# Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome...



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome..

6 Phd's were asked to debate the framed subject of the IPCC documents. All were members of the APS.  



> In January, 2014 the American Physical Society (APS) held a one day workshop on climate change and invited six climatologists to participate.  A full transcript of the workshop can be found here. The six speakers are all very eminent climate scientists.  The discussion was limited to the physical basis of climate change and atmospheric physics was the predominant topic.  Three of the speakers lean to the alarmist view. That is they think we are headed toward a climate catastrophe due to man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Held, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Santer.  The other three lean to the skeptical view and do not think we are headed to a climate catastrophe caused by man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Curry, Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Christy.
> 
> Short biographies of each of the speakers can be seen here. Someone new to the climate change debate would have a hard time telling the alarmists from the skeptics from this transcript. They were all very professional and they stuck to the science as their host, Dr. Koonin, requested. *Climate science and the debate about it are much more complex than the media, the politicians and public know. This workshop drills down to the root of the disagreements and reading it reveals the considerable uncertainty in estimates of both climate sensitivity to CO2 and the effect of natural long term climate cycles*.



Three from each side of the debate and it seems the skeptical side was well prepared while the alarmist side was a bit tongue tide.. Dr Koonin set very strict rules for the debate and all were very professional following his request.  The Outcome was not unexpected if your a skeptic. Adhom attacks and appeals to authority were not allowed. They discussed the unfettered science of the issue.  

The article is an excellent read and I am finding the transcript very enlightening as specifics were expressed by all. My take on most of the participants is they are in agreement that we really dont know what is causing the climate to change and have not quantified an anthropogenic source at all.

Source

APS Transcript


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

"No unsubstantiated appeals to authority were allowed by Dr. Koonin.  Not a single participant mentioned “the 97% consensus!”  Uncertainty and the quantification of uncertainty, particularly of climate forcings, was the topic of the day."

Not one person brought up the Cook Et Al lie... And they lambasted the press as being fear mongering  media..  It seems when your on the record you dont spout crap...  

This is a refreshing thing to observe.. We might be getting some sanity and reality back into the discussion of real science..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

It Just dawned on me that the alarmist side of the debate are all climate modelers who were pummeled by the fact all of their models fail empirical review.  The skeptic side of the debate were all empirical scientists looking for empirical evidence to support or falsify the modeling...

Dr Christy published this graphing of the vertical transport temperatures which show modeling failure and exaggeration of temperatures by a factor of greater than 3..  OUCH!









> "The vertical axis is in pressure units but goes from the surface of the Earth at the bottom up to the stratosphere.  And, you can see that the models all overestimate the rate of temperature increase significantly.  Dr. Christy wanted this sort of illustration to be in the IPCC report, but it was not put in."



Like I said..... OUCH!  The mid tropospheric hot spot that AGW demands does not exist in empirical evidence..  Total Model failures...


----------



## S.J. (Mar 15, 2015)

I've never thought the alarmist side had an argument.  Their predictions have all failed to materialize, they've been caught falsifying research results trying to manipulate public opinion, and they're being paid to say there's a crisis when there isn't one.  What credibility do they have?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 15, 2015)

At USMB, the Decline Hiders "debate" by pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking, "AGW YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE YOU DENIER!!! AGW AKBAR!!! WE HAVE CONSENSUS"

Take that away and you get crickets


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> At USMB, the Decline Hiders "debate" by pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking, "AGW YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE YOU DENIER!!! AGW AKBAR!!! WE HAVE CONSENSUS"
> 
> Take that away and you get crickets



Take away the overwhelming majority opinion of mainstream science and you get crickets?  That would  be a good thing.  Unfortunately, it's not true.  Take away the good science and you get crap.  Like yours.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > At USMB, the Decline Hiders "debate" by pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking, "AGW YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE YOU DENIER!!! AGW AKBAR!!! WE HAVE CONSENSUS"
> ...



Oh right. I forgot. When you ask them for evidence linking 120PPM of CO2 to temperature, they post a chart WITHOUT A TEMPERATURE AXIS!!  as "proof" then call you a liar for asking "where's the proof"


----------



## jc456 (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > At USMB, the Decline Hiders "debate" by pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking, "AGW YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE YOU DENIER!!! AGW AKBAR!!! WE HAVE CONSENSUS"
> ...


 Is that so,. Post that experiment there buddy. Oh that's right you don't have one!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Your willingness to tell blatant lies over and over again is simply astounding


Your willingness to avoid posting the experiment proves my point!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Your willingness to tell blatant lies over and over again is simply astounding



Note: there's no experiment in this assholes post


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Note: Frank tells lies.



Crick will you ever post a CO2 vs temperature "Experiment" that actually has a temperature axis?


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2015)

I have.  The fact that you never made it through high school physics 101 is your failing, not mine.


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2015)

How's this?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Your willingness to tell blatant lies over and over again is simply astounding


What lies?  The text of the debate was provided! Proof!   where are the lies?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have.  The fact that you never made it through high school physics 101 is your failing, not mine.


Again you cannot determine what is causing the warming. this only SUGGESTS that it is possible. It proves nothing!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> How's this?



Again an epic fail.. Anyone can stretch out and make correlation "appear" to be there when it is not...  Again correlation does not imply causation.. If the correlation was there then the last 18 years of decoupling would now lay that premise waste undisputably...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

As Knorr Et Al shows, there is no coupling and the rate of CO2 induced LOG rise in temperature that should be present is not. Empirical evidence is not your friend.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have.  The fact that you never made it through high school physics 101 is your failing, not mine.



Note: No temperature axis. 

Using the above chart posting by our resident fucking retard, answer the following question:

Q.  What's the expected temperature increase from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM

1. DENIER!!! DIE YOU FUCKING DENIER!!!!
2. Turn on the Weather Channel you FUCKING DENIER!!!!
3. OMFG!!! You're so retarded, why should I explain it to you, you fucking Denier!

Crick, that's for showing everyone what a dishonest fucking asshole you are


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Your willingness to tell blatant lies over and over again is simply astounding
> ...



That would be the lie that he has never been shown experiments demonstrating that increased atmospheric CO2 leads to increased equilibrium temperatures.


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have.  The fact that you never made it through high school physics 101 is your failing, not mine.





Billy_Bob said:


> Again you cannot determine what is causing the warming. this only SUGGESTS that it is possible. It proves nothing!



Suggests??!?!?  Really?  How about SUGGESTING a means by which warming could NOT be taking place.


----------



## westwall (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I have.  The fact that you never made it through high school physics 101 is your failing, not mine.
> ...









First you have to show that warming is actually occurring.  Then you have to show how much warming is occurring.  Then you have to show how man is the cause of it.  And remember....computer models aren't data, so they don't count.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I have.  The fact that you never made it through high school physics 101 is your failing, not mine.
> ...


Empirical proof... Provide it!  I have shown multiple times that natural variation, not CO2 is driving the temp and that no CO2 forcing can be implied or derived from the mild increase we have seen in our atmosphere. That mild rise is only half of what CO2, by the LOG function should cause given the lab experiment that created the CO2 LOG Graph I use. Our atmosphere shows it is dampening any positive effect that CO2 could provide and the absence of any increased rate of natural rise shows that CO2 is a not an effector.


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2015)

You haven't shown shite.

Again, explain, given CO2's absorption spectra, how warming could NOT be taking place.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> You haven't shown shite.
> 
> Again, explain, given CO2's absorption spectra, how warming could NOT be taking place.


Simple, Its the planets water convection cycle.. Water is 95% of all GHG's in our atmosphere. CO2 levels have NEVER reached a point of saturation which would inhibit the water cycle from totally laying it neutered. As CO2 does not gain a positive effect from water vapor, as shown by empirical evidence. Actually Crick, I have shown this multiple times..  You simply choose to ignore it.


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 15, 2015)

In summary, if dinosaurs hadn't farted so much they'd all be alive today and humans would never have evolved.

Now, quick, somebody tell me the downside of that!


----------



## westwall (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> You haven't shown shite.
> 
> Again, explain, given CO2's absorption spectra, how warming could NOT be taking place.








Once again, for the dummy in the room.  The scientific method demands that you provide the proof.  You are making the assertion....YOU PROVIDE THE PROOF!  That's how science works in the real world junior.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Posting a chart with no temperature axis...yeah, we're convinced, convinced you're fucking clueless


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 15, 2015)

so we are supposed to be impressed "6 phd's" sat there debating each other?

good grief.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> so we are supposed to be impressed "6 phd's" sat there debating each other?
> 
> good grief.



NO... That we were able to get ANY alarmist/warmer to debate the facts! In this case the facts, were not on the alarmists side. Empirical evidence simply allowed us to get the alarmists to admit that they do not have the evidence, empirically, to state that CO2 does anything...  This is a huge step forward in the debate..  

This formal setting just unwound 30 years of deceit and lies the CAGW faithful have been gate-keeping...    IF you cant see that you need glasses..


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> You haven't shown shite.
> 
> Again, explain, given CO2's absorption spectra, how warming could NOT be taking place.





westwall said:


> Once again, for the dummy in the room.  The scientific method demands that you provide the proof.  You are making the assertion....YOU PROVIDE THE PROOF!  That's how science works in the real world junior.



The data, measured repeatedly, showing that CO2 absorbs portions of the IR spectrum produced by warmed air, water and earth, IS proof.

What a bunch of FOOKING IDIOTS you two are.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2015)

Deniers, doesn't it bug you that every denier here only barks conspiracy theories now? It should. It shows you're all clinging to a dying conspiracy cult.

The real problem here is that denier posts don't get moved into the Conspiracy folder. Birthers, 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy cranks have their posts moved into the Conspiracy folder. Consistency and honesty dictates denier posts should get the same treatment, since their kookery is every bit as insane.

I blame out of control political correctness, the mistaken moral relativism that claims all opinions have equal validity, even stuff as stupid as denier babbling. Being a solid moral absolutist type, I believe the denier fantasies are not just as valid as real science, and that stupid opinions should be treated as stupid opinions.

I also see the deniers here are getting increasingly abusive in their posts. Desperation, obviously. However, that doesn't excuse the breaking of board rules, so they need to dial it down.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You haven't shown shite.
> ...



You obviously have no clue how the Null hypothesis guts your theroy. Empirical evidence trumps your theroy..   Yes you are a fucking idiot..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, doesn't it bug you that every denier here only barks conspiracy theories now? It should. It shows you're all clinging to a dying conspiracy cult.
> 
> The real problem here is that denier posts don't get moved into the Conspiracy folder. Birthers, 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy cranks have their posts moved into the Conspiracy folder. Consistency and honesty dictates denier posts should get the same treatment, since their kookery is every bit as insane.
> 
> ...



Another one who is just as ignorant on the subject as John (Throw my medals over the fence-traitor) Kerry..

“Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere. And for millions of years – literally millions of years – we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket for the planet – trapping the sun’s heat and warming the surface of the Earth to the ideal, life-sustaining temperature. Average temperature of the Earth has been about 57 degrees Fahrenheit, which keeps life going. Life itself on Earth exists because of the so-called greenhouse effect. But in modern times, as human beings have emitted gases into the air that come from all the things we do, that blanket has grown thicker and it traps more and more heat beneath it, raising the temperature of the planet. It’s called the greenhouse effect because it works exactly like a greenhouse in which you grow a lot of the fruit that you eat here.

This is what’s causing climate change. It’s a huge irony that the very same layer of gases that has made life possible on Earth from the beginning now makes possible the greatest threat that the planet has ever seen.”

I see where you alarmists get your stupid from.. John Kerry shows his total ignorance on the subject.. And you all parrot the lies and crap..

Source


----------



## westwall (Mar 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You haven't shown shite.
> ...








Big effing deal.  To date nothing has changed.  Over the last 3,000 years of recorded history there is no discernible signal that says man, and CO2 period, are doing anything.  FAIL.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2015)

The funny thing is that Kerry's science actually sucks less than Billy's.

And Westwall, the direct measurements of backradiation increasing and outgoing longwave decrease contradict your wacky claim.


----------



## westwall (Mar 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The funny thing is that Kerry's science actually sucks less than Billy's.
> 
> And Westwall, the direct measurements of backradiation increasing and outgoing longwave decrease contradict your wacky claim.









Really?  They do?  Show us.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The funny thing is that Kerry's science actually sucks less than Billy's.
> 
> And Westwall, the direct measurements of backradiation increasing and outgoing longwave decrease contradict your wacky claim.



Ok Moron... Show us your work...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, doesn't it bug you that every denier here only barks conspiracy theories now? It should. It shows you're all clinging to a dying conspiracy cult.
> 
> The real problem here is that denier posts don't get moved into the Conspiracy folder. Birthers, 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy cranks have their posts moved into the Conspiracy folder. Consistency and honesty dictates denier posts should get the same treatment, since their kookery is every bit as insane.
> 
> ...



100 years later, we're still rigorously testing General Relativity; 25 years after flipping from Global Cooling to Global Warming, your Cult wants to say the "Science" is settled.

What a joke


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2015)

Show you the evidence again? The first dozen times wasn't enough?

As the previous thread on it here talked about, this is just the most recent and best study showing the increased backradiation. Smoking gun. There's no "natural cycles" explanation for such a thing.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth s surface -- ScienceDaily


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Show you the evidence again? The first dozen times wasn't enough?
> 
> As the previous thread on it here talked about, this is just the most recent and best study showing the increased backradiation. Smoking gun. There's no "natural cycles" explanation for such a thing.
> 
> First direct observation of carbon dioxide s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth s surface -- ScienceDaily



Too Funny,  What again were they measuring?  Even the authors of the paper have refused to respond to questions about their methodology and math..  I wonder why the stunned silence when physics people show them they are dead wrong and show them they didn't know what it was they were measuring....  

Again, where is YOUR WORK?


