# Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"



## RollingThunder (May 6, 2013)

As many people have pointed out and satellite instrumentation confirms, the Earth is still gaining heat due to increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, even though the rise in surface temperatures has temporarily slowed down. A new study sheds further light on just where the heat has been going recently. These findings are not kind to the myths and delusions of the denier cultists, so howls of ignorant outrage and disbelief from these retarded reality deniers are only to be expected and will soon be seen here. This new research just confirms earlier findings and highlights what the climate scientists have been saying for years about the how the extra heat energy the Earth is retaining is affecting the whole system - the air, the oceans, the land, and the ice.






*Most of the heat from global warming is going into the oceans. Covering some 70% of the Earth's surface and having a heat capacity a thousand times more than the atmosphere, it's easy to understand why the oceans are the main heat sink.* (*source*)

******
******

*New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated*
SkepticalScience
25 March 2013
(excerpts) 
*A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013).  There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.*

*Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years.  This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.*
*As suspected, much of the 'missing heat' Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans.  Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.*
*Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate.  Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.*
*The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.*
*The main results of the study are illustrated in its Figure 1.*




_*Figure 1: Ocean Heat Content from 0 to 300 meters (grey), 700 m (blue), and total depth (violet) from ORAS4, as represented by its 5 ensemble members. The time series show monthly anomalies smoothed with a 12-month running mean, with respect to the 19581965 base period. Hatching extends over the range of the ensemble members and hence the spread gives a measure of the uncertainty as represented by ORAS4 (which does not cover all sources of uncertainty). The vertical colored bars indicate a two year interval following the volcanic eruptions with a 6 month lead (owing to the 12-month running mean), and the 199798 El Niño event again with 6 months on either side. On lower right, the linear slope for a set of global heating rates (W/m[sup]2[/sup]) is given.*_

(continued in detail)


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

Interesting. Certainly the good news is that the rise in land temperatures seems to have pUsed, recently, even if it has paused at a relatively high temperature (many peopl seem to have not noticed that 2012 was the hottest year in US history and the 9th warmest globally).

The bad news is that the deep ocean seems to be the smokng gun. With research due from the Argos research during the next couple of years likely to confirm the results of this research, it does look as if the scientists are close to finding the missing pieces in the puzzle. 

I don't think we are on the verge of anything catastrophic in our lifetines, or even those of our children, but let's hope the scientists are somehow wrong anyhow...


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (May 6, 2013)

Al Gore couldn't invent the internet so instead he invented global warming.  Read Charles Krauthammers article.  No sign of global warming.  You'll be fine.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (May 6, 2013)

mmm..mm..  Coolest spring in the midwest for decades..


----------



## skookerasbil (May 6, 2013)

Ding.....dong.........

3,318 cold records set this week in U.S.

Russian Scientists Predict Onset of Global Cooling | Heartlander Magazine

Dem resolution warns climate change could push women to ?transactional sex? - The Hill's Floor Action


----------



## skookerasbil (May 6, 2013)

Ding.......dong..........

The Fantasy of Extreme Weather | Behind The Black


The models are wrong | Behind The Black



Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming | Fox News


----------



## skookerasbil (May 6, 2013)

Ding......dong.........

Quietest Year On Record For US Forest Fires | Real Science


Tornado spike in 2011 attributed to climate change. So what to make of this year?s tornado drought? | SciGuy | a Chron.com blog




Warmers predictions on climate are ALWAYS FUCKING WRONG!!!!


Remember the bold predictions on Cat 5 hurricanes???



Remember the bold predictions on "no more snowfalls".


----------



## Oddball (May 6, 2013)

Come over baby, a whole lotta smoothin' goin' on!


----------



## jwoodie (May 6, 2013)

Global Warming-Climate Change-Global Warming-Climate Change
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Classic Bait & Switch game.


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> mmm..mm..  Coolest spring in the midwest for decades..



Possibly - but then 2012 was the hottest year in American history, wasn't it?

No one is claiming there will not be cold springs, cold weeks and even cold years in future - but the average trend is upwards.


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Come over baby, a whole lotta smoothin' goin' on!



Was 2012 the hottest year in American history?


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

Skooks - 



> Ding......dong.........
> 
> Quietest Year On Record For US Forest Fires | Real Science
> 
> Tornado spike in 2011 attributed to climate change. So what to make of this year?s tornado drought? | SciGuy | a Chron.com blog



Firstly, tornados are NOT linked to climate change - check the IIPC. 

Secondly, less forest fires does not mean temperatures are going down. 

Rather than post this gibberish, why not spend 10 minutes reading what the scientists are saying, rather than ridiculing claims that no one is making?


----------



## Oddball (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Come over baby, a whole lotta smoothin' goin' on!
> ...


America comprises how much of the planet's total land mass?


----------



## Flanders (May 6, 2013)

Jeremiah said:


> Al Gore couldn't invent the internet so instead he invented global warming.  Read Charles Krauthammers article.  No sign of global warming.  You'll be fine.



*To Jeremiah: Better yet, read the latest novel:* 



> Despite his onerous duties as head of the United NationsIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajenda Pauchari had the spare time to publish (in 2010) a bawdy sex novel called Return to Almora.
> 
> Going him one better, a team of 240 U.S. scientists (whose common bond is that they consume oodles of federal dollars) completed a manuscript for editorial review called The Third National Climate Assessment Report that is much more imaginative, with a climate hotter than Paucharis steamiest scenes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pop23 (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > mmm..mm..  Coolest spring in the midwest for decades..
> ...



Was it?  Got the temperature readings from 1776?


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I would have thought Americans might be concerned about America's climate - particularly given the catastrophic drought you experienced last year.

If you prefer a global perspective - 2012 was the 9th hottest year on record.


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

Pop23 said:


> Was it?  Got the temperature readings from 1776?



Yes, of course....what's your point?


----------



## Pop23 (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Was it?  Got the temperature readings from 1776?
> ...



While most of the country was yet not inhabited. Nifty trick but I guess we can always guess.


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

Pop23 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



There are a few different ways scientists are able to measure temperatures from earlier times, such as ice core samples:  

Ice cores contain an abundance of information about climate. Inclusions in the snow of each year remain in the ice, such as wind-blown dust, ash, bubbles of atmospheric gas and radioactive substances. The variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers. These include (proxies for) temperature, ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and forest fires.

An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research.

Ice core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Oddball (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


The whole "global warming" thingy is nothing without the "global" part....America is but a small fraction of that matrix.

And "on record" comprises but the tiniest fraction of human history, let alone the planet's.


----------



## Pop23 (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Like I said, we could just guess


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

Oddball - 



> And "on record" comprises but the tiniest fraction of human history, let alone the planet's.



Not at all - it really is worth doing some research on this stuff before you ridicule it!

Does this chart go back far enough for you?







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


----------



## Oddball (May 6, 2013)

The hockey puck graph is a fraud.


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

Pop23 said:


> Like I said, we could just guess



We could - but we don't need to guess. 

I just posted the historical temperature chart, where different colours represent different sources of data. Although there are some major variations, the trends are very clear.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 6, 2013)

Oh, the oceans are absorbing the warming, that's why we have so many record cold numbers.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  Just like the models predicted


----------



## peach174 (May 6, 2013)

As Earths Climate changes, so do our other planets.
It is not just Earth but many of our solar system planets are experiencing climate changes.
Humans are not causing our climate to change.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqOkMaaYaAs]Interplanetary Climate Change NASA's Hottest Secret. A clip from David Wilcock - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Oh, the oceans are absorbing the warming, that's why we have so many record cold numbers.
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  Just like the models predicted



Jesus wept....spot the person who still has not heard that 2012 was the hottest year in American history.


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

> As Earths Climate changes, so do our other planets.
> It is not just Earth but many of our solar system planets are experiencing climate changes.
> Humans are not causing our climate to change.



Climates do not change because they feel like it - they change because something forces them to change. 

Several factors have and will cause the earth's climate to change. 

What is happening on Uranus need not be the same trend as occurs on Mars, because the change in the climate might be caused by entirely different factors.


----------



## Pop23 (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said, we could just guess
> ...



Some major variations? Why do you dispute these are guesses when they obviously are?


----------



## Oddball (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, the oceans are absorbing the warming, that's why we have so many record cold numbers.
> ...


Spot the imbecile who continues to overlook the fact that America is but a small fraction of the total planetary surface.


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

Pop23 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Because even when we look at a dozen different pieces of research using entirely different methodologies - we always see the same basic trends. 

Of course we can not say that May 06, 1076 was cold for the time of year - but we can determines tht the early 11th century was cold, and we know how cold.


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Spot the imbecile who continues to overlook the fact that America is but a small fraction of the total planetary surface.



Um....I addressed this earlier. You might have overlooked my reply. 

2012 was the 12th hottest year on record, globally, meaning that *each of the last 12 years (20012012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record.*


----------



## iamwhatiseem (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Come over baby, a whole lotta smoothin' goin' on!
> ...



Well considering we only have data for a couple hundred years - no one has the foggiest idea. The continent did exist before we got here.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2013)

Pop23 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



From 1776 Jefferson kept a consistent and, with inevitable interruptions, continuous record of his weather observations, in America, in Europe, and even in the mid-Atlantic. His practices and those of National Weather Service observers today are basically the same: to measure precipitation and to record the daily temperature range. 

How hot was July 4, 1776? Thanks to Jefferson, we know - The Answer Sheet - The Washington Post

*Do you have the brains to use that computer in front of you for anything other than demonstrating the depths of your ignorance?*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2013)

Pop23 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You can, if you prefer. Scientists can determine that from a number of data points. Particularly glacial ice.

You assume that everyone is as ignorant as you are. Bad assumption.


----------



## Pop23 (May 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Then please, explain the variations. Sound more like a cult to me.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (May 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Yes yes Jefferson simply stood on his roof to communicate with Indians living in the Prairies to get temp readings of the day. Remarkable what Indians could do with smoke signals.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2013)

Pop23 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Natural variations are a cult? And here I always thought they were the result of differant conditions than the prior year.


----------



## Pop23 (May 6, 2013)

On the chart already on this thread

Oh my


----------



## Pop23 (May 6, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



They used magic carpets!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 6, 2013)

peach174 said:


> As Earths Climate changes, so do our other planets.
> It is not just Earth but many of our solar system planets are experiencing climate changes.
> Humans are not causing our climate to change.



I guess you're too brainwashed and retarded to grasp the fact that your denier cult myth about the other planets was completely debunked a ling time ago.

*What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system*
(excerpts)

_*Denier Myth - Evidence that CO2 is not the principle driver of warming on this planet is provided by the simultaneous warming of other planets and moons in our solar system. Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all show global warming, pointing to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate throughout the solar system.*_*

What the science says - There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. * Not all planets in the solar system are warming. * The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. * There are explanations for why other planets are warming. - The basis of this argument is that the sun must be causing global warming and in fact, warming throughout the solar system. There are several flaws in this line of thought. Firstly, the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001). Secondly, the theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider the sun has shown little to no trend since the 1950s. A variety of independent measurements of solar activity including satellite data, sunspot numbers, UV levels and solar magnetograms all paint a consistent picture. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.*


----------



## Saigon (May 7, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I just posted temperature charts going back a millenium, genius.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 4, 2013)

The fossil fuel industry's propaganda machine continues to grind out new pseudo-science and misinformation. Witness the recent spurt of bogus articles claiming something like "_climate scientists are puzzled by halt in global warming for last 15 years_". The Earth has continued to retain more of the sun's energy than it can radiate away into space due to the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that mankind has created, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, but because the rise in surface temperatures has slowed down compared to the three previous decades of very rapid increases in surface temperatures, many people has misinterpreted that to mean that global warming has paused or is in a "_lull_". This is not true. The excess heat energy retained by the excess CO2 has been transferring itself to the ocean depths, but it will eventually return to the surface and radically increase surface temperatures once again in the next decade. Meanwhile, global warming has continued to manifest itself in the melting of the Arctic ice cap, Greenland, West Antarctica and the world's glaciers, as well as the many other symptoms, like the changing of seasonal timing and increases in extreme weather events.

Global warming is actually still accelerating and competent climate scientists are not puzzled about what is happening. Here's a good explanation of just what is really happening.

*In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms*
ClimateProgress
By Dana Nuccitelli
Mar 25, 2013
*A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.
* Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
* As suspected, much of the missing heat Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
* Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
* The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.





Figure 1: Ocean Heat Content from 0 to 300 meters (grey), 700 m (blue), and total depth (violet) from ORAS4, as represented by its 5 ensemble members.
*

(continued on website linked in article headline)


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 4, 2013)

Oh good -- THey found it.. 

Now that satellites prevent them from botching up the land surface record, or using a selected tree as a thermometer for 1100BC, ----

 we can fabricate the temperature of the Pacific in 1935 at 700m depths from sea snail rings or some other reliable thermometer.

Pheeewww.. Am I relieved...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Oh good -- THey found it..
> 
> Now that satellites prevent them from botching up the land surface record, or using a selected tree as a thermometer for 1100BC, ----
> 
> ...



Still rejecting all of the science and clinging to your cult myths and moronic conspiracy theories like a good little obedient denier cult retard, I see. Nice knee-jerk reaction there, fecalton.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Oh good -- THey found it..
> ...



I've had months to consider this dodgey assertion your klan is making.. 

Thimk for a minute here -- even if it hurts.. 

Where does the deep ocean temp record come from for 1900 to maybe 1940? How much of the world's oceans did it cover? How much is proxies and how much is an actual thermometer? 

So many questions -- so little answers...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 4, 2013)

'Nother question.. (maybe I'll read the paper for giggles)...  

Is that historical plot even REAL DATA --- or a model?? What TF is ORAS4 if not a model?

<<<<Edit>>>>>


> ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalysis fluxes and quality controlled ocean observations. These consist of temperature and salinity (T/S) profiles from the Hadley Centre's EN3 data collection [Ingleby and Huddleston, 2007], which include expendable bathythermographs (T only, with depth corrections from Table&#8201;1 of Wijffels et al. [2008]), conductivity-temperature-depth sensors (T/S), TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA moorings (T/S), Argo profilers (T/S),* and autonomous pinniped bathythermograph (or elephant seals,* T/S).



No joke?? autonomous pinniped bathythermographs ???? How do you get those elephant seals down off the coast of Brazil eh? 
Do they have their own bunks on the ship...  Covered under ObamaCare?? 

Clyde wanna fish??


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You denier cultists are so funny. You admit your almost complete ignorance on this topic but you're still absolutely sure that you understand it better than the professional scientists who've been studying this subject for decades. 

Here's a little background to throw some light on your ignorant denial.

*Researchers match modern ocean temperature records to those of the 1870s*
arstechnica
by Scott K. Johnson  
Apr 3 2012
*In 1872, the HMS Challenger left Portsmouth on a daring mission, but it didnt set sail as a military ship. It had been retrofitted, not to project power, but to humbly petition the ocean to give up some of its secrets. Over three and a half years, the Challenger and its crew of over 200 (at the start, that is) circumnavigated the globe, collecting every scrap of information they found along the way. The crew frequently measured the depth of the seafloor and the temperature profile of the water, and brought up sediment samples (sometimes including living organisms). Among other accomplishments, the expedition discovered the submarine mountains of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, described more than 4,700 new species, and learned that the ocean was stratified by temperature.

There is still much we do not know about the ocean, but quite a lot has changed. Thanks to the Argo project, were now up to 3,500 automated buoys that continuously record data from the upper 2 kilometers of Earths oceans. Using that incredible data coverage, oceanographers were able to compare Challengers temperature measurements to todays oceans. For each of 273 Challenger temperature profiles from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, researchers interpolated Argo measurements from the same location, depth, and time of year. Modern surface ocean temperatures (averaged over 2004-2010) were higher at 211 of those points. On average, the surface of the Atlantic is about 1°C warmer0.4°C for the Pacific.*


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> 'Nother question.. (maybe I'll read the paper for giggles)...
> 
> Is that historical plot even REAL DATA --- or a model?? What TF is ORAS4 if not a model?
> 
> ...




Considering that you're too brainwashed and ignorant to recognize "REAL DATA" if it bit you, your question is absurd and based only on your well demonstrated inability to understand what you read.

"expendable bathythermographs" = real data 

"conductivity-temperature-depth sensors" = real data 

"TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA moorings" = real data 

"Argo profilers" = real data 

"autonomous pinniped bathythermograph" = real data







flacaltenn said:


> No joke?? autonomous pinniped bathythermographs ???? How do you get those elephant seals down off the coast of Brazil eh?
> Do they have their own bunks on the ship...  Covered under ObamaCare??
> 
> Clyde wanna fish??



Sneering at the scientific techniques that you're too ignorant and retarded to comprehend is indeed the mark of a true denier cult dingbat.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 5, 2013)

It has become a common propaganda meme of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign to claim that "_global warming stopped 16 years ago_" but that is based on distortions and misrepresentations of the actual science. Climate scientists are very aware that surface temperature changes represent only a small fraction of the picture. Surface temperatures have risen over the beginning of this century with each of the last 12 years (2001 - 2012) being one of the 14 warmest years on record and with 2010 and 2005 being tied for the position of the warmest year on record. After very rapid rises in surface air temperatures in the 70's, 80's and 90's, the rate of rise in surface air temperatures slowed a bit since 2000 but research has shown that the Earth has continued to warm at an accelerating rate with more of the excess heat going into the oceans than was the case in the previous three decades. Here is what the denier cult dupes want to ignore.





*Figure 1 - A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3 versus where skeptics/contrarians seem to think it's going. Note the graphic totals 99.9%, so 0.1% is unaccounted for.*
(source)


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 5, 2013)

So ---- How come this "deep ocean absorption" wasn't part of the modeling? 

The models you're presenting here claim to based on knowledge we've had for a couple decades. 

Where is this "thermal inertia" part of the IPCC modeling? And why doesn't it count for the 1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance that we've seen since the 1800s? Maybe all THAT got "stored in the deep oceans" also... 

Oceans are huge heatsinks. To have that effect SUDDENLY and CONVIENIENTLY kick in UNANTICIPATED and UNANNOUNCED (in a short number of years) just illustrates how this AGW sideshow isn't even out of "concept phase" yet..


----------



## Staidhup (Jul 5, 2013)

I just love these whack jobs running around the chicken coop yelling the sky is falling, so big deal, the world has been experiencing cooling and warming changes for millions upon millions of years. The fact is possibly man was destined all along to only inhabit the earth for a short period of time. So get over it, we are just a small speck of sand along the evolutionary highway of time. We will either adapt or perish, whats wrong with that? The primary problem is that mankind views it self as absolute, like your scientists, and we need to have someone or thing to blame for everything that does not go our way. so get naked and go back to your cave, but don't forget your solar cells and for Gods sake don't burn any wood! You people are such pathetic whiners.


----------



## Staidhup (Jul 5, 2013)

One final thought, without carbon in the atmosphere, this world would be an ice cube.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 5, 2013)

What's that about ignoring science again?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> So ---- How come this "deep ocean absorption" wasn't part of the modeling? The models you're presenting here claim to based on knowledge we've had for a couple decades.



I'm not "_presenting models_"; I'm presenting the evidence that scientific studies have produced showing that, due to persistent La Nina events over the last eight years, a great deal of heat energy has been transferred to the ocean depths, thus slowing the rate of rise in surface air temperatures, even though global warming has not "_paused_" or "_stopped_", but in fact has continued to accelerate. Try and keep up with what is actually being said instead of getting lost in your straw man argument fantasies.








flacaltenn said:


> Where is this "thermal inertia" part of the IPCC modeling? And why doesn't it count for the 1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance that we've seen since the 1800s? Maybe all THAT got "stored in the deep oceans" also...



*Sunspot activity has played a major role in long-term climate change. 
The Maunder Minimum most likely caused the Little Ice Age. 
The Recent Modern Maximum peaked in 1960.
Only 0.1 ° C of the 0.8 ° C of warming since the late 1800s is due to solar irradiance. Since direct satellite measurements (1980 present) solar contribution to the observed rapid warming is negligible. 
In fact, the sun has been WEAKER while the climate WARMS since 1960. 
There is no evidence that variations in the strength of the sun are the cause of the modern day climate change. 
While the troposphere (the lower region of the atmosphere) has warmed, the stratosphere, just above it, has cooled. If solar changes provided the dominant forcing, warming would be expected in both atmospheric layers. *
(source - slides 6,7,8,9 - you should watch the whole slide show)








flacaltenn said:


> Oceans are huge heatsinks. To have that effect SUDDENLY and CONVIENIENTLY kick in UNANTICIPATED and UNANNOUNCED (in a short number of years) just illustrates how this AGW sideshow isn't even out of "concept phase" yet..



Climate scientists have figured out quite a bit about what's happening but it is still a rapidly developing science and no one has ever claimed that they already know everything about the Earth's climate and the year to year impacts of anthropogenic global warming. Climate scientists are, however, nowhere near as clueless and ignorant as you bamboozled anti-science denier cult retards have been duped into thinking they are. La Nina events have been happening for at least a part of every year from 2005 to 2012, and they tend to draw surface heat into the ocean depths.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

Here's something that corroborates what I've been saying, from a prominent meteorologist, Dr. Jeff Masters, who has studies and writes about this modern global warming/climate change crisis.

*Global warming continues with no slow down*
Dr. Jeff Masters
March 27, 2013
(excerpts)	
*One often hears the statement in the media that global warming stopped in 1998, or that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Why pick 16 years? Why not some nice round number like 20 years? Or better yet, 30 years, since the climate is generally defined as the average weather experienced over a period of 30 years or longer? Temperatures at Earth's surface undergo natural, decades-long warming and cooling trends, related to the La Niña/El Niño cycle and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reason one often hears the year 1998 used as a base year to measure global temperature trends is that this is a cherry-picked year. An extraordinarily powerful El Niño event that was the strongest on record brought about a temporary increase in surface ocean temperatures over a vast area of the tropical Pacific that year, helping boost global surface temperatures to the highest levels on record (global temperatures were warmer in both 2005 and 2010, but not by much.) But in the years from 2005 - 2012, La Niña events have been present for at least a portion of every single year, helping keep Earth's surface relatively cool. Thus, if one draws a straight-line fit of global surface temperatures from 1998 to 2012, a climate trend showing little global warming results. If one picks any year prior to 1998, or almost any year after 1998, a global warming trend does result. The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends.

Correcting for natural causes to find the human contribution to global temperature changes
We know that natural global warming or cooling on time scales of 1 - 11 years can be caused by changes in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in solar energy. For example, a study published in March 2013 in Geophysical Research Letters found that dust in the stratosphere has increased by 4 - 10% since 2000 due to volcanic eruptions, keeping the level of global warming up to 25% lower than might be expected. So, it is good to remove these natural causes of global temperature change over the past 34 years for which we have satellite data, to see what the human influence might have been during that time span. The three major surface temperature data sets (NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU) all show global temperatures have warmed by 0.16 - 0.17°C (0.28 - 0.30°F) per decade since satellite measurements began in 1979. The two satellite-based data sets of the lower atmosphere (UAH and RSS) give slightly less warming, about 0.14 - 0.15°C (.25 - .27°F) per decade (keep in mind that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere temperature are affected much more strongly by volcanic eruptions and the El Niño phenomena than are surface-based measurements taken by weather stations.) A 2011 paper published by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, "Global temperature evolution 1979- 2010", took the five major global temperature data sets and adjusted them to remove the influences of natural variations in sunlight, volcanic dust, and the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The researchers found that adjusting for these natural effects did not change the observed trend in global temperatures, which remained between 0.14 - 0.17°C (0.25 - 0.31°F) per decade in all five data sets. The warmest years since 1979 were 2010 and 2009 in all five adjusted data sets. Since the known natural causes of global warming have little to do with the observed increase in global temperatures over the past 34 years, either human activity or some unknown natural source is responsible for the global warming during that time period.




Figure 3. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1979 - 2012, adjusted to remove natural variations due to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in solar energy. The five most frequently-cited global temperature records are presented: surface temperature estimates by NASA's GISS, HadCRU from the UK Met Office, and NOAA's NCDC, and satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH.) Image is an update (via realclimate.org) of one from a 2011 study, Global temperature evolution 1979 - 2010 , by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 2011, 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.*


----------



## Politico (Jul 6, 2013)

Don't stress Thunder. If it's real it won't matter. You'll be long since dead.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 6, 2013)

Staidhup said:


> One final thought, without carbon in the atmosphere, this world would be an ice cube.



You dumb fuck, you just blew your own arguement right out of the water. That is correct, without the GHGs naturally present, the oceans would freeze down to the equator. But with too great of an amount of GHGs, you get a very rapid climate change.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 6, 2013)

Politico said:


> Don't stress Thunder. If it's real it won't matter. You'll be long since dead.



No, not at all. In 2000, had someone told me that the Arctic Sea Ice was going to be gone for part of the summer by 2020, I would have said that is way too fast. Reality is that the scientists have been far too conservative in judging the effects of the warming. From the increase in extreme wildfire events, to the extreme flood events, we are seeing consequences right now.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2013)

I know thinkprogress is where I go for the truth on anything...fer sure they don't peddle Propaganda for GLOBULL WARMING

hahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 6, 2013)

We fed this data into our AGW models and found AGW

AGW is a cult, a death worshiping, deranged cult






"Global Warming is for real!!"


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 6, 2013)

You're a nut s0n........nobody cares about the science........







s0n.......you might as well be standing in the middle of Siberia butt naked baying at the moon.


Nobody cares.........


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 6, 2013)




----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Don't stress Thunder. If it's real it won't matter. You'll be long since dead.
> ...





sorry Ray........extreme weather is not any new phenomenon like you suggest. Its one of the classic ruse strategies perpetuated by the AGW crowd.........

But a quick peek at the history of extreme weather indicates its ALWAYS been around.


Chronology of Extreme Weather


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

Politico said:


> Don't stress Thunder. If it's real it won't matter. You'll be long since dead.



That kind of sociopathic self-centeredness and disregard for the welfare and survival of future generations of us humans and all of the other creatures we share this planet with seems pretty typical of the rightwingnut retards who fill the ranks of this anti-science cult of AGW denial and serve as the "useful idiot" foot soldiers for the fossil fuel industry's continued profits from selling the stuff that is creating this climate change crisis. The Koch brothers and Exxon thank you for for being such a moronic dupe, Politiconned. Your descendants (if any) will curse you.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Don't stress Thunder. If it's real it won't matter. You'll be long since dead.
> ...



omg, why the hell are we suppose to care about your survival.. talk about SELF CENTERED
you seem to know everything survive for yourself...and you talk about Exxon and the Koch brothers..just look at who you will follow off a cliff..Obama, and Albert the bore Gore who have no schooling in climate or weather and some site called, thinknoporgess..

good grief the friggen dramtics...you descendents WILL CURSE YOU...oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



And there's kookles, once again demonstrating just how far he's managed to ram his head up his butthole.

[youtube]1p7YBXaJi3k[/youtube]


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2013)

oh damn it's SUMMER and it's HOT...we are all GOING TO DIE...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



I said nothing about you caring about MY survival, nitwit. Are you so retarded you can't even comprehend simple English?






Stephanie said:


> oh damn it's SUMMER and it's HOT...we are all GOING TO DIE...



So yeah, you are THAT retarded.... and completely clueless about what is going on too....please try to jerk your head out of your butthole, Stupidanie, before your brain suffocates....oops, obviously already too late for that.....


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



oh little child..go back to thinkprogress so they can tell you how to act like adult...
you think anyone take you serious on global warming aka CLIMATE change with your stupid childish insults, think again


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's something that corroborates what I've been saying, from a prominent meteorologist, Dr. Jeff Masters, who has studies and writes about this modern global warming/climate change crisis.
> 
> *Global warming continues with no slow down*
> Dr. Jeff Masters
> ...



You are such a useful tool. You just contradicted yourself in the last couple posts. 

First you toss some numbers out to me MINIMIZING the effects of "natural forcings" and falsely claiming that solar irradiation increases of 1W/M2 only account for 0.1DegC is laughable.. But THEN --- you post a brand new "where is Waldo" study showing a warming trend exists UNDERNEATH all those natural forcings. That if you start removing natural forcings -- then a 0.17 degC/decade trend suddenly just springs right up !!!

*Which is it man?? The natural forcings are insignificant? Or they can effectively nullify and CANCEL the warming due to CO2???
I NEED an answer from YOU on that one*

Now that 0.17 degC trend found is interesting on several accounts.. First it is FAR LESS than the hissy dramatic predictions that AGW is based on --- and it's not far from the CO2 forcing ONLY number that elemental physics predicts.. No apparent "climate sensitivities" approaching 3.0 or 4.0 is there?? 

So you don't know it --- but the lying in THAT paper --- actually finds a CO2 forced trend line SIGNIFICANTLY below the IPCC hysterical predictions !!!!!

The lie that cannot stand in that abstract is that using 1998 as a baseline year has any significant impact on a 15 year running average. The deviation in that year was a mere 0.08degC.. Over an average of 15 yrs -- that barely passes significance..


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2013)

Two of the biggest hypocrites who don't live a life of this impending DOOM AND who have no DEGREE in climate or weather yet are the almights GODS of climate change and you people will follow them off the cliff...I laugh at this...
HEY OBAMA, WHAT HAPPENED WITH JOBS? now it's the climate we are in crisis over, last week it was guns, next week it will be???????

SNIP

Obama channels his inner Al Gore in climate change messaging shift

	By Ben Geman 	- 	07/06/13 12:07 PM ET  

  President Obama is channeling his inner Al Gore in his new climate push with a public relations strategy that breaks with his first term.

Obama, in short, is now talking loudly and directly about the peril of climate change as he promotes an array of executive-level actions. 

&#8220;There has definitely been a messaging shift,&#8221; said Brad Johnson of the advocacy group Forecast the Facts. 

&#8220;The recognition that Americans are already suffering the consequences of climate pollution is long overdue,&#8221; adds Johnson, who, alongside other activists, criticized the barely cameo status that climate had in the 2012 campaign.

The president packed last week&#8217;s big climate speech with calls to heed scientists&#8217; warnings, a strong attack on climate skeptics, and full-throated claims that the planetary stakes are immense.

&#8220;I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that&#8217;s beyond fixing,&#8221; he said at Georgetown University.

Obama spoke of the economic and human toll of extreme weather events like big storms, floods, wildfires and droughts.

&#8220;Those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don&#8217;t have time to deny it &#8211; they&#8217;re busy dealing with it,&#8221; he said.

Joe Romm of the liberal Center for American Progress, writing on his blog in late June, was delighted that Obama &#8220;went full climate hawk.&#8221; 

Gore, who complained two years ago that Obama had &#8220;failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action&#8221; on climate, also touted last week&#8217;s speech. 

The former vice president, a longtime advocate for aggressive policies to cut carbon emissions, called it &#8220;by far the best address on climate by any president ever.&#8221; 

While activists have welcomed Obama&#8217;s newly aggressive tack, it&#8217;s facing strong criticism from the right. 

&#8220;The economy stagnates. Syria burns. Scandals lap at his feet. China and Russia mock him, even as a &#8216;29-year-old hacker&#8217; revealed his nation&#8217;s spy secrets to the world. How does President Obama respond? With a grandiloquent speech on climate change,&#8221; conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in Friday&#8217;s Washington Post. 

Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are alleging the plan will hurt the economy, a notion the White House is pushing back hard against

all of it here
Read more: Obama channels his inner Al Gore in climate change messaging shift - The Hill's E2-Wire 
Follow us:    [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

thankfully the people are getting sick of Obama and his one crisis after another...lot of COMMENTS at site with article


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So ---- How come this "deep ocean absorption" wasn't part of the modeling? The models you're presenting here claim to based on knowledge we've had for a couple decades.
> ...



The OP IS presenting a model. A model of OHC that uses sparse and variable data to PROJECT a global effect.. You don't even know what you're posting.. 

But let's try to be objective here. What I LOVE about this "revelation" that Global Warming is "hiding" in the deep oceans is this.. 

One of the sillinesses of AGW theory is that it's ALL been based on the ridiculous expectation that radiative forcings at the surface are expected to result in IMMEDIATE and correlated temperature rises. The diff btwn radiative forcings and temperature is that one is POWER measurements and the other is ENERGY storage. There is a a time variable that has been pretty much ignored.. 

That's like expecting that if I turn up the range on a pot of water, the temperature will follow DIRECTLY the power being applied. It doesn't. It has a thermal inertia. And if I merely LEAVE the range dial set to 8 -- that the water WON'T continue to INCREASE in temp to thermal equilibrium over a (relatively) long period of minutes.

So --- now climate scientists are digging harder to understand the diff between POWER and ENERGY storage. That's a good thing.. Painful to see such a late understanding, but still useful.. 

So if a 1W/M2 change in solar irradiance occurrs since 1800 or so and we are looking for 2.6W/M2 change in TOTAL surface radiative forcing to explain the temp change -- it's NOT insignificant and it DOESN'T MATTER if it "stalled" in the 1960s or so does it? Because we SHOULD NOT EXPECT instant warming from these forcings --- should we? Not if there is a "hidden" (ha Ha) thermal time constant in that MASSIVE thermal mass that is the Earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> The fossil fuel industry's propaganda machine continues to grind out new pseudo-science and misinformation. Witness the recent spurt of bogus articles claiming something like "_climate scientists are puzzled by halt in global warming for last 15 years_". The Earth has continued to retain more of the sun's energy than it can radiate away into space due to the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that mankind has created, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, but because the rise in surface temperatures has slowed down compared to the three previous decades of very rapid increases in surface temperatures, many people has misinterpreted that to mean that global warming has paused or is in a "_lull_". This is not true. The excess heat energy retained by the excess CO2 has been transferring itself to the ocean depths, but it will eventually return to the surface and radically increase surface temperatures once again in the next decade. Meanwhile, global warming has continued to manifest itself in the melting of the Arctic ice cap, Greenland, West Antarctica and the world's glaciers, as well as the many other symptoms, like the changing of seasonal timing and increases in extreme weather events.
> 
> Global warming is actually still accelerating and competent climate scientists are not puzzled about what is happening. Here's a good explanation of just what is really happening.
> 
> ...



*this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.*

Half century? Why hold back? Unprecedented EVER!!

Quick, turn off your computer, you're killing penguins!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

Here's some more news regarding the report by the World Meteorological Organization that was released just a few days ago.

*Unprecedented climate extremes marked last decade, says World Meteorological Organization*
The Guardian
3 July 2013
(excerpts)
*The World Meteorological Organization says the planet "experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes" in the ten years from 2001 to 2010, the warmest decade since the start of modern measurements in 1850. Those ten years also continued an extended period of accelerating global warming, with more national temperature records reported broken than in any previous decade. Sea levels rose about twice as fast as the trend in the last century. A WMO report, The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes, analyses global and regional temperatures and precipitation, and extreme weather such as the heat waves in Europe and Russia, Hurricane Katrina in the US, tropical cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, droughts in the Amazon basin, Australia and East Africa, and floods in Pakistan.

It says the decade was the warmest for both hemispheres, and for both land and ocean surface temperatures. There was a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice and accelerating loss of net mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from the world's glaciers. This melting and the thermal expansion of sea water caused global mean sea levels to rise about three millimetres annually, about double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. Global sea level averaged over the decade was about 20 cm higher than in 1880, the report says. The WMO secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said: "WMO's report shows that global warming accelerated in the four decades of 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented." He added: "Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far-reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat." His reference to the oceans' role as a sink for CO2 and heat is significant in the present debate about the apparent slight slow-down in the pace of atmospheric warming and the likelihood that the heat is going into the oceans instead. The report says that between 2001 and 2010, there was no major El Niño event, which normally leads to higher temperatures (as in the then-record warm year of 1998). Much of this last decade experienced either cooling La Niña or neutral conditions, except for the 2009/2010 moderate to strong El Niño.*


----------



## prepster (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> The fossil fuel industry's propaganda machine continues to grind out new pseudo-science and misinformation. Witness the recent spurt of bogus articles claiming something like "_climate scientists are puzzled by halt in global warming for last 15 years_". The Earth has continued to retain more of the sun's energy than it can radiate away into space due to the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that mankind has created, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, but because the rise in surface temperatures has slowed down compared to the three previous decades of very rapid increases in surface temperatures, many people has misinterpreted that to mean that global warming has paused or is in a "_lull_". This is not true. The excess heat energy retained by the excess CO2 has been transferring itself to the ocean depths, but it will eventually return to the surface and radically increase surface temperatures once again in the next decade. Meanwhile, global warming has continued to manifest itself in the melting of the Arctic ice cap, Greenland, West Antarctica and the world's glaciers, as well as the many other symptoms, like the changing of seasonal timing and increases in extreme weather events.
> 
> Global warming is actually still accelerating and competent climate scientists are not puzzled about what is happening. Here's a good explanation of just what is really happening.
> 
> ...



This actually reaffirms the possible exogenous factors in models showing a halt in atmospheric and land temperature increases.  We are starting to get more knowledge in the ability of the oceans, particularly the deep oceans, to act as a carbon/GHG sink. Of course, this is not a good thing, as this will have cascading effects upon the biodiversity of the ocean ecosystem, melting of the polar ice caps, and eventually, the changing of ocean currents and global weather patterns, so we should not be giddy about this at all.  Now onto seeing if the exogenous factor of water vapor/cloud cover is having a greater effect than we previously thought.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

Here's a good news summary of a scientific report published earlier this year in the journal Science.

*Alarming new study on climate change says Earth's heat is accelerating superfast*
The Examiner
March 10, 2013
(excerpts)
*The latest report on climate change came out on Friday and the news isn't good. The study was released in Science magazine and it examines climate research done at Oregon State University (OSU). The geological team there combined current computer models with techniques that allowed them to glean information from past weather events by the use of ice core samples from polar regions and tree rings from different areas. They also studied temperature by testing for chemicals in the shells of tiny, fossilized sea creatures known as foraminifera. The researchers from OSU discovered the acceleration of warming is happening faster than anyone anticipated. &#8220;Global temperatures are warmer now than about 75 percent of anything we've seen over the last 11,000 years or so," said Shaun Marcott, a geologist at OSU in a NPR report. "It's really the rates of change here that's amazing and atypical." Marcott explained it this way: "Here's what happened. After the end of the ice age, the planet got warmer. Then, 5,000 years ago, it started to get cooler &#8212; but really slowly. In all, it cooled 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, up until the last century or so. Then it flipped again &#8212; global average temperature shot up. Temperatures now have gone from that cold period to the warm period in just 100 years. So it's taken just 100 years for the average temperature to change by 1.3 degrees, when it took 5,000 years to do that before."

Many scientists agree they are now in new climatic territory. When records are being broken at such accelerated rates, they face a situation unlike any before. &#8220;You can start to see a shifting from one climate system to another. So the climate has in one sense actually changed and we are now entering a new series of climatic conditions that we just haven't seen before," said Tim Flannery, head of the Australian government's climate change commission in response to the OSU research. Climate scientists predict that 100-year weather events will continue to increase, because there is currently too much complacency about reducing the vast level of greenhouse gases that already exist in the atmosphere, much less curbing new emissions. "The climate changes to come are going to be larger than anything that human civilization and agriculture has seen in its entire existence," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "And that is quite a sobering thought." Moreover, there is scientific consensus that such rapid warming is a testament to how the burning of fossil fuels is the dominating factor. UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, was quoted as saying the new research indicates, &#8220;staggering global temps show urgent need to act. Rapid climate change must be countered with accelerated action." But urgent action in the US Congress is not likely. Too many Republicans in Congress like James Inhofe (R-Ok), Lemar Smith (R-Tx) and Paul Broun (R-GA), believe that global warming is a hoax or that it is a phenomenon created by God that only He can control, so mankind is useless to stop it. Amazingly, these lawmakers hold key positions on science committees and have shown no interest in letting proven facts get in the way of their personal biases. Connections to petroleum industries and anti-science think tanks like the Heritage Foundation are suspected to be the real reason behind such increasingly laughable claims against the existence of global warming.*


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2013)

oooooooooo, superfast....lol


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> oooooooooo, superfast....lol



ooooooooo, super denier cult retardedness......LOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## prepster (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's a good news summary of a scientific report published earlier this year in the journal Science.
> 
> *Alarming new study on climate change says Earth's heat is accelerating superfast*
> The Examiner
> ...



You have a horrible understanding of sarcasm


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

prepster said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a good news summary of a scientific report published earlier this year in the journal Science.
> ...



