# Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper



## westwall (Jun 5, 2012)

It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time fly's) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2.  Shocker of shockers.  And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.




Abstract

A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O,* not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting.* The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties. 


As Arte johnson would say on Laugh In...."veeeeerrrryy interesting".


http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2012)

And the science is settled only a few short years later

Wowzers


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16109.full.pdf

Contributed by James Hansen, September 29, 2004

We posit that feasible reversal of the growth of atmospheric CH4 and other trace gases would provide a vital contribution toward averting dangerous anthropogenic interference with global climate. Such trace gas reductions may allow stabilization of atmospheric CO2 at an achievable level of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, even if the added global warming constituting dangerous anthropogenic interference is as small as 1°C. A 1°C limit on global warming, with canonical climate sensitivity, requires peak CO2 
440 ppm if further non-CO2 forcing is 0.5 Wm2, but peak CO2  520 ppm if further non-CO2 forcing is 0.5 Wm2. The practical result is that a decline of non-CO2 forcings allows climate forcing to be stabilized with a significantly higher transient level of CO2 emissions. Increased &#8216;&#8216;natural&#8217;&#8217; emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 are expected in response to global warming. These emissions, an indirect effect of all climate forcings, are small compared with human-made climate forcing and occur on a time scale of a few centuries, but they tend to aggravate the task of stabilizing atmospheric composition.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Hansen.pdf

Contributed by James Hansen, June 16, 2000

A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases
(GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the
interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessmentof ongoing and future climate change requires compositionspecific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.

*In other words, we can slow or even bring to a halt, the acceleration of the warming by reducing the amount of GHGs such as methane, ozone, and industrial GHGs. But that still leaves the rate of increase where it is today, and the danger of a 4C+ increase in temps by the end of the century. 

However, the rate of increase of CH4 is now increasing, and looks to increase dramactically in the coming years as the Arctic Ocean clathrates outgas.*


----------



## Leweman (Jun 5, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHozn0YXAeE]Hanson - MMMBop - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16109.full.pdf
> 
> Contributed by James Hansen, September 29, 2004
> 
> ...











*"not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting"*


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Hansen.pdf
> 
> Contributed by James Hansen, June 16, 2000
> 
> ...











*"not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting."*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16109.full.pdf
> ...



Out of context bullshit, Bullshitter.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

No matter how you scream your idiocy, it is still idiocy.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time flies) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2.  Shocker of shockers.  And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.



Rather than attempting to improperly parse the abstract, why not look at the contextual understandings provided by the actual text of the research paper?

"Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario" - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2000/2000_Hansen_etal_2.pdf



> The global surface temperature has increased by about 0.5°C since 1975 (1, 2), a burst of warming that has taken the global temperature to its highest level in the past millennium (3). There is a growing consensus (4) that the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs).
> GHGs cause a global climate forcing, i.e., an imposed perturbation of the Earth&#8217;s energy balance with space (5). There are many competing natural and anthropogenic climate forcings, but increasing GHGs are estimated to be the largest forcing and to result in a net positive forcing, especially during the past few decades (4, 6). Evidence supporting this interpretation is provided by observed heat storage in the ocean (7), which is positive and of the magnitude of the energy imbalance estimated from climate forcings for recent decades (8)...
> 
> ...Climate forcing by CO2 is the largest forcing, but it does not dwarf the others (Fig. 1). Forcing by CH4 (0.7 Wym2) is half as large as that of CO2, and the total forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4Wym2) equals that of CO2. Moreover, in comparing forcings
> (...)



of course it is important to realize that Dr Hansen's considerations took place back pre-2000 in an era when our planetary CO2 emissions were significantly lower than they currently are. If we had been prepared to act decisively and aggressively to tackle climate change back 12+ years ago, the more gradualist approach suggested by Hansen in this post, might well have had a shot at producing some good results, after a decade where the rate of emission increase has more than doubled it seems much more a case of wishful thinking on the part of Dr Hansen.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

Sad fact is that the "alarmists" have been shown to be way to optimistic. We are far past prevention now, the best we can do is preparation for consequences.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Sad fact is that the "alarmists" have been shown to be way to optimistic. We are far past prevention now, the best we can do is preparation for consequences.



Well, I still advocate that we try to limit the high-end range, no sense in having to get really good at genetic modifcation\engineering just to survive as a species; personally, I'm still hoping we don't have to rely upon our infantile geo-engineering skills as well.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

You have that right. Unintended consequences are a bitch.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> You have that right. Unintended consequences are a bitch.



Just look at the consequences of a plentiful, energy dense, fuel supply!


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time flies) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2.  Shocker of shockers.  And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.
> ...







He wrote the paper 12 years after his now famous testimony before Congress where he laid out his famous three graphs showing what would happen with ever increasing CO2 levels.  Remember?  Scenario's A, B, and of course C.  Even with the CO2 levels increasing FAR above even his worst guestimate the temps havn't come even close to his worst case scenario...in fact they havn't even come close to his BEST case scenario.

I think he realised he was wrong and was actually doing some good science there.  Then all of a sudden the TEAM got into positions of power and voila, climatology entered the realm of the psychics.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Sad fact is that the "alarmists" have been shown to be way to optimistic. We are far past prevention now, the best we can do is preparation for consequences.
> ...








The human body undergoes a 20 degree swing IN A SINGLE day from morning to night.  You _really_ think a one degree rise is going to be noticed?  Really?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16109.full.pdf
> 
> Contributed by James Hansen, September 29, 2004
> 
> ...



Am I daft and deranged (don't answer that) or is the bolded a mistake. It SOUNDS like nonsense. CO2 is "mitigated" at 440ppm if the non-CO2 forcing is 0.5, but it's "mitigated" at 520ppm if the non-CO2 is the SAME????? WTF?

Hope that Trakar is lurking because I tried to tell him 48 hours ago that CO2 alone WITHOUT FEEDBACK is not capable of accelerated warming and this paper (last sentence above) seems to minimize the effects of any"natural emissions" feedback. 

Holy Cow Winged One !! Where did you find this?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Speaking of someone daft and deranged.

Human body temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In healthy adults, body temperature fluctuates about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) throughout the day, with lower temperatures in the morning and higher temperatures in the late afternoon and evening, as the body's needs and activities change.[1] The time of day and other circumstances also affects the body's temperature. The core body temperature of an individual tends to have the lowest value in the second half of the sleep cycle; the lowest point, called the nadir, is one of the primary markers for circadian rhythms. The body temperature also changes when a person is hungry, sleepy, or cold.


Hyperthermia

Main article: Hyperthermia

Hyperthermia occurs when the body produces or absorbs more heat than it can dissipate. It is usually caused by prolonged exposure to high temperatures. The heat-regulating mechanisms of the body eventually become overwhelmed and unable to deal effectively with the heat, causing the body temperature to climb uncontrollably. Hyperthermia at or above about 40 °C (104 °F) is a life-threatening medical emergency that requires immediate treatment. Common symptoms include headache, confusion, and fatigue. If sweating has resulted in dehydration, then the affected person may have dry, red skin.

In a medical setting, mild hyperthermia is commonly called heat exhaustion or heat prostration; severe hyperthermia is called heat stroke. Heat stroke may come on suddenly, but it usually follows the untreated milder stages. Treatment involves cooling and rehydrating the body; fever-reducing drugs are useless for this condition. This may be done through moving out of direct sunlight to a cooler and shaded environment, drinking water, removing clothing that might keep heat close to the body, or sitting in front of a fan. Bathing in tepid or cool water, or even just washing the face and other exposed areas of the skin, can be helpful.

With fever, the body's core temperature rises to a higher temperature through the action of the part of the brain that controls the body temperature; with hyperthermia, the body temperature is raised without the consent of the heat control centers.

[edit] Hypothermia

Main article: Hypothermia

In hypothermia, body temperature drops below that required for normal metabolism and bodily functions. In humans, this is usually due to excessive exposure to cold air or water, but it can be deliberately induced as a medical treatment. Symptoms usually appear when the body's core temperature drops by 1-2 °C (1.8-3.6 °F) below normal temperature.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > You have that right. Unintended consequences are a bitch.
> ...



There you have it in a nutshell folks. We want energy to be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL. They want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE. It's really sad that Disney stilll has the Electric Light Parade ain't it??? Have Cinderella get there early and start swapping in those CFLs..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Lordy, lordy. Ol' Flats really has a comprehension problem.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time flies) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2.  Shocker of shockers.  And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.
> ...



Are you  saying that all those models run in 2000 with dreadful consequences were garbage because Hansen et al had NO IDEA what emissions would look like 10 years later?
Critical thinking -- go buy a wad..


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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









  Where oh where do i say INTERNAL temp changes olfraud?  It should have been self evident (even to one such as you) that I was referring to external temps.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Yeppers, their version of a "sustainable" environment is one closely akin to the Bronze age.  of course they and their leaders will still be able to jet around the world enjoying themselves and we peons will be allowed to serve them, our MASTERS, till they decide we are too much of a burden and have us eliminated.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

westwall said:


> If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.
> 
> As Arte johnson would say on Laugh In...."veeeeerrrryy interesting".



At least he noticed methane as a major "IF," which you never do, Queen Wally.  I don't suppose you went over the AMEG site and read anything?  God save your gay jubilee.

CH4 is _methane,_ bitch.  Fart at that, smell your shit thinking, for you.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 6, 2012)

westwall said:


> The human body undergoes a 20 degree swing IN A SINGLE day from morning to night.  You _really_ think a one degree rise is going to be noticed?  Really?



Are you really naive enough to believe that the change of global average temperature is only going to raise the air temperature where you are at by about 1 degree and that this is the only consequence of planetary Climate change? seriously?!


----------



## Trakar (Jun 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Am I daft and deranged (don't answer that) or is the bolded a mistake. It SOUNDS like nonsense. CO2 is "mitigated" at 440ppm if the non-CO2 forcing is 0.5, but it's "mitigated" at 520ppm if the non-CO2 is the SAME????? WTF?
> 
> Hope that Trakar is lurking because I tried to tell him 48 hours ago that CO2 alone WITHOUT FEEDBACK is not capable of accelerated warming and this paper (last sentence above) seems to minimize the effects of any"natural emissions" feedback.
> 
> Holy Cow Winged One !! Where did you find this?



If these are the language and science skills you bring to the table it is little wonder that your understandings are so distorted and out of touch with mainstream scientific considerations. The trick is in figuring out if the problem is deliberate disingenuity, or merely a very poor science vocabulary and comprehension of the processes being discussed. I started explaining this already in a seperate discussion, try reading the actual paper, first of all, rather than trying to parse the abstract according to the confused misunderstandings you brought to the subject. If you continue to have problems I will be glad to simplfy the linguistic structure and break it down in a manner that most should be able to understand what is being said.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Please explain the contorsions necessary to take my words above and interpret from them the garbage that you ended up with.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


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



That is not even in the same ballpark with anything I stated, is english your first language?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 6, 2012)

westwall said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The human body undergoes a 20 degree swing IN A SINGLE day from morning to night.
> ...



Words do have conventions and stating that the body "undergoes" a 20 degree swing, is stating that the body's temperature varies by 20 degrees. If that isn't what you intended, you should have used words that would have more accurately reflected what you meant.


----------



## Dante (Jun 6, 2012)

regurgitating old things is what conservatives do


----------



## Trakar (Jun 6, 2012)

Dante said:


> regurgitating old things is what conservatives do



Apparently so.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Am I daft and deranged (don't answer that) or is the bolded a mistake. It SOUNDS like nonsense. CO2 is "mitigated" at 440ppm if the non-CO2 forcing is 0.5, but it's "mitigated" at 520ppm if the non-CO2 is the SAME????? WTF?
> ...



U want I should BEG YOU? Or was drama your major??


<edited>
Forgit Trakar -- the jig is up.. I went back and figured it out.. The quote that confused me above, when posted on USMB was simply missing a couple plus and minus signs.* If you really truely were concerned about my overall comprehension of the topic -- It would NEVER have taken such an elegant and dramatic ATTACK on me to "explain it to me". *
Lemme show YOU how powerful this science thingy is... By logical deduction there are a few possibilities.. 

1) You KNEW it was a simple cut and paste error that was confusing me and chose to take the opportunity to attack me anyway.

OR

2) You had no f'in idea what my comprehension problem was because you never bothered to look at the source or the error didn't bother you because you didn't catch the obvious nonsense in the cut/paste version.. 

Either way --- won't matter.

Given your fraud I've basically just PROVEN to myself. Congrats man.. You're only the 2nd person (after one whole year on USMB) that's going on my ignore list. You and all of the rest of the drama queens in the science section are entertaining, but I don't have the time to waste with morons that pretend to follow along..


----------



## Dante (Jun 6, 2012)

Dr. James Hansen on Global Climate Change | 2GreenEnergy



> WillDeliverMarch 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm
> 
> Dr. Hansen has been called a climate science rock star! Here&#8217;s a link to a presentation to the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.
> Dr. James Hansen on Global Climate Change | 2GreenEnergy
> Dr. Hansen describes the Climate Crisis that is occuring now and gives some insight into possible actions for local people to take to encourage their governments to take action to reduce CO2 emmissions.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> U want I should BEG YOU?



Not at all, but then I don't consider simple requests to be the equivilant of begging.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > U want I should BEG YOU?
> ...



Before you go on ignore... You should go back and read the EDITED version of my last post..

No wonder you can find no ethical problem with the AGW circus or any contradictions to their bible..


----------



## Dante (Jun 6, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > U want I should BEG YOU?
> ...



B-4 you go on ignore?


  gawd, some of these wingnuts are so special..


----------



## Trakar (Jun 6, 2012)

Dante said:


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



I was thinking overly sensitive and temperamental but I guess that's its own kind of "special."


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2012)

Ol' Flats can stand me, because I reply in some of the same language he uses. He cannot reply to someone that expresses themselves as ably as Trakar does, and that drives him up a wall.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

I've been calling Fathead a fucktard and a bitch of a charlatan, but he keeps running after Trakar.  What am I doing wrong?     

Fuck off, Fathead.  Nobody will miss you, you faking bitch.  If you quit spamming, we can get to Trakar's and O.R.'s posts, without sorting your bitch-spam out, first.

Fattie, you are so stupid, somebody has to tell you your farts are made out of shit and methane, but you keep eating your own shit, before the methane can heat up the planet and get you dead.  Fuck off and die.


----------



## Dante (Jun 6, 2012)

_too funny_

maybe we're all on ignore and the con poster is in a private con-circle-jerk?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

westwall said:


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



*You incoherent piece of shit!*  He was 'wrong and was actually doing some good science' is a conflicted statement.  Read it again, and then jump to 2012.  It's hot:

"There are many competing natural and anthropogenic climate forcings, but increasing GHGs are estimated to be the largest forcing and to result in a net positive forcing, especially during the past few decades (4, 6). Evidence supporting this interpretation is provided by observed heat storage in the ocean (7), which is positive and of the magnitude of the energy imbalance estimated from climate forcings for recent decades (8)..."   Go Hansen!  Go Hansen.  Fuck off, Wally.  Quit leaving that queenie gap, under the long quotes, before you type your spam.


----------



## daveman (Jun 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Sad fact is that the "alarmists" have been shown to be way to optimistic. We are far past prevention now, the best we can do is preparation for consequences.


And there you are, still selfishly using electricity, gasoline, and petroleum.

Bastard.


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The human body undergoes a 20 degree swing IN A SINGLE day from morning to night.  You _really_ think a one degree rise is going to be noticed?  Really?
> ...







I can dig up any amount of paleo climate and written history from many periods in mans history when there was greater warming than there is today and not one of the terrible things you all claim will happen ever did.  

You have tried so desperately to remove the RWP and the MWP from the historical record but sadly for you there are still people out there who read real books and they know the lies for what they are.

You are failing on an epic scale and it's going to be fun to watch the wheels come off.


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

Dante said:


> regurgitating old things is what conservatives do







Ignoring historical fact is what libs do.


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

Dante said:


> Dr. James Hansen on Global Climate Change | 2GreenEnergy
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Dr. James Hansen on Global Warming.......


*"not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting" *


Game, Set, MATCH!


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> I've been calling Fathead a fucktard and a bitch of a charlatan, but he keeps running after Trakar.  What am I doing wrong?
> 
> Fuck off, Fathead.  Nobody will miss you, you faking bitch.  If you quit spamming, we can get to Trakar's and O.R.'s posts, without sorting your bitch-spam out, first.
> 
> Fattie, you are so stupid, somebody has to tell you your farts are made out of shit and methane, but you keep eating your own shit, before the methane can heat up the planet and get you dead.  Fuck off and die.








Yeppers, nice liberla feel good lefty, allways complaining about bad ol pubs doing bad things.  Yet it's allways you asshats wanting others to die.

What a loser!


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

Dante said:


> _too funny_
> 
> maybe we're all on ignore and the con poster is in a private con-circle-jerk?







Sure thing Dante, just make sure you include all the AGW fraudsters in your collective circle jerk as well.  That's all they've been doing for the last 30 years, sucking off the public tit and what have we gotten for 100 billion in research grants?  The global temp can be lowered by one degree in 100 years for the trivial investment of 76 trillion dollars....maybe.

What a great investmen that 100 bil was.  Gosh, if we give them another 100 bil, maybe they can tell us how to tie our shoes more efficiently.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > I've been calling Fathead a fucktard and a bitch of a charlatan, but he keeps running after Trakar.  What am I doing wrong?
> ...



I'm an independent non-partisan, and you are a drunk punk, who can't spell, with your ass on the line.  Something's going wrong, with you and the planet.  We don't get to keep you and the human habitat, so you have to go, someday, maybe soon.  Have another slurp of booze and fart, you shitty 'pub;' see if that improves your posts.  Read this, lololol, and eat shit:

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-today-climate-sensitive-carbon-dioxide.html

" . . . in this week's issue of the journal Nature, paleoclimate researchers reveal that about 12-5 million years ago climate was decoupled from atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. New evidence of this comes from deep-sea sediment cores dated to the late Miocene period of Earth's history.

During that time, temperatures across a broad swath of the North Pacific were 9-14 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations remained low--near values prior to the Industrial Revolution.

The research shows that, in the last five million years, changes in ocean circulation allowed Earth's climate to become more closely coupled to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

The findings also demonstrate that the climate of modern times more readily responds to changing carbon dioxide levels than it has during the past 12 million years.

"This work represents an important advance in understanding how Earth's past climate may be used to predict future climate trends," says Jamie Allan, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences, which funded the research. -unquote

Don't forget to eat shit, you punkass drunk.  Actually, what you do after dinner is your own business.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. James Hansen on Global Climate Change | 2GreenEnergy
> ...



Not so fast there Con-Man.. Unfortunately, we were doing a SPECTACULAR job of cleaning up the aerosols part of that thru the 2000 period. So the "offsetting" was largely off'd.. 

Perhaps we should have left well enough alone. Trying to help folks breathe in Pittsburgh might have put the earth in a lurch..


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 7, 2012)

And then there's the recent study, posted severally, which claims CO2 is more closely coupled to warming, than in ancient reviews:

Today's climate more sensitive to carbon dioxide than in past 12 million years

Greenland is hot:

Unprecedented May Heat In Greenland, Temperature Hits Stunning 76.6°F | ThinkProgress

There goes the thick, perennial ice, which is the most important ice:

NASA - NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

You really have to be an asshole, to mistake what Hansen is warning us about with his remarks, about CH4:

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - METHANE

Any questions?  This cherry-pick of Hansen-2000, for retard-rant exercises shows how skeptics are like living-dead queers, who pushed their dose of HIV, through tricks, baths, shooting speed, and more tricks, all the way, to full-blown AIDS and death.  Go get 'em, church-ladies.  Hot links!


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> I can dig up any amount of paleo climate and written history from many periods in mans history when there was greater warming than there is today and not one of the terrible things you all claim will happen ever did.



Please do (dig them up, that is), the best available evidence indicates that today's annual, globally averaged temperature, is warmer than any period in the last several million years. Modern humans have only existed for a few hundred thousand years. Given this, you are either looking at early, incomplete and inaccurate temperature data, or you have some revolutionary information regarding human evolution up your sleeve,...either way, I'd be interested in seeing any evidences you feel compellingly support your assertions.  



> You have tried so desperately to remove the RWP and the MWP from the historical record but sadly for you there are still people out there who read real books and they know the lies for what they are.
> 
> You are failing on an epic scale and it's going to be fun to watch the wheels come off.



There may have been some regionally warm times associated with the RWP and there was definitely broader regional warming during the MWP, but neither of these seem to have been anything like the scale and magnitude of the current global warming.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > regurgitating old things is what conservatives do
> ...



I find a great deal of accuracy in both statements.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. James Hansen on Global Climate Change | 2GreenEnergy
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2012)

The problem with most of the deniers here is that they very much want none of this to be true. And are willing to ignore reality in order to claim it is not true.

The rest of us would like for none of this to be true, also. However, we have learned from long experiance that ignoring reality is a really dumb thing to do. Because reality will not ignore us, and will remind us of it's existance in a usually very unpleasant manner.

We are now clearly seeing the consequences of the increase of the GHGs in the atmosphere. From the cryosphere to the increase in extreme weather events. And at a much faster rate than predicted by the 'Alarmists'. But for many the reaction seems to like that of the North Carolina GOP.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Perhaps we should have left well enough alone. Trying to help folks breathe in Pittsburgh might have put the earth in a lurch.



Well, if the aerosols and ghgs were not the result of human contributions in the first place, you might have a point. The problem arose from trying to eliminate just one aspect of the human emissions instead of dealing with the overall emissions problem.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2012)

A point here. Were India and China to suddenly lower their emissions, we would get an immediate, decade, spike in temperatures. This is the Faustian Bargain Dr. Hansen described so well.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time fly's) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2.  Shocker of shockers.  And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.



I thought Hansen was a global warming zombie who was trying to convince us Co2 was the culprit so he could take over the world and get rich?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time fly's) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2.  Shocker of shockers.  And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*
BTW, this proves how ignorant the skeptic community is when they are just now discovering a paper published 12 years ago.*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time fly's) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2.  Shocker of shockers.  And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Since yall are 12 years behind, I guess should expect you guys will run across this paper 8 years from now

[0804.1126] Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?



> Combined, GHGs other than CO2 cause climate forcing comparable to that of CO2 [2, 6], but growth of non-CO2 GHGs is falling below IPCC [2] scenarios. Thu*s total GHG climate forcing change is now determined mainly by CO2* [69].


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


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




CO2 is now the primary driver because we have dealt with non-CO2 GHG emissions by reducing them. There's absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with his view now and then.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> A point here. Were India and China to suddenly lower their emissions, we would get an immediate, decade, spike in temperatures. This is the Faustian Bargain Dr. Hansen described so well.



True, as aerosols tend to settle/condense out of the atmosphere over about a decade's worth of time, whereas the nominal and unqualified atmospheric half-life (residence) for CO2 is measured in centuries.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> He wrote the paper 12 years after his now famous testimony before Congress where he laid out his famous three graphs showing what would happen with ever increasing CO2 levels.  Remember?  Scenario's A, B, and of course C.  Even with the CO2 levels increasing FAR above even his worst guestimate the temps havn't come even close to his worst case scenario...in fact they havn't even come close to his BEST case scenario...



Congressional testimony in 1988, given that it usually takes around a year after completing a paper for it to actually appear in a Journal, you generally quit looking at new data for a paper once you begin writing the paper, and when working with co-authors the actual writing of the paper can take anywhere from a few months to a year and this paper was published in the year 2000, he more than likely started writing this paper within a decade of his congressional testimony - but that is a minor quibble.