----------



## kflaux (Mar 15, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 100 years later, we're still rigorously testing General Relativity


Doesn't mean it's not widely accepted as established theory



> 25 years after flipping from Global Cooling to Global Warming, your Cult wants to say the "Science" is settled.


It's the earth systems that have flipped in the past few centuries, from a very slow cooling trend to an upward temp spike.

Consider that the Pentagon and Department of Defense now regard climate change to be one of the most serious threats the nation faces long-term.

These are generals, not granola-munching ponytailed treehuggers


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Too Funny,  What again were they measuring?  Even the authors of the paper have refused to respond to questions about their methodology and math..  I wonder why the stunned silence when physics people show them they are dead wrong and show them they didn't know what it was they were measuring....
> 
> Again, where is YOUR WORK?



Billy, there's no point in responding to you just raving like a lunatic and making up deranged nonsense.

For a change, try backing up your bullshit. You'll get laughed at less that way.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Too Funny,  What again were they measuring?  Even the authors of the paper have refused to respond to questions about their methodology and math..  I wonder why the stunned silence when physics people show them they are dead wrong and show them they didn't know what it was they were measuring....
> ...


Why dont you take your own advice and man up.. Show us your evidence that isn't made up.

You represent the AGW folks well. Even when the facts are directly in front of you, you cannot see them or comprehend.

Pathetic.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2015)

Billy, I gave the link.

In response, you pissed yourself and screamed.

To the kiddie table with you. Unless you can say something intelligent, stop bothering the grownups.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy, I gave the link.
> 
> In response, you pissed yourself and screamed.
> 
> To the kiddie table with you. Unless you can say something intelligent, stop bothering the grownups.


You gave a link to a paper which has serious faults and questions which, you were aware of from our last debate..  Now produce the science that proves it.  I doubt any one can because 6 Phd's who work daily in this field could not find one ounce of data.. They wont even look at the last paper you cited without laughing at it...


----------



## James Everett (Mar 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, doesn't it bug you that every denier here only barks conspiracy theories now? It should. It shows you're all clinging to a dying conspiracy cult.
> 
> The real problem here is that denier posts don't get moved into the Conspiracy folder. Birthers, 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy cranks have their posts moved into the Conspiracy folder. Consistency and honesty dictates denier posts should get the same treatment, since their kookery is every bit as insane.
> 
> ...


I have questions for everyone.....
It is my understanding that scientist have stated that during the Jurassic period there were palm trees growing as far north as Canada, and that during the ice age, glaciers were a mile high over Chicago and the ice sheets were as far south as Mexico, therefore my question is......
What is the proper temperature of the Earth?
If the Jurassic period was the proper temp, then should we not expect warming?
If the ice age was the proper temp, should we not expect cooling?
If one or the other, or something in between or more drastic is the proper temp, then is anything man does one way or the other going to make a difference?
In either direction a few degrees would benefit certain climates while injuring others, I would think.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, doesn't it bug you that every denier here only barks conspiracy theories now? It should. It shows you're all clinging to a dying conspiracy cult.
> 
> The real problem here is that denier posts don't get moved into the Conspiracy folder. Birthers, 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy cranks have their posts moved into the Conspiracy folder. Consistency and honesty dictates denier posts should get the same treatment, since their kookery is every bit as insane.
> 
> ...


doesn't it bother you that you can't produce any experimental evidence?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Show you the evidence again? The first dozen times wasn't enough?
> 
> As the previous thread on it here talked about, this is just the most recent and best study showing the increased backradiation. Smoking gun. There's no "natural cycles" explanation for such a thing.
> 
> First direct observation of carbon dioxide s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth s surface -- ScienceDaily


hahhahhahaahhahaha your typical avoidance line.  "I already gave it to you find it"  hahhahahahahahaha you've never posted anything that proves your point, and day after day you come in here and bounce around threatening those who think differently and can prove their position, which you can't.  If you could, then you would post that experiment that has been requested for years now.  So, nope, you fail again with your pointless post. And normal avoidance.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Too Funny,  What again were they measuring?  Even the authors of the paper have refused to respond to questions about their methodology and math..  I wonder why the stunned silence when physics people show them they are dead wrong and show them they didn't know what it was they were measuring....
> ...


there is the avoidance post again.  Mantooth, the only thing you're good at is posting nothing but avoidance posts.  Keep up the good work.  No one takes you serious on the skeptics side at all.  Your lack of proof is noticed by all of us.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 16, 2015)

jc, quite crying for attention. A grown man should be ashamed to act like you do.

Now, on to someone who asked honest questions.



James Everett said:


> What is the proper temperature of the Earth?



"Proper" makes it a loaded question. There is no "proper" temperature. However, the desirable temperature is the temperature that human civilization grew up with, obviously. Quickly changing that will kill many people, devastates ecosystems and costs hundreds of trillions of dollars.



> If one or the other, or something in between or more drastic is the proper temp, then is anything man does one way or the other going to make a difference?



Yes. Not emitting as much CO2 will reduce the temperature increase, and thus reduce the damage.



> In either direction a few degrees would benefit certain climates while injuring others, I would think.



A cost-benefit analysis shows far more are injured by global warming than are helped by it.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, quite crying for attention. A grown man should be ashamed to act like you do.
> 
> Now, on to someone who asked honest questions.
> 
> ...


so you've got nothing. Figures. 

Even your drivel here is silly.  You have no more idea any climate information than any other human being.  Why not just admit you have no idea what's happening and join society for a while?


----------



## IanC (Mar 16, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> so we are supposed to be impressed "6 phd's" sat there debating each other?
> 
> good grief.




Actually it was a very good first step. The questions were known in advance and the ground rules forbade ad hominem and appeal to authority. The debate itself showed the weakness in AGW theory, and more importantly, how close the two sides were on many of the issues.


----------



## Crick (Mar 16, 2015)

Did the debate support the idea that climate data have been manipulated?  Did it support the idea that there is no consensus among active climate scientists regarding AGW?  Did it support the idea that large numbers of climate scientists are publishing fraudulent data?  Did it support the idea of a chummy network among journal publishers?  Did it support the idea that the sun and not CO2 is the cause of the last century's warming?  

In short, did the debate support ANYTHING that has been presented by posters here in opposition of the IPCC's findings?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 16, 2015)

James Everett said:


> I have questions for everyone.....
> It is my understanding that scientist have stated that during the Jurassic period there were palm trees growing as far north as Canada, and that during the ice age, glaciers were a mile high over Chicago and the ice sheets were as far south as Mexico, therefore my question is......
> What is the proper temperature of the Earth?
> If the Jurassic period was the proper temp, then should we not expect warming?
> ...



The answer is not one alarmist want to hear.





You will note that for millions of years the earth has oscillated between +22 deg C and +12 deg C.  The graph above shows the averages over millions of years. what it doesn't show are the cyclical cycles that occur every 90,000 years and 16,000 years.




Here is the resolution level that allows you to see these cycles. For roughly 90,000 years the earth is cooler by -6 to -8 deg C from today's level. And for roughly 12-16 thousand years we get what is called an interglacial which warms up to our present levels we see today. Our current interglacial is now at just over 12,600 years and well within the time span for major cooling to begin.

To answer your question about the "correct" or "right" temperature of the earth, one must figure out what cycle we are in at the time..




Earths axial tilt and precision has just passed the point where glaciation has started in geological history.  The one thing that is certain, both warming and cooling are abrupt and occur with little or no warning.

And yes the area NY City covers was under 2 miles of ice at the end of the last glacial cycle. The Hudson Bay area was under as much as 12 miles of ice.. When cooling sets in not a soul on earth will be able to hide from its effects.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> Did the debate support the idea that climate data have been manipulated?  Did it support the idea that there is no consensus among active climate scientists regarding AGW?  Did it support the idea that large numbers of climate scientists are publishing fraudulent data?  Did it support the idea of a chummy network among journal publishers?  Did it support the idea that the sun and not CO2 is the cause of the last century's warming?
> 
> In short, did the debate support ANYTHING that has been presented by posters here in opposition of the IPCC's findings?



The debate was firmly set on the IPCC AR4/AR5 and the science behind identifying and quantifying forcings. The ground rules were clearly set.  If you had even read the documents provided you would know this.


----------



## Crick (Mar 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome..
> 
> 6 Phd's were asked to debate the framed subject of the IPCC documents. All were members of the APS.
> 
> ...




You read this entire document?


----------



## Crick (Mar 16, 2015)

IanC said:


> Actually it was a very good first step. The questions were known in advance and the ground rules forbade ad hominem and appeal to authority. The debate itself showed the weakness in AGW theory, and more importantly, how close the two sides were on many of the issues.



How did the debate show weakness in AGW theory?  On what issues do you believe the two sides were shown to be close?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome..
> ...



All 534 pages... twice!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it was a very good first step. The questions were known in advance and the ground rules forbade ad hominem and appeal to authority. The debate itself showed the weakness in AGW theory, and more importantly, how close the two sides were on many of the issues.
> ...



It showed weakness in three areas.

** Temperatures and the methods use to calculate them in varying areas of the atmosphere,oceans, and land are incorrect. Statistical analysis shows that spurious warming of up to 1.7 deg C is caused by the homogenization process and in filling of the models.

** CO2's effect on water vapor has been extremely exaggerated. In fact empirical evidence has shown that water vapor is a negative feedback not a positive one. This area was hotly debated. The models exaggerate the warming and response of CO2 because they are programed to do so.

**The Mid Tropospheric Hot spot does not exist. Empirical evidence shows that it does not. The models predict this but as they exaggerate many other areas it does the same here resulting in spurious warming and deviation from empirical temperature evidence.

They essentially lay the Anthropogenic portion of climatic change neutered. The concessions from the alarmist side of the camp that there are major problems with the IPCC work was stunning. The modelers had no empirical evidence to back up their side of the argument and that was the key point of the weakness.

I hope there are many more of these to come where the ground rules are set and the appeals to authority or screaming denier are flushed long before it starts..


----------



## Crick (Mar 17, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The document has 571 pages on my display and, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


it's 573 pages on my display.  So it appears it depends on the display.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 17, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



SO I have my font set big... sue me!  WAIT!!!! your font is set bigger than mine...





But it is legal typeset..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 18, 2015)

*Science Lessons for Secretary of State John F. Kerry*

*Well....The article shows the fallacies of the whole AGW meme... Along with the idiot Kerry's ignorance of the subject.*




> *We do not accept gravity and phase transition because science tells us to. We accept these things because they can be empirically tested, repeatedly confirmed and form the bases of solid scientific theories.*
> 
> *Science tells us that climate has always changed and always will be changing. While the radiative forcing effect of CO2 is kind of in the same ballpark as the freezing point of water, the notion that humans are the primary cause of recent climate changes is nothing but a hypothesis which has failed almost every empirical test. This is why many scientists do not accept that this is “settled science.”*



*This pretty well sums it up all by itself..*


----------



## Crick (Mar 19, 2015)

What empirical tests has it failed and which "many scientists" do not accept that it is "settled science"?

The truth on both issues is shown by a single point: the world's climate scientists and, actually, all the world's scientists - who certainly know what does and does not falsify a theory at least as well as do you - accept AGW as valid by enormous margins.  Neither the emails stolen from CRU nor the hiatus of surface warming in recent years nor anything else you can name has had the slightest impact on the numbers of experts who find the evidence, that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, thoroughly convincing.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> What empirical tests has it failed and which "many scientists" do not accept that it is "settled science"?
> 
> The truth on both issues is shown by a single point: the world's climate scientists and, actually, all the world's scientists - who certainly know what does and does not falsify a theory at least as well as do you - accept AGW as valid by enormous margins.  Neither the emails stolen from CRU nor the hiatus of surface warming in recent years nor anything else you can name has had the slightest impact on the numbers of experts who find the evidence, that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, thoroughly convincing.


one question, where does most of the funding come from to pay your climate scientist salaries?  hmmmmmmm..........Can you say the people?  didn't think so, you're so shallow and lost it's obvious you lost track of humanity.  The thing is and always will be, you ain't got proof of anything.  you have no idea what 20 PPM of CO2 does to anything.  you're just mad because folks like me call you out on it daily here.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 19, 2015)

Nobody's mad. You don't get mad at a child who constantly throws tantrums. You just put them to bed, and you try to teach them that tantrums won't get them what they want.

Debates like this have the fundamental problem in that it only takes a sentence to lie, but it takes pages to refute a lie. And since you can't present evidence in spoken form, deniers are allowed to just fabricate evidence.

In the world of real science, where bad denier lies can be refuted as leisure, the deniers always get laughed out of the room. That's why deniers hate real science so much, because they always lose at it.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Nobody's mad. You don't get mad at a child who constantly throws tantrums. You just put them to bed, and you try to teach them that tantrums won't get them what they want.
> 
> Debates like this have the fundamental problem in that it only takes a sentence to lie, but it takes pages to refute a lie. And since you can't present evidence in spoken form, deniers are allowed to just fabricate evidence.
> 
> In the world of real science, where bad denier lies can be refuted as leisure, the deniers always get laughed out of the room. That's why deniers hate real science so much, because they always lose at it.


in other words, you still have no experiment right? you're admitting you don't know what 20 PPM of CO2 does in the atmosphere.

And therefore, you are a liar.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 19, 2015)

And jc gives us a fine example of how it only takes a sentence to lie. The point of that tactic, telling the same lie over and over, is that eventually people simply get tired of debunking the same old lie yet another time, which allows the persistent liar to proclaim victory.

jc, thank you for rushing to prove my point like that.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> And jc gives us a fine example of how it only takes a sentence to lie. The point of that tactic, telling the same lie over and over, is that eventually people simply get tired of debunking the same old lie yet another time, which allows the persistent liar to proclaim victory.
> 
> jc, thank you for rushing to prove my point like that.


no the point of the sentence is to secure the experiment that proves what you claim.  You are the perfect example of deflection of the request.  you demonstrate that everyday here.  Just proves you are a liar.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> What empirical tests has it failed and which "many scientists" do not accept that it is "settled science"?
> 
> The truth on both issues is shown by a single point: the world's climate scientists and, actually, all the world's scientists - who certainly know what does and does not falsify a theory at least as well as do you - accept AGW as valid by enormous margins.  Neither the emails stolen from CRU nor the hiatus of surface warming in recent years nor anything else you can name has had the slightest impact on the numbers of experts who find the evidence, that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, thoroughly convincing.