You quote my post citing a report on a scientific study published this year and respond with this line? Are you nuts or just completely clueless? What sarcasm?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > oooooooooo, superfast....lol
> ...



oooooo, super idiot useful tool for the climate change cult isn't a pretty thing, but you don't seem to mind


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



LOLOLOL....oh, Stupidanie, I'm citing actual scientific reports on this climate change crisis from the world's leading scientists and scientific agencies while you're huffing and puffing your own hot air based only on your complete ignorance of this subject. Why is that you don't mind being such a retarded dupe and tool for those making hundreds of billions of dollars selling fossil fuels in their campaign to prevent any meaningful limits on mankind's carbon emissions? Do you enjoy being such a moronic stooge?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 6, 2013)

Do stupid AGW Cultists know they are melting the ice caps by posting these warnings and articles?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2013)

prepster said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a good news summary of a scientific report published earlier this year in the journal Science.
> ...



*Global temperatures are warmer now than about 75 percent of anything we've seen over the last 11,000 years or so,"*

For 2,750 of the last 11,000 years it was warmer than now? 
Who was driving SUVs back then?


*Many scientists agree they are now in new climatic territory.*

Except for those other 2,750 years, they're right.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



lol, anyone can pull a so called," scientific study" off the internet that agrees with their thinking...so you have...like I said, useful tool..


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



LOLOL...how funny then that you haven't managed to achieve that simple feat....or that you can't comprehend the difference between peer reviewed scientific studies affirmed and supported by virtually the entire world scientific community and the kind of unsupported pseudo-science that you denier cult dupes come up with to support your retarded denial of reality.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 6, 2013)

Sooooooo............







All we hear on this forum from the climate change crusaders is how utterly clueless and "retarded" the deniers are in the face of all the consensus scientific evidence!!!!

OK



Then I want to know why over 10 years after this drumbeat started, renewable energy continues to be but a SLIVER of the market??!!!! Somebody want to explain that one to me? If it was such a slam dunk......why do ALL energy projections decades forward see renewables still a SLIVER of the energy market. Why is Cap and Trade dead as a doornail? Why is climate legislation a joke in 2013? Why is any climate change stuff having to come via executive order via the EPA?


I'll tell you why!!!!!


Because nobody gives a flying fuck except the global warming k00k crusaders, that's why!!


So me, FLACALLTENN, Frank, Ian, Polar Bear et. al. will all gladly accept the moniker of clueless retard cult liars, anyday.............because its all about >>>>>>>












Green energy...........still gay


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 6, 2013)




----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 6, 2013)

By the way Thunder.........wtf is this about??? Think stunts you like to do like this makes people care more???


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2013)

this is the OP and a few others here...lol


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 6, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> By the way Thunder.........wtf is this about??? Think stunts you like to do like this makes people care more???



There's your alternative energy right there. By shedding clothes, you increase the generation efficiency by 0.6% AND save 12 cotton plants..


----------



## prepster (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



You think the scientific study concluding that the Earth's heat is accelerating is 'good news'?  Are you cheering on the fundamental altering of the Earth's atmosphere and biosphere?  I am certainly not.  I actively work to mitigate it.  I think it is good news that scientists are beginning to understand the exogenous factors of their climate models, such as the ability of the oceans, namely the deep oceans, to act as carbon/GHG sinks, and hopefully from a biological perspective, that this will have negative cascading effects upon the biodiversity of the oceans, accelerate the melting of the polar ice caps, and significantly alter ocean currents, leading to major changes in weather patterns, but this is not good news in the general sense.  The human species should not be giddy about this news one bit, but be actively working to help mitigate its likely harmful results.  If you think this is good news in the general sense, then yes, I am absolutely going to ask as to whether you are being sarcastic.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

And still more pointless retarded drivel from the clueless kookster, Stupidanie and fecalton. I wonder what it would take to get you denier cult cretins to finally jerk your heads out of your buttholes. Sometimes it seems like you were born this way. Other times it seems you just prefer this position.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

prepster said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > prepster said:
> ...



Sorry, dude, just a little semantic misunderstanding here. I was saying that the article itself is a "good", as in 'competently done' "news summary", not that what it is reporting on is in any way "good news". We're on the same side here. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## prepster (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Woops, my mistake.  Carry on (and carry a big stick, some people here need their heads knocked out of the gutter).  I like the news summary as well.  On a different note, I like that scientists are beginning to revise their models to fit previous exogenous factors, like ocean carbon sink capacity.  I still think there are a few other factors missing, most notably the impact of water vapor and cloud cover.  Models currently account for such factors, but many of them may underestimate their impact, especially given the halts in atmospheric and land surface temperature increases. In fact, water vapor and cloud cover probably go hand-in-hand with ocean carbon sink capacity.  Intuitively speaking, both are interrelated, so in terms of hypotheses, I see no reason why scientists cannot use studies on the role of oceans in absorbing heat as a springboard to revising up the impact of water vapor and cloud cover upon global temperature anomalies.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 6, 2013)

In real science, when real life observations falsify the theory, you get a new theory. The AGWCult just tweaks their models

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> In real science, when real life observations falsify the theory, you get a new theory. The AGWCult just tweaks their models



In the fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of AGW denial, when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change, you just brainlessly deny it anyway and cling to your debunked myths, dogmas and massive conspiracy theories, like the duped, deluded and very clueless retards that you are.


----------



## prepster (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > In real science, when real life observations falsify the theory, you get a new theory. The AGWCult just tweaks their models
> ...



I think I have the answer: GW/CC is not based in as certain or indisputable systemic understanding than more rigorous scientific disciplines.  This is not to say that current knowledge of GW/CC is a myth, but that it is objectively more nuanced, fragile, and uncertain.  Correspondingly, the way in which the scientific method is applied is deliberately more nuanced, fragile, and uncertain because you are dealing with the understanding of systems that are disproportionately more dynamic and complex than, say, those of the atom.  As a result, we are not going to get as timeless a theory as that of relativity in theoretical physics in the field of climatology.  And, oh, just for everyone's benefit, scientific models are tweaked in a variety of disciplines.  The Standard Model of particle physics is undergoing a major tweaking with increased understanding of the Higgs Boson.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > In real science, when real life observations falsify the theory, you get a new theory. The AGWCult just tweaks their models
> ...



*when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming*

You be sure to let us know when that finally happens.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > In real science, when real life observations falsify the theory, you get a new theory. The AGWCult just tweaks their models
> ...





but not losing.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 6, 2013)




----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 6, 2013)




----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Well, actually, ToadsterPatsy, "_that_" happened a long time ago, but, as usual, you are far too brainwashed, scientifically ignorant and tragically retarded to comprehend that fact.

*Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
NOAA*
July 28, 2010
(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
*The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the active-weather layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earths surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean, said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming.






Ten Indicators of a Warming World. (Credit: NOAA)

The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.

Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming, said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.

While year-to-year changes in temperature often reflect natural climatic variations such as El Niño/La Niña events, changes in average temperature from decade-to-decade reveal long-term trends such as global warming. Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.

The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet, said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAAs National Climatic Data Center. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.

More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives. To help keep citizens and businesses informed about climate, NOAA created the Climate Portal at Science & Services for Society | NOAA Climate.gov. The portal features a short video that summarizes some of the highlights of the State of the Climate Report.

State of the Climate is published as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and is edited by D.S. Arndt, M.O. Baringer, and M.R. Johnson. The full report and an online media packet with graphics is available online: BAMS State of the Climate.

*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 6, 2013)

prepster said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No sir.. There are the AGW "project mgrs" (like NOAA, NASA, numerous alarmist blogging heroes, IPCC, and others) who CONSTANTLY LIE and mislead the public with unfounded speculation based solely on simple ass models and misusing trees as thermometers.... Go see the NOAA lie TinkerBelle (ooops i'm sorry) RoolingTHUNDER convieniently promulgated HERE 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7493863-post53.html

It is a coordinated propaganda campaign. Complete with "enforcers" issuing compliance with the AGW gospel...

OR -- just reference the propaganda piece in the previous post.. Where the "project mgrs" have the BALLS to assert everything is "warming over 50 years".. Even tho the for the past 15 years --- ALL of their projections are headed off the rails..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 7, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > In real science, when real life observations falsify the theory, you get a new theory. The AGWCult just tweaks their models
> ...



*when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming*

You be sure to let us know when that finally happens. Dummy.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 7, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> prepster said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....ROTFLMAO.....here fecalbrain goes off the rails on the crazytrain again with the massive world wide conspiracy theories involving tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of countries.....so insane and yet so typical of these crackpot denier cultists.....I'm pretty sure he'll come back and explain how this study is also another conspiracy against him and all the rest of his dimwitted denier cult butt-buddies....

*Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories*
LiveScience
Stephanie Pappas
07 September 2012
(excerpts)
*A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs. The research, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, surveyed more than 1,000 readers of science blogs regarding their beliefs regarding global warming. The results revealed that people who tend to believe in a wide array of conspiracy theories are more likely to reject the scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up. Now, climate-skeptic bloggers are striking back with a new conspiracy theory: that the researchers deliberately failed to contact "real skeptics" for the study and then lied about it.

Though about 97 percent of working scientists agree that the evidence shows a warming trend caused by humans, public understanding of climate change falls along political lines. Democrats are more likely to "believe in" global warming than Republicans, according to a 2011 report by the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute. In fact, deniers and skeptics who felt more confident in their climate-change knowledge were the strongest disbelievers. Believing that climate change isn't happening or that it's not human-caused requires a belief that thousands of climate scientists around the world are lying outright, Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote in their new paper. Conspiracy theory beliefs are known to come in clusters  someone who thinks NASA faked the moon landing is more likely to accept the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, for example. Of 1,145 usable survey responses, the researchers found that support for free-market, laissez-faire economics was linked to a rejection of climate change. A tendency to believe other conspiracy theories was also linked to denial of climate change. Finally, climate-change deniers were more likely than others to say that other environmental problems have been solved, indicating a dismissive attitude toward "green" causes. "To our knowledge, our results are the first to provide empirical evidence for the correlation between a general construct of conspiracist ideation and the general tendency to reject well-founded science," Lewandowsky and his colleagues concluded.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 7, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > prepster said:
> ...






Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns


Oooooops.........well, looks like the crackpot cult butt buddies are winning!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 7, 2013)

not to mention...........








Of course.......the climate nutters don't connect the dots well enough to get this part!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 7, 2013)




----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 7, 2013)

And the forum troll, the uber-retarded kookster, spams the thread with his usual pointless moronic nonsense once again.....ho-hum....you kind of have to pity someone who is that confused and clueless, not to mention completely braindead....


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 7, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Geez, Toadthepatsy, you posted the exact same thing in your post #58 and I answered you in post #62. Are you so completely braindead and forgetful that you can't even remember what you just posted the day before? Obviously, the answer is yes.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 7, 2013)

Here's some recently published research from more scientists in Europe who have been studying the way the "missing" heat has been going into the oceans.

*Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change: study*
Reuters
By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle
Apr 7, 2013
(excerpts)
*(Reuters) - Climate change could get worse quickly if huge amounts of extra heat absorbed by the oceans are released back into the air, scientists said after unveiling new research showing that oceans have helped mitigate the effects of warming since 2000. Heat-trapping gases are being emitted into the atmosphere faster than ever, and the 10 hottest years since records began have all taken place since 1998. But the rate at which the earth's surface is heating up has slowed somewhat since 2000, causing scientists to search for an explanation for the pause. Experts in France and Spain said on Sunday that the oceans took up more warmth from the air around 2000. That would help explain the slowdown in surface warming but would also suggest that the pause may be only temporary and brief. "Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 meters (2,300 ft) of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65 percent of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans," they wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change. 

Lead author Virginie Guemas of the Catalan Institute of Climate Sciences in Barcelona said the hidden heat may return to the atmosphere in the next decade, stoking warming again. "If it is only related to natural variability then the rate of warming will increase soon," she told Reuters. Caroline Katsman of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, an expert who was not involved in the latest study, said heat absorbed by the ocean will come back into the atmosphere if it is part of an ocean cycle such as the "El Nino" warming and "La Nina" cooling events in the Pacific. Surface temperatures have already risen by 0.8 C. Two degrees is widely seen as a threshold for dangerous changes such as more droughts, mudslides, floods and rising sea levels. Last year was ninth warmest since records began in the 1850s, according to the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, and 2010 was the warmest, just ahead of 1998. Apart from 1998, the 10 hottest years have all been since 2000. "Global warming is continuing but it's being manifested in somewhat different ways," said Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. Warming can go, for instance, to the air, water, land or to melting ice and snow. Warmth is spreading to ever deeper ocean levels, he said, adding that pauses in surface warming could last 15-20 years. "Recent warming rates of the waters below 700 meters appear to be unprecedented," he and colleagues wrote in a study last month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 7, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



There was no proof of anthropogenic global warming in post #62. Try again?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 7, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What we see in post #62 is frantic handwaving trying to infer (without admitting it) that the effects of MAN and CO2 have been over-rated and NATURAL variabilities have been under-rated or completely ignored.. Hey !! That's my position.. They can't have it...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 7, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



OK. I'll give you a short introduction to the topic and then quote some climate scientists.

The Sun heats the Earth and the Earth ordinarily radiates enough of this heat energy back into outer space to stay in thermal equilibrium. Direct measurements show that the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has increased by over 40% in the last 150 years. Isotopic analysis shows that the extra CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels. The laws of physics and numerous scientific studies and experiments have shown that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas that has the quality of absorbing and re-radiating the infrared radiation coming from the Earth's surface, thus keeping more of the sun's energy trapped in the Earth's atmosphere rather than being radiated away into space.

*"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere. The final piece of evidence is &#8216;the smoking gun&#8217;, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths.  In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here&#8217;s an example:






The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth&#8217;s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."*

Source - *Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming*


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Wow.  The global warmers standards for science are astonishingly low.  A PhD (well a climatology PhD...which really ain't much) actually wrote that crap...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



  

Bravo. What a show... Except for the mental midget conclusion about about CO2 "dwarfing" everything else.. 

Common knowledge pal that methane (pound for pound) and MANY of those compounds in your chart EXCEED the "warming power" of CO2 by orders of magnitude.. So there is more to the story.. In fact water vapor is 60% of the radiative energy of Greenhouse and methane is 20 to 30 times MORE POWERFUL as CO2. You expect crappy science from skepticalscience.com every time.. 

But that aside --- Let's assume that CO2 is altering the climate. How much is CO2 alone CAUSING? It's commonly accepted by warmers and skeptics alike that if you DOUBLED the CO2 retained in the atmos -- from something like 280ppm to 560ppm -- than the physics of THIS EFFECT ALONE would yield about 1.1DegC.. 

The math to get there is equivalent to a question on the final exam for thermodynamics 220. 

You got me --- I accept that --- Problem is --- THIS AGW alarmism is INVENTING 3 or even 6degC based on the PHONEY side of AGW theory that postulates all of the positive feedbacks, accelerations, and phoney "GLOBAL sensitivities numbers" that get tossed around. THAT's where I'm skeptical.. At 1.1degC per century or so --- the effect of the CO2 "trigger" isn't even a news story...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Remember --- At skepticalscience.com it ain't about the neutral science, it's about the drama and pyrotechnic effects...   

There are minds to bend and most of our customers are easily bent. So why use that PhD?????


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



LOL.... talk about "_mental midgets_", you really take the prize, fecalhead.....no, you poor imbecile, we expect crappy science from *you* every time. And lies and deliberate deceptions, of course.

Other than water vapor, which is a separate story, CO2 does, in fact, dwarf the effects of the other greenhouse gases because there is so much more of it in the atmosphere. A fact that you're either deliberately ignoring in your futile duplicitous attempts to deny reality, or that you just too dumb-butt ignorant to comprehend. Probably the former, since you mention that water vapor accounts for 60% of the greenhouse effect but, instead of telling us the percentage that methane accounts for, you just say that "_methane (pound for pound)_" is 30 times more powerful than CO2. Misleading by omission is still lying, fecalhead.

Carbon dioxide levels are currently a little over 400 parts per million while methane levels have risen (from 700ppb pre-industrial, also because of mankind's activities, BTW) to a current level of about 1800 parts per billion, or only 1.8 parts per million, and nitrous oxide is 324 parts per billion, or only .3 parts per million. Methane is indeed 30 or more times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 but there is well over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane, which is why the effect of CO2 does, in fact, dwarf the effects of methane, currently. Of course, if AGW warms the oceans enough to destabilize the methane clathrate deposits, that might change. The increased radiative forcing of current CO2 levels, in Watts per square meter (W/m2), is 1.85 while all of the methane in the atmosphere is only 0.51. (source)

As far as water vapor goes, it is clear to scientists that it is a feedback and not a forcing. Something that you are undoubtedly too dimwitted or brainwashed to comprehend.

*Denier argument - Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas*
*When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere  making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise. How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even furthera positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C. The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect. So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.*


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 8, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


The chief culprit in global warming is our planet's canopy of H2O. Next to all other airborne substances, that's 96% already here, and only a small amount of the other molecules come from anthropogenic sources.

What you showed was basically, a gross omission of the elephant sitting in the living room.

It's kind of like omitting a thousand years' worth of selected climate data to prove a crisis which does not in fact exist for the sole purpose of procuring a foundation grant for future employment. One day, someone will notice the factual shell game.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 8, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Are you just too stupid to understand what was just explained in the previous post. Try going back and re-reading the part titled "Denier argument - water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas". 

It is the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels produced by mankind's activities that is warming the atmosphere and oceans and that increased warmth is what is causing an increase in water vapor levels which is amplifying the warming trend created by the increased CO2.

What you just showed is that you're a scientifically ignorant denier cult conspiracy theory nutjob.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



More goose droppings from skepticalscience.com.. There is NOT an agreement that water vapor "is a POSITIVE feedback".. It may be at night in the desert, but during the day clouds LOWER surface temperature quite impressively.. 

Those morons at your favorite blog wouldn't last 4 minutes in a tech debate...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They do tend to lie expansively at skepticalscience.com.. Glad you're reading list is more open-minded and vetted...


----------



## westwall (Jul 8, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







She knows more about the natural world than you and your fevered imagination ever will sonny boy.   Her post is also absolutely correct which you would know if your head wasn't so far up the fraudsters collective asses.


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 8, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


* What you just showed is that you're a scientifically ignorant denier cult conspiracy theory nutjob.*

My, you had that little denial all ready and raring to go, and I must say, that little river in Egypt you mentioned? It is just a little rut in flood season compared to yours!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 8, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...





But the nut job deniers are obviously winning s0n.........







Nobody cares about the science. Time to wake up and smell the maple nut crunch!!


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 9, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 Do you always post 3-year-old data based on data omitting hundreds of years of climate data? 

Here's an update for you dated 2013: More data shows no global warming. | W.G.Peters  It claims that more data shows there to be no global warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2013)

Well, the next decade is sure going to tell who is correct. The scientists, or our local fruitloops and pretend scientists. Right now, the scientists like Dr. James Hansen have a far better record of correct predictions than do our fruitloops.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 12, 2013)

Don't worry little sheep if the earth is a couple degrees warmer you'll be just fine.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, the next decade is sure going to tell who is correct. The scientists, or our local fruitloops and pretend scientists. Right now, the scientists like Dr. James Hansen have a far better record of correct predictions than do our fruitloops.









  Sure thing there olfraud.  Here is a excerpt from your dear Dr. Hansen....Probably the first truthful and accurate thing he's stated in decades.

"...The climate models often get criticised-*and it is a valid criticism*-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate. 
...The IPCC had prior estimates. The last report was that sea level this century would only go up a fraction of a metre. The new report is probably going to estimate more like a metre, but these are educated guesses."-James Hansen....

House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC 60


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the next decade is sure going to tell who is correct. The scientists, or our local fruitloops and pretend scientists. Right now, the scientists like Dr. James Hansen have a far better record of correct predictions than do our fruitloops.
> ...



I noticed in that transcript that Doc Hansen and Climate Cowboys are now only copping to the Temp # that is the "limit of tolerability".. This +2 degC number where we all are doomed.

But NO ONE recently has been telling ANYONE *when* they expect that to be..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 12, 2013)

"See, the tree rings clearly demonstrate the AGW inherent in the system. Notice how the rings under my pinkie seem to be screaming, 'eeekkk, it's hot!  and Carbony!!"


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Exactly.  Other than the brothers ten here, the rest of the climate mafia is in full backpedal from their former "settled science" BS.  They at least have some semblance of an intellect and can see quite clearly that cold is coming and it will be brutal.


----------



## gslack (Jul 16, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> The fossil fuel industry's propaganda machine continues to grind out new pseudo-science and misinformation. Witness the recent spurt of bogus articles claiming something like "_climate scientists are puzzled by halt in global warming for last 15 years_". The Earth has continued to retain more of the sun's energy than it can radiate away into space due to the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that mankind has created, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, but because the rise in surface temperatures has slowed down compared to the three previous decades of very rapid increases in surface temperatures, many people has misinterpreted that to mean that global warming has paused or is in a "_lull_". This is not true. The excess heat energy retained by the excess CO2 has been transferring itself to the ocean depths, but it will eventually return to the surface and radically increase surface temperatures once again in the next decade. Meanwhile, global warming has continued to manifest itself in the melting of the Arctic ice cap, Greenland, West Antarctica and the world's glaciers, as well as the many other symptoms, like the changing of seasonal timing and increases in extreme weather events.
> 
> Global warming is actually still accelerating and competent climate scientists are not puzzled about what is happening. Here's a good explanation of just what is really happening.
> 
> ...



Oh he found the missing heat now? LOL, he couldn't find it for years now he's got it in the place he shoulda looked first??

LOL, and it's from known lefty PR site thinkprogress.org...

Freaking spam artist.. It's a an IPCC fluff piece and nothing more, all the links point tothe same thinkrogress site. Using your own claims as evidence, sounds like the typical IPCC tactic..


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

And if he has children?

The work of Foster and Rahmstorf (current hiatus due to vulcanism and ENSO), Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen (ocean warming below 700 meters) and Shakun and Marcott (current warming rate unprecedented in 22,000 years) are all unchallenged.  No one - certainly none of the more popular anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers - have presented ANY viable evidence to the contrary.  Add this to the rather significant point that no denier has presented a working theory to explain the warming of the last 150 years and no theory as to why greenhouse warming itself should have ceased for the last 15 years and it becomes quite obvious that the deniers do not have a case.  

If all you have to bring to the argument is to tell us that peer-reviewed science is fantasy hand-waving, you might as well stay at home.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> Oh he found the missing heat now? LOL, he couldn't find it for years now he's got it in the place he shoulda looked first??
> 
> LOL, and it's from known lefty PR site thinkprogress.org...
> 
> Freaking spam artist.. It's a an IPCC fluff piece and nothing more, all the links point tothe same thinkrogress site. Using your own claims as evidence, sounds like the typical IPCC tactic..



http//people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/ATS421-521/2013/papers/balmaseda13grl_inpress.pdf

Is that better?  The paper will be appearing in the American Geophysical Review.  Ever read it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> And if he has children?
> 
> The work of Foster and Rahmstorf (current hiatus due to vulcanism and ENSO), Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen (ocean warming below 700 meters) and Shakun and Marcott (current warming rate unprecedented in 22,000 years) are all unchallenged.  No one - certainly none of the more popular anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers - have presented ANY viable evidence to the contrary.  Add this to the rather significant point that no denier has presented a working theory to explain the warming of the last 150 years and no theory as to why greenhouse warming itself should have ceased for the last 15 years and it becomes quite obvious that the deniers do not have a case.
> 
> If all you have to bring to the argument is to tell us that peer-reviewed science is fantasy hand-waving, you might as well stay at home.



*Add this to the rather significant point that no denier has presented a working theory to explain the warming of the last 150 years *

I left the heating pad on, sorry.

*and no theory as to why greenhouse warming itself should have ceased for the last 15 years and it becomes quite obvious that the deniers do not have a case.  *

We kept pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 15 years and the warming ceased? Impossible! I've got some tree rings that will prove it's warming more and more every year. Why do you hate science?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> Sure thing there olfraud.  Here is a excerpt from your dear Dr. Hansen....Probably the first truthful and accurate thing he's stated in decades.
> 
> "...The climate models often get criticised-*and it is a valid criticism*-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate.
> ...The IPCC had prior estimates. The last report was that sea level this century would only go up a fraction of a metre. The new report is probably going to estimate more like a metre, but these are educated guesses."-James Hansen....



Two points:
1) You seem to be unaware (and that ignorance would seem to be from infamiliarity) that the core purpose of science is to improve science.  The reason for peer review, for challenging theories, for testing and retesting, it to constantly move closer to the truth.  It is not to preserve and push dogma.
2) Hansen is not backing off any of his prior warnings, he is telling us that the projections of the world's climate scientists are getting worse, not better.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Good of you to admit that you have no explanation (no non-AGW explanation) for the last 150 year's warming.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > And if he has children?
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > We kept pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 15 years and the warming ceased? Impossible! I've got some tree rings that will prove it's warming more and more every year. Why do you hate science?
> ...



The climate fluctuates? You're shitting me!

My house in Chicago used to be under a mile of ice. How did that ice melt?
Was it my fault?
Is the current climate of Earth ideal? Why?
What does the term Climactic Optimum mean?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2013)

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world&#8217;s wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC Policy on "Climate Change"


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The climate fluctuates? You're shitting me!



Yes it does.  Perhaps you should have thought about that before claiming that the past 15 year's hiatus was proof that the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> My house in Chicago used to be under a mile of ice. How did that ice melt?



No, your house was never under a mile of ice.  That the Earth's climate has varied over the Earth's history is actually irrelevant.  What you need to be concerned about is what the Earth's climate has done during the period since the beginning of human civilization.  And you need to consider what those changes will do to a world with 10 billion humans living in it, not one with some algae and a few mollusks.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Was it my fault?



The warming trend of the last 150 years IS our fault.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is the current climate of Earth ideal? Why?



The climate in which we built the human species' infrastructure is ideal for the continued function and existence of that infrastructure.  If you change the environment in which we feed and shelter ourselves, we will be less able to feed and shelter ourselves.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> What does the term Climactic Optimum mean?



What do you care?  Do you think increasing the global temp by 2C will achieve it?  Is that really your argument?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC Policy on "Climate Change"



How about providing a link to that quote Frank?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

*The warming trend of the last 150 years IS our fault.*

If only you had proof.

*The climate in which we built the human species' infrastructure is ideal for the continued function and existence of that infrastructure.  If you change the environment in which we feed and shelter ourselves, we will be less able to feed and shelter ourselves.*

Or we'll be better able to feed ourselves.

What does the term Climactic Optimum mean? 

*What do you care?  *

It's just more proof of the silliness of your claims.

*Do you think increasing the global temp by 2C will achieve it?  Is that really your argument?*

How much do you feel we should spend to stop AGW? If you get your wish, what will be the result in 2080?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC Policy on "Climate Change"
> ...



UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters

It's like asking for a link to "Four score and seven years ago" but whatever


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:
			
		

> Yes it does. Perhaps you should have thought about that before claiming that the past 15 year's hiatus was proof that the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> You'll have to show me where I said that.



When you brought up the last 15 years hiatus as a criticism of CO2-caused global warming



			
				Abraham3
 said:
			
		

> No, your house was never under a mile of ice.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure it was. I'm looking into my back yard where 11,000 years ago a mile thick sheet of ice once sat.



But the house wasn't there.  It is extremely likely that, at the time, no humans were anywhere near the place.  The point is, there is very little relevance to global climate conditions at times when no human civilization existed.  Noting that it has gotten very cold and very warm for periods in the distant past doesn't help us TODAY with crop failures, loss of drinking water, rising sea levels, extinction of species, etc.



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> That the Earth's climate has varied over the Earth's history is actually irrelevant.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> How can natural changes be irrelevant?



Natural changes are always of interest, but the current conversation concerns synthetic (man-made) changes.  Natural history (See Shakun and Marcott's work) show us that there has been no "natural" temperature change like the present in the prior 22,000 years.  Do you have some evidence otherwise?



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> What you need to be concerned about is what the Earth's climate has done during the period since the beginning of human civilization.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like the Little Ice Age and the MWP.



Neither of which exhibited a decent fraction of the rate of temperature increase we have experienced in the last century and a half.  If you want to argue that the current temperature rise has the same cause as the MWP, you will need both the show us what that cause was and to explain why the Greenhouse Effect would NOT increase temperatures here when CO[sub]2[/sub] is raised from 280 to 400+ ppm at a geologically ferocious rate.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You really haven't got the quote function figured out, best just copy sections to respond to, your posts are too confusing.



I'll see if I can figure it out.  I've just started posting here today and this is only my second day on a new, smaller (11.6" Lenovo Yoga) PC.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2013)

USA Before "Global Warming"


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 21, 2013)

If there has been warming for 150 years why was there such a panic over global cooling in the 70s?

The 1970s Ice Age Scare | Real Science

In the last decade, the Arctic ice and snow cap has expanded 12 per cent, and for the first time in this century. ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice.

Chicago Tribune Mar 2, 1975


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:
			
		

> The warming trend of the last 150 years IS our fault.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> If only you had proof.



There is no proof anywhere in natural sciences.  One uses evidence to support theories.  Welcome to Science 101.  You should have gotten this in the 7th grade.

Over the last 150 years the world has gotten warmer at a rate unprecedented in the last 22,000 years.  Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen at a rate and to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years.  The source of the increased CO2, by isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping, is human combustion of fossil fuels.  NO climate model that does not assume anthropogenic global warming has ever been able to reproduce the warming of the last 150 years.

So, tell us, what part of that do you think is inadequately evidenced?



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> The climate in which we built the human species' infrastructure is ideal for the continued function and existence of that infrastructure.  If you change the environment in which we feed and shelter ourselves, we will be less able to feed and shelter ourselves.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or we'll be better able to feed ourselves.



That is wishful thinking but it is refuted by a number of studies on the likely impact of rapidly increasing global temperatures.  Are you going to suggest that warming weather will bring more land to the till?  I'm afraid that will not be the case.  The losses will outnumber the gains by orders of magnitude.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> What does the term Climactic Optimum mean?



It refers to "a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P." 
                         --Wikipedia



Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's just more proof of the silliness of your claims.



And which of my claims do you believe to be "silly"?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much do you feel we should spend to stop AGW?



I would suggest spending some significant portion of what we believe AGW will cost us.  Current estimates are that with no remediation, costs over the next century will be in the hundreds of trillions of dollars.  So... if we could save that money (and pain and death and extinction) by spending a few tens of trillions now, I'd do it.  Besides, there are lots of other benefits from moving away from fossil fuels.  They're running out.  They're polluting (check out the Beijing skyline) and we it'll be easier to build a new infrastructure when we choose to rather than when we have to.  

What would you do?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you get your wish, what will be the result in 2080?




I will still be alive, in the body of an 18 year old, living in a palace in the clouds experiencing non-stop orgasms.  You?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*When you brought up the last 15 years hiatus as a criticism of CO2-caused global warming*

But the Earth has warmed and cooled for billions of years. How does that fact equate to your claim that I said  the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real? 

*But the house wasn't there. *

But the ice was. And now it's not. Who is to blame for that?

*The point is, there is very little relevance to global climate conditions at times when no human civilization existed.*

Climate conditions changed *at times when no human civilization existed*?
You're shitting me.

*Neither of which exhibited a decent fraction of the rate of temperature increase we have experienced in the last century and a half. *

Were you using alcohol or mercury thermometers when you made those measurements?
I'm pretty sure temperatures were pretty toasty during the MWP.

*there has been no "natural" temperature change like the present in the prior 22,000 years*

I'm pretty sure the Earth is much older than that. Where is the proof that this change is artificial?

*If you want to argue that the current temperature rise has the same cause as the MWP*

Why would I argue that SUVs caused the MWP? I'm more interested in the fact that humanity survived the warming of the MWP. Thrived even.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> If there has been warming for 150 years why was there such a panic over global cooling in the 70s?
> 
> In the last decade, the Arctic ice and snow cap has expanded 12 per cent, and for the first time in this century. ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice.
> 
> Chicago Tribune Mar 2, 1975



I'm a newbie and still can't post URLs.  Go to Wikipedia's article on Global Warming and open the very first image - a global temp graph from 1880 to 2012.  Look what happens at about 1941 and last till about 1979.

And if you think the last 15 years warming hiatus means AGW is at an end, look what happened to temps after 1979.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

*So... if we could save that money (and pain and death and extinction) by spending a few tens of trillions now, I'd do it. *

After we spend "a few tens of trillions", what will the temperature and CO2 levels be, as compared to the temperature and CO2 levels if we spend nothing?

Stop the cutting and pasting. It's not working.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But the Earth has warmed and cooled for billions of years. How does that fact equate to your claim that I said  the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real?



In response to my statement:

*and no theory as to why greenhouse warming itself should have ceased for the last 15 years and it becomes quite obvious that the deniers do not have a case. *

you responded

*We kept pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 15 years and the warming ceased? Impossible!*

If I have mischaracterized your views on the matter, I beg your apology.  Yet how else was I to understand your comment here; particularly your concluding "Impossible!"?



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> But the house wasn't there.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> But the ice was. And now it's not. Who is to blame for that?



That many different things affect the Earth's temperature does NOT refute - it does not even counter - the theory that human-sourced GHGs are the cause of the current warming.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Climate conditions changed *at times when no human civilization existed*?
> You're shitting me.



If you'd like to continue this debate, I'd ask that you stop behaving like an ass.  Many things affect the Earth's temperature. Do you actually wish to contend that means that anthropogenic GHGs could not be the source of the current warming? 



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> Neither of which exhibited a decent fraction of the rate of temperature increase we have experienced in the last century and a half.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Were you using alcohol or mercury thermometers when you made those measurements?
> I'm pretty sure temperatures were pretty toasty during the MWP.



Note my use of the term "rate of temperature increase".  The rate of increase since 1880 is over five times as high as the steepest change during either the LIA or the MWP.  Can you suggest an explanation?



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> there has been no "natural" temperature change like the present in the prior 22,000 years





Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm pretty sure the Earth is much older than that.



So what?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where is the proof that this change is artificial?



Once again: natural science does not use proofs.  Proofs are not possible regarding contentions of physical phenomenon that span the entire universe.  Save them for your mathematics. 

I presume you have actually heard most of the evidence.  How about telling us why you reject it?  Do you accept that it has gotten warmer over the last 150 years?  Do you accept that CO2 levels have gotten higher over the last 150 years?  Do you accept the Greenhouse Effect?  Do you know of a different, plausible cause for the last 150 years warming?  

What is it you actually reject?



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> If you want to argue that the current temperature rise has the same cause as the MWP





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would I argue that SUVs caused the MWP? I'm more interested in the fact that humanity survived the warming of the MWP. Thrived even.



There were far, far fewer human beings on the planet at the time and the rate of warming (and cooling) was many times slower. Versteht?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So... if we could save that money (and pain and death and extinction) by spending a few tens of trillions now, I'd do it.
> 
> After we spend "a few tens of trillions", what will the temperature and CO2 levels be, as compared to the temperature and CO2 levels if we spend nothing?



Lower.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Stop





Toddsterpatriot said:


> the





Toddsterpatriot said:


> cutting





Toddsterpatriot said:


> and





Toddsterpatriot said:


> pasting.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's





Toddsterpatriot said:


> not





Toddsterpatriot said:


> working.



Are you sure?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > But the Earth has warmed and cooled for billions of years. How does that fact equate to your claim that I said  the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real?
> ...



*If I have mischaracterized your views on the matter, I beg your apology. Yet how else was I to understand your comment here; particularly your concluding "Impossible!"?*

The greenhouse effect is real. So is rising CO2 levels. 
So, obviously, the temperature rise cannot have paused.
AGW 101.

*Many things affect the Earth's temperature. Do you actually wish to contend that means that anthropogenic GHGs could not be the source of the current warming? *

Many things? So it is possible that it's not us? 

*How about telling us why you reject it?  Do you accept that it has gotten warmer over the last 150 years?  Do you accept that CO2 levels have gotten higher over the last 150 years?  *

Yes, it has gotten warmer since the end of the LIA. I wonder if that's why it ended?

*There were far, far fewer human beings on the planet at the time *

And they had less technology to help them adapt. And they survived.

*and the rate of warming (and cooling) was many times slower. *

So a faster rate means we did it? How do you know? 
Does the Earth always warm or cool at the exact same rate? 
How fast did it warm when the ice in my backyard melted?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So... if we could save that money (and pain and death and extinction) by spending a few tens of trillions now, I'd do it.
> ...



*Lower.*

Tens of trillions worth lower?
Use some solid numbers for your claim.

*Are you sure?*

How does your cut and paste look in my reply? The same?

No, it's not working.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The greenhouse effect is real. So is rising CO2 levels.
> So, obviously, the temperature rise cannot have paused.
> AGW 101.



As we both know (since you've repeatedly argued the point), GHGs are not the ONLY source of increased radiative forcing.  So, obviously, the temperature rise CAN pause and has done so on numerous occasions in the past.  I once more direct your attention to the world's temerature between 1941 and 1979.  Have you looked?



Abraham3 said:


> Many things affect the Earth's temperature. Do you actually wish to contend that means that anthropogenic GHGs could not be the source of the current warming?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Many things? So it is possible that it's not us?



It's possible that it's being caused by aliens from another galaxy, but it's not particularly likely, is it.  The point - that I really shouldn't have this much difficulty making - is that the Earth's temperature is the end result of a number of factors and processes, many quite complex.  Warming from GHGs is slight, but consistent.  That warming overlays warming and cooling from a number of other factors.  The current hiatus is due to historically high levels of reflective aerosols from high rates of vulcanism and from changes in the pseudo-periodicity of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).  And those ENSO changes may well be the result of primary and secondary warming effects: increased fresh meltwater being dumped at the poles for one.



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> How about telling us why you reject it?  Do you accept that it has gotten warmer over the last 150 years?  Do you accept that CO2 levels have gotten higher over the last 150 years?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, it has gotten warmer since the end of the LIA. I wonder if that's why it ended?



How about answering my questions?  You have yet to tell us what you believe is happening and why.

The terminal warming of the LIA ended in 1850.  At that point the rate of warming increased almost six-fold.  Can you tell us why?




			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> There were far, far fewer human beings on the planet at the time





Toddsterpatriot said:


> And they had less technology to help them adapt. And they survived.



Many of them didn't.

From Wikipedia's article on the LIA

o   The population of Iceland fell by half...
o   Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet.
o   The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished, as crops failed and livestock could not be maintained through increasingly harsh winters
o   In North America, American Indians formed leagues in response to food shortages.
o   Hubert Lamb said that in many years, "snowfall was much heavier than recorded before or since, and the snow lay on the ground for many months longer than it does today."
o   Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315&#8211;1317
o   "Famines in France 1693&#8211;94, Norway 1695&#8211;96 and Sweden 1696&#8211;97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country. 
o   In Estonia and Finland in 1696&#8211;97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively."
o   Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> So a faster rate means we did it? How do you know?



Faster means that it is very unlikely to have the same cause as the MWP.  Faster matches the rate of GHG radiative forcing CALCULATED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Does the Earth always warm or cool at the exact same rate?



Of course not, but firmly evidenced and peer-reviewed studies show that it has not warmed at the current rate at any point prior in the entire Holocene Epoch.  Firm evidence (the Vostok ice cores and others) show that CO2 has not risen at the current rate in the previous 800,000 years. These points are not direct evidence that human GHGs are the cause of the warming, but they do make other causation theories difficult to maintain.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> How fast did it warm when the ice in my backyard melted?



About a quarter of a Centigrade degree per century, tops.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How does your cut and paste look in my reply? The same?



Yes.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, it's not working.



It is doing what I want it to do.  That may not be what you're expecting me to do, but that's a different issue altogether.

Now, how about telling us specifically what about the theory of anthropogenic global warming you reject?  What do you think lacks sufficient evidence?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The greenhouse effect is real. So is rising CO2 levels.
> ...



*Many of them didn't.

From Wikipedia's article on the LIA

o The population of Iceland fell by half...
o Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet.
o The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished, as crops failed and livestock could not be maintained through increasingly harsh winters
o In North America, American Indians formed leagues in response to food shortages.
o Hubert Lamb said that in many years, "snowfall was much heavier than recorded before or since, and the snow lay on the ground for many months longer than it does today."
o Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 13151317
o "Famines in France 169394, Norway 169596 and Sweden 169697 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country. 
o In Estonia and Finland in 169697, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively."
o Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.*

Yes, colder is worse, warmer is better.
That's why they call warm periods Climactic Optimums.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How does your cut and paste look in my reply? The same?
> ...



And when I reply, your formating is gone. That's why you should stop.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tens of trillions worth lower?
> Use some solid numbers for your claim.