As for the accuracy of the projection senario graphs he displayed at that congressional testimony, if anything, even the worst-case senario has proven to underestimate what we have actually seen happen over the last 24 years.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 7, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



What happened to the 50 or 200 year lag in the EFFECTs of altering GHGs?  You want to ignore that now when it's convienient? If we've been successful in reducing NOx and SOx for instance, *their *effect on Ocean Acidification might not be measureable for another 50 years... So -- is the current slowing of temp rise due to our reduction of "the other" GHGs?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> There may have been some regionally warm times associated with the RWP and there was definitely broader regional warming during the MWP, but neither of these seem to have been anything like the scale and magnitude of the current global warming.



Really?  Here is what the published, peer reviewed studies say the MWP looked like globally.






Here is a good interactive map.  The color and shape of the symbol denotes whether the study was level I, II, or III and clicking on it will bring up the title of the study and the findings.

CO2 Science Medieval Warm Period Project Map


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> What happened to the 50 or 200 year lag in the EFFECTs of altering GHGs?



Cite or reference?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > There may have been some regionally warm times associated with the RWP and there was definitely broader regional warming during the MWP, but neither of these seem to have been anything like the scale and magnitude of the current global warming.
> ...



According to a reconstruction created by a partisan political advocacy blog, and even so, it is not inconsistent with my portrayal above. 

This is what equivilant global maps look like that that compare the published science regarding average annual temps now, and average annual temps at the height of the MWP.
(Courtesy of NOAA)

Medieval War Period





Current


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


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



Link for your 50 to 200 years?


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I can dig up any amount of paleo climate and written history from many periods in mans history when there was greater warming than there is today and not one of the terrible things you all claim will happen ever did.
> ...








Here are a FEW of the peer reviewed papers that show the MWP to have been global.

"Abstract

Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the &#948;18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing &#948;18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore &#948;18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and &#948;18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord &#948;18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula."



ScienceDirect.com - Earth and Planetary Science Letters - An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula

CO2 Science

ScienceDirect.com - Quaternary Research - 7000years of paleostorm activity in the NW Mediterranean Sea in response to Holocene climate events

CO2 Science

There are well over 100 more.


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > He wrote the paper 12 years after his now famous testimony before Congress where he laid out his famous three graphs showing what would happen with ever increasing CO2 levels.  Remember?  Scenario's A, B, and of course C.  Even with the CO2 levels increasing FAR above even his worst guestimate the temps havn't come even close to his worst case scenario...in fact they havn't even come close to his BEST case scenario...
> ...







Really?  Do tell.  Show us any empirical data that supports that assertion.  And please, use the UNALTERED (i.e. falsified) historical temperature data.


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...








Yes, I particularly enjoy how Hansen makes the Arctic so hot with no temperature readings to support them.  One weather station in a 1,200 kilometer area.  Wow, that's precision.

And you wonder why you've lost the argument.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > ...This is what equivilant global maps look like that that compare the published science regarding average annual temps now, and average annual temps at the height of the MWP.
> ...



Try again, the grey areas are not temp readings and are not included in either mapping. The least you could do is actually argue the data presented instead of making up idiocies that have nothing to do with what is being discussed.


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > A point here. Were India and China to suddenly lower their emissions, we would get an immediate, decade, spike in temperatures. This is the Faustian Bargain Dr. Hansen described so well.
> ...







Bullshit.  CO2 residence time is between 5 and 16 years.



Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a "rough estimate"]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: "This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean".

Some 99% of the atmospheric CO2 molecules are 12CO2 molecules containing the stable isotope 12C (Segalstad, 1982). To calculate the RT of the bulk atmospheric CO2 molecule 12CO2, Essenhigh (2009) uses the IPCC data of 1990 with a total mass of carbon of 750 gigatons in the atmospheric CO2 and a natural input/output exchange rate of 150 gigatons of carbon per year (Houghton et al., 1990). The characteristic decay time (denoted by the Greek letter tau) is simply the former value divided by the latter value: 750 / 150 = 5 years. This is a similar value to the ~5 years found from 13C/12C carbon isotope mass balance calculations of measured atmospheric CO2 13C/12C carbon isotope data by Segalstad (1992); the ~5 years obtained from CO2 solubility data by Murray (1992); and the ~5 years derived from CO2 chemical kinetic data by Stumm & Morgan (1970).

Revelle & Suess (1957) calculated from data for the trace atmospheric molecule 14CO2, containing the radioactive isotope14C, that the amount of atmospheric "CO2 derived from industrial fuel combustion" would be only 1.2% for an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 5 years, and 1.73% for a CO2 lifetime of 7 years (Segalstad, 1998). Essenhigh (2009) reviews measurements of 14C from 1963 up to 1995, and finds that the RT of atmospheric 14CO2 is ~16 (16.3) years. He also uses the 14C data to find that the time value (exchange time) for variation of the concentration difference between the northern and southern hemispheres is ~2 (2.2) years for atmospheric 14CO2. This result compares well with the observed hemispheric transport of volcanic debris leading to "the year without a summer" in 1816 in the northern hemisphere after the 1815 Tambora volcano cataclysmic eruption in Indonesia in 1815.

Sundquist (1985) compiled a large number of measured RTs of CO2 found by different methods. The list, containing RTs for both 12CO2 and 14CO2, was expanded by Segalstad (1998), showing a total range for all reported RTs from 1 to 15 years, with most RT values ranging from 5 to 15 years. Essenhigh (2009) emphasizes that this list of measured values of RT compares well with his calculated RT of 5 years (atmospheric bulk 12CO2) and ~16 years (atmospheric trace 14CO2). Furthermore he points out that the annual oscillations in the measured atmospheric CO2 levels would be impossible without a short atmospheric residence time for the CO2 molecules.

Essenhigh (2009) suggests that the difference in atmospheric CO2 residence times between the gaseous molecules 12CO2 and 14CO2 may be due to differences in the kinetic absorption and/or dissolution rates of the two different gas molecules.

With such short residence times for atmospheric CO2, Essenhigh (2009) correctly points out that it is impossible for the anthropogenic combustion supply of CO2 to cause the given rise in atmospheric CO2. Consequently, a rising atmospheric CO2 concentration must be natural. This conclusion accords with measurements of 13C/12C carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2, which show a maximum of 4% anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (including any biogenic CO2), with 96% of the atmospheric CO2 being isotopically indistinguishable from "natural" inorganic CO2 exchanged with and degassed from the ocean, and degassed from volcanoes and the Earth's interior (Segalstad, 1992).

Essenhigh, R.E. 2009: Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time (RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced carbon dioxide. Energy & Fuels 23: 2773-2784. 

Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J. & Ephraums, J.J. (Eds.) 1990: Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 365 pp.

Murray, J.W. 1992: The oceans. In: Butcher, S.S., Charlson, R.J., Orians, G.H. & Wolfe, G.V. (Eds.): Global biogeochemical cycles. Academic Press: 175-211.

Revelle, R. & Suess, H. 1957: Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during past decades. Tellus 9: 18-27.

Segalstad, T. V. 1982: Stable Isotope Analysis. In: Stable Isotopes in Hydrocarbon Exploration, Norwegian Petroleum Society 6904, Stavanger: 21 pp. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/STABIS-ANAL.pdf

Segalstad, T. V. 1992: The amount of non-fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. AGU Chapman Conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change. March 23-27, 1992. Hilo, Hawaii. Abstracts: 25; and poster: 10 pp. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/hawaii.pdf

Segalstad, T. V. 1996: The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO2 on the global "Greenhouse Effect". In Emsley, J. (Ed.): The Global Warming Debate. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, U.K. [ISBN 0952773406]: 41-50. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf

Segalstad, T. V. 1998: Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma. In: Bate, R. (Ed.): Global warming: the continuing debate. ESEF, Cambridge, U.K. [ISBN 0952773422]: 184-219. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf

Solomon, S., Plattner, G.-K., Knutti, R. & Friedlingstein, P. 2009: Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the USA [PNAS] 106, 6: 1704-1709.

Stumm, W. & Morgan, J.J. 1970: Aquatic chemistry: an introduction emphasizing chemical equilibria in natural waters. Wiley-Interscience: 583 pp.

Sundquist, E.T. 1985: Geological perspectives on carbon dioxide and the carbon cycle. In: Sundquist, E.T. & Broecker, W.S. (Eds.): The carbon cycle and atmospheric CO2: natural variations Archean to present. American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 32: 5-59.


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


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







My apologies, I did a quick look and assumed it was the usual Hansen BS graph.  Upon closer looking I see the Arctic is removed.  However, it is still using the Hansen falsified data and using the reduced number of weather stations and those that are used are almost wholly in urban areas thus benefitting from the UIA effect.  So yes, the graph is still useless.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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



I'm not talking about simple atmospheric retention times here. I'm referring to the TOTAL effects of their release like Ocean Acidification.. I gave you a chart a couple days ago showing the OA scenario assuming a CO2 spike for the next 50 yrs (and then I guess the modeller assumed mankind would go nuclear). THe OA effect is there for a 100 years. 

Since a large fraction of man-emitted CO2 is ABSORBED by the ocean and that effect is TEMPORARY until the ocean belches it back up, that is not considered in studies of atmospheric lifetimes. 

I don't rely on Wiki much but I know that BobGNote got everything he knows from there so... 

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[
QUOTE]Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[21] The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30&#8211;95 years.[22] This figure accounts for CO2 molecules being removed from the atmosphere by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, and a few other processes. However, this excludes the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the geological reservoirs, which have slower characteristic rates.[23] While more than half of the CO2 emitted is currently removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.[24][25][26]
[/QUOTE]

That MIGHT be accurate.. Who knows? But I've SEEN estimates for NOx residing in the atmosphere for a 100 years. In fact -- the chart below that quote in the Wiki shows the lifetime of NOx to be 114 yrs!!!!

Point was -- I was talking about EFFECTS, not atmo concentrations. 






Maybe in some cases ---- 500 years.. 

BTW: Note in the OA scenario above the 100 year LAG for pCO2 to really build...


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > ..As for the accuracy of the projection senario graphs he displayed at that congressional testimony, if anything, even the worst-case senario has proven to underestimate what we have actually seen happen over the last 24 years.
> ...



No problem, the chart you seek, is I believe fig. 3 in the Hansen paper and worst case senario is Senario A. it seems to indicate that 1986 was the last observation data included in his '88 paper. This indicates a 0.4º C above the 1951-1980 mean in 1986 and senario A projects out to 2010 at about 1º C above the 1951-1980 mean, which looks like about 0.6º C rise

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

indicates average mean anomaly of 1986 is 0.12 average mean anomaly of 2010 is 0.62 which looks like an actual rise of only about 0.5º C rise since 1986. 

It looks like I was mistaken, Hansen's 1988 worst case senario exceeded reality by 0.08º C. I apologize for my previous mischaracterization. I don't consider this egregious as year to year variations are often in the ~0.1º C range, but it is definitely lower than Hansen's 1988 considertions. It seems that the 1988 senario utilized a slightly high fast response sensitivity for climate (4.2º C/CO2 doubling I believe), currently short-term doubling is estimated at between 3.0-3.5º C by many researchers. I believe this is the same range of sensitivity that Hansen began using around 2000 in his modellings. It will be interesting to see how the 1988 set of senarios hold up as we approach climatically significant timeframes (1988 + 30 = 2018). Of course it is important to understand that even within that '88 paper, Hansen stated that these modelled simulations aren't precise predictions nor intended to be used as anything other than general guides of what should be expected given the parameters and understandings that the models are based upon.


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


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







I believe I SPECIFICALLY said that falsified data is not allowed.  You got reading problems?

Show us the ORIGINAL UNALTERED tabulations if you wish to use this data set.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

westwall said:


> I believe I SPECIFICALLY said that falsified data is not allowed.  You got reading problems?
> 
> Show us the ORIGINAL UNALTERED tabulations if you wish to use this data set.



None of the data is falsified, if you believe it to be then you must supply cmpelling evidence in support of that contenion.

If you wish the raw data, you may download this from: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/v3.mean_GISS_homogenized.txt.gz


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

westwall said:


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


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Your references aren't examining what we are talking about. My words have specfic meanings and are chosen to reflect those precise meanings.

"CO2 and Climate"
A 1956 American Scientist paper
http://afil.tamu.edu/Readings 2012/CO2 and Climate.pdf

"...Although the carbon dioxide theory of climatic change was one of the most widely held fifty years ago, in recent years it has had relatively few adherents. However, recent research work suggests that the usual reasons for rejecting this theory are not valid. Thus it seems appropriate to reconsider the question of variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and whether it can satisfactorily account for many of the worldwide climatic changes...
...The carbon dioxide theory was first proposed in 1861 by Tyndall. The first extensive calculations were necessarily done by very approximate methods. There are thousands of spectral lines due to carbon dioxide which are responsible for the absorption and each of these lines occurs in a complicated pattern with variations in intensity and the width of the spectral lines. Further the pattern is not even the same at all heights in the atmosphere, since the width and intensity of the spectral lines varies with the temperature and pressure. Only recently has a reasonably accurate solution to the problem of the influence of carbon dioxide on surface temperature been possible, because of accurate infrared measurements, theoretical developments, and the availability of a highspeed electronic computer.
...Recently, however, man has added an important new factor to the carbon dioxide balance. As first pointed out by Callendar, the combustion of fossil fuels is adding 6.0 x 10^9 tons per year of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at the present time and the rate is increasing every year. Today this factor is larger than any contribution from the inorganic world. Thus today man by his own activities is increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the rate of 30 per cent a century. The possible influence of this on the climate will be discussed later.
...Kulp has recently shown from radiocarbon determination that the deep ocean waters at the latitude of Newfoundland were at the surface 1,700 years ago. This suggests that it may take tens of thousands of years for the waters of the deep ocean to make one complete circuit from the surface to the bottom and back. Only the surface waters of the oceans can absorb carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Since there is very little circulation between the surface waters and the ocean depths, the time for the atmosphere-ocean system to return to equilibrium following a disturbance of some sort is at least as long as the turnover time of the oceans. Thus, if the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount should suddenly increase, it may easily take a period of tens of thousands of years before the atmosphere-ocean system is again in equilibrium..."

"Atmospheric lifetime of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide"
ORBi: ORBi User License

"CO2 released from combustion of fossil fuels equilibrates between the various carbon reservoirs of the atmosphere, the ocean, and the terrestrial biosphere on time scales of a few centuries. However, a sizeable fraction of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere,  awaiting a return to the solid earth by much slower weathering processes and deposition of CaCO3. Common measures of atmospheric CO2 lifetime, including the e-folding time
scale, disregard the long tail. Its neglect in the calculation of global warming potentials leads many to underestimate the longevity of anthropogenic global warming. Here we review the past literature on the atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 and its impact on climate, and we present initial results from a model intercomparison project on this topic. The models agree that 20-35% of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere after equilibration
with the ocean (2-20 centuries). Neutralization by CaCO3 draws the airborne fraction down further on time scales of 3-7 kyr."

"Is Shale Gas Good for Climate Change?"
http://cewc.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Is-Shale-Gas-Good-for-Climate-Change_Schrag.pdf

"...Another important timescale is the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Once carbon dioxide is emitted from the combustion of fossil fuel, it is transferred among atmospheric, terrestrial, oceanic, and sedimentary reservoirs by a wide variety of biogeochemical processes that convert carbon dioxide to organic carbon, dissolved bicarbonate ion, or calcium carbonate, and then back again. The rates of these processes determine how long carbon resides in each reservoir, and how long it will take to bring the elevated concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back to pre-industrial levels. There are also longer timescales in the carbon cycle. Over the timescale of several thousand years, once ocean equilibration is complete and only 20 to 40 percent of cumulative emissions remain in the atmosphere, dissolution of carbonate rocks on land and on the ocean floor will further reduce the airborne fraction to 10 to 25 percent, over a range of several thousand years to ten thousand years. This remnant of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will stay in the atmosphere for more than one hundred thousand years, slowly drawn down by silicate weathering that converts the carbon dioxide to calcium carbonate, as well as by slow burial of organic carbon on the ocean floor.16 The size of this &#8220;tail&#8221; of anthropogenic carbon dioxide depends on the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide, with higher cumulative emissions resulting in a higher fraction remaining in the atmosphere..."

"The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2"
Climatic Change, Volume 90, Number 3 - SpringerLink

"The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle, which we review here. The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20&#8211;60%, remains airborne for a thousand years or longer. Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with nuclear waste. The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice sheets and sea level respond dramatically to millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are also potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including methane hydrates in the ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost, that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere."

many, many more references available that actually support what I am saying rather than simply being unrelated copy and pastes out of the references section of paper that itself isn't suportive of the thesis it is offered for.


----------



## westwall (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


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


----------



## westwall (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


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







You claimed that CO2 has a residence time measured in centuries, that is absolute horse crap as these peer reviewed papers show.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> According to a reconstruction created by a partisan political advocacy blog, and even so, it is not inconsistent with my portrayal above.



Not inconsistent?  Sorry guy, if you believe your graphic isn't inconsistent with the one I provided, then you are either simply unable to analyze visual data or so bias that you can effectively ignore that which doesn't agree with what you believe.  For Example:

South Africa - Two level 1 studies, a level II study, and a level III study find that the MWP in that area was 2-5 degrees warmer than the present while your graphic claims the same area was half a degree cooler than present.  

Western US and Western coast of Mexico - One level I study, Nine level II studies, and eleven level III studies indicate that during the MWP, that area was about 3 degrees warmer than the present while your graphic, at most, indicates 0.3 degrees warmer.

Europe (Spain, France, Portugal)  Four level I studies, two level II studies, and eleven level III studies indicate that during the MWP the area was about 1 degree warmer than the present while your grapich idicates that the area was 0.1 degrees cooler than the present.

South China and Indo-Pacific area -  Four level I studies, two level II studies, and eight level III studies indicate that during the MWP, the area experienced temperatures .5 to 2.0 degrees warmer than the present while your grapic indicates that area was between 0.3 and 0.1 degrees cooler than the present.

Antarctic Peninsula -  Five level II studies find that it was at least as warm as the present during the MWP while your graphic has the area between 0.1 and 0.5 degrees cooler than the present.

Need I go on into more detail.  In short trakkar, your graphic isn't at all consistent with what the published peer reviewed studies say the climate was like across the globe during that period.  Upon what data was your graphic based?  



Trakar said:


> This is what equivilant global maps look like that that compare the published science regarding average annual temps now, and average annual temps at the height of the MWP.
> (Courtesy of NOAA)



Courtesy of NOAA?  Interesting.  Are you aware that NOAA has just been caught AGAIN fudging the historical record down in an effort to make the present appear warmer?

If the climate was behaving as your side claims, why is the downward alteration of past temperature records reaching such a frenetic state?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> True, as aerosols tend to settle/condense out of the atmosphere over about a decade's worth of time, whereas the nominal and unqualified atmospheric half-life (residence) for CO2 is measured in centuries.



You guys are precious and would be bordering on darling if your ideas weren't so dangerous to the rest of us.  You gobble up any and all pap that envirowackos care to dish out and you just repeat it without, apparently, the slightest wonderings of whether or not it is true.

Here are the results of 36, count them *THIRTY SIX* published peer reviewed studies on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Twenty nine of them find that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for less than a decade.  Compare the rest to what the IPCC says.  Exactly where did that claim of centuries come from and upon what is it based?  Look at the studies compared to the IPCC and tell me that you actually believe their claims.

There is a reason that the public in general is beginning to laugh at the claims of warmists and lose interest.  The facts simply don't support your claims and as the facts such as this graphic become known, who in their right mind would continue to believe?  It is true that the more scientifically literate one is, the less likely one is to believe in AGW and claims like the IPCC's of CO2 residing in the atmosphere for centuries and your suggestion that your graphic of the MWP was consistent with the findings of literlly dozens of studies that say otherwise bears this out.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

westwall said:


> My apologies, I did a quick look and assumed it was the usual Hansen BS graph.  Upon closer looking I see the Arctic is removed.  However, it is still using the Hansen falsified data and using the reduced number of weather stations and those that are used are almost wholly in urban areas thus benefitting from the UIA effect.  So yes, the graph is still useless.



To date, there have been twenty five level I studies, eleven level II studies, and eight level III studies that state that the arctic region was, on average about a degree warmer than the present.  And the roman warm period was even warmer than that not to mention the Holocene Maximum.

CO2 Science Medieval Warm Period Project Map


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> No problem, the chart you seek, is I believe fig. 3 in the Hansen paper and worst case senario is Senario A. it seems to indicate that 1986 was the last observation data included in his '88 paper. This indicates a 0.4º C above the 1951-1980 mean in 1986 and senario A projects out to 2010 at about 1º C above the 1951-1980 mean, which looks like about 0.6º C rise



I guess you are unaware of what GISS has been doing to the temperature record of the past.  Here are just a few examples:































Trakar said:


> It looks like I was mistaken,



You were mistaken alright.  Your fist mistake was assuming that the record was honest.  Tell me, considering that GISS has been caught blatantly altering the record of the past in an effort to create the appearance of warming in the present, do you still trust them?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> None of the data is falsified, if you believe it to be then you must supply cmpelling evidence in support of that contenion.



Of course it has been falsified and the compelling evidence is in the post directily above this one.

I don't know where you stand on sea level rise but just for fun, here is a short animation that is priceless for those wackos out there who believe the sea is going to swamp us all. It is a 140 year photographic record of  dangerous sea level rise at a point of rock in La jolla, California:


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 8, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


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



Most of the answer to your question is in the paper referred to by the OP (Hansen 2000).* I'm not at all surprised that you didn't even bother to read the paper before you opened you big fat mouth to criticise it.*




> The most important of these &#8220;other&#8221; forcings are* methane, tropospheric ozone, and black carbon aerosols.*





> The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is moderate, only* 8-10, years,* so if its sources were reduced, the atmospheric amount would decline rather quickly.





> Ozone in the free troposphere can have a* lifetime of weeks*, and thus tropospheric ozone is at least a hemispheric if not a global problem.







The atmospheric lifetime of black carbon aerosols is not mentioned in the paper. But that's easy enough to find out. I'll leave it as a homework problem for you. Hint: no long


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 8, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




W know you didn't compile this list on your own.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

wirebender said:


> ...You were mistaken alright.  Your fist mistake was assuming that the record was honest.  Tell me, considering that GISS has been caught blatantly altering the record of the past in an effort to create the appearance of warming in the present, do you still trust them?



The only thing I see are apparently a set of coloring book scribbles from multiple extremist political advocacy sites with no scientific or ethical credibility, none of which offer any compelling (or otherwise) evidence in support of their, or your, assertions. Show me some good (preferably journal published) science which supports your assertions and we mght have something to talk about. If you want to believe in secret, black helicopter, one-world government conspiracies, that is your perogative, but don't expect anyone else to accept your rants and start making tinfoil hats without some extremely compelling and verifiable evidentiary support.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Here are the results of 36, count them *THIRTY SIX* published peer reviewed studies on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.



Competely irrelevent to what was being discussed,...again. Try actually reading the references and information presented. I'm sorry, I don't know of any papers filled with big brightly colored pictures that explain this in a way you can easily grasp.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> The only thing I see are apparently a set of coloring book scribbles from multiple extremist political advocacy sites with no scientific or ethical credibility, none of which offer any compelling (or otherwise) evidence in support of their, or your, assertions.