Let's start by YOU  providing the Math, Methods, and data which prove AGW by empirical evidence.  Reminder: Models are NOT empirical evidence of anything.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> What empirical tests has it failed and which "many scientists" do not accept that it is "settled science"?
> 
> The truth on both issues is shown by a single point: the world's climate scientists and, actually, all the world's scientists - who certainly know what does and does not falsify a theory at least as well as do you - accept AGW as valid by enormous margins.  Neither the emails stolen from CRU nor the hiatus of surface warming in recent years nor anything else you can name has had the slightest impact on the numbers of experts who find the evidence, that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, thoroughly convincing.









How about you show us a single empirical test that AGW theory has passed.  That will be a lot less wasted time.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 19, 2015)

Sure. A couple examples.

AGW theory said it would get warmer. It got warmer.

It said there would be polar amplification. There was.

It said outgoing longwave would decrease in GHG bands. It did.

It said downgoing backradiation would increase. It did.

So far, it's the only theory that explains all of the observed data. And because climate scientists have been so successful with their predictions, they have credibility.

How does the denier theory of climate explain the observed data? "Natural cycles" doesn't explain any of it. I'd say denier science was rejected, but that's incorrect, being deniers refuse to do any actual science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Sure. A couple examples.
> 
> AGW theory said it would get warmer. It got warmer.
> 
> ...



Let me see...  No Empirical evidence to show causation... just a throw of to authority that it warmed and ..... without a shred of evidence man caused it...  

You, Harbail are a legend in your own mind...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Sure. A couple examples.
> 
> AGW theory said it would get warmer. It got warmer.
> 
> ...


And yet Cold air cannot warm warm air, prove it!


----------



## Crick (Mar 19, 2015)

Explain what you mean by that meme.  How warm is warm air?  How cold is cold air?  What do you mean by warming?  

If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest?  In the latter of course.  And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers?  You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth.  The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.

Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Explain what you mean by that meme.  How warm is warm air?  How cold is cold air?  What do you mean by warming?
> 
> If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest?  In the latter of course.  And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers?  You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth.  The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.
> 
> Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?


what is that you don't get about cold and warm?  Are you saying cold air can warm warm air?  take cold water and mix it with warm water, will the warm water become warmer?  nope.  So not sure what you don't understand, but that really doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Crick (Mar 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> Explain what you mean by that meme.  How warm is warm air?  How cold is cold air?  What do you mean by warming?
> 
> If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest?  In the latter of course.  And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers?  You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth.  The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.
> 
> Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?





jc456 said:


> what is that you don't get about cold and warm?  Are you saying cold air can warm warm air?  take cold water and mix it with warm water, will the warm water become warmer?  nope.  So not sure what you don't understand, but that really doesn't surprise me.



That _I_ don't get?!?  I'm the one of us that's taken thermodynamics and heat transfer.

I - and everyone else on this planet that understands high school physics or beyond - are telling you that ALL matter radiates heat, REGARDLESS of its surroundings.

Thus the point is that all matter transfers heat to all other matter and the state of any piece of it is dependent on the interchanges taking place with its surroundings.

Please spell out how you believe the greenhouse effect and AGW are affected by your contention.  Please tell us what effect or process or event about which you think we're all mistaken.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Explain what you mean by that meme.  How warm is warm air?  How cold is cold air?  What do you mean by warming?
> ...


First off, I never stated that matter didn't transfer heat.  I asked you if cold air can warm warm air.  it's a simple question.


----------



## Crick (Mar 21, 2015)

It is a stupid question.  ALL matter radiates heat energy.  All of it.  No exceptions.  So if we have two pieces of matter near each other, they will radiate each other no matter what their respective temperatures might be.  And that will maintain a higher equilibrium temperature in them than if they were surrounded by nothing - ie, by absolute zero.

Do you understand?

PS, I did not say you were rejecting heat transfer. I'm telling you that you seem to be rejecting the fact that all matter radiates heat.  And it is most definitely a fact.  It is not a theory.  It is not a hypothesis.  It is a goddamned law of nature fact.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 21, 2015)

So when t


Crick said:


> It is a stupid question.  ALL matter radiates heat energy.  All of it.  No exceptions.  So if we have two pieces of matter near each other, they will radiate each other no matter what their respective temperatures might be.  And that will maintain a higher equilibrium temperature in them than if they were surrounded by nothing - ie, by absolute zero.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> PS, I did not say you were rejecting heat transfer. I'm telling you that you seem to be rejecting the fact that all matter radiates heat.  And it is most definitely a fact.  It is not a theory.  It is not a hypothesis.  It is a goddamned law of nature fact.


When those two energies meet does it get warmer is the question


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> Explain what you mean by that meme.  How warm is warm air?  How cold is cold air?  What do you mean by warming?
> 
> If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest?  In the latter of course.  And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers?  You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth.  The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.
> 
> Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?



Crick obfuscates and deflects a very simple question.. Can colder molecules, using the law of thermal dynamics, warm close proximity molecules who are much warmer than the cooler?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> So when t
> 
> 
> Crick said:
> ...



The answer is NO.  A colder object can not cause a warmer object to warm.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 22, 2015)

I d


Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So when t
> ...


o know that, I'd like to see crick acknowledge that. But he avoids the answer each time I ask.


----------



## IanC (Mar 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> I d
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> ...



What does your question have to do with highly ordered high energy entering the planetary system and leaving as disordered low energy?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 22, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I d
> ...


I guess that just makes me stupid


----------



## IanC (Mar 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Just because the warmists use faulty logic and non sequiturs, that doesn't mean we should too.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 23, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Can colder molecules, using the law of thermal dynamics, warm close proximity molecules who are much warmer than the cooler?



Watch out everyone. Billy knows the laws of thermal dynamics. Though he doesn't understand why everyone keeps laughing at him when he says that.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Can colder molecules, using the law of thermal dynamics, warm close proximity molecules who are much warmer than the cooler?
> ...


Ok Francis, why dont you tell us...


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Explain what you mean by that meme.  How warm is warm air?  How cold is cold air?  What do you mean by warming?
> ...



If you drop an ice cube into a glass of room temperature water, the water will drop in temperature.  Unfortunately for you, that is not the pertinent issue.

You want to say that IR, originating from cooler temperature gases in the upper atmosphere cannot warm warmer gases or warm surfaces in the lower atmosphere. Let me ask you this, then.  What does happen to the matter that absorbs that IR?  And please don't tell me "nothing" again, jc.  You're not really that stupid.  Desperate, perhaps, but not that stupid.  I'll give you a hint, though.  Think about what would happen to that matter if it did NOT receive that IR.  Think about what determines equilibrium temperatures young paduwan.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 24, 2015)

HOLY SHIT

Billy...............great thread!! The AGW side got their asses handed to them. No wonder Gore never wanted to debate anybody!!!! He might be a bit dull from attending so many Grateful Dead concerts but he's not stupid!!


Don't forget though.........to the AGW k00ks, Phd scientists are fakes unless they subscribe to the official narrative................guys like Crick, Matthew and Mammoth have been so hypnotized with this shit, any scientific information that doesn't conform to the view of the religion is dismissed out of hand. Yet they refer to it as "science".


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 24, 2015)

kflaux said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 100 years later, we're still rigorously testing General Relativity
> ...



They do it under orders from Obama, you blithering idiot.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Crick, correct, I don't believe there is back radiation that comes out of the nice cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.  Does it radiate, sure, I have no doubt, me I just haven't seen any evidence that backradiation will warm the surface.  If you have that evidence, feel free to show it to me.


----------



## kflaux (Mar 24, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> kflaux said:
> 
> 
> > Consider that the Pentagon and Department of Defense now regard climate change to be one of the most serious threats the nation faces long-term.
> ...


Pentagon tells Bush climate change will destroy us Environment The Guardian

_'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists._

Who's the blithering idiot here?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 24, 2015)

kflaux said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > kflaux said:
> ...


ew, ew, do I get a vote?


----------



## IanC (Mar 24, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




A solar oven will heat things if you point it at the Sun, cool thing if you point it towards open sky, and is intermediate if you point it towards a cloud. The difference is how much back radiation it is getting. Without an atmosphere it would get much hotter or much cooler. The temperature of the object at the focal point is the equilibrium of energy in minus energy out. Even a cooler atmosphere gives back more radiation than just space. Cool things can reduce energy loss. Depending on how you define 'warming', cool things can warm hotter things as long as there is a heat source moving energy through the system.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 24, 2015)

kflaux said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > kflaux said:
> ...



It's a "secret report" that only the Guardian has a copy of?  Wow, that is so credible!


----------



## IanC (Mar 24, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> kflaux said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




Back in the 70's there was a CIA report on how global cooling was going to disrupt civilization. It predicted much the same things as global warming is being blamed for now. I could bump the thread if anyone is interested.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 24, 2015)

IanC said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > kflaux said:
> ...



Please do.  You have to pound this stuff into the heads of the AGW nutburgers over and over and over before they'll even admit they saw it.


----------



## IanC (Mar 24, 2015)

here is the link- http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

unfortunately it is a pdf. it is really interesting to see their position on climate science from 40 years ago.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



In order to do that, you'll first have to explain to everyone the second law of ... what was it again? Do remind us.


----------



## westwall (Mar 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...










Yes, lets' talk about what warms the Earth.  Is it the atmosphere?  Welllll, no...it doesn't seem to be the atmosphere that can warm the planet.  In fact nothing propagates through air very well other than light.

Any home builder will tell you that "dead air" is the best insulator you can get.  So, it's definitely not the atmosphere that warms the Earth.

How about the ground?  Does that do it?  Welllll, let's see.  In the daytime it is certainly warm...but hey...wait a minute.  If I'm in the desert it gets real warm in the day, but colder than hell at night!  What gives?  Hmm....Maybe it isn't the rocks that are retaining the heat.

So...what does that leave?  Oh yeah!  It leaves the oceans!  And sure enough, land that is next to an ocean has a more stable temperature range.  Amazing!  OK.  We now know that it is the oceans that heat the Earth.  Cool.  Now, how do the oceans themselves get warmed?  Hmm.  There is UV radiation, and there is IR radiation.  How deep does the light have to penetrate to actually warm up the oceans?

Turns out...you have to punch that light really, really deep.  Over 100 meters in point of fact.  So...how deep can UV light penetrate into the oceans?  Well, at 200 meters there is no longer enough energy from the Sun for photosynthesis to occur.  However, in the deep ocean, away from coastal debris the sunlight can penetrate up to 850 meters deep to at least make it possible to see.  Beyond 850 meters it is inky black.

So... how far does IR light penetrate?  You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming?  Microns.  Yep....less than a millimeter deep.  In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't.  It is impossible.

Shedding Light on Light in the Ocean Oceanus Magazine


----------



## kflaux (Mar 24, 2015)

IanC said:


> Back in the 70's there was a CIA report on how global cooling was going to disrupt civilization. It predicted much the same things as global warming is being blamed for now. I could bump the thread if anyone is interested.


Yes, because that was the general trend predicted by our knowledge of e.g. the Milankovich cycles and the like. Very, very gradual cooling, but not likely to affect humans for thousands of years.

That was before human-produced greenhouse gases, and to a lesser extent land-use practices, overwhelmed the gradual cooling trend. Jim Hansen has said that a single CFC factory, located anywhere on earth, would have been enough to counter the cooling trend.

You AGW deniers are going to be more and more lonely in future. Kinda like the few nutcases who still think smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 24, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Ian,  I'm no science major, however, the problem I have to your analogy involves what the cloud actually does. Clouds actually keep the temperatures under them cooler, that is fact. We do know that the sun's rays do penetrate the cloud, so if back radiation were happening, then wouldn't the surface be warmer under that cloud? I mean it is cooler in the cloud above and therefore should slow the warming down at the surface according to your post. So I have a conundrum with what you wrote.  

Also, as pointed out by Westwall, in a desert at night it is cold, no retention of heat so the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface after the sun is gone.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2015)

westwall said:


> So... how far does IR light penetrate?  You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming?  Microns.  Yep....less than a millimeter deep.  In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't.  It is impossible.



Conservation of energy always holds. Penetration depth is not the relevant point. The point is it does penetrate, hence it does get absorbed, hence the energy goes into the oceans.

I'll expand. This profile shows a typical temperature profile of the ocean during the day. Note the log scale on the vertical axis.






The water warms below the surface skin, due to the visible light being absorbed. The warmer water rises. Air temps are almost always lower than ocean temps, so the water then loses heat at the surface.

The thermal gradient in the skin determines the heat flow out of the ocean into the air. Backradiation heats the skin, makes that gradient less steep, so less heat flows out of the oceans from below, and the oceans warm.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So... how far does IR light penetrate?  You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming?  Microns.  Yep....less than a millimeter deep.  In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't.  It is impossible.
> ...


hahahahahhahaha, wow dude/ dudette now that's hilarious.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2015)

jc, deliberately trashing threads is still against board rules, even in Zone 3. So stop it.


----------



## westwall (Mar 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So... how far does IR light penetrate?  You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming?  Microns.  Yep....less than a millimeter deep.  In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't.  It is impossible.
> ...








Penetration is ABSOLUTELY the controlling factor.  IR can not, and never will contribute to the warming of the oceans.


----------



## westwall (Mar 24, 2015)

kflaux said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Back in the 70's there was a CIA report on how global cooling was going to disrupt civilization. It predicted much the same things as global warming is being blamed for now. I could bump the thread if anyone is interested.
> ...