You haven't.  However:

Based on 3.5.3.3 Cost-benefit analysis, damage cost estimates and social costs of carbon - AR4 WGIII Chapter 3: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context and my cynicism regarding the human species' ability to exercise good judgement regarding long term issues, I will say that by 2030, the impact cost of adding carbon to the atmosphere will be in the range of $80US/ton with temperatures 3.2-4.0C above 2005 levels.  Scenario IV (a mid range estimate) would have carbon emissions at about 40Gt/yr.  Thus we have a cost estimate of $320 billion US, PER YEAR, damage to the human infrastructure.  That's only by 2030 and that's assuming some mediation takes place between now and then.  If, as you would seem to desire, less or even no mediation takes place, the cost of the damage will be higher and will grow over time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Tens of trillions worth lower?
> ...



So, if we spend the $10s of trillions you wish, how much will that reduce the $320 billion annual number?

How much lower will temperature be in 2080, if will spend the $10s of trillions, as compared to not spending $10s of trillions?

How much lower will the CO2 level be?

*I will say that by 2030, the impact cost of adding carbon to the atmosphere will be in the range of $80US/ton with temperatures 3.2-4.0C above 2005 levels.*

Wow! up to 4 degrees warmer in only 17 years. That's a bold prediction.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

*Here, between the asterisks, is a quote, using the QUOTE button, of your entire post.*

***************************************************



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



******************************************************************

*Now I don't particularly care for nested quotes and so I rearrange them to produce a linear, chronological view of the conversation.  Like this:*

******************************************************************



			
				Toddsterpatriot said:
			
		

> How does your cut and paste look in my reply? The same?





			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> Yes.





			
				Toddsterpatriot said:
			
		

> No, it's not working.





			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> It is doing what I want it to do.  That may not be what you're expecting me to do, but that's a different issue altogether.
> 
> Now, how about telling us specifically what about the theory of anthropogenic global warming you reject?  What do you think lacks sufficient evidence?





			
				Toddsterpatriot said:
			
		

> And when I reply, your formating is gone. That's why you should stop.



******************************************************************

*Are you suggesting that my Preview Post button does not show me what a post will actually look like?*


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So, if we spend the $10s of trillions you wish, how much will that reduce the $320 billion annual number?



Do you have some experience or, perhaps it's your superior math skills, that indicate reactionary spending to be more efficient than foresighted spending?  Do you wish to argue that it's best to wait till the last possible moment to try to correct a growing problem?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much lower will temperature be in 2080, if will spend the $10s of trillions, as compared to not spending $10s of trillions?



If not one breath of additional CO2 were emitted starting from today, the world's temperatures would continue to rise, likely for more than another century.  But the RATE would be down and would  continue to decrease.  If we do nothing to check our GHG emissions, the rate will increase logarithmically over time. The distinction is between a rough time and a global catastrophe. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much lower will the CO2 level be?



Why do you care?  You don't think it is causing warming.

*I will say that by 2030, the impact cost of adding carbon to the atmosphere will be in the range of $80US/ton with temperatures 3.2-4.0C above 2005 levels.*



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wow! up to 4 degrees warmer in only 17 years. That's a bold prediction.



You could use some of that superior math skill to try to conceptualize what logarithmic means.  Look at the difference in the warming rate over the last 100 years and that after the 1941-1979 hiatus:







From 1900-2000, we experienced about 0.9C/century.  From 1993 to 2003, the rate was 3 C/century.  I fully expect to see the same effect when the current hiatus ends.  And it will end.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> *Here, between the asterisks, is a quote, using the QUOTE button, of your entire post.*
> 
> ***************************************************
> 
> ...



I'm suggesting that formatting that doesn't last past your post is worse than useless.
Some of your post disappears and sometimes quotes are misattributed.
I did the same thing when I first started posting here.
I learned from my mistake.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So, if we spend the $10s of trillions you wish, how much will that reduce the $320 billion annual number?
> ...


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

So the problem  is that the system will not allow you to quote MY quotes because they lack the post identifier.

Okay.  Mea culpa.  I will not drop the post ID number.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm suggesting, when you want to spend $10s of trillions to reduce temperatures in 2080 by 0.2 degrees, you have better facts on your side.



I never said I would reduce temps by 0.2C by 2080.  I personally think we're doomed: there are too many people who believe as you do.

I have asked you repeatedly now to tell us what in the AGW theory, specifically, you reject.  What facts (ie, what opinions held by the vast majority of climate scientists) do you find lacking?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You did this and came to the conclusion that temps will be 4 degrees warmer in 2030 than they were in 2005?



The 3.2-4.0 C above 2005 temps estimate came from AR4.  It did not take the current hiatus into account.  But I expect that we will be great deal closer to that than to today's temperature.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> How do you go from 3 C/century to 4 C warmer in 2030?



Logarithmically.


Pls let me know if these quotes are, themselves, quotable.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sure thing there olfraud.  Here is a excerpt from your dear Dr. Hansen....Probably the first truthful and accurate thing he's stated in decades.
> ...



This is the clearest case in my lifetime of science and technology of the Dogma being released before science got it's pants on.. (apologies to Twain).. 

As for Hansen --- the CO2 theory of EVERYTHING hasn't gotten CLEARER for him in a handful of years. The situation has gone from manageable to desparation.. Just as Global Warming has morphed to Climate Change and now some voodoo inspired "Global Weirding" where excess of rain in New Mexico and a drought in Arizona is suddenly his only card to play...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gladly tell you.. (enhanced text above)... Why do you stop at 22,000 yrs?? A series of iceball events are TYPICAL for CO2 forcing?? Is that your contention? That's the almost absolute ice/thaw condition of the past 22,000 yrs is similiar to today's climate? With CO2 largely trapped in its cycle by ice?  I don't care if you read tea leave or ARE Mr. Shakun --- the data from ice cores can't accurately read rates of rise by decades... Maybe MILLENIUM --- but not decades.. So you can't even CONFIRM the claim you made about rates of rise.... 

There is general agreement that forcing by CO2 can be calculated from basic principles. And skeptics and warmer alike largely agree that forcing for a doubling from 250 to 500ppm results in about 1.1DegC change.. At THAT RATE (about 1.1degC per century) this isn't even front page news.. 

What is inadequately evidenced is two-fold.. 

1) The AGW folks invented SUPERPOWERS for CO2 above and beyond the physical ability of it to further warm the planet.. THey are selling a view of a fragile earth and a fragile climate being harrassed and abused by evil tenant. But THEY can't agree on the simple (and nonsensical) GLOBAL climate sensitivity numbers that grant these superpowers. We are faced with ESTIMATES of anywhere from 1.4 to 5 or even higher. AS IF -- there is a meaning to the GLOBAL AVERAGE response to warming.. 

2) It is only now -- when all their CO2 driven models go off the rails -- that Climate Science suddenly discovers thing like thermal storage and thermal inertia and NATURAL FORCINGS so that YOU can make excuses for them missing every mark they aimed at. 
WHY --- were these not in play before? BEFORE the rhetoric ramped so violently high? 

Were they distracted by using tree rings as thermometers.. Too busy revising surface temps in the official records of the 1940s??? Emailing each other to rig the publication process?? What took this LONG to get them to THINK like scientists???

That's what enquiring minds want to know...


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> This is the clearest case in my lifetime of science and technology of the Dogma being released before science got it's pants on.. (apologies to Twain)..



Of what dogma do you speak?



flacaltenn said:


> As for Hansen --- the CO2 theory of EVERYTHING hasn't gotten CLEARER for him in a handful of years. The situation has gone from manageable to desparation.. Just as Global Warming has morphed to Climate Change and now some voodoo inspired "Global Weirding" where excess of rain in New Mexico and a drought in Arizona is suddenly his only card to play...



I have not seen that Dr Hansen has had any difficulties with his understanding of global warming.  As has been noted here before, his projections are certainly superior to anything that any AGW denier has ever put out.

What is your point here?  Do you reject human causation?  If so, what do you think IS responsible?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I'm suggesting, when you want to spend $10s of trillions to reduce temperatures in 2080 by 0.2 degrees, you have better facts on your side.
> ...



*I never said I would reduce temps by 0.2C by 2080.*

I know, you never said how much the $10s of trillions in spending would reduce temps.
Here's your chance.

*The 3.2-4.0 C above 2005 temps estimate came from AR4. *

And when the actual temps aren't 3-4.0 C warmer, how do we get our trillions back?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > This is the clearest case in my lifetime of science and technology of the Dogma being released before science got it's pants on.. (apologies to Twain)..
> ...



Oh quite clearly that would have to be the leap to hysteria.. Going from basic principles of a 1.1degC results for doubling CO2 to a whopping 3 or 4 degC by evoking a fragile climate climate theory that says we are sitting on a junker of a planet that will turn itself into a literal fuel-air bomb because of a 1.1degC "TRIGGER".. That's the AGW hysteria in a nutshell.. 



flacaltenn said:


> As for Hansen --- the CO2 theory of EVERYTHING hasn't gotten CLEARER for him in a handful of years. The situation has gone from manageable to desparation.. Just as Global Warming has morphed to Climate Change and now some voodoo inspired "Global Weirding" where excess of rain in New Mexico and a drought in Arizona is suddenly his only card to play...





> I have not seen that Dr Hansen has had any difficulties with his understanding of global warming.  As has been noted here before, his projections are certainly superior to anything that any AGW denier has ever put out.
> 
> What is your point here?  Do you reject human causation?  If so, what do you think IS responsible?



I've already told you what I believe a doubling of CO2 would do.. I do believe that man is OVERCHARGED for his contribution. Since we get the bill for cow farts and forest fires. But when Hansen switches from CO2 forcing to giving the AGW circus ammunition for claiming that ANY weather induced news event is scientific PROOF of "Global Weirding" --- that shows the desparation of his cause.. I just watched a Senate hearing with your comrades blaming the death of 19 firefighters in Arizona on CO2.. You don't think Hansen gave them that gun to shoot themselves in the foot?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Why do you stop at 22,000 yrs??



That is the beginning of the Holocene Epoch; a good representation of the era of the "modern human" and, more specifically, the era since the end of the last full up ice age.  It is also the period covered by two works: A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years at A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years and Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

Both these works use a broad range of proxies to do a thorough and very careful temperature reconstruction: the former from the present back to 11,300 years, the latter between 22,000 and 11,000 year BP.  That's why I chose 22,000 years.



flacaltenn said:


> A series of iceball events are TYPICAL for CO2 forcing?? Is that your contention? That's the almost absolute ice/thaw condition of the past 22,000 yrs is similiar to today's climate?



My apologies for any confusion, but I never said any such thing.  What I said is that evidence (those studies) indicate that the Earth has not experienced the warming rate we've seen over the last 150 years, at any time in the prior 22,000.  The current warming rate is unprecedented in that period.  Is that more clear? 



flacaltenn said:


> With CO2 largely trapped in its cycle by ice?  I don't care if you tea leave or ARE Mr. Shakun --- the data from ice cores can't accurately read rates of rise by decades... Maybe MILLENIUM --- but not decades.. So you can't even CONFIRM the claim you made about rates of rise....



Thank you for bringing  that up.  The temporal resolution of the two studies are approximately 300 years.  Obviously, that is greater than 150 years and an increase such as we have experienced in the last century and a half would go unnoted in such a record... save for one thing.  What goes up must come back down.  For an event such as the current warming to be indiscernible in Shakun and Marcott's records, temperatures would have to rise AND FALL in less than 300 years.  That, I'm afraid, violates several laws of physics.  CO2, whether the initiating cause or driven out of natural sequestration by temperatures raised by other means, has a mean lifetime of many centuries.  Even if all radiative forcing could be instantly terminated by some means, the world's mass will simply not cool off that fast.



flacaltenn said:


> There is general agreement that forcing by CO2 can be calculated from basic principles. And skeptics and warmer alike largely agree that forcing for a doubling from 250 to 500ppm results in about 1.1DegC change.. At THAT RATE (about 1.1degC per century) this isn't even front page news..


 
As you know, that would be forcing SOLELY from Greenhouse effects of increased CO2.  That does not take into account the very real world effects that serve to amplify warming via positive feedback mechanism: increased temps increase evaporation and water vapor is a potent GHG.  Reduced ice cover world wide lead to reduced albedo and increased absorption off solar radiation.  Increased temperatures are melting the world's tundra - exposing an ENORMOUS supply of methane (another potent GHG) and CO2.  And, as you already know, taking those into account give a climate sensitivity closer to 3C/doubling.



flacaltenn said:


> What is inadequately evidenced is two-fold..
> 
> 1) The AGW folks invented SUPERPOWERS for CO2 above and beyond the physical ability of it to further warm the planet.. THey are selling a view of a fragile earth and a fragile climate being harrassed and abused by evil tenant. But THEY can't agree on the simple (and nonsensical) GLOBAL climate sensitivity numbers that grant these superpowers. We are faced with ESTIMATES of anywhere from 1.4 to 5 or even higher. AS IF -- there is a meaning to the GLOBAL AVERAGE response to warming..



Do you reject the existence and function of these amplifying mechanisms?  If so, explain what is happening to solar radiation that strikes earth, rock and deep water where it used to strike ice and snow.  Please explain why the water vapor, methane and CO2 released by warming does not enhance the Greenhouse Efffect already taking place.



flacaltenn said:


> 2) It is only now -- when all their CO2 driven models go off the rails -- that Climate Science suddenly discovers thing like thermal storage and thermal inertia and NATURAL FORCINGS so that YOU can make excuses for them missing every mark they aimed at.
> WHY --- were these not in play before? BEFORE the rhetoric ramped so violently high?



These are not new concepts and they are certainly not being used in an ad hoc basis.  Did someone put forth a theory that the deep ocean was storing heat before it was found there?  Was it theorized that the current hiatus was due to vulcanism and ENSO before the data were examined?

If you think the current hiatus is some make-or-break event for the theory of AGW, please look at the 1941-1979 period I have noted before.  The current behavior of the current climate is NOT unprecedented; it is NOT outside the range of normal variation.



flacaltenn said:


> Were they distracted by using tree rings as thermometers.



Do you have some sort of problem with dendrochronology.  Have you done any paleoclimatological reconstructions yourself?  Why, precisely, do you make this remark?



flacaltenn said:


> Too busy revising surface temps in the official records of the 1940s???



I am unfamiliar with this specific reference but surely you understand that data of all sort is frequently corrected and adjusted for known or discovered errors in the collection systems.  Are you under the impression that every measuring device ever created produces perfect results?  Are you opposed to calibration in general or simply when it provides you something about which to complain?



flacaltenn said:


> Emailing each other to rig the publication process??



I believe you will find that the discussion to which you refer was intended to improve the quality of information available.  And if we are not allowed to gripe, bitch, moan and complain about that for which we do not care, where would places like this forum go?



flacaltenn said:


> What took this LONG to get them to THINK like scientists???
> That's what enquiring minds want to know...



The problem is manifold: they ARE scientists but they are also quite human.  They are opposed by a very well funded disinformation campaign put on by the fossil fuel industry which has no problem whatsoever taking advantage of the public's general ignorance of science.  Research scientists are not accustomed to the jobs of spokesman, advocate, salesman or live debater.  Thus they suffer from a great deal of frustration and it occasionally shows up.  I also get frustrated.  I look at the world we are going to leave my children and it makes me very, very unhappy.  When folks, like you and others, actively work against doing what the human race so obviously needs to do, it makes me very frustrated as well.  I occasionally lose my temper.  My apologies in advance if it should come to that.  

BTW, to all of you, thanks for the debate


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> And if he has children?
> 
> The work of Foster and Rahmstorf (current hiatus due to vulcanism and ENSO), Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen (ocean warming below 700 meters) and Shakun and Marcott (current warming rate unprecedented in 22,000 years) are all unchallenged.  No one - certainly none of the more popular anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers - have presented ANY viable evidence to the contrary.  Add this to the rather significant point that no denier has presented a working theory to explain the warming of the last 150 years and no theory as to why greenhouse warming itself should have ceased for the last 15 years and it becomes quite obvious that the deniers do not have a case.
> 
> If all you have to bring to the argument is to tell us that peer-reviewed science is fantasy hand-waving, you might as well stay at home.








Yet another sock.  How many do you clowns need to make you feel better about yourselves?  Doesn't matter though, the population of the world has pretty much figured out you're not relevant anymore so are ignoring you.

Now it's just the fraudsters and the anti-science religious fanatics who support AGW now.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know, you never said how much the $10s of trillions in spending would reduce temps.
> Here's your chance.



The number of unanswered questions is a great deal longer on YOUR side than on mine.  I'll resume answering some of your questions when you've answered some of mine.

Additionally, I'm really not all that enthusiastic about participating in your red herring.  You reject human causation.  You therefore don't want to see a penny spent.  Thus, your 'inquiry' on the economics is a pointless waste of my time.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> And when the actual temps aren't 3-4.0 C warmer, how do we get our trillions back?



You don't put much value on the lives of others, do you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Oh quite clearly that would have to be the leap to hysteria.. Going from basic principles of a 1.1degC results for doubling CO2 to a whopping 3 or 4 degC by evoking a fragile climate climate theory that says we are sitting on a junker of a planet that will turn itself into a literal fuel-air bomb because of a 1.1degC "TRIGGER".. That's the AGW hysteria in a nutshell..



I already addressed this in a post above, but let me give you another opportunity to explain what the effect will be of our reduced albedo (loss of ice cover) and the increase of water vapor, methane and formerly sequestered CO2 released to the atmosphere by warming? 



flacaltenn said:


> I've already told you what I believe a doubling of CO2 would do.. I do believe that man is OVERCHARGED for his contribution. Since we get the bill for cow farts and forest fires. But when Hansen switches from CO2 forcing to giving the AGW circus ammunition for claiming that ANY weather induced news event is scientific PROOF of "Global Weirding" --- that shows the desparation of his cause.. I just watched a Senate hearing with your comrades blaming the death of 19 firefighters in Arizona on CO2.. You don't think Hansen gave them that gun to shoot themselves in the foot?



Where does the energy that drives our weather come from?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yet another sock.



Are you always that rude?



westwall said:


> How many do you clowns need to make you feel better about yourselves?



I seem to be doing quite well all by myself thank you.  How many deniers am I debating today? 



westwall said:


> Doesn't matter though, the population of the world has pretty much figured out you're not relevant anymore so are ignoring you.



They never were paying sufficient attention.  I hope, however, you're not getting the idea that they're now listening to you.



westwall said:


> Now it's just the fraudsters and the anti-science religious fanatics who support AGW now.



I don't know who you're talking about, but I share views with 97% of the world's active climate scientists.  How many scientists agree with you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I know, you never said how much the $10s of trillions in spending would reduce temps.
> ...







I do value the lives of others. That's why I'm reluctant to spend $10s of trillions, to reduce temps in 2080 by some unknown amount.

If you're really worried about CO2, you'd support a giant expansion of nuclear energy.
Most greens claim CO2 is the worst thing ever, except for nuclear.
Where do you stand?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

The article (from not one of your more objective blogs)

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

*********************************************************************************

Edenhoffer is not saying that it is IPCC policy to redistribute wealth.  He is saying that the world's climate policies - both what has existed in the past and what is hoped to exist in the future - redistribute wealth.  Did you note his comment that the policies of the developed nations have appropriated the world's atmosphere while the new regime will appropriate the world's carbon by, in essence, paying resource rich nations to keep it in the ground.  Did you note his many comments about the equivalence of environmental policy and economic policy?

Eh?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The article (from not one of your more objective blogs)
> 
> (NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
> 
> ...



Is English not your first language?

The "Blog" I posted it from merely reported the interview, what the fuck is your problem with that?

Find a grown up to read this to you, and switch off your Obama Context Filter, its fucking up your capacity to understand the written word

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Oh quite clearly that would have to be the leap to hysteria.. Going from basic principles of a 1.1degC results for doubling CO2 to a whopping 3 or 4 degC by evoking a fragile climate climate theory that says we are sitting on a junker of a planet that will turn itself into a literal fuel-air bomb because of a 1.1degC "TRIGGER".. That's the AGW hysteria in a nutshell..
> ...



1st point discussion.. 

So you are fan of the fragile earth litany? So life did not flourish when CO2 and GHgas concentrations were 10 times what they are today? While your science whores are pushing this fantasy of a GLOBAL Climate Sensitivity to explain all --- the reality is that different zones have different CLimate Sensitivities and that these vary hour to hour, season by season and by location.. Doesn't prevent warmers from invoking LOCAL effects when trying to bury evidence of a Med Warm Period does it?

Guess I just don't believe that winter weather in Tenn is gonna change much because there's an albedo effect from a foot of snow on the ground. Probably best to look at 8 other variables first.. 

2nd point discussion... 

Where does the energy come from? Certainly not from the 1degF of warming in your lifetime.. And certainly not even as a sole function of temp. What does 1degF mean to a building thunderstorm? Will it force formation of tornadoes in the absence of a jet stream or high/low pressure flows? In the absence of humidity and a dry inflow? In the absence of skewed sources of winds?

We'd see a much higher effect on tropical storm formation if a 1degF change was all it took.. We know that from AMO and PDO events. There is SOME LIMITED effect. To make a 1degF change the immediate killer of 19 firefighters in Arizona takes a complete suspension of science..

BTW:: Where's my manners. Welcome to USMB.. As Westwall kinda implied.. We VALUE more of your persuasion here. It adds to our enjoyment and increases the rewarding humor that results.. (LOL)....


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you're really worried about CO2, you'd support a giant expansion of nuclear energy.
> Most greens claim CO2 is the worst thing ever, except for nuclear.
> Where do you stand?



You're still not answering my questions.

But, just to keep your ego in check, I strongly favor nuclear power.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Odds are --- he is more afraid of nuclear power than he is of condemning his offspring to "Global Weirding".

<<Edited>>

Oooopss. That's why I'm not a gambler... Ok -- then why dont' we drop the pretense that there IS a list of alternative energy and just build a couple 100 nuke plants today?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Excellent! You're not the typical lefty idiot.

So after we spend your recommended $10s of trillions, how much lower will CO2 be in 2080, versus doing nothing?

How much lower the temp, versus doing nothing?
Show me what we're buying with your watermelon spending.


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another sock.
> ...







Yes, I am always that rude to anti-science religious fanatics.  I can't stand twerps like you.  We have 30 years of data now that shows AGW "theory" to be false.  Further we have ten years of outright data manipulation and falsification by clowns like you in a vain attempt to prop up your fraud.  You have done incalculable damage to science because of your lack of ethics.

I don't give a toss about your pathetic appeals to authority.  The 97% figure is a fraud (as you bloody well know) and who cares what they say, they pushed a paper through peer review that was destroyed in 10 hours by a mere statistician.  With that sort of record who would ever listen to idiots like that.

You, and idiots like you..that's who.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Is English not your first language?



Why, yes it is.  You?



CrusaderFrank said:


> The "Blog" I posted it from merely reported the interview, what the fuck is your problem with that?



It was the "Blog" that reported the comment to reflect IPCC policy.  Do you actually think you can get objective information from a source with such an open and severe bias?



CrusaderFrank said:


> Find a grown up to read this to you, and switch off your Obama Context Filter, its fucking up your capacity to understand the written word



So, you missed the comments about the equivalence of economic and environmental policy, didn't you.  You misunderstood that Edenhoffer was talking about the world's environmental policy and not the IPCC's.  Got it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> 1st point discussion..





flacaltenn said:


> So you are fan of the fragile earth litany?



I have no idea what you mean by that term, but I think it very likely you're incorrect but that will not slow you in the least from trying to put words into my mouth.



flacaltenn said:


> So life did not flourish when CO2 and GHgas concentrations were 10 times what they are today?



Not unexpectedly, I never said any such thing.



flacaltenn said:


> While your science whores are pushing this fantasy of a GLOBAL Climate Sensitivity to explain all --- the reality is that different zones have different CLimate Sensitivities and that these vary hour to hour, season by season and by location.. Doesn't prevent warmers from invoking LOCAL effects when trying to bury evidence of a Med Warm Period does it?



I don't understand your point nor the anger with which you present it.  What is the value of regional parameters in a long view of global climate?  Our atmosphere knows no boundaries.



flacaltenn said:


> Guess I just don't believe that winter weather in Tenn is gonna change much because there's an albedo effect from a foot of snow on the ground. Probably best to look at 8 other variables first..



My apologies that the world and the processes it hosts are as complex as they are.  Life's a bitch, ain't it.



flacaltenn said:


> 2nd point discussion...
> 
> Where does the energy come from? Certainly not from the 1degF of warming in your lifetime.. And certainly not even as a sole function of temp. What does 1degF mean to a building thunderstorm? Will it force formation of tornadoes in the absence of a jet stream or high/low pressure flows? In the absence of humidity and a dry inflow? In the absence of skewed sources of winds?



The energy for all weather comes from the sun.  It gets into our storms and hurricanes, typhoons and gentle zephyrs by warming the atmosphere and, more importantly, the oceans.  The items you mention are the details.  The only point I would make here is that if you increase the thermal energy content of the atmosphere and the ocean, you will increase the energy content of the world's weather.  The point is not debatable.  The reason it is not more obvious than it is is that we're just getting started and the weather is a system with an enormous amount of natural variation - chaos embodied.

By the way, have you ever figured out how much energy is contained in a 1F change in the temperature of the world's oceans and seas?  



flacaltenn said:


> To make a 1degF change the immediate killer of 19 firefighters in Arizona takes a complete suspension of science.



I have not seen the event to which you refer, but the effect on the world's precipitation and fire risk indices that global warming has produced have been significant.  There HAS been an increase in the number of wildfires over the last 50 years.  What I wonder is why you get so hot under the collar at this statement.  



flacaltenn said:


> BTW:: Where's my manners. Welcome to USMB.. As Westwall kinda implied.. We VALUE more of your persuasion here. It adds to our enjoyment and increases the rewarding humor that results.. (LOL)....



You're welcome.  And much obliged for the argument.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Excellent! You're not the typical lefty idiot.



But you, on the other hand... (please pardon my lack of appreciation for your condescension)



Toddsterpatriot said:


> So after we spend your recommended $10s of trillions, how much lower will CO2 be in 2080, versus doing nothing? How much lower the temp, versus doing nothing?
> Show me what we're buying with your watermelon spending.



You answer my questions, then I answer your questions.  That's how it works.  Otherwise, it doesn't.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yes, I am always that rude to anti-science religious fanatics.



Well, forewarned is forearmed.



westwall said:


> I can't stand twerps like you.



I, on the other hand, love running into ignorant fools like you.



westwall said:


> We have 30 years of data now that shows AGW "theory" to be false.



No, you do not,



westwall said:


> Further we have ten years of outright data manipulation and falsification by clowns like you in a vain attempt to prop up your fraud.



No, you do not.  For one, I am not a climate scientist.  And... I take it neither are you.



westwall said:


> You have done incalculable damage to science because of your lack of ethics.



Says the Luddite with the hand grenade.



westwall said:


> I don't give a toss about your pathetic appeals to authority.  The 97% figure is a fraud (as you bloody well know) and who cares what they say, they pushed a paper through peer review that was destroyed in 10 hours by a mere statistician.  With that sort of record who would ever listen to idiots like that.



Hmm... other scientists?



westwall said:


> You, and idiots like you..that's who.



Odd that you hold such an opinion of the world's scientists but seek to defend them from the harm you perceive them suffering at the hands of the climatologists.  Are the world's scientists smart or stupid?  Are they honest people or scamming crooks?  And, just out of curiosity, what might be the qualifications that allow you to come to valid conclusions on these questions?  Why should we take your word for it when you've not presented one iota of evidence for any of the host of absurd charges you've made?

Eh?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you stop at 22,000 yrs??
> ...



Run out of ability to parse the discussion with the nesting here. Comments in Red above.

Dendochronology?? LOL... I don't argue about ice.. And I don't argue about trees being thermometers.. 

What's the phrase?  "I think that I shall never see, a thermometer as bad as a tree."
The length of mud holes due to snails also cracks me up when divining a couple degrees of temp...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > 1st point discussion..
> ...



Don't know why you suddenly don't know much... LOL... 

There were actual questions in there --- which you ignored.. 

Yes I'm aware of how many Hiroshima bombs AGW temp rise is equivalent to --- your circus has already tried that frightening tactic on me and failed.. 

I guess even tho you deflected on what ACTUALLY drives weather --- you should know why I'm angry about a Global Climate Sensitivity.. Same reason I'm angry about a Global Mean Surface Temp number driving the ENTIRE public discussion as tho no textbooks on Atmos Physics was ever written.. It's a silly and stupid ploy intended to pkg this farce for public consumption.. A Global Climate sensitivity makes NO SENSE in defining the weather resulting from a 1degC rise. That GLOBAL 1degC temp rise --- tells you NOTHING about identifying the COSTS of AGW that (could) happen REGIONALLY. (your current debate with Toddster shows you not to be TOO concerned about that $Trill is redistributed to UN welfare cases).  

But to come up a with a GLOBAL NUMBER varying between 1.5 and 4 or 5 is actually hysterically funny considering what that ONE NUMBER purports to represent.. If you don't get the scientific humor in that attempt.. You're not thinking hard enough..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

See now Abraham?? This is what Toddster is trying to school you about.. ^^^^^^^^ 

3 or 4 of MY quotes are GONE from the post above. Because they are not HARD LINKED back to the source.. Damned if I'm gonna spend my time retrieving and remarking them.. Not preparing a draft for pub. here.. Don't want to have to mess with tracking formatting... 


"fragile earth theory" --- the belief that a 1.1degC change in temp forcing will trigger catastrophic events due to multiplication of the temperature forcing power of GreenHouse conditions. The idea that all feedbacks are net HIGHLY positive.. That this planet is a giant fuel-air bomb and a marginal increase in CO2 ALONE is the trigger.. 

Why didn't this happen when life flourished on the planet and atmos CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Odd that you hold such an opinion of the world's scientists but seek to defend them from the harm you perceive them suffering at the hands of the climatologists. Are the world's scientists smart or stupid? Are they honest people or scamming crooks? And, just out of curiosity, what might be the qualifications that allow you to come to valid conclusions on these questions? Why should we take your word for it when you've not presented one iota of evidence for any of the host of absurd charges you've made?



You may wish to torture yourself through the threads linked below. They are busily mangling scence, in a feable attempt to "prove" AWG and climate change is not a fact.

One doesn't think plants get their carbon from CO2, after all, it isn't the CO2 cycle, it is the CARBON cycle. Then there is an attempt at applying thermodynamics to individual atoms and molecules.

Of course, you may have caught a clue that one member's entire schtick is to ask non-sequiter questions while having little actual information to provide. He "thinks" he is magically beaming the answer into your head.

You'll love it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...dioxide-to-the-atmosphere-is-what-we-155.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/297165-the-global-warming-thread-is-it-for-real.html


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> A bunch of signal processing expertise says you're wrong about devining stuff from a 300 yr resolution record. If temperatures rose and fell within 300 yrs, you STILL would have no knowledge of them.



My point was that such a blip could not take place within 300 years.  A thousand would be a good MINIMUM.  There is no mechanism to rid the atmosphere of GHGs nor for the oceans to cool in anywhere near enough time.

I am a former submarine sonar technician with a degree in Ocean Engineering.  I've been working in naval sensor system performance analysis for many years. I have some familiarity with signal processing.



flacaltenn said:


> That would be called aliasing. You might even see transients shorter than that period in the data that don't really exist.  Which is the main prob with using ice cores to make your assertion.



Shakun and Marcott used a large number of disparate proxies and assembled their data with some very sophisticated functions.  The 300 year resolution of their data is quite robust.



flacaltenn said:


> As for the physics of it -- perhaps the dinosaurs were massively deforesting and farting simultaneously.



22,000 years does not take us back to the dinosaurs.  It doesn't even take us out of homo sapiens.



flacaltenn said:


> We'll never know from the ice cores.



The ice cores tell us what they tell us.  Their resolution is limited by diffusion which increases with age, even at the bottom of Vostok, there is meaningful data.



flacaltenn said:


> But you have NO basis to imply that physics THEN limited the rate of rise but does not do so today.[/COLOR]
> 
> That's not what I said.  Physics limits the rebound.  The world could not have experienced a climb like the one we've seen and then cool off, all in less than 300 years.
> 
> ...


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Don't know why you suddenly don't know much... LOL...



Because I am new to this board and we do not have a common set of experiences.



flacaltenn said:


> There were actual questions in there --- which you ignored..



I think most of the ones I ignored were based on misconceptions of my positions.  For instance, because I believe climate sensitivity is closer to 3.0C than the 1.1C you suggest, I do not require insane levels of CO2 to get the warming I fear is going to take place.  Thus all your questions as to where all that CO2 is going to come from were moot.



flacaltenn said:


> Yes I'm aware of how many Hiroshima bombs AGW temp rise is equivalent to --- your circus has already tried that frightening tactic on me and failed.



I wasn't attempting to frighten you.  I was attempting to counter your contention that a 1F rise in temperature was trivial.  You tried to suggest that a 1F change could not affect the weather.  Come back down to Florida and compare hurricane intensity to sea surface temperature and see what you get. 



flacaltenn said:


> I guess even tho you deflected on what ACTUALLY drives weather --- you should know why I'm angry about a Global Climate Sensitivity.. Same reason I'm angry about a Global Mean Surface Temp number driving the ENTIRE public discussion as tho no textbooks on Atmos Physics was ever written.. It's a silly and stupid ploy intended to pkg this farce for public consumption..



I have never seen anyone in the climatology field attempt to define global warming solely on surface temperature.  It is certainly very common knowledge in the field that the ocean, by a large margin, is the most significant player and all the major data references push combined land/sea indices.  The only person I've ever noted using that sort of chicanery is Roy Spencer, who constantly attempts to use the Tropospheric numbers his satellites give him as a stand in for a true global temperature.  As you may know, Spencer is a climate change denier of the first water.

And I didn't "DEFLECT" jack.



flacaltenn said:


> A Global Climate sensitivity makes NO SENSE in defining the weather resulting from a 1degC rise. That GLOBAL 1degC temp rise --- tells you NOTHING about identifying the COSTS of AGW that (could) happen REGIONALLY. (your current debate with Toddster .



I'm uncertain what you're saying here.  I did not use climate sensitivity in my attempt to calculate the cost of global warming harm.  However, you would use sensitivity to predict a temperature given a specific emissions scenario and from that could estimate effects and the cost thereof.

As to your comment concerning "UN welfare cases", I choose not to go there. Yet.  



flacaltenn said:


> But to come up a with a GLOBAL NUMBER varying between 1.5 and 4 or 5 is actually hysterically funny considering what that ONE NUMBER purports to represent.. If you don't get the scientific humor in that attempt.. You're not thinking hard enough..



Perhaps because I don't find humorous what that number tells us is going to happen, particularly if we continue to be distracted and deceived by people passing along bad information,  denigrating good science and good scientists and, apparently, being more concerned about the welfare of their own checkbooks than the very lives of their children and their children's children.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 21, 2013)

most of the hotest years on record are during the 21st century.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> See now Abraham?? This is what Toddster is trying to school you about.. ^^^^^^^^



All that's required is that you retain the number at the tail end of the QUOTE tag.



flacaltenn said:


> "fragile earth theory" --- the belief that a 1.1degC change in temp forcing will trigger catastrophic events due to multiplication of the temperature forcing power of GreenHouse conditions. The idea that all feedbacks are net HIGHLY positive.. That this planet is a giant fuel-air bomb and a marginal increase in CO2 ALONE is the trigger..
> 
> Why didn't this happen when life flourished on the planet and atmos CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today?



I am unfamiliar with anyone pushing 1.1C as a threshold value for temperature change or for climate sensitivity - I'm not sure which you mean.  I have always heard 2C as the change we should try to avoid and 3C has been the centroid of the accepted climate sensitivity for a great long while.

There are large differences between the current situation and what has happened on this planet in the past.  In the majority of occasions, global temperature rises have been caused by orbital fluctuations or, perhaps, by solar variances.  The rate at which temperatures have altered have been far, far lower than what we are currently experiencing.  The slow rates of change have allowed significant adaptation to take place.  And, as I pointed out earlier about the LIA, the effect of these changes were not typically as benign to the biosphere as some folks would like to believe.  The first evidence of many of these events was not temperature data from proxies but evidence of mass extinctions in the fossil record.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> You may wish to torture yourself through the threads linked below. They are busily mangling scence, in a feable attempt to "prove" AWG and climate change is not a fact.
> 
> One doesn't think plants get their carbon from CO2, after all, it isn't the CO2 cycle, it is the CARBON cycle. Then there is an attempt at applying thermodynamics to individual atoms and molecules.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the welcome and the links.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Gardener said:


> most of the hotest years on record are during the 21st century.



Yes they are.

I know this is off topic, but can I ask you in what sense you are a "defeater of Zionists"?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > A bunch of signal processing expertise says you're wrong about devining stuff from a 300 yr resolution record. If temperatures rose and fell within 300 yrs, you STILL would have no knowledge of them.
> ...


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 21, 2013)

I've been at this all day and this is a long one.  So you're going to get a brief response.



flacaltenn said:


> That's a pretty heady assumption given what we know about volcanic activity, and sudden changes in cooling like occured in the 1700s..



What do you think we know about volcanic activity and sudden changes in cooling?

*Shakun and Marcott used a large number of disparate proxies and assembled their data with some very sophisticated functions.  The 300 year resolution of their data is quite robust.*



flacaltenn said:


> No it isn't.. It's based on snail holes, tree rings, and hope.  The variance is HUGE.



Marcott used 73 different proxies from all over the planet.  Shakun had less available given the time span he was looking into.  The variance on such data is going to go up with age.  That is unavoidable.  Their analysis was robust.  They are not statistical idiots.



flacaltenn said:


> This goes back to the fuel-air bomb theory of yours.. First of all THAT feedback is not largely CO2, but mostly METHANE.. Which has (if I recall) about 1/10 the atmos residency time of CO2. ((And even that number is still in play)).. If methane was the accelerant for the warming, there is no 100 year rebound time.



The largest positive feedback item is water vapor.  It is maintained solely by temperature and there is a VERY large sink of the material available.  It's half-life is, essentially, infinite.  The second feedback IS additional CO2 released from organic sequestration and from decreased CO2 solubility in the warming oceans.



flacaltenn said:


> The oceans have a capacity to show SURFACE temp variations of a 1degC/decade in natural oscillation, and an incredible ability to change the deep water mixing. ESPECIALLY if ice is forming again after a rebound. You know that multiplicative CO2 superpower you evoke for climate sensitivity?? Works both ways.. Take CO2 OUT of play with a cooling ocean and ice formation and suddenly the down side doesn't look as skewed as the upside temp change.
> I fold my arms and stomp my feet and INVOKE Climate Sensitivity reversibility....  That's how Climate Science is done evidentally.



It only works both ways if you have a trigger for each direction.  Care to posit such a trigger for cooling?



flacaltenn said:


> One of those "I aint never seen it" args eh? During the day, clouds and water vapor are reducing surface temps. It's a well known effect, even in the Arctic that losing ice promotes increased near surface water vapor which lowers daytime absorption.
> Roughly 1/2 of it absorbs during the day goes back out to space because of geometry of radiative heating. That's a crapload BETTER than 100% of incoming long wave hitting the surface.. THAT debate ain't over by far



Better than the longwave radiation hitting a glaring white surface shrouded by the clearest and coldest of bone-dry air?  I think not.  And, when you say "roughly 1/2... goes back out to space", what you would more accurately say is "less than half of it goes back out to space".



flacaltenn said:


> Of course. [a Roy Spencer fan]. He holds in his hands the only weapon that keeps GISS from further falsifying the future temp record.. Won't stop them from cooking the books on the 1890s again tomorrow by noon tho.



I don't mean to offend, but I think Roy Spencer is a demented fool too stuck on himself to produce a valid thesis.  He's a classic case of the man with only a hammer seeing all problems as nails.



flacaltenn said:


> THe proxies are OK for guessing at GROSS climate records. When fans like you suddenly start reading into them a couple decade slope on temperature that never appeared before..



You'll have to show me where I did such a thing because I have no such recollection.



flacaltenn said:


> I just chuckle.. Also humorous how these proxies are dismissed from South America and Africa when they are found to confirm the Med Warm Period was a GLOBAL event. That's a hoot.



I have no problem with a global MWP.  I don't believe it happened, but it wouldn't bother me if it did.  It has no bearing on the current situation.



flacaltenn said:


> But the pkgs flown for the first 15 or 20 years were INCAPABLE of making continous REALTIME charts of solar spectrum or TSI or upper atmos conduction.