In true warmist form, you only see what you want to see.  Those graphs are taken directly from GISS databases.  Here are the links to the sources of the graphs not that I believe that you are actually capable of enough intellectual honesty to alter your position after having been given proof of the fraud that you are a victim of, but it would be unfortunate if someone who does't have a faith based position actually believed you.

NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder | Watts Up With That?

ICECAP

C3: Fabricating Fake Global Warming? Evidence of Manipulating U.S. Temperature Data To "Prove" Human-CO2 Warming?

ICECAP

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > According to a reconstruction created by a partisan political advocacy blog, and even so, it is not inconsistent with my portrayal above.
> ...



You got it, "not inconsistent."

If you feel that the study data is inconsistent with what I stated, then you either don't understand what I have said, or you don't understand what they studies are saying. 
...I suspect, a combination of both.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> [
> Competely irrelevent to what was being discussed,...again. Try actually reading the references and information presented. I'm sorry, I don't know of any papers filled with big brightly colored pictures that explain this in a way you can easily grasp.



You said:



			
				trakar said:
			
		

> .....whereas the nominal and unqualified atmospheric half-life (residence) for CO2 is measured in centuries.



Perhaps you tell so many lies when discussing climate change that you are unable to remember exactly what you said.  As you can clearly see, you claimed that the residence time of atmospheric CO2 is measured in centuries.

As you can see from the multiple peer reviewed studies, you are clearly wrong and unsuprisingly, you aren't mature enough to even admit that you were wrong.  Instead, you simply add another dishonest statement on top of your eroneous claim.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> You got it, "not inconsistent."
> 
> If you feel that the study data is inconsistent with what I stated, then you either don't understand what I have said, or you don't understand what they studies are saying.
> ...I suspect, a combination of both.



Your graph disagrees with the peer reviewed studies by orders of magnitude.  That, is inconsistent.

We have been through this all before rwatt and you lost so badly that you ran away and reappeared under your present moniker and are still spouting the same crapola that you did under your old name.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

westwall said:


> You claimed that CO2 has a residence time measured in centuries, that is absolute horse crap as these peer reviewed papers show.



BZZZT! Try again.

I stated:



Trakar said:


> ...the nominal and unqualified atmospheric half-life (residence) for CO2 is measured in centuries.



And then I provided references and support for my term usage and understandings.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> And then I provided references and support for my term usage and understandings.



I know what you said and I looked at your source and then provided more and more credible information than you and in effect, proved you wrong.  Now you begin your typical dance rather than be a grown up and simply admit that CO2 doesn't hang around the atmosphere for anything like centuries.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 8, 2012)

*Wiener-fucking-bitch can't fuck off, when he should, so he puts up another wingpunk-prayer-shot, from fool-court:*



wirebender said:


> You guys are precious and would be bordering on darling if your ideas weren't so dangerous to the rest of us.  You gobble up any and all pap that envirowackos care to dish out and you just repeat it without, apparently, the slightest wonderings of whether or not it is true.
> 
> Here are the results of 36, count them *THIRTY SIX* published peer reviewed studies on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Twenty nine of them find that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for less than a decade.  Compare the rest to what the IPCC says.  Exactly where did that claim of centuries come from and upon what is it based?  Look at the studies compared to the IPCC and tell me that you actually believe their claims.
> 
> There is a reason that the public in general is beginning to laugh at the claims of warmists and lose interest.  The facts simply don't support your claims and as the facts such as this graphic become known, who in their right mind would continue to believe?  It is true that the more scientifically literate one is, the less likely one is to believe in AGW and claims like the IPCC's of CO2 residing in the atmosphere for centuries and your suggestion that your graphic of the MWP was consistent with the findings of literlly dozens of studies that say otherwise bears this out.



_*Earth to Wienerbitch!  Your shit about how CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a limited time is completely irrelevant, which is usual for yours and other bitch-media.*_ _CO2 exchanges, from the atmosphere, to water, where it participates in the carbonic acid exchange and kills organisms and habitat.  You wouldn't forget that, would you?  Yes, you would forget that, since you have CRS and HUB, which are "Can't Remember Shit" and "Head Up Butt" syndromes._

Let's go back to the swell graph Fatass loaded, since it shows CO2 concentrations, back about 430,000 years or so, conveniently plotted against temperature rises and falls, so anybody with brain 1 instead of half a demented mind can see, how the CO2 levels out, to force both peaks and troughs, in temperature, to fall or rise, to shift equilibrium, at limits.

The CO2 _usually_ peaks out around 280 ppm, then recedes, forcing temperatures, to reduce, and the whole process tumbles down, until CO2 hits 180 ppm, levels out, temperatures hit whatever low they are going to, and the CO2 levels rise, forcing temperature to swing, upward.

But in recent years, human activity from emissions and defoliation spurred CO2-levels, all the way to 400 ppm, which is a departure from previous trends, which clearly coincides, with egregious human intervention, in all earthly processes.  Only a completely punk ass could possibly imagine another causal organism or process, since the process of leveling of CO2, spiking of temperature, and rebound of both levels is so universal and compelling, from this graph:






Hansen's paper mentions a lot of other forcers, which accompany the recent CO2 spike.  The temperatures are starting, to climb, and acid is killing organisms and habitat, in what will surely enter a runaway phase, of AGW, which is the only possible outcome.

For any faults, so what, since this version of Hansen is interesting.  But it's a 2000 version, or not?  Only an asshole could discredit Hansen's warming input, hang on his 2000 paper like a bulldog, then rant against both warming and AGW implications.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

westwall said:


> Goddard does the best job of showing the data corruption.  I know you won't bother to read them as unethical behavior is A-OK to you if it helps your goals, but the rest of the folks will care.



You really need to cover up the mirrors while you are posting, you seem to see your self in everyone you respond to.

I find it hilarious that you would attempt to chide me about ethics in the same breath that you reference someone like Goddard! That's like being dressed up like Raggedy Ann, cranking down the window of your little car and scowling at me while telling me I need to take life more seriously!

Truely priceless!


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> We know you didn't compile this list on your own.



LOL, he doesn't even look at the papers before he references them, I have yet to fnd any of his lists containng papers that are actually relevent to the subjects being discussed or even supportive of his assertions. I can't say for certain but it looks like he's copying and pasting blocks of references from papers that he really doesn't comprehend in the first place. But, that may be too harsh, and giving him too much credit, several of the pseudoscience political blogs have taken to that practice themselves (for the same reason and as they know that the vast majority of their readerhip either don't have the skills to figure it out, or don't really care one way or another about references and support), and he may have pulled them from those blog sources.

When I cite references, I run searches of my personal publication database based on the subject I am supporting. I then select from the papers that search returns that deal with the actual subject I am seeking to support, and read through them to confirm that they indeed support my thesis, and then I list them as references (generally wih specific excerpts that quote the most relevent support). Likewise, if I run across contradictory information in my search then I either revise my thesis, or include the contra-support link with an explanation of why I don't feel the reference is applicable to my thesis. But that is just the result of habits that have been developed over the last 40+ years.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _*Earth to Wienerbitch!  Your shit about how CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a limited time is completely irrelevant, which is usual for yours and other bitch-media.*_ _CO2 exchanges, from the atmosphere, to water, where it participates in the carbonic acid exchange and kills organisms and habitat. _


_

Sorry guy, but there isn't a shred of evidence of either flora or fauna dying as a result of CO2 exchanging from the air to the water.  I am sure that you believe it is so, but alas, not a shred of hard evidence exists to support your claim.



bobgnote said:



			Let's go back to the swell graph Fatass loaded, since it shows CO2 concentrations, back about 430,000 years or so, conveniently plotted against temperature rises and falls, so anybody with brain 1 instead of half a demented mind can see, how the CO2 levels out, to force both peaks and troughs, in temperature, to fall or rise, to shift equilibrium, at limits.
		
Click to expand...


Interesting how you guys like to go deeper back into the ice age and claim that CO2 levels were low.  Try going back to where the last ice age began and try explaining how the earth went into an ice age with atmospheric CO2 levels at or above 1000ppm.  

CO2 increases as it warms and guess what, we are in the process of exiting an ice age.  Look at paleohistory.  Time and time again the earth has entered ice ages and then warmed till such time as no ice exists at one, or both poles.  What we are experiencing is the norm, not some catastrophy called upon us by the internal combustion engine.

420,000 years.  That isn't even an eyeblink in geological time.

This is what the earth's climate history looks like.  Take a good long look and tell me what you believe is out of the ordinary here.  Obviously, the earth is going to continue to warm until such time as the temperature reaches a mean of about 25C at which time once more, there will be no ice, anywhere.  It is how the cycles go and like it or not, we are just along for the ride.




_


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 8, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _*Earth to Wienerbitch!  Your shit about how CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a limited time is completely irrelevant, which is usual for yours and other bitch-media.*_ _CO2 exchanges, from the atmosphere, to water, where it participates in the carbonic acid exchange and kills organisms and habitat. _
> ...


_

*Your image isn't loading Wienerbitch.  And you aren't looking at Fatski's graph, very closely.  A consistent forcing relationship exists, where CO2 levels off, at 180 ppm at troughs, and at 280 ppm at peaks, to force temperature either up or down.  This is unbroken, except for presently, when CO2 shot up, to 400 ppm, and we have yet to experience all adjustments to that or the methane emissions.*

Damn, you sure a stupid!  






Did you look, this time?  Now reload your image, and I'll look at it._


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 8, 2012)

When you Faithers finally decide which of four different things CO2 is supposed to do, let us know.


----------



## westwall (Jun 9, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > No problem, the chart you seek, is I believe fig. 3 in the Hansen paper and worst case senario is Senario A. it seems to indicate that 1986 was the last observation data included in his '88 paper. This indicates a 0.4º C above the 1951-1980 mean in 1986 and senario A projects out to 2010 at about 1º C above the 1951-1980 mean, which looks like about 0.6º C rise
> ...







He's aware.  He just doesn't care.  He is either unethical or intellectually dishonest.  I havn't figured out which one yet.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 9, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time flies) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2.  Shocker of shockers.  And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.
> ...





Whatever it is we did 10 years ago seems two be working.

Regardless of the increase in the non-water vapor GHG's, the temperature of the climate seems to have stalled in its increase.

When asked about Grant's drinking, Lincoln pondered distributing the same booze to all of his generals.

http://reasonabledoubtclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/rss2002-2011.png
http://reasonabledoubtclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/hadcrut2002-2011.png


----------



## code1211 (Jun 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Sad fact is that the "alarmists" have been shown to be way to optimistic. We are far past prevention now, the best we can do is preparation for consequences.






And the consequences are what?

I love it when we start writing the science fiction movies.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 9, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The human body undergoes a 20 degree swing IN A SINGLE day from morning to night.  You _really_ think a one degree rise is going to be noticed?  Really?
> ...





I grew up in Northern Minnesota.

Raising the temperature by a degree sounds pretty good to me.

The temperature seems to have stalled for the last ten years.

Is there a program of dire consequence for the climate to stall at the very hot level we currently enjoy?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 9, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...






The aerosols, I thought, were the cause of the Ozone hole over the South Pole.  This is the thing that is now closing on a regular basis and may have been doing so at that time also.

Do these also have an effect on GHG's?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 9, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I can dig up any amount of paleo climate and written history from many periods in mans history when there was greater warming than there is today and not one of the terrible things you all claim will happen ever did.
> ...






You are comparing the readings of instruments of today with the readings of proxies of the past.

It's not much different from comparing the readings of a tuning fork to the readings of a fishing line.

We have reliable instrument readings, that is to say, satellite, for about 40 years.

The ground station readings are incomplete and they have been constantly revised which reveals that they are completely unreliable.  The are unreliable at least by the standards of those who hope to use the data.

All of that said, according to the proxies, the global climate has cooled by about 6 degrees over the last 5 million years.

File:Five Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## code1211 (Jun 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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






Another constant is that he's wrong.

Ignore the facts.  Facts can change.  His opinions will never change.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 9, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > He wrote the paper 12 years after his now famous testimony before Congress where he laid out his famous three graphs showing what would happen with ever increasing CO2 levels.  Remember?  Scenario's A, B, and of course C.  Even with the CO2 levels increasing FAR above even his worst guestimate the temps havn't come even close to his worst case scenario...in fact they havn't even come close to his BEST case scenario...
> ...





Given that the lowest temperature rise predicted in Hansen's 1988 testimony relied on a decrease in the concentration of CO2 and that the actual performance of the climate has underperformed that prediction, you are simply wrong.

CO2 has risen at a pace that should have supported his highest prediction of temperature increase.  The actual increase is half of what he predicted and is what would be expected if the increase of temperature since 1600 ad had continued at the same pace absent the influence of CO2.

The fact that the temperature started its increase from the coldest point of the the Little Ice Age about 250 years before the start of the Industrial Revolution notwithstanding, Hansen predicted a rise to date of about 1 degree and we have experienced a rise to date of about a half a degree.

His prediction misses by 100%.

Is that success?

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 9, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > None of the data is falsified, if you believe it to be then you must supply cmpelling evidence in support of that contenion.
> ...





I've been challenging all of the Sea Level is rising chicken Littles to post the photographic evidence of the Sea Level rise.

This seems pretty conclusively to undermine what the chicken littles are saying.

Have any of the warmers got photo evidence that proves their case?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 9, 2012)

Stop looking at data once you start writing your paper?  No, you update your graphs and make sure you still have a valid model.  Unless you don't have a valid model and just want the money and attention.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 9, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Of course it has been falsified and the compelling evidence is in the post directily above this one.
> 
> I don't know where you stand on sea level rise but just for fun, here is a short animation that is priceless for those wackos out there who believe the sea is going to swamp us all. It is a 140 year photographic record of  dangerous sea level rise at a point of rock in La jolla, California:



I've been challenging all of the Sea Level is rising chicken Littles to post the photographic evidence of the Sea Level rise.

This seems pretty conclusively to undermine what the chicken littles are saying.

Have any of the warmers got photo evidence that proves their case?[/QUOTE]

_*Here is a link or two, for you to review.  You didn't mark high or low-tide, in your swell photos, for reference, so as usual, your head is way up your asshole.*_

Global warming and sea levels

Warming ocean = rising ocean? 

After the last ice age, the rapid melting of glaciers rapidly raised sea level. That melting tapered off about 6,000 years ago, and sea level -- compared to land -- became fairly stable. However, over the past century, sea level over much of the United States has risen by 25 to 30 centimeters relative to land, according to Jim Titus, the Environmental Protection Agency's project manager on sea level rise. Even that figure is a guesstimate, Titus says. "We only know that sea level last century rose more than average over the last several thousand years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/s...sing-sea-levels-a-risk-to-coastal-states.html

Green Blog: Weighing the Risk of Sea-Level Rise (March 14, 2012)
Times Topic: Global Warming & Climate Change

About 3.7 million Americans live within a few feet of high tide and risk being hit by more frequent coastal flooding in coming decades because of the sea level rise caused by global warming, according to new research.

If the pace of the rise accelerates as much as expected, researchers found, coastal flooding at levels that were once exceedingly rare could become an every-few-years occurrence by the middle of this century.

By far the most vulnerable state is Florida, the new analysis found, with roughly half of the nation&#8217;s at-risk population living near the coast on the porous, low-lying limestone shelf that constitutes much of that state. But Louisiana, California, New York and New Jersey are also particularly vulnerable, researchers found, and virtually the entire American coastline is at some degree of risk.

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

*It seems skeptics of global warming are chronic sufferers, of HUB (head up butt), CRS (can't remember shit), and DKS (don't know shit) syndromes.  Then there's that speed-freak, skooks, who shoots up a bag of meth, then he comes over to USMB and pretends his tweaks are somehow related to impending methane proliferation.

1.  At every single peak, in the last 450,000 years, CO2 peaks out, at 280 ppm, and then declines, to force cooling.  But humans have pushed CO2 all the way, to 400 ppm, by defoliation and emissions, including poisonous pollution;  
2.  More CO2 and methane will be released, by warming waters and lands, around the world, but particularly from Arctic tundra and seafloor areas;
3.  The CO2 will cause bodies of water to acidify, killing animals;
4.  The seas will rise, as the planet warms, and shelf ice melts, which is happening, faster than ever, in a runaway warming scenario, currently unfolding;
5.  Volcanoes and seismic events may be expected, before cooling is forced.

What part of currently unfolding events are so difficult, for even a retard to witness?*

_You want to show high and low tide, for both your photos, CodeDogshit?  Reference your awesome, entertaining dogshit._


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 9, 2012)

code1211 said:


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



Although your link says the misstatement as of 1998 was 25% -- *it's a higher error now!*.. So I don't care WHO mistestified in front of congress in 1998.. We learned something important about "assumptions" and climate sensitivity. 

And that when the PRESS REPORTED hansens predictions in 1988, the screaming headline was for the RANGE of scenarios and the hysteria became "Scientists project up to a 2DegC rise in temp per decade".. And the funding feeding frenzy (fff) began....


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 9, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Given that the lowest temperature rise predicted in Hansen's 1988 testimony relied on a decrease in the concentration of CO2 and that the actual performance of the climate has underperformed that prediction, you are simply wrong.
> 
> CO2 has risen at a pace that should have supported his highest prediction of temperature increase.  The actual increase is half of what he predicted and is what would be expected if the increase of temperature since 1600 ad had continued at the same pace absent the influence of CO2.
> 
> ...



_*Whatever, Fatass.  Since 1981, the 20 warmest years on record occurred.  The ten warmest years in the meteorological record occurred, since 2000.  We are 24 years, down the road, from Hansen's 1988 predictions.  Get over your old doggy-toy.  Here's fresh kibbles:*_

NASA - NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

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

_*Let's go over the latest hockey-stick graph.  Notice how CO2 and warming are both on a sharp upswing, indicating related acceleration, in warming.*_






Global Climate Change Indicators

Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4°F since the early 20th Century. The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites. There is a clear long-term global warming trend, while each individual year does not always show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Ninos, La Ninas, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years.

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

*What's more, your idiocy about Hansen's 1988 media shows willful ignorance, of modern projections, consistent with Hansen's now-dated 1988 work.  Kindly update your rants, to oppose any of the latest predictions, which come in the wake of revelations, Hansen predicted CH4 would issue, which it has, with more CO2, from warming lands and waters.  This prediction of a 4 C rise in temperature in one lifetime is from 2010:*

Climate change scientists warn of 4C global temperature rise | Environment | The Guardian

A hellish vision of a world warmed by 4C within a lifetime has been set out by an international team of scientists, who say the agonisingly slow progress of the global climate change talks that restart in Mexico today makes the so-called safe limit of 2C impossible to keep. A 4C rise in the planet's temperature would see severe droughts across the world and millions of migrants seeking refuge as their food supplies collapse.

"There is now little to no chance of maintaining the rise in global surface temperature at below 2C, despite repeated high-level statements to the contrary," said Kevin Anderson, from the University of Manchester, who with colleague Alice Bows contributed research to a special collection of Royal Society journal papers published tomorrow. "Moreover, the impacts associated with 2C have been revised upwards so that 2C now represents the threshold [of] extremely dangerous climate change."

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

*4 C, within a lifetime!  That means you need to go out and irrationally oppose a lot more than Hansen's 1988 predictions, Fatass and DDDeadhead-squad.  Consider this my donation, to sufferers of CRS, DKS, and HUB, which frequent USMB.[/I]*


----------



## westwall (Jun 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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








Of course I didn't.  Good scientists don't waste time re-inventing the wheel.  I found a good site that had a whole passel of papers that addressed the issue.   Makes sense...no?


----------



## westwall (Jun 9, 2012)

code1211 said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...







Nope.  The one time they tried (Australia's ABC) it was found the female reporter altered her position by over a dozen meters to get out into deeper water to "show how much the ater had risen from their previous report".  It was a pretty major scandal in Oz.


----------



## westwall (Jun 9, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Given that the lowest temperature rise predicted in Hansen's 1988 testimony relied on a decrease in the concentration of CO2 and that the actual performance of the climate has underperformed that prediction, you are simply wrong.
> ...










  Moron believes this crapola!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 9, 2012)

westwall said:


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



Hint:
When you print unoriginal work you are supposed to include CITATIONS so that others can, if they wish, go to the original and verify it and/or or see it in its original context. It also helps to keep you from looking like you're taking credit for someone else's work.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 9, 2012)

code1211 said:


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




Speak in complete thoughts please.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 9, 2012)

Hey BobGNote::

In that graph you just posted, the patriotic red, white and blue thingy, -- did you notice that the last 8 or 10 data points are pretty indeterminate in slope? Of course you didn't.. It's just a hint you should double down and scream louder....



> _*Let's go over the latest hockey-stick graph.  Notice how CO2 and warming are both on a sharp upswing, indicating related acceleration, in warming.*_









If that's a hockey stick -- Florida is a real penis.. Or does everything look like a hockey stick when you're stoned?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 9, 2012)

westwall said:


> Moron believes this crapola!



 

_*Wallyfucktard, you are moronic, in that you posted how CO2 removes from the atmosphere, following page after page, of this thread and others, describing how CO2 exchanges with water, to become carbonic acid and carbonate.

You are SO stupid, you then decided you'd jerk at me some more, so fuck off, you dumb bitch.  You can't read any of the graphs, and you are probably dying of something, worse than CRS. *_


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 9, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey BobGNote::
> 
> In that graph you just posted, the patriotic red, white and blue thingy, -- did you notice that the last 8 or 10 data points are pretty indeterminate in slope? Of course you didn't.. It's just a hint you should double down and scream louder....
> 
> ...



*If I did get stoned, you'd still look like a gay piece of shit, if I had to look at you.  Note the graph came from .gov, dumber-than-shit.  

Don't you like your graph, anymore?  Where did you load YOUR graph?  Not from .gov?*


----------



## code1211 (Jun 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...





Did you have a thought you wanted me to complete for you?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere.  Feel free to eliminate water vapor.  lol


----------



## westwall (Jun 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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






 The various papers are listed on at least 5 different sites i know of, and guess what, no one posted who compiled the original lists.  Sorry, if there were one I'd surely have posted it.  But as there wasn't I couldn't.


----------



## westwall (Jun 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...






Why bother, you're incapable of understanding them anyway.


----------



## westwall (Jun 9, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Moron believes this crapola!
> ...









  Poor beligerent foul mouthed child.  I hope you don't speak that way in front of your mother!


----------



## westwall (Jun 9, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...







Doubtful, he has a hard time generating them.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 9, 2012)

westwall said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



*How does your mommy talk to you, Wally?  Does she call you a dumbass bitch, for quoting, then waiting 10 lines, before you reply?  Does she call you the stupidest bitch at the Log Cabin Club, for being unable to read a damn graph, since you like to let her catch you jerking it, with your wingpunks under the bed, while you wait 10 lines, to punk up some kind of reply?

Does your mommy bake you brownies, if you go over to the flame zone, so she can call you the 'c'-word?*

 :


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2012)

saveliberty said:


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



Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days. It is a feedback from the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. There was the same amount of water on this planet when the CO2 levels plunged, and the oceans surface was frozen nearly to the equator. There was the same amount of water on the planet when the CO2 levels were very high, and the poles enjoyed a tropical climate.

From the time of Svante Arrhenious until present, nobody has failed to take into account the role of water vapor in the atmosphere. Simply another talking point of the right in order to impress the ignorant and gullable.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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



So in 9 days there'll be no water vapor in the atmosphere? What does your moronic "Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days" mean?  That water vapor is not a factor in Earth climate because Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days?