So....how do you explain when the global temps have been both warmer (much warmer in point of fact) and colder, both when CO2 levels were high and low?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2015)

westwall said:


> Penetration is ABSOLUTELY the controlling factor.  IR can not, and never will contribute to the warming of the oceans.



Now that you're declaring conservation of energy can be violated whenever it's convenient for you, you place yourself in the same outright kook category as Billy.


----------



## IanC (Mar 24, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Fair enough question. Clouds act like a boundary, water droplets act like a mirror for many wavelengths including much of IR. The total between reflected and radiated (at a higher adiabatic temp) is what makes the input from a cloud higher than clear sky right out to space.


----------



## IanC (Mar 24, 2015)

kflaux said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Back in the 70's there was a CIA report on how global cooling was going to disrupt civilization. It predicted much the same things as global warming is being blamed for now. I could bump the thread if anyone is interested.
> ...




Are you confusing me with someone else? I agree with the basic mechanism of CO2 theory, I just don't agree with the exaggerations and predictions of doom.


----------



## kflaux (Mar 24, 2015)

IanC said:


> Are you confusing me with someone else? I agree with the basic mechanism of CO2 theory, I just don't agree with the exaggerations and predictions of doom.


I see. Apologies then. 

IAC here is Hansen's statement:
_But shouldn’t Earth now, or at some point, be headed into the next ice age? No. Another ice age will not occur, unless humans go extinct. Orbital conditions now are, indeed, conducive (albeit weakly6 ) to initiation of ice sheet growth in the Northern Hemisphere But only a small amount of human-made GHGs are needed to overwhelm any natural tendency toward cooling. The long lifetime of human-made CO2 perturbations assures that no human generation that we can imagine will need to be concerned about global cooling. Even after fossil fuel use ceases and its effect is drained from the system an ice age could be averted by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) produced in a single CFC factory. It is a trivial task for humanity to avert an ice age._
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/climate/hansen.pdf

As for the "exaggerations and predictions of doom", well, until four or five years ago, that was my thinking as well.

The two things though that you need to consider very carefully are:

1) Inertia...which is to say, the enormous time-lag between our actions today, and the climate consequences, which will typically only appear decades in the future.

More importantly though,

2) Tipping points. Regional features, such as the melting Arctic sea ice, or dessication and ultimate destruction of the Amazon rain forest, or the melting and release of methane clathrates in the permafrost in e.g. Siberia, that are thought to start irreversible processes.

Which is to say, the planetary system, taken as a whole, is highly nonlinear. As the paleoclimate record tells us. Climate stability is actually quite rare.

For both of the above reasons, we will NOT be able to simply make a few adjustments when we finally eventually decide that AGW might perhaps become a bit of a problem.


----------



## westwall (Mar 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Penetration is ABSOLUTELY the controlling factor.  IR can not, and never will contribute to the warming of the oceans.
> ...









Where exactly have I claimed that?  Really, admiral.  We know you really don't know what you're talking about, but c'mon dude.  At least try and make an effort to post something at least semi factual.


----------



## westwall (Mar 24, 2015)

kflaux said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Are you confusing me with someone else? I agree with the basic mechanism of CO2 theory, I just don't agree with the exaggerations and predictions of doom.
> ...










Ah, finally someone who actually posts something credible.  Yes, the Earth operates on a scale far slower than the humans and other life forms which inhabit it.  Things that occur now, won't become obvious for decades if not hundreds of years.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 24, 2015)

westwall said:


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


Mantooth doesn't have a clue about what wave length will penetrate the ocean to what depth.. IT thinks it all can.  It is a moron..


----------



## IanC (Mar 24, 2015)

kflaux said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Are you confusing me with someone else? I agree with the basic mechanism of CO2 theory, I just don't agree with the exaggerations and predictions of doom.
> ...



Sorry, I don't agree with you. The scenarios you propose didn't happen in the MWP or RWP so I see no reason why they would happen now. Oceans do have lag periods and enertia but once the heat goes in there are few ways to get it out again. Besides, oceans have their own regulating feedbacks, especially at the equator where most of the energy comes in.

I think you have been sold a scary scenario that has little resemblance to reality.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2015)

westwall said:


> Where exactly have I claimed that?  Really, admiral.  We know you really don't know what you're talking about, but c'mon dude.  At least try and make an effort to post something at least semi factual.



You've told us the longwave IR penetrates into the ocean. Yet you also say the energy of it is _not_ absorbed by the ocean.

So where does the energy go? You and your conspiracy pal Billy won't tell us. Apparently, you think the energy just vanishes into a mystery dimension.

That means you're both happily violating conservation of energy, just because it's convenient for your conspiracy theory. And that explains why the whole planet considers your science to be a joke.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Where exactly have I claimed that?  Really, admiral.  We know you really don't know what you're talking about, but c'mon dude.  At least try and make an effort to post something at least semi factual.
> ...



IR is 15 micron or larger which does not penetrate the oceans at all.  it is why CO2 can not affect the ocean temps. But poor little hair ball has no clue about the real science of it..


----------



## westwall (Mar 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Where exactly have I claimed that?  Really, admiral.  We know you really don't know what you're talking about, but c'mon dude.  At least try and make an effort to post something at least semi factual.
> ...








No.  I said that long wave IR does NOT penetrate into the ocean.  If it can't penetrate into the ocean, it CAN'T transfer its energy into the oceans.

What are you....high?


----------



## kflaux (Mar 24, 2015)

westwall said:


> Ah, finally someone who actually posts something credible. Yes, the Earth operates on a scale far slower than the humans and other life forms which inhabit it. Things that occur now, won't become obvious for decades if not hundreds of years.


Usually, yes, you are quite correct.

However, that "usually" is the usually of the Holocene, which as you are aware, only goes back 11,000 years or so.

One of the more frightening things climate scientists have discovered in the past decade or two is that climate can change quite suddenly. Look up the "Younger Dryas" period, and how it ended.

Many climate scientists now think the Younger Dryas ended in a decade or less. Some think it ended in just two or three years. That's two or three years over which the climate changed by something like 10 deg F on average.

As Wally Broecker and others have stated often enough, it is very stupid to assume that because our climate has been benign for centuries, it will continue to be benign when we poke it with such a sharp stick so persistently.


----------



## kflaux (Mar 24, 2015)

IanC said:


> Sorry, I don't agree with you. The scenarios you propose didn't happen in the MWP or RWP so I see no reason why they would happen now.


MWP I take to be the Medieval Warm Period. Not sure what you mean by RWP.

The MWP at least is within the Holocene, hence part of our current period of climate stability.



> Oceans do have lag periods and enertia but once the heat goes in there are few ways to get it out again. Besides, oceans have their own regulating feedbacks, especially at the equator where most of the energy comes in.


Bracket the oceans for the moment. Something like 90% of excess global warming heat goes into the oceans, but most of the remaining 10% goes into the atmosphere.

That is enough to cause changes to the tipping points, described above. The 10% or less is sufficient to greatly reduce the Arctic ice (), threaten the Amazon rainforest, and cause melting of methane in the permafrost. None of this is controversial.

So granted what you say about the oceans, and I agree with you about the feedbacks etc, but they do not absorb all of the excess heat.



> I think you have been sold a scary scenario that has little resemblance to reality.


Well, maybe so. I would like to think so. Honestly.

I am not a climate scientist. I have advanced degrees in physics, but they are not directly relevant.

But, the large majority of climate scientists are convinced that we are going to a Very Bad Place, so to speak. 

These are scientists, for chrissakes, and at recent conferences etc, they trade notes about shrinks, and how to sleep at night, etc. This is not normal behavior.

Call it all some kind of mass derangement phenomenon, if you wish. But it makes a lot more sense to suppose that it's what they know that makes it hard for them to sleep at night.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 25, 2015)

kflaux said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I don't agree with you. The scenarios you propose didn't happen in the MWP or RWP so I see no reason why they would happen now.
> ...


Or they can't live with the lies


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2015)

kflaux said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, finally someone who actually posts something credible. Yes, the Earth operates on a scale far slower than the humans and other life forms which inhabit it. Things that occur now, won't become obvious for decades if not hundreds of years.
> ...







No, climate doesn't change "suddenly".  Those "discoveries" were completely derived from computer models.  Computer models are not data no mater how hard the AGW scientists would have you believe them to be.  The proxies that they use are notoriously inaccurate.   However, let us grant the hypothesis that the change occurred that fast.  Nothing happened.  Nothing at all.  No mass deaths, no worldwide conflagration.  Nothing.  Well, the worldwide legend of the flood originates at that time.  But nothing else bad happened. 

All of the hyperbole, and all of the hysteria is merely a poor attempt at propaganda designed to frighten the savages so that they will willingly turn over their wealth and property to a wealthy elite.  That's it.


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2015)

kflaux said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I don't agree with you. The scenarios you propose didn't happen in the MWP or RWP so I see no reason why they would happen now.
> ...







The RWP is the Roman Warming Period which was at least 2 degrees warmer than the present day.  Before that there was the Minoan Warming Period, and before that was the Holocene Thermal Maximum.  All of these warming periods were warmer than the present day.  And by a lot.  Interspersed between the warming periods were cold trends.  The Little Ice Age is the most recent, and before that was the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe.  In  other words, the climate is cyclic and regardless of CO2 levels the temps go up and down in a never ending cycle.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 25, 2015)

kflaux said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 100 years later, we're still rigorously testing General Relativity
> ...



But there's no Cult Fundamentalists insisting they have "Consensus" and the "Science is settled"

That's the difference between a death worshiping, Jihadist Cult and real science


----------



## jc456 (Mar 25, 2015)

kflaux said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 100 years later, we're still rigorously testing General Relativity
> ...


oh gawd.... snooze kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk... sorry I was snoring.


----------



## kflaux (Mar 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> No, climate doesn't change "suddenly". Those "discoveries" were completely derived from computer models.


Ice core samples. Not models.

Well, I've shot my wad, as they say. At this late date, minds are typically changed only by cold, hard facts. Mom Nature is gearing up to take a 2x4 to your cranium. (to all of our craniums)

"Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."  --George Orwell


----------



## jc456 (Mar 25, 2015)

kflaux said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, climate doesn't change "suddenly". Those "discoveries" were completely derived from computer models.
> ...


and you have nothing to back any of that mumbo jumbo with. Nothing, you may as well be gargling and making noise for all your efforts s0n!


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 25, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> kflaux said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That's because it can't be used as an excuse to fleece the public of trillions of dollars.


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2015)

kflaux said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, climate doesn't change "suddenly". Those "discoveries" were completely derived from computer models.
> ...







Which were then modeled.  The actual ice core data shows that warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise.  That is a fact that continually bites the AGW crowd in the butt.  The harsh reality that all of you can't stand is we have ample evidence, from actual real data, not computer modeled science fiction, that shows when the temps are higher life is better.  ALL life.  No disaster that the AGW sheep continuously bleat about has ever occurred even when the temps were much higher than they currently are, and for a longer period than they have been this time around.


----------



## kflaux (Mar 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> Which were then modeled. The actual ice core data shows that warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact that continually bites the AGW crowd in the butt. The harsh reality that all of you can't stand is we have ample evidence, from actual real data, not computer modeled science fiction, that shows when the temps are higher life is better. ALL life. No disaster that the AGW sheep continuously bleat about has ever occurred even when the temps were much higher than they currently are, and for a longer period than they have been this time around.


Why don't you ask a cattle rancher in OK or TX if the drought there has made life better for him.

Or ask a Pakistani who lost his home and family in the flooding.

Or ask someone who lost a loved one in Katrina, Sandy, Mitch etc.

Or ask a Frenchman who lost a parent in the horrific heat of 2003.

Or ask the almond farmers in CA's central valley how they're handling the drought.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths each year are already directly attributable to climate change. See e.g. Christian Parenti's Tropic of Chaos for details.

Moreover. CO2 and temperature are entrained variables. Each affects and amplifies the other. Which is another reason why, as I said earlier, climate is unstable as a rule.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 25, 2015)

kflaux said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Which were then modeled. The actual ice core data shows that warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact that continually bites the AGW crowd in the butt. The harsh reality that all of you can't stand is we have ample evidence, from actual real data, not computer modeled science fiction, that shows when the temps are higher life is better. ALL life. No disaster that the AGW sheep continuously bleat about has ever occurred even when the temps were much higher than they currently are, and for a longer period than they have been this time around.
> ...


what does any of that have to do with anything?  Holy crap a pasture of stawmen.  my word s0n.


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2015)

kflaux said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Which were then modeled. The actual ice core data shows that warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact that continually bites the AGW crowd in the butt. The harsh reality that all of you can't stand is we have ample evidence, from actual real data, not computer modeled science fiction, that shows when the temps are higher life is better. ALL life. No disaster that the AGW sheep continuously bleat about has ever occurred even when the temps were much higher than they currently are, and for a longer period than they have been this time around.
> ...









I hate to break it to you but drought is a natural way of life in the west where I live.  In CA, where they are in the fourth year of drought the usual suspects are bleating about how it's all climate changes fault (man derived of course) all the while ignoring the fact that half the state is a desert in the first place (and wouldn't you know it, that's also where the majority of the population resides) and that in the rest of the state multi year droughts are common.  Some droughts have lasted more than 200 years at a stretch.

Go back through history and tell us of a time when floods haven't killed people.  I suggest you look up "The Great Drowning of Men" if you want to see something really bad.  In other words, your argument is made up of emotional tales the likes of which have been occurring, without interruption, since before man was man.

There are no deaths attributable to "climate change".  There are deaths associated to weather related disasters.  I'll grant you that.  But "climate change" is a meme.  It has no basis in reality for the simple reason that the climate IS ALWAYS CHANGING, regardless of mans input.