And just how quickly do you believe TSI changes?  Has the continuous recent data show high frequency fluctuations?  No.  So what do you believe was missed earlier?  And what is wrong with the intermittent data collected?  Do you have some reason to believe it's not valid?



flacaltenn said:


> When you have to climb mountains to even get an idea of what the INCOMING PRIMARY source of heating looks like --- the data gets real sparse. And 15 yrs doesn't even cover enough time to rule out LONGER periodic changes in the emission spectra or Total Solar Irradiance.



You're grasping at straws.  Did you even look at the numbers on the Y-axis of your TSI graph?  What's your percent change there?  The total range of the data you displayed was 0.001285 the maximum value.  If it hadn't been plotted as a whoopee graph the variance would have been invisible. Why do you think the graph I posted showed such a minimal effect?  Solar variance is TRIVIAL.



flacaltenn said:


> It's that meme just discovered by Climate Science that Global Warming hasn't paused at all, it's just hiding in the oceans. And SOMEHOW the models which were trained to focus on IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION of CO2 forcing never considered that.



The idea of deep ocean warming is not a new concept.  Deep ocean warming was most certainly considered by many people in the field.  It was a common point of discussion.  The data were simply not available before now.  Some might argue that they're still not available.  



flacaltenn said:


> Well --- I'm invoking this new fangled (for climate science) thermal inertia.. Saying that we SHOULDN't expect to see CO2 forcing immediately correlated with temp rise. There ought to be lag. Or PERHAPS --- the CO2 actually lags the temp.. (I'm ok with that idea because YOU TELL ME that CO2 will multiply logarithmically SOLELY because of a temp trigger)..



Have you read Shakun's 2012 work?  It's primary thrust was the discovery that in several historical cases, temperature DID lag CO2 levels.  It showed that on several occasions in the paleo record temperatures, elevated by some external forcing, increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere which then produced greater warming than the original effect.



flacaltenn said:


> Anyway, I'm invoking it here. A wild ass shot in the dark.. Like the bulk of the REAL Climatologists seem to do...



Are you admitting that you do not have the support of evidence? 






[/IMG]



flacaltenn said:


> THere is about 1.2w/M2 of forcing. Feel free to apply your "multipliers" to that as well since the earth's surface won't know the diff btwn 1.2W/m2 from CO2 or from the sun.. I figure that ACTUALLY accounts for about 33% of the radiative forcing we're looking for since the 1700s.. What YOUR high priests do to that --- is to say there is NO CORRELATION over the past couple decades (because TSI halted about 20 yrs ago) THEREFORE it's NOT the cause of global warming and we ain't gonna look at it..



TSI didn't halt 20 years ago.  It dropped less than a tenth of one percent.



flacaltenn said:


> Problem is now --- If there is a bunch of thermal inertia and the oceans playing peek-a-boo with the missing warmth --- this is ONE VARIANT that has had a pause with a delayed resultant pause in the warming.. Circumstantial? Sure.. But you can't have the High Priest mock it for NOT FOLLOWING temp year to year and YET listen to them invoke delays due to thermal inertia when THEIR little pet ideas go off the rails..



Foster and Rahmstorf 2012.  The current hiatus is the result of aerosol cooling from vulcanism and sequestration of thermal energy in the deep ocean caused by changes to the ENSO cycle.  If you were of a mind, you could say that ENSO change was evidence supporting the Gaia Hypothesis.



flacaltenn said:


> See the pause?



Actually, I do not.  Are you talking about the low end of the latest of the many 11-year cycles visible?  If you think that matches the global temperature record for the same period you need a new pair of glasses.



flacaltenn said:


> Of course you do.. See anything in the temp record that COULD be a delayed signature of that pause? Of course you do.. Why aren't we getting coherent arguments from the Church of Global Warming..



I'm afraid I once again do not know what you are trying to say. 



flacaltenn said:


> Given you SEVERAL examples ---- just in this ONE POST --- where their arguments flail for traction and contradict themselves whenever it seems convienient..



Please make a list and keep them clear and simple... I'm not as adept as once I was.. ;-)


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I've been at this all day and this is a long one.  So you're going to get a brief response.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Note1: Let's say it's the same trigger that got us into 3 consecutive ice ages. Milankovich cycles or whatever you warmers choose to handwave about.. Right now -- there's speculation that we are about to see something approximating the Maunder Min at the next sun cycle.. Maybe aerosols or other excuses that you warmers use to explain the sudden cooling now.. 

Note2: Nawww I'll stick with approx 1/2 since whatever is radiated from the atmos goes up equally to down. So some energy goes sideways and hangs around. But evidentually, 1/2 goes up and 1/2 goes down..

Note3: That would be the toolbox of the IPCC. Contains one hammer.. No nails. 
Dr Roy has an open mind to using other tools.  Hansen abhores satellites at NASA and prefers his temp data heavily spiced up.
Dr Roy does a cool job of matching the sat data to GISS raw just by simple population density compensation.. No book cooking required. 

Note4: Of course the MWP matters.. Because otherwise your unprecedented warming claim becomes pretty much BS.. The numbers from proxy have underestimated the magnitude only because they exclude evidence of GLOBAL warming for the period.

Note5: In my best Reagan impersonation.. "there you go again".. What happened to the Hiroshima calculations you were touting for the GW energy change.. You only NEED a miniscule % change in Total Solar output to find the 1degF in your lifetime.. A couple posts ago -- you were lecturing me about how immensly HUGEMONGOUS a 1degF was.. Point is that change over the period of incident radiative forcing is about 3.6W/m2.. The chart show 1.2W/M2 due to average increase in TSI.. Where's the prob?  1W/m2 is a single LED per M2 over the surface.. Is that BIG like you told me this afternoon? Or small?


Note6:  My bad.. Poor choice of words.. TSI didn't HALT,, it stalled out about 20 years before the current temperature trend stalled now.. Please disregard the sunspot cycles on that graph -- You know -- the part the IPCC talks about.. And pay attention to the underlying trend line.. About 30 or 40 years ago -- the TSI trend line stalled and has remained fairly flat. 

Note7: Want an alternate excuse as to why the temp rise has stalled for at least 12 years? Here it is.. TSI stalled about 30 years ago.. I contend the oceans are still equalizing over 30 years (or a hundred).. But the burner reached it's set point and stuck. After delay -- warming trend flattens out --- I invoke the same energy hiding in the oceans and thermal inertia argument. EXCEPT --- my driving excitation actually DID stall out 30 years ago.. CO2 continues to build... 

Note8:

1) The whole hearted use of proxies EXCEPT when it's not in their favor.. IE trying to discredit GLOBAL proxies to lower the impact of the MWPeriod. 

2) Explaining that solar TSI can't have anything to do with the observed warming trend over the past 20 years BECAUSE it stalled out 20 or 30 years and refused to continue climbing with the temp record. AND THEN suddenly discovering when THEIR relationship with CO2 wasn't IMMEDIATELY gratifying and suddenly not simultaneously orgasming together anymore since 2000 or so --- they re-discover thermal inertia.. And NOW we're supposed to ignore the wisdom that warming follows CO2 year to year basis and it may lag by many decades.  That's a head-spinning rejection of consistency right there.

Hypocrisy man. Excuses of convienience.. Tea leaves and bug huts.. That's what most of the CATASTROPHIC part of AGW is built on...


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I've been at this all day and this is a long one.  So you're going to get a brief response.
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Shakun and Marcott huh?   Funny how they massaged their "study" to generate the report they wanted.  The real numbers looked like this.....








Another Climate Science Scandal Brewing? | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 22, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Note1: Let's say it's the same trigger that got us into 3 consecutive ice ages. Milankovich cycles or whatever you warmers choose to handwave about.. Right now -- there's speculation that we are about to see something approximating the Maunder Min at the next sun cycle.. Maybe aerosols or other excuses that you warmers use to explain the sudden cooling now..



Don't assume I accept your suggestion that the world can cool off as fast you suggest it has.  Even with the best of efforts, the current WARMING will hardly be over in 300 years.  CO2 has a long life and the oceans an enormous amount of heat capacity.  The world could not heat as it is currently doing and cool back off within 300 years.  And, as has been my consistent position, it wouldn't matter if it did.  You're trying to say their could be other causes to our warming.  Showing instances of warming from non-anthropogenic sources indicates its possible but does nothing to show it likely.  You have not refuted AGW and you have provided NO other mechanism in its place.  Pardon me if I fail to abandon ship under such circumstances.



flacaltenn said:


> Note2: Nawww I'll stick with approx 1/2 since whatever is radiated from the atmos goes up equally to down. So some energy goes sideways and hangs around. But evidentually, 1/2 goes up and 1/2 goes down..



If we had cold vacuum on both sides, it might be half and half, but leaving the atmosphere for the land and water doesn't really count, does it.



flacaltenn said:


> Note3: That would be the toolbox of the IPCC. Contains one hammer.. No nails.



That's utter nonsense.  The IPCC, for one, makes use of the work of hundreds of different scientists.  And the number of climate change deniers with IPCC credits in the bona fides is hardly evidence that the IPCC has been exclusive in their selection process.



flacaltenn said:


> Dr Roy has an open mind to using other tools.



Bull.  From Wikipedia's article on the man we find: "The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, later resigned over publication of Spencer and Braswell (2011),[20] stating, "From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. [...] the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view *...but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents."*

An open mind does not ignore the scientific arguments of its opponents. 



flacaltenn said:


> Hansen abhores satellites at NASA and prefers his temp data heavily spiced up.



More bull.  Hansen started his career studying the atmosphere of Venus.  He works for Goddard SPACE FLIGHT Centre for god's sake.  Here, from HIS Wikipedia article:
*"Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change.*



flacaltenn said:


> Dr Roy does a cool job of matching the sat data to GISS raw just by simple population density compensation.. No book cooking required.



Spencer's work is crap.  Sorry, but that's the truth.



flacaltenn said:


> Note4: Of course the MWP matters.. Because otherwise your unprecedented warming claim becomes pretty much BS..



I hope I don't have to repeat this too many more times.  The RATE (*RATE*) of warming in the current era is unprecedented.



flacaltenn said:


> The numbers from proxy have underestimated the magnitude only because they exclude evidence of GLOBAL warming for the period.



You mentioned this before.  Now, as I just pointed out, the only thing that concerns me is the warming rate, but what evidence do you believe was excluded?  Are you saying that the Earth's temperature was higher than the paleoclimatologists show?  That would be interesting, but I don't really care.  It does not refute AGW and it does not ameliorate the risk faced by humans under a 4C rise temperature increase. 



flacaltenn said:


> Note5: In my best Reagan impersonation.. "there you go again".. What happened to the Hiroshima calculations you were touting for the GW energy change.. You only NEED a miniscule % change in Total Solar output to find the 1degF in your lifetime.. A couple posts ago -- you were lecturing me about how immensly HUGEMONGOUS a 1degF was.. Point is that change over the period of incident radiative forcing is about 3.6W/m2.. The chart show 1.2W/M2 due to average increase in TSI.. Where's the prob?  1W/m2 is a single LED per M2 over the surface.. Is that BIG like you told me this afternoon? Or small?



As we noted above, less than half that 1 W/m*2 (which I read as a lot closer to 0.7 W/m*2 ) ends up raising the Earth's temperature.  The IPCC's work does not ignore TSI.  Surely you've seen this graph before:






Do you doubt the world's scientists' ability to make a basic calculation?



flacaltenn said:


> Note6:  My bad.. Poor choice of words.. TSI didn't HALT,, it stalled out about 20 years before the current temperature trend stalled now.. Please disregard the sunspot cycles on that graph -- You know -- the part the IPCC talks about.. And pay attention to the underlying trend line.. About 30 or 40 years ago -- the TSI trend line stalled and has remained fairly flat.



That's interesting, but it does not refute or supplant AGW as the primary mover.  The radiative forcing is simply inadequate.



flacaltenn said:


> Note7: Want an alternate excuse as to why the temp rise has stalled for at least 12 years? Here it is.. TSI stalled about 30 years ago.. I contend the oceans are still equalizing over 30 years (or a hundred).. But the burner reached it's set point and stuck. After delay -- warming trend flattens out --- I invoke the same energy hiding in the oceans and thermal inertia argument. EXCEPT --- my driving excitation actually DID stall out 30 years ago.. CO2 continues to build...



Except to support that the oceans would have to be cooling...  






and they are not.



flacaltenn said:


> Note8:
> 
> 1) The whole hearted use of proxies EXCEPT when it's not in their favor.. IE trying to discredit GLOBAL proxies to lower the impact of the MWPeriod.



If I agree to allow you that the MWP was global and reached a higher average temperature, what will you do with it? 



flacaltenn said:


> 2) Explaining that solar TSI can't have anything to do with the observed warming trend over the past 20 years BECAUSE it stalled out 20 or 30 years and refused to continue climbing with the temp record. AND THEN suddenly discovering when THEIR relationship with CO2 wasn't IMMEDIATELY gratifying and suddenly not simultaneously orgasming together anymore since 2000 or so --- they re-discover thermal inertia.. And NOW we're supposed to ignore the wisdom that warming follows CO2 year to year basis and it may lag by many decades.  That's a head-spinning rejection of consistency right there.



TSI sits where it sits on the graph above because of the math; not because someone whined that it had stopped climbing.



flacaltenn said:


> Hypocrisy man. Excuses of convienience.. Tea leaves and bug huts.. That's what most of the CATASTROPHIC part of AGW is built on...



I find your observations of the science and the scientists flawed and suffering from preexisting subjectivity on a number of issues.  The only radiative forcing of sufficient magnitude to have caused what we've experienced the last century and a half is the Greenhouse Effect from greenhouse gases that humans have put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.  No climate model that fails to assume AGW has ever recreated the climate behavior of the last 150 years.  You have failed to refute and failed to replace.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Shakun and Marcott huh?   Funny how they massaged their "study" to generate the report they wanted.  The real numbers looked like this.....



You ACTUALLY believe that's what happened?  You reject the instrumented record?  All the world's thermometers were off in the same direction at the same time?

  Impressive cojones their dude.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 22, 2013)

A better illustration of what happens to incoming solar radiation






342 in
107 out


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> A better illustration of what happens to incoming solar radiation
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL

Really?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 22, 2013)

Yes, really.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Note1: Let's say it's the same trigger that got us into 3 consecutive ice ages. Milankovich cycles or whatever you warmers choose to handwave about.. Right now -- there's speculation that we are about to see something approximating the Maunder Min at the next sun cycle.. Maybe aerosols or other excuses that you warmers use to explain the sudden cooling now..
> ...



You're butchering the quotes. Most of mine are missing because you're not getting that forum software cannot take quotes nested more than one level.. Makes it hard for me to even respond.. Makes it IMPOSSIBLE for others to follow..  I doubt you're doing this intentionally.. Better way is to simply to add stopquotes and new startquotes after you drop in comments. Or do as I did and place reference markers. 

So many issues --- so little time.. Lemme pick a couple... 

The radiation argument about the utility of water vapor stored heat.. I just spent 12 pages defending the radiative theory of the GreenHouse against slackers who reject the concept that the atmos "backradiates" IR EM energy to the ground at all. They claim RADIATIVE heat energy only flows from hot to cold.. Hope you don't have the same perception.. 

The Atmos radiates radiates what it's BBody emission total is.. It does that in ALL directions regardless of the destination temp.. The NET FLOWS will obey thermo laws, but when the atmos sheds heat primarily from radiation (which it does) simplistically 1/2 will go up --- and 1/2 will go down. The 1/2 that goes UP never comes back because of the temp diff. (nothing significant radiating from that direction except the original sun source) Now to be rigorous, it's line of sight transmission, so looking down you have less field of view due to curvature of the earth and such.. So iF ANYTHING, LESS of that water vapor heat goes dwn.. 

Re the Med Warm Period and your shouting about the RATE.. If the MAGNITUDE of the MWP event was to be CORRECTED as a Global event by the High Church of the Warming, then the RATES would also INCREASE ---- wouldn't they? dtemp/dtime remember? And it was a very SHORT event. As we speak your rate over 40 years is DECREASING year by year as time ticks off here. 

Your chart from the IPCC does EXACTLY what I said was hypocritical.. All those contributions are from the IMMEDIATE time frame.. Thats what they are TODAY.. The only solar forcing they've included is from the PRESENT solar spot cycle. They are dissallowing the very "excuses" that they are making now for the CO2 forcing is "hiding". The increase in TSI doesn't even SHOW on that chart for a period of time commitant with a CLIMATE analysis.. If there is storage in the oceans for CO2 forcing, there WAS storage in oceans for solar forcing.. And YES --- those scientists are misrepresenting the thermal budget of heat energy over time.. I do assert they fuck up --- and perhaps on purpose.. 

Where is 300 year limit on temp rates written? I've told you that the multipliers for CO2 warming are bogus. They are bogus because those frozen calthrates melting are METHANE primarily and have 1/12 the atmos residency time of CO2. Something like 7 years.. 

You have failed to PROVE the additional superpowers of CO2 to CAUSE catastrophic warming. We both accept a much smaller number for that effect. All you have is models that were BUILT to prove the singular driving force of CO2 --- and those are currently going thru a full scale TRAINWRECK because of the arrogance of the Climate pimps who wanted to honk their horns before they had a comprehensive climate model available..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Note1: Let's say it's the same trigger that got us into 3 consecutive ice ages. Milankovich cycles or whatever you warmers choose to handwave about.. Right now -- there's speculation that we are about to see something approximating the Maunder Min at the next sun cycle.. Maybe aerosols or other excuses that you warmers use to explain the sudden cooling now..
> ...





Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Shakun and Marcott huh?   Funny how they massaged their "study" to generate the report they wanted.  The real numbers looked like this.....
> ...



You're the one using sea shells and snail holes as thermometers and you have NO cajones.
Why are you citing proxies as proof --- when we have satellites? Maybe because you can fudge history? 

I think we're rejecting your tales of past temperatures based on crap.. Especially when we see GISS changing temps in the 1890s and 1940s today, tonight and tomorrow..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> A better illustration of what happens to incoming solar radiation
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At least read that cartoon accurately.. 342 is NET in.. 107 is only what is reflected. NOT absorbed and re-radiated skyward. Those parts are on the RIGHT side of the chart.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 22, 2013)

So Abraham.. If I assert there's sufficient evidence for the MWP to have EXCEEDED the Common Era Warming --- what caused it? You're asking me what caused the Common Era warming. It's only fair eh?

While you're pondering, *don't pretend that OTHER alternate explanations don't appear in the common climate lit*.  CO2 is NOT the only game in town.. 

I know I know --- it's a tree ring study... Do I believe it? Of course not.. But it's interesting the conclusions that are so easily lept to here --- isn't it?? 



> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html
> 
> Solar insolation changes, resulting from long-term oscillations of orbital configurations1, are an important driver of Holocene climate2, 3. The forcing is substantial over the past 2,000 years, up to four times as large as the 1.6?W?m-2 net anthropogenic forcing since 1750 (ref. 4), but the trend varies considerably over time, space and with season5. Using numerous high-latitude proxy records, slow orbital changes have recently been shown6 to gradually force boreal summer temperature cooling over the common era. Here, we present new evidence based on maximum latewood density data from northern Scandinavia, indicating that this cooling trend was stronger (-0.31?°C per 1,000?years, ±0.03?°C) than previously reported, and demonstrate that this signature is missing in published tree-ring proxy records.



Funny that they say 1.6W/M2 since the 1750 for CO2 forcing.. I was quoting 3.6W/M2.. I need to check that reference. The TSI chart shows 1.1W/M2 since about 1750.. Doesn't leave much room for MASSIVE Co2 warming does it??


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 22, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> The radiation argument about the utility of water vapor stored heat.. I just spent 12 pages defending the radiative theory of the GreenHouse against slackers who reject the concept that the atmos "backradiates" IR EM energy to the ground at all. They claim RADIATIVE heat energy only flows from hot to cold.. Hope you don't have the same perception..
> 
> The Atmos radiates radiates what it's BBody emission total is.. It does that in ALL directions regardless of the destination temp.. The NET FLOWS will obey thermo laws, but when the atmos sheds heat primarily from radiation (which it does) simplistically 1/2 will go up --- and 1/2 will go down. The 1/2 that goes UP never comes back because of the temp diff. (nothing significant radiating from that direction except the original sun source) Now to be rigorous, it's line of sight transmission, so looking down you have less field of view due to curvature of the earth and such.. So iF ANYTHING, LESS of that water vapor heat goes dwn..
> 
> ...



I aced two semesters of thermodynamics and advanced heat transfer.  I think I can hang with your transfer discussions.

Your first point here is semantic.  The discussion was TSI and the atmosphere.  Once the thermal energy has left the atmosphere for the earth or the seas, it is as lost as the energy that leaves for space.  It has increased the temperature of the planet.  It's source identity is gone.  We cannot differentiate it on reradiation from energy conducted from the core, from energy conducted (vice radiated) from the atmosphere or energy from that campfire the kids built in the backyard last night.  And, in the calculation of net radiative energy transfer, you would now have to subtract the increased radiation from the warmer Earth and Ocean from the incoming solar radiation.

Even assuming the maximum value from every MWP-era proxy around the globe, the maximum global temperature will be close to current values.  The rate is dominated by the difference in time the Earth has taken to reach values then and now.  We've made our climb in 150 years (and we're still climbing).  The MWP took at least 500 years to reach a state a good deal spottier than the current situation.  The rate will be nowhere near what we've been experiencing.

The IPCC chart is not being deceptive.  It is correctly labeled.  If you want to examine past values for those same parameters, you will find TSI to be even LESS.  How does that help you?  Your argument does not make sense.  TSI has never provided sufficient radiative forcing to be responsible for the temperature increases we've experienced.  

Who do you believe is arguing that there is "CO2 forcing" being stored in the oceans?  If your talking about Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen, the argument is that changes in ENSO have led to an increase in the amount of surface heat being transferred to the depths.  How does that help you show TSI has more power than the power meters actually show it to possess?  You would need that effect to have been taking place constantly since 1880 yet it seems to have not begun till well into the 21st century.

You have told me that "the multipliers for CO2 are bogus".  The problem is that your arguments have not convinced me in the slightest.  I believe they are quite real.  Warming from CO2 has put additional water vapor, CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.  Warming has melted snow and ice cover and decreased our albedo.  The mechanisms you propose to counter those fundamental effects are ad hoc in the extreme.  BTW, ignoring the water vapor and added CO2, the world has not run out of methane clathrates (or any of the other methane sinks made active by warming) and is unlikely to do so at any time in the next few centuries.  So where does your short CH4 half life come into play?  Discussions of CO2 half life are calculations of how long it will last after we have stopped pumping it into the atmosphere.  If the supply is constantly renewed, the half life only provides a maximum level that can be obtained for a given resupply rate.  And if that level keeps us out of thermal equilibrium, as it will, temperatures will continue to rise and the resupply rate will continue to increase.

If I were you, I'd be looking hard at the changes that have taken place in the AMO, apparently due to increasing temperature.  The world has never experienced a truly runaway greenhouse effect (as has Venus) so one hopes there is some sort of mechanism to keep the thing in check before all life is roasted to a crisp.  Perhaps changes in ocean circulation, both vertical and horizontal, are the key.  Perhaps not.  

I have a favored ditty by Stephen Crane:

"I exist" said the man to the Universe.
"Yes" it replied, "but the fact has not created in me any sense of obligation".

I do not believe in the Gaia Hypothesis.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 22, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> You're the one using sea shells and snail holes as thermometers and you have NO cajones.



That's a bit personal don't you think.  I try to respond to people in a manner appropos to their behavior.  Poster Westwall - to whom my "cojones" remark was addressed - started out treating me rudely.  I asked him about it and he continued to be rude.  So I have no hesitation to be rude to him in return.  I have not received such treatment from you before this point and was keeping myself in check in return.  If that is not to your liking, do let me know.  If you'd rather we maintain a civil conversation on these points (as I'd prefer), you could retract the above.



flacaltenn said:


> Why are you citing proxies as proof --- when we have satellites? Maybe because you can fudge history?



1) I do not know to what you refer
2) There are no proofs in the natural sciences
3) I don't use proxies where instrumented records are available
4) Satellites cannot see back in time



flacaltenn said:


> I think we're rejecting your tales of past temperatures based on crap.. Especially when we see GISS changing temps in the 1890s and 1940s today, tonight and tomorrow..



Was AGW refuted before those changes?  Do you know for a fact that there was no valid reason to alter those values?  Do you know those thermometers to have been perfect?

If you want to really argue against AGW, you need to address the fundamental basics, not carry on with all this ridiculous nit-picking.  Phil Jones didn't create AGW with a trick.  Michael Mann didn't create it with a tree in Siberia.  Kevin Trenberth didn't create it with an XBT.  There is an enormous amount of evidence that AGW by GHG emissions is a valid theory.  Until you find a refutation for it (and the nits picked don't do it) and a replacement (better than 0.7W/m*2 TSI) you just don't have it.

Have you EVER considered simply accepting AGW as valid?  I'm going to guess your answer would be no.  Then I'd have to ask "Why not?".  You tell me that I should make sure of my facts before spending billions on a response.  I wonder that you think you have sufficient facts to challenge the vast bulk of mainstream science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The radiation argument about the utility of water vapor stored heat.. I just spent 12 pages defending the radiative theory of the GreenHouse against slackers who reject the concept that the atmos "backradiates" IR EM energy to the ground at all. They claim RADIATIVE heat energy only flows from hot to cold.. Hope you don't have the same perception..
> ...



Actually the dustup over heat transfer from the atmos came up in the context of "positive feedbacks" for water vapor -- not TSI.. 

I show you the preferred merged record of TSI.. Average increase from 1750 is OVER 1W/m2. From TrenBerth -- 1/2 of that HITS THE GROUND.. Where in the IPCC chart is THAT number? You mention TSI to a warmer and they show you a Sunspot cycle chart with the TSI removed. I believe that's what's actually in the IPCC dismissal.. 

Contrary to your assertion ABOVE ------



> You would need that effect to have been taking place constantly since 1880 yet it seems to have not begun till well into the 21st century.



--- MOST of the TSI increase from 1700 occurred before 1900 or so.. It fits perfectly into the realization that Trenberth didn't produce an ENERGY diagram --- he produced a POWER diagram (units are W/M2).. ENERGY has a time element. Includes thermal time constants (assume them very long to equilibrium) and thermal storage (in the oceans, in the warming polar regions, in various configs of atmos composition of gases) which have largely been ignored.  You "300 year LAW" of temp change invokes that reasoning.

And all these revelations about thermal inertia (heat storage, thermal time constants)  and NOT expecting the temp to respond immediately are ABSOLUTELY applicable to solar insolation as well.  The surface doesn't know nuttin about where that 1w/m2 came from.. 

MWP was NOT spotty over 500 yrs.. The proxy record isn't even good enough to discern "spotty".. Let's call it 300 years. I'll give you 100 yrs up, 100 down.. If the PEAK is comparable to the today's "anomaly" --- how is that NOT a comparable RATE over 150 years?  BTW --- What caused it?  Let's hear your short list of other significant forcings being ignored here.. 

The balance of CO2 cycling on the planet kinda echos your Stephan Crane quote.. There are 700Gtons/yr of CO2 cycling per year.. Man's bill comes to 30Gtons (also a bogus accounting that I highly dispute). We are still speculating on the limits of the sinks. Higher temps and CO2 probably is an enforcer for the land sinks. We are 4% of the total exchange. (I'd take out the cow farts in exchange for the plains full of buffalo that they displaced and not charge man for every forest fire and make that a MUCH lesser number)

Positive feedbacks are speculation.. Termites emit more methane than the current Arctic calthrate leaks. Climate science has no humility.. Believing that our 4% of the cycle is the deadly part of the 700Gtons/yr. Give me an example in the historical record of Catastrophic runaway warming fueled by positive feedbacks. ESPECIALLY one based on a 1.0degC trigger...


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 22, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Funny that they say 1.6W/M2 since the 1750 for CO2 forcing.. I was quoting 3.6W/M2.. I need to check that reference. The TSI chart shows 1.1W/M2 since about 1750.. Doesn't leave much room for MASSIVE Co2 warming does it??



Go back to the IPCC radiative forcings bar graph and add up all the human contributions.  You'll get 3.2 W/m*2.  And that includes NO positive feedbacks.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one using sea shells and snail holes as thermometers and you have NO cajones.
> ...



Someone cites an obvious challenge for the proxy study you tossed out in your first posts as proof.  You deflect to WestWall not trusting INSTRUMENT READINGS??  That was your dismissal of a challenge to that study.

That's the origin of cajones comment. Defend the crap you admire man.. It's all yours.. I aint buying no alkenones at the store today... If you think the Hockey Stick or Shakun or Briffa's wood carving are miraculous --- deal with it. Or at least don't tell us how great it all is if all you do is dance around it.. 

I'll apologize since you're new and all...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Funny that they say 1.6W/M2 since the 1750 for CO2 forcing.. I was quoting 3.6W/M2.. I need to check that reference. The TSI chart shows 1.1W/M2 since about 1750.. Doesn't leave much room for MASSIVE Co2 warming does it??
> ...



Actually the 1.6W/m2 agrees with IPCC CO2 forcing in that chart.. I'll be darned.. I thought it was 3.x something.. As derived from CO2 log forcing function on concentrations from 1800... ??????

Human contributions are not 3.2W/m2 -- *Net* human contributions show as also about 1.6W/m2 in that figure.. Maybe all the POSITIVE forcings add to 3.x, but that's not the pertinent figure I was doubting.. 

Imagine that --- a shiny data gem for the day..


----------



## westwall (Jul 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Shakun and Marcott huh?   Funny how they massaged their "study" to generate the report they wanted.  The real numbers looked like this.....
> ...








Read the link I provided and it will show you how Marcott and Co. falsified their data to come up with their hockey stick.  But only do that if you're brave enough to learn something.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 23, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


>



We've got to be satisfied with 1979 to 2012? *Why? *Only complete data set?

What are the oscillations?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 23, 2013)

More than a dozen differant studies, and they all came up with the 'hockey stick'. Of course, they all falsified their data according to you dingbats. Walleyes, when you or someone else has the evidence that will stand up at the annual AGU Conferance, get back to me.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Read the link I provided and it will show you how Marcott and Co. falsified their data to come up with their hockey stick.  But only do that if you're brave enough to learn something.



1) I have read the attacks on Marcott, Shakun et al and I have read their responses.
2) If you think the dataset you provide is an accurate depiction of reality, you need glasses.
3) It is standard procedure to synch proxy data with instrumented records when possible.  It has been a common point of attack for deniers, but it is an attack with no value whatsoever.
4) Marcott, Shakun et al were not attempting to provide accurate data for 20th century temperatures.  Why would they?  We have instrumented data for that.

Taking this route is simply evidence that you have no valid or significant material with which to support your view.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Satistified with THAT?? No way... It's "adjusted" to a THEORY... THat's not a discerned temp chart from instrumentation.. BTW: -- IF it were to be true.. The rise is about 0.12degC/DECADE.. Not gonna get you close to 4DegC by 2080 is it?? 

What I like about this study is that Climate Science seems to be maturing.. No more simplistic propaganda.. It's STARTING to look like honest science.. 

I said STARTING --- there's a long way to go..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Read the link I provided and it will show you how Marcott and Co. falsified their data to come up with their hockey stick.  But only do that if you're brave enough to learn something.
> ...



Your #4 is wrong.. You said so yourself at your #3.
The entire PURPOSE of these proxies is to show CONTINUITY into the current current "instrumented" era.. That's the icing on the cake. Why did Briffa and Mann need tree rings into the 20th century? 

Because the PR folks told them to extend their data into the 20th century to show it AGREES with the instruments..


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Actually the dustup over heat transfer from the atmos came up in the context of "positive feedbacks" for water vapor -- not TSI..
> 
> I show you the preferred merged record of TSI.. Average increase from 1750 is OVER 1W/m2. From TrenBerth -- 1/2 of that HITS THE GROUND.. Where in the IPCC chart is THAT number? You mention TSI to a warmer and they show you a Sunspot cycle chart with the TSI removed. I believe that's what's actually in the IPCC dismissal..
> 
> ...



The shorter lifetime of methane does essentially NOTHING to refute the existence of the numerous positive feedbacks in the system.  Period.

Let's make the core argument simple.  You are claiming that the primary warming agent is increased TSI.  











Where is the dip in TSI that might explain the 1941-1979 dip?  The CO2 levels have one.  

Where is the reaction in the global temperature to the dip in TSI at 1980?  It doesn't seem to have had any effect?

Hmm....


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Satistified with THAT?? No way... It's "adjusted" to a THEORY... THat's not a discerned temp chart from instrumentation.. BTW: -- IF it were to be true.. The rise is about 0.12degC/DECADE.. Not gonna get you close to 4DegC by 2080 is it??
> 
> What I like about this study is that Climate Science seems to be maturing.. No more simplistic propaganda.. It's STARTING to look like honest science..
> 
> I said STARTING --- there's a long way to go..



The purpose off Foster and Rahmstorf's work was to show that there had been no change in the greenhouse process itself.  CO2 and other GHGs are still building up in the atmosphere and are trapping infrared radiation.  The temperatures have stopped rising as they were due to increased vulcanism and changes in ENSO (and just to keep you happy, changes in TSI).  The heat balance has been altered by an increased amount of energy reflected away by volcanic aerosols and increased subduction of warm water into the deep by changes in ENSO.  This graph is not attempting to say that temperatures or the total global heat content are rising as they once were.  It is saying that the process itself has not altered - it is simply undergoing natural variation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2013)

"I rechecked the tree rings and there's no lull. Check back in a week for the next reading"  -- MM


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Marcott, Shakun et al were producing the best data they could assemble FROM PROXIES.  It would be pointless to say they were attempting to correct the instrumented record where it was available.  Marcott and Shakun themselves have said this.  Would you like to see the quote?  

Of course the proxy data gets merged or matched into the instrument record.  That's standard procedure.  That's why it's so bloody STUPID to try to tell us it should have looked like the nonsense WestWall posted.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 23, 2013)




----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 23, 2013)




----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Actually the dustup over heat transfer from the atmos came up in the context of "positive feedbacks" for water vapor -- not TSI..
> ...



I (being essentially of relatively sound mind) would NEVER claim that any one forcing function drives Climate scale temperatures.. 
That's part of your movement evidentally..

Where's the DIP?? Your dip is in that Lying Ass Chart from the IPCC you posted that PURPOSELY underweights the solar insolation amounts...

Seriously?? OK.. The dip PRECEDES the 1940 by about the same amount of time as the cessation of solar warming proceeds the current pause in temperature rate.. Get it? SomeONE -- (maybe me) should plot those 2 with a shift in time eh?

Love to see that.. Preferably with temp back to 1750 or so.. 

BTW: I forget the jist of the IPCC reports quicker than I forget the plot to an Adam Sandler movie.. 
Remind how the IPCC arrives at that laughably low evaluation of solar insolation change for the past 2 centuries..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> More than a dozen differant studies, and they all came up with the 'hockey stick'. Of course, they all falsified their data according to you dingbats. Walleyes, when you or someone else has the evidence that will stand up at the annual AGU Conferance, get back to me.








"Hockey stick...lol... yeah made from a tree ring" -- MM


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2013)

Has global warming stopped? No - it?s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans - Home News - UK - The Independent

Global WarmerCoolering is not fucking around with us


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



THere's always enough YAD061s around to make that happen.. 
Great job if you can get one like that.. 

Hey --- You know that 
"I think that I never shall see --- a thermometer as lousy as a tree".. Wish I knew the attribution on that one. Maybe Dr. Judith Curry? 

Got a new one.. 
"I think the world has never known, a thermometer as bad as an alkenone"...


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Are you insane? Proxy data and instrumental data are different. Apples and oranges. Proxies have a resolution in hundreds of years, for Marcott. The instrumental record, at that resolution, would be a small red dash only slightly higher than the proxies. Have you looked at the proxy data? Its a hodgepodge of data that contradicts each other and usually has a span of 4C or more. Anyone who thinks it is more than a general guide, or believes the stated uncertainties are accurate, is fooling themselves by mathematics not designed for the purpose. Or in Mann's case, mathematics designed for an agenda.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 23, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


>



Priceless man.. Just priceless. From "Quotable Liberals" no less. 

REALITY ---- *based on PhotoShop*...  Who's confused about reality here?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 23, 2013)

IanC said:


> Are you insane?



No, you?



IanC said:


> Proxy data and instrumental data are different. Apples and oranges.



Of course they are, but they are being used to determine the same parameter.  The proxy data is calibrated to match the instrument record.  Coping with the varying resolution of the two is child's play.



IanC said:


> Proxies have a resolution in hundreds of years, for Marcott. The instrumental record, at that resolution, would be a small red dash only slightly higher than the proxies. Have you looked at the proxy data? Its a hodgepodge of data that contradicts each other and usually has a span of 4C or more. Anyone who thinks it is more than a general guide, or believes the stated uncertainties are accurate, is fooling themselves by mathematics not designed for the purpose. Or in Mann's case, mathematics designed for an agenda.



Can I ask your qualifications to tell us PhDs Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix don't know what  they're doing but you do?  Are you an active, degreed paleoclimatologist?

That these proxies should show a relatively wide spread of temperatures is irrelevant as long as they  RELATIVE behavior  is similar.   If all 73 proxies rise 2C over a millenia, we can be pretty certain that's what the actual temperature did.


----------



## westwall (Jul 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Are you insane?
> ...









Trotting out that tired old meme again are we?  Here's a little dose of reality for you.  I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.  

A PhD climatologist on the other hand can teach first year geology without too much difficulty but starting in the second year they will have major difficulty.  Third and fourth year and they are completely out of their league.  They would be adrift with no hope.

I won't even mention graduate level classes.

As for Marcott et al here's what the UK's Met Office has done....Now why oh why would they withdraw that fine piece of work?  Yes, that makes sense....because it was shit, that's why.

*"Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey stick" *

- Bishop Hill blog - Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey*stick


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



What makes you think that's been Photoshopped?  Long before the Industrial Revolution, Arctic sea ice moved south and melted.  Did you think the Huxley quote was referring to something into which you do not buy?  Let me guess, you don't believe the Arctic ice extent is shrinking.  Or is it the threat to the polar bear population?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Trotting out that tired old meme again are we?  Here's a little dose of reality for you.  I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.



That's an astoundingly well disguised education.  And who is the "they" that uses an antiquted computer system?  All climatologists?  And where in a geology program do you study radiative heat transfer or atmospheric mechanics or even fluid dynamics?

I haven't seen a lot of your posts, but from those I have seen - I simply cannot accept your claim.  I believe you're lying.  



westwall said:


> A PhD climatologist on the other hand can teach first year geology without too much difficulty but starting in the second year they will have major difficulty.  Third and fourth year and they are completely out of their league.  They would be adrift with no hope.
> 
> I won't even mention graduate level classes.



This sort of puerile chest thumping is just more evidence that you don't have the education you say you've got.  I suppose it's possible to get a PhD and still be that much of an asshole, but it's extremely unlikely.



westwall said:


> As for Marcott et al here's what the UK's Met Office has done....Now why oh why would they withdraw that fine piece of work?  Yes, that makes sense....because it was shit, that's why.
> 
> *"Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey stick" *
> 
> - Bishop Hill blog - Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey*stick



I would have thought a PhD would take the time to read the 100 or so words in that tricky article.  Actually, I have a really hard time seeing anyone with a graduate education reading the Bishop Hill Blog, much less referencing it.  

They didn't pull the article because of anything Marcott et al did wrong.  The error was whatever Met Office editor put the hockey stick comment in the headline.  Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix NEVER claimed to have produced superior or novel data for the 20th century.  

Being a denier, you should certainly be familiar with zealous fans overstating the significance of some scientific revelation or two.  It always seemed to me as if your side of this argument invented the practice.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Are you insane?
> ...



"Pretty certain" may be a bit optimistic having looked at the tea leaves. Guaranteed, all 73 proxies don't rise 2degC.. Some of them are confused between temperature and food.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 23, 2013)

I think Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did a fine job.  It's not as if there were anything Earthshaking in there.  It's just good foundational work.  I didn't need it to accept AGW.  AGW doesn't rely on being unprecedented.  That was the deniers attempted claim: "It happened before, it can't be from humans!".

So, what's your opinion on Arctic sea ice extents?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 23, 2013)

Ol' Walleyes constantly flaunts the claim that he is a Phd Geologist. Yet, with all of that education and 'facts' concerning global warming, he cannot bring himself to stand on the podium at the annual AGU Convention and expose the fraud that he claims global warming is. 