What was the water vapor content in the Vostok Ice cores


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere.  Feel free to eliminate water vapor.  lol



Anyone who actually believes that CO2 is any sort of a driver in the atmosphere simply doesn't understand the science.  Only a small fraction of CO2's absorption range is not already taken up by the vastly more abundant water vapor and then there is the fact that CO2 has no mechanism by which to cause warming in the first place.  CO2 scatters IR which is a cooling mechanism.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2012)

westwall said:


> Poor beligerent foul mouthed child.  I hope you don't speak that way in front of your mother!



He shoud just come out of the closet. The nature of his abnormally vehement hostility is clearly due to tightly repressed homosexuality.  It just comes leaking out around whatever barrier he has tried to erect to hold it in.  I doubt that he is capable of speaking in any sort of beligerent terms to his mother.  Another reason for the excessive hostility here on this board and wherever he goes out of her sight to vent.  She is probably the reason he is trying so hard to repress his homosexuality.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> There was the same amount of water on the planet when the CO2 levels were very high, and the poles enjoyed a tropical climate.



Considering that you know that the poles enjoyed a tropical climate prior to the decent into the present ice age, exactly why do you find it troubling that the exit out of the present ice age would see us moving back towards the natural and predominant state of the earth's historical climate, ie no ice at all at one or both of the poles?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So in 9 days there'll be no water vapor in the atmosphere? What does your moronic "Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days" mean?  That water vapor is not a factor in Earth climate because Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days?



It sounded as if the water vapor works in shifts and does 10 days on, at which time it clocks out and exits the atmosphere and the next shift comes on cold and uses the next 10 days to warm up at which time it clocks out for the next "cold" shift to clock in.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 10, 2012)

saveliberty said:


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




Really? How much more water vapour is there in the atmosphere now as opposed to 100 years ago?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 10, 2012)

westwall said:


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





You only have to post the website you cut and paste the list from.

But you won't because you don't want anyone to know what website it is and/or you wanted people to think you had compiled the list yourself.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days. It is a feedback from the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. There was the same amount of water on this planet when the CO2 levels plunged, and the oceans surface was frozen nearly to the equator. There was the same amount of water on the planet when the CO2 levels were very high, and the poles enjoyed a tropical climate.
> 
> From the time of Svante Arrhenious until present, nobody has failed to take into account the role of water vapor in the atmosphere. Simply another talking point of the right in order to impress the ignorant and gullable.



_Arrhenious didn't anticipate huffing, by wingpunks, in the global exchanges.

Years later, Hansen also omitted this significant source of GHGs and poisons.

As I write this, stupid bitch Zakaria is editorializing, for fracking.  "Let's figure out how to make fracking cleaner and safer.  The process is manageable . . ."  Sure it is, fuckup.  That's why toluene and benzene are used, to permanently pollute fracking wells, while tapwater can be ignited!  Let's manage that shit, with tiny, little heads, doing the thinking.

Look at the little, bug-eyed head, on Fareed Zakaria:_


----------



## code1211 (Jun 10, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


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





I've asked him what the point is of this line of thought when the amount of water vapor is content regardless of the life of each little molecule.

No satisfactory response yet.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 10, 2012)

wirebender said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So in 9 days there'll be no water vapor in the atmosphere? What does your moronic "Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days" mean?  That water vapor is not a factor in Earth climate because Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days?
> ...





Also that the CO2 is a member of a union that doesn't allow it to work very hard.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 10, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



Well if all the glaciers are melting, quite a bit dumbass.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 10, 2012)

_CodePunk noticed glaciers are melting!  I can't find evident humidity trends.  Somebody with good DSL go get that, for us, since Code Punk won't hit search, and my reception is bad, on Sunday._

Boundary layer humidity reconstruction for a semiarid location from tree ring ce

July-September boundary layer humidity has been reconstructed from the &#948;18O of cellulose in tree rings of Pinus arizonica growing at an elevation of 2300 m in the Santa Catalina Mountains north of Tucson, Arizona. The annual occurrence of morphological features in the tree rings, often called false rings, allowed accurate subdivision of the tree rings into premonsoon and monsoon growth. Highly significant correlations were found among the stable oxygen isotope time series of the wood produced during the North American Monsoon and 1953-2000 July-September average specific humidity (P < 0.0001) and relative humidity (P < 0.0001) derived from radiosonde data. The correlation coefficients were significant against data from both the Tucson surface (788 m; approximately 922 hPa) and 850 hPa pressure levels, suggesting that the &#948;18O time series can be interpreted as a proxy for mean seasonal boundary layer humidity. Twentieth century July-September reconstructions of specific humidity and relative humidity are presented. There are no long-term trends in the twentieth century reconstructions of boundary layer humidity at this site. 

_We should be able, to get some kind of humidity graph.  When my pages load, I'll go find it._


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 10, 2012)

saveliberty said:


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




* How much *more water vapour is there in the atmosphere now as opposed to 100 years ago? Can you use numbers or is that too difficult for your genius?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 10, 2012)

2010 was the wettest year on record globally according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with Australia experiencing it's wettest September on record, and the wettest year for Queensland with annual rainfall double the average.

2010 wettest year on record globally, and the wettest for Queensland | Climate Citizen

Rain falls from the atmosphere right?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 10, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Perhaps you are just unaccustomed to using language in a precise and contextually significant manner. As you can clearly see from the references I listed, the atmospheric half-life (residence) time of CO2 (in the context of the anthropogenic percentage increases we were/are discussing)  is measured in centuries. If you are still having a difficult time understanding what this means please ask rather than embarassing yourself with further examples of your own incompetencies.



> As you can see from the multiple peer reviewed studies, you are clearly wrong and unsuprisingly, you aren't mature enough to even admit that you were wrong.  Instead, you simply add another dishonest statement on top of your eroneous claim.



The references others listed, for the most part, are talking about an entirely different subject. They are discussing the modelled averaged residency of a single molecule of CO2 from the time it is emitted until the time it leaves the atmosphere. I am talking about the half-life (length of time a volume/mass represented by a given ratio of CO2 takes to be drawn down by natural processes to one half of its current ratio - residence) of atmospheric CO2 levels. 

The primary difference is that the same molecule enters and leaves the atmosphere constantly until it is sequestered out of the active carbon cycle of our environment (if we focus on just the carbon, this is an enhancement of process understanding). Due primarily to the length of oceanic overturn circulation it can take tens of thousands of years for oceans and the atmosphere to fully equilibrate with regards to CO2 concentrations. The only longterm sequestration systems that move significant volumes of CO2 (carbon) out of the atmosphere and into long-term reservoirs are in the processes of the formation of stable carbonate minerals or sedimentation processes that physically isolate large volumes of carbonaceous compounds created from CO2. 

While the average modelled residence time of a single CO2 molecule emitted into the atmosphere may only be a calculated average period of years before it is absorbed into some other solution, once carbon from a sequestered reservoir source is introduced to the active carbon cycle of our planet it will, conservatively, take centuries(/millenia - largely dependent upon overall volume of Carbon) before natural processes re-sequester half of that carbon back into long-term reservoirs.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2012)

Trakar said:


> . I am talking about the half-life (length of time a volume/mass represented by a given ratio of CO2 takes to be drawn down by natural processes to one half of its current ratio - residence) of atmospheric CO2 levels.



I know what you are talking about and you are still wrong.  You are spewing IPCC propaganda not based on anything like observable fact.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



Here is an article on the process of GHGs creating water vapor feedback. Of course, it is from those dummies at NASA. You know, giggle, snigger, chuckle, SCIENTISTS. 

NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change11.17.08  The distribution of atmospheric water vapor, a significant greenhouse gas, varies across the globe. During the summer and fall of 2005, this visualization shows that most vapor collects at tropical latitudes, particularly over south Asia, where monsoon thunderstorms swept the gas some 2 miles above the land.

Water vapor is known to be Earths most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASAs Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result, Dessler said. So the real question is, how much warming?" 

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. 

 Based on climate variations between 2003 and 2008, the energy trapped by water vapor is shown from southern to northern latitudes, peaking near the equator.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



Increase In Atmospheric Moisture Tied To Human Activities

The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that it's due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases."

More water vapor - which is itself a greenhouse gas - amplifies the warming effect of increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback."

*You might ask the people in the Florida Panhandle what their opinion on this is right now*


----------



## Trakar (Jun 10, 2012)

code1211 said:


> You are comparing the readings of instruments of today with the readings of proxies of the past.
> 
> It's not much different from comparing the readings of a tuning fork to the readings of a fishing line.



This is your apparently unqualified, unevidenced and generally completely uncompelling assertion. Not fact, not science, not much other than unsupported and unfounded rhetoric. 



> All of that said, according to the proxies, the global climate has cooled by about 6 degrees over the last 5 million years.
> 
> File:Five Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art



I don't agree with your reading of the chart particulars (looks to me like the last 10,000 years or so are demonstrating unprecedented and unequalled warming after nearly 3.5 million years of cooling and then cool conditions) but I generally agree with the statement and don't find it surprising given that we have been in the midst of a planetary ice-age (any period of time in which substantive masses of water remain frozen on the surface throughout the year). The current ice-age began 2-3 million years ago, about the same time our remote ancestoral species were evolving into our man-like (hominid) predecessors. Our own civilization arose in the transition from glaciation to interglacial episodes. 

Human factors removed, our planet would be cooling slowly back to cool. We would see glaciers slowly advancing, ice caps and snowlines would be gradually increasing in mass and in their advances down the mountain slopes. Sea levels would be getting lower both as the colder waters become more dense and as more snow gets added to the icecaps. Storms generally become less energetic and average temps get lower as summer average highs become more moderate. 

It really speaks a lot to timing/providence, If our civilization had of arisen 10,000 years either way, and our impacts would probably be so masked by glaciation background climate inertia that we wouldn't have noticed or realized what was happening until it was far too late to have done anything about our actions. Causation would have definitely been more apparent and dramatic, but like I said, system inertias would have kept us from noticing as quickly. May be something worth adding to the list of considerations regarding Fermi's paradox.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2012)

Here is a very good lecture from the 2009 American Geophysical Union Convention by Richard Alley, one of the world's leading glaciologists.

A23A


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 10, 2012)

A "glaciologist"????

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.............

What will it be next?


Hey Westwall...........soon, we'll be haring about Polarbearologists!!!!


This is a whole science to itself..........making up new "science guys".


----------



## Trakar (Jun 10, 2012)

wirebender said:


> We have been through this all before rwatt and you lost so badly that you ran away and reappeared under your present moniker and are still spouting the same crapola that you did under your old name.



This is the only name I have ever used on these boards, it is the same name I've used online for most of the last 25 years (I'm sure there are still usenet posts from the late '80s that ought to be searchable), and it is, in fact, one of my real life, actual names. I don't know who rwatt is, or was, but I can easly understand why anyone would quickly get tired of wasting their time trying to discuss and explain to you why your confused distortions of reality didn't match up with the facts and mainstream understandings of the real world.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 10, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > You are comparing the readings of instruments of today with the readings of proxies of the past.
> ...





Are you seriously saying that the instrument measurements and the proxies have the same sensitivity to quick changes in temperature?  The proxies as listed vary wildly from each other and only in concert do they reveal anything at all.  If you are reading the two through the same lens, I don't know how you can expect to determine anything.

The cycle of ice ages seems to have started at the time that the Isthmus of Panama closed due to continental drift and interrupting the flow of ocean currents.

After that, the Milankovitch Cycles dictated the advance and decline of the great ice sheets.

We are currently about 6000 before the next glaciation.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 10, 2012)

Trakar said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > We have been through this all before rwatt and you lost so badly that you ran away and reappeared under your present moniker and are still spouting the same crapola that you did under your old name.
> ...





Just a note in passing...

I find it amazing to be discussing this or anything in this forum with access to the accumulated knowledge of mankind at our fingertips.

You were accessing this medium in the 80's?  Like most of the world, i was not aware that this existed in any form at that time.  I assume it was much less user friendly at that time.

The possibilities are mind boggling.

Back to our regularly scheduled debate.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 10, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere.  Feel free to eliminate water vapor.  lol



Under current conditions, water is a feedback, not a forcing agent nor driver of climate. It is not surprising to hear you assert such, however, given the level of scientific understanding apparent in your posts.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 10, 2012)

Trakar said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere.  Feel free to eliminate water vapor.  lol
> ...






Without the Sun, there is no warming at all.

It seems reasonable to think that the Sun is the Primary Driver of Climate and all other forcing agents except Cosmic Rays as conjectured by CERN are feedbacks.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 10, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


 
I don't see where, in the above, that I said anything even approaching that. What I did say, is that the black and white dichotomous analogy you attempted to use to portray the differences between the accuracy and validity of the different assessment systems is not accurate nor supported by any evidences that I have seen or been offered.



code1211 said:


> The proxies as listed vary wildly from each other and only in concert do they reveal anything at all.  If you are reading the two through the same lens, I don't know how you can expect to determine anything.



That's generally due to the fact that all proxies approximate conditions through the interactions of a variety of factors rather than solely through the reactions to a single variable. That is precisely why multiple proxy studies are always preferrable to any single proxy study, the more varied the type of proxy the better. In combining the different systems the overlap commonality provides the signal as the outlier impacts of other factors are averaged out of the signal. 

No, especially in shorter time-span intervals, most proxies are of more limited use. Given the multivariable nature of most proxies, any proxy study is going to be limited by the quality and limitations of the proxies used. I don't know anyone that wouldn't prefer to have calibrated and verified instrument data to work with but it isn't always available.



code1211 said:


> The cycle of ice ages seems to have started at the time that the Isthmus of Panama closed due to continental drift and interrupting the flow of ocean currents.



(we have to be careful about distinguishing between glaciations and ice ages, there is a tendency, even within the field to refer to glaciations - periods during an ice age when polar icecaps expand and spread toward the equator - as ice ages. Technically, ice ages exist whenever the planet possesses substantive expanses of year round surface ice.)

There are a number of things that happened at about this time. As Antarctica settled firmly onto the south pole the first glaciations which started to from icecaps in the mid-Antarctic mountain range 15 million years ago finally spread across the continent sealing its fate and dramatically impacting the planet's ocean circulations which were further disrupted by the Panamanian Isthmus formation, but I think the biggest cause goes back almost 50 million years ago when India's collision into the belly of asia began building the himalyan mountains (actually a lot of hountain building around the world occurred roughly coincident to the himalyan uplift). Mountain building always soaks up a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere. Then about 3-4Mya the himalayan mountains got high enough that they dramatically altered atmospheric circulation patterns, bringing the monsoons to southern asia and deflecting warm moist air currents northward. These and a strong confluence of Milankovitch cycles probably worked in concert to start this ice age. For the most part the Milankovitch cycles are the primary factor involved in the glaciations and integlacials of the last few million years.   



code1211 said:


> We are currently about 6000 before the next glaciation.



"were" 

We've already overshot any subsequent glaciations for 30-50ky and maybe for at least the next couple of hundred thousand years (it'd take that long just to drop atmospheric CO2 concentrations down low enough where glaciations could occur). There is a very good chance we may have ended the current ice age entirely, we'll have to wait and see precisely where the new equilibrium point is.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 10, 2012)

code1211 said:


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



The Sun, or rather the amount and character of solar radiance that intersects our planet, is the primary Driver of Climate, how our surface compostions and systems interact with the climate drivers are the various forcing factors that together, in concert, determine whether that energy exits the system with little delay leaving less energy in our planet's environment or lingers in our system adding more energy into our planet's surface environment.


----------



## FactFinder (Jun 10, 2012)

*Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper *

Who is Hanson and why should I give a crap what he says?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 10, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> A "glaciologist"????
> 
> HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.............
> 
> ...



OMG!
That's fucking ridiculous, someone who studies glaciers?  Oh Ma GOWD! Why would anyone study those? Fucking STUPID. Hello, can we get some REAL science here?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 10, 2012)

FactFinder said:


> *Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper *
> 
> Who is Hanson and why should I give a crap what he says?



He's one climate scientist among hundreds to thousands, but he's turned up in the media a lot in recent years and since the skeptics only like to talk about stuff they can see on TV or on pseudo-science blogs, he's one of their main whipping boys, probably 2nd only to Al Gore (who isn't even a climate scientist)


----------



## wirebender (Jun 11, 2012)

Trakar said:


> This is the only name I have ever used on these boards, it is the same name I've used online for most of the last 25 years (I'm sure there are still usenet posts from the late '80s that ought to be searchable), and it is, in fact, one of my real life, actual names.



RIght.  Interesting that you both have the same gramatical and spelling quirks and none is present in one that isn't present in the other.  



Trakar said:


> I don't know who rwatt is, or was, but I can easly understand why anyone would quickly get tired of wasting their time trying to discuss and explain to you why your confused distortions of reality didn't match up with the facts and mainstream understandings of the real world.



Right again.  Speaking of the real world, how about you explain the mechanism by which you believe CO2 can cause warming without violating a law of physics.  

I notice that you qualified your statement with "mainstream".  Interesting since the mainstream state of knowledge is, and always has been quite a few steps away from reality.  Climate science, in particular routinely violates laws of physics as a matter of convenience and is presently in the throes of an error cascade that will ultimately require that the pseudoscience be torn down to its foundations for a restart wherein the foundational errors that the core of scientists in the branch passed off as truth can be eradicated and start to rebuild the science based on the actual scientific method.  Till then, climate pseudoscience is no more than side show hucksterism.

Looking forward to that explanation of CO2's mechanism by which it causes heating that doesn't violate any laws of physics.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 11, 2012)

code1211 said:


> You were accessing this medium in the 80's?  Like most of the world, i was not aware that this existed in any form at that time.  I assume it was much less user friendly at that time.
> 
> The possibilities are mind boggling.



If memory serves me, the 80's were the period of text only bulletin boards.  It was all very rudimentary.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 11, 2012)

Trakar said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere.  Feel free to eliminate water vapor.  lol
> ...



Your the one duped by some con artists.  Oh, I forgot, you're one of the con artists.


----------



## westwall (Jun 11, 2012)

Trakar said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > We have been through this all before rwatt and you lost so badly that you ran away and reappeared under your present moniker and are still spouting the same crapola that you did under your old name.
> ...







That's not exactly true trakar.  You posted under a different name on he JREF forum until fairly recently.


----------



## westwall (Jun 11, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...







The universities had access to the internet in the late '70's.  It was NOTHING like it is today.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 11, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





I grew up in Northern Minnesota and have moved south since my first transfer.   I am no lover of winter, ice, glaciation or cold in any form.

That said, the start of every period of falling temperatures and increasing glaciation over the last half million or so years has always occurred when the CO2 was at the absolute maximum in the interglacial that preceded it.

CO2 always increased as the effect of the cause of rising temperature and always decreased as the effect of the cause of decreasing temperature.  While the CO2 forcing may stop the onset of another period of glaciation, It has never been equal to this task in recent geologic history.

All forcings aside, though,I'm rooting for the Beach Boys' Endless Summer.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 11, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





Another and apparently very significant factor is how much of the TSI is reflected away before it gets to the surface.  Clouds.  Thay ain't just for rain anymore...

The charlatans at CERN postulated that cosmic rays might affect cloud formation and demonstrated that this effect might have as heavy an influence on our climate as CO2.

Whatever the actual causes and effects, the system seems to be too complex for our current understanding of the science to predict.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 11, 2012)

FactFinder said:


> *Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper *
> 
> Who is Hanson and why should I give a crap what he says?





Dr. Hansen is a scientist who is paid by NASA to to one thing and then does something else.  He has no credentials that identify him as a climatologist and is absolutely worshipped by the AGW Crowd.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 11, 2012)

wirebender said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > You were accessing this medium in the 80's?  Like most of the world, i was not aware that this existed in any form at that time.  I assume it was much less user friendly at that time.
> ...





If the bulletin boards did not require the use of actual tacks, pressing them through paper with one's thumb, it would have been like Star Trek to me and about 90% of the population.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 11, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > The Sun, or rather the amount and character of solar radiance that intersects our planet, is the primary Driver of Climate, how our surface compostions and systems interact with the climate drivers are the various forcing factors that together, in concert, determine whether that energy exits the system with little delay leaving less energy in our planet's environment or lingers in our system adding more energy into our planet's surface environment.
> ...



Well, technically the "surface" starts at the top of the atmosphere; atmospheric composition results in the first interaction for impinging solar radiances.  



> Clouds.  Thay ain't just for rain anymore...



Indeed,  they never have been considered so. Clouds on the daylit face of the Earth tend to reflect significant amounts of Sunlight back up through the atmosphere, whereas clouds on the night face of the planet tend to absorb and disperse even more of the emitted solid and liquid surface radiations. One adds a cooling effect, the other adds a warming effect. 



> The charlatans at CERN postulated that cosmic rays might affect cloud formation and demonstrated that this effect might have as heavy an influence on our climate as CO2.



Actually, though this is an oft considered proposition, many researchers around the globe have looked very hard for direct and indirect connections, so far without any compelling evidence of at connection. The basic concept is not unreasonable, but in real world application, it just doesn't seem to work that way. Heavy levels of cosmic rays do seem to produce a lot of charged particle species in the atmosphere, unfortunately, these small clumps of charged particles dissipate before they can interact with the other atmospheric constituents and grow to a size where they can actually form viable cloud condensation nuclei. LIndzen's Iris theory is intriguing, it is simply without compelling evidentiary support.



> Whatever the actual causes and effects, the system seems to be too complex for our current understanding of the science to predict.



To predict weather, yeah, I'd tend to agree. I doubt that we'll ever get weather analysis to the point where you aren't talking about percentages of likelihood. Climate however, is a bit different. Just as we can't accurate predict precisely where an atom of Nitrogen in a balloon is going to be ten minutes from the time we identify it (weather), but we can tell you some basic characteristics about how all of the nitrogen in the balloon is going to generally react when we heat or cool the gas, compress or expand the balloon, or add other gases into the balloon (climate).


----------



## Trakar (Jun 11, 2012)

code1211 said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > *Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper *
> ...



Hansen's expertise is in planetary atmospheric physics. While he was initially, and primarily dedicated to studying and understanding the atmospheres of other planet's, there is much greater access to the Earth's atmosphere. Hansen's doctoral thesis was regarding the atmosphere of Venus.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 11, 2012)

code1211 said:


> That said, the start of every period of falling temperatures and increasing glaciation over the last half million or so years has always occurred when the CO2 was at the absolute maximum in the interglacial that preceded it.
> 
> CO2 always increased as the effect of the cause of rising temperature and always decreased as the effect of the cause of decreasing temperature.  While the CO2 forcing may stop the onset of another period of glaciation, It has never been equal to this task in recent geologic history.
> 
> All forcings aside, though,I'm rooting for the Beach Boys' Endless Summer.



"Always" isn't correct, though when natural conditions are the primary forces at play, this is what one should usually expect. We've rarely had situations where formerly sequestered Carbon was added into the active carbon cycle at the current rates and volumes. And to be truthful, if all we were talking about was a couple of degrees warmer in every season, I wouldn't see much wrong with it myself.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 11, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > This is the only name I have ever used on these boards, it is the same name I've used online for most of the last 25 years (I'm sure there are still usenet posts from the late '80s that ought to be searchable), and it is, in fact, one of my real life, actual names. I don't know who rwatt is, or was, but I can easly understand why anyone would quickly get tired of wasting their time trying to discuss and explain to you why your confused distortions of reality didn't match up with the facts and mainstream understandings of the real world.
> ...



