetris Koutsoyiannis
4
climatic, or general circulation models. Climatic models describe some of the
mechanisms of climate variability that are well understood, such as ice&#8211;albedo
feedback, CO2 cycles and greenhouse effects, ocean deep-water circulation, ocean&#8211;
atmosphere interactions, land&#8211;atmosphere interactions, etc. They are capable of
reproducing the large-scale distributions of pressure, temperature, precipitation and
ocean-surface heat flux, and resemble sea-surface temperature anomalies related to the
El Niño Southern Oscillation phenomena (e.g. Ledley et al., 1999). Another important
field of recent research is the detection and attribution of changes in the past climate.
This has also been the subject of scientific debate on whether existing climatic records
indicate a significant change of the present climate vs the past, and on whether detected
changes are attributed to natural or anthropogenic forcings.
Thus, there is a number of studies detecting global warming in the past two
decades and attributing them to anthropogenic forcings, such as the emissions of CO2.
To refer to a recent example, Stott et al. (2000), comparing observations with
simulations of a coupled ocean&#8211;atmosphere general circulation model, conclude that
both natural and anthropogenic factors have contributed significantly to 20th century
temperature changes (the latter especially for the last 35 years).
On the other hand, to invoke another recent study, Przybylak (2000) studies mean
monthly temperatures of Arctic and sub-Arctic areas. The analyses show that in the
Arctic, since the mid-1970s, the annual temperature shows no clear trend and the level
of temperature in Greenland in the last 10&#8211;20 years is similar to that observed in the
19th century. This does not agree with predictions produced by some numerical
climate models.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.



Careful, flour scents can be explosive (Twin Cities Urban Recon | Gold Medal Flour).

But when some minerals are exposed to UV light they exhibit a property known as fluorescence and emit lower wavelength visible light.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 8, 2012)

Intense said:


> Abstract
> 
> The intensive research of recent years on climate change has led to the strong conclusion that climate has always, throughout the Earth's history, changed irregularly on all time scales. Climate changes are closely related to the Hurst phenomenon, which has been detected in many long hydroclimatic time series and is stochastically equivalent to a simple scaling behaviour of climate variability over time scale. The climate variability, anthropogenic or natural, increases the uncertainty of the hydrological processes. It is shown that hydrological statistics, the branch of hydrology that deals with uncertainty, in its current state is not consistent with the varying character of climate. Typical statistics used in hydrology such as means, variances, cross- and autocorrelations and Hurst coefficients, and the variability thereof, are revisited under the hypothesis of a varying climate following a simple scaling law, and new estimators are studied which, in many cases, differ dramatically from the classical ones. The new statistical framework is applied to real-world examples for typical tasks such as estimation and hypothesis testing where, again, the results depart significantly from those of the classical statistics.
> 
> ...



_*This is obsolete skeptic-shit, from 2000.  Don't post it here, fucktard.*_

Greenland hit 75 F, this May.  Warming is taking perennial ice.  CO2 is at 400 ppm, when it should have started a dive, at 280 ppm, to force temperatures down.  But methane is also escaping, so temperatures will certainly jump up, beyond their usual ceiling, where we currently are, dodging fucktards in traffic.  We re-green, or humans go endangered.


----------



## Intense (Jun 8, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Abstract
> ...



It is not your place to determine who can post what where. The only thing clear about your posts, is that you have no tolerance for anything that would suggest that there is more to reality than what you tell us. That and that you lack social skills. How old are you, Twelve? You are new here, and off to a bad start.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 8, 2012)

Intense said:


> It is not your place to determine who can post what where. The only thing clear about your posts, is that you have no tolerance for anything that would suggest that there is more to reality than what you tell us. That and that you lack social skills. How old are you, Twelve? You are new here, and off to a bad start.



_*If you can't take criticism, don't post here, since you are really stupid.  Your posts were off-topic, until this one, which is a rambling introduction, to some paper, which may be some undergraduate geek-rant, from an ESL speaker.  ESL means "English as a Second Language," you idiot.  The introduction goes nowhere, and the paste lines up wrong, taking up space, at this thread, which is your strategy.

Your source is from 2000.  Since it doesn't state a hypothesis, consistent with the OP, and it rambles, what are you trying to prove, you are a ramblin' guy?  Your source is 12 years old, from 2000, DD.  And it was born retarded.  So since you and your ramble both suck, go ahead and take criticism, like the big pussy you are, or leave the thread.*_

Here's an on-topic link, which isn't busted:

Strategic Planning

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is pleased to release the new National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021: A Strategic Plan for the U. S. Global Change Research Program. The creation of this plan is mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (GCRA, P.L. 101-606); it will serve as the guiding document for USGCRP for the next decade. 