So, you love to trot out the misery of people and blame climate change for their tribulations.  Please direct us to a single year....just one year, where no weather related disaster has occurred.  Just one, out of those three thousand years of written history....give us one.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> No.  I said that long wave IR does NOT penetrate into the ocean.  If it can't penetrate into the ocean, it CAN'T transfer its energy into the oceans.
> 
> What are you....high?



So, the new version of the Westwall idiot conspiracy theory has the energy vanishing _at_ the surface of the water instead of just below the surface of the ocean. And Westwall actually thinks that's an improvement. He's still shuffling energy off into a mystery dimension and proudly violating conservaion of energy, and hoping nobody notices.

Westwall, I suggest you write up a paper on your new version of physics, so you can collect your Nobel Prize. Make sure you include your explanation on exactly why conservation of energy doesn't hold in this singular case, being I imagine the Nobel committee will probably not accept your standard "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".


----------



## jc456 (Mar 25, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No.  I said that long wave IR does NOT penetrate into the ocean.  If it can't penetrate into the ocean, it CAN'T transfer its energy into the oceans.
> ...


i suggest you provide a paper that shows it does. I'm sorry the experiment is what I meant.


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No.  I said that long wave IR does NOT penetrate into the ocean.  If it can't penetrate into the ocean, it CAN'T transfer its energy into the oceans.
> ...







Poor admiral.  You lie cheat and steal and still you can't get anyone to agree with your tripe.  The energy doesn't vanish.  Where oh where did I state that?  I merely state that the energy can't penetrate deep enough into the water for it to transfer to the water.  I never said that it vanished.  Poor, poor admiral, such a scientific illiterate trying to keep your poor head above water.

I suggest you just quietly go away....you are so far out of your depth, and such a ridiculous, pathetic liar, that you are no longer even fun to rip to shreds.  Now it's too much like beating a child.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 25, 2015)

westwall said:


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


depth, now that's funny!!!!


----------



## mamooth (Mar 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> Poor admiral.  You lie cheat and steal and still you can't get anyone to agree with your tripe.  The energy doesn't vanish.  Where oh where did I state that?
> 
> I merely state that the energy can't penetrate deep enough into the water for it to transfer to the water.  I never said that it vanished.



Then where does the energy go?

We know it doesn't reflect, as the reflectance of seawater in the far IR is near zero.

You say it doesn't go into the ocean.

So, according to your kook conspiracy theory, the energy doesn't go forward or back. And you say it doesn't vanish. So where is it? I keep asking, and instead of answering, you evade. After all, real scientists are known for that, pissing themselves and running when asked a simple question about their theory.



> Poor, poor admiral, such a scientific illiterate trying to keep your poor head above water.
> 
> I suggest you just quietly go away....you are so far out of your depth, and such a ridiculous, pathetic liar, that you are no longer even fun to rip to shreds.  Now it's too much like beating a child.



Just locate your balls and tell us where the energy went. That simple question isn't going away just because you keep throwing tantrums.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> Which were then modeled.  The actual ice core data shows that warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise.  That is a fact that continually bites the AGW crowd in the butt.



It is amazingly stupid to say,

"In the past, forest fires were caused by lightning, and the present must be exactly like the past, so humans can't cause forest fires."

or

"In the past, species went extinct naturally, and the present must be exactly like the past, so humans can't make species go extinct."

or

"In the past, CO2 lagged temp, and the present must be exactly like the past, so CO2 must lag temps now."

The 3 statements are precisely the same concerning the degree of stupidity required to make them. A dim third grader could understand the logic failure behind them.

What's more, the recent science points out it's not even true that CO2 lags temps. Therefore, an honest person would not even be making the claim that CO2 lags temp.

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming
---
Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. *We find no significant asynchrony between them*, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.
---



> The harsh reality that all of you can't stand is we have ample evidence, from actual real data, not computer modeled science fiction, that shows when the temps are higher life is better.  ALL life.



North Africa used to be the breadbasket of Rome. How's it doing now under higher temps? You mean it's a blasted desert now? My, what an improvement.

Arabia used to be much more fertile. How's it doing now?

Dead civilizations litter the American southwest and Africa. Are they better off because of the warming?

Warming benefited northern Europe. Rational people understand northern Europe is a small slice of the globe.

I won't even get into your "ALL life!" statement. That took your stupidity to new heights, your deliberate absolute claim that every living thing on the planet would do better when temps are hotter. It essentially reveals you as a religious zealot, hoping for more holy warming.


----------



## kflaux (Mar 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> There are no deaths attributable to "climate change". There are deaths associated to weather related disasters. I'll grant you that. But "climate change" is a meme. It has no basis in reality for the simple reason that the climate IS ALWAYS CHANGING, regardless of mans input.


As I pointed out above, climate has been remarkably stable for the past 11,000 years, called the Holocene.

Holocene - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And it is *precisely *this climate stability that has allowed human civilization to thrive.

And we are just now in the process of pissing it all away.



> So, you love to trot out the misery of people and blame climate change for their tribulations. Please direct us to a single year....just one year, where no weather related disaster has occurred. Just one, out of those three thousand years of written history....give us one.



Two problems here.

1) No, I don't love to point out misery. It pains me to do so.

2) The logical fallacy in the last two sentences of your paragraph is almost too obvious to point out. I get the feeling I'm not conversing with an adult here.

If someone somewhere has died of lung cancer without smoking cigarettes, does that imply the latter cannot cause the former?

Nothing personal, but unless you manage something a little more intelligent, I'll probably not bother any more.


----------



## kflaux (Mar 25, 2015)

Incidentally. Anyone who really is interested in how climate has affected civilizations in the past--and how very slight changes in climate, far smaller than what we've seen so far, have caused civilizations to end--should read some of Brian Fagan's books.

Amazon.com brian fagan books Books

I can vouch for The Great Warming and The Long Summer. Both excellent.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 25, 2015)

oh my gawd


----------



## jc456 (Mar 25, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Which were then modeled.  The actual ice core data shows that warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise.  That is a fact that continually bites the AGW crowd in the butt.
> ...


no, see really, we all just want the experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures.  Bring that puppy on.  We're all patiently waiting.


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2015)

kflaux said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > There are no deaths attributable to "climate change". There are deaths associated to weather related disasters. I'll grant you that. But "climate change" is a meme. It has no basis in reality for the simple reason that the climate IS ALWAYS CHANGING, regardless of mans input.
> ...









Define "stable".  The global temperature range within the last 11,000 years has been around 4 degree's C.  The Holocene Thermal Maximum was 5 degree's C above what it is today.  The Roman was 2 degrees, the Medieval was 1.5 to 2 degrees C above what it is today.  Amazingly enough culture flourished during those times.  That is a fact.  When it was cold, like during the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe there was a loss of civilization.  That period specifically is known as the Dark Ages.  

These are facts.  You are the one using emotional arguments, devoid of historical context so, right back at you.  Clearly you only wish to engage in a misery/emotional fest and ignore facts, they don't correlate with my pre-determined meme.

Good day and enjoy your ignorance.


----------



## Crick (Mar 25, 2015)

Westwall said:
			
		

> The RWP is the Roman Warming Period which was at least 2 degrees warmer than the present day. Before that there was the Minoan Warming Period, and before that was the Holocene Thermal Maximum. All of these warming periods were warmer than the present day. And by a lot. Interspersed between the warming periods were cold trends. The Little Ice Age is the most recent, and before that was the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe. In other words, the climate is cyclic and regardless of CO2 levels the temps go up and down in a never ending cycle.





			
				Wikipedia: Roman Warm Period said:
			
		

> The Roman Warm Period or the Roman climatic optimum has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to 400 AD. Cooling at the end of this period in south west Florida may have been due to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth, which may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns.
> 
> Theophrastus (371 - c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if planted, but could not set fruit there. This is the same situation as today, and suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the fourth and fifth centuries BC were *within a degree of modern temperatures*. This and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate during that period was basically the same as it was around 2000 AD. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the fifth century BC *resembling the modern pattern of variation*. Tree rings from Italy in the late third century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants.
> 
> The phrase "Roman Warm Period" appears in a 1995 doctoral thesis. It was popularized by an article published in Nature in 1999.[6]



So, unless you have a better source with different information, your claim of "at least 2 degrees warmer than the present day" is horseshit.

and



			
				Marc Airhart said:
			
		

> Medieval Warm Period not so random Know
> 
> Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we'll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists' reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all.



the Minoan Warm Period was sufficiently insignificant that while searches find the term used in numerous articles, climatological details about the period are virtually nonexistent.  If you have a source showing reason to believe it was "warmer than the preset day... and by a lot" I would very much like to see it.

As for the Holocene Thermal Optimum, I know you have seen this graphic before
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png[/quote]

Current temperatures are higher and the rate of increase is greater than anything in human history.










Before anyone gets too excited the default meaning of BP is "Before 1950".


----------



## jc456 (Mar 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> Westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Current temperatures are higher and the rate of increase is greater than anything in human history.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Crick (Mar 25, 2015)

Westwall said:
			
		

> No, climate doesn't change "suddenly". Those "discoveries" were completely derived from computer models. Computer models are not data no mater how hard the AGW scientists would have you believe them to be. The proxies that they use are notoriously inaccurate. However, let us grant the hypothesis that the change occurred that fast. Nothing happened. Nothing at all. No mass deaths, no worldwide conflagration. Nothing. Well, the worldwide legend of the flood originates at that time. But nothing else bad happened.



Climate changes as quickly as it is driven to change.  The climate change that resulted from the Chicxulub Impact was most assuredly sudden.  Human GHG emissions and deforestation have driven CO2 levels up faster than any time since that disaster, 65 million years ago.



			
				Westwall said:
			
		

> All of the hyperbole, and all of the hysteria is merely a poor attempt at propaganda designed to frighten the savages so that they will willingly turn over their wealth and property to a wealthy elite. That's it.



And so we are back to the grand conspiracy of climate scientists.  Are you really that stupid?


----------



## Crick (Mar 25, 2015)

Westwall said:
			
		

> Yes, lets' talk about what warms the Earth. Is it the atmosphere? Welllll, no...it doesn't seem to be the atmosphere that can warm the planet. In fact nothing propagates through air very well other than light.



This is ignorant nonsense and you ought to know it.  The atmosphere is the ONLY reason the Earth is not -18C but +14C.



			
				Westwall said:
			
		

> Any home builder will tell you that "dead air" is the best insulator you can get. So, it's definitely not the atmosphere that warms the Earth.



Are you serious?  You think the Earth's atmosphere is thermodynamically equivalant to "dead air" trapped in insulating glass wool?



			
				Westwall said:
			
		

> How about the ground? Does that do it? Welllll, let's see. In the daytime it is certainly warm...but hey...wait a minute. If I'm in the desert it gets real warm in the day, but colder than hell at night! What gives? Hmm....Maybe it isn't the rocks that are retaining the heat.



Do you actually believe these are valid arguments?  And what did you mean by the term "Earth" if you're now asking if it is warmed by "the ground"?  I also find it surprising that you claim the sun cannot warm the Earth yet point out that when it sets in the very hot desert, it gets very cold.  That certainly seems like the transmission of thermal energy to me.



			
				Westwall said:
			
		

> So...what does that leave? Oh yeah! It leaves the oceans! And sure enough, land that is next to an ocean has a more stable temperature range. Amazing! OK. We now know that it is the oceans that heat the Earth. Cool. Now, how do the oceans themselves get warmed? Hmm. There is UV radiation, and there is IR radiation. How deep does the light have to penetrate to actually warm up the oceans?



The oceans heat the Earth?  Then the continental coastlines must be the hottest regions on the planet, right?  And the interior spaces must be the coldest.  Right?  Hmm...



			
				Westwall said:
			
		

> Turns out...you have to punch that light really, really deep. Over 100 meters in point of fact. So...how deep can UV light penetrate into the oceans? Well, at 200 meters there is no longer enough energy from the Sun for photosynthesis to occur. However, in the deep ocean, away from coastal debris the sunlight can penetrate up to 850 meters deep to at least make it possible to see. Beyond 850 meters it is inky black.



Where did you get the idea that light has to penetrate to 100 meters in order to warm the ocean?  Really?  Please identify a source for that idea because it sounds like more ignorant horseshit to me.  How deep does light have to penetrate into a black solar panel to make it hot?  A few angstroms?  Do such panels get hot?  They certainly do.



			
				Westwall said:
			
		

> So... how far does IR light penetrate? You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming? Microns. Yep....less than a millimeter deep. In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't. It is impossible.



I haven't seen such a collection of ignorance in a good long while.

The atmosphere, the ocean and the land are all warmed directly by solar radiation.  All three domains exchange thermal energy internally, through radiation, conduction and convection (as appropriate) and externally between each other and space, through radiation, conduction and convection (as appropriate).  GHGs in the atmosphere absorb light in the IR band that would otherwise escape to space.  That energy gets reradiated in all directions, returning some of it to the planet, slowing its escape to space and raising the Earth's equilibrium temperature.  The greenhouse effect is quite real and is responsible for 33C of the Earth's temperature and for the additional warming from the increased GHGs humans have put into the atmosphere via deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels.  Everything _you've_ claimed here is a complete crock of unsupported and unsupportable horseshit.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> Westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Mar 25, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall said:
> ...



View attachment 38535


So, you're unable to defend Westwall's comments.  Got it.


----------



## Crick (Mar 25, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall said:
> ...



What point are you attempting to make here jc?  Are you suggesting that the Earth has been warmed by volcanic eruptions?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 25, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall said:
> ...



Proving Crick wrong was dam easy!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 25, 2015)

Crick Fails again as do others who state that the RWP and the Climatic Optimum were not decidedly warmer times in our history.


----------



## Crick (Mar 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> Prove me wrong.





Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 38536
> 
> Proving Crick wrong was dam easy!