Actually, it is exactly true. I never said that I didn't ever use other names in other forums, merely that this is a name I have used online for most of the last 25 years, and it is the only name I have ever used on these boards. if we go back to darpanet I'd have to add a couple more to the list. LIkewise with AOL, Juno and Prodigy. As to my JREF screen-name, the full story is online at JREF Forum , if anyone is interested.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 11, 2012)

code1211 said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > *Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper *
> ...



That's funny I hadn't even heard of him until you guys brought him up.
*
Weird how the right wing talks about all the people the left supposedly worships about 100 times more than the left talks about them.
* I honestly wouldn't have known or even cared about the opinions of Hollywood celebrities or who the hottest names in climate science are until the right brought those things to my attention.Before then Hollywood celebrities were just people in movies and only a select few nerds knew and cared who Hansen is.


----------



## IanC (Jun 12, 2012)

does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it? it would be pathetic, like the last days of Pauling and vitaminC, if it wasnt such an important subject that involves such huge sums of money.


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2012)

bobgnote said:


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







Stay on point silly person.  Traker stated an untruth and i was reminding him of that.  Now, continue on with your crapola.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 12, 2012)

IanC said:


> does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it?



Link?


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2012)

Trakar said:


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







My understanding of English say's that "boards" refers to all boards (as you wrote it) and there is no way anyone reading this passage would, or even could, believe otherwise.

"This is the only name I have ever used on these boards, it is the same name I've used online for most of the last 25 years (I'm sure there are still usenet posts from the late '80s that ought to be searchable), and it is, in fact, one of my real life, actual names."

I personally could care less, but we must make sure that accurate information is the norm here, not the exception.


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > FactFinder said:
> ...








You really expect us to believe that a astro physicist, with a PhD, you know...you... had _never_ heard of Hansen till now?    Either you are the most uninformed, unconcious scientist I have ever heard of or you are not exactly telling the truth.

Nerds?  Really?


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2012)

IanC said:


> does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it? it would be pathetic, like the last days of Pauling and vitaminC, if it wasnt such an important subject that involves such huge sums of money.







Yes, I do.


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it?
> ...


----------



## IanC (Jun 12, 2012)

OPPD-  just a month or two ago I started a thread about Hansen's GISS. that was for just the last 12 months or so. go read it and come back with a thoughtful comment on it and I will discuss other examples of Hansen twisting data to suit his storyline


----------



## wirebender (Jun 12, 2012)

IanC said:


> does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it? it would be pathetic, like the last days of Pauling and vitaminC, if it wasnt such an important subject that involves such huge sums of money.



Hansen's history suggests that he has always been first and foremost an activist.  To my way of thinking, that in and of itself is contradictory with being a good scientist.  He was abusing science to promote and further is activist goals long before there was big money in corrupting science for political purposes.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 12, 2012)

westwall said:


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



Link?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 12, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it? it would be pathetic, like the last days of Pauling and vitaminC, if it wasnt such an important subject that involves such huge sums of money.
> ...



Link?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 12, 2012)

IanC said:


> OPPD-  just a month or two ago I started a thread about Hansen's GISS. that was for just the last 12 months or so. go read it and come back with a thoughtful comment on it and I will discuss other examples of Hansen twisting data to suit his storyline



Link?


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2012)

You claim to have a PhD, Google it.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 12, 2012)

westwall said:


> You claim to have a PhD, Google it.




And as a scientist I suddenly become disinterested when someone who makes a claim tells me to "google it" when I ask for evidence.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > OPPD-  just a month or two ago I started a thread about Hansen's GISS. that was for just the last 12 months or so. go read it and come back with a thoughtful comment on it and I will discuss other examples of Hansen twisting data to suit his storyline
> ...



He just gave you an example.. If you're a scientist, you're a lazy one and -- I'm Neptune, god of the seas.. Go read the other thread about the fraud and data fakometry and get back to us..


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 12, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


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



No link. That's like me saying "There's this thread I started that disproves everything you're saying. Go find it!"


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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




Wonder how scientists handled this kind of bullshit before the internet.. Did they have to go to the library and check out the book for you??


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 12, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


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



Listen there's this book in the library that proves everything you've ever said is wrong. Go find it. If you refuse, you're just lazy.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



Wouldn't help if I gave you an author and a title, (Author IanC, Title -- something to do with Hansen boogering the GISS data.) -- you COULDN'T FIND THE FREAKIN' LIBRARY.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4670825-post1.html

You just go to Ian's profile, pin a note on your shirt about the subject matter and use your brain to sort through about 6 postings by Ian to find it lard arse... 

Not to be a skeptic or anything, but those data presentations IAN was questioning?? They are all gone from the web now.. Could it be a CONSPIRACY? Nawwwww...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



And you're the same genius who argued with me for a month about how the Social Security Trust Fund had $Trills in it of real equity and that current taxpayers wouldn't have to pay a DIME for the next 2 decades... Because you had "links". 

 You're all "card file" and no text...


----------



## wirebender (Jun 12, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> And you're the same genius who argued with me for a month about how the Social Security Trust Fund had $Trills in it of real equity and that current taxpayers wouldn't have to pay a DIME for the next 2 decades... Because you had "links".
> 
> You're all "card file" and no text...



He what!!!  There is actually someone out there who believes that there is a single thin dime in the social security trust fund?  Quick, sell him some mountain property in south florida, or some beach property in tennessee, or some prime farming property deep in the dismal swamp or the everglades.  Hell give him a hell of a deal on the statue of liberty, the brooklyn bridge, the grand canyon, and mount rushmore while you are at it.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 12, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...






I would say the reverse is true.  The 5 day forecast is remarkably accurate while the 30 forecast is a joke.

Just saying.

Regarding CERN, the scientists are VERY guarded in their endorsement of the connection between Climate change and Cosmic Rays and that is as it should be.

Real scientists don't make a definite statement until they have definite proof.

AGW Scientists should take a lesson.

Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays : Nature News


----------



## code1211 (Jun 12, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > That said, the start of every period of falling temperatures and increasing glaciation over the last half million or so years has always occurred when the CO2 was at the absolute maximum in the interglacial that preceded it.
> ...




When has always not worked over the last half million years or so?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2012)

wirebender said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And you're the same genius who argued with me for a month about how the Social Security Trust Fund had $Trills in it of real equity and that current taxpayers wouldn't have to pay a DIME for the next 2 decades... Because you had "links".
> ...



Evidently -- some of the same folks who had those "Question Authority" bumper stickers up in their dorm rooms turned out to be the gullible morons who fall for things like the AGW hype and the SS Trust Fund Myth. I'm not off topic --- these symptoms ARE RELATED in the general poplulace..


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 13, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



*Take a look at how the red-line of CO2 concentration jumps, at the right side of the graph.  You can get over to the right, can't you?

Temperature will be forced up, to follow the radical jump in CO2 and CH4, yet to manifest:*







*Up goes temperature, up goes sea level, down go O2-respirators, and then jellyfish, algae, and bacteria rule the seas.  H2S respirators re-evolve, to live in seas 36 C or hotter.

Humans will devolve.*


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...








You still havn't addressed the Vostock ice core data that shows very clearly that the warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later the CO2 levels rise.  Interestingly enough the MWP was 800 years ago so the CO2 increase we are witnessing now can just as easily be attributed to that time lag.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 13, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I have to say that you are one of the most pleasant warmists on the board to communicate with.  At least you keep your bilge water down to a single syllable.  On behalf of everyone who has grown quite tired of the endless flood of pseudoscience that the warmists post here, THANK YOU.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> You still havn't addressed the Vostock ice core data that shows very clearly that the warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later the CO2 levels rise.  Interestingly enough the MWP was 800 years ago so the CO2 increase we are witnessing now can just as easily be attributed to that time lag.



One also must wonder which altered temperature data set his "blue line" represents.


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2012)

wirebender said:


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







Oh don't let poopie fool you.  Under his former guise of spiderman tooba he was quite obnoxious.  In fact, I hear rumors that babaganoosh is poopies newest sock...but don't tell anyone.


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2012)

wirebender said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You still havn't addressed the Vostock ice core data that shows very clearly that the warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later the CO2 levels rise.  Interestingly enough the MWP was 800 years ago so the CO2 increase we are witnessing now can just as easily be attributed to that time lag.
> ...







Impossible to know.  hansen has so corrupted the data set it will be very difficult to determine which is the accurate one.  He should be in prison for that fact alone.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 13, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



The last half million years is current geologic history, the mere blink of a geologically referenced eye. Given the age of Geo, a half a million years is about one ten thousandth of geological existence. That barely takes us back over the last few interglacials. In recent geological history would probably stretch back at least fifty million years (roughly one percent of Geo's existence). Which puts us within approximation to the PETM.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 13, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


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



Oh right, because its my job to do his research for him. In fact, last time I published a paper, instead of using references, I just wrote things like "that paper by those guys in California about the white dwarfs"

 Tell you what, go to the internet do a search and you'll find out you're a moron.



> IanC:
> to make a long story short,



Wow. So that's what counts as thorough analysis of the evidence in the denier community?

I've got proof you're a total idiot. Absolute proof! I really don't want to bore you with the details, so, to make a long story short - you're an idiot.



> Not to be a skeptic or anything, but those data presentations IAN was questioning?? They are all gone from the web now.. Could it be a CONSPIRACY? Nawwwww...


They're still there you imbecile, you just don't know how to use a fucking computer.
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/128_1.gif
 Now shut the fuck up and go back to your cave.


----------



## IanC (Jun 14, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



have you found a way to link up a GISS graph so that it stays up for more than a day or two? Hansen has even gone so far as to stop programs from searching for old data.

I never made any pretense of thorough analysis, I pointed out that GISS is making wholesale changes to the data records with no notice and no explanations. I believe that I made my point in that thread. if you disagree then feel free to make a comment on that thread.

as so often happens in climate science, all the so-called 'independant' sources use the same data but just process it differently. when it comes to deciding what global temperature is there have been many, many changes. in the '90s there was a sudden large drop in the amount of stations being used. then came arctic temps being added in, even though there are few stations and the one there are are in airports, with massive infilling of empty grids by stations up to thousands of kilometres away. places like africa are weighted by land mass but the records there are absolutely atrocious. ocean records prior to ARGO were sparse and limited to certain areas. and yet we are led to believe that the uncertainty is small because they give their results in _thousandths of a degree!_

a place like the continental US has excellent records going back over a hundred years yet it makes little impact  because it is only <2% of the land mass. other places with poor records account for much more even though the uncertainty is huge!

when you factor in the massive fraud that has been uncovered in well documented western style countries like New Zealand or Iceland it is hard not to come to the conclusion that a total audit needs to be done with proper accountants, statisticians and quality control. this is too important to leave to sleepy scientists like Phil Jones or CAGW zealots like James Hansen.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 14, 2012)

IanC said:


> I never made any pretense of thorough analysis, I pointed out that GISS is making wholesale changes to the data records with no notice and no explanations. I believe that I made my point in that thread. if you disagree then feel free to make a comment on that thread.



Right, by "pointed out" you mean "stated as fact with no evidence, in order to make a long story short", then I agree.

*
Let's analyze your post* which you seem to claim has some sort of value:



> times have been rough over at the CAGW compound. mother nature just hasnt been co-operating like she did back in the good ol' days.


Emotion based matters of opinion


> the public has been hearing more and more conflicting results and disturbing reports of scientific impropriety in climate research.


It is an obvious fallacious argument to suggest something is true because people are told its true. Also emotion based, nothing of factual relevance here.



> what can CAGW luminary James Hansen do to bolster the rather limp data coming in?


The description of the data as "limp" is stated as fact while presenting no justification  in evidence.


> Muller's BEST project derived even higher temps than the other groups producing global temp data sets, and BEST was seen to be leaning towards the skeptical side. how did they do it? to make a long story short, the BEST algorithms chop up data histories and discard suspicious inputs. because there is a positive trend cooler data are much more likely to get discarded than warmer ones and the average goes up. just what Hansen needs!


You've shown no evidence that the method results in amplifying the positive trend, you've merely stated it as fact. That is your 'making a long story short' - just saying it is so.




> Greenland data are sparse, noisy and often incomplete. perfect to try out this new idea. but I guess it was too much work so he just took out the (suspicious) data from the early 80's and then subtracted 1C from all the pre-1980 numbers. voila! the Nuuk temperature chart looks much better now.


 Again - statement as fact with no justification.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



_*You are still a right-wing, punkass moron, who can't start typing, until you wait ten lines, to find the keys, instead of 'Enter.'  You are still a punkass, who types shit, about Vostok, without reference.  None of the proxies deviate much, asshole.  The only lag by CO2 is during the usual forcing cycle, when temperatures are already rocketing up or sliding down, AFTER being forced, by a usual CO2 280 ppm peak maximum and turnaround or 180 ppm trough minimum turnaround.

You piece of shit, the planet was trying to cool off, after the MWP.  You are too queer, to read a graph, even one that is at whatsupwiththat, so you don't get it.  Humans kept up the pressure, deforesting, then burning fossil fuels, and now, we will get a hot planet.  No other outcome is possible, no matter how simultaneously stupid and queer you are.

You visit queer porn sites, so you don't link.  Humans already devolved, since look how you turned out.  What I should have wrote, human population will decline, maybe out of control.*_


----------



## wirebender (Jun 14, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> You are still a punkass, who types shit, about Vostok, without reference.



I guess you have never actually looked at the vostok ice core data.  Not that it would matter much since you can't read even the simplest of graphs, but here is the entire span and as you can (or maybe you can't as you would actually need to be able to read a graph) temperature preceeds a rise in atmospheric CO2. 






Note that temperature preceeds CO2 at 440,000, 320,000, 275,000, 250,000, 225,000, 210,000, 140,000, 115,000, 85,000, 65,000, 48,000, and 23,000 years.  The only place where one might construe that CO2 leads warming is at about 320,000 years.  Clearly you are the victim of one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 14, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > You are still a punkass, who types shit, about Vostok, without reference.
> ...



*It's Wienerbitch, with a real graph!  The CO2 leads the temperatures, at every peak and trough, queen with a wiener.  The graph doesn't go to 440K, the CO2 always tends to start a major slope trend, before the temperature, and this is also true, for the composite graph, with the red line going way up, on the right side:*






_*On the right side of the composite proxy and instrument graph, CO2 goes way UP, and as usual, the temperature will follow, and way up it is going.  What is your definition, of "leads," you right-wing, punkass hermaphrodite?  CO2 FORCES.

The only place temperature could possibly "lead" CO2 is at gross peaks, where volcanic eruptions can decrease temperature, while initiating global cooling.  Otherwise CO2 and CH4 and other GHGs symbiotically affect warming, by their presence, or cooling, by their remission.*_


----------



## wirebender (Jun 14, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *It's Wienerbitch, with a real graph!  The CO2 leads the temperatures, at every peak and trough, queen with a wiener.  The graph doesn't go to 440K, the CO2 always tends to start a major slope trend, before the temperature, and this is also true, for the composite graph, with the red line going way up, on the right side:*




Wow, you really can't read a graph can you?  And of course the graph goes back further than 400k years.  Geez guy, you really should try and learn something.  How stupid to you have to be to not be able to see the blue lines going up before the yellow lines?  


Anyone, and I mean anyone with any sort of education should be able to read that graph and see that temperature preceeds increased CO2 levels.  How far did you get in school to be unable to read such a simple graph?  3rd grade?  4th?  Or did you go all the way through but ride the short bus to get there?

Here bob, have a look at a few published peer reviewed studies that state explicitly that CO2 lags temperature in the vostok ice core samples:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399429a0.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1712.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112.abstract

http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ...nd_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_420_ka.pdf

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 14, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Note that temperature preceeds CO2 at 440,000, 320,000, 275,000, 250,000, 225,000, 210,000, 140,000, 115,000, 85,000, 65,000, 48,000, and 23,000 years.  The only place where one might construe that CO2 leads warming is at about 320,000 years.  Clearly you are the victim of one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated.








440K:  *The graph starts, at 415K-420K, queer.  CO2 forces down, ~ 410K.*
320K:  _*You ignored the major trough at 355K, mo.  CO2 forces up, there.  At 320K, CO2 drops like a rock in a well, while temps are wavering, hermie.*_
275K:  *This is a mid-decline, mini-upswing, clearly initiated, by CO2 rise.*
250K:  *The temps are trying to rise, at 260K, bitch.  CO2 keeps them down.  Here is where you could say CO2 lags, if you are smart, for a retard.  But CO2 won't go up, for the usual rise, and temperatures hang down, for thousands.*
210K:  _*CO2 levels off, at 215K, and you are suggesting what, punk?*_
140K:  _*This is where CO2 starts up, and temperature follows, punkhole.*_
115K:  *Temps drop faster than CO2, during a downswing, then pull up.*
 85K:  _*Look at the mini-upswing, during a lot of fluctuation.  So what?  The CO2 trend still pulled temps all the way back down, after this, hermaphrodite.*_
 65K:  *The gradual upswing of CO2 forces fluctuating temperatures up, during a temporary upswing.  Then CO2 forces the trend back down, until it hits 180 ppm.*
 48K:  _*Temps are following CO2 down, CO2 swings up, first, temps go up.*_
 23K:  *Temps want to rise, but they don't, until CO2 reaches 180 ppm and then swings up, you complete retard, who is totally queer and in a closet, in a cabin.*


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I never made any pretense of thorough analysis, I pointed out that GISS is making wholesale changes to the data records with no notice and no explanations. I believe that I made my point in that thread. if you disagree then feel free to make a comment on that thread.
> ...







A more accurate description of AGW science would be hard to formulate.


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...








Humans_ have_ allready devolved is what you meant to write junior, and you are a wonderful example of that de-evolution.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 14, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> 440K:  *The graph starts, at 415K-420K, queer.  CO2 forces down, ~ 410K.*
> 320K:  _*You ignored the major trough at 355K, mo.  CO2 forces up, there.  At 320K, CO2 drops like a rock in a well, while temps are wavering, hermie.*_
> 275K:  *This is a mid-decline, mini-upswing, clearly initiated, by CO2 rise.*
> 250K:  *The temps are trying to rise, at 260K, bitch.  CO2 keeps them down.  Here is where you could say CO2 lags, if you are smart, for a retard.  But CO2 won't go up, for the usual rise, and temperatures hang down, for thousands.*
> ...



Sad that you can't read a graph bob.  Maybe you are color blind and can't differentiate between the blue and the yellow lines.  Here is a hint, the yellow line is the one that only goes up after the blue one goes up.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 14, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > 440K:  *The graph starts, at 415K-420K, queer.  CO2 forces down, ~ 410K.*
> ...



*Of course, your awesome queer-vision and tweaking methods must be superior, to looking straight on and thinking, which O.R., Trakar, Oopie, Rolling Thunder, and I do.

When the yellow line eases up, and the blue line starts a fast, long-term trend, or the yellow line eases down, and the blue line zigs and zags down, the yellow line and CO2 should be theorized, as representing a forcing effect, asshole.

The yellow line is stable, by comparison, since it represents the major forcing factor, with a lot of mid-trend forcing effects.  Look, idiots and scientists; when one line does steady rises and declines, it should be suspected, as representing a forcing factor, relative to a zig-zagging function, which should be affected, by slight movements, at peaks and troughs, where long-term trends are evident.

Of course, Wienerbitch, since you are an experienced male homosexual, living your life, inside a Log Cabin Club closet, the first graph you loaded was very queer and useless.  Your way of looking at this latest, decent graph is only rather queer, by comparison.  That you are a cabin-boy is not at all doubtful.*


----------



## code1211 (Jun 14, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





So are you joining in the PETM is proof positive in a happened 3 times in 4.5 billion years kind of a way that CO2 causes warming instead of the other way around?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> Humans_ have_ allready devolved is what you meant to write junior, and you are a wonderful example of that de-evolution.



_*Did you like the Vostok graph, Wally, you piece of shit?  Want some more?

You are welcome to load a graph that isn't shit, Wally.  Other people load graphs.  You wait 8-10 lines, like a queer waiting to get run over, and then you rant on, "allready," (sic) you idiot.  Switch to coffee.  Whatever is polluting you makes you really queenie.*_


----------



## Trakar (Jun 14, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Physics (specifically radiation transfer mechanics) provides the compellingly supported understanding that CO2 is capable of acting like a "greenhouse" gas, the PETM is nothing more than a recent geological example of what happens when you rapidly (over the period of ~ 10k years) flood the Earth's atmosphere with climatically significant volumes of such greenhouse gases.  We are currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at ~10x the rate that occurred during the PETM and our rate of emissions is still increasing.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...







And what happened during the PETM?  I'll let wiki explain it....


"Life

The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.

The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent. General hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosion due to carbonate undersaturated deep waters, are insufficient as explanations. The only factor global in extent was an increase in temperature. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[12] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.[20][verification needed]

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[26]  which may have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders  including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates  appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[26]"


So, in a nutshell, certain species of forams suffered very high extinction rates.  Different species on the other hand did very well.  Mammals did exceptionally well and contrary to the incessant nonsense about heat killing the opposite is true.  Warmth allowed plants to grow well and that allowed fauna to do well.

How do you explain that?


Paleocene


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I never made any pretense of thorough analysis, I pointed out that GISS is making wholesale changes to the data records with no notice and no explanations. I believe that I made my point in that thread. if you disagree then feel free to make a comment on that thread.
> ...



emotion based matters of opinion? I dont think so.

global warming advocacy took off in the late 80's and 90's because it really was getting warmer. since the 1998 El Nino the temps have been flat and global warming was renamed climate change. 

do you really think that no one has heard the drumbeat of the skeptics pointing out obvious bad science and bad science practise over the last 15 years? it was easy to deny at first but now, especially after climategate evidence in the hockey team's own words, fewer and fewer people are giving climate scientists the automatic benefit of the doubt because there has been strong evidence that shows many weaknesses in their work as well as deception if not outright fraud. fool me once, .......

as far as the BEST method of chopping the data up---I have discussed it on this board, probably late last summer, early fall. it is called kridging and it throws away more cool temps than warm ones because it assumes the temps are going up. 

I assume that people who are expressing their opinion on whether other poster's views are incorrect have at least a rudimentary knowledge base of what has gone on in climate science for the past 15 years and a general understanding of scientific principles that allows them to judge the evidence that is presented. unfortunately I am often disappointed by their blatant stupidity and total incompetence at understanding even the simplest concepts. eg. the temps from 1998-2012 have remained flat, yet how many people emphatically state that the warming is _accelerating?_ they dont understand what accelerating is, and often neither does the media because it gets printed in the headlines on a regular basis.

I no longer give a shit if people want to remain stupid. if you want to discuss the obviously biased adjustments to the data records, BEST methodologies, improprieties disclosed in the climategate emails, or any of a number of other climate related subjects I will gladly reciprocate. it is not my job educate you or look up links for you, or even point out your logical errors but I will do all of those things for anybody who wants to civilly discuss the matters at hand.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Physics (specifically radiation transfer mechanics) provides the compellingly supported understanding that CO2 is capable of acting like a "greenhouse" gas, the PETM is nothing more than a recent geological example of what happens when you rapidly (over the period of ~ 10k years) flood the Earth's atmosphere with climatically significant volumes of such greenhouse gases.  We are currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at ~10x the rate that occurred during the PETM and our rate of emissions is still increasing.



Physics provides no support for a greenhouse effect that is anything like that claimed to exist by climate science.  Chemistry denies your own description of the mechanism by which you and many luke warmers believe so called greenhouse gasses cause warming.  Your claim was that CO2 slows the escape of IR from the atmosphere but the materials that I provided you prove that such is not possible because a CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule.