The Plan is built around four strategic goals: Advance Science, Inform Decisions, Conduct Sustained Assessments, and Communicate and Educate. In addition to these four goals, the Plan emphasizes the importance of national and international partnerships that leverage Federal investments and provide for the widest use of Program results. The Plan builds on the Programs strengths in integrated observations, modeling, and information services for science that serves societal needs.
-------------------------

This is on-topic, at this thread.  Learn to read, hit search, and try to post, on-topic.  Or take a lot of criticism, since you have no skills, no value, and you have a tardy-tude.  Idiots who think they are smart need to take a walk.  So do that, if you know how.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

Intense said:


> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



A good paper. The arctic data is in a substantially different state now as compared to what studies more than a decade ago, analyzing even older data might have conservatively deduced. In fact, many contemporay researchers were already seeing the changes that seem to have escaped these authors' attention.

"A rapidly declining perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic"
A rapidly declining perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 20, 1956, doi:10.1029/2002GL015650, 2002



> ...Discussion and Conclusions
> [13] The area of the Arctic perennial sea ice cover is shown to be declining at a relatively fast rate of 8.9 ± 2.0% per decade. A decadal change of 10% is also inferred from the difference of 11-year averages of ice minima data. If such a rate of decline persists for a few more decades, the perennial sea ice cover will likely disappear within this century. The decline is unlikely linear because of positive feedback effects between ice, ocean, and the atmosphere. Furthermore, a positive trend in the ice temperature of about 1.2 K per decade is observed leading to earlier onset of melt and delayed onset of freeze up that in turn causes further thinning and retreat of the perennial ice cover.
> [14] The implications of such a disappearance of the perennial ice cover are many and can be profound. It would mean a different albedo for the Arctic during the peak of solar insolation in summer and therefore a drastically different ice-ocean-atmosphere feedback. It would mean a much larger influx of solar radiation into the Arctic Ocean thereby changing the characteristics of the mixed layer and the stratification of the ocean. The seasonality and characteristics of the ice cover in the region would be very different. The climate, the productivity, and biota in the region will change tremendously while the region becomes more accessible to human activities...


 
The following link notes changes but find a stronger role for non-CO2 feedbacks in their assessment of causation. I tend to agree with their reasoning and findings. 

"The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7293/full/nature09051.html
Vol 464|29 April 2010| doi:10.1038/nature09051

"...Arctic amplification is a clear feature of the warming over the 1989&#8211;2008 period based on the ERA-Interim reanalysis (Fig. 1). We diverge considerably from ref. 8 in finding that the maximum Arctic warming is at the surface and that warming lessens with height in all seasons except summer. This vertical structure suggests that changes at the surface, such as decreases in sea ice and snow cover, are the primary causes of recent Arctic amplification. The trends at the near-surface (herein the atmospheric levels at 950&#8211;1,000 hPa) are 1.6, 0.9, 0.5 and 1.6 uC per decade, averaged over the Arctic (herein latitudes 70&#8211;90u N) during winter, spring, summer and autumn, respectively. The near-surface warming is modest in summer because energy is used to melt remaining sea ice and warm the upper ocean3,15. The surface amplification, defined here as the ratio of the near-surface warming to that of the whole tropospheric column (below 300 hPa), averaged over the Arctic, is greatest in autumn, with a value of 2.3. The surface amplification is aided by strong low-level stability that limits vertical mixing. The corresponding values of surface amplification for winter and spring are 2.1 and 1.8, respectively. We note that amplified Arctic warming, above ,700 hPa, is confined to winter and is still consistently weaker than the nearsurface warming (Fig. 1a). However, the presence of amplified warming aloft hints that processes in addition to the increased transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere resulting from sea ice loss have had a contributing role in winter...[/quote]

"A multi-data set comparison of the vertical structure of temperature variability and change over the Arctic during the past 100 years" 
Climate Dynamics, Online First
Climate Dynamics, accepted Jan. 2012



> ...None of the data sets alone is sufficient for addressing long-term trends in the Arctic. However, knowing the shortcomings and differences, information can be gained even on trends from analysing all data sets individually and by combining the results (see also Thorne et al. 2010 for the value of multiple tropospheric temperature data sets). For instance, all data sets agree that the last two decades are unprecedented in the 20th century in terms of the magnitude of the warm anomaly in the lower troposphere. The rate of warming between the 1980s and present is also outstanding. The vertical structure of the trend shows a clear amplification of the recent trend at the surface in autumn to spring. During the ETCW, high temperature anomalies were also found at 700 hPa and above in winter. Although the data are more uncertain for the first half of the twentieth century, they clearly point to a smaller lapse rate compared to the recent warm period....



If you'd like to discuss in more detail an appropriate division of causative agencies, I can see merit in such discourse.


----------



## Intense (Jun 8, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > It is not your place to determine who can post what where. The only thing clear about your posts, is that you have no tolerance for anything that would suggest that there is more to reality than what you tell us. That and that you lack social skills. How old are you, Twelve? You are new here, and off to a bad start.
> ...



My Source is from 2003, not 2000. *Hydrological Sciences Journal
Volume 48, Issue 1, 2003 * I do understand that you are challenged. Who knew. The premise of posting it is to show that not all accepted science is on the same page, nor in agreement of what you proclaim as fact. There are legitimate questions and points raised. I understand how easy it is for you to swallow everything you hear or read, from the flavor of the day, to a Sailor looking for a happy ending to Fleet Week.  hook, line, and sinker, when it supports your notion. Rumor has it that you are real good at swallowing. I'm not big on playing Paper Chase, Bob, so take that Socratic Method and shove it up your ass, that is if it could fit up there with your ego, boy.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.
> ...