Now I am just an old millwright with 50 years in the craft under my belt. And about a 120 credits toward a BS in Geology. I often talk with geologists that are actually doing research. Not one of them makes the silly claims that Walleyes does. Not only that, when they referance something in an article, they referance articles in peer reviewed journals, not blogs by undegreed TV weathermen and others of equal education. 

Ol' Walleyes constantly talks of his qualifications, yet also constantly disses those that should be his peers. To the point one begins to believe he has a problem with jeolosy of those that are truly successful in their academic pursuits, and are not dependent on prostituting their credentials for a living.


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



First it was photoshopped to get the writing on it at least.. ERGO photoshopped..

Second, there are more polar bears now then there were in the 50's. ANd who can say how many rather large predators are the "norm"? How many over ten foot long and several hundred pound predators do you think an ice covered expanse of cold northern seas should sustain?

LOL, you warmers never think beyond the headlines do you.. You are told the world is ending and YOU can and must save it, and your savior/hero complexes kick in and you want to don some tights and fly to the rescue but you must settle for rambling BS about polar bears in danger...

The polar bears and the world is fine. When the world grows weary of us, including you, it will shrug us off like so much nothing and keep right on going.

Polar bears hunt the arctic waters for food. Not a whole lot of options for much land-based hunting up there. That bear was most likely taking a break on one of it's usual hunting swims.. it wasn't there because the ice melted and stranded it, it swam there..


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Ol' Walleyes constantly flaunts the claim that he is a Phd Geologist. Yet, with all of that education and 'facts' concerning global warming, he cannot bring himself to stand on the podium at the annual AGU Convention and expose the fraud that he claims global warming is.
> 
> Now I am just an old millwright with 50 years in the craft under my belt. And about a 120 credits toward a BS in Geology. I often talk with geologists that are actually doing research. Not one of them makes the silly claims that Walleyes does. Not only that, when they referance something in an article, they referance articles in peer reviewed journals, not blogs by undegreed TV weathermen and others of equal education.
> 
> Ol' Walleyes constantly talks of his qualifications, yet also constantly disses those that should be his peers. To the point one begins to believe he has a problem with jeolosy of those that are truly successful in their academic pursuits, and are not dependent on prostituting their credentials for a living.



No you're a solar panel salesman...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite;7583142
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I think Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did a fine job.  It's not as if there were anything Earthshaking in there.  It's just good foundational work.  I didn't need it to accept AGW.  AGW doesn't rely on being unprecedented.  That was the deniers attempted claim: "It happened before, it can't be from humans!".
> 
> So, what's your opinion on Arctic sea ice extents?



And yet you JUMPED to trot out that study in your earliest posts..

Told you before -- I don't do ice.. I only do proxies for amusement. *Sea Ice is a biased game.* Any patch of ocean with 25% (i believe) sea ice is considered "TOTALLY iced" for Sea Ice Extent (SIE) calculations.. That's just a fools game watching ice *CUBES* melt. When summers get hot --- ice melts. Temp has no huge bearing on ice 9 months of the year up there.


----------



## westwall (Jul 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trotting out that tired old meme again are we?  Here's a little dose of reality for you.  I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.
> ...







Except it's not chest thumping.  There are loads of geology 1st year students.  Then the 2nd year starts to winnow the wheat from the chaff, third year and beyond those who can't do the math, physics, and chemistry switch to geography.  Want to know what the VAST majority of Bachelors degrees are that are held by your precious climatologists?  Yep, GEOGRAPHY.

Look up the requirements for a climatology PhD vs a geology PhD.

And seriously, you expect us to take you seriously when you don't even know that that picture is photo shopped?  Get real....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



As usual, Walleyes lies once again.

Dr. James Hansen
James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa to James Ivan Hansen and Gladys Ray Hansen.[2] He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[3]

Dr. Micheal Mann
Michael E. Mann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mann was brought up in Amherst, Massachusetts, where his father was a professor of mathematics at the University of Massachusetts. At school he was interested in math, science and computing. In 1983 he was prompted by seeing the film WarGames to write a rudimentary self-learning tic-tac-toe program which made random moves and listed losing moves which it would not repeat. Mann found a "trick" of using symmetry to reduce the number of unique moves to store so that the computer would not slow down so much.[3]

In August 1984 he went to the University of California, Berkeley, to major in physics with a second major in applied math. His second year research in the theoretical behaviour of liquid crystals used the Monte Carlo method applying randomness in computer simulations. Late in 1987 he joined a research team under Didier de Fontaine which was using similar Monte Carlo methodology to investigate the superconducting properties of yttrium barium copper oxide, modelling transitions between ordered and disordered phases.[4] He graduated with honors in 1989 with an A.B. in applied mathematics and physics.[1]

Another study by Mann and Park raised a minor technical issue with a climate model about human influence on climate change: this was published in 1996. In the context of controversy over the IPCC Second Assessment Report the paper was praised by those opposed to action on climate change, and the conservative organisation Accuracy in Media claimed that it had not been publicised due to media bias. Mann defended his PhD thesis on A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system in the spring of 1996,[8][9] and was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences in the following year. He was granted his PhD in geology and geophysics in 1998.[1]

Dr. Richard Alley
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Alley_Vitae.pdf
Ph.D., 1987, University of Wisconsin (Geology, Minor Materials Science); M.Sc. 1983, B.Sc. 1989 (With Honors,
With Distinction, Summa cum Laude), Ohio State University (Geology and Mineralogy). Assistant Scientist, University
of Wisconsin, 1987-1988; Assistant Professor (1988-1992), Associate Professor (1992-1994), Professor (1994-2000)
and Evan Pugh Professor (2000-), Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University.

*And one can look at the most important figures in climate research today and find similiar credentials for each of them. *


----------



## gslack (Jul 24, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Do you really not understand what he said or is this you proving your dishonest nature again?

What in the world does the specific education of three individuals prove in regards to either what he said or the requirements of a geology PHD vs a Climatology PHD..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I have a masters degree in geology and I never met a climatologist that taught ANY undergraduate level geology course.  Now, maybe they teach geology that way at Liberty University where you probably went to school, I don't know, but they don't teach it here.  Why would they?  You wouldn't ask a climatologist to teach structural geology any more than you would ask a mineralogist to teach atmospheric physics.  It is a silly argument, one that doesn't support your claim to be a PhD in geology.

All of that aside, Abe is right about the proxies.  You are wrong.  Marcott's proxies are all valid.  Time to move on.


----------



## westwall (Jul 24, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








I earned mine at Caltech before you were born.  The point my good person is they COULDN'T teach the class.  They are a soft science, whereas geology is a precise (or hard if you prefer) science.  That's the difference.  And it most certainly does support it which calls into question your claim to a Masters in geology.  

I have taught (at various times) all the geology courses, mineralogy, crystallography, physics, chemistry and meteorology.  You teach what they ask you to teach when you are a freshly minted prof.  Which you would know if you were who you claim you are.

Sad how olfraud has to create yet ANOTHER pathetic sock for support.

Edit: I just looked at this clowns posts and they ALL support olfraud.  All six of them.  How fucking obvious a sock do you have to be


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 24, 2013)

Wild ass guess. But I imagine our two most recent additions are probably GoldiRocks' professors. They couldn't believe there was a still of nest of resistance out there in a public forum.. Figured a couple posts and we'd just sue for peace..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You don't know when I was born.  And even if what you say is true, I assume then, being the old fart that you are, that you still subscribe to the expanding earth theory.  That would not surprise me one bit.  



> The point my good person is they COULDN'T teach the class.



My point, my good person, is that whether or not you think they (who they are has not been established so perhaps you should be clear right at this point) could is irrelevant.



> They are a soft science, whereas geology is a precise (or hard if you prefer) science.



Geology has until relatively recently, NOT been a precise science.  And even today, only one law has come out of it.  In fact, even today, there is a lot of interpretation going on in the geological sciences.  Which is why it is most often referred to as a scientific discipline.  It is not akin to chemistry and physics, though both of those hard sciences are heavily used in geology.



> I have taught (at various times) all the geology courses, mineralogy, crystallography, physics, chemistry and meteorology.  You teach what they ask you to teach when you are a freshly minted prof.  Which you would know if you were who you claim you are.



I never claimed to be a teacher. And I seriously doubt that you've taught a science class in your life.


----------



## IanC (Jul 24, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...




I bumped the Marcott2013 proxies up for you and Abe in the Marcott thread. Are they all you imagined them to be?


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Ahhhh good old olfraud, you expose yourself......


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I expose myself?  By being truthful that I am not a teacher?  Yeah, what a terrible thing for me to do.  I could have just lied, like you did.  But I thought, naw!  People deserve better than that.  Not everyone with advanced degrees gets stuck in academia.  Some of us actually go out and make a real living with what we've learned.  Any more questions?


----------



## gslack (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You spoke to two posters as if you knew them for a while now. yet are a brand new poster? How is that?

Nice try socko...Not really because you're too obvious...


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Satistified with THAT?? No way... It's "adjusted" to a THEORY.



It is not.  It was produced precisely as they described it.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yeah?  So what?  In fact, I know at least one of the people posting in this very thread.  I get around.  Sue me.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 25, 2013)

Let me start this by noting that if you want TSI to be responsible, you're in no position to reject positive feedbacks.



flacaltenn said:


> I (being essentially of relatively sound mind) would NEVER claim that any one forcing function drives Climate scale temperatures..
> That's part of your movement evidentally..



That's why you will consistently seem me use terms like "primary", "largest", :majority", etc.



flacaltenn said:


> Where's the DIP?? Your dip is in that Lying Ass Chart from the IPCC you posted that PURPOSELY underweights the solar insolation amounts...



I really don't like the accusation of liar.  Are you saying that there was no temperature dip between 1941 and 1979 or no CO2 dip for roughly the same period?  Both dips are shown by every source available, ALL of which predate the existence of the IPCC.  So... who's the liar here?



flacaltenn said:


> OK.. The dip PRECEDES the 1940 by about the same amount of time as the cessation of solar warming proceeds the current pause in temperature rate.. Get it? SomeONE -- (maybe me) should plot those 2 with a shift in time eh?



Seriously?!?!?  That would be manipulating the data to fit a hypothesis.



flacaltenn said:


> Remind how the IPCC arrives at that laughably low evaluation of solar insolation change for the past 2 centuries..



Physics.  You?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 25, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > More than a dozen differant studies, and they all came up with the 'hockey stick'. Of course, they all falsified their data according to you dingbats. Walleyes, when you or someone else has the evidence that will stand up at the annual AGU Conferance, get back to me.
> ...



Crusader Frank, do you ever actually have anything to say?  Your posts so far have been pretty consistently vacuous.  You could try expanding on one of these sound bytes you seem to love so much.


----------



## gslack (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



LOL, you're a new sock... A poor one at that...


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 25, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Just as I rejected an old photograph of open ocean as proof of an ice free Arctic in 1904, I never for an instant took that photo as proof or evidence of anything to do with polar bears or ice extents.  My assumption was that FlaCalTenn treated the photograph derogatorily because it was symbolic and representative of those issues.  That said...

Polar bears do require ice.  The ice is disappearing.  The bears have two choices: move south to the coasts (which are now even warmer than they were) or drown.  For that matter, spotted seals, harp seals and walruses need ice as well.  They cannot deliver and raise their young in the water.  They face the same problem:  The ice is going away.  And there is no question as to whether or not it will hurt them - but when.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I think Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did a fine job.  It's not as if there were anything Earthshaking in there.  It's just good foundational work.  I didn't need it to accept AGW.  AGW doesn't rely on being unprecedented.  That was the deniers attempted claim: "It happened before, it can't be from humans!".
> ...



*And yet you JUMPED to trot out that study in your earliest posts..*

I NEVER pulled their data out as a measure of 20th century temperatures.  I used it to show that the current situation is unprecedented in the entire Holocene.  And I read your (rather disjointed) description of a manner to cool the world off as quickly as its heated but I find it odd that the world's climate scientists don't seem to be aware of your scenario.  Makes me wonder why.  I've yet to hear a single one of them suggest a means by which the world could have experienced a heat 'pulse' of a magnitude similar to today's and have it over in time not to show in the Marcott and Shakun timelines.

*Told you before -- I don't do ice.. *

That's bloody convenient

*Sea Ice is a biased game.*

Really?  I thought the melting point was a pretty firmly established value.  

* Any patch of ocean with 25% (i believe) sea ice is considered "TOTALLY iced" for Sea Ice Extent (SIE) calculations..* 

NSIDC (at least) actually uses 15%.  Do you have a problem with that?  They would have to pick some arbitrary value but as long as they stick with the same value, what's your problem?

* That's just a fools game watching ice CUBES melt. When summers get hot --- ice melts. Temp has no huge bearing on ice 9 months of the year up there.*

Really?  That must explain the long flat sections in these extents graphs... [http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/].  You're ignoring (and I know you know you're ignoring) the critical dynamic.  Ice extents have been shrinking steadily, at the very least since satellite measurements began.  Temperatures in the Arctic have been climbing faster than anywhere else on the planet.  The positive feedback (which I do not accept is nullfied by increased humidity) is accelerating the pace of melting even as the rest of the surface world seems to have ceased its climb.  New measures showing mass loss in addition to extent loss show the situation to be even more dire than we had thought.  There was a paper out about 4 months back that argued that the primary factor controlling melt rates of floating ice is the temperature of the water underneath. Humid air floating above the ice will not prevent it from melting.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You respond to a charge of chest thumping with more chest thumping.  And then - claiming to be a PhD - tell us about drop out rates among college freshmen.  Sorry.  Don't buy it.  Your concerns are in all the wrong places.  You sound like someone who didn't make it through college, is bitter about it and wants to blame someone else for their own failures.  I don't have a PhD, but I've been working with them on a regular basis for over 25 years.  My father and both my brothers had PhDs.  Three of my best friends have them.  I've got an inkling what a PhD sounds like and you ain't it.  Tell you what, though.  Rather than waste a lot of time with your PhD nonsense, why don't we just have a conversation on global warming?  That's why I came here.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 25, 2013)

Once again, ice melting and exposing million of square kilometer of sea water to sunlight is a big deal.

This big.

90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. Of that 10% that is not, it requires 334 joules of energy to melt one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water. 

It requires 4.18 joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree C. So the 334 joules of energy that was required to melt one gram of ice to water, heat of fusion, now raises the temperature of 80 grams of water 1 degree C. 

However, since water absorbs 90%+ of the energy in sunlight it recieves, that 80 grams is multiplied by a factor of 9. So the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice to one gram of water, with no increase in temperature, now raises the temperature of 720 grams of water one degree C.

That, folks, is one hell of a feedback.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> Edit: I just looked at this clowns posts and they ALL support olfraud.  All six of them.  How fucking obvious a sock do you have to be



If you mean my views align with poster Old Rocks - big whoopee.  They both align with thousands of climate scientists as well.

I will accept your claim of having a doctorate when you demonstrate the knowledge, intelligence and wisdom pertinent to such a state.  As for your geologists v climatologists: comparisons are odious, particularly when they are composed of fresh bullshit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again, ice melting and exposing million of square kilometer of sea water to sunlight is a big deal.
> 
> This big.
> 
> ...



And the ice has been melting since everything north of Ohio was buried under it, right?

What started that process 14,000 years ago?

We're still 8 degrees warmer than when that process started


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Yeah -- that's right -- 15%... Even *more* a rigged game.. To show SIE "ICED" based on 85% open water says virtually NOTHING about climate. You said it yourself, it's open water temp and insolation.. Actually toss in wind and currents as well. And the temperature (because it melts at 32deg) is IRRELEVENT over more than 9 months of the year. It's a nonlinear forcing at the Arctic, but AGW lumps all that into "GLOBAL" Climate Sensitivity.. So that the journalism majors who flunked every science course they took can follow along.. 

 That's why I dont do ice. Dont' do glaciers either because glaciers were doomed a 1000 yrs ago.  And moreover --- I don't crave living in a climate where they are growing.. 

So why is IPCC severely UNDER-RATING the Solar Insolation numbers??


----------



## polarbear (Jul 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again, ice melting and exposing million of   square kilometer of sea water to sunlight is a big deal.
> 
> This big.
> 
> ...


 Really ? So the 10 % of the sunlight which is not reflected can melt 10^6 km^2 of ice which is  on average 3 meters thick ?
 Per m^2 that would take 1002 MJ or 105 Watt/m^2 for the entire melt   season duration which is ~ 110 days and that came from just 10% of the   sunlight which was not reflected...meaning that there would have been   1050 watt/m^2 arctic insolation.
 Fact is, that inside the arctic circle insolation *peaks* for 30 days only at *200 MJ/m^2* (and that`s during the time when the sun shines for 24 hours per day)...which gives you only *77 watt/m^2* and not *1050 watt/m^2*.
 It`s also a fact that :
Insolation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Ignoring clouds, the daily average irradiance for the Earth is
> approximately *250 W/m2*





> However, since water absorbs  90%+ of the energy in sunlight it recieves,   that 80 grams is  multiplied by a factor of 9. So the sunlight that was   melting one gram  of ice to one gram of water, with no increase in   temperature, now  raises the temperature of 720 grams of water one degree   C.
> 
> That, folks, is one hell of a feedback.


 That`s using one hell of an insolation number,  *4 times higher* than the global average  *in side the arctic circle* !
...*Or over 13 times *the solar irradiation that actually reaches inside the arctic circle.
 But you are not the only one that did so. There are a shitload of blogs *which are all using the same numbers* and "math" that was in your post.
Had  you ever been out on the Lincoln sea`s ice pack during the polar  melting season you would have been able to observe that the bulk of that ice is  not melted by the 10% absorbed sunlight, from the top down.
Not even the huge junks of ice that drift out the Nares Strait south, else icebergs would not get top heavy and roll over.
The  bulk of the ice is dissolved by warm water which is driven north by  ocean currents which are measured in magnitudes of Sverdrup units...*that`s 10^6 cubic meters of warm water per second*...
For  example the Gulf /Florida current pushes on average over 1 500 000 000  cubic meters of warm water past Newfoundland which then enters the  arctic basin and circulates around Greenland and Ellesmere Island ...So  now compare *that amount of heat energy* *per second* with the meager 200 MJ per month/m^2 solar insolation... and with only 10% of it these ridiculous bloggers manage to melt  millions of km^2 of polar ice.
That folks is indeed one hell of a feedback...and in the final analysis, of course,  all of it coming from 380 ppm CO2


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 25, 2013)

Now Polar, the numbers come straight out of a Chemistry textbook. And the present CO2 level is 400 ppm.

The Keeling Curve | A daily record of atmospheric carbon dioxide from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego

Heat of fusion for ice to water, water to ice     334 joules per gram

Heat needed to increase or decrease the temperture of water one degree C.   4.18 joules per gram


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 25, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, ice melting and exposing million of square kilometer of sea water to sunlight is a big deal.
> ...



Now Frankie Boy, that has been answered inumerable times for you. Look up Milankovic Cycles. Not that you actually would do any research at all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Are we still 8 degrees warmer than we were 14,000 years ago?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Now Frankie Boy, you've been alarmed by the wrong apocalyptic scenario.. It's not CO2 that should cause you fear --- it's the Milankovitch Cycles that done that number on North America.. A 1/2 mile thick IceCap over Cleveland caused by ???? Milankovitch Cycles.

What are they? --- The public hasn't yet been warned...  When do they happen? 

No one seems to care.... Bastard reality show babies ARE important..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- IPCC


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So, you continue to prove what a dumb fuck you truly are.

Milankovitch Tutorial


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Start thinking how to make money on the coming glacier redux... Cloning mammoths? 
Stockpiling alpaca fur??


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You are my hero GoldiRocks.. How would I survive the next calamity without you?

Point is -- Weather Channel breathes and lives AGW terrorism.. Ever hear the words Milankovitch Cycle on cable? NOVA ?? How about NPR ??  Would go great with that nutty NPR background music... My head always undergoes precession when I listen to NPR...


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 25, 2013)

What are you trying to say?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> What are you trying to say?



.........that NPR is easy to mock? 

Do you know what part of a Milankovitch cycle you're currently riding on? 
I don't.. But perhaps I should be asking climate scientists to look into it.. 

Or is that a different department? Like maybe Paleoastronomy.. 

But we're not allowed to mention "other factors" in climate change. Except for rare brave souls like the ones who did the long Holocene proxy study that contrasted with Shakun's findings recently.. (just reposted that study a day or two ago)..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2013)

Maybe the skeptical best play is to now claim that we've ingeniously engineered a delay into the next glacial era.. 






In terms of natural Milankovitch cycles --- we're pretty much right on track for this interglacial. Aren't we GoldiRocks??


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What are you trying to say?
> ...



I do.



> Or is that a different department? Like maybe Paleoastronomy..



Milankovitch was a geophysicist.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Maybe the skeptical best play is to now claim that we've ingeniously engineered a delay into the next glacial era..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You should probably read up on what they actually are and actually show:

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 


Just sayin.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Yeah --- it was a rhetorical... Well if ya DO KNOW where on that chart we are --- we've not yet come CLOSE to an interglacial peak have we? As they say on Wall Street 

"past performance is no indication of future valuations"  ---- BUT ---- I'd suggest we have a  ways to go before we panic and say we're screwing up the recovery from the last Ice Age.. That is --- if Milankovitch cycles really matter...

BTW:: Have you ever heard of the Center of Mass of Solar System (CMSS) theory? Haven't had the instruments in space LONG ENOUGH to even measure the DOZENS of possible modulations of solar output.. Both in intensity and maybe MORE importantly, spectral content..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature.  The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years.  The only explanation for this is the billions of tons of GHGs we are pumping into the atmosphere, something you don't see in any of the data for the previous 11,000 years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



*In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature. The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years. *

Excellent! Downturns in temperature are bad. Ice Ages suck.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Excellent, unless you are one of thousands of species that have evolved for specific climates and environmental conditions that are being adversely affected by AGW.  Unless you are a member of a coral community utterly dependent on constant water chemistry and find yourself awash in a human-induced acidic ocean and nitrate pollution. Unless you are an eskimo and family whose livelihood is dependent on the Arctic ice, which seems destined to melt away by about 2050 and take with it its teeming aquatic life.  Unless you are one of millions of people who already live a tenuous existence on marginal land that will become utterly desolate when the desert encroaches.  Unless you are one of the billions who live at or near sea level.  If you are not one of those, yeah, things might be peachy.  But then, you will have identified yourself as a weed.  But I doubt even the weeds will make it through unscathed.


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








But the cycles refer to orbital physics, namely the eccentricity of the Earths orbit, the obliquity of Earths tilt on its axis and finally the precession of the wobble of Earths axis.  And for the record Milankovitch was a polymath like Wegener.  His PhD was earned in Technical Sciences with an emphasis on civil engineering (he was most interested in the properties of reinforced concrete) and he can rightly be called the father of climatology.

Like Wegener his ASTRONOMICAL theory of the glacial periods was ignored for over 50 years by the "consensus" scientists of the day.


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Except for the Holocene Thermal Maximum, and the Roman Warming Period and the Medieval Warming Period.  Other than that I would agree with you.  Funny how you try and excise them from the historical record.  You revisionists seem to do that a lot.


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Funny how no animals have been shown to be negatively impacted by the warming from the LIA.  In fact contrary to the hysterical hyperbole from the warmist fraudsters the polar bear population has increased by 2500-5000 since 2001 which is the opposite of the claims made by you and your fellow socks.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Probably because there was no one conducting a population census of species at the end of the little ice age. 






But the LIA had a severe impact on people:

The Little Ice Age in Europe - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age


----------



## polarbear (Jul 26, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Polar, the numbers come straight out of a Chemistry textbook. And the present CO2 level is 400 ppm.
> 
> The Keeling Curve | A daily record of atmospheric carbon dioxide from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego
> 
> ...


The only numbers in your post  that came out of a chemistry book are the heat of fusion and the specific heat for water. And had you used them to check the amount of heat it takes for the number of cubic kilometers of ice  that melt during the arctic summer then you would have realized that there is no way that 10% of the sunlight which irradiates the arctic and is not reflected can melt that amount of ice. You would need 13 times the energy that the sun delivers inside the arctic circle.
The bulk of the heat energy that does dissolve the ice from below has been transported by warm ocean currents at a rate hundreds of millions of cubic meters *per second*...and your chemistry book told you that each gram of water that is 1 C above freezing carries an energy of 4.18 Joules.
A cubic meter water = 10^6 grams and you won`t need any books to figure out how many Joules flow north with 150 million cubic meters per second even if that water were only +1 C, but it`s way warmer than that.
How much warmer does not depend on if we got 380 or 400 ppm CO2 either. For all I care you can use the entire CO2 slice of Trenberth`s "energy budget", but even with that you would still come up way short.
I recall that just a couple of months ago after the Argos buoys data, "the missing heat" which stymied the IPCC was made public, you claimed that heat was consumed by the ice that melted in the arctic.
And now you claim that the ice that melts in the arctic causes the water to warm up even faster:


> However, since water absorbs 90%+ of the energy in sunlight it recieves,  that 80 grams is multiplied by a factor of 9. So the sunlight that was  melting one gram of ice to one gram of water, with no increase in  temperature, now raises the temperature of 720 grams of water one degree  C.


But that`s par for the course. 
We also went from "global warming" to "climate change" after it became evident that there was no temperature increase for 14 years and a 2 week heatwave qualifies for "climate change" while 6 months of extreme winter temperatures over the entire northern hemisphere are just "local weather".
I also recall how the AGW community attributed these record low winter temperatures to the heat energy which was consumed by melting ice.
They behave just like a squealing pig, trapped in a village, fleeing from the butcher.
It`s beginning to dawn on the pig what will inevitably happen, but there are still some fools out there that continue to place their bets on the pig.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes, the LIA had a severe impact. Ice Ages suck.

Why do they call warm periods Climactic Optimums?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Bleh.... the Sun has only a minimal effect on climate. Scarfetta and West assigned it a 30% contribution based on the "because we fucking say-so" methodology


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Gack.... Actually Scarfetta and West just gave analytical JUSTIFICATION to the 30% that the IPCC (innocently of course) misplaced in all of their summary statements and press handouts...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Show me a specie that can't cope with 0.15degC/decade and I'll show a specie that has OTHER major issues.. You may include homo sapien in the list if you truly want to...


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









Yeah we know.  *COLD* seems to have a *MAJOR* impact on all life.  Warm, not so much.  In fact the PETM saw massive increase of the mammalian species and their spread across the globe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> You shouldn't listen to the fossil fuel shills at Heartland dude.
> 
> CDC - Extreme Heat and Your Health



When it gets hot, I hope you have some good, reliable fossil fuel to power your A/C.

Depending on wind or solar could kill you.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I've done no such thing.  Funny how you pull stupid accusations out of your arse when confronted with facts you can't ignore.  Yes, those events occurred.  Compared to the 8,000 years trend of cooling, they are but blips, significant blips, but blips nonetheless.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You can call them interglacials like everyone else does.


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









Yeah, climate seems to be blip after blip after blip.  Some warm, some cold.  What was that coming out of your ass?  Oh yes, more hot air...

But it's nice to see you admit that the current warming is nothing special.....just another "blip".


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If that were how it works, you'd have a point.  Guess what?  That's not how it works.   Species live in regional  climates, and are affected most severely by regional changes.  In the Arctic, global warming is having its most profound effects.    The changes are severe, and are stressing many species.  In the western U.S. we are seeing a severe long-term drought become ever more catastrophic as the air dries and temperatures rise.  What kind of effect do you believe these regional changes are having on species?  Do you honestly think they are taking it in their stride?  In the Siberian Sea, warming sea water is releasing huge quantities of methane (a more potent GHG than CO2) which is not only being released into the atmosphere, but into the sea itself, setting the stage for a massive die off of species as the sea becomes anoxic.  When the bulk of the methane stored in the Arctic permafrost is released in the coming decades, what do you think will be the net effect of that event?


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










  More hyperbole I see.  When did that methane start getting released?
This is not a trick question.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Interglacials sure beat the alternative.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



First they were gonna die because of 0.15degC/decade.. Now if THAT doesn't kill 'em, you've damned them with droughts and floods and the other plagues. If that STILL don't work --- bring on the toxic gases.. Goalposts are moving here. I'll pass on the plagues right now -- because you're Siberian Methane story is quite scary... 

Seems we know absolutely JUNK about the historical levels of methane in the frozen Siberian shelf.. 



> Supersaturated Siberian Seas | Methanenet
> 
> Covered in ice for 265 days of the year, and bordered by the frozen
> wastes of the Siberian tundra, it is hardly surprising that the shallow
> ...



Let's put that in FURTHER context. 



> The influence of termites on atmospheric trace gases: CH4, CO2, CHCl3, N2O, CO,
> 
> The influence of termites on atmospheric trace gases: CH4, CO2, CHCl3,
> N2O, CO, H2, and light hydrocarbons
> ...



Holy shit man.. Call ORKIN.. Bring back DDT --- ONE SPECIE responsible for almost TWICE the emissions estimated leaking from the Siberian shelf.  

Seems like maybe we should wait until science gets a better estimate? I think that would be fair.. In the meantime --- PLEASE STOP scaring the grade school kids with this shitty rush to science.. 

Same with scaring them about bunnies or turtles dying due to heat prostration of 0.5degC increases..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Ever hear of positive feedback loops?



> Seems we know absolutely JUNK about the historical levels of methane in the frozen Siberian shelf..



1.^ Bloom, A. A.; Palmer, P. I.; Fraser, A.; Reay, D. S.; Frankenberg, C. (2010). "Large-Scale Controls of Methanogenesis Inferred from Methane and Gravity Spaceborne Data". Science 327 (5963): 322325. Bibcode:2010Sci...327..322B. doi:10.1126/science.1175176. PMID 20075250. edit
2.^ Walter, K. M.; Chanton, J. P.; Chapin, F. S.; Schuur, E. A. G.; Zimov, S. A. (2008). "Methane production and bubble emissions from arctic lakes: Isotopic implications for source pathways and ages". Journal of Geophysical Research 113: G00A08. Bibcode:2008JGRG..11300A08W. doi:10.1029/2007JG000569. edit
3.^ a b Zimov, Sa; Schuur, Ea; Chapin, Fs, 3Rd (Jun 2006). "Climate change. Permafrost and the global carbon budget.". Science 312 (5780): 16123. doi:10.1126/science.1128908. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 16778046.
4.^ a b c Shakhova, Natalia (2005). "The distribution of methane on the Siberian Arctic shelves: Implications for the marine methane cycle". Geophysical Research Letters 32 (9): L09601. Bibcode:2005GeoRL..3209601S. doi:10.1029/2005GL022751.
5.^ a b c Shakhova, Natalia; Semiletov, Igor (2007). "Methane release and coastal environment in the East Siberian Arctic shelf". Journal of Marine Systems 66 (14): 227243. Bibcode:2007JMS....66..227S. doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2006.06.006
6.^ Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001)
7.^ N. E. Shakhova, I. P. Semiletov, A. N. Salyuk, N. N. Belcheva, and D. A. Kosmach, (2007). "Methane Anomalies in the Near-Water Atmospheric Layer above the Shelf of East Siberian Arctic Shelf". Doklady Earth Sciences 415 (5): 764768. Bibcode:2007DokES.415..764S. doi:10.1134/S1028334X07050236.
8.^ Torn, M.; Chapiniii, F. (1993). "Environmental and biotic controls over methane flux from Arctic tundra". Chemosphere 26: 357. doi:10.1016/0045-6535(93)90431-4. edit
9.^ Whalen, S. C.; Reeburgh, W. S. (1990). "Consumption of atmospheric methane by tundra soils". Nature 346 (6280): 160. Bibcode:1990Natur.346..160W. doi:10.1038/346160a0. edit
10.^ Kerr, R. A. (2010). "'Arctic Armageddon' Needs More Science, Less Hype". Science 329 (5992): 620621. doi:10.1126/science.329.5992.620. PMID 20688993. edit: Transcript of related podcast "Science Podcast". Science 329 (5992): 697691. 2010. doi:10.1126/science.329.5992.697-b. edit
11.^ Walter, Km; Zimov, Sa; Chanton, Jp; Verbyla, D; Chapin, Fs, 3Rd (Sep 2006). "Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming". Nature 443 (7107): 715. Bibcode:2006Natur.443...71W. doi:10.1038/nature05040. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 16957728.
12.^ Shakhova N., Semiletov I., Salyuk A., Kosmach D., Bel'cheva N. (2007). "Methane release on the Arctic East Siberian shelf". Geophysical Research Abstracts 9: 01071.
13.^ N. Shakhova, I. Semiletov, A. Salyuk, D. Kosmach (2008), Anomalies of methane in the atmosphere over the East Siberian shelf: Is there any sign of methane leakage from shallow shelf hydrates?, EGU General Assembly 2008, Geophysical Research Abstracts, 10, EGU2008-A-01526
14.^ IMPACTS: On the Threshold of Abrupt Climate Changes, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory News Center, 17 September 2008
15.^ CCSP, 2008: Abrupt Climate Change. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (Clark, P.U., A.J. Weaver (coordinating lead authors), E. Brook, E.R. Cook, T.L. Delworth, and K. Steffen (chapter lead authors)). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 459 pp.
16.^ Susan Q. Stranahan (30 Oct 2008). "Melting Arctic Ocean Raises Threat of 'Methane Time Bomb'". Yale Environment 360. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Retrieved 14 May 2009.
17.^ a b c d "Permafrost Threatened by Rapid Retreat of Arctic Sea Ice, NCAR Study Finds". University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. 2008-06-10. Retrieved 2008-06-11.
18.^ Lawrence, David M.; Slater, Andrew G.; Tomas, Robert A.; Holland, Marika M.; Deser, Clara (2008). "Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss". Geophysical Research Letters 35 (11): L11506. Bibcode:2008GeoRL..3511506L. doi:10.1029/2008GL033985
19.^ Mason Inman (19 December 2008). "Methane Bubbling Up From Undersea Permafrost?". National Geographic News. Retrieved 14 May 2009.
20.^ Pearce, Fred (28 March 09). "arctic-meltdown-is-a-threat-to-humanity". newscientist. Reed Business Information. Archived from the original on 29 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
21.^ Steve Connor (23 September 2008). "Exclusive: The methane time bomb". The Independent. Archived from the original on 3 April 2009. Retrieved 14 May 2009.
22.^ Volker Mrasek (17 April 2008). "A Storehouse of Greenhouse Gases Is Opening in Siberia". Spiegel Online. Archived from the original on 1 May 2009. Retrieved 14 May 2009.
23.^ a b Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats Tuesday 13 December 2011 Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats - Science - News - The Independent
24.^ As Arctic Ocean warms, megatonnes of methane bubble up - environment - 17 August 2009 - New Scientist
25.^ Is Global Warming Happening Faster Than Expected? Loss of ice, melting of permafrost and other climate effects are occurring at an alarming pace.
26.^ Earth May Be Warming Even Faster Than Expected. Three feedback loops are amplifying how rapidly the planet is heating up.
27.^ Paull, Charles K.; Ussler, William; Dallimore, Scott R.; Blasco, Steve M.; Lorenson, Thomas D.; Melling, Humfrey; Medioli, Barbara E.; Nixon, F. Mark et al. (2007). "Origin of pingo-like features on the Beaufort Sea shelf and their possible relationship to decomposing methane gas hydrates". Geophysical Research Letters 34 (1): L01603. Bibcode:2007GeoRL..3401603P. doi:10.1029/2006GL027977. 
28.^ Archer, David; Buffett, Bruce (2005). "Time-dependent response of the global ocean clathrate reservoir to climatic and anthropogenic forcing". Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems  G3 6 (3): 113. Bibcode:2005GGG.....603002A. doi:10.1029/2004GC000854. Retrieved 2009-05-15
*************

Seems you don't exactly have your facts straight.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Not a trick answer. Levels of methane in the past;

Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases | Climate Change | US EPA

We have gone from about 780 ppb to 1800 ppb in about a century. In the short term, a decade to a decade and a half, methane is over 100 times as powerful a GHG as CO2. So in effective heating of the atmosphere, we are presently at the equivelent to 500 ppm of CO2.

And the Arctic Ocean is emitting a lot of CH4 right now. An older article, but with very relevant figures. It has not gotten any better.

http://www.lgrinc.com/resources/appnotes/LGR_Case Study-ESAS Methane_032412_R3.pdf

Introduction
Compared to the economic/political hot potato of global warming due to carbon dioxide (CO2), the impact of methane (CH4) on climate change generally receives much less attention and publicity outside the world of environmental science. However, methane has a four times stronger greenhouse effect than CO2, and the result of large methane generation sources, including bovine agriculture, waste landfills and naturally formed bio-geological sediments, cannot be omitted from any detailed climate model. Now, recent studies by a collaborative team of Russian, American and Swedish researchers have revealed the significant extent of methane leakage from a massive undersea reserve trapped in East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) sediments, bringing worldwide and web wide attention to yet another possible negative consequence of continued ocean warming. These measured venting rates are already unprecedented, and on a par with the total methane venting flux from the entire World Ocean (see for example SCIENCE, 5 March 2010 Vol. 327 and http://news. yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/giant-plumes-methane-bubblingsurface- arctic-ocean-163804179.html).


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 26, 2013)

Politico said:


> Don't stress Thunder. If it's real it won't matter. You'll be long since dead.



Don't stress about Thunder.  You seem to already be dead.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Seems you lack critical reading skills.. I CLEARLY stated "HISTORICAL".. Unless you think circa 2007 in your cut and paste from the Wiki is "historical".. I was also SPECIFICALLY responding to your PARTICULAR assertion about the Siberian shelf.. Not other areas that are easier to monitor and explore.

Checked a few of these.. They are all over the map.. RE: Siberian shelf --- less panic NOW than before the surveys began.. Big concern of one reference is NOT Global Warming but a large release  due to SEISMIC structure of the area. Boy we live on a junker of a planet don't we?? 

Like I said we have little HISTORY on this to compare to.. And you surgically removed and ignored my references to termites so far -- being an approximately EQUAL problem to releases from the Siberian shelf.. Got an update on the 8 Tg/yr number? Is it gaining on termites yet?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

Historically?  Methane levels have more than doubled, as has already been pointed out.  And from a physics point of view, frozen methane tends to stay frozen unless it is warmed.  And a recent report has indicated, even more so than previous papers, that the economic cost of methane release in the Arctic could be staggering.

Costs of Arctic methane release could approach value of global economy ? study

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Didn't answer the question there olfraud.  Afraid to?


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Historically?  Methane levels have more than doubled, as has already been pointed out.  And from a physics point of view, frozen methane tends to stay frozen unless it is warmed.  And a recent report has indicated, even more so than previous papers, that the economic cost of methane release in the Arctic could be staggering.
> 
> Costs of Arctic methane release could approach value of global economy ? study
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf







Still havn't answered the question.  When did the methane release begin?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Historically?  Methane levels have more than doubled, as has already been pointed out.  And from a physics point of view, frozen methane tends to stay frozen unless it is warmed.  And a recent report has indicated, even more so than previous papers, that the economic cost of methane release in the Arctic could be staggering.
> ...



Methane has been released in many places around the world nearly since life first began on the planet.  That's not the issue.  The issue is what we see below:








> The increase in global atmospheric methane concentrations had slowed down for a while, but has picked up again since 2006, as reported by the World Meteorological Organization (via ClimateProgress):
> 
> Methane (CH4) contributes about 18% to the overall global increase in radiative forcing since 1750 and is the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide.
> 
> ...



And as I've already pointed out, that Arctic research is showing that the permafrost off the northern coast of Siberia is melting and releasing prodigious amounts of CH4.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Prodigious.. would that be unprecendented? No.. Would that be larger then any other areas of the globe? No.... Would that be enough to BOOST the detected global average over the past 10 years by a substantial amount?? No....

Where??






Why couldn't these folks use the SAME pseudocolor scaling for BOTH plots?? 

Please note that if we could shut off the termite colonies (or whatever that hot spot is in Argentina) we could probably make a dent in Methane. BTW: Mauna loa is REALLY BAD place to take methane samples... 

What's the RATE?






Is it time to tell the grade-schoolers that their planet is gonna blow up if they don't get their parents to use WWF shopping bags??






Could this become a "positive feedback"? I doubt it would be that BIG bonus multiplier you and GoldiRocks are praying for... 
But please set a daytimer alarm to notify me when you have the numbers...


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

Stratospheric methane has a broader range of concentrations, so the second graph has a different scale. Why is this a problem for you? As for the methane levels in Argentina, do you have specific evidence that termites are responsible there or are you simply throwing out a red herring?  It could well be termites emitting the gas there.  It could also be the fact that they've cut down millions of acres of forest and turned those lands into grazing lands for cattle.  