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Physics (specifically radiation transfer mechanics) provides the compellingly supported understanding that CO2 is capable of acting like a "greenhouse" gas, the PETM is nothing more than a recent geological example of what happens when you rapidly (over the period of ~ 10k years) flood the Earth's atmosphere with climatically significant volumes of such greenhouse gases.  We are currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at ~10x the rate that occurred during the PETM and our rate of emissions is still increasing.
> ...



spectrophotometry is the basis of many instruments. it can work in two ways. either you heat a substance and see what light is emitted, or you can shine white light through a substance and see which wavelengths are absorbed. both methods produce the same spectra for any particular substance, one positive and the other negative.

I really wish you would keep your outlandish ideas to yourself rather than spam them to other people as fact. I am not saying that all the radiation from excited CO2 molecules is absorbed in turn by another CO2 molecule but I _am_ saying that the absorption spectra is exactly the same as the radiative spectra for CO2 or any other simple molecule.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2012)

IanC said:


> I really wish you would keep your outlandish ideas to yourself rather than spam them to other people as fact. I am not saying that all the radiation from excited CO2 molecules is absorbed in turn by another CO2 molecule but I _am_ saying that the absorption spectra is exactly the same as the radiative spectra for CO2 or any other simple molecule.



ian, you acknowledged yourself that you could grasp that the IR exits a CO2 molecule at a different wavelength than that which it entered.  I gave you a formal paper on the topic which gave you exactly the wavelength at which IR exits a CO2 molecule.  I asked you which absorption band the IR exiting from one CO2 molecule might be absorbed by another CO2 molecule but alas, there were none so you simply didn't answer.  

Face it ian, you are wrong.  Your personal idea of how warming occurs is no more plausible than the official greenhouse effect as voiced by the IPCC.


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish you would keep your outlandish ideas to yourself rather than spam them to other people as fact. I am not saying that all the radiation from excited CO2 molecules is absorbed in turn by another CO2 molecule but I _am_ saying that the absorption spectra is exactly the same as the radiative spectra for CO2 or any other simple molecule.
> ...



I acknowledged that higher energy photons going in to a CO2 molecule could come out as several lower energy photons that added up to the original photon. entropy. but all of the photons would be in the emission/absorption spectra of the CO2 molecule because that is how quantum physics works.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 15, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



_*You aren't reading everything, about PETM.  Acidification caused a lot of reduction, of ocean species.  Survivors migrated.  Dwarfism may have contributed, to diversity.

Plant diversity comes easier, than animal diversity.  Plants adjust to CO2, obviously, but they develop less stomata, in times of CO2 proliferation.

But we are realeasing GHGs faster, than the volcanic eruptions of the PETM did:*_

PETM: Global Warming, Naturally | Weather Underground

PETM Warming vs. Current Warming

During the PETM, around 5 billion tons of CO2 was released into the atmosphere per year. The Earth warmed around 6°C (11°F) over 20,000 years, although some estimates are that the warming was more like 9°C (16°F). Using the low end of that estimated range, the globe warmed around 0.025°C every 100 years. Today, the globe is warming at least ten times as fast, anywhere from 1 to 4°C every 100 years. In 2010, our fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. By comparison, volcanoes release 0.2 billion tons of CO2 per year. How fast carbon enters the atmosphere translates to the how fast temperature increases, and the environmental and societal consequences of warming at such a break-neck speed could be devastating.

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

_*How fast the methane outgasses is a factor:*_

Paleocene

Ocean warming due to flooding and pressure changes due to a sea-level drop may have caused clathrates to become unstable and release methane. This can take place over as short of a period as a few thousand years. The reverse process, that of fixing methane in clathrates, occurs over a larger scale of tens of thousands of years.[36]

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

_*Here's a really good article, which tries to resolve outcomes, with disputed proxies, but the implications for our faster outgassing are clear.  We re-green, or we migrate 7 billion people, to some part of the world, less affected, by faster warming, than during the PETM.  Migration was the way to survival, for species affected by the PETM, so why not move to Mars, since all we have to do to get there is rocket on up there, lay down some GHGs, grow some lichens, introduce bugs, rocket all of us up there, and then we can be spacemen, who eat bugs:*_

RealClimate: PETM Weirdness

Temperature changes at the same time as this huge carbon spike were large too. Note that this is happening on a Paleocene background climate that we dont fully understand either  the polar amplification in very warm paleo-climates is much larger than weve been able to explain using standard models. Estimates range from 5 to 9 deg C warming (with some additional uncertainty due to potential problems with the proxy data)  smaller in the tropics than at higher latitudes.

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

_*It seems likely we will remain on Earth, where many humans will eat shit, and die, while most species become extinct because humans are collectively stupid and greedy.  I wonder how long the crime-pays economy will persist?  Jamie couldn't make money!  What's going to happen, where idiot-traffic can't see a warmup, underway?

The first good question is, how fast will shit happen?  In a geologic instant!*_


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2012)

IanC said:


> I acknowledged that higher energy photons going in to a CO2 molecule could come out as several lower energy photons that added up to the original photon. entropy. but all of the photons would be in the emission/absorption spectra of the CO2 molecule because that is how quantum physics works.



Sorry ian, it can't happen.  Several lower energy photons (whatever the hell you mean by that) adding up to the same energy as the original photons would constitute a violation of the law of conservation of energy.  The reason the IR exits the CO2 molecule at a longer wavelength is because a certain amount of energy is expended causing the CO2 molecule to vibrate.  You can't get that energy back no matter how many lower energy photons you imagine the CO2 molecule spitting out.  

And clearly ian, you don't have a clue as to how quantum physics works as evidenced by the fact that you believe you can get around the law of conservation of energy by simply breaking the photon in to multiple photons.  It is as dumb as you idea that you could get more energy out of spencer's bar by adding some sides to it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish you would keep your outlandish ideas to yourself rather than spam them to other people as fact. I am not saying that all the radiation from excited CO2 molecules is absorbed in turn by another CO2 molecule but I _am_ saying that the absorption spectra is exactly the same as the radiative spectra for CO2 or any other simple molecule.
> ...



Its not a simple matter of being tuned to a specific frequency.. The absorption/emissions spectra consists of MULTIPLE "lines" at which the matter is free to accept/discharge (in this case) IR as RF energy. All this has nothing to do with heat transfer and thermo either. Only the radiative balance (input/output) of the material due to IR (electromagnetic) transmission.

But hey...  Whatever predicts the right answer --- Right?


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2012)

bobgnote said:


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







You clearly didn't read the wiki entry did you.  Anoxia is a more likely cause of the forams demise.  When the scientists tested the little critters with extremely high levels of acidic water (far higher than would ever be found in nature) they got STRONGER.  See how that works.  You guys put forth a hypothesis and other scientists tested the hypothesis and found that it was WRONG.

That's how the scientific method works.  Something you clowns ignore and simply don't understand.  But that's normal.  Believers in AGW have a much lower understanding of basic science than the sceptics do according to a recent study.  You see junior the fraudsters can only fool..... well fools like you.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 15, 2012)

*Oh, look!  Wallyfucktard has a RED fish.  It is a herring.  Is it DEAD, or just RED?  Oh, it is a dead, red herring.  Whoop-dee-fucking doo, Wallyfucktard.*



westwall said:


> Paleocene
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*No links to your study are posted at the several wikipedia links, which I still have up, on my browser, you punkass, lying queer.  You can't fool, me, punk.  You may have gotten over on somebody, out in Nevada.

Post a link to your study, or eat shit and die, you irrelevant, incompetent, lying punk.  Type replies, after 1 line.

Anoxia will clearly affect species, adversely, after the oceans warm.  So what, like I didn't see that coming, when I posted how organisms respirated H2S, in 36 C oceans? Isn't USMB fun, for Wally?  He doesn't have to post graphs or links, and he gets to bait the straights.*

Paleocene

Anoxia
In parts of the oceans, especially the north Atlantic Ocean, bioturbation is absent. This may be due to bottom-water anoxia, or by changing ocean circulation patterns changing the temperatures of the bottom water. However, many ocean basins remain bioturbated through the PETM.[3]

Anoxic event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bioturbation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Paleocene
> ...



You clearly didn't read the wiki entry did you.  Anoxia is a more likely cause of the forams demise.  When the scientists tested the little critters with extremely high levels of acidic water (far higher than would ever be found in nature) they got STRONGER.  See how that works.  You guys put forth a hypothesis and other scientists tested the hypothesis and found that it was WRONG.

That's how the scientific method works.  Something you clowns ignore and simply don't understand.  But that's normal.  Believers in AGW have a much lower understanding of basic science than the sceptics do according to a recent study.  You see junior the fraudsters can only fool..... well fools like you.[/QUOTE]

*No links to your study are posted at the several wikipedia links, which I still have up, on my browser, you punkass, lying queer.

Post a link to your study, or eat shit and die, lying punk.  Type replies, after 1 line.

Anoxia will clearly affect species, adversely, after the oceans warm.  Isn't USMB fun, for Wally?  He doesn't have to post graphs or links, and he gets to bait the straights.*

Paleocene

Anoxia
In parts of the oceans, especially the north Atlantic Ocean, bioturbation is absent. This may be due to bottom-water anoxia, or by changing ocean circulation patterns changing the temperatures of the bottom water. However, many ocean basins remain bioturbated through the PETM.[3]

Anoxic event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bioturbation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]







You see those little numbers at the end of the sentence?  Those are indicators of footnotes and tell you where to look for the corroborating link to substantiate the claim.  It's sad that an imbecile like you with no knowledge of English or academia thinks you are somehow knowledgeable.  Your mom must have told you you sang well too.  

No problem, here is the link that was in the link I allready posted but which you are too stupid to figure out how to find.



"Ocean acidification in response to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures is widely expected to reduce calcification by marine organisms. From the mid-Mesozoic, coccolithophores have been major calcium carbonate producers in the world's oceans, today accounting for about a third of the total marine CaCO3 production. Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate." 


Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Its not a simple matter of being tuned to a specific frequency.. The absorption/emissions spectra consists of MULTIPLE "lines" at which the matter is free to accept/discharge (in this case) IR as RF energy. All this has nothing to do with heat transfer and thermo either. Only the radiative balance (input/output) of the material due to IR (electromagnetic) transmission.
> 
> But hey...  Whatever predicts the right answer --- Right?



This was about ian's own ideas about how CO2 causes warming.  He, and some other luke warmers believe that CO2 somehow keeps IR in the atmosphere for a longer time by bouncing the IR around from one CO2 molecule to another, thus causing a build up of energy somehow.  

That, however, is not possible because one CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule.  CO2 has a very narrow absorption wavelength and even the small change in wavelength that a "packet" of IR realises between absorption and emission precludes it being absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

Here is the paper I referenced to ian and while he can grasp that the wavelength emitted is different than the wavelength absorbed, he seems to think that either no energy is lost or that somehow the CO2 molecule, by emitting multiple "photons" from the original absorbed "photon" can somehow regain that lost energy.  Here, have a look at the explanation as to why ian's description of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is not possible.

Jennifer Marohasy » Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 15, 2012)

westwall said:


> You see those little numbers at the end of the sentence?  Those are indicators of footnotes and tell you where to look for the corroborating link to substantiate the claim.  It's sad that an imbecile like you with no knowledge of English or academia thinks you are somehow knowledgeable.  Your mom must have told you you sang well too.
> 
> No problem, here is the link that was in the link I allready posted but which you are too stupid to figure out how to find.
> 
> ...



_*You didn't post the sciencemag link, which is not readily evident at the wiki article, you stinking punkhole, not until you fucked up the quote and replied, after another 8 lines, for queer drama effect.  

You are referring to a natural reaction, by organisms, which are able to react, to the increased acidification, see posts by O.R. and others, which you have buried, with punk-spam.  Now would you like to go over arogonite concentrations, which indicate reefs and plankton will be in trouble, no matter how queer you are?*_


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You see those little numbers at the end of the sentence?  Those are indicators of footnotes and tell you where to look for the corroborating link to substantiate the claim.  It's sad that an imbecile like you with no knowledge of English or academia thinks you are somehow knowledgeable.  Your mom must have told you you sang well too.
> ...







  You're so full of crap!  If you knew how to read an encyclopedia entry it is quite clear you moron.  Gosh you're stupid.  Can you wipe your own ass without help?

I found a video of you waiting for your boyfriend.  Thought i would share it with everyone....enjoy!

LiveLeak.com - Bath salts & Alcohol


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2012)

westwall said:


> You're so full of crap!  If you knew how to read an encyclopedia entry it is quite clear you moron.  Gosh you're stupid.  Can you wipe your own ass without help?



Have you ever seen anyone as stupid as him?  I thought rocks was the quintecential AGW idiot, but bobo makes rocks look like a rhodes scholar.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Its not a simple matter of being tuned to a specific frequency.. The absorption/emissions spectra consists of MULTIPLE "lines" at which the matter is free to accept/discharge (in this case) IR as RF energy. All this has nothing to do with heat transfer and thermo either. Only the radiative balance (input/output) of the material due to IR (electromagnetic) transmission.
> ...



interesting presentation there.. Here's the simple deal.. This discussion always sounds to me like the "ThermoDynamics" class notes got mixed and shuffled with the "Fields and Waves" class notes. HEAT -- is transferred by agitation of molecules. Conduction, Convection, whatever. IR is transported by photons. It's an EM phenomenom.  *Different college classes --- different rules. *But -- they are tied together because IR absorption/emission CHANGES the heat content of the matter. Air actually IS a heat conductor and various gases have different heat capacity and conduction properties. That's the Thermo part. 

Also your reference is hung up on whether CO2 can re-radiate IR.. That's not even the Greenhouse.. All incident wavelengths contribute to surface heating. So energy that passed cleanly thru CO2 on the way in (like even UV) contributes. The *SURFACE* is the "wavelength convertor" to IR going skyward. Just like water vapor, CO2 is gonna keep you warm at nightime. (Except that GW science can't confirm that fact). 

It all comes out right because the IR absorptive props of CO2 are largely filtered by water vapor. and thus it doesn't matter as much as AGW types want us to believe. 

Peace out...


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You're so full of crap!  If you knew how to read an encyclopedia entry it is quite clear you moron.  Gosh you're stupid.  Can you wipe your own ass without help?
> ...



*To read that Science Magazine shit, I'd have to go through a subscription process.  As for my allegation how you are into queer porn, that was correct.  Can you bitches go through your grooming behavior, at some queer website?  No?  You are at an environment thread, posting smilies and queer porn, OK.  Eat shit.

That means no links or graphs from Wally have yet turned up.  But you guys sure like grooming and suggesting improbable media.  You seem to have found queer porn, when I asked for a graph, ABOUT CO2 AND TEMPERATURE, Wally.  Eat shit and die.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2012)

It was cute for awhile.. But I'm startin' to see "queer porn" at the grocery check-out lane and trying to avoid calling the bagger a fucktard.. We gotta stop humoring this human compost pile..


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You're so full of crap!  If you knew how to read an encyclopedia entry it is quite clear you moron.  Gosh you're stupid.  Can you wipe your own ass without help?
> ...







No, I havn't.  At least after olfraud has been bitchslapped with facts he runs away and hides.  This moron just comes back for more and is so stupid he can't understand a damned thing.  Public schools at their finest.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Just like water vapor, CO2 is gonna keep you warm at nightime. (Except that GW science can't confirm that fact).



No.  Water vapor keeps you warm at night because water actually has the capacity to absorb and retain energy.  CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit with no actual energy retention.

The bottom line is that radiation accounts for such a small bit of the energy transfer from the surface to space until you reach the outer edges of the atmosphere that it really doesn't matter anyway.  Radiation across the whole spectrum amounts to about 8% of the total energy transfer into the upper atmosphere.  Now look at the bands in which CO2 can absorb and relate that to 8% of the total energy movement from the surface to space and you have to see that CO2 is meaningless even before you apply the laws of physics to the so called greenhouse effect.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 16, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





What is the measuring device that shows beyond any question that the CO2 rose before the Temperature rose?

What caused the temperature to drop again to the levels prevalent right before the dramatic increase and then what caused the temperature to continue the slow rise to the same peak that the PETM rose to?  

If the content of GHG in the air is the driving factor and the increase in temperature continues driven by the GHG and the feedback effect of increasing GHG's is more GHG's, how does the temperature EVER reduce from a peak?

Since the PETM was about 14 degrees C warmer than now, is this an appropriate parallel to the world we now live in?  There wasn't a glacier on the planet at that time near sea level.

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## code1211 (Jun 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...






Sounds like warm weather is favorable to mammals.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Sounds like warm weather is favorable to mammals.



And non mammals alike as most of them evolved during a time that was far warmer than the present.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 16, 2012)

Mammals which could _*migrate*_ or proliferate away from the equator did relatively well, during _*PETM*_.  Given human emissions, defoliation, and stupidity, 7 billion is too many humans, to survive _*MEE6*_.  And our rate of CO2 emissions is 10x PETM and accelerating.

The CO2/temperature took 200,000 years to reduce from peak; look that up, since I'm not looking shit up, today.  Unless humans aggressively re-green, humans will go on the endangered list, sooner, not later.

So did anybody completely model all absorption, refraction, reflection, diffusion, deflection, emission, and heating coefficients?  No?  Looks like Wiener needs to go back over all this, watch some more queer porn, with Wally, and explain the quantum physics of Earth's atmosphere and surface, in one post.

Wally, I don't know why an asshole like you even posts.  A retard on meth, like suckasbil can't control himself.  But I guess right-wingpunk fucktards have compulsions, so heeeere's Wally, no graphs, no live links, except for soft-core queer porn.


----------



## IanC (Jun 16, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





> This discussion always sounds to me like the "ThermoDynamics" class notes got mixed and shuffled with the "Fields and Waves" class notes.



I agree that wirebender has mixed up and misremembered many things from his education.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Just like water vapor, CO2 is gonna keep you warm at nightime. (Except that GW science can't confirm that fact).
> ...



Yup -- and that's why I'm not gonna feud with you about how much heat is retained by the CO2 fraction...


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Mammals which could _*migrate*_ or proliferate away from the equator did relatively well, during _*PETM*_.  Given human emissions, defoliation, and stupidity, 7 billion is too many humans, to survive _*MEE6*_.  And our rate of CO2 emissions is 10x PETM and accelerating.
> 
> The CO2/temperature took 200,000 years to reduce from peak; look that up, since I'm not looking shit up, today.  Unless humans aggressively re-green, humans will go on the endangered list, sooner, not later.
> 
> ...






ALL animals everywhere did well babaganoosh.  There are no fossil assembleges predominant in any geomorphic region.  Try reading a book sometime.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



A bit of topic stray, but definitely relevent and even essential to the proper understanding of why AGW topics are more than just a political debate in disguise. Wiki is problematic in itself, not that it is not handy for messageboard reference, but as a primary source it is never any better than the 10s to 100s of often "non" and "un"qualified contributors that happen to shape the information on its pages. It's a good place to start searches when you are looking at a topic, but it is a very poor place to end a search when looking at any topic. That said, we can look at what it says...



westwall said:


> "Life
> 
> The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.



Technically, these radiations occurred as climate change killed off, or back, the dominant species successfuly competing and managing within the existent ecosystems. As these dominant species are unable to demonstrate the same dominant success in the changing environments. Species that can more rapidly adapt gradually replace those that can't and variate to fill vacated niches. Any time you see points of rapid evolutionary radiation, you are looking at periods of time where some force or factor is stressing the environment. Mild, temperate, stable, some might even use the term "comfortable," environments are rare in the geologic history of our planet.     



> The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent. General hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosion due to carbonate undersaturated deep waters, are insufficient as explanations. The only factor global in extent was an increase in temperature. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[12] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.[20][verification needed]
> 
> In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]
> 
> The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[26]  which may have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders  including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates  appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[26]"



This section is extremely shaky and filled with much weakly supported speculation rather than the more general and compelling mainstream understandings. Broad and general "die-backs" need only a few significant extinctions at the base of foodchains to make major changes in existant biosystems. Unfortunately, many people tend to perceive "extinction events" as only occurring when there are huge net losses of species; this understanding excludes most natural extinction events where the actual net loss of species is low as you have high losses of species being offset by high levels of radiation in other species. 

This is more common in natural climate change events which are gradual enough that mobility and natural variation can filter specie traits enough to encourage adaptation and evolution. Fortunately, neither adaptation nor evolution will allow a lobster to accomodate the cook-pot.



westwall said:


> So, in a nutshell, certain species of forams suffered very high extinction rates.  Different species on the other hand did very well.  Mammals did exceptionally well and contrary to the incessant nonsense about heat killing the opposite is true.  Warmth allowed plants to grow well and that allowed fauna to do well.
> 
> How do you explain that?
> 
> Paleocene



The issue isn't so much "how", but rather, "what" it is you expect me to explain? I don't know where you get the idea that I or anyone else here (with possibly one or two apparent exceptions) is arguing that AGW is going to turn the planet into Arrakis, though spice sounds rather nice! What we are saying is that in an era where humanity has already had dramatic ecosystem impact and instituted planet-wide die-backs and die-offs, the additional environmental stressors brought on by AGW climate change should not be ignored nor discounted. Likewise adaptation and motility advantages are more likely benefit species we consider pests and nuisances than species we prefer for pleasure and profit. If viable open-air agricultural lands decrease significantly our own species may well be one of the ones in die-back, but frankly, I'm more concerned about the long term economic impacts to our society and culture, than I am the reversal of our specie's population explosion.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish you would keep your outlandish ideas to yourself rather than spam them to other people as fact. I am not saying that all the radiation from excited CO2 molecules is absorbed in turn by another CO2 molecule but I _am_ saying that the absorption spectra is exactly the same as the radiative spectra for CO2 or any other simple molecule.
> ...



Mainstream scientific consideration acknowledges the following basics which are consistent with mainstream AGW understandings:
http://www.heliosat3.de/e-learning/remote-sensing/Lec7.pdf

If your understandings are significantly at variance with any of this information, please indicate specifically what you disagree with and what you feel is more representative of your understandings with regard to that particular and specific issue.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> This was about ian's own ideas about how CO2 causes warming.  He, and some other luke warmers believe that CO2 somehow keeps IR in the atmosphere for a longer time by bouncing the IR around from one CO2 molecule to another, thus causing a build up of energy somehow.
> 
> That, however, is not possible because one CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule.  CO2 has a very narrow absorption wavelength and even the small change in wavelength that a "packet" of IR realises between absorption and emission precludes it being absorbed by another CO2 molecule.
> 
> ...



I won't argue a paper I haven't read, but the concept of long-free pathways vs short-free pathways is not, in itself, dependent upon what re-absorbs the CO2 emitted photons, it is that it alters the shortest mean free-path to exiting the earth's environment for the surface emitted thermal IR. Lengthening the mean free-path extends the persistence of that energy in the system and increases the likelihood of it being absorbed and re-emitted by something else in the environment adding still more length to the mean free-path and increasing the residence of the energy.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Mammals which could _*migrate*_ or proliferate away from the equator did relatively well, during _*PETM*_.  Given human emissions, defoliation, and stupidity, 7 billion is too many humans, to survive _*MEE6*_.  And our rate of CO2 emissions is 10x PETM and accelerating.
> ...



*You couldn't have let the Lord Jesus Christ into your life, yet.  If you did that, you'd be even stupider, since your folks forgot to cross-breed, and look how you turned out, stupid and completely walled into your stupid, yet yiddish world.  The only thing worse than a stupid Jesus freak is . . .  YOU.

The PETM is characterized by trauma to species, mainly forams, which you noted, and corals:*

Paleocene

The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.