Like mercury, oh clueless one.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 8, 2012)

Earth in the Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points | Climate Change, Land Use & Ocean Acidification | LiveScience


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



actually, it is the mercury which is stimulated to emit the UV light, it is the white powder coating on the inside surface of the tubes that fluoresce in the UV light that the ionized mercury plasma emits.


----------



## Intense (Jun 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.



That's right. It is about central control, one standard for us, and no standard for them.


----------



## Intense (Jun 8, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Earth in the Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points | Climate Change, Land Use & Ocean Acidification | LiveScience



Some good points. Consequence will bring change. The thing is that the formulas are maybe more complex than we give them credit for, and sometimes what seems bad from one perspective, may be good from others. We observe in part, not with full understanding. The problem there is in drawing and acting on misguided conclusions. When we get tailored information to steer us in this direction or that, or even to act impulsively, it violates the trust, and corrodes credibility. My point is tell us what you know, tell us what you theorize or presume, without confusing or misrepresenting the two. Translation, don't corrupt the science.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 8, 2012)

Intense said:


> Earth in the Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points | Climate Change, Land Use & Ocean Acidification | LiveScience
> 
> Translation, don't corrupt the science.


"Modern humans can't possibly claim to have control over whether carbon dioxide concentrations are 350 ppm or any other specific level in the future, Allen said. He also criticized the proposed boundary based on its high estimate of climate sensitivity, or the long-term warming response to the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

But Allen admitted that the 350 ppm concentration might still serve as a useful target. That's because scientists know that 15 to 20 percent of CO2 emissions hang around in the atmosphere indefinitely. Releasing a little over 1 trillion tons during the anthropocene era (now) of human-caused global warming would lead to a long-term CO2 concentration of about 350 ppm. Limiting the excess CO2 emissions to 1 trillion tons would be just about what's needed to keep the likeliest CO2-related warming peak below 2 degrees C  and humans are already halfway to that limit."

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

Re-greening all deserts and polluted areas with smart plants and then trees is a good idea, or down goes the human population, suddenly.  We face volcanic and seismic events, from heavy tides.

And anybody who won't grow switchgrass and hemp for biomass needs to be sterilized.  Runaway global warming is here.  The site doesn't note, CO2 is already at 400 ppm, and methane is going to force runaway warming.  This is an atypical fault, but the site does note acidification, neatly.  I've seen worse.


----------



## jack113 (Jun 9, 2012)

Their are no scientific organizations that support anti climate change propaganda that corporate lobbies produce like John Birch Society The John Birch Society - John Birch Society

If the politically correct people that follow these propaganda services want to live in the dark ages they should turn in their cars and every other thing that has made their modern life possible and stop being hypocrites.

Climate change will not be used much longer as a political fund raiser and will be addressed soon because the energy cons producing the propaganda cannot continue to live in the environment destruction they are supporting now.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 9, 2012)

jack113 said:


> Their are no scientific organizations that support anti climate change propaganda that corporate lobbies produce like John Birch Society
> 
> The John Birch Society - John Birch Society
> 
> ...



_*I had a look at their slick website, and their environment section is full of neo-con shit.  There is no excuse, for this sort of propaganda, in the 21st Century:*_

Displaying items by tag: Environment - John Birch Society

Environmentalists Warn of 150,000 Heat-related Deaths by 2099 - John Birch Society

With the heat of summer looming in the immediate future, radical environmentalists have conjured a new global warming threat with which to alarm the public. According to a new report from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), tens of thousands of Americans will begin to die from the effects of global warming. The report, Killer Summer Heat, begins with the measured, calm tones of scientific discourse: Climate change is literally killing us. However, despite the panic language, mankind has proven to be an amazingly adaptive species, and even climate scientists have had to admit there is little evidence of warming  let alone a human cause to any such warming.

In the assessment of public opinion, the theory of anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change has steadily unraveled since the 2009 Climategate scandal which erupted when thousands of emails were secretly collected from the server of the Climate Research Unit at the UK's University of East Anglia, demonstrating what many saw as, at best, slipshod scientific methodology, which included destruction of the original climate data. As Steven Hayward wrote for the Weekly Standard last December: Climategate did for the global warming controversy what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war 40 years ago: It changed the narrative decisively. The political pressure created by the scandal helped to dramatically slow the efforts by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to impose its global political agenda on the nations of the world. After all, a program to redistribute $76 trillion from the economies of the first world to those of the third world over the next two generations is much harder to sell when the science underpinning the theory behind the program begins to unravel.

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

_*This is complete shit.  I don't think the JBS has any further excuse for existence.  Goodbye, assholes.  You don't belong in the modern world.

The CO2 is 400 ppm, we should have seen a cooling trend, at 280 ppm, but no, we are going to see release of more CO2 and CH4, from warming waters and lands, and when that kicks in, warming and acidification will be a runaway disaster.

By 2099, I hope the JBS isn't operating and spamming their shit around.*_


----------