You provide a photograph of an explosion and claim that it proves me wrong.  Explain that if you can.  And the word you were looking for is spelled "D A M N"


----------



## Crick (Mar 26, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 38544
> 
> Crick Fails again as do others who state that the RWP and the Climatic Optimum were not decidedly warmer times in our history.



Using cartoon-like data from 47 years ago?


----------



## IanC (Mar 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> Current temperatures are higher and the rate of increase is greater than anything in human history.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



thanks crick, for the link to an interesting blog, Climate Model Credibility Gap The Resilient Earth 

which led me to the paper it was discussing, The Holocene temperature conundrum


> *Significance*
> Marine and terrestrial proxy records suggest global cooling during the Late Holocene, following the peak warming of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (∼10 to 6 ka) until the rapid warming induced by increasing anthropogenic greenhouses gases. However, the physical mechanism responsible for this global cooling has remained elusive. Here, we show that climate models simulate a robust global annual mean warming in the Holocene, mainly in response to rising CO2 and the retreat of ice sheets. This model-data inconsistency demands a critical reexamination of both proxy data and models.
> 
> *Abstract*
> A recent temperature reconstruction of global annual temperature shows Early Holocene warmth followed by a cooling trend through the Middle to Late Holocene [Marcott SA, et al., 2013, _Science_ 339(6124):1198–1201]. This global cooling is puzzling because it is opposite from the expected and simulated global warming trend due to the retreating ice sheets and rising atmospheric greenhouse gases. Our critical reexamination of this contradiction between the reconstructed cooling and the simulated warming points to potentially significant biases in both the seasonality of the proxy reconstruction and the climate sensitivity of current climate models.



again we find that there is an issue about how climate models cannot replicate the past. why are we expected to think they can forecast the future????

I had previously thought that Marcott's doctorate thesis was a simple temperature reconstruction and that it was only with Shakun and Mann's help that it was turned into a hockeystick. I was incorrect, Mann08 was grafted on in the thesis as well.
 file://vchfas01/HOME03/tmed/My%20Documents/Downloads/MarcottShaunA2011.pdf  page labelled 46 of the pdf

thesis-





Marcott13 from Science-





quite the change in two years!

I know I have shown everyone Marcott's proxies before but if you want to see them in the author's own hand they are in the appendix of the pdf starting at page labeled 200. the 2SD range is usually about 2C and the shapes are up, down and sideways, with time frames that dont match up. how they manage to put them all together and come up with an uncertainty range of less than 0.5C is a mystery to me.



I may be back sometime after I have looked into the Holocene Temperature Conundrum, and how the models and even basic understanding fails. til then.......


----------



## jc456 (Mar 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


me thinks your post is f'd up!  I never posted what you show in yours as a quote.  Nope not me.  please correct it or delete it.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


you really aren't a thinking dude are you?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Prove me wrong.
> ...


dude, you need to learn how to use quotes.  you have another one all f'd up. come on man get your shti together.


----------



## westwall (Mar 26, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Current temperatures are higher and the rate of increase is greater than anything in human history.
> ...








Simple.  It's called "science fiction".  Some authors are quite good.  Some, like these, aren't.


----------



## Crick (Mar 26, 2015)

IanC said:


> how they manage to put them all together and come up with an uncertainty range of less than 0.5C is a mystery to me.



Then think about going back to school.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 26, 2015)

AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29(1):51-54. 2000 
doi: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



*How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period?*





Thomas J. Crowley1 and Thomas S. Lowery2



tlowery@ocean.tamu.edu

tlowery@ocean.tamu.edu



*Abstract*
A frequent conclusion based on study of individual records from the so-called Medieval Warm Period (∼1000-1300 A.D.) is that the present warmth of the 20 th century is not unusual and therefore cannot be taken as an indication of forced climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. This conclusion is not supported by published composites of Northern Hemisphere climate change, but the conclusions of such syntheses are often either ignored or challenged. In this paper, we revisit the controversy by incorporating additional time series not used in earlier hemispheric compilations. Another difference is that the present reconstruction uses records that are only 900–1000 years long, thereby, avoiding the potential problem of uncertainties introduced by using different numbers of records at different times. Despite clear evidence for Medieval warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20–30 year intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20 th century warm time interval. Failure to substantiate hemispheric warmth greater than the present consistently occurs in composites because there are significant offsets in timing of warmth in different regions; ignoring these offsets can lead to serious errors concerning inferences about the magnitude of Medieval warmth and its relevance to interpretation of late 20 th century warming.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

*Nope, MWP was not warmer than the present.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 26, 2015)

*Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay*

T.M Cronin, a, , 
G.S Dwyerb, 
T Kamiyac, 
S Schwedea, 
D.A Willarda

Show more



*Abstract*
We present paleoclimate evidence for rapid (<100 years) shifts of ∼2–4 °C in Chesapeake Bay (CB) temperature ∼2100, 1600, 950, 650, 400 and 150 years before present (years BP) reconstructed from magnesium/calcium (Mg/Ca) paleothermometry. These include large temperature excursions during the Little Ice Age (∼1400–1900 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (∼800–1300 AD) possibly related to changes in the strength of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC). Evidence is presented for a long period of sustained regional and North Atlantic-wide warmth with low-amplitude temperature variability between ∼450 and 1000 AD. In addition to centennial-scale temperature shifts, the existence of numerous temperature maxima between 2200 and 250 years BP (average ∼70 years) suggests that multi-decadal processes typical of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) are an inherent feature of late Holocene climate. However, late 19th and 20th century temperature extremes in Chesapeake Bay associated with NAO climate variability exceeded those of the prior 2000 years, including the interval 450–1000 AD, by 2–3 °C, suggesting anomalous recent behavior of the climate system.

Medieval Warm Period Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay

*Present warmer here, also.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 26, 2015)

*Was there a medieval warm period and if so where and when - Springer*

*Abstract*
It has frequently been suggested that the period encompassing the ninth to the fourteenth centuries A.D. experienced a climate warmer than that prevailing around the turn of the twentieth century. This epoch has become known as the_Medieval Warm Period_, since it coincides with the Middle Ages in Europe. In this review a number of lines of evidence are considered, (including climatesensitive tree rings, documentary sources, and montane glaciers) in order to evaluate whether it is reasonable to conclude that climate in medieval times was, indeed, warmer than the climate of more recent times. Our review indicates that for some areas of the globe (for example, Scandinavia, China, the Sierra Nevada in California, the Canadian Rockies and Tasmania), temperatures, particularly in summer, appear to have been higher during some parts of this period than those that were to prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century. These warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from other regions (for example, the Southeast United States, southern Europe along the Mediterranean, and parts of South America) indicates that the climate during that time was little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it occurred, was recorded at a later time than has been assumed. Taken together, the available evidence does not support a_global_Medieval Warm Period, although more support for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from low-elevation records.

The available data exhibit significant decadal to century scale variability throughout the last millennium. A comparison of 30-year averages for various climate indices places recent decades in a longer term perspective.

*Again, no support for the contention the the MWP was particularly warmer for the globe.*


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 26, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29(1):51-54. 2000
> doi: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> 
> ...



_"This conclusion is not supported by published composites of Northern Hemisphere climate change, but the conclusions of such syntheses are often either ignored or challenged."_

In other words, the conclusion isn't supported by the Hockey Stick fraud.

Who do you think you're fooling?


----------



## Crick (Mar 26, 2015)

So you're one of those who will simply ignore those conclusions, justifiably or not.


----------



## westwall (Mar 26, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Was there a medieval warm period and if so where and when - Springer*
> 
> *Abstract*
> It has frequently been suggested that the period encompassing the ninth to the fourteenth centuries A.D. experienced a climate warmer than that prevailing around the turn of the twentieth century. This epoch has become known as the_Medieval Warm Period_, since it coincides with the Middle Ages in Europe. In this review a number of lines of evidence are considered, (including climatesensitive tree rings, documentary sources, and montane glaciers) in order to evaluate whether it is reasonable to conclude that climate in medieval times was, indeed, warmer than the climate of more recent times. Our review indicates that for some areas of the globe (for example, Scandinavia, China, the Sierra Nevada in California, the Canadian Rockies and Tasmania), temperatures, particularly in summer, appear to have been higher during some parts of this period than those that were to prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century. These warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from other regions (for example, the Southeast United States, southern Europe along the Mediterranean, and parts of South America) indicates that the climate during that time was little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it occurred, was recorded at a later time than has been assumed. Taken together, the available evidence does not support a_global_Medieval Warm Period, although more support for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from low-elevation records.
> ...






HOLY CRAP!  You had to go all the way back to 1994 for a paper that bad!  Try coming up with something a little more current why don't ya!

Here's the MWP in Patagonia, you know... Argentina.  That far enough away for ya?


*Abstract*
Climate and environmental reconstructions from natural archives are important for the interpretation of current climatic change. Few quantitative high-resolution reconstructions exist for South America which is the only land mass extending from the tropics to the southern high latitudes at 56°S. We analyzed sediment cores from two adjacent lakes in Northern Chilean Patagonia, Lago Castor (45°36′S, 71°47′W) and Laguna Escondida (45°31′S, 71°49′W). Radiometric dating (210Pb, 137Cs, 14C-AMS) suggests that the cores reach back to c. 900 BC (Laguna Escondida) and c. 1900 BC (Lago Castor). Both lakes show similarities and reproducibility in sedimentation rate changes and tephra layer deposition. We found eight macroscopic tephras (0.2–5.5 cm thick) dated at 1950 BC, 1700 BC, at 300 BC, 50 BC, 90 AD, 160 AD, 400 AD and at 900 AD. These can be used as regional time-synchronous stratigraphic markers. The two thickest tephras represent known well-dated explosive eruptions of Hudson volcano around 1950 and 300 BC. Biogenic silica flux revealed in both lakes a climate signal and correlation with annual temperature reanalysis data (calibration 1900–2006 AD; Lago Castor r = 0.37; Laguna Escondida r = 0.42, seven years filtered data). We used a linear inverse regression plus scaling model for calibration and leave-one-out cross-validation (RMSEv = 0.56 °C) to reconstruct sub decadal-scale temperature variability for Laguna Escondida back to AD 400. The lower part of the core from Laguna Escondida prior to AD 400 and the core of Lago Castor are strongly influenced by primary and secondary tephras and, therefore, not used for the temperature reconstruction. The temperature reconstruction from Laguna Escondida shows cold conditions in the 5th century (relative to the 20th century mean), warmer temperatures from AD 600 to AD 1150 and colder temperatures from AD 1200 to AD 1450. From AD 1450 to AD 1700 our reconstruction shows a period with stronger variability and on average higher values than the 20th century mean. Until AD 1900 the temperature values decrease but stay slightly above the 20th century mean. Most of the centennial-scale features are reproduced in the few other natural climate archives in the region. The early onset of cool conditions from c. AD 1200 onward seems to be confirmed for this region.




Late Holocene air temperature variability reconstructed from the sediments of Laguna Escondida Patagonia Chile 45 30 S


----------



## Wyld Kard (Mar 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > At USMB, the Decline Hiders "debate" by pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking, "AGW YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE YOU DENIER!!! AGW AKBAR!!! WE HAVE CONSENSUS"
> ...


 


> Take away the good science and you get crap.


Just like what the IPCC has been putting out.


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2015)

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field.  If it's crap, all science is crap.  Is that your position?


----------



## IanC (Mar 27, 2015)

the IPCC uses a subsection of science papers that are heavily skewed to the positions of the lead authors.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field.  If it's crap, all science is crap.  Is that your position?


You actually wrote this knowing that much of their "peer" reviewed data comes from magazine articles with no basis in science. Pure conjecture with no basis in reality.  The IPCC even admitted that it was true.  You are such a shill..


----------



## jc456 (Mar 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field.  If it's crap, all science is crap.  Is that your position?


why is it you k00ks always go full off whack job with your replies?  'all science'  So because someone challenges a piece of science it has to be 'all science'?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 27, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field.  If it's crap, all science is crap.  Is that your position?
> ...


I thought we were questioning all science, now you're saying there isn't any science?  holy crap batman.


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field.  If it's crap, all science is crap.  Is that your position?
> ...



 The magazines they are drawing from are peer reviewed science journals - THE basis of science.  Show us where the IPCC admits they'e working from conjecture with no basis in science or reality.  Or admit you're a stinking, unmitigated liar.


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field.  If it's crap, all science is crap.  Is that your position?
> ...



When someone states that a position held by the vast majority of all scientists is a lie or a conspiracy or incompetent science, then, yes, that is a challenge to all science,

God you people are stupid.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Mar 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field.  If it's crap, all science is crap.  Is that your position?


 


> If it's crap, all science is crap.


All science isn't crap.  The information that IPCC claims and puts out about global warming / climate change is crap.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 27, 2015)

Global warming nutjobs are idiots and scum.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



OMG!!! No they are not...  This is like trying to convince a wall that it is a floor.. The only one lying here is you..

*UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article *




> *The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.
> 
> The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.
> 
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Science isn't working for you.. The Earth is showing the meme a farce all by itself without any help from anyone.. So what does Crick do... The same thing that Old Crock does, post debunked papers from 1994 and call names...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > At USMB, the Decline Hiders "debate" by pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking, "AGW YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE YOU DENIER!!! AGW AKBAR!!! WE HAVE CONSENSUS"
> ...



Science isn't done by "Consensus" dickwad. Anyone claiming to have Consensus by definition, is not a scientist


----------



## westwall (Mar 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field.  If it's crap, all science is crap.  Is that your position?








Most of what the IPCC uses is non peer reviewed crap put out by activist NGO's. 

"'Grey' literature, which led to the "Glaciergate" scandal of 2010 when it was revealed that the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice (gone by 2035!) was stated as fact even though it was not based on evidence, will no longer be a problem for  the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Because they have declared that grey literature will no longer be grey - any information they choose to use will be considered peer reviewed just by being posted on the Internet by the IPCC.  