The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent. General hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosion due to carbonate undersaturated deep waters, are insufficient as explanations. 

---------------------- just to be fair and balanced:

CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event

The PETM pulse of CO2 has been linked with acidification of the deep ocean and the extinction of tiny marine life called forams (foraminifera), and proved to be a difficult time for coral reefs. It was also a time of rapid change in land plants and animals, with a quick turnover of species and large migrations, although extinctions were limited.

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

RealClimate: PETM Weirdness

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

Oceans in Distress Foreshadow Mass Extinction : Discovery News

These symptoms, moreover, could be the harbinger of wider disruptions in the interlocking web of biological and chemical interactions that scientists now call the Earth system.

All five mass extinctions of life on the planet, reaching back more than 500 million years, were preceded by many of the same conditions now afflicted the ocean environment, they said.

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

*I guess if you read, it might be porn, or you don't remember any of it, since any media you have offered in the way of a link, which goes any where was a link to a video, which could be characterized as suspected soft-core queer porn.*


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

IanC said:


> I agree that wirebender has mixed up and misremembered many things from his education.



Hell ian, you are in agreement with bob.  He said so himself.  So much for what you agree with.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

Trakar said:


> If your understandings are significantly at variance with any of this information, please indicate specifically what you disagree with and what you feel is more representative of your understandings with regard to that particular and specific issue.



Absorption and emission are not where climate science and I reach an impass.  The problem arises when climate science claims backradiation from the cool atmosphere is causing the warmer surface of the earth to warm further.  Or when certain elements of climate science claim that CO2 somehow delays the escape of IR from the atmosphere.

In the first case, the second law of thermodynamics states explicitly that energy can not move from cooler objects (the atmosphere) to warmer objects (the surface of the earth)

In the second case, IR radiating from the surface of the earth is moving at, or very near the speed of light.  A single encounter with a CO2 molecule does not appreciably slow down the escape of that IR "packet" into space.  The only way CO2 might serve to delay the escape of IR from the atmosphere would be if the IR went from CO2 molecule to CO2 molecule, to CO2 molecule but alas, that can not happen as a CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission from another CO2 molecule.

In short, the described mechanisms by which CO2 is claimed by the various warmist and luke warmist camps to cause warming are simply not physical.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

Trakar said:


> I won't argue a paper I haven't read, but the concept of long-free pathways vs short-free pathways is not, in itself, dependent upon what re-absorbs the CO2 emitted photons, it is that it alters the shortest mean free-path to exiting the earth's environment for the surface emitted thermal IR. Lengthening the mean free-path extends the persistence of that energy in the system and increases the likelihood of it being absorbed and re-emitted by something else in the environment adding still more length to the mean free-path and increasing the residence of the energy.



Here.  A formal discussion on the mean free path.  I am afraid that argument doesn't hold up as a mechanism for warming either.

Mean Free Path Length of Photons in the Earth's Atmosphere


----------



## IanC (Jun 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > If your understandings are significantly at variance with any of this information, please indicate specifically what you disagree with and what you feel is more representative of your understandings with regard to that particular and specific issue.
> ...





so you are coming around. you admit CO2 slows down energy loss but 'not appreciably'.

if we could just get you from stating that the second law of thermodynamics stops CO2 molecules from randomly ejecting photons, some towards Earth, then I for one would be happy.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 16, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Physics (specifically radiation transfer mechanics) provides the compellingly supported understanding that CO2 is capable of acting like a "greenhouse" gas, the PETM is nothing more than a recent geological example of what happens when you rapidly (over the period of ~ 10k years) flood the Earth's atmosphere with climatically significant volumes of such greenhouse gases.  We are currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at ~10x the rate that occurred during the PETM and our rate of emissions is still increasing.
> ...



Radioassay analysis indicates that the initiation of the PETM is marked by an abrupt decrease in the Carbon 13 proportion of marine and terrestrial sedimentary carbon, which is consistent with the rapid addition of >1500 gigatons of Carbon-13 depleted carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide and/or methane, into the hydrosphere and atmosphere. as the basaltic magma eruptions associated with the spreading apart of the north atlantic immediately prior to global thermal effects. These flows occurred primarily in the 10-20k years prior to the beginning of the PETM and the first 10ky or so after the start of PETM conditions. Of course, once the warming began, other sequestered sources of carbon began adding their stores of carbon to the atmosphere as well. 

http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~manga/LIPS/storey07.pdf



code1211 said:


> What caused the temperature to drop again to the levels prevalent right before the dramatic increase and then what caused the temperature to continue the slow rise to the same peak that the PETM rose to?



There are numerous factors that contributed to temperature rises and falls, but CO2 levels are one of the primary agencies in establishing and maintaining surface temperatures on our planet. 



code1211 said:


> If the content of GHG in the air is the driving factor and the increase in temperature continues driven by the GHG and the feedback effect of increasing GHG's is more GHG's, how does the temperature EVER reduce from a peak?



once short term environmental sinks and sources have emitted their stores of carbon, they cease being sources. After temperature equilibrates CO2 levels are slowly lowered through fresh exposures of granite to the atmosphere (mountain building and weathering), in this case, remember the time frame of this earlier discussion, we have the collision of the Indian subcontinent into the belly of Asia pushing up the Himalayans, the intrusion of  Africa pushing up the Alps and pinching what will become Greece into the fracturing Asian and European boundaries, and let's not forget the N. American plate riding up the Pacific plate creating the Rockies and coastal ranges west, that's a whole lotta mountain building episodes. And generally, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations drop much below 300ppm and we start getting temperatures cool enough to start building year round icecaps at higher latitudes and altitudes. Much below 250ppm and those latitude and altitude boundaries begin creeping downward; much above 350ppm and the ice at even high latitude and altitude begins disappearing.



code1211 said:


> Since the PETM was about 14 degrees C warmer than now, is this an appropriate parallel to the world we now live in?  There wasn't a glacier on the planet at that time near sea level.



Actually, PETM max is generally considered to have been between 5-7º C warmer than late 20th century average.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Absorption and emission are not where climate science and I reach an impass.  The problem arises when climate science claims backradiation from the cool atmosphere is causing the warmer surface of the earth to warm further.  Or when certain elements of climate science claim that CO2 somehow delays the escape of IR from the atmosphere.
> 
> In the first case, the second law of thermodynamics states explicitly that energy can not move from cooler objects (the atmosphere) to warmer objects (the surface of the earth)



Your understanding of LOTD is flawed. You do not get to arbitrairly allocate "objects;" electrons in low energy states about the atoms in surface material will absorb an appropriate frequency photon regardless of the average energy state of the arbitrarily assigned "surface" object, or the average energy state of the arbitrarily assigned "atmosphere" object that emitted that photon.



wirebender said:


> In the second case, IR radiating from the surface of the earth is moving at, or very near the speed of light.  A single encounter with a CO2 molecule does not appreciably slow down the escape of that IR "packet" into space.  The only way CO2 might serve to delay the escape of IR from the atmosphere would be if the IR went from CO2 molecule to CO2 molecule, to CO2 molecule but alas, that can not happen as a CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission from another CO2 molecule.



Again, primarily an issue of flawed understandings. the mean free path (the average distance that photon can travel before interaction with absorptive atmospheric atoms or particles) of a ghg relevent wavelength IR photon, in the lower atmosphere is on the order of meters. That is why most energy transfer in our atmosphere occurs via convection rather than radiation transfer.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > I won't argue a paper I haven't read, but the concept of long-free pathways vs short-free pathways is not, in itself, dependent upon what re-absorbs the CO2 emitted photons, it is that it alters the shortest mean free-path to exiting the earth's environment for the surface emitted thermal IR. Lengthening the mean free-path extends the persistence of that energy in the system and increases the likelihood of it being absorbed and re-emitted by something else in the environment adding still more length to the mean free-path and increasing the residence of the energy.
> ...



This paper is a joke.
It has never been published in any mainstream journal, for obvious and apparent reasons, it is littered with unsupported assertions and errors. arguing an unpublished fringe pseudoscience monograph by a retired biologist who is trying to BS about his quantum quakery confusions regarding LoTD is not a path I am interested in engaging upon.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2012)

Trakar said:


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








I agree with you on wiki as a source but it is the site of preference for the majority of AGW supporters.  No doubt that is due to what's his noses constant editing of any and all climate reports that were posted.  It must have been his full time job.  They finally booted him off but i hear he still lurks and falsify's reports to this very day.

As far as your points go, the forams that died could have died due to many causes.  Anoxia is most likely in my mind.  It seems to be a common problem with benthic dwellers through the aeons.  Additionally I absolutely agree with you that stressors are the primary drivers of evolution.  The claim that we are currently in a mass extinction event is quite ridiculous however, 20,000 new species discovered in the last 5 years alone belie that tale.

Is evolution happening?  Of course it is.  Evolution is allways happening.  And it usually happens in the temperate zones.  That is where the "action is" if you like.  Equatorial and arctic regions are fairly stable thus very little stress is introduced into the biosphere to drive evolutionary change.  

The temperate zones are just the opposite.  They are allways undergoing some form of trauma and that pushes evolution right along.

Your comments about the conclusions being shakey is only in regards climatology.  Geologists and paleontologists have a much better handle on the events of the past and the conclusions square quite clearly with observed reality obtained from the fossil record.
The computer models are nowhere near reality in this area.  Nowhere.

As far as your final point, history once again tells us that warmth is good.  The written record (Pliny and others) is very clear that the Roman Warming Period was warmer than the present day and even if it were a localised event (most peer reviewed literature ((only climatologists say it wasn't)) says it was global) the effects were profound and universally beneficial.  Roman civilisation began because the climate was warm and static.  

Conversely, Roman culture was on the wane by the 400's and the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe helped kill off the western Roman Empire.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...







There is zero empirical evidence to support that statement.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...









Some estimates of the high latitude arctic ocean temps were in the 23C range.  If that is true the equatorial temps would have been much higher.  That would elevate the average global temp to around 11C higher than today.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> Some estimates of the high latitude arctic ocean temps were in the 23C range.  If that is true the equatorial temps would have been much higher.  That would elevate the average global temp to around 11C higher than today.



Not reputable estimates that I am aware of, but I'd be happy to review your sources. 

Most mainstream sources hit between 5-7º C above late 20th Century global average temp (for global mean temp currently of about 15º C). That's roughly ~20º C. A few speculative model studies indicate the polar region before the PETM might have had an average temperature of around 18º C (substantially warmer than today) and it increased to ~23º C average during the PETM. THis is one aspect of the PETM that makes it significantly different than modern warming. The general climate was already quite warm before the PETM event occurred. The PETM Earth warmed more evenly than our modern ice-age world where the polar regions are already experiencing 5-7º C of warming while the lower latitudes haven't reacted much yet to the 1-2º C of global temperature change we have so far experienced. Now its entirely possible that I am being too conservative in the science sources that I consider reliable in this regard, and nature may well throw in some tipping point issues of her own that could indeed shift our modern temps up to the >25º C mean range, but I sincerely hope that this is not in our species' near term (next few centuries) future.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...





Making the cause effect connection seems to assume that the cause is the rising GHG's and the effect is the rising temperatures.

If the the question concerns establishing a cause, then this becomes circular logic, does it not?

That aside, though, the difference in the timing of CO2 being the effect or the cause is a matter of hundreds of years measured by a device reaching millions of years into the past.  Does this method isolate the rise of temperature from the rise of CO2 and prove conclusive ly that one preceded the other?

The link that I provided showed that the prevailing temperature before the PETM was about 10 or 12 degrees warmer than today rising another few degrees during the PETM.  It also says that it is a conservative estimate of the temperature rise.

Do you have a link to show the relatively small 5 to 7 degrees that you cite?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 17, 2012)

IanC said:


> so you are coming around. you admit CO2 slows down energy loss but 'not appreciably'.



IR passes through a CO2 molecule at the same speed it was going when it encountered the molecule.  There is no slowing down.



IanC said:


> if we could just get you from stating that the second law of thermodynamics stops CO2 molecules from randomly ejecting photons, some towards Earth, then I for one would be happy.



Again with the lies and misrepresentation of what I have said.  I never claimed anything like second law prevents a molecule from ejecting a photon.  Why do you find that you must lie?  Or is it that you have failed so grossly to understand what I have explained to you in such simple terms.

As I have said, CO2 can emit all the photons towards the surface of the earth it wants, but not even one will ever reach the surface.  The energy that the photon represents will be expended in opposition to the EM field of greater magnitude being propagated away from the earth.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Your understanding of LOTD is flawed. You do not get to arbitrairly allocate "objects;" electrons in low energy states about the atoms in surface material will absorb an appropriate frequency photon regardless of the average energy state of the arbitrarily assigned "surface" object, or the average energy state of the arbitrarily assigned "atmosphere" object that emitted that photon.



My understanding is not flawed.  The law is stated in explicit and absolute terms.  If you understand it to mean something other than what it says, then it is your understanding that is flawed.  It is not possible for energy to flow from a cooler object to a warmer object.  If it were, perpetual motion would be commonplace.



IanC said:


> Again, primarily an issue of flawed understandings. the mean free path (the average distance that photon can travel before interaction with absorptive atmospheric atoms or particles) of a ghg relevent wavelength IR photon, in the lower atmosphere is on the order of meters. That is why most energy transfer in our atmosphere occurs via convection rather than radiation transfer.



I am not sure what you believe that you said has to do with what I said, but if you believe that a CO2 molecule can absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule thus setting the stage for CO2 to delay IR from exiting the atmosphere, I am afraid that it is you who is laboring under the misunderstanding.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> This paper is a joke.
> It has never been published in any mainstream journal, for obvious and apparent reasons, it is littered with unsupported assertions and errors. arguing an unpublished fringe pseudoscience monograph by a retired biologist who is trying to BS about his quantum quakery confusions regarding LoTD is not a path I am interested in engaging upon.



Considering the degree to which you warmist and luke warmers misunderstand the science, it is not surprising at all that you fail to grasp the truth when you see it.  And considering the corrupt state of pal review within the field of climate science, arguing that a paper has not been published in a mainstream journal is simply absurd.  In fact, today anything that gets published in a mainstream journal is suspect.

Perhaps you failed to note his appreciation:

"The author is grateful to Dr. Jonathan M. Walsh, PhD in mathematics"

Further the author states:

"This article was updated on April 8, 2011. This article has been Peer Reviewed by the Faculty of  Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico."



The work was checked and jibes with the numerous references.  The fact that you discount the work because the man is a biologist brings your inherent bias, and flawed logic into sharp relief.  Claiming that the work is not valid because he is a biologist is know as a circumstantial ad hominem.  Either the work is correct or it is not.  Feel free to prove him wrong.

I understand your reluctance to question your faith, but don't pretend rationality with arguments like that.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> As far as your points go, the forams that died could have died due to many causes.  Anoxia is most likely in my mind.  It seems to be a common problem with benthic dwellers through the aeons.  Additionally I absolutely agree with you that stressors are the primary drivers of evolution.  The claim that we are currently in a mass extinction event is quite ridiculous however, 20,000 new species discovered in the last 5 years alone belie that tale.
> 
> As far as your final point, history once again tells us that warmth is good.  The written record (Pliny and others) is very clear that the Roman Warming Period was warmer than the present day and even if it were a localised event (most peer reviewed literature ((only climatologists say it wasn't)) says it was global) the effects were profound and universally beneficial.  Roman civilisation began because the climate was warm and static.
> 
> Conversely, Roman culture was on the wane by the 400's and the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe helped kill off the western Roman Empire.



*Wally, you are this dumb bitch, who can't post links or read graphs or think, yet your choice of moniker and lapses into yiddish suggest you should be smarter, than you are, but you prefer the company of devolved humanoids, who may have descended, from people who popped THE QUESTION, at your forebears.  You sure are questionable.

You keep claiming how discovery of 20,000 species, mostly insects, somehow indicates known habitats and species aren't declining.  You have dumb-bitch denial, going on.  If you didn't know about discovered species, in a box, the total in your box didn't increase.

Of course, we will resist the plagues, which killed off Romans or medieval persons of interest, but with emissions 10x PETM, up go temps, down goes ocean pH, and we will eventually get more anoxic events.  The land will be hot as hell.  Sooner, not later.*


----------



## IanC (Jun 17, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > so you are coming around. you admit CO2 slows down energy loss but 'not appreciably'.
> ...



I am very sorry that you think I misrepresent and lie about what you have said. I have certainly asked you for clarification often enough.

you claim that CO2 does not slow IR escape


> IR passes through a CO2 molecule at the same speed it was going when it encountered the molecule.  There is no slowing down.



are you making the trivial statement that photons travel at the speed of light? because if you are saying that it takes the same amount of time for a photon to reach space via absorption by a CO2 molecule, vibration of the molecule, ejection of the photon in a random direction, as it does by having the photon simply leave at the speed of light then you are talking nonsense. the time involved in absorption, excited state, and emission (in a random direction) dramatically slow the escape compared to straight out escape at the speed of light.

second claim-





> As I have said, CO2 can emit all the photons towards the surface of the earth it wants, but not even one will ever reach the surface.  The energy that the photon represents will be expended in opposition to the EM field of greater magnitude being propagated away from the earth



yet you refuse to explain where, when or how this happens. does it disappear at the CO2 molecule, at the surface or in between? does it happen instantaneously or does the photon have time to interact with something else between the CO2 molecule and the surface? what is the mechanism that 'expends' the photon? all reasonable questions, always ducked by you. will you answer this time? not bloody likely!


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> As far as your points go, the forams that died could have died due to many causes.  Anoxia is most likely in my mind.  It seems to be a common problem with benthic dwellers through the aeons.  Additionally I absolutely agree with you that stressors are the primary drivers of evolution.  The claim that we are currently in a mass extinction event is quite ridiculous however, 20,000 new species discovered in the last 5 years alone belie that tale.
> 
> Is evolution happening?  Of course it is.  Evolution is allways happening.  And it usually happens in the temperate zones.  That is where the "action is" if you like.  Equatorial and arctic regions are fairly stable thus very little stress is introduced into the biosphere to drive evolutionary change.
> 
> ...



I'm sure these constitute your beliefs, unfortunately, the compelling mainstream understandings and weight of evidences indicate otherwise.

If you believe that you have references to articles published in climate science relevent professional journals which support your belief that the so-called "Roman warm period" was both global and warmer than present global temperatures I would be very interested in reading them.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar;5461807[COLOR="Blue" said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Empirical - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

Climate Change: Evidence






How to Estimate Planetary Temperatures
(BPL to those who know him)

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

Global Climate Change | Cornell University

"The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction"
John Tyndall
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

(more available)


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

code1211 said:


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



Westwall cited higher temp extremes, I noted  5-7 as a generaly relflection of the data studies I'm familiar with, not sure who you are asking but here are a few references for 5-7.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html

http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/SluijsPETM.pdf

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~mp364/data/2006Pagani.Science.pdf

More available upon request, but I should clarify that I am not wedded to this range, I am aware of studies that postulate much higher levels. I am just staying with general mainstream considerations and more focussed on the rate of rise in global average temps than on precisely how much they rose or differences between starting and peak temps then and how they compare to such modern measurements. 

BTW equatorial regions warm less than polar regions in GHG forced climate warming.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Your understanding of LOTD is flawed. You do not get to arbitrairly allocate "objects;" electrons in low energy states about the atoms in surface material will absorb an appropriate frequency photon regardless of the average energy state of the arbitrarily assigned "surface" object, or the average energy state of the arbitrarily assigned "atmosphere" object that emitted that photon.
> ...



Take our discussion to any qualified physicist and let them enlighten you, I am not here to argue crank pseudoscience pot-crackers with people who apparently don't have a solid foundation in math, physics or general science, and who demonstrate no desire or ability to learn that which they obviously don't understand.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > This paper is a joke.
> ...



Spouting cracked-pot conspiracy theories does not support nor validate your rantings.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





We could be talking past each other on this, I'm not sure.  I'm understanding you to say that the PETM was about 5 degrees warmer than we are today.

The links you provide indicate that the temperature rise in the PETM spike was 5 to 8 degrees depending on the source from the temperatures prevailing at the time.

Are you saying that the PETM was only warmer than today by 5 or so degrees?


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > As far as your points go, the forams that died could have died due to many causes.  Anoxia is most likely in my mind.  It seems to be a common problem with benthic dwellers through the aeons.  Additionally I absolutely agree with you that stressors are the primary drivers of evolution.  The claim that we are currently in a mass extinction event is quite ridiculous however, 20,000 new species discovered in the last 5 years alone belie that tale.
> ...







Feel free to look them up.  Science direct is your friend.  In other words I've posted them many times and as I leave for Paris tomorrow I will let you do your own work for once.  It will do you good.  You read far to much of the biased pal reviewed pap of your AGW supporters.  Time for you to read some real science.  

And history.  Read some history too.  Pliny the Elder is particularly good as regards the Roman Warming Period as he was a naturalist as well.  He was an excellent observer of the natural world.  Something you AGW types are lacking.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar;5461807[COLOR="Blue" said:
> ...







Empirical, based on real observations.  Not computer models or Hansens falsified data.  I particularly love the Cornell sites vapid assertions.  There's no science in it.  Merely assertions based on nothing but correlation.  I hate to break it to you but *CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION*!  For the umpteenth time.  No matter how many times you people try to make the un educated people believe it to be so.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

code1211 said:


> ... We could be talking past each other on this, I'm not sure.  I'm understanding you to say that the PETM was about 5 degrees warmer than we are today.
> 
> The links you provide indicate that the temperature rise in the PETM spike was 5 to 8 degrees depending on the source from the temperatures prevailing at the time.
> 
> Are you saying that the PETM was only warmer than today by 5 or so degrees?



As I said earlier, at the beginning of the PETM the temperatures were ~3 degrees C warmer in the arctic than the the average global temp. today , and at peak, those arctic temps rose another 5 or so degrees. The PETM world saw a more even temp. increase than the our modern world due to the much lower temps at which our world is entering this similarly forced warming episode. The peak global average temp of the PETM was probably a total of close to 10º C warmer than the average global temp today or around 25º C. The PETM warming started out much warmer (higher CO2 atmospheric concentration) and reached its peak in about 30k years. In our current warming we are looking at a total of between 5-7º in the first couple of hundred years (1850 - 2100 AD) and perhaps double that amount or more in the centuries immediately following that depending upon how quickly and decisively we deal with our issues, and whether or not we trip the release of natural sinks (trigger/tipping point). Ultimately, we may well exceed PETM max temps., but that is a goal I'd prefer not to meet.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2012)

So -- as far as can tell. Trakar answers the question of how CO2 drives climatic temperature by throwing up PROJECTIONS of CO2 for the next 2 centuries and a short history of an ice-bound Carbon cycle back to 800,000 yrs. 

Interestingly, those relatively tiny 100 ppm swings on that fantasy graph,  which don't tell much about TODAY'S carbon cycle were accompanied by temp swings of 4 to 10 degC, while the MEASURED "man-caused" doubling has shown HOW MUCH? Don't DOUBT the proxies.. AGW rule #1. (Rule #2 has something to do with "adjusting" the proxies to fit the script). 

Even the AGW folks admit that CO2 forcing as it's documented cannot be the super -extinction forcing event unless the various FEEDBACKS are included. (That is even discussed in the old 1981 Hansen paper that Trakar trotted out with the fantasy graph). Except that the AGW shamans in 1981 couldn't decide whether the ice would build or melt entirely.

Trakar seems to want to make the blanket assertion that it's all as simple as 2 single numbers. The "mean annual surface temperature" (Whatever TF that is)  and the atmos concentration of CO2.