The graph from nature is unfamiliar to me.  So you have significant text top go along with it, or did you pull that our of a hat?  Mind you, I know what it says, but I prefer to know the specific source and read what the author had in mind when he produced that graph.  Got a link?

So you don't believe that the fact that atmospheric concentrations of one of the most potent greenhouse gases around increased from just below 1650 ppm to around 1750 ppm in just 20 years is a problem?  Really?  Why is that?

As for taking measurements at Mauna Loa, we've done so for decades.  If there was a problem, we wouldn't be doing it. there  Next.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Historically?  Methane levels have more than doubled, as has already been pointed out.  And from a physics point of view, frozen methane tends to stay frozen unless it is warmed.  And a recent report has indicated, even more so than previous papers, that the economic cost of methane release in the Arctic could be staggering.
> 
> Costs of Arctic methane release could approach value of global economy ? study
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf



Methane has a freezing point of -300 F, so you must be thinking of Methane on the other planets, right?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Stratospheric methane has a broader range of concentrations, so the second graph has a different scale. Why is this a problem for you? As for the methane levels in Argentina, do you have specific evidence that termites are responsible there or are you simply throwing out a red herring?  It could well be termites emitting the gas there.  It could also be the fact that they've cut down millions of acres of forest and turned those lands into grazing lands for cattle.
> 
> The graph from nature is unfamiliar to me.  So you have significant text top go along with it, or did you pull that our of a hat?  Mind you, I know what it says, but I prefer to know the specific source and read what the author had in mind when he produced that graph.  Got a link?
> 
> ...



Seriously? A geologist asking why Mauna Loa presents problems for taking CH4 measurements?? There is a at least a 15ppm differential between M.Loa and Global average.. Does this ring a bell?? 








I'll trace back the source of that Nature pix... 

Why don't I see a problem?? Because the RATE of atmos methane has pretty much DECREASED for 20 yrs.. Didn't say it COULDN'T be a climate accelerant.. 

Except for after reading some of those references you cut last night -- I'm now MORE CONCERNED about SEISMIC events causing a huge release than I am about about 1.4degC rise in the "trigger"..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Historically?  Methane levels have more than doubled, as has already been pointed out.  And from a physics point of view, frozen methane tends to stay frozen unless it is warmed.  And a recent report has indicated, even more so than previous papers, that the economic cost of methane release in the Arctic could be staggering.
> ...




So that's your thought? Actual frozen methane?  Ergo, can't be because obviously, no one has considered that methane freezing point is -300F?

It is a good question, not a good point.

"Methane and the risk of runaway global warming"

"The sediments and bottom water beneath the world&#8217;s shallow oceans and lakes contain vast amounts of greenhouse gases: *methane hydrates and methane clathrates* (see Figure 1). In particular methane is concentrated in Arctic permafrost where the accumulation of organic matter in frozen soils covers about 24% of northern hemisphere continents (see Figure 2a) and is estimated to contain more than 900 billion tons of carbon.

Methane, a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than CO2, is released from previously frozen soils when organic matter thaws and decomposes under anaerobic conditions (that is, without oxygen present)."



Arctic Methane » Arctic Methane | GeoengineeringWatch.org

Methane and the risk of runaway global warming » Methane and the risk of runaway global warming | GeoengineeringWatch.org


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

A better point;

"Reduced methane growth rate explained by decreased Northern Hemisphere microbial sources"


"Atmospheric methane (CH4) increased through much of the twentieth century, but this trend gradually weakened until a stable state was temporarily reached around the turn of the millennium1, 2, after which levels increased once more3. The reasons for the slowdown are incompletely understood, with past work identifying changes in fossil fuel, wetland and agricultural sources and hydroxyl (OH) sinks as important causal factors1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Here we show that the late-twentieth-century changes in the CH4 growth rates are best explained by reduced microbial sources in the Northern Hemisphere. Our results, based on synchronous time series of atmospheric CH4 mixing and 13C/12C ratios and a two-box atmospheric model, indicate that the evolution of the mixing ratio requires no significant change in Southern Hemisphere sources between 1984 and 2005. Observed changes in the interhemispheric difference of 13C effectively exclude reduced fossil fuel emissions as the primary cause of the slowdown. The 13C observations are consistent with long-term reductions in agricultural emissions or another microbial source within the Northern Hemisphere. Approximately half (51&#8201;±&#8201;18%) of the decrease in Northern Hemisphere CH4 emissions can be explained by reduced emissions from rice agriculture in Asia over the past three decades associated with increases in fertilizer application9 and reductions in water use."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/nature10259.html


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

A better point;

Not a big trend there.

"This chart shows the atmospheric measurement of methane at Point Barrow cover the last 2.5 years:"







"First, the horizontal red bar shows the lowest boundary of the yearly methane measured a few weeks ago. Methane always hits a low annual concentration at Point Barrow around the middle of the year, usually in June as part the natural fluctuations. *This year we saw the highest low point ever recorded. *This is significant because it shows the underlying long-term growth rate. *If you compare this year's low point to last year's, you get a sense of the upward turn in the atmospheric methane concentrations.

At the top of this graphic in the large red circle are several "anomalous" readings that were recorded over Barrow last year just about the time that GAC-2012 was hitting. *These are huge outliers, but because there were several of them occurring all about the same time, we can also assume they were valid data in the sense that it was really being recorded properly. *In direct email discussions with staff at Barrow station at the time, they characterized these as "likely" local anthropogenic sources, i.e. outgassing from drilling rigs, etc. *Note the word "likely". *These samples are sent back to a lab for analysis that can better describe the sources. *My hunch, and again, this is only a hunch, is that GAC-2012 or simply the very low ice levels of last summer or some combination, may have brought up more methane and caused these very high anomalous readings. It is also important to note that all the data points in the graph that are orange have yet to be fully validated-- though they are in the vast majority of cases.

Finally, in the small red circle is one the latest readings from Barrow. *It continues to show the higher long-term upward trend is accelerating and also shows the remainder of 2013 should be interesting to watch, as it will likely show the strong growth rate of methane in the Arctic atmosphere. Though the level will oscillate up and down a bit between now and its annual peak in early 2014, we should monitor the rest of the summer Arctic melt season for the kinds of "anomalies" that we saw last year. I will especially look for a period of anomalously high levels should another large cyclone hit in August or even September when sea ice is at its lowest. "


Arctic Atmospheric Methane Trends 2013 - Arctic Sea Ice


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Problem is, that as points go, if you're honest a do due dilligence, you get

"Arctic Methane found at "Amazing Levels" by NASA"
by FishOutofWater Jun 14, 2013 7:34am PDT


"Some of the methane and carbon dioxide concentrations we've measured have been large, and we're seeing very different patterns from what models suggest," Miller said. "We saw large, regional-scale episodic bursts of higher-than-normal carbon dioxide and methane in interior Alaska and across the North Slope during the spring thaw, and they lasted until after the fall refreeze. To cite another example, in July 2012 we saw methane levels over swamps in the Innoko Wilderness that were 650 parts per billion higher than normal background levels. That's similar to what you might find in a large city."

Daily Kos :: Arctic Methane found at "Amazing Levels" by NASA


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Stratospheric methane has a broader range of concentrations, so the second graph has a different scale. Why is this a problem for you? As for the methane levels in Argentina, do you have specific evidence that termites are responsible there or are you simply throwing out a red herring?  It could well be termites emitting the gas there.  It could also be the fact that they've cut down millions of acres of forest and turned those lands into grazing lands for cattle.
> 
> The graph from nature is unfamiliar to me.  So you have significant text top go along with it, or did you pull that our of a hat?  Mind you, I know what it says, but I prefer to know the specific source and read what the author had in mind when he produced that graph.  Got a link?
> 
> ...



I don't think he can give you an actual source. To do that, he'd have to either admit to perscribing to the methodology employed by climate change science, throw out his graph as evidence, or admit he cherry picks. Either way, sourcing it is likely to demolish his credibility.

The only way he can maintain a coherent story is by cherry picking out of established research that goes completely contrary to his position. Ergo why he randomly sites sources.

It is basically this:  97% of the established science fully supports AWG.  As such, on average, 3% of any journal article will raise some point that brings up new considerations regarding how to improve the AWG science.  So, to support an denier position means that 97% of sources have to be hidden as some 3% of the article is cherry picked out of context to "prove" an unsustainable position.

I wouldn't take the graph on face value.  For all you know, it is a graph of some subset of the total volume of methane.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/476157a.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/nature10259.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/nature10352.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/nature10259.html


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Climate science: Vast costs of Arctic change

Gail Whiteman,*Chris Hope*& Peter Wadhams*Nature 499, 401403 (25 July 2013)*Published online 24 July 2013

*"The methane pulse will bring forward by 1535 years the average date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2°C above pre-industrial levels"*

"We calculate that the costs of a melting Arctic will be huge, because the region is pivotal to the functioning of Earth systems such as oceans and the climate. The release of methane from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea, off northern Russia, alone comes with an average global price tag of $60 trillion in the absence of mitigating action  a figure comparable to the size of the world economy in 2012 (about $70 trillion). The total cost of Arctic change will be much higher."

"Economic time bomb
As the amount of Arctic sea ice declines at an unprecedented rate4, 5, the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. A 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane,* stored in the form of hydrates,* exists on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly6. Higher methane concentrations in the atmosphere will accelerate global warming and hasten local changes in the Arctic, speeding up sea-ice retreat, reducing the reflection of solar energy and accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The ramifications will be felt far from the poles.l








Bubbles of methane emerge from sediments below a frozen Alaskan lake.



Climate science: Vast costs of Arctic change : Nature : Nature Publishing Group


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

"so you must be thinking of Methane on the other planets, right?"

Wrong. That would be what you are thinking.  It is an obvious case of ordinary projection.  Taking a personal attribute and projecting it onto someone else.  We actually "project" and "transfer" all the time.  We don't have anything to go on except past experience.  So, until we actually know the individual personally, build a mental model of them from experience of them, we rely on projecting and tramsfering.  It only get's labeled "projection" and "transferance" in psychology, when it becomes dysfunctional.  Otherwise, there is no sense in calling it anything because something that happens all the time isn't so much of an interesting something.

But, like those optical illusions, where it is normal but highlighted in bold relief, we occasionally get to see an otherwise ordinary process highlighted in bold relief.

So there it is.   "so you must be thinking of Methane on the other planets, right?" is projection.  Obviously, the person making the statement is thinking it.  Obviously, the person he is refering to is not.  It's ordinary, run of the mill, normal psychology projection.

I do it all the time, not that particular way.

Cool


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Still avoiding the question I see.  And your little graph is meaningless.  Especially when you admit when the methane outgassing began in the Arctic....that's why you're avoiding that like the plague.....


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Stratospheric methane has a broader range of concentrations, so the second graph has a different scale. Why is this a problem for you? As for the methane levels in Argentina, do you have specific evidence that termites are responsible there or are you simply throwing out a red herring?  It could well be termites emitting the gas there.  It could also be the fact that they've cut down millions of acres of forest and turned those lands into grazing lands for cattle.
> 
> The graph from nature is unfamiliar to me.  So you have significant text top go along with it, or did you pull that our of a hat?  Mind you, I know what it says, but I prefer to know the specific source and read what the author had in mind when he produced that graph.  Got a link?
> 
> ...








Tellingly there is *NO *massive plume in the Arctic.


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Stratospheric methane has a broader range of concentrations, so the second graph has a different scale. Why is this a problem for you? As for the methane levels in Argentina, do you have specific evidence that termites are responsible there or are you simply throwing out a red herring?  It could well be termites emitting the gas there.  It could also be the fact that they've cut down millions of acres of forest and turned those lands into grazing lands for cattle.
> ...








He's not a geologist....


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

Wanna bet?


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Wanna bet?







Wanna bet what?  That you, he, and it are socks?  I have no doubt of that...not one bit.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

The release of methane from the Arctic is in itself a contributor to global warming as a result of polar amplification. Recent observations in the Siberian arctic show increased rates of methane release from the Arctic seabed.[4] Land-based permafrost, also in the Siberian arctic, was also recently observed to be releasing large amounts of methane, estimated at over 4 million tons &#8211; significantly above previous estimates.[11]
In the plot showing the global atmospheric methane concentration (the significant measure from the viewpoint of global warming and radiative forcing), however, the rate of the increase in atmospheric methane has been slowing until 2004, indicating that the contribution from Arctic release is currently not the dominant factor in the global picture.
Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Mt per year.[12] Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 Gt of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve.[13]
In 2008 the United States Department of Energy National Laboratory system[14] identified potential clathrate destabilization in the Arctic as one the most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change, which have been singled out for priority research. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program released a report in late December 2008 estimating the gravity of the risk of clathrate destabilization, alongside three other credible abrupt climate change scenarios.[15]

4. ^ a b c Shakhova, Natalia (2005). "The distribution of methane on the Siberian Arctic shelves: Implications for the marine methane cycle". Geophysical Research Letters 32 (9): L09601. Bibcode:2005GeoRL..3209601S. doi:10.1029/2005GL022751.

11. ^ Walter, Km; Zimov, Sa; Chanton, Jp; Verbyla, D; Chapin, Fs, 3Rd (Sep 2006). "Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming". Nature 443 (7107): 71&#8211;5. Bibcode:2006Natur.443...71W. doi:10.1038/nature05040. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 16957728.
12. ^ Shakhova N., Semiletov I., Salyuk A., Kosmach D., Bel'cheva N. (2007). "Methane release on the Arctic East Siberian shelf". Geophysical Research Abstracts 9: 01071.
13. ^ N. Shakhova, I. Semiletov, A. Salyuk, D. Kosmach (2008), Anomalies of methane in the atmosphere over the East Siberian shelf: Is there any sign of methane leakage from shallow shelf hydrates?, EGU General Assembly 2008, Geophysical Research Abstracts, 10, EGU2008-A-01526
14. ^ IMPACTS: On the Threshold of Abrupt Climate Changes, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory News Center, 17 September 2008
15. ^ CCSP, 2008: Abrupt Climate Change. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (Clark, P.U., A.J. Weaver (coordinating lead authors), E. Brook, E.R. Cook, T.L. Delworth, and K. Steffen (chapter lead authors)). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 459 pp.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

Are you familiar with the Permian Extinction?


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The release of methane from the Arctic is in itself a contributor to global warming as a result of polar amplification. Recent observations in the Siberian arctic show increased rates of methane release from the Arctic seabed.[4] Land-based permafrost, also in the Siberian arctic, was also recently observed to be releasing large amounts of methane, estimated at over 4 million tons  significantly above previous estimates.[11]
> In the plot showing the global atmospheric methane concentration (the significant measure from the viewpoint of global warming and radiative forcing), however, the rate of the increase in atmospheric methane has been slowing until 2004, indicating that the contribution from Arctic release is currently not the dominant factor in the global picture.
> Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Mt per year.[12] Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 Gt of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve.[13]
> In 2008 the United States Department of Energy National Laboratory system[14] identified potential clathrate destabilization in the Arctic as one the most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change, which have been singled out for priority research. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program released a report in late December 2008 estimating the gravity of the risk of clathrate destabilization, alongside three other credible abrupt climate change scenarios.[15]
> ...









Cool, you posted a lot of studies that say not much of anything.  I looked up 5 of them and they were all correlation equals causation nonsense.  Poor excuse for scientists and you still haven't answered the question of when the methane first started being released.


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Are you familiar with the Permian Extinction?








More than you.....Here are four possible causes for the Permian Extinction....Amazingly enough global warming isn't mentioned...  Only in the fevered imaginings and tortured computer models can warmth be trotted out as a possible cause, the paleo record though says otherwise....


"Speculated Causes of the Permian Extinction
 Although the cause of the Permian mass extinction remains a debate, numerous theories have been formulated to explain the events of the extinction. One of the most current theories for the mass extinction of the Permian is an agent that has been also held responsible for the Ordovician and Devonian crises, *glaciation* on Gondwana. A similar glaciation event in the Permian would likely produce mass extinction in the same manner as previous, that is, by a *global widespread cooling *and/or worldwide lowering of sea level. 


The Formation of Pangea

 Another theory which explains the mass extinctions of the Permian is the reduction of shallow continental shelves due to the formation of the super-continent Pangea. Such a reduction in oceanic continental shelves would result in ecological competition for space, perhaps acting as an agent for extinction. However, although this is a viable theory, the formation of Pangea and the ensuing destruction of the continental shelves occurred in the early and middle Permian, and mass extinction did not occur until the late Permian. 


*Glaciation

 A third possible mechanism for the Permian extinction is rapid warming and severe climatic fluctuations produced by concurrent glaciation events on the north and south poles. In temperate zones, there is evidence of significant cooling and drying in the sedimentological record, shown by thick sequences of dune sands and evaporites, while in the polar zones, glaciation was prominent. This caused severe climatic fluctuations around the globe, and is found by sediment record to be representative of when the Permian mass extinction occurred*. 


Volcanic Eruptions

 The fourth and final suggestion that paleontologists have formulated credits the Permian mass extinction as a result of basaltic lava eruptions in Siberia. These volcanic eruptions were large and sent a quantity of sulphates into the atmosphere. Evidence in China supports that these volcanic eruptions may have been silica-rich, and thus explosive, a factor that would have produced large ash clouds around the world. The combination of sulphates in the atmosphere and the ejection of ash clouds may have *lowered global climatic conditions*. The age of the lava flows has also been dated to the interval in which the Permian mass extinction occurred."



Causes of the Permian Extinction


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Problem is, that as points go, if you're honest a do due dilligence, you get
> 
> "Arctic Methane found at "Amazing Levels" by NASA"
> by FishOutofWater Jun 14, 2013 7:34am PDT
> ...



Read critically for heaven's sake.. "... in INTERIOR Alaska... " "... swamps in the Innoko Wilderness.. "  .. similiar to what you might find in a large city"... 

AMAZING LEVELS? no not really. They were for the most part not talking about releasing methane from deeply buried calthrates shielded by shallow (almost frozen) water. THAT'S the doomsday theory you guys are hoping for.. Not finding piddly methane levels in the INTERIOR "swamps?" of Alaska.. 

I'm a Florida gator --- didn't realize the Arctic HAD swamps.. I learned sumtin today.. 

Stay out the Daily Kos.. They tend to exaggerate shit they don't understand..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Wanna bet?



Abraham --- thought we lost you.. So you 2 ARE related?? Was not a random duo landing at USMB?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



As a greenhouse gas, how much more potent than CO2 is H2O?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The release of methane from the Arctic is in itself a contributor to global warming as a result of polar amplification. Recent observations in the Siberian arctic show increased rates of methane release from the Arctic seabed.[4] Land-based permafrost, also in the Siberian arctic, was also recently observed to be releasing large amounts of methane, estimated at over 4 million tons &#8211; significantly above previous estimates.[11]
> In the plot showing the global atmospheric methane concentration (the significant measure from the viewpoint of global warming and radiative forcing), however, the rate of the increase in atmospheric methane has been slowing until 2004, indicating that the contribution from Arctic release is currently not the dominant factor in the global picture.
> Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Mt per year.[12] *Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 Gt of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve.[*13]
> In 2008 the United States Department of Energy National Laboratory system[14] identified potential clathrate destabilization in the Arctic as one the most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change, which have been singled out for priority research. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program released a report in late December 2008 estimating the gravity of the risk of clathrate destabilization, alongside three other credible abrupt climate change scenarios.[15]
> ...



That's REALLY interesting.. Because I was cruising thru this list of cites JUST LAST NIGHT and read the actual abstract from Shakova (2008)..   It's here below.. 
Which paper was the quote from? Because they left out a KEY PIECE OF INFORMATION.. 




> http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/01526/EGU2008-A-01526.pdf\
> 
> Anomalies of methane in the atmosphere over the East
> Siberian shelf: Is there any sign of methane leakage
> ...



Ain't that cool? THIS is why I am a skeptic... Change the entire MEANING of a finding. Leave out a KEY assertion.. You are supporting dishonest science.. You just demonstrated it in action... 

Once you give us the cite for that particular abstract -- us skeptics will thank you for contributing to our cause.. 


Nothing personal -- you are just too trusting...


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> Cool, you posted a lot of studies that say not much of anything.  I looked up 5 of them and they were all correlation equals causation nonsense.



Bullshit.  You did not have enough time to look them up much less read them.

4.   ^ Geophysical Research Letters
11. ^ Nature 
12. ^ Geophysical Research Abstracts
13. ^ Geophysical Research Abstracts
14. ^ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory News Center
15. ^ U.S. Geological Survey

And, pray tell, when was the last time you were published in any of these?  



westwall said:


> Poor excuse for scientists and you still haven't answered the question of when the methane first started being released.



That's not a question you've asked me.  If you're asking about Arctic methane, it's been released constantly for millions of years.  It's the rate that's changed - and that now threatens to go through the roof.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> More than you.....Here are four possible causes for the Permian Extinction....Amazingly enough global warming isn't mentioned...  Only in the fevered imaginings and tortured computer models can warmth be trotted out as a possible cause, the paleo record though says otherwise....



*Wikipedia on the 'Clathrate Gun'*
However, there is stronger evidence that runaway methane clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species became extinct 251 million years ago.[5]

5. ^ "The Day The Earth Nearly Died". Horizon. 2002. BBC.

*Wikipedia on the Permian-Triassic Extinction*
Researchers have variously suggested that there were from one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction.[5][9][10][11] There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was probably due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event. Suggested mechanisms for the latter include large or multiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, coal/gas fires and explosions from the Siberian Traps,[12] and sudden release of methane clathrate from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.

5.  ^ a b c d e f Sahney S and Benton M.J (2008). "Recovery from the most profound mass extinction of all time" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological 275 (1636): 759&#8211;765. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1370. PMC 2596898. PMID 18198148.
9.  ^ a b c d e f Jin YG, Wang Y, Wang W, Shang QH, Cao CQ, Erwin DH (2000). "Pattern of Marine Mass Extinction Near the Permian&#8211;Triassic Boundary in South China". Science 289 (5478): 432&#8211;436. Bibcode:2000Sci...289..432J. doi:10.1126/science.289.5478.432. PMID 10903200.
10. ^ Yin H, Zhang K, Tong J, Yang Z, Wu S. "The Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) of the Permian-Triassic Boundary". Episodes 24 (2). pp. 102&#8211;114.
11. ^ Yin HF, Sweets WC, Yang ZY, Dickins JM (1992). "Permo-Triassic events in the eastern Tethys&#8211;an overview". In Sweet WC. Permo-Triassic events in the eastern Tethys: stratigraphy, classification, and relations with the western Tethys. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1&#8211;7. ISBN 0-521-54573-0.
12. ^ Darcy E. Ogdena and Norman H. Sleep (2011). "Explosive eruption of coal and basalt and the end-Permian mass extinction.". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109...59O. doi:10.1073/pnas.1118675109.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > More than you.....Here are four possible causes for the Permian Extinction....Amazingly enough global warming isn't mentioned...  Only in the fevered imaginings and tortured computer models can warmth be trotted out as a possible cause, the paleo record though says otherwise....
> ...



One in ten chance of guessing aint' bad.. Who's the idiot that has the evidence of methane calthrate release --- and why no cite for that one???


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

By their reasoning, we shouldn't clean our hands after using the grocery cart at the store during flu season because monkeys get ebola virus in the wild.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham --- thought we lost you.. So you 2 ARE related?? Was not a random duo landing at USMB?



Orogenicman and I both came from a board that has recently closed down.  Like you and WestWall and Crusader Frank.  All on the same board with similar opinions.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> One in ten chance of guessing aint' bad.. Who's the idiot that has the evidence of methane calthrate release --- and why no cite for that one???



Probably someone with a real PhD.  And the lack of cite is my fault.  I'm working on a wee tiny netbook whose fonts are too small for my aging vision.  Standby.

From PNAS.  Have you been published in PNAS?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham --- thought we lost you.. So you 2 ARE related?? Was not a random duo landing at USMB?
> ...



Well welcome. You now have temporary refugee status.. 

Losing your board is one of those disasters in life. My sympathies..


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> By their reasoning, we shouldn't clean our hands after using the grocery cart at the store during flu season because monkeys get ebola virus in the wild.



?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Pardon the snarkiness.  Thought I was talking to Westwall


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

So, FlaCaLTenn,

Is everyone who publishes PoVs that differ from yours "guessing"?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > However, our recent data showed
> ...



What are you talking about?!?  Shakova says precisely what the Wikipedia article says: 50 GTons is at risk of immediate release through taliks and would cause a 12-fold increase to atmospheric methane levels.

Now WHY is it you think you should be a skeptic?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > By their reasoning, we shouldn't clean our hands after using the grocery cart at the store during flu season because monkeys get ebola virus in the wild.
> ...



By their reasoning, because the climate has change naturally in the long history of the Earth, then we shouldn't concern ourslelves with the fact that humans are now changing it


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

Uhh.. Ohhhhh kay.

I'm not sure it's possible to make a analogy to an utterly faulty inference


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

The "correlation doesn't equal causation" nonsense is their fall back position. It demonstrates a complete lack of fundamental scientific understanding.  Correlation always equals causation when the two are causal.  If they were not causal, there would be no correlation. The only time correlation isn't causal is when there is some other cause, when you've taken all the causal factors and run them through a multivariate regression, you know exactly what the coefficients are.

The problem that the deniers have is that the correlation does prove causality unless they can demonstrate otherwise.  And they can't because all causal factors have been accounted for. All non causal factors have been accounted for.

They live in this wierd fantacy land where there is some sort of magic proof of causality that exists independent of correlation.  It doesn't exist.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> So, FlaCaLTenn,
> 
> Is everyone who publishes PoVs that differ from yours "guessing"?



No.. Of course not silly.. It's the rabid warmers who back up their assertions by quoting a text that gives TEN reasons something happened, when THEIR theory is just one of the ten possibilities.. That's the odds of guessing in that case... Also a good guess we can take away the high probability that science just doesn't know the answer.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> No.. Of course not silly.. It's the rabid warmers who back up their assertions by quoting a text that gives TEN reasons something happened, when THEIR theory is just one of the ten possibilities.. That's the odds of guessing in that case... Also a good guess we can take away the high probability that science just doesn't know the answer.



*Wikipedia on Permian Extinction*
There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was probably due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event.  Suggested mechanisms for the latter include 
1) large or multiple bolide impact events, 
2) increased volcanism, 
3) coal/gas fires and explosions from the Siberian Traps
4) sudden release of methane clathrate from the sea floor

Not one in ten, one in four.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



It's critical for you to understand WHY this is an example of the wholesale DISHONESTY of the current climate science RACKET -- and by extension why I am and you should be skeptical.. 

1) You posted an abstract from someone (still haven't told which one) that quoted Sharakova 2008.

2) I READ the abstract from Sharakova 2008 last night and was amazed that they couched the release of that 50GTons by citing SEIMIC hazards further opening seeps in that area and NOT melting of the permafrost as a likely scenario.. 

3) YOUR bastards quoted Sharakova about the 50GT release potential --- but INTENTIONALLY left out the qualifying language for the LIKELY release of that material.. Giving the impression that Sharakova et al considered the release a consequence of the (not so) humongeous 1degC we are experiencing.. A blatant misrepresentation of the work.
I've bolded the censored qualifying phrase above.

Go back and compare the DERIVATIVE work to what was actually stated. And please supply the cite for that abstract.. I have a collection of poor scientific practice from AGW "scientists" that needs to be constantly fed.. 

That's why I'm a skeptic.. This shoddy shit is based on fraud and misrepresentation. MOUNTAINS of it...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > No.. Of course not silly.. It's the rabid warmers who back up their assertions by quoting a text that gives TEN reasons something happened, when THEIR theory is just one of the ten possibilities.. That's the odds of guessing in that case... Also a good guess we can take away the high probability that science just doesn't know the answer.
> ...



you forgot 5) 6) 7) and 8)



> ,,,,,,, gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.



OK --- I miscounted.. It's 1 in 8.. But with that many possibilities, I'm SURE there are a couple others lurking out there..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Wanna bet?
> ...



He is asking you if you want to bet that I am a geologist.  Abe and I know one another, and have for a long time.  Come one grasshopper, take the bet.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > No.. Of course not silly.. It's the rabid warmers who back up their assertions by quoting a text that gives TEN reasons something happened, when THEIR theory is just one of the ten possibilities.. That's the odds of guessing in that case... Also a good guess we can take away the high probability that science just doesn't know the answer.
> ...




And whether or not it had anything to do with the Permian-Triassic Extinction, dropping  50 GTons of methane into the atmosphere 'overnight' is something we really, really don't want to see.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Historically?  Methane levels have more than doubled, as has already been pointed out.  And from a physics point of view, frozen methane tends to stay frozen unless it is warmed.  And a recent report has indicated, even more so than previous papers, that the economic cost of methane release in the Arctic could be staggering.
> ...



Pure methane has a freezing point of -295.6°F, to be exact.  But the methane locked up in the permafrost is not pure methane.  It is called methane clathrate, which is methane hydrate - (CH4)8(H2O)46 - it begins to melt at 28.13°F.  So it can only remain in the permafrost as long as the temperature remains below 28.13°F.  Once the permafrost stars melting, it releases the methane from the clathrate.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...




Okay, then what kind of rock is this?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2013)

Explain this....

Has global warming stopped? No - it?s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans - Home News - UK - The Independent


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Stratospheric methane has a broader range of concentrations, so the second graph has a different scale. Why is this a problem for you? As for the methane levels in Argentina, do you have specific evidence that termites are responsible there or are you simply throwing out a red herring?  It could well be termites emitting the gas there.  It could also be the fact that they've cut down millions of acres of forest and turned those lands into grazing lands for cattle.
> ...



Which is insignificant compared to the over 1800 ppm of methane in the atmosphere, and  easily calibrated for. Next.




> I'll trace back the source of that Nature pix...
> 
> Why don't I see a problem?? Because the RATE of atmos methane has pretty much DECREASED for 20 yrs.. Didn't say it COULDN'T be a climate accelerant..



Perhaps on some other planet in the solar system.  Not on this one:








> Except for after reading some of those references you cut last night -- I'm now MORE CONCERNED about SEISMIC events causing a huge release than I am about about 1.4degC rise in the "trigger"..



That could well happen too.  We can't control earthquakes.  We certainly can control our own emissions.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Explain this....
> 
> Has global warming stopped? No - it?s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans - Home News - UK - The Independent



Its been picked up by then oceans.  When all factors are accounted for, the adjusted global warming looks like this






There is a full treatment posted on one of the threads.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

What's the RATE?






Is it time to tell the grade-schoolers that their planet is gonna blow up if they don't get their parents to use WWF shopping bags??






I'm having doubts about trusting your eyeballs to measure rates.. Prefer the actual numbers above.. As you can see --- current GLOBAL rates of CH4 conc. are only about what they were in the mid-90s.. 

Did ya figure out the dishonesty in that abstract yet??? Boy I'm glad you helped point that out.. I've been correcting bogus pix of the North Pole and reposting stuff all over for youse guys.. Being a skeptic is a hard life..

Also note Mr. Geologist.. Your Mauna Loa chart is about 15 or 20ppm ABOVE the global average..

** and please don't tell me that 15ppm is "insignificant".. That's 10 times the anomalies they are reading in some of the permafrost studies..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Stratospheric methane has a broader range of concentrations, so the second graph has a different scale. Why is this a problem for you? As for the methane levels in Argentina, do you have specific evidence that termites are responsible there or are you simply throwing out a red herring?  It could well be termites emitting the gas there.  It could also be the fact that they've cut down millions of acres of forest and turned those lands into grazing lands for cattle.
> ...



Ahem:


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yack ! THat's scary.. What's the projected temp. anomaly for 2100?

Did ya get the dishonesty in that abstract yet??


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



A sex stone, of course.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Explain this....
> 
> Has global warming stopped? No - it?s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans - Home News - UK - The Independent



Explain what?  You don't understand the words they wrote on the page?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> What's the RATE?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude, you take the reading on Mauna Loa from the sensor, and deduct the 15 ppm, and come up with a calibrated reading.  This is freshman chemistry, for Pete's sake.  As for the rates, they were increasing in the 1990s, so they are still increasing, and not only that, since Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long, the fact that they have reached such high levels with no sign of let up is a very bad sign.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I certainly get it from you willfully ignoring the facts.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Explain this....
> 
> Has global warming stopped? No - it?s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans - Home News - UK - The Independent



Deep ocean, right where is was expected.

Same as your car keys, the last place they looked.  Happens all the time.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms | ThinkProgress











Has Trenberth found the ?missing? heat? | Climate Etc.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > What's the RATE?
> ...



I was hoping a geologist would recognize that putting a methane sensor on a mountain with 15 or more ACTIVE fissure volcanoes would require more than a simple "fixed" baseline deduction. Especially when the staff has to LEAVE the facility when the big eruptions happen.

Oh well -- just do the freshman Chem thing.. It's all climate science anyway aint' it?


----------



## IanC (Jul 27, 2013)

A while back I posted up the projected methane rise that is being used in the GCMs. It is wildly higher than the measured rates. This is yet another source of error in the exaggerated claims for increased future temps.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



*Mauna Loa* is dormant, and has been since a tiny aa eruption occurred down on a flack vent in 1984.  The miniscule amount of methane it is emitting at the very high, very windy summit, is quite manageable, and monitored daily. To be honest, the only ones I've ever heard complaining about using a location with the some of the most pristine air on the planet are the rare deniers like you.  But lets talk about the measurements for a moment.  Even if they weren't accounting for the small amount of native methane at that location, it would only add 0.8333333333333333 % error to the measurements, and that could simply be reads as +_ this tiny amount.  We are talking about 1800ppm, versus 15ppm.  It is two orders of magnitude of difference, and so quite insignificant.  And yet they do account for it in their measurements.  It isn't an issue.  AT ALL.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Oh good -- THey found it..
> 
> Now that satellites prevent them from botching up the land surface record, or using a selected tree as a thermometer for 1100BC, ----
> 
> ...



Yeah, right, its all a big conspiracy. COO COO


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Uhh, I'm pretty sure all of that could be found in the research paper in which this data is presented. As the unbiased scientist I'm sure you would be more than interested to look up that information yourself, and then share it with us.

Thanks.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 28, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



I think a lot of the deniers probably wanted to be scientists when they were little, and then when they grew up they either found out they were a) dumb or be b) could make more money doing something else because they weren't dumb.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Wanna bet?
> ...








Yep, birds of a feather and all that


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 28, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



REALLY? The current research paper in the OP relies on freaking diving walruses !! No lie Slim it's in there. That's because they didn't like the data from the 10,000 deployed deep sea buoys used to actually measure temp. And their results are MODELED with sparse sampling as inputs. 

So let's go back to the 1900s.. Tell me HOW you measure the temp. at enough points SIMULTANEOUSLY (or close to simult) to create a GLOBAL CONTINUOUS record as a function of depth..

How far did THIS paper go back in time? 

Think the records are THAT GOOD? What proxies would you use to get a depth vs temp. chart.. Truly OopyDoo --- if you KNOW --- please tell me..


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Cool, you posted a lot of studies that say not much of anything.  I looked up 5 of them and they were all correlation equals causation nonsense.
> ...








You are correct, I only looked at five of them.  That was enough bullshit for me.  I can only stand so much crap.  You seemingly can suck up an inexhaustible amount.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> So ---- How come this "deep ocean absorption" wasn't part of the modeling?


Which model are you talking about?



> Oceans are huge heatsinks. To have that effect SUDDENLY and CONVIENIENTLY kick in UNANTICIPATED and UNANNOUNCED (in a short number of years) just illustrates how this AGW sideshow isn't even out of "concept phase" yet..



I'm sorry, were you expecting the ocean to send you a memo?


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Cool, you posted a lot of studies that say not much of anything.  I looked up 5 of them and they were all correlation equals causation nonsense.
> ...








Untrue, try again....


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 

I'm sure you've read all the relevant research, as you're an expert on this topic. I spend most of my days studying astrophysics. I know you spend all day studying climate change - so you tell us!


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > More than you.....Here are four possible causes for the Permian Extinction....Amazingly enough global warming isn't mentioned...  Only in the fevered imaginings and tortured computer models can warmth be trotted out as a possible cause, the paleo record though says otherwise....
> ...








Wrong again.  Like I said only in the twisted mind of a climate fraudster does warming enter into the equation.  There is ZERO empirical data to support that amusing "theory" and plenty to support the idea of an ice age being the cause.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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









Holocene thermal max was much warmer than the present day and yet no disaster like you claim will occur.  Why is that?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


My house wasn't around back then to get flooded.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The "correlation doesn't equal causation" nonsense is their fall back position. It demonstrates a complete lack of fundamental scientific understanding.  Correlation always equals causation when the two are causal.  If they were not causal, there would be no correlation. The only time correlation isn't causal is when there is some other cause, when you've taken all the causal factors and run them through a multivariate regression, you know exactly what the coefficients are.
> 
> The problem that the deniers have is that the correlation does prove causality unless they can demonstrate otherwise.  And they can't because all causal factors have been accounted for. All non causal factors have been accounted for.
> 
> They live in this wierd fantacy land where there is some sort of magic proof of causality that exists independent of correlation.  It doesn't exist.








  My gosh but you are simply one of the most ignorant posters I have ever seen.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > No.. Of course not silly.. It's the rabid warmers who back up their assertions by quoting a text that gives TEN reasons something happened, when THEIR theory is just one of the ten possibilities.. That's the odds of guessing in that case... Also a good guess we can take away the high probability that science just doesn't know the answer.
> ...










1=No evidence to support the theory.
2=Lots of evidence that leads to global *COOLING*.
3=No evidence to support the theory.  
4=No evidence to support the theory.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




No evidence? OK then, what are you talking about? Just go away. You're a fucking idiot anyway.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










  Dormant?  Not hardly.  Tiny eruption?  What the hell are you smoking?  Mr. Mountain building event seems to not understand geologic timescales.


"A cyclic model was recently proposed for the volcano's summit-flank alternation of eruptive activity. Detailed geologic mapping suggests that the cycles may last about 2,000 years each. Since the most recent period of intense summit activity began about 2,000 years ago, perhaps Mauna Loa is "*on the verge of shifting to a period of long-lived lava-lake activity, shield-building, increased summit overflow, and diminished rift zone eruptions.*" See a technical skip past cyclic model, history table, 1984 eruption, and 1950 eruption summary of this proposed cyclic model."




http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/maunaloa/history/main.html


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So ---- How come this "deep ocean absorption" wasn't part of the modeling?
> ...








poopy you are so far out of your league you should just pack the hell up and get out.  You are so clueless you are embarrassing yourself now.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...







I'm talking geological and paleontological evidence you halfwit.  Go smoke some more pot you fucking imbecile.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 28, 2013)

MO ron


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> MO ron







Yes, in Websters the type classification photo is your mugshot


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



"Pristine air on the planet" include investigators driving the mere 18 miles to Kileahua and donning gas masks as he drives thru the plumes?? Just saw a series on weather channel of this.. Active lava flows on the SE coast within VIEW of Mona Loa?

Perhaps we stop wasting taxpayer money on air quality alerts for the Islands Volcano Park center located between Kileahua and Mona Loa. 

NPS and USGS: Hawai`i Volcanoes NP Current Sulfur Dioxide and Particulate Advisory

15ppm seems to be the "filtered" average offset. Probably using a several year filter. And that low number can change significantly and integrate over a year's time. 

Just saying it's troublesome measuring minute changes..


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...







For a supposed geologist and a specialist in mountain building events, as his name implies, he is remarkably ignorant about how volcanos work.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



If you are referring to the end Permian extinction, that is utter nonsense.  There was clearly a 10 degree Celsius rise in temperature at the end Permian that coincided with a massive rise in CO2 and CH4 levels.  Study after study have repeatedly shown this to be the case.  And NONE indicating that the extinction was due to an ice age.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Mid-Holocene Thermal Maximum

Conclusions about the mid Holocene warmth are based on several lines of evidence - *latitudinal displacements of vegetation zones *(Ritchie et al., 1983) and *vertical displacements of mountain glaciers* (Porter & Orombelli, 1985).

Quantitative estimates of mid-Holocene warmth (COHMAP, 1988) suggest that the Earth was perhaps 1 or 2°C warmer than today. *Most of this warmth may primarily represent seasonal (summer) warmth rather than year-round warmth*. *Accompanying the higher global temperatures were significant changes in precipitation patterns, most noticeably in the monsoon belt of Africa and Asia. Reconstructions from palaeo-lake levels and latitudinal vegetation shifts* (Ritchie & Haynes, 1987) *suggest that these regions were considerably wetter than they were during the arid conditions of the last glacial maximum (18Ka), when moisture availability from cooler Northern Hemisphere sub-tropical oceans was reduced *(Street-Perrott & Perrott, 1990).