Most rational people would simply not use grey literature after the errors of the 2007 report, to avoid controversy and therefore keep climate studies as politically agnostic as possible. It isn't like global warming deniers are ever getting through peer review, so grey literature would seem to be unnecessary, unless you feel like the ridiculous claim that African farmers are going to suffer 50% yield drops by 2020 absolutely must be included in a science report (that one was also shown to have been made up).

Instead, they have embraced grey literature.. Makes no sense, right?  Maybe it does.  If I want to have fewer people living in poverty, for example, I simply redefine poverty and - presto - people are no longer poor. I could have a terrific career in politics if I simply got people to believe I cured poverty by redefining it.  Redefining grey literature takes poor science and attempts to call it rich."

IPCC Gives Up On Science Makes Grey Literature Official


----------



## IanC (Mar 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field.  If it's crap, all science is crap.  Is that your position?
> ...




thanks for that.

it really is too bad that the IAC (InterAcademy Council) report came out during climategate and the aftermath. no one remembers the scathing rebukes, or the recommendations that were ignored.


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2015)

Rebukes of all science?  Rebukes of all climate science?  Rebukes that had any impact on the validity of AGW?  And what recommendations do you believe were ignored Ian?


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Himalayas?  Hahahahahaaaaaaa....


----------



## IanC (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




you really don't know about the Himalayas scandal? Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, accused the scientist who brought up the mistake of 'voodoo science' and tried to get him fired. when that failed he made up an excuse that it the prediction was for 2350 instead of 2035. when it turned out the source of the quote was an extreme green environmental group _brochure_, Pachi just shut up.

why do you always think gross mistakes and the cover-up afterwards are inconsequential?


----------



## IanC (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> Rebukes of all science?  Rebukes of all climate science?  Rebukes that had any impact on the validity of AGW?  And what recommendations do you believe were ignored Ian?




I havent actually read anything about the IAC report in a long time. they found a lot of problems and made a lot of suggestions. but the IPCC has basically ignored them.


InterAcademy Council Report Urges Fundamental Reform Of IPCC
"
The use of 'gray literature' from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources, like including speculation from a 1999 magazine story claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, needed to be addressed and was, with the the IAC saying that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature needs to be appropriately flagged.

The report also criticized the Working Groups.  The Working Group II report, they noted, contained statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there was little evidence.

The lack of any oversight resulted in errors that cast the accuracy of the entire report in a bad light, like claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent and Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, which would require a drop of 50 feet per year, well-beyond even the most exaggerated estimates.

The IAC recommended that in future assessments, all Working Groups should qualify their understanding of a topic by describing the amount of evidence available and the degree of agreement among experts - the 'level of understanding scale' - and all Working Groups should use a probability scale to quantify the likelihood of a particular event occurring, but only when there is sufficient evidence to do so.

The IAC also noted "slow and inadequate response to revelations of errors in the last assessment" by the IPCC.
"

there is a link to the actual report in that article


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2015)

And you believe the IPCC has ignored those recommendations?  Why?


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> the IPCC uses a subsection of science papers that are heavily skewed to the positions of the lead authors.



Prove it.  Let's see the hordes of papers with dissenting opinions Ian,


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the IPCC uses a subsection of science papers that are heavily skewed to the positions of the lead authors.
> ...


Funny the thing you want and yet are unwilling to provide, eh?  You are a hypocrite


----------



## mamooth (Mar 28, 2015)

Thread summary:

The same tiny clique of denier fringe cultists keeps repeating their nutty conspiracy theories. Denialism is purely a conspiracy cult now. It's hard to tell denier rants from the rants of birthers, 9/11 truthers, antivaxxers or any other conspiracy cultists, being that bitter weeping all kind of sounds alike.

Deniers, the world classifies you as comic relief now. So proceed with the show. Here we are now, entertain us.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> The same tiny clique of denier fringe cultists keeps repeating their nutty conspiracy theories. Denialism is purely a conspiracy cult now. It's hard to tell denier rants from the rants of birthers, 9/11 truthers, antivaxxers or any other conspiracy cultists, being that bitter weeping all kind of sounds alike.
> 
> Deniers, the world classifies you as comic relief now. So proceed with the show. Here we are now, entertain us.


Summary, man tooth providing a summary. Too funny!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> keep your poor head above water.
> 
> I suggest you just quietly go away....you are so far out of your depth, and such a ridiculous, pathetic liar, that you are no longer even fun to rip to shreds.  Now it's too much like beating a child.



A Downs child.


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Was there a medieval warm period and if so where and when - Springer*
> ...



So, the temperatures at two lakes in South America were "warmer" than the global mean from 600 to 1150AD.  Meaningless.  I can find thousands of spots today that are warmer than the global mean and thousands that are colder.


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> Himalayas?  Hahahahahaaaaaaa....





IanC said:


> you really don't know about the Himalayas scandal?



I was very familiar with the Himalayas incident in AR4.  That's why I was laughing.


----------



## westwall (Mar 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> And you believe the IPCC has ignored those recommendations?  Why?







Because they have.  It's really that simple.


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2015)

I wish real arguments were that easy to win.  You're pathetic.


----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 29, 2015)

Global warming means we are all DOOMED!  DOOMED!


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2015)

Why don't you try again after some coffee...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 29, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> The same tiny clique of denier fringe cultists keeps repeating their nutty conspiracy theories. Denialism is purely a conspiracy cult now. It's hard to tell denier rants from the rants of birthers, 9/11 truthers, antivaxxers or any other conspiracy cultists, being that bitter weeping all kind of sounds alike.
> 
> Deniers, the world classifies you as comic relief now. So proceed with the show. Here we are now, entertain us.



The man tooth summary:
I got no data..
I got no proof..
But your deniers.. alha akkkkbar global warming are gonna die...

SUBSTANCE = ZERO


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 29, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Rebukes of all science?  Rebukes of all climate science?  Rebukes that had any impact on the validity of AGW?  And what recommendations do you believe were ignored Ian?
> ...



This article points out the drastic flaws in the methodology that was pointed out in the debate.  It also shows that they were fully aware of their "Grey" work being purported as fact when it was nothing but conjecture.

Very Nice Ian. Going to add this one to the many book marks I have along with Westwall's article.  These two articles make it abundantly clear that this is all by design and not due to science.  they were told of the shortcomings in their work and yet they continued, unabated to spew lies and half-truths.  That is more disconcerting than the bad science as it shows they will do anything, totally devoid of honor, to us to further their agenda.


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2015)

Are you claiming there was no reaction to the Himalaya fiasco?  Do you believe the IPCC made no changes in response?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> Are you claiming there was no reaction to the Himalaya fiasco?  Do you believe the IPCC made no changes in response?


WAIT!  I thought you were the one that said THIS NEVER HAPPENED? Flip flop when it is convenient or your outed as a ......... and act like it never happened...

Otmar Edenhoffer made it abundantly clear in Cancun that it is not about Global warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, or Catastrophic  Anthropogenic Global Warming (or what ever dishonest name you attach to the meme) at all..

They only swallowed hard and kept right on doing what they were doing..


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2015)

I did not say it had not happened.  I said your contentions and those of your buddies, that any significant portion of the IPCC's sources - much less the all you all claimed - were "grey" was horseshit.  That is a fact and you've presented nothing to support your charge.  The Himalaya incident is hardly evidence of IPCC policy or intent.  It was a microscopic portion of AR4.


----------



## Mr.Right (Mar 29, 2015)

S.J. said:


> I've never thought the alarmist side had an argument.  Their predictions have all failed to materialize, they've been caught falsifying research results trying to manipulate public opinion, and they're being paid to say there's a crisis when there isn't one.  What credibility do they have?


Ahh...none?


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2015)

Ahh... infinitely more than the deniers around...


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the IPCC uses a subsection of science papers that are heavily skewed to the positions of the lead authors.
> ...






> _As a journal guest editor, IPCC lead author Andrew Challinor approved the publication of 9 research papers that are now being cited as evidence in his IPCC chapter._





> But it gets better. Challinor is himself the co-author of three of these 20 papers (seehere, here, and here). So first he writes three papers. Then, wearing his journal editor hat, he decides that all three of them are worthy of publication in the very same edition of a peer-reviewed journal. Then, wearing his IPCC lead author hat, he arranges for two of his own works to be cited in the IPCC’s Chapter 7.





> It’s also worth noting that the Challinor paper in the news this week was co-written with five others. Every last one of these people served with Challinor as an IPCC Chapter 7 author.
> 
> 
> James Watson (contributing author)
> ...





> The IPCC wants us to believe these people discharged their IPCC duties in an objective, rigorous, and neutral manner. But Challinor and company look an awful lot like an incestuous cabal.



read the whole thing at Conflict-of-Interest in the IPCC s New Chapter 7 Climate News Analysis



there are many more instances of this type of thing. remember when I showed you  how one specific journal issue had nearly every article cited by the IPPC report? funny thing was, it was published _after_ the IPCC report was finalized! all the while, IPCC was swearing up and down that they followed their rules about only using published peer-reviewed material. I would like to believe that the 50+ citations to that miracle edition were the only examples but I know better. the Amman and Wahl papers that the IPCC needed to counter McIntyre's rebuttal of Mann's hockeystick were a travesty of rule breaking. and a major factor in Jones' call to delete all AR4 emails to thwart FOI. a thorough description of that story can be found at  - Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus paper



> Wahl and Amman's response was to refuse any access to the verification numbers, a clear flouting of the journal's rules. As a justification of this extraordinary action, they claimed that they had shown that McIntyre's criticisms had been rebutted in their forthcoming GRL paper, despite the fact that the paper had been rejected by the journal some days earlier. At the start of July, with his review of the CC paper complete, McIntyre took the opportunity to probe this point, by asking the journal to find out the anticipated publication date of the GRL paper. Wahl and Amman were forced to admit the rejection, but they declared that it was unjustified and that they would seek publication elsewhere.


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2015)

One too many?

You will watch the sea rise around your feet while you continue to whine about peccadilloes and minutiae... Anything other than admitting the science has been correct since AR1.

The primary cause of the warming of the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation.  That is the forest deniers miss for the trees - for their political prejudices, for their anti-science biases, for their contrarian ignorance.

That warming continues now; it has never stopped.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> One too many?
> 
> You will watch the sea rise around your feet while you continue to whine about peccadilloes and minutiae... Anything other than admitting the science has been correct since AR1.
> 
> ...


hahahahahaaha, and yet no proof of any of it from your side. just k00k material made up.  Again crick, you think that 120 ppm of CO2 is far more harmful than the initial 280?   Come on now, how do you vote here.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 3, 2015)

CIMP5 models Vs Reality show the three skeptics were right about how the models have failed miserably..


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > One too many?
> ...



I vote that you're the stupidest twit I've ever had the displeasure to know.

The initial 280 ppm was what was keeping the Earth at the pre-Industrial revolution temperatures.  The added 120 ppm is what caused the warmed we've experienced and even with no more added, the further warming we'll see over the next century.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


And you think it's evil! Now you're just silly!


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2015)

Crick said:


> One too many?
> 
> You will watch the sea rise around your feet while you continue to whine about peccadilloes and minutiae... Anything other than admitting the science has been correct since AR1.
> 
> ...







What warming would that be?  .01 C with error bars of .1 C are a tad hard to believe unless you're a religious kook.


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2015)

Impossible to reject unless you're an ignorant ass.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2015)

Crick said:


> Impossible to reject unless you're an ignorant ass.







What's funny is you can't even understand that based on the numbers your precious little bullshit "study" provided I can just as accurately claim that the globe has cooled by .05 degree's C.  It is every bit as valid a statement.  But, like all idiots of your ilk, you can't even understand that little bit.


----------



## BluePhantom (Apr 5, 2015)

My brother tells a very interesting story about scientific support for man-made climate change.  At one point he was working at Arizona State University and needed a grant to conduct some research.  He approached the dean to arrange for one and the dean apparently told him that in order to get his grant he had to sign a letter, that several other professors had signed, in support of man-made global warming (as it was called then).  He said he didn't want to sign it because he disagreed with the scientific evidence, although that was not his area of expertise, and the dean apparently said "no signature, no grant".  So he was basically forced to sign it.  He said he talked to several other professors who had signed and they told of a similar account.  Climate change research generates so much money for universities that opposing it is almost career suicide, he explained.  Take it for what you will, I suppose, but according to my brother, a lot of that apparent support is because scientists have been blackmailed into it in order to avoid damage to their careers.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 5, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> My brother tells a very interesting story about scientific support for man-made climate change.  At one point he was working at Arizona State University and needed a grant to conduct some research.  He approached the dean to arrange for one and the dean apparently told him that in order to get his grant he had to sign a letter, that several other professors had signed, in support of man-made global warming (as it was called then).  He said he didn't want to sign it because he disagreed with the scientific evidence, although that was not his area of expertise, and the dean apparently said "no signature, no grant".  So he was basically forced to sign it.  He said he talked to several other professors who had signed and they told of a similar account.  Climate change research generates so much money for universities that opposing it is almost career suicide, he explained.  Take it for what you will, I suppose, but according to my brother, a lot of that apparent support is because scientists have been blackmailed into it in order to avoid damage to their careers.




Much of the so called consensus is coerced... This plague of control and pseudo science games is played hard in academia. Funded by huge government grants to prove their reasons for agenda correct at any cost.

co·erce
kōˈərs/
_verb_
past tense: *coerced*; past participle: *coerced*

persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
"they were *coerced into* silence"
synonyms: pressure, pressurize, press, push, constrain;More
force, compel, oblige, browbeat, bludgeon, bully, threaten, intimidate, dragoon, twist someone's arm;
_informal_railroad, squeeze, lean on
"he was coerced into giving evidence"
obtain (something) by using force or threats.
"their confessions were allegedly coerced by torture"


----------



## BluePhantom (Apr 5, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > My brother tells a very interesting story about scientific support for man-made climate change.  At one point he was working at Arizona State University and needed a grant to conduct some research.  He approached the dean to arrange for one and the dean apparently told him that in order to get his grant he had to sign a letter, that several other professors had signed, in support of man-made global warming (as it was called then).  He said he didn't want to sign it because he disagreed with the scientific evidence, although that was not his area of expertise, and the dean apparently said "no signature, no grant".  So he was basically forced to sign it.  He said he talked to several other professors who had signed and they told of a similar account.  Climate change research generates so much money for universities that opposing it is almost career suicide, he explained.  Take it for what you will, I suppose, but according to my brother, a lot of that apparent support is because scientists have been blackmailed into it in order to avoid damage to their careers.
> ...