Funny how we have to use ONE SINGLE GLOBAL ANNUAL temperature for the AGW argument, but at the same time whine about the MWP not being a "global" event. Lots of interesting footwork afoot eh?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 17, 2012)

_Trakar, if you can get any of these neo-con bitches to smarten up at all, you are a magician.

The only thing almost as bad as these smears is Obama-cultists, in love with Obamacare, never mind how Obamagirl isn't having any, this time around._


----------



## wirebender (Jun 18, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Spouting cracked-pot conspiracy theories does not support nor validate your rantings.



Your suggestion that the work was not valid as it had not been published in a mainstream journal is more crackpot than anything I have said.  It represents a failure of logic on your part while it is easy enough to document numerous failures of the mainstream pal review process.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 18, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _Trakar, if you can get any of these neo-con bitches to smarten up at all, you are a magician.
> 
> The only thing almost as bad as these smears is Obama-cultists, in love with Obamacare, never mind how Obamagirl isn't having any, this time around._



Trakkar, like you can only achieve a dumbing down of anyone who he brings around.  Far to many fundamental misunderstandings of the science and to much taken on faith with no actual empirical evidence in support.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 18, 2012)

IanC said:


> yet you refuse to explain where, when or how this happens. does it disappear at the CO2 molecule, at the surface or in between? does it happen instantaneously or does the photon have time to interact with something else between the CO2 molecule and the surface? what is the mechanism that 'expends' the photon? all reasonable questions, always ducked by you. will you answer this time? not bloody likely!



More lies ian.  I have explained this all to you before....numerous times.  I am not going through it again because no matter how many times I do it, you invariably lie about what I have said the next time the topic comes up.  In addition to a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics, you apparently have a character flaw that induces a compunction on your part to misrepresent anything that you don't agree with.  Life is to short to waste it endlessly repeating things I have already explained to you at least a half a dozen times.

You can grasp, in entirety what I have said in the past by simply taking the time to understand the subtraction of EM fields.  It is your terribly flawed, and quite nutty understanding of what a photon is that is blocking your advancement.  Till you get past the absurd notion of what photons are, you are stuck.  I have given you nearly a dozen defintions of what photons are from every science dictionary I could lay my hands on and none of them portray photons as anything like what you believe they are and still you hold to your silly notion.  You can lead a horse to water but you can't force him to boil pasta.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 18, 2012)

Ol' Bent is a hoot. Insists that only he understands atmospheric physics, no other physicist has a clue.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 18, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _Trakar, if you can get any of these neo-con bitches to smarten up at all, you are a magician.
> ...



*What is your first language, Wienerbitch, hermaphroditic?  Write a coherent sentence, finally.  I'd like to see at least one more loaded graph or link, from bitch, which is any good.  

That montage of La Jolla shows you are a gullible geek, who doesn't do science, at all, anytime.  What's your problem?  No common sense?  If you can't load a graph or a picture, worth shit, and your physics sucks, get out and proud, in traffic, not at a forum, Wienergoddambitch!  You are a retard!  Get to special class, asshole!

That Vostok graph was good.  But the one without labels on plots was shit.  So was any link you pasted.  Your theory about a tinfoil hat on Earth was shit, as is your ranting, about greenhouse physics.  I can't believe you spent much undergraduate time, studying physics.

I learned more about physics by studying female hooters, than you learned, queering around college, prior to learning how to get in kids' faces.*


----------



## wirebender (Jun 18, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ol' Bent is a hoot. Insists that only he understands atmospheric physics, no other physicist has a clue.



Actually rocks, my positon is not new and is taken from the work of physicists.  Since you are a bleiver and only read the scriputres given you, it is not surprising that you would not know that most physicists are not on board with the agw hypothesis.


----------



## IanC (Jun 18, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > yet you refuse to explain where, when or how this happens. does it disappear at the CO2 molecule, at the surface or in between? does it happen instantaneously or does the photon have time to interact with something else between the CO2 molecule and the surface? what is the mechanism that 'expends' the photon? all reasonable questions, always ducked by you. will you answer this time? not bloody likely!
> ...



same old bullshit.

putting up a internet definition of a photon is not explaining how photons magically disappear. you have nothing.

go ahead and explain 'subtraction of EMfields' and describe how it relates to a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule towards the surface.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 18, 2012)

*Wienerbitch won't let go of the flawed bitch idea heat transfer is somehow exactly and neatly the same as photon emission, when variables are involved, even though no energy is lost, and atmospheric molecules with three or more atoms somehow cannot tend to contribute, to a greenhouse effect, because Wienerbitch never lets go of his/her bitchin' wiener, when figuring out the coefficient, for the heat of the Wienermeat times the mass of the big, hermaphrodite ass is inversely proportional to the angle of the dangle, times a constant, given constant and evident Wienerbitch masturbation.  Think of Pig Shitz with his mouth open, bitch.  Get'r'done!

Wienerbitch somehow can't grasp what you are trying to prove, Ian, since Wienerbitch won't let go of something, which Wienerbitch should let go of, such as texting in traffic, or masturbating, while trying to play hockey, without a damn stick.  Piss off, Wienerbitch.*


----------



## wirebender (Jun 18, 2012)

IanC said:


> putting up a internet definition of a photon is not explaining how photons magically disappear. you have nothing.



Photons are bits of energy ian.  Nothing more.  They can be expended against opposing EM fields.  



IanC said:


> go ahead and explain 'subtraction of EMfields' and describe how it relates to a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule towards the surface.



Since EM fields are composed of photons which are nothing more than the smallest measurable bit of energy, the subtraction of EM fields, is by definition the subtraction of photons.  How do you suppose one EM field might reduce the magnitude of another, or in fact cancel out the other without reducing the number of photons the field is made of?

We have been through all this and the fact remains that you can't provide anything like a legitimate definition of a photon that matches what you believe they are.  Till you grasp the concept of the subtraction of fields, you will continue to be wrong.  Simple as that.

And again ian, it isn't magic, it's physics.  But to you, it may appear as magic.  Any science of a sufficiently advanced state will appear as magic to those ignorant of it.  The subtraction of EM fields seems to be as magical to you as a zippo might be to some very isolated tribesman somewhere.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 18, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *Wienerbitch won't let go of the flawed bitch idea heat transfer is somehow exactly and neatly the same as photon emission, when variables are involved, even though no energy is lost, and atmospheric molecules with three or more atoms somehow cannot tend to contribute, to a greenhouse effect, because Wienerbitch never lets go of his/her bitchin' wiener, when figuring out the coefficient, for the heat of the Wienermeat times the mass of the big, hermaphrodite ass is inversely proportional to the angle of the dangle, times a constant, given constant and evident Wienerbitch masturbation.  Think of Pig Shitz with his mouth open, bitch.  Get'r'done!*


*

There is no greenouse effect as described by climate science bob.  Of course as a faither, you will continue to hold tight to your belief regardless of how many laws of physics must be broken to maintain it.



bobgnote said:



			Wienerbitch somehow can't grasp what you are trying to prove, Ian, since Wienerbitch won't let go of something, which Wienerbitch should let go of, such as texting in traffic, or masturbating, while trying to play hockey, without a damn stick.  Piss off, Wienerbitch.
		
Click to expand...

*
Nothing to grasp bob.  Ian is as mistaken in his beliefs regarding photons as you are in your beliefs in climate science altogether.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 18, 2012)

Hey ian, you have a cheerleader.  Seems that you and good ole bob are in agreement.  Maybe he is looking for a new internet butt buddy.  How proud you must be to have teamates like good ole bob.

my, my, how you have fallen.


----------



## IanC (Jun 18, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > putting up a internet definition of a photon is not explaining how photons magically disappear. you have nothing.
> ...



it is you that has to explain your miraculous 'expended photon' theory not me. I know (roughly) how electric and magnetic fields can be added together with the net effect being measurable. you consider the non-reactive radiation 'EM field' of the earth to have the same properties as electric or magnetic flux fields.

if your theory is correct then two flashlights aimed at each other should at least partially cancel out. where does the energy go? do you have a link? I have on numerous occasions shown you links to constructive and destructive wave interference that state no energy is transfered in such cases, and the photons continue on their path unchanged after leaving the area of interference but that is not the effect you are talking about. show us a link that describes something akin to the magical disappearance you claim exists.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 18, 2012)

*I didn't know Wienerbitch was THAT stupid!  Come on back, bitch.  You know those flashlights can't cancel each other, and you are a snitty punk, for trying to blow Ian off, in my direction, when you know I am the mean guy who outs neo-con wingpunk Log Cabin Club assholes, such as Wienerbitch, namely YOU.

Ian is trying to say you like to play flashlight, like some sort of magic happens, isn't he.  I wonder what the fuck you have to say about fucktard physics, next?  You don't like calibrations, we know that.  I wonder how the fuck you ever did even ONE experiment, if you actually did get into Special Class State College, in the day.

Doncha wanna play flashlight, with Ian?  How about loading another graph, or don't you like going one-for-two, and you couldn't read the good graph?  Tell you what, bitch, hit search, Koch Bros., global warming study.  You already know what cool pub Trakar thinks.

Let's see, if you can keep up with Charley and Dave.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 18, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > putting up a internet definition of a photon is not explaining how photons magically disappear. you have nothing.
> ...




s0n...........s0n........the anger??!!! Wouldnt be because your perception is that you are losing, would it?


Oh.....and take a gander s0n.........read about how the imaginary green holy land has suddenly bumped into REALITY!!!

Editorial: Green utopians trying again | world, green, global - Opinion - The Orange County Register



Indeed......the environmental nutty-asses are scurrying to reinvent themselves once again. ( big conference this week). Why? Because they are losing@!!!!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> s0n...........s0n........the anger??!!! Wouldnt be because your perception is that you are losing, would it?
> 
> 
> Oh.....and take a gander s0n.........read about how the imaginary green holy land has suddenly bumped into REALITY!!!
> ...



Thanx for that glimpse into the demented.. 



> "For each person who might die from global warming, about 210 people die from health problems that result from a lack of clean water and sanitation, from breathing smoke generated by burning dirty fuels, such a dried animal dung, indoors and from breathing polluted air outdoors."



That's NEVER been part of the Annual beg-fest has it? Just a desire to DENY the 3rd world any of the "luxuries" we have lavished on ourselves. Like electricity, transportation, advanced farming.

Just CUT THE CHECK gringos.. Don't tell us we need to sort paper and plastic..


----------



## wirebender (Jun 19, 2012)

IanC said:


> it is you that has to explain your miraculous 'expended photon' theory not me. I know (roughly) how electric and magnetic fields can be added together with the net effect being measurable. you consider the non-reactive radiation 'EM field' of the earth to have the same properties as electric or magnetic flux fields.



You don't understand how energy is expended?  You don't grasp how one EM field can diminish or cancell another?  Oh, that's right; you don't.  You believe that a photon is a "thing" as opposed to just the smallest measurable bit of energy in an EM field.  Well hell ian, there is your problem.  You don't know, or understand what a photon is just like the remote native doesn't understand what a zippo is.  Learn what a photon actuall is and it won't seem like magic or a miracle any more.

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and *is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation*.



IanC said:


> if your theory is correct then two flashlights aimed at each other should at least partially cancel out.



And they are.  You believe they don't because you are unable to look deeply enough into the senario.  You are looking at the flashlights instead of the filaments.  If there is a difference between the temperature of the filaments, then no photon from the cooler filament ever reaches the warmer one.



IanC said:


> where does the energy go?/'quote]
> 
> Where does it go?  Geez ian, is your understanding of physics really that limited and distorted?  When two EM fields are in opposition, work is happening.  The reduction of magnitude is the result of the energy being expended (work) as they oppose each other.
> 
> ...


----------



## wirebender (Jun 19, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> That's NEVER been part of the Annual beg-fest has it? Just a desire to DENY the 3rd world any of the "luxuries" we have lavished on ourselves. Like electricity, transportation, advanced farming.



Greens don't have the slightest clue how many deaths can be laid at thier feet as a result of their never ending efforts to block hydroelectric dams and such in 3rd world countries, demonize genetically engineered foods, ban substances like DDT, etc.

Blocking dams is probably responsible for more deaths than the millions that have resulted from the banning of DDT.  They don't seem to realize that the difference between thier life style and that miserably short and brutish lifestyle lived by 3rd world wretches is that electrical outlet in thier wall.  Take that a way and we are all diseased, starving hunter gatherers in 2 months.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 19, 2012)

*Shit, Wienerbitch, you aren't even worth quoting.  Greens without Ralph Nader are a bit useless.  But banning DDT?  Are you one of those bitches, who wants to quaff a DDT-milkshake?  You clearly suck balls, on dead, corporate hill-billy-goats.  

Earth to Wienerbitch: the Koch Bros. funded a study, which found global warming science valid, after going over a lot of studies.  Trakar is GOP, and look how well he writes.

You are some sort of queer neo-con, who can't do science, but you are over here at USMB, with suckassbil, the tweaker, posting smilies and shit-rants.  Suckassbil won't declare Ian "awesome," now.  Aw.  I have an experiment, which you and suck can do, for 45 cents.

Give suckassbil 20 cents, to roll up all the windows, of some car he's in, when the sun is high.  You keep the 25 cents.  I don't care where you get the money.  Get suck all riled up, show him his ball, bark at him, whatever.  See if the car doesn't heat up, from trapping IR, and you can blame suck getting the windows all steamed, on EM, which is obviously trying to make a tinfoil hat, for the car to wear, using unspecified field fucktard physics.

Since suck doesn't believe in AGW, and suck is a queer mog, a combo of homosexual man and dog, you may not have to assure him AGW isn't gonna boil him, since suck is stupid.

If you don't give the suck any water, that will be what happens in some formerly temperate areas.  It's the greenhouse effect, with no green and no water.  You can call it the dog-in-a-car-effect, and write papers.  If suck can't get out of the car, he can't declare you "awesome," though.  Suck is some kind of wiener-doggie.  Keep off my lap, suck.  Yeah, you post smilies and lick Wienerbitches, arf, arf.  Stupid bitch's lap-puppy.

It beats me, bitch with a wiener, whatever your theory of EM is, how it should be applied to atmospheric particles, always in motion, variously excited.  Yeah, there's northern lights, but that isn't what you are trying to prove.  You are trying to prove NOTHING, but momentary point-efects, while ignoring the practical behavior, of atmospheric molecules, with three or more atoms.

I guess that is why Ian Crapforbrains won't buy your shit, which stinks so bad, even Crapforbrains doesn't like the smell.  Eventually, you can shit yourself so badly, you will need to grow a tree, in your asshole, for carbon credits.*


----------



## IanC (Jun 19, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > it is you that has to explain your miraculous 'expended photon' theory not me. I know (roughly) how electric and magnetic fields can be added together with the net effect being measurable. you consider the non-reactive radiation 'EM field' of the earth to have the same properties as electric or magnetic flux fields.
> ...


----------



## wirebender (Jun 19, 2012)

IanC said:


> do your best wirebender. I expect you are going to post the same link as before but hopefully you have found something new. typically your 'proof' does nothing more than disprove your mistaken belief that vitual photons only reside inside atoms and have no consequences in everyday reality.



I am not going to post anything ian.  Till you grasp the subtraction of EM fields, there is nothing more you can learn.  You are immovably locked into your misunderstanding by your belief that a photon is a thing rather than a bit of energy.

As to virtual photons, they are all virtual as the word photon is nothing more than a word that describes the smallest measurable bit of energy in an EM field.  There is no such "thing" as a photon.  Not a single one has ever been detected between point A and point B.


----------



## IanC (Jun 19, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > do your best wirebender. I expect you are going to post the same link as before but hopefully you have found something new. typically your 'proof' does nothing more than disprove your mistaken belief that vitual photons only reside inside atoms and have no consequences in everyday reality.
> ...





I will admit that photons are very strange entities. just because we dont understand them completely doesnt mean we dont have very precise predictions as to how they behave. we have even less understanding about gravity but we can predict its effects too.

explain to me why you think photons 'disappear' rather than get used up in competing EM fields. what would the physical differences be? are all types of EM fields alike?

say something in your own words so that we may better understand your somewhat confused position.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 19, 2012)

*Aaaaand the circle-jerk continues.  Wienerbitch still won't explain how his momentary EM theory applies, under what conditions.  Ian can see bullshitting Wienerbitch is addled, but Ian can't pin Wienerbitch down to any set of conditions for Wienerbitch's fanciful application of EMFs because Wienerbitch is a complete bullshitter, who never or rarely posts anything, which shouldn't be pissed on.  

Your EM criterion are WHAT, WienerfuckingBITCH?  Finally, how do your EMFs apply, relative to what jostling particles, in what atmosphere, you punkass, ranting queer, from the scum, around a Log Cabin Club shit-bowl?  If bitch won't explain practical EMF applications, after several pages of ranting, at Hanson and Greenland threads, it is time for bitch to move on, to the flame zone.

Ian, if you want Wienerbitch to talk some more science, you probably have to beat it out of him/her.  Unless you start pissing on Wienrbitch, you aren't giving him/her what he/she deserves and wants.  You have to postulate, bitch wants to fuck AND fight, so get it on.  You geeks are farting and shitting up the Hanson thread and the Greenland glaciers thread, without settling a false controversy.

Post another picture, of EMFs marking the tides, at La Jolla, Wienerbitch.*


----------



## wirebender (Jun 20, 2012)

IanC said:


> I will admit that photons are very strange entities. just because we dont understand them completely doesnt mean we dont have very precise predictions as to how they behave. we have even less understanding about gravity but we can predict its effects too.



We have predictions of *WHAT *will happen and a story that we have fabricated about *HOW* it happens ian, and that is all.  And the story we have fabricated about photons has some pretty serious errors which Enistein himself pointed out.  He didn't accept photons as actual entities, why do you?

You remain stuck in misunderstanding till you come to terms with the fact that photons are not entities.  They are not things.  Photon is a word that describes the smallest measurable bit of energy in an  EM field.  That's it.  There is no such "thing" as a photon unless you are calling the smallest measurable bit of energy in a field "A THING".



IanC said:


> explain to me why you think photons 'disappear' rather than get used up in competing EM fields. what would the physical differences be? are all types of EM fields alike?



More lies ian.  You are apparently incapable of discussing this topic without twisting, mischaracterizing, and fabricating upon everything I say.

Photons are bits of energy ian.  Nothing more.  When the energy in an EM field is expended, photons are expended.  The word photon, as it applies to EM fields means the magnitude of the field.  These two sentences  regarding the mangnitue of EM fields have the same meaning:

How many of the smallest measurable bits of energy is it composed of?

How many photons is it composed of?

There is no "disappearing" or magic, or anything at all supernatural going on ian.  There is simply energy being expended.  The decrease in magnitude of an EM field as a result of destructive interference by another field is well known and documented ian and it is a critical consideration with every microwave dish, cell phone tower, communication satellite and satellite receiver, radio tower, and any other means of communication that involves the transmission and reception of EM fields.  

I doubt that you will find any scientific source that states that the number of photons the field is made of is decreased via destructive interference because by definition the field is composed of photons.  At that level, authors expect that you at least know the basic definitions of the words they use and can apply them to the topic.    By definition, a photon is the quanta, that is the smallest measurable bit, of an EM field.  When the magnitude of a field is reduced, the number of photons has been reduced.  Where did they go?  They were expended doing work.  Energy is expended when work is performed ian.  The reduction of the magnitude of one EM field by another via destructive interfernce constitutes work.

Your continued misrepresentation of what I have said over and over has grown so tiresome that I don't really care to talk to you ian.  It is impossible to simply discuss the topic because as in this post, nothing new is being discussed.  The whole thing is nothing more than an attempt to set right, your dishonest characterization of what I have already said.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a photon is and till you get past your notion that it is a "thing" you can't move forward.  



IanC said:


> say something in your own words so that we may better understand your somewhat confused position.



It has all been my own words ian.  I rarely need to cut and paste to simply discuss a topic.

As to confusion, the only one confused is you and it really isn't confusion.  It is misunderstanding.  You don't grasp what the word photon means and therefore you can't apply it to EM fields or their subtraction.  You apparently can add EM fields because it only involves adding photons to a field but when it comes to subtraction, a well known and documented phenomena, you can't get it because it doesn't jibe with the picture you have in your head of what a photon is.

You can't grasp that when an EM field expends energy in opposition to another EM field that photons are being expended as they are nothing more than the smallest measurable bit of the field.  I can't help you ian because you can't grasp what I am saying.  You can't jibe what you believe with the fact that we know undeniably that EM fields can diminsih, or in fact, cancel each other out so you simply can't hear it.  To accept the fact that a photon is not a thing but just the smallest measurable bit of energy that makes up an EM field would start a cascade which would ultimately require that you discard your silly notion that CO2 can cause warming and you simply aren't prepared to do that.  You are a believer ian and you hold your belief in the face of the laws of phyiscis and the defnition of every science dictionary I could lay my hands on.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 20, 2012)

*Start a queer-flashlight thread, Wienerbitch.  Write up dueling flashlights.  Eat shit, queer.*


----------



## IanC (Jun 20, 2012)

I see you have again ducked the issue and perhaps are walking back from your past position.

I say photons cannot be created, absorbed, or transformed in any way except in the presence of matter. therefore constructive/destructive interference only exists if we measure it or there is some other matter capable of putting the photons 'to the test'. electric or magnetic fields only transfer force when there is a particle of matter present to accept that force.

you and gslack insisted that the presence of matter was optional and that photons  disappeared via subtraction of fields and/or destructive interference all the time and that is the reason why CO2 cant send a photon to the surface. if you wish I can link you to your derisive comments on this, whereas I have never been able to find your explanation of how it is done.

again i ask you - where, when and how do photons magically disappear? actually an answer to any one of the three questions will probably allow me to disprove your answer.

so, step up to the plate and enlighten us.

or at least post that link about radio tower interference so I can show people how incorrect your thinking is on reactive virtual photons.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 20, 2012)

*Hey.  Ian Crapforbrains!  You and Wienerbitch have hijacked two threads, instead of sending PMs, you haven't settled each other's shit, since you are blow-buddies, you don't have an application to any thread topic area, for many pages, of either the Hanson thread or the Greenland thread, at ENVIRIONMENT, since you both suck, so if you don't like the quantum thread, already up, start another quantum thread, over at SCIENCE AND TECH:*

Science and Technology - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/228678-quantum-physics.html


----------



## IanC (Jun 20, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *Hey.  Ian Crapforbrains!  You and Wienerbitch have hijacked two threads, instead of sending PMs, you haven't settled each other's shit, since you are blow-buddies, you don't have an application to any thread topic area, for many pages, of either the Hanson thread or the Greenland thread, at ENVIRIONMENT, since you both suck, so if you don't like the quantum thread, already up, start another quantum thread, over at SCIENCE AND TECH:*
> 
> Science and Technology - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/228678-quantum-physics.html



if a moderator was going to step in, it would be to ban you for unacceptable language.

your solution is easy, simply put one or both of us on your ignore list. I am pretty sure you are on a few of the other posters ignore lists


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 24, 2012)

_Hansen is part of Makiko's page, at CU:_

Makiko's Page

_Hanson has many letters and publications, since 2005, so 2005+ is how he should be reviewed, meaning the OP of this thread, re 1988 is pure deflection:_

Dr. James E. Hansen  Communications

NASA GISS: James E. Hansen

_Hansen notes in 2009, how the Copenhagen Conference was not going to produce any good media:_

Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist | Environment | The Guardian


----------