****************

Latitudinal vegetation shifts and loss of glaciers are not insignificant events from an ecological point of view.  It could actually explain the disappearance of the native American archaic lifestyle, a major shift in native American populations.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You clearly are not familiar with the scientific literature on the Permian extinction event.  Your response is akin to na na nana na.  Not a very professional response.  The Permian extinction event coincided with a 2 million year eruption episode of flood basalts in Siberia (the Siberian Trapps).  These flood basalts release billions of tons of gases into the atmosphere, leading to a long term rise in global temperatures, which, at its maximum, was up to 10 degrees Celsius higher than before the eruptions.  There was no ice age at all during this time, and in fact, there were no polar ice caps.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The last eruption at Mauna Loa was in 1984, and consisted of a small aa lava flank eruption (at an elevation of 9,350 ft) well away (in fact, on the opposite side of the very large mountain from where the sensors are located) from where the atmospheric sensors are located upwind AT THE SUMMIT (at an altitude of 13,678 ft).  Dormant does not mean extinct.  It means not currently active.  

But hey, if you are concerned about all the sensors that have been in use up there for decades, you can contact Stuart Weinstein, Ph.D,  who works for the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center on the big island, and knows the guys who operate the weather station on Mauna Loa, and ask him to pass on your concern to them.  Tell him 'George' sent you.  He'll know who you are talking about.  I'm sure he will be more than happy to pass on your fears.  It'll make their day, I'm sure.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 28, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Topics about which you are obviously oblivious.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Wow, you really are desperate.  Of course it is within view of Mauna Loa.  EVERYTHING is within view of Mauna Loa.  It is the second highest mountain on the island, only slightly lower in elevation than Mauna Kea.  Kilauea (note spelling) is on the eastern flank of the island at an elevation of 4,091 feet above sea level, well away from the sensors at the summit of Mauna Loa, at over 13,000 feet, well away from any active vents (in fact, the weather station is located at Mauna Loa Observatory (a permanent facility), 29 miles upwind from Kilauea, and 9,000 feet higher in altitude.  Next.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...














You guys crack me up.  You claim disaster is imminent with a ONE degree rise possibly occurring in the next 100 years and yet here you admit to a one degree rise that had no impact and the papers I present below have substantive support for a temperature of MORE than 5 degrees C and you ignore that because it exposes your claims for the lie they are.

The HTO WAS much warmer than today.  Disaster did not occur.  Case closed.


Midge-Inferred Temperatures from Three Interglacial Periods in the Eastern Canadian Arctic

* Axford, Y (axford@colorado.edu) , INSTAAR and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, UCB 450, Boulder, CO 80309 United States 
Briner, J P (jbriner@buffalo.edu) , Department of Geology, University at Buffalo, 876 Natural Sciences Complex, Buffalo, NY 14260 United States 
Francis, D R (dfrancis@geo.umass.edu) , Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, 233 Morrill Science Center, Amherst, MA 01003 United States 
Baker, G , Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, 1412 Circle Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996 United States 
Miller, G H (gmiller@colorado.edu) , INSTAAR and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, UCB 450, Boulder, CO 80309 United States 


Lake sediments recovered from a Canadian Arctic lake are providing a rare opportunity to reconstruct Holocene, last interglacial, and earlier temperature changes at centennial to decadal resolution. Lake CF8 (informal name) is a small (0.5 km2) lake situated on an inter-fjord lowland in northeastern Baffin Island at 70$^{o}$ N latitude. Sediment cores from Lake CF8 contain three organic lake sediment units, separated by non-lacustrine sands. Radiocarbon ages from the uppermost organic unit span the entire Holocene. The middle organic unit is beyond the limit of radiocarbon dating. Comparison with a similar lacustrine record from Fog Lake, Baffin Island, indicates that this middle unit most likely records the last interglacial (Eemian) period. The lowest organic unit was only partially recovered, but may record the late stages of the penultimate interglacial. Subfossil midges (Chironomidae) are abundant and well-preserved throughout the organic sediments, providing a quantitative means for temperature reconstruction. Midge-based temperature reconstructions indicate that summer temperatures at Lake CF8 surpassed modern values by 10 cal kyr BP. Summer temperatures during the first half of the Holocene were as much as *5C *warmer than present. Similarly, the early part of the last interglacial was several degrees warmer than the latter part of the period. The bottommost lake sediments we recovered, which were presumably deposited during the late stages of a prior interglacial period, record summer temperatures similar to those of the latter parts of the Holocene and last interglacial. The magnitude of early Holocene and last interglacial warmth at this high-latitude site lends support to concerns about Arctic amplification of future warming."" 


"PP42B-04 

The Holocene Thermal Maximum in the Arctic

* MacDonald, G M (macdonal@geog.ucla.edu) , Department of Geography, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1524 United States 
Kaufman, D S (darrell.kaufman@nau.edu) , Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-4099 United States 
Duval, M (mduvall@bates.edu) , PARCS Data Office, Geology Department Bates College, Lewsiton, ME 04240-6028 United States 
Kremenetski, K (costya@geog.ucla.edu) , Department of Geography, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1524 United States 


Through the support of the Paleoenvironmental Arctic Sciences (PARCS) program sponsored by the National Science Foundation two working groups of over 50 scientists have been synthesizing data from more than 160 terrestrial, ice-core and marine records from the Arctic. The aim of the synthesis is to provide a unified picture of the magnitude of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) and the spatiotemporal characteristics of the HTM across the broader Arctic region. Work on the western Arctic sector (0 - 180 W) has been completed and is published (Kauffman et al. 2004. Quaternary Science Reviews 23: 529 - 560). That synthesis suggests that the HTM temperatures were on average 1.6 C warmer than average 20th century temperatures. The warming was highly time-transgressive. The thermal response to the early Holocene precession-driven summer insolation maximum was concentrated in northwest North America where the HTM is apparent 12 - 9 ka (thousands of calendar years ago), while cool conditions persisted in the northeast with the HTM not apparent in Quebec and Labrador until the mid to late Holocene. The delayed warming in central and eastern Canada may be linked to the residual Laurentide Ice Sheet and thermal asymmetry caused by atmospheric circulation patterns. Our preliminary synthesis suggests that the magnitude of HTM warming was *often 2.0 C or greater*. In addition, there is far less dramatic regional asynchrony than in the western sector. In general, HTM conditions are apparent between approximately 10 and 4 ka in the eastern Arctic with a slighter later initiation in some areas such as northern Fennoscandia." 


Early Holocene Climate Variability and the Timing and Extent of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM): Comparisons From the Northern and Southern Hemispheres II - Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology [PP]


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...







Wrong as usual.  I just find laughable the recent crapola to come out of the warmists camp and how they are trying to make warming the cause of every mass extinction ever to try and scare the natives when we KNOW this one simple fact warmth has never been shown to be a killer.  Cold most certainly has, but not warmth.  Even one of your former favorite "mass extinction events" the PETM was anything but a mass extinction event.  

I will quote wiki as that seems to be the limit of your capabilities....  It shows that your "mass extinction event" was in fasct limited to localized deep sea environments and while they claim that only temperature could possibly be the cause it is far more likely that O2 depletion was the cause.  Regardless, the terrestrial life exploded across the world.  Mammals did exceptionally well.  That is a simple fact...and what does the Principle of Uniformitarianism tell us when we are exposed to that fact?





Life[edit]

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,[9] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[18] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[19] 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.[20] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[20] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[21] and weakly calcified forams.[22]

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[23]  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.[*23]



Paleocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








And Mauna Loa is still not considered dormant.  Mauna Kea IS however, though I personally disagree with that appellation.  They are all vents of the shield volcano that makes up Hawaii so how can one be considered dormant when they are all part of the same system?  And, for the record, it is you and your nervous nellies who are worried.  The planet is doing just fine.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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








Sure thing bub, I didn't claim that Mauna Loa was dormant.  You claim to be a geologist and make a dumbass claim like that and you want to be taken seriously?  I think not....


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> The magnitude of early Holocene and last interglacial warmth at this high-latitude site lends support to concerns about Arctic amplification of future warming.""



The North Pole today has the greatest warming signal on the planet.  Your work here does nothing to refute the numbers Orogenicman posted.  2C average global warming is entirely consistent with what your paper states and, in fact, it is what the authors seem to be assuming.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



A volcano that is not current active and emitting gas and/or magma is consider, for all intents and purposes, dormant.  All of the recent activity on Mauna Loa (29 years ago) is located on the eastern flank.  The Mauna Loa observatory is located on the western side of the summit, miles away from any recent activity.  In fact, the most recent activity at that location was hundreds of years ago.  They wouldn't have built the observatory where it is located in the first place  if there was a concern for future eruptions/emissions there.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The magnitude of early Holocene and last interglacial warmth at this high-latitude site lends support to concerns about Arctic amplification of future warming.""
> ...




meh

and the ice in Antarctica is expanding.

nobody cares.


----------



## westwall (Jul 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The magnitude of early Holocene and last interglacial warmth at this high-latitude site lends support to concerns about Arctic amplification of future warming.""
> ...









I see facts are still eluding you.  The reality is the three coldest Arctic summers on record have occurred during the last FIVE years.


"Calculation of the Arctic Mean Temperature
The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area. The ERA40 reanalysis data set from ECMWF, has been applied to calculate daily mean temperatures for the period from 1958 to 2002, from 2002 to 2006 data from the global NWP model T511 is used and from 2006 to 2010 T799 data are used and from 2010 to present the T1279 model data are used. 

 The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.
 More information can be found here."
















COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut


----------



## westwall (Jul 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








And yet, when one looks at the list of dormant volcano's, Mauna Loa isn't on it while Mauna Kea is.  You can shuck and jive all you want but an ethical scientist would say "whoops, I made a mistake and misspoke" as I have done on this very forum on a couple of occasions, while the ethically challenged will not.

Instead they will tie themselves into contortions of ridiculous proportions all so they don't have to admit they were wrong. 

Pathetic....


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Gee, if only it were that simple, or true.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

> the three coldest Arctic summers on record have occurred during the last FIVE years








Fig. 1.3. Annual average near-surface air temperature anomalies for the first decade of the 21st century (2001-11) relative to the baseline period of 1971-2000. Data are from NOAA/ESRL, Boulder, CO: ESRL : PSD : Physical Sciences Division. 






Fig. 1.2. Arctic-wide annual average surface air temperature (SAT) anomalies for the period 1900-2011 relative to the 1981-2010 mean value, based on land stations north of 60°N. Data are from the CRUTEM3v dataset at Temperature data (HadCRUT4). Note: this curve includes neither marine observations nor 2012 data, as the year was incomplete at the time of writing.

Seasonal Air Temperatures

Consistent with the annual average temperatures (Fig. 1.1), each seasonal anomaly distribution for near-surface temperatures shows departures primarily in the sub-Arctic (Fig. 1.4). Fall 2011 and winter 2012 were characterized by a positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). This promotes the warm temperature anomaly over the Barents and Kara Seas, which are downstream of the stronger winds and lower pressures of the Icelandic low pressure center. This is unlike the Warm Arctic/Cold Continents pattern associated with a negative Arctic Oscillation (AO) climate pattern over the central Arctic (see previous Report Cards), which dominated the previous two falls and winters (2009-10 and 2010-11).

In contrast to the positive NAO in fall 2011 and winter 2012, spring and summer 2012 had a very negative NAO, with significant consequences for snow cover duration and extent (see the Snow essay) and melting on the Greenland Ice Sheet (see the Greenland Ice Sheet essay). Spring 2012 also saw the early formation of the Arctic Dipole (AD) pattern (Fig. 1.5) with high pressure on the North American side of the Arctic and low pressure on the Siberian side. In the previous five years this has not occurred until June (Overland et al., 2012). The dipole pattern supported increased winds across the Arctic and warmer temperature anomalies over the East Siberian Sea and western Greenland (Fig. 1.4c). In summer 2012 an unusual low pressure, centered on the Pacific Arctic sector, was a new feature of central Arctic weather relative to the last decade (Fig. 1.6).

Also noteworthy in Fig. 1.6 is the high sea level pressure over Greenland, which has been a feature of early summer for the last six years. Higher pressures over Greenland and their influence on Arctic and subarctic wind patterns, a so called blocking pattern, suggests *physical connections between it and reduced Arctic sea ice in the summer, loss of Greenland and Canadian Arctic glacier ice, reduced North American snow cover in May and June, and potentially extremes in mid-latitude weather* (Overland et al., 2012). See the essays on Sea Ice, Glaciers and Ice Caps, Greenland Ice Sheet and Snow for further information on those topics.


You were saying?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 29, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





Uhh, HELLO! The LAND ice isn't expanding. Its melting. 



> Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.



Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

You're a fucking expert. How could you have missed this?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yes, it is currently listed as active despite the fact that it is also currently dormant.  The fact remains that the observatory, a multi-million dollar, permanent installation is located well away from any vents, is located over 29 miles laterally upwind and thousands of feet in altitude above ANY potential magmatic activity or gas release.  There has been no volcanic activity in that location for hundreds of years.  Using your reasoning, one might as well not install the instruments anywhere on the island because it is volcanic in nature.  And that would be a big mistake, and rather foolish.  You obviously don't understand how large these volcanos are.  You can be on the west side of Mauna Loa while it is erupting in a major episode and never even know it.  The active Hawaiian volcanos are the most heavily instrumented volcanic systems on the planet.  I think they have it covered, dude.


----------



## westwall (Jul 30, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









You're a scientist, how could you miss this?

Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.






Wonder how that construction crane got buried under ice that according to you doesn't exist?


----------



## westwall (Jul 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










Yes, I know.  A good friend of mine is a volcanologist and I've spent many a day traipsing around Mauna Loa with him.  In fact I'll be there again this December (and yes I will be happy to take pictures for you).  I think it's you who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about given the grade school error you made.  No amount of hand waving and attacks on me are going to hide the fact that you fucked up...big time.

Just admit you were wrong and move on.  It will save you a lot of pain there junior.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 30, 2013)

westwall said:


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



http://www.scar.org/treaty/atcmxxxiii/ATCM33_ip046_e.pdf

Since around 1980 the ozone hole significantly changed the atmospheric circulation around the continent, increasing the winds over the Southern Ocean and bringing warm air to the eastern side of the Peninsula to contribute to the breakup of the Larsen Ice Shelf. 

Observations from the stations on the Peninsula show that temperatures have been rising there since the 1950s, pre-dating the ozone hole. An ice core recently collected at Gomez in the southwest corner of the Peninsula provides a 150-year record of accumulation and isotopic temperature data, showing that accumulation has doubled at this site since the 1850s, the most rapid increase being over the last few decades (Thomas et al., 2008). The stable isotope record (Thomas et al., 2009) shows that the large warming at Faraday/Vernadsky station is not just a local phenomena but part of a statistically significant 100-year regional warming trend that began around 1900. It is not clear yet whether this change is a natural climate cycle, or whether anthropogenic factors play a part.

It is scientifically responsible to say "we don't know".  And we don't, yet.  And neither do you.


----------



## westwall (Jul 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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









Absolutely correct.  WE DON'T KNOW.  Funny how that crane can be buried under around 30 feet of ice since the 1960's, when it was last used, and you all will make the claim that Antarctica is losing ice at an ever increasing rate.  These types of photo's exist from all over Eastern Antarctica.  Western Antarctica has indeed seen a very slight rise in temps around the edges, where you can get temps up to a whopping 5C in the height of summer, but the average temps in the interior are still around -10 to -20C....in summer!  

How the claim can be made, with a straight face, that Antarctica is melting is beyond me.  The majority of Antarctica AVERAGES -60C.

Temperatures in Antarctica - British Antarctic Survey


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It is losing ice at an ever increasing rate.  The evidence for that is not in doubt.  What we aren't sure of is whether the increased snow fall is due to a natural cyclic weather pattern, due to climate shifts because of the ozone hole, of because of AGW.  There is no evidence that the increased snow fall in the eastern Antarctic in any way makes up for the ice loss in the west. In fact, despite increased moisture, which is causing the snowfall, the temperature is still rising in the west and northwest. Only further data will settle the question.  Does this mean that AGW isn't real, that it refutes AGW?  Not in the least.

And just to be clear, thirty feet of snow does not a glacier make.  It's snow, not the solid ice you find in a glacier.  Eventually, it will become ice, unless it evaporates away with the wind, is blow away by the wind, or melts, all of which are possible.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




You're getting pwned s0n..........

Time to become aware my friend.........all the nutters in here, a long time ago, fell for the ruse......the hopelessly duped. They are all around us........

The individual vs. the illusion of consensus reality « Jon Rappoport's Blog


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 30, 2013)

Anyway.....don't spend too much time getting caught up in the debate. Its nothing more than an internet hobby in 2013 and having zero effect on changing the energy landscape. In other words......fossil fuels dominate and will dominate for decades to come.

Not to mention........nobody cares about the science..........

Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> > the three coldest Arctic summers on record have occurred during the last FIVE years
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're showing 60 ---> 90 averages.. Westwall wasn't including Finland.. His metric was based on 80 ---> 90deg lat.. Some people might consider your chart  "Arctic".. But 60deg is 1/2 of Canada, and most of Alaska and Sweden..


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 30, 2013)

Your chart closely resembles global temperatures save it lacks the current hiatus in global air temps.  It is rising.  What point are you trying to make?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 30, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Anyway.....don't spend too much time getting caught up in the debate. Its nothing more than an internet hobby in 2013 and having zero effect on changing the energy landscape. In other words......fossil fuels dominate and will dominate for decades to come.



Don't spend too much time getting caught up in voting or participating in our democracy.  It doesn't matter and no one cares.



skookerasbil said:


> Not to mention........nobody cares about the science..........



I do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway.....don't spend too much time getting caught up in the debate. Its nothing more than an internet hobby in 2013 and having zero effect on changing the energy landscape. In other words......fossil fuels dominate and will dominate for decades to come.
> ...



So does the US Senate.

What was the vote on Kyoto?


----------



## westwall (Jul 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







If it's losing it so fast how did that crane get buried?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Erm, do you have any concept whatsoever of geography?  The idea that there is more than one 'place' in the world?  The idea that something can happen in one place but not necessarily at another?  The crane is located in the eastern interior.  The melting is happening on the western and northwestern ice shelves.  Get it?


----------



## gslack (Jul 31, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



LOL, so your logic is that all that melt at another place is somehow refreezing and burying the crane somewhere else??

Well... Nice to see all that education wasn't wasted... ROFL.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 31, 2013)

A year like this should be within the top 3 if temperature is raising.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 31, 2013)

westwall said:


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



From section 3 of the letter *you* reference:





> *
> The doubling of accumulation in the last 150 years appears to be unique to the Gomez site. *




Thanks for playing. Try again moron.


Do you ever bother to read any of the references that the denialist blogger use?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 31, 2013)

Matthew said:


> A year like this should be within the top 3 if temperature is raising.



Why?


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Why yes I do.   These transmission towers are also in Antarctica.  They are 115 feet tall.....though you would have a hard time telling that now.  Wouldn't you?


----------



## gslack (Jul 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Another fine example of ice growth where the warmers clam it's thinning....

WWII P-38, rescued from ice, draws crowd at EAA

Seems to be a real problem.. They say it's melting at an alarming rate and suddenly we find it's not really doing anything but what it usually does; grow, shrink, melt, freeze, and all of it despite their best efforts...

Last time I mentioned this story, one of the warmers claimed the planes sank through the ice due to the melting.. LOL, Sure maybe until they got good and buried, then what? The inside melted? Too funny tosee the excuses.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 31, 2013)

westwall said:


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



From section 3 of the letter *you* reference:





> *
> The doubling of accumulation in the last 150 years appears to be unique to the Gomez site. *




Thanks for playing. Try again moron.


Do you ever bother to read any of the references that the denialist blogger use?


----------



## gslack (Jul 31, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



Poopie, I wish you and the warmer crew would get your shit together..

You just called skepticalscience, a known warmer blog, a denialist blog... LOL,and the word denialist, speaks for itself..

On top of that, you fussed over the claims of one of your own blogs, and when it turns out you didn't read it fully, you blame west for your stupidity?

Here's a quote that shows the BS from that warmers blog..

"While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica has been losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean."

LOL, see the double-speak in that? Eastern interior Antarctica is gaining ice, and the antarctic sea ice is growing.. And the really funny part... Sea ice is growing despite "a strongly warming southern ocean"... WTF does that mean? Strongly warming could refelct anything.. It's an ambiguous phrase if not plain BS..

How can the seas ice be expanding if the water it sits on is warming "strongly"???

Well if the land ice is shrinking like he claimed than the sea ice has to be coming from somewhere ... It's a lie, a lie told in in a way to still seem factual. Hence the ambiguous phrase...Until that ding dong can be specific, we can call it a lie and move on...

Here's a dandy graphic he put up that tells the tale, but when he posted it on his site, people put on their warmer goggles and didn't catch on...






looking at the graphic sans the goggles we see very clearly that only a relative few areas are losing ice when compared to the areas gaining or staying the same... But hey, you didn't even know it was a warmer blog..LOL


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 31, 2013)

gslack said:


> Well if the land ice is shrinking like he claimed than the sea ice has to be coming from somewhere ...



The decrease in salinity due to the melting land ice as well as increased precipitation causes the water to freeze at higher temperatures and prevents warmer deep ocean currents from flowing to the top.

New Theory for Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Growing


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 31, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > A year like this should be within the top 3 if temperature is raising.
> ...



Neutral enso and I am assuming we have warmed over the past 8 years.


----------



## gslack (Jul 31, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Well if the land ice is shrinking like he claimed than the sea ice has to be coming from somewhere ...
> ...



LOL, we are talking parts per million variance in salinity here silly... Might make the difference of a few 10ths of a degree, that's it.. That's another of your silly warmer excuses..

How many more theories is it going totake before you guys have a big enough convoluted mess, that no one even wants to follow itany longer?

Ice is melting but it's not, oceans is warming but the ice isn't melting, but it is.. It's warming but it isn't, but it really is anyway, check out my new convolute theory that proves it.. Ice isn't melting? No problem I got a theory for that too...

ROFL, you people are pathetic..

BTW, I notice cut out the parts of my post that showed the truth about the page and your claims.. Sad...


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Do you believe that my response should be different for transmission line towers than for a crane?  If so, why?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 31, 2013)

I cannot believe, Mr Westwall, that you think a photograph such as that is evidence of ANYTHING. 

Snowfall in Antarctica is up because precipitation is up and temperatures are still below freezing.  Precipitation is up because temperatures are up.  Ice loss to the sea has accelerated dramatically by the loss of the coastal ice shelves.  And the biggest threat to the remaining ice shelves is warmer water, which is what you've got.

But that was a really cute photograph.


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Well if the land ice is shrinking like he claimed than the sea ice has to be coming from somewhere ...
> ...








Well, it's nice they have trotted out a new theory so fast, but did you actually read it?   I bet not...


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2013)

Matthew said:


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








The problem with that, of course, is it isn't factual.


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I cannot believe, Mr Westwall, that you think a photograph such as that is evidence of ANYTHING.
> 
> Snowfall in Antarctica is up because precipitation is up and temperatures are still below freezing.  Precipitation is up because temperatures are up.  Ice loss to the sea has accelerated dramatically by the loss of the coastal ice shelves.  And the biggest threat to the remaining ice shelves is warmer water, which is what you've got.
> 
> But that was a really cute photograph.









It is EVIDENCE of what is actually happening in the Antarctic.  Far superior to your computer FICTIONS which for some reason you guys will fall all over even though they aren't actual data.

You are funny, you truly are...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I cannot believe, Mr Westwall, that you think a photograph such as that is evidence of ANYTHING.
> 
> Snowfall in Antarctica is up because precipitation is up and temperatures are still below freezing.  Precipitation is up because temperatures are up.  Ice loss to the sea has accelerated dramatically by the loss of the coastal ice shelves.  And the biggest threat to the remaining ice shelves is warmer water, which is what you've got.
> 
> But that was a really cute photograph.



More than cute.. What are the conditions for ice formation? Excessive precipt and sub-freezing temps? Check.. Decreased surface temps due to albedo? Check... 

Don't care if the precipt was caused by sub-freezing temps a degree or so above normal. That's when you GET precipt isn't it?

Those pics work for me.. Looks like an ice-building wonderland..


----------



## Wroberson (Aug 1, 2013)

All the warm ocean water does evaporate.  This releases moisture into the atmosphere where it turns into cloud cover.  When this happens, the heat from the sun doesn't reach the ground and the planet cools.  That's why the temp is down over the past 16 years in spite of the increases in CO2.  

We've had maybe 30 days of clear skies since March in Chicago.  Maybe 32.  Nearly everyday has been cloudy or partly cloudy.  Spring we had so much rain that Lake Michigan went from 17" below normal to 3" above normal.  It may have reduced as the rains have gone from record levels to the bi-daily drizzle.  Then there was those 3 weeks of summer.  We might get back up to normal by Sunday.  Maybe.


----------



## gslack (Aug 1, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> All the warm ocean water does evaporate.  This releases moisture into the atmosphere where it turns into cloud cover.  When this happens, the heat from the sun doesn't reach the ground and the planet cools.  That's why the temp is down over the past 16 years in spite of the increases in CO2.
> 
> We've had maybe 30 days of clear skies since March in Chicago.  Maybe 32.  Nearly everyday has been cloudy or partly cloudy.  Spring we had so much rain that Lake Michigan went from 17" below normal to 3" above normal.  It may have reduced as the rains have gone from record levels to the bi-daily drizzle.  Then there was those 3 weeks of summer.  We might get back up to normal by Sunday.  Maybe.



LOL, kind of went off the actual fact and delved into what you believe there a bit.. hey, since you can just pull absolutes out of your head and call them fact, why not just say aliens are doing it? Has about as much fact as what you rambled..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot believe, Mr Westwall, that you think a photograph such as that is evidence of ANYTHING.
> ...



So, according to you, we should rely on two photographs, as opposed to all the climate data all those scientists who freeze their ya-yas off collecting to determine what is going on with that continent?  What have you been smoking?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 1, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot believe, Mr Westwall, that you think a photograph such as that is evidence of ANYTHING.
> ...



The issue is not whether or not the temperatures are sub-freezing.  It is Antarctica.  Of course they are.  The issue is why the moisture has risen there so dramatically, and from where it is originating.

Try to cpmprehend what this means:


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 1, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> All the warm ocean water does evaporate.  This releases moisture into the atmosphere where it turns into cloud cover.  When this happens, the heat from the sun doesn't reach the ground and the planet cools.  That's why the temp is down over the past 16 years in spite of the increases in CO2.
> 
> We've had maybe 30 days of clear skies since March in Chicago.  Maybe 32.  Nearly everyday has been cloudy or partly cloudy.  Spring we had so much rain that Lake Michigan went from 17" below normal to 3" above normal.  It may have reduced as the rains have gone from record levels to the bi-daily drizzle.  Then there was those 3 weeks of summer.  We might get back up to normal by Sunday.  Maybe.



You are confusing regional weather patterns with global climate.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 1, 2013)

gslack said:


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



No we aren't. Did you read the article or are you just pulling bullshit out of your ignorant ass? The water flowing into the ocean from melting land ice is fucking FRESHWATER you dildo. Its less dense and pools at the top. 


> Might make the difference of a few 10ths of a degree, that's it.. That's another of your silly warmer excuses..


You're just making numbers up. You're completely full of bullshit. 


> How many more theories is it going totake before you guys have a big enough convoluted mess, that no one even wants to follow itany longer?
> 
> Ice is melting but it's not, oceans is warming but the ice isn't melting, but it is.. It's warming but it isn't, but it really is anyway, check out my new convolute theory that proves it.. Ice isn't melting? No problem I got a theory for that too...



Now you're just babbling like a fucking idiot. Go tell your mommy to put you in the special school.



> BTW, I notice cut out the parts of my post that showed the truth about the page and your claims.. Sad...



If it depresses you that much, you can follow the link in the quote back to the original post.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 1, 2013)

westwall said:


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




So fast? How are you measuring the speed at which the theory is "trotted out" ? There's ample observational evidence to back it. Did YOU read it? 

Fucking moron.


----------



## IanC (Aug 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...





I only have my phone so I don't know where that graph is from. But it shows conditions that would probably lead to more ice in Antarctica but less sea ice. We know that sea ice there is expanding, what does that say about our ability to accurately measure ocean temps or model sea ice formation?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 1, 2013)

There's no requirement for the poles to act the same. They've been "bipolar" over large chunks of time. I forget the exact timeframe, but from something like 30 million to 3 million years ago, the earth had a warm north pole and a frozen south pole.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



What graph, where? Sea ice is not expanding in the way that you think.  There is more "sea ice" only because the coastal glaciers and ice shelves are accelerating towards the sea, and calving right into it, even as they begin to melt.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> There's no requirement for the poles to act the same. They've been "bipolar" over large chunks of time. I forget the exact timeframe, but from something like 30 million to 3 million years ago, the earth had a warm north pole and a frozen south pole.



So it's not actually "Global" Warming?


----------



## IanC (Aug 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Map/graph/both/neither.

You are being dishonest by saying the Antarctic sees ice is made up of calved ice shelves.


----------



## gslack (Aug 1, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



Who are you calling idiot schmuck? The OCEAN compared to some fresh water run off? You freaking loon..

 Drama queen,if your pety theory keeps failing,than only amoron tries to pull new theories out of their butt tocover for the other theories shortcomings..

Stomping your foot and calling it all lies, won't help you Blunder...


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








The photographs are evidence that your precious scientists are WRONG.  I don't care who they are if they are WRONG they are WRONG...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY]The Scientific Method-Richard Feynman - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 1, 2013)

Omg!  Epic fail!


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Omg!  Epic fail!








Yes, yes you are.  I am glad you can finally admit your shortcomings.  Now you can finally seek help for your delusions.


----------



## gslack (Aug 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Omg!  Epic fail!
> ...



Be careful, if you get too insensitive with the latest fake climate science expert, you will get a talking to...

Hate to be the guy who says I told ya so, but... So far not a bit of all that education the latest clone claimed is showing.. As I said before, another BS artist trying to win a debate by spouting off credentials they neither have nor can even pretend to have..


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2013)

gslack said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...






Oh, I'm not worried about the attack of the clones.....  I can take care of myself!


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 2, 2013)

The content of these conversations do not support your confidence.  Your errors have been fundamental.  Perhaps that has something to do with attempting to justify opposing reality.


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The content of these conversations do not support your confidence.  Your errors have been fundamental.  Perhaps that has something to do with attempting to justify opposing reality.



One third of all the CO2 that mankind has released into the atmosphere has happened during a time frame of no warming. Reality seems to be putting a kibosh on CO2 theory as it is presently explained.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 2, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Does size of the ocean changes the density of freshwater? I'm having troubling figuring what you are trying to say. You should speak in complete thoughts instead of sentence fragments. "The OCEAN compared to some fresh water run off" is a subordinate clause, it's not a sentence by itself.



> Drama queen,if your pety theory keeps failing,than only amoron tries to pull new theories out of their butt tocover for the other theories shortcomings..
> 
> Stomping your foot and calling it all lies, won't help you Blunder...




Did you read the article? What does any of this have to do with people's butts? Why are you calling me a "drama queen" when you're the one babbling a bunch of incoherent nonsense?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The content of these conversations do not support your confidence.  Your errors have been fundamental.  Perhaps that has something to do with attempting to justify opposing reality.
> ...



Repeating nonsense doesn't make it reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You're a warmist, so you'll do it anyway.


----------



## gslack (Aug 2, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



Oh stop with the BS song and dance, the diffrence in salinity caused by freshwater run off into the ocean is miniscule.. you understood it fine, you just don't have a case against it..

You want to do the "Ian" and play dumb? be my guest, it's a cowardly way out so it should serve you well...


----------



## westwall (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








I agree.  When are you going to stop?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

I find it ironic that deniers claim that global warming can be accounted for by long-term variability in the Earth's climate (on the order of tens of thousands to millions of years), and at the same time will claim that it is not warming (or that it has stopped) based on short-term climatic variability.


----------



## westwall (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> I find it ironic that deniers claim that global warming can be accounted for by long-term variability in the Earth's climate (on the order of tens of thousands to millions of years), and at the same time will claim that it is not warming (or that it has stopped) based on short-term climatic variability.







We don't make that claim.  We have merely pointed out that every "event" that you all point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past and that in almost all cases the event in the past was much worse which supports our contention that it is all natural.

You have all claimed that CO2 is THE control knob, that so long as CO2 was injected into the atmosphere, the global temps would rise....no matter what.

You were, and are wrong....  That's what we have been pointing out with these observations.  That you "theory" is crap and here's why it is crap.  That's why you guys have had to revise your theory, your name of said theory etc.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > I find it ironic that deniers claim that global warming can be accounted for by long-term variability in the Earth's climate (on the order of tens of thousands to millions of years), and at the same time will claim that it is not warming (or that it has stopped) based on short-term climatic variability.
> ...



Really?  You can point out where in the past human beings have pumped billions of tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere?  Really?  You can do that?  You can cite a single case where that much human-made CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere in the relatively short time period of 150 years?  You can cite a single instance of this happening naturally?  A single instance where it resulted in the melting of the Arctic ice pack and initiated the melting of the permafrost?  Wow, I'd love to see this.  (this should be good).

By the way, Do you suggest that human-emitted CO2 is having no effect on the atmosphere, no effect on the oceans?  No effect on human and other populations?  If this is your suggestion, then how can you, with a straight face, suggest that it happens naturally with the same results?  And where is your evidence that it is happening NOW naturally?  If human -emitted CO2 is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 and resultant rise in temperatures, when were is the CO2 coming from?  Where is the heat coming from?  And more importantly, where is our CO2 going, if not into the atmosphere and the oceans?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



That little screed makes a mockery of climate science.. This fixation of yours on CO2 is counter-productive to understanding the planet we're stuck on... 

AS THO -- ONE SIMPLE ASS NUMBER such as Annual Mean Surface Temp. explains anything.. Good thing the answer to all our issues is so simple --- aint it?  Because otherwise -- the campaign couldn't be managed by political scientists...


----------



## gslack (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So in your "expert" opinion based on all of your claimed credentials and climate science educational clout. You have assumed that because he mentioned we had similar situations in the past regarding climate, that he is stating it was CO2 induced??????

Complete and utter BS from you fraud.. Such credentials and you resort to childish behavior like this???

Up yours you fraud...

Anybody who claimed I was too hard on you, or that I was being prematurely judgemental, or that I was just a big meaney seeing socks everywhere, can now take one look and see not only was I correct in my assumptions regarding your claimed credentials and your new clone, but about how you were going to be in the near future.. It didn't take long for this one..

Have a nice day sock number whatever you are up to now..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa) 

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp.  Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius  462 °C 

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong.  One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.


----------



## gslack (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Atmosphere
> 
> Surface pressure
> 92 bar (9.2 MPa)
> ...



And we already know why it's so hot on venus, and it is NOT becuase it has similarities to earth, but because it has somany differences..

Differences including; it's lack of an effective megnetic field leaving much much more open to cosmic and well as solar raidiation. But here take wikki's account of it..

Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere, while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surfacea pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometre under Earth's oceans. The density at the surface is 65 kg/m³, 6.5% that of water. The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C (864 °F).[11][42] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's, which has a minimum surface temperature of &#8722;220 °C (&#8722;364.0 °F) and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C (788 °F),[43] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. The surface of Venus is often described as hellish.[44] This temperature is higher than temperatures used to achieve sterilization.



And that's just the start.. want more? fine...



> Thermal inertia and the transfer of heat by winds in the lower atmosphere mean that the temperature of the Venusian surface does not vary significantly between the night and day sides, despite the planet's extremely slow rotation. Winds at the surface are slow, moving at a few kilometres per hour, but because of the high density of the atmosphere at the Venusian surface, they exert a significant amount of force against obstructions, and transport dust and small stones across the surface. This alone would make it difficult for a human to walk through, even if the heat, pressure and lack of oxygen were not a problem.[50]
> Above the dense CO2 layer are thick clouds consisting mainly of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid droplets.[51][52] These clouds reflect and scatter about 90% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space, and prevent visual observation of the Venusian surface. The permanent cloud cover means that although Venus is closer than Earth to the Sun, the Venusian surface is not as well lit. Strong 300 km/h (190 mph) winds at the cloud tops circle the planet about every four to five earth days.[53] Venusian winds move at up to 60 times the speed of the planet's rotation, while Earth's fastest winds are only 1020% rotation speed.[54]
> The surface of Venus is effectively isothermal; it retains a constant temperature not only between day and night but between the equator and the poles.[2][55] The planet's minute axial tiltless than 3°, compared to 23° on Earthalso minimizes seasonal temperature variation.[56] The only appreciable variation in temperature occurs with altitude. In 1995, the Magellan probe imaged a highly reflective substance at the tops of the highest mountain peaks that bore a strong resemblance to terrestrial snow. This substance arguably formed from a similar process to snow, albeit at a far higher temperature. Too volatile to condense on the surface, it rose in gas form to cooler higher elevations, where it then fell as precipitation. The identity of this substance is not known with certainty, but speculation has ranged from elemental tellurium to lead sulfide (galena).[57]
> The clouds of Venus are capable of producing lightning much like the clouds on Earth.[58] The existence of lightning had been controversial since the first suspected bursts were detected by the Soviet Venera probes. In 200607 Venus Express clearly detected whistler mode waves, the signatures of lightning. Their intermittent appearance indicates a pattern associated with weather activity. The lightning rate is at least half of that on Earth.[58] In 2007 the Venus Express probe discovered that a huge double atmospheric vortex exists at the south pole of the planet.[59][60]
> ...



Need more reasons? Fine..



> Magnetic field and core
> 
> 
> Size comparison of terrestrial planets (left to right): Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars in true colour.
> ...



Wow, thats alot of diffrences isn't it... 

But I'm sure your excuse about it having a lot of CO2 is the only reason.... IDiot...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 2, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



There are extremely few "events" cited by climate scientists as evidence of AGW.  The primary evidence is basic chemistry, the Greenhouse Effect and the temperature and GHG level records of the last 150 years.  None of those qualify as events.  

The purpose of denialists talking about periods of temperature extremes and high GHG levels is disingenuous.  You are trying to sell us the idea that these things can only happen one way - however it happened in the past must be how it is happening now.  That is absolute poppycock.  You all seem bright enough.  I do not understand how you can continue to make this argument with a straight face.  That the Earth has warmed from reasons other than CO2 has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether or not it is happening now.  The logic behind your idea is complete and utter nonsense.

Neither the IPCC nor anyone I've ever spoken to on the topic has ever suggested that the Earth would warm from added CO2 "no matter what".  It has been the position of climate scientists from the get-go that the Greenhouse Effect of added CO2 is of small magnitude and that the direction of the climate's temperature trend is the algebraic sum of a number of different factors.  The effect of GHGs has simply been consistently growing over time and that consistent growth not only appears to be logarithmic but the science behind the processes tells us it will be just that.  It has happened at numerous times in the past century and a half that OTHER effects have overcome the warming signal and dropped temperatures.  The only people who have ever claimed otherwise are the straw dogs denialists fantasize about when they wish to attempt to make a point.

Orogenicman makes an excellent and fundamental point when he asks if the added GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere are not anthropogenic, where are they from AND what has happened to all the GHG's that humans have produced since the beginning of the industrial revolution?  Where is your answer?  

The term "climate change" did not arise because of any failure in the theory of AGW.  And if you think it effective to make such vapid arguments, your judgement in that regard is lacking.

Orogenicman's geological comments clearly show him to be well-educated on the topic. If you have trouble seeing that, I suggest the poor acuity is local to you.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Atmosphere
> 
> Surface pressure
> 92 bar (9.2 MPa)
> ...




nobody cares s0n.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 2, 2013)

gslack said:


> The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C (864 °F).[11][42] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's, which has a minimum surface temperature of &#8722;220 °C (&#8722;364.0 °F) and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C (788 °F),[43] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. The surface of Venus is often described as hellish.[44] This temperature is higher than temperatures used to achieve sterilization.
> 
> Need more reasons?



No, this'll do just fine.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 2, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> nobody cares s0n.



You're the most useless poster I've ever seen.  Why do you bother?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 2, 2013)

gslack said:


> Anybody who claimed I was too hard on you, or that I was being prematurely judgemental, or that I was just a big meaney seeing socks everywhere, can now take one look and see not only was I correct in my assumptions regarding your claimed credentials and your new clone, but about how you were going to be in the near future.. It didn't take long for this one..