According to my brother, yes that seems to be the case.  He actually went so far as to say that most scientists think it's total bullshit but they don't dare say so in public.  He said it is a little like a French bakery speaking out against the use of butter.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 5, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Climategate exposed many things they did not want exposed.. It kind of resembles the bridge of deaths questions three...  Monty Python is hilarious but the valley of great peril is real.. especially in academia.


----------



## BluePhantom (Apr 5, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Oh that whole situation was so humiliating I am flat out astonished that the whole theory hasn't gone the way of the "saved the spotted owl" society. But you know....say something enough times and people will start to believe it.  Or phrase it creatively and you can influence perception.  One of my favorite examples is an article I read several years ago.  The headline read something like '_Research Shows the Chances of Getting Cancer From Second Hand Smoke Double What Was Previously Believed_'.  Ok...but if you actually go read the study it said that the chances were something like one in 500,000,000 instead of one in 1,000,000,000.    They didn't lie....technically, they told the truth.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

Why did your brother disagree with AGW?


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> I vote that you're the stupidest twit I've ever had the displeasure to know.
> 
> The initial 280 ppm was what was keeping the Earth at the pre-Industrial revolution temperatures.  The added 120 ppm is what caused the warming we've experienced and even with no more added, the further warming we'll see over the next century.





jc456 said:


> And you think it's evil! Now you're just silly!



Can we take that as a vote of agreement on "the stupidest twit" issue?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)




----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


ouch, are they cute!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


>


again, no temperatures.  Why can't you post temperatures, this crap means absolutely nothing as a point of argument.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


>




Der der der  der ocean ate my global warming!!!!


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

It's neck and neck twixt you and jc.  The suspense is killing me!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> It's neck and neck twixt you and jc.  The suspense is killing me!


We could never approach taking your jack monkey belt away.  you have secured that puppy with each and every post.  Got any more  pooh to sling?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 6, 2015)

How did the ocean eat all the global warming?


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


>


ROFL  Gratz on finding a "day" back in september when the pacific was slighly warmer than normal.  ROFL  And in other news man rolls craps twice in a row, global warming suspected.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Just because it means nothing to you doesn't mean it means nothing to anyone else jc.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How did the ocean eat all the global warming?



That's a decent question and a good response to that graphic.  It DOES illustrate a lot of unusual warmth, but that wasn't the point for which I posted it.  It was a direct response to your picture of a snowy Las Vegas.  

Can you figure it out now?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


funny, you can't provide the temperature sets.  That could be warming of 35-50 degrees F to 38-53 degrees F and what exactly does that even mean?


----------



## BluePhantom (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> Why did your brother disagree with AGW?



Honestly, I don't remember the specifics of his argument.  It was several years ago.  I seem to recall him mentioning that, in his opinion, the data was being used selectively.  He didn't debate the fact that the climate is changing.  He simply argued that it was happening due to a natural phase of the planet and the sun and human contributions were absolutely minimal.  But again, as I pointed out, it's not his area of expertise.  The point is not whether he was/is right or wrong.  The point is that he was coerced into showing support and apparently that is pretty common.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



You don't get it either.  Maybe I'm just being too subtle.

Frank posts a picture of snow in Las Vegas with the implication, I guess, that this disproves that the world is getting warmer.  Now what is causing it to snow in Las Vegas?  I think we all know the answer: Rossby Waves in the Polar Vortex.  And what do you get with waves?  You get highs and lows and highs and lows and so forth.  Half of one Rossby wave pulls cold Arctic air into the US.  The other half pulls hot tropical air into the Pacific Northwest.  And what is the net result of all the waves on global temperatures?  Zero. Zilch. Nada fooking thing.  And what causes Rossby waves in the Polar Vortex?  Exceptionally warm weather in the Arctic.  


Any questions?  Ian?


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> funny, you can't provide the temperature sets.  That could be warming of 35-50 degrees F to 38-53 degrees F and what exactly does that even mean?



Hmm... I could be wrong, but in either case, it means temps in those locations have gone up 3C.  Why do you think there's something magical about absolute values?  Let me guess, because it's the only thing you understand.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Why did your brother disagree with AGW?
> ...



Finally, an actual conversation.

Did he consider bringing this to the attention of higher ups or to the media?  Did he show you anything that someone else would consider evidence of this coercion?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > funny, you can't provide the temperature sets.  That could be warming of 35-50 degrees F to 38-53 degrees F and what exactly does that even mean?
> ...


so why can't you post the temperatures then?


----------



## BluePhantom (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



If he went above the dean's head he didn't mention it, but if his position that climate change research generates a ton of cash for universities is true, then I doubt he would have found a receptive audience. As for anything else, he wasn't in it to make waves, he just wanted his grant so he could conduct his research.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...


did he get his grant?


----------



## BluePhantom (Apr 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



He most certainly did.I guess everybody got what they wanted


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...


what was his research on?


----------



## BluePhantom (Apr 6, 2015)

He was working on frog tongues and examining how their muscles worked.  He was trying to develop a chip that could be implanted in the body that would allow people with muscular dystrophy to use their limbs.  He actually was successful with one small glitch.  Because computers use binary it resulted in subjects turning their muscles completely on or completely off.  So when they took a step, for example, they used every ounce of strength they had and were completely exhausted after two or three steps.  He never found a way to solve the problem before he returned to his usual area of expertise (which is rocket propulsion) and turned his research over to someone else.  That was several decades ago.  I don't know if any advancement was ever done on his work.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> He was working on frog tongues and examining how their muscles worked.  He was trying to develop a chip that could be implanted in the body that would allow people with muscular dystrophy to use their limbs.  He actually was successful with one small glitch.  Because computers use binary it resulted in subjects turning their muscles completely on or completely off.  So when they took a step, for example, they used every ounce of strength they had and were completely exhausted after two or three steps.  He never found a way to solve the problem before he returned to his usual area of expertise (which is rocket propulsion) and turned his research over to someone else.  That was several decades ago.  I don't know if any advancement was ever done on his work.


too bad, I have a grandson who has CP and would have benefited from something like that.  He has difficulty using his right hand and walking.  Do you know who he handed that off to?


----------



## BluePhantom (Apr 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > He was working on frog tongues and examining how their muscles worked.  He was trying to develop a chip that could be implanted in the body that would allow people with muscular dystrophy to use their limbs.  He actually was successful with one small glitch.  Because computers use binary it resulted in subjects turning their muscles completely on or completely off.  So when they took a step, for example, they used every ounce of strength they had and were completely exhausted after two or three steps.  He never found a way to solve the problem before he returned to his usual area of expertise (which is rocket propulsion) and turned his research over to someone else.  That was several decades ago.  I don't know if any advancement was ever done on his work.
> ...




Not specifically.  There was another researcher attempting the same thing but he was studying cockroach muscles (which are quite amazing things, let me tell you). I think he handed it off to him


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...


thanks!!


----------



## BluePhantom (Apr 6, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...




Just a side-note....totally off-topic but a great story about the guy studying the cockroaches. I was visiting my brother in his lab at ASU one Friday...it was Memorial Day Weekend so it was a three day weekend which is an important thing.  So the cockroach guy, don't remember his name, comes in all excited about this thing he has rigged up.  He was having trouble getting the muscles in the roach to remain at a state of exhaustion so he could examine them.  So he took a hamster wheel and motorized it, put a clear side on the open end, and cut a flap in it.  The idea was he could put a cockroach on the wheel and exercise it and then push a button which would stop the wheel, open the flap, and the cockroach would run out and fall into a cup of liquid nitrogen so he could preserve the muscle tone at a state of exhaustion and examine it at his leisure.  My brother and I were impressed by his ingenuity. That's a pretty sweet idea.

So he was all excited and asked my brother and I to come see how it worked, and it worked like a charm.  So these little cockroaches were tearing ass on this hamster wheel and we were amazed by how fast it could run.  So we kept increasing the speed until it was spinning as fast as the motor could rotate it.  Well we were blown away because this little roach was keeping right up and just trucking away. Well we had to leave but we were curious how long the roach would be able to keep it up so we put a video camera on it and let everything run figuring that we would just look at the time on the video and be able to determine how long the cockroach had been able to keep up that level of running before he lost it and went flipping around the wheel.

So...remember this was a Friday and it was a three day weekend.  Tuesday morning my brother called me and woke me up.

"Remember the roach?" he asked

"Yeah", I responded with sincere interest.  "How long did it last?"

"The little fucker is still running" he said.  I almost fell out of bed.

So they hit the button, froze the little guy, and examined the muscles.  *They showed no degree of exhaustion at all*.  They _did _discover that when they start to get tired, there are holes on their exoskeleton that will open up and allow oxygen to flow directly to the muscles.  Cockroach guy repeated the experiment and let another roach run until it died...which was about a month.  When he examined it he determined it died of starvation.  There was no sign of muscle exhaustion at all. Amazing little critters, huh?

Oh the other little tidbit of totally useless knowledge cockroach guy gave me is that cockroaches absolutely love beer and will drink it without restraint.  And yes it apparently makes them drunk and the more drunk they get the more they mate.  Surprise, surprise.

Sorry for going off topic, but it's such an interesting story that I had to share it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Most excellent. Hate to be a little yard, but was curious on how long a normal cockroach ran. I am assuming some chemical influence on the write up.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 6, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome..
> 
> 6 Phd's were asked to debate the framed subject of the IPCC documents. All were members of the APS.
> 
> ...




Daniel Shenton and his group all believe man made global warming is real


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome..
> ...


Believe is not evidence


----------



## Crick (Apr 7, 2015)

They're not even the same parts of speech.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



it is to a flat Earther


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 7, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome..
> ...


Simple belief absent real proof is.......   Cult like.   The climate is changing, but given the recent changes in the earths axial, tilt, and precision it will not be to warming.

I believe the earth is cyclical in its responses and man has little to do with anything.  18 years 4 months of no warming while CO2 rise continues is ample proof that the meme has serious problems.


----------



## Crick (Apr 7, 2015)

Your claim that AGW has no empirical evidence is complete nonsense.  Air and water temperatures are empirical data.  CO2 levels are empirical data.  Ice and snow mass are empirical data.  The isotopic analysis showing all the excess CO2 of human origin are empirical data.  The TSI measurements showing an insufficiency to have caused the observed warming are empirical data.  CTD drops and direct measurements of pCO2, pH and aragonite saturation are empirical data.

Your position is completely indefensible.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




yes but that does not matter to flatEarthers like Daniel Shenton


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2015)

Crick said:


> Your claim that AGW has no empirical evidence is complete nonsense.  Air and water temperatures are empirical data.  CO2 levels are empirical data.  Ice and snow mass are empirical data.  The isotopic analysis showing all the excess CO2 of human origin are empirical data.  The TSI measurements showing an insufficiency to have caused the observed warming are empirical data.  CTD drops and direct measurements of pCO2, pH and aragonite saturation are empirical data.
> 
> Your position is completely indefensible.


over and over and over, you post the same dumb silliness over and over.  Crick, there is no empirical evidence to support your claim.  I will agree there is fudged data to create the illusion of such, but you have failed at every attempt to provide the data that can justify your nonsense. How many more times will we have to endure your lack of creativeness to prove your point.  400 PPM of CO2 we all agree is there.  What you have failed to show is the added 120 PPM did anything to climates or temperatures.  none.  No experimental evidence, nor any empirical evidence.  Zip, nadda, zero.  Now do you have the temperature data that backs your post?


----------



## Crick (Apr 8, 2015)

So you're claiming that the temperature, the snow and ice extent, the isotopic CO2 analysis, TSI measurements, aragonite saturation and the ocean pH data are not empirical.  Is that right?  You're claiming they've all been falsified, is that right?

I post the same stuff over and over again because facts tend to be constant.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2015)

Crick said:


> So you're claiming that the temperature, the snow and ice extent, the isotopic CO2 analysis, TSI measurements, aragonite saturation and the ocean pH data are not empirical.  Is that right?  You're claiming they've all been falsified, is that right?
> 
> I post the same stuff over and over again because facts tend to be constant.


No your posts are lies and I don't accept them


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 8, 2015)

Crick said:


> So you're claiming that the temperature, the snow and ice extent, *the isotopic CO2 analysis*, TSI measurements, aragonite saturation and the ocean pH data are not empirical.  Is that right?  You're claiming they've all been falsified, is that right?
> 
> I post the same stuff over and over again because facts tend to be constant.



Constantly bull shit..

Item #1. CO2 has been overstated and its fractional time in our atmosphere is less than 7 years. The IPCC over estimated the fraction time by a factor of 8-10.  Even the reduced 30 year estimate has been shown clearly false. 

Item #2. TSI is only PART of the suns total output.  Total Solar Irradience is visible light and short areas above and below that area. Gravitational waves and solar wind are other areas of energy transference that you seem to like to ignore.

Item #3 Ocean PH has been shown to oscillate seasonally and in yearly jumps depending on Solar output and status of the circulations being warm or cold.  The current modeled rise is statistically insignificant when measured against actual measurements which show these known natural variation shifts.

Its amazing how you throw out the items which show your cult agenda false or simply ignore them.


----------



## Crick (Apr 8, 2015)

My god what a fucking idiot!!!


----------