I would have just called it "being an asshole".  Posts like this have only enhanced that assessment.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Atmosphere
> 
> Surface pressure
> 92 bar (9.2 MPa)
> ...



Don't know how could mistake what I was saying about the AUDIENCE for this AGW road show being composed of political scientists. And that the story had to be simple enough for their consumption.. Lemme be specific here. It would be all the National delegations to the UN who have hijacked the science lead on this circus. All their heads of state waiting for me to cut them a check for their fair redistribution of damages. It would complete nincompoops like Henry Waxman and Barb Boxer and Barack Obama. The latter of whom are out in full campaign mode stepping up the lying with dousys like we're "warming quicker than ever predicted". It would be Senate Panels composed of con artist scientists bought by government money that makes claims like AGW killed 19 firefighters in Arizona.. 

THOSE political scientists.. And a public and media who now feels justified blaming every storm and weather event on the bastard child of your AGW --- "climate change".. 

We can start and end our agreement on CO2 as a mere TRIGGER for events that you fully believe will destroy a very fragile Earth. A warming of about 1.1degC for the current doubling is the first pass at CO2 consequences. Everything ELSE exists only in the Matrix of BAD science. Where models BUILT on a CO2 thesis predict horrendous consequences BEYOND the ability of CO2 to warm the atmos.. 

That's where we part ways. I don't even like the accounting for "man's contributions" to CO2 since they are rigged by including herds of domestic cattle and forest fires. 
The rigging doesn't stop there. We have IPCC reports that misrepresent the 1.2W/m2 solar forcing that's occurred in the past 200 yrs in a DESPARATE attempt to keep the AGW for Morons theory uncomplicated. And a range of projected Climate Sensitivities so wide -- you just have to chuckle when you hear the "science is settled"... 

We have the daily Vegas Sport Bets desk at GISS where they are still hacking away to hide the warming in the 1930s and the MWPeriod. 

And all YOU want to talk about is a couple bloggers and the oil companies. And pretend that the story of Venus is all about CO2 also.. 

We're just pawns in the plans of the UN and some of YOUR politicians who are riding this jackass all the way to the end..


----------



## westwall (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










No, man hasn't ever done that before.  Now, can you point to a time when the weather we are experiencing today has NEVER HAPPENED before?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  

You have now made a claim.

Back it up....


----------



## westwall (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Atmosphere
> 
> Surface pressure
> 92 bar (9.2 MPa)
> ...








I thought you were a scientist.  Please explain how Venus is even remotely similar to Earth.  You might as well compare Earth to Jupiter.


----------



## westwall (Aug 2, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









What geological comments?  I must have missed those...


----------



## Oddball (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Atmosphere
> 
> Surface pressure
> 92 bar (9.2 MPa)
> ...


And let's just ignore the fact that Venus is about 26 million miles closer to the sun.


----------



## gslack (Aug 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No you have it twisted.. The reality is they have happened in the past, and YOU WARMERS assume since they are happening now (or could be) it MUST be due to something we did..And you speak of _"disingenuous"_ matters... You are the one assuming if something happens like it happened in the past it MUST be some other reason now..

And organman is a BS toting asshat, with no more credentials then the last several clones spouting the same nonsense. And your praising him doesn't help matters. You have shown yourself tobe in the very least dishonest and not at all genuine in your postings here.. Your diversionary nonsense in that post shows it...


----------



## gslack (Aug 3, 2013)

LOL, you all knew it was coming....


I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

YEP, I called it.. ME..I said it.. I said organman was a clone and he would show it soon enough and over the last few days he not only showed it, but did so in record time.. Another one of those "I'm a climate science expert  here are my credentials now you must be quiet while I speak" socks...

It's okay, no apologies necessary.. ROFL


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Atmosphere
> ...



Somebody cares.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Atmosphere
> ...



When you decide to start having a coherent discussion on the science again, do let me know.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So you are not going to answer any of my questions?  Did you gloss over them?  Were the words too complicated for you to understand?  Let me repeat them, in case you somehow missed them:

You can point out where in the past human beings have pumped billions of tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere?  Really?  You can do that?  You can cite a single case where that much human-made CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere in the relatively short time period of 150 years?  You can cite a single instance of this happening naturally?  A single instance where it resulted in the melting of the Arctic ice pack and initiated the melting of the permafrost?  Wow, I'd love to see this.  (this should be good).

By the way, Do you suggest that human-emitted CO2 is having no effect on the atmosphere, no effect on the oceans?  No effect on human and other populations?  If this is your suggestion, then how can you, with a straight face, suggest that it happens naturally with the same results?  And where is your evidence that it is happening NOW naturally?  If human -emitted CO2 is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 and resultant rise in temperatures, when were is the CO2 coming from?  Where is the heat coming from?  And more importantly, where is our CO2 going, if not into the atmosphere and the oceans?

Do you really want to stick with "No, man hasn't ever done that before" as your response to all of those questions?  Think it through before you respond.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Atmosphere
> ...



Same size, same density, similar orbit - within the goldilocks zone.  The difference is that something catastrophic apparently happened there that led to a runaway greenhouse effect.  Can you say what caused this runaway effect?  At what level of CO2 concentrations in our own atmosphere can this happen to us?  I'm not suggesting that there is enough CO2 on the Earth to cause the Earth to fry the way Venus has.  I'm also not saying that there isn't.  And we certainly don't need for the Earth to become another Venus for a runaway greenhouse effect to occur and be catastrophic, certainly for civilization, and likely for life here as well.  There is a lot of CO2 on this planet.  A lot!  How much are you willing to release into the atmosphere before you decide enough is enough?  How much can we release before we really fuck things up?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Of course you did.  How convenient of you.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

Oddball said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Atmosphere
> ...



Every planetary scientist will tell you that Venus being slightly closer to the sun than the  Earth is did not cause its runaway greenhouse effect.  Something catastrophic happened to that planet, something that caused it to have a retrograde rotation about its axis that is slow in the extreme, something that melted the entire surface 500 million years ago, something that released virtually all of the CO2 on and in the planet into its atmosphere.  Now, none of that has to do with the point I am trying to make.  The point is that at some point, the concentration of CO2 in Venus' atmosphere made it not only uninhabitable by virtue of it becoming toxic to life, but at some point, the surface temperature simply became too hot to support life, or to support the ocean of water that is believed to have once existed there.  There is no evidence that Venus started out this way.  But it certainly is this way today.  So my question is how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours?  How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough?  And when you finally do come to that decision, will it be too late for our children, and their children?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Don't know how could mistake what I was saying about the AUDIENCE for this AGW road show being composed of political scientists.



I do, but the issue is irrelevant



flacaltenn said:


> It would be all the National delegations to the UN who have hijacked the science lead on this circus. All their heads of state waiting for me to cut them a check for their fair redistribution of damages.



It has been almost universally the case, since the IPCC was formed and throughout every new report's composition, that the political representatives have urged or forced the science authors to downplay the chances, the risk and the danger.  That is why with the exception of the unpredictable current hiatus, the IPCC's predictions to date have all erred on the side of conservatism.  Politicans are not telling the IPCC to be alarmist.  Quite the opposite.  And this has been WIDELY reported.



flacaltenn said:


> It would complete nincompoops like Henry Waxman and Barb Boxer and Barack Obama. The latter of whom are out in full campaign mode stepping up the lying with dousys like we're "warming quicker than ever predicted". It would be Senate Panels composed of con artist scientists bought by government money that makes claims like AGW killed 19 firefighters in Arizona..



Our representatives - even some republican reps - have exercised the unmitigated gall of accepting what an overwhelming majority of the world's experts are telling them is the case.  Even were you absolutely correct, given the ratio of scientists accepting AGW to those rejecting it would lead me to absolutely believe that our politicians should accept AGW as a fact.  If you think our elected reps should reject the word of the world's experts arguing that we face a danger and need to take action and instead take the word of tiny minorities not only poo-poohing the dangers but insisting that the experts are ignorant, greedy fools running a enormous scam on the world - then I truly hope you will find some other democracy to inhabit, as such a point of view is a real and present danger to this nation and the rest of the world.



flacaltenn said:


> We can start and end our agreement on CO2 as a mere TRIGGER for events that you fully believe will destroy a very fragile Earth.



No one has suggested that warming will destroy the Earth.  These conversations would run more smoothly if you could hold down the hyperbole.  The suggestion is and has been for many years, that a temperature change of 2C or less by 2100 may be coped with.  Greater changes or changes arriving faster, will have enormous costs as has been detailed to you on numerous occasions.  The Earth couldn't care less.  It's the humans we're actually worried about, at least on this side of the argument.



flacaltenn said:


> A warming of about 1.1degC for the current doubling is the first pass at CO2 consequences. Everything ELSE exists only in the Matrix of BAD science.



Saying it doesn't make it so.  When you say it's bad science, you are putting yourself in disagreement with a great many PhDs who have been studying this issue every day of their professional lives.  A thousand pardons if I take their word over yours.  Besides, where is the "BAD science"?  Have these data been falsified?  Has flawed reasoning been published unchecked?  Have multiple lines of investigation failed to draw and support the same conclusions?  No, no and no.



flacaltenn said:


> Where models BUILT on a CO2 thesis predict horrendous consequences BEYOND the ability of CO2 to warm the atmos..



Of what models do you speak?  If you want to toss out all models that accept AGW as a real and valid process, you will toss out EVERY model that has ever been able to reproduce the actual climate behavior of the last 150 years.  Does that seem like GOOD science to you?



flacaltenn said:


> That's where we part ways. I don't even like the accounting for "man's contributions" to CO2 since they are rigged by including herds of domestic cattle and forest fires.
> The rigging doesn't stop there. We have IPCC reports that misrepresent the 1.2W/m2 solar forcing that's occurred in the past 200 yrs in a DESPARATE attempt to keep the AGW for Morons theory uncomplicated. And a range of projected Climate Sensitivities so wide -- you just have to chuckle when you hear the "science is settled"...



Do you believe herds of domestic cattle would exist without our presence?  You'll have to explain that to us someday.  And while you're at it, you might want to brush up on accuracy and resolution.  If someone - say the IPCC - wanted to quote a single value for solar forcing to the nearest tenth of a W/m*2, where would they take into account the standard cyclical change on the order of a few hundredths of a W/m*2?  Eh?



flacaltenn said:


> And all YOU want to talk about is a couple bloggers and the oil companies. And pretend that the story of Venus is all about CO2 also..



Please try to explain why Venus would be hotter than Mercury without using the Greenhouse Effect.  I really want to see that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Those are the underlying motivating facts of this debate.. The lead science is being driven and directed by POLITICAL goals.. Whether they be UN administration of a Global redistribution program or complete central control of the energy sector of OUR economy. 

You can't get more real or cogent that that... 

These are REAL comments on the prime drivers of this debate.. 
Do try to ignore the significance of them.. 




> "We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up *scary scenarios*, *make simplified, dramatic statements* *and make little mention of any doubts*... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, lead author of many IPCC reports
> 
> "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
> 
> ...



*Who do you think the IPCC reports are WRITTEN FOR*??? And what is the percentage of NON-PHYSICAL SCIENCE contributors??? 

We are a footnote to this skirmish with all our lofty scientific posturing..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Atmosphere
> 
> Surface pressure
> 92 bar (9.2 MPa)
> ...



LOL

Seriously?

That's all you got?

Venus

LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 3, 2013)

Venus is hot because of gas pressure, not CO2 greenhouse

What fucking morons these AGW Culters are


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> No, man hasn't ever done that before.  Now, can you point to a time when the weather we are experiencing today has NEVER HAPPENED before?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
> 
> You have now made a claim.
> 
> Back it up....



Shakun, Marcott, Clark and Mix show that temperatures have not risen at the current rate at any other time in the last 22,000 years.  The Vostok ice cores that CO2 levels have not risen at the current rate or to current levels at any time in the last 800,000 years.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 3, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Venus is hot because of gas pressure, not CO2 greenhouse
> 
> What fucking morons these AGW Culters are



Frank, what grade did you get in themodynamics and heat transfer?  Are you familiar with the term "adiabatic"?  Have you ever heard of the Kelvin-Helmholtz Mechanism?  Why don't you look those up and think about Venus for a wee.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 3, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> LOL
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> ...



"That's all you got?" ? ! ? ! ? ! ?

Did you just wake up from a long, long sleep?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 3, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, you all knew it was coming....
> 
> 
> I TOLD YOU SO!!!!
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEbSABWJiJc]Back off man, I'm a scientist. (Bill Murray in Ghostbusters) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



You realize how funny and stupid you AGW Culters are, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









"We got no science, but we got a tree ring circus, sOn"


----------



## boedicca (Aug 3, 2013)

Back in the Realm of Reality, the Arctic has the shortest, coldest summer on record.

_
North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold &#8211; Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record &#8212; &#8216;Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that&#8217;

Unprecedented July Cold &#8211; Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record

&#8220;Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that,&#8221;  says Steven Goddard website.

&#8220;The Arctic ice extent is showing a remarkable recovery from the great oscillations of 2012,&#8221; says Guimaraes. &#8220;Compare with the previous years listed there, you&#8217;ll see that 2004 is the year that is closest to 2013 in terms of average temps during the summer.&#8221;
(You can compare by looking at the Archives (Arkiv) on the left side of the page.)_

North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold ? Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record ? ?Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that? | Climate Depot


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Those are the underlying motivating facts of this debate.. The lead science is being driven and directed by POLITICAL goals.. Whether they be UN administration of a Global redistribution program or complete central control of the energy sector of OUR economy.
> 
> You can't get more real or cogent that that...



You might if you had any evidence.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 3, 2013)

boedicca said:


> Back in the Realm of Reality, the Arctic has the shortest, coldest summer on record.
> 
> _
> North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold &#8211; Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record &#8212; &#8216;Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that&#8217;
> ...




From the* Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis, National Snow and Ice Data Center*

*
A change of pace
July 17, 2013
*Sea ice extent retreated fairly rapidly through the first two weeks of July as a high pressure cell moved into the central Arctic, bringing warmer temperatures over much of the Arctic Ocean. Ice extent remains below average on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, and is near average to locally above average in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and along much of the Eurasian coast.

*Overview of conditions*

While the rate of Arctic sea ice loss is normally fastest during July, the warmest month of the year, ice loss was even faster than usual over the first two weeks of July 2013. As a result, on July 15 extent came within 540,000 square kilometers (208,000 square miles) of that seen in 2012 on the same date. The ice loss is dominated by retreat on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, including the East Greenland, Kara and Laptev seas, and Baffin Bay. In the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and much of the Eurasian coast, the ice cover remains fairly extensive, especially compared to recent summers. Compared to the 1981 to 2010 average, ice extent on July 15, 2013 was 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below average.

*Conditions in context*

During the first two weeks of July, ice extent declined at a rate of 132,000 square kilometers (51,000 square miles) per day. This was 61% faster than the average rate of decline over the period 1981 to 2010 of 82,000 square kilometers (32,000 square miles) per day. The fast pace of ice loss was dominated by retreat in the Kara and East Greenland seas, where the ice loss rate from July 1 to 12 was -16,409 and -17,678 square kilometers (-6,336 and -6,826 square miles) per day, respectively. The Laptev Sea ice retreated at about half that rate, at -8,810 square kilometers (-3,402 square miles) per day.  In contrast, on the Pacific side, sea ice has been slow to retreat. During the first part of July, the rate of ice loss in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas was only -3,375 and -6,829 square kilometers (-1,303 and -2,637 square miles), respectively.

*A change in the weather*

*Temperatures at the 925 hPa level for the first two weeks in July were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over much of the Arctic Ocean and as much as 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over the Kara Sea, where ice loss was pronounced. In contrast, temperatures over Alaska, Siberia and the Canadian Arctic were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than average.*

Warmer conditions have been paired with a shift in the atmospheric circulation, with a high pressure cell at sea level pressure moving into the central Arctic, replacing then pattern of low pressure that dominated the month of June. This has helped to bring in warm air from the south over the Arctic Ocean. This pattern has also helped to create open water areas in the Laptev Sea because offshore winds push the ice away from shore.

*****************************************************************************************************

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 3, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You realize how funny and stupid you AGW Culters are, right?



I have always associated the state of stupidity with making an excess of mistakes.  That leads me to find your comment above ironic in the extreme...Frank.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I have no doubt that you do have a three ringed circus.  It's clear that you are one of the clowns. I  hate clowns.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

boedicca said:


> Back in the Realm of Reality, the Arctic has the shortest, coldest summer on record.
> 
> _
> North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold &#8211; Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record &#8212; &#8216;Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that&#8217;
> ...



Are we resorting to discussions of the weather, now?  I thought this thread was about climate change, not changes in weather.  By the way, your 'forecast' for the Arctic is wrong.


----------



## westwall (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Are you blind?  I DID answer your question.  Go back and read what I wrote.   Now, answer my question.  If what you claim is true...that all of the weather we are seeing is based on mans CO2 contribution to the atmospheric budget, then, logically, there can be NO PRIOR EXAMPLES of the weather you are using as your examples.

You see dear boy, that's how science works.  

So, what weather "events" do you claim as evidence that have never happened before.  Be very specific....that's how science works.  MEASURABLE claims and theories.


----------



## westwall (Aug 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Back in the Realm of Reality, the Arctic has the shortest, coldest summer on record.
> ...






And back to the real world... The Arctic ice melt has slowed one month earlier than normal...

Going to have to come up with a new "theory" to 'splain that one LUUUUCCYYY!
















http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png


----------



## westwall (Aug 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You realize how funny and stupid you AGW Culters are, right?
> ...








For once you said something factual.....  OF course it really affects the AGW supporters who have been wrong for going on thirty years now, but hey, you may actually hit one of your predictions....after the fact as you always seem to do...but hey it's a beginning...sort of


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> The Arctic ice melt has slowed one month earlier than normal...



You actually think that hiccup is the end of the summer ice season?!?!  Wow... I see similar upward transients in half a dozen years' data on that plot.  Do you need glasses?

This goes right along with your snowy photographs submitted as _powerful evidence_ that warming was a scam.  You are cherry-picking "evidence" and giving everything you find the friendliest, possible interpretation.  Let's keep track of this post of yours and see if this is indeed summer's last hurrah.  Should be fun.


----------



## westwall (Aug 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The Arctic ice melt has slowed one month earlier than normal...
> ...







We WILL be keeping track of this.  Believe you me!  And where exactly did I say this was the end of the summer cycle?  I merely stated that the rate had slowed a month earlier than usual.  You really DO have a reading comprehension issue don't you?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> If what you claim is true...that all of the weather we are seeing is based on mans CO2 contribution to the atmospheric budget, then, logically, there can be NO PRIOR EXAMPLES of the weather you are using as your examples.



And you REALLY want to claim to have a PhD?  You're whacked.  You need a lesson in BASIC INFERENCES.  Really, REALLY BASIC.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> We WILL be keeping track of this.  Believe you me!  And where exactly did I say this was the end of the summer cycle?  I merely stated that the rate had slowed a month earlier than usual.  You really DO have a reading comprehension issue don't you?



Well... someone has an issue - we both know what you said:



westwall said:


> And back to the real world... The Arctic ice melt has slowed one month earlier than normal...
> 
> Going to have to come up with a new "theory" to 'splain that one LUUUUCCYYY!


----------



## gslack (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Total and complete BULLSHIT...

As far as "every planetary scientist will tell you..." Complete nonsense... ASk 10 scientists anything and you will get 10 different answers. They may agree on a theory, but not all will agree on the method or cause.. Hence why there is no FACT but theory on Venus's condition..

As far as your contention about "soemthing catastrophic happened" another bit of nonsense.. You don't know why venus is the way it is. It could have evolved that way due toany number of things. There is no factual account of it's history to check, all we have is conjecture based on what we can see and/or study. Get a grip loon...

I showed you facts why we cannot consider venus a model of what could happen due to GH gas proliferation. And you ignored it and kept on anyway...

Pathetic..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Those are the underlying motivating facts of this debate.. The lead science is being driven and directed by POLITICAL goals.. Whether they be UN administration of a Global redistribution program or complete central control of the energy sector of OUR economy.
> ...



Gave you a taste of the evidence right there with about 5 quotes from the AGW leadership.. Quotes condoning lying, cheating, and promoting panic.. I don't know how more irrelevent you can make yourself by ignoring those bitsy pieces in the same post.. 

You get over THAT hurdle -- we can discuss the biased charter of the IPCC, the role of non-science review in determining how to write conclusions for that report and the literal food fights that have erupted at the last 2 or 3 meetings over payments and wealth transfers between nations...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > It would be all the National delegations to the UN who have hijacked the science lead on this circus. All their heads of state waiting for me to cut them a check for their fair redistribution of damages.
> ...



That is a stupendous act of naivety and blatant avoidance of reality right there.. 

The political directors of this inquisition from the UN to Congress has been misinterpretating the science, and embellishing the most outrageous claims.. I can only ask that you educate me about all the SKEPTICISM AND RESTRAINT that ANY of the leading pols worldwide (western nations) have demanded of the process.

Do you agree with the Dear Leaders comments last week about "the warming has accelerated faster than predicted?"    Did you miss the Senate panel blaming the death of 19 firefighters on Global Warming? 

Please DO tell...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know how could mistake what I was saying about the AUDIENCE for this AGW road show being composed of political scientists.
> ...





You continue to fuck up the links to the quotes.. I refuse to spend time debating with someone who doesn't understand how to use the tools.. I'm not gonna go retrieve my original statements. 

So ---- in no particular order.. 

1)  Certainly WILL explain the bias in the CO2 accounting charged to man.. Domestic cattle should be accounted for on what biosystems they replaced. Certainly huge clouds of buffalo roaming the plains were a CO2 offset to domestic cattle.. Same with the reduction of deer, elk, beaver, and others that were hunted to their limits before the settlement of most of our ag land.. Same goes for charging man with every forest fire that occurs on claimed land.. Particularly when the "let it burn" practices that were prevailing were based on the eco-naut philosophy of "natural" processes and NOT modern land management science. Least you think this is a minor false charge to the account. Domestic cattle is a LARGE portion of the bill.. 

2) What the mental midget admins of the political class have been doing exactly is making pronouncements like "the science is settled" (boxer) and "the ice is melting so fast, the tundra is in danger of floating away" (waxman).. They aren't really following the science, they are defining the outcome of the science.

ALREADY flushing BILLIONS of dollars per year down the toilet SPECIFICALLY on the excuse of AGW. Without even agreeing on what the expected benefit of such flushing might actually be. It has become a JUSTIFICATION for energy jihad rather than a cure to any particular effects of global warming.. 

3) So are you suggesting that 2degC or less by 2100 is what we should expect? Why don't you give me the CONSENSUS on that?   
Everytime anyone points to the LACK OF CONSENSUS on key elements of AGW hype --- you come back with the "let's be rational about this" act.. TIL --- you make inferences to catastophic COLLAPSE of our climate --- like you and Oroman just did by hinting that Venus is our future if we don't repent and become believers...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



* So my question is how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours? How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough?*

You should post a graph of CO2 levels for all of Earth's history and then we can further discuss your awesome questions. Thanks!


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > That's where we part ways. I don't even like the accounting for "man's contributions" to CO2 since they are rigged by including herds of domestic cattle and forest fires.
> ...



Now this is particularly troublesome to me.. Because we've been over this before.. 
Do you remember me posting the chart for Total Solar Irradiance from 1700 to present? And then complaining about the ever-present ploy that Warmers have been taught  of SHIFTING the conversation to "standard cyclical changes" involving only the latest couple sun spot cycles?? 

Be real clear on this point. When I refer to Solar radiative forcing -- I'm talking about TSI -- not what has happened in the past couple Sun cycles.. That amounts to a surface forcing of ~ 0.5 X (1.2W/m2) since 1700 to present.. 

Remember THIS? from a mere week ago??? 






Now you also may remember, you or OroMan posted THIS ----






And I told you that the IPCC HAD to under-rate the increase in Solar forcing.. So they lowballed the number.. That number for solar forcing should be AT LEAST .3W/m2.. (making TSI jive with the IPCC start date of 1750 -- but ignoring thermal inertia since heating now can FOLLOW power increases by several decades)

But instead -- they posted charts of SUN SPOT NUMBERS instead of TSI to justify the fraud.

I asked you and Oroman to justify this IPCC manipulation.. There was no response. Can't be a response. Because they are playing a false narrative.. This is NOT a case of my "brushing up on accuracy and resolution".. 0.3W/M2 is kinda hard to LOSE in a chart as simple as that.. Aint it?? 

The "Church of Man Fucking the Climate" says that no forcing that hasn't changed in 20 years should be included in the analysis.. But all that scripture is changing now that the TEMPERATURE hasn't moved in 10 years or more.. So SUDDENLY -- the Warmers are discovering energy HIDING in deep dark places and the DIFF. btwn Power and Energy.. 

Turns out -- that applies to ANY radiative forcing.. Including solar. The fact that TSI "leveled out" 15 or 20 yrs ago doesn't matter any more -- because "climate science" just got smart enough to NOT EXPECT instanteous forcing of temperature.. 

When you can tell me WHY the IPCC rigged that chart --- I'll rep you and thank you.. 

Til then, try to listen to what your NEW best buds are telling you on USMB and try NOT to confuse our inputs with any OLD skirmishes you might have had on previous boards. I certainly don't want to be misrepresented again in that fashion..


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 3, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





Dur! The Earth has warmed before! Its really old, too. DUH! OMG those culters are so stupid.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 3, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Yes, yes y'all are.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


28% closer is _*slightly*_?!?....I'd hate to have you as my carpenter.



orogenicman said:


> How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough?  And when you finally do come to that decision, will it be too late for our children, and their children?


Appeal to emotion....Fail.


----------



## westwall (Aug 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > If what you claim is true...that all of the weather we are seeing is based on mans CO2 contribution to the atmospheric budget, then, logically, there can be NO PRIOR EXAMPLES of the weather you are using as your examples.
> ...








It's not my fault you are so uneducated you can't understand the basics.  Go back to school junior and learn something.


----------



## westwall (Aug 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > We WILL be keeping track of this.  Believe you me!  And where exactly did I say this was the end of the summer cycle?  I merely stated that the rate had slowed a month earlier than usual.  You really DO have a reading comprehension issue don't you?
> ...








Yes, *THE ARCTIC ICE MELT HAS SLOWED ONE MONTH EARLIER*

So simple a moron could understand it.  What's stupider than a moron?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Be real clear on this point. When I refer to Solar radiative forcing -- I'm talking about TSI -- not what has happened in the past couple Sun cycles.. That amounts to a surface forcing of ~ 0.5 X (1.2W/m2) since 1700 to present..








Can your peculiar theory explain why temperature started tracking the opposite way of TSI since around 1980?

AGW theory can explain it, of course. Your theory is flatly contradicted by the data, hence why intelligent and honest people reject it. Go ahead, toss out all the conspiracies you can imagine, but the simple explanation here is that you're just crazy wrong.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2013)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Be real clear on this point. When I refer to Solar radiative forcing -- I'm talking about TSI -- not what has happened in the past couple Sun cycles.. That amounts to a surface forcing of ~ 0.5 X (1.2W/m2) since 1700 to present..
> ...



Slow down pardner.. It's actually EASY to explain.. 

AGW has had a JUVENILE expectation that the entire Earth climate system can turn on dime. They needed INSTANT gratification that the Earth would assume a new equilibrium IMMEDIATELY after any spike in a forcing function.. 

Well of course --- like the rest of the AGW folk tale -- that's ridiculous. The Energy STORAGE from an increase step or linear ramp of power could take 40 years. Crap -- it could be 100 years to a new equilibrium.. Seems like the "settled science" is just NOW discovering that. 

(You on the other hand haven't adapted to the new scientific "equilibrium" that we don't EXPECT earth surface temps to exactly track ANY forcing function. Being as dense as you are --- this could take decades !!!          )

Take that chart and roll the TSI plot about 50 years to the right..  And while you're at it -- add the last 13 years of missing data.

TSI paused about 30 yrs ago -- the temperature pauses about now.. Now that would be REAL science based on radiative physics and heat storage. 

In fact -- it's on my list of things to do to produce a lag plot like that and show the maximum correlation with surface temp.. Perhaps, we could even guess at the time it takes the climate system to respond to changes in forcings...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2013)

BTW: I suspect that you (mamooth) said you have a technical backgrnd of some sort.. So lemme ruin another of your "graph matching" expectations.. 

Just like it's not expected that temp. HAS to immediately follow the forcing function, It's also NOT REQUIRED that the forcing function Linearly MATCH the increase the temp.... WHY YOU ASK?

Because a forcing function is in units of power.. Temp. is a function of ENERGY STORED which is the INTEGRAL of the power applied.. Perhaps you're familiar with "pulse width modulation" or energy pumping. I can simply control the duty cycle of heat pump (like an HVAC system) to LINEARLY influence the resultant temperature.. The HEAT from the HVAC is always the same, but the DUTY CYCLE of the pulses on/off control the temp.. 

Days of stuffing charts under folks noses and trying to make them line up perfectly is over pal.. 
REAL science is starting to sprout here..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Oddball said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



It is still within the habitable zone of the sun.  That it is not habitable is not because it is closer to the sun.  Mercury is closer  still, and yet it is not as hot (340 K) at its surface as is Venus (735 K)

Appeal to emotion?  That's certainly convenient way for you to leave pertinent questions unanswered.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 4, 2013)

Temp tracked TSI within a couple years prior to 1980, then it went the opposite way.

Your need to explain why the decades-long delay you posit didn't exist prior to 1980. If you can't give a mechanism for that, you're obviously just tossing in a arbitrary fudge factor. And a theory that doesn't work without miraculous fudge factors isn't going to get any respect.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Even your lies are sophomoric:

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Temp tracked TSI within a couple years prior to 1980, then it went the opposite way.
> 
> Your need to explain why the decades-long delay you posit didn't exist prior to 1980. If you can't give a mechanism for that, you're obviously just tossing in a arbitrary fudge factor. And a theory that doesn't work without miraculous fudge factors isn't going to get any respect.



Sure it's there for the rise beginning the 80s.. That would be the ramp up in TSI that occurred in the 1940s !!!

U really didn''t understand I thing I said did ya? Nothing needs to be immediate.. NOTHING needs to look exactly like the other. We are not doing Sesame Street "one thing does not look like the other" science. 

I'd love to do all the things you suggest.. But I'm not getting paid for that right now. 

There is an INCREASE in TSI that proceeds both the warming in the 40s and the warming in the 90s by about 30 to 50 yrs.. And the CURRENT PAUSE in temp? Go back 30 yrs in the TSI record and you'll find it.. No magic.. No fudge factors. Just a more complete view of the math and science than demanding ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL looking plots.. 

TSI could dither about the values of only +/- .3W/m2 for ever and influence the warming/cooler cycle just by HOW LONG it was at high state versus HOW LONG it was at low state. Doesn't have to pass the Sesame Street test..  Temp. would still go and down linearly. Just like the HVAC system in your house gets a linear temp. response from non-linear pumping of energy..


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 4, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Temp tracked TSI within a couple years prior to 1980, then it went the opposite way.
> 
> Your need to explain why the decades-long delay you posit didn't exist prior to 1980. If you can't give a mechanism for that, you're obviously just tossing in a arbitrary fudge factor. And a theory that doesn't work without miraculous fudge factors isn't going to get any respect.



BINGO.

The sun is not responsible for the increasing temperatures the world has experienced the last 150 years.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> U really didn''t understand I thing I said did ya?



You're not the easiest person to follow.  You jump around too much.  You use too many unreferenced pronouns and you make way too many unsupported assertions.



flacaltenn said:


> Nothing needs to be immediate.. NOTHING needs to look exactly like the other. We are not doing Sesame Street "one thing does not look like the other" science.



Until you're talking abouts mainstream AGW, then you demand perfect correlation.  Sheesh.  Your comments here are absurd.  Of course you need to demonstrate a correlation.  If you cannot, you cannot claim to have one.  This shit doesn't come out of thin air, no matter how easy that makes the process seem to you.



flacaltenn said:


> I'd love to do all the things you suggest.. But I'm not getting paid for that right now.



What a convenient out.  



flacaltenn said:


> There is an INCREASE in TSI that proceeds both the warming in the 40s and the warming in the 90s by about 30 to 50 yrs.. And the CURRENT PAUSE in temp? Go back 30 yrs in the TSI record and you'll find it.. No magic.. No fudge factors. Just a more complete view of the math and science than demanding ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL looking plots..



The problem, of course, is that the plots of GHG levels vs temperatures look DRAMATICALLY more similar than anything anyone has ever produced using TSI.  It just doesn't work.  And you have no mechanism to justify your 30-50 year delay.  None.  If you're going to claim that no correlation is required, I will assert that the Earth's temperature is  controlled by a wart on my left big toe.  




flacaltenn said:


> TSI could dither about the values of only +/- .3W/m2 for ever and influence the warming/cooler cycle just by HOW LONG it was at high state versus HOW LONG it was at low state. Doesn't have to pass the Sesame Street test..  Temp. would still go and down linearly. Just like the HVAC system in your house gets a linear temp. response from non-linear pumping of energy..



Your TSI arguments are simply not supported by the data.  You're pushing crap.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Slow down pardner.. It's actually EASY to explain..



I think you may actually believe that.



flacaltenn said:


> AGW has had a JUVENILE expectation that the entire Earth climate system can turn on dime.



Temperatures rising 0.9 C in 150 years is not turning on a dime.  It is not turning at all. More of a wee nudge.  And to characterize the position of 97% of the world's active climate scientists as "JUVENILE" tells a great deal more about you than it does about them.



flacaltenn said:


> They needed INSTANT gratification that the Earth would assume a new equilibrium IMMEDIATELY after any spike in a forcing function..



No.  You need to claim this position by forceful assertion (and naught else) in order to fabricate a correlation between temp and TSI out of wholecloth.



flacaltenn said:


> Well of course --- like the rest of the AGW folk tale -- that's ridiculous. The Energy STORAGE from an increase step or linear ramp of power could take 40 years. Crap -- it could be 100 years to a new equilibrium.. Seems like the "settled science" is just NOW discovering that.



Bullshit.  No one on the AGW side of the argument is suggesting that temperature rise lags changes in forcing  by anything like that.  They are suggesting - with real evidence - that the temperature changes and change rates in the atmosphere, the land and the ocean can and do alter as major processes (like ENSO) change in response to total system energy content and major independent factors (like vulcanism) put their two cents in.  The correlation between temperature and GHG levels is NOT dependent on any delay or sequestration.  And, just for fun, where is it that you believe the thousands of septillions of joules of energy was hiding for 30-50 years?  U-Stor-It? Lock-n-Go?  Where is the intermediary between the arrival of that energy and its appearance in the environment today?  If you ain't got it, you ain't got it. 



flacaltenn said:


> (You on the other hand haven't adapted to the new scientific "equilibrium" that we don't EXPECT earth surface temps to exactly track ANY forcing function.



How about some links to mainstream climate science sources indicating that is the new understanding.  Cause, I don't think I've seen that from anyone but you.



flacaltenn said:


> Take that chart and roll the TSI plot about 50 years to the right..  And while you're at it -- add the last 13 years of missing data.



And while YOU'RE at it, explain why there's about a 50 year lag.



flacaltenn said:


> TSI paused about 30 yrs ago -- the temperature pauses about now.. Now that would be REAL science based on radiative physics and heat storage.



As we've been hearing from every denier, temperature paused 17 years ago.  So your delay is down to 13 years.  From 50.  That's quite a range.  Just about the size of the range of climate sensitivity values.  Hmmm.... 



flacaltenn said:


> In fact -- it's on my list of things to do to produce a lag plot like that and show the maximum correlation with surface temp.. Perhaps, we could even guess at the time it takes the climate system to respond to changes in forcings...



Perhaps you could guess?  You've got a mighty flexible set of principles on these things.  I think I'll stick with the folks with the training, the peer reviewed publications and the idea that ignoring the laws of physics is just not a good idea.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> We WILL be keeping track of this.  Believe you me!


----------



## gslack (Aug 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



For a self-proclaimed "climate scientist" you don't understand the written word very well do ya.. LOL

Sea ICe melt  slowed one month early, was his point. You just pulled a report in that does not refute his claim and called him a liar...

Your link does not support your claim.. I think you need to apologize, mr. fake scientist...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 4, 2013)

gslack said:


> Total and complete BULLSHIT...



Yell it louder.  Maybe you'll convince some one.



gslack said:


> As far as "every planetary scientist will tell you..." Complete nonsense... ASk 10 scientists anything and you will get 10 different answers. They may agree on a theory, but not all will agree on the method or cause.. Hence why there is no FACT but theory on Venus's condition..



This statement is complete bullshit.  There is near universal agreement that the cause of Venus' abnormally high temperature is the enormous amount of Greenhouse gases in her atmosphere.  Among those with some actual training in the field, I have heard no other theory.  You claimed the temperature was due to the high pressure at the surface.  That's a very interesting theory.  Let me ask you, though.  What is the temperature (water or sediment) at the bottom of the Challenger Deep?

Characteristics determined from spectral observations of Venus constitute facts, not theories.  The same goes for temperatures determined by direct observation.  The climatic situation on Venus that Orogenicman described is not a theory, it is a fact.  



gslack said:


> As far as your contention about "soemthing catastrophic happened" another bit of nonsense.. You don't know why venus is the way it is. It could have evolved that way due toany number of things. There is no factual account of it's history to check, all we have is conjecture based on what we can see and/or study. Get a grip loon...



When you're arguing technical topics with someone and they fall back on "its only a theory, no one _knows_, you can be pretty certain that you've taken up with the product of an educational vacuum.  



gslack said:


> I showed you facts why we cannot consider venus a model of what could happen due to GH gas proliferation. And you ignored it and kept on anyway...
> 
> Pathetic..



You were.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Very well.  From Wikipedia's article on the Global Warming Controversy

*Political pressure on scientists*

Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications". These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of former oil-industry lobbyist Phil Cooney, who worked for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (he resigned in 2005 before being hired by ExxonMobil).[249] In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.[250]
U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[251] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[252][253][254] Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.
Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a widely cited New York Times article[255] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public". NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[256] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.
The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed".[257]
On the other hand, some American climatologists who have expressed doubts regarding the certainty of human influence in climate change have been criticized by politicians and governmental agencies. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski publicly clarified that Oregon does not officially appoint a "state climatologist" in response to Oregon State University's George Taylor's use of that title.[258][unreliable source?][259]
Scientists who agree with the consensus view have sometimes expressed concerns over what they view as sensationalism of global warming by interest groups and the press. For example Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic", "chaotic" and "irreversible", had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric".[260]
According to an Associated Press release on 30 January 2007,
Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report".[261]
Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page state that the survey[262] was itself unscientific.[263]
In addition to the pressure from politicians, many prominent scientists working on climate change issues have reported increasingly severe harassment from members of the public. The harassment has taken several forms. The US FBI told ABC News that it was looking into a spike in threatening emails sent to climate scientists, while a white supremacist website posted pictures of several climate scientists with the word "Jew" next to each image. One climate scientist interviewed by ABC News had a dead animal dumped on his doorstep and now frequently has to travel with bodyguards.[264]
In April 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claimed that leading climate scientist Michael E. Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws, and without providing any evidence of wrongdoing, filed the Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation as a civil demand that the University of Virginia provide a wide range of records broadly related to five research grants Mann had obtained as an assistant professor at the university from 1999 to 2005. This litigation was widely criticized in the academic community as politically motivated and likely to have a chilling effect on future research.[265][266] The university filed a court petition and the judge dismissed Cuccinelli's demand on the grounds that no justification had been shown for the investigation.[267] Cuccinelli issued a revised subpoena, and appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court which ruled in March 2012 that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom.[268][269]
Exxon Mobil is also notorious for skewing scientific evidence through their private funding of scientific organizations. In 2002, Exxon Mobil contributed $10,000 to The Independent Institute and then $10,000 more in 2003. In 2003, The Independent Institute release a study that reported the evidence for imminent global warming found during the Clinton administration was based on now-dated satellite findings and wrote off the evidence and findings as a product of "bad science."[270]
This is not the only consortium of skeptics that Exxon Mobil has supported financially. The George C. Marshall Institute received $630,000 in funding for climate change research from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Exxon Mobil also gave $472,000 in funding to The Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005. Dr. Frederick Seitz, well known as "the god father of global warming skepticism," served as both Chairman Emeritus of The George C. Marshall Institute and a board member of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005.[271]

249. ^ US climate scientists pressured on climate change, NewScientist, 31 January 2007
250. ^ Goddard, Jacqui (4 June 2008). "Nasa 'played down' global warming to protect Bush". The Scotsman (Edinburgh). Retrieved 12 February 2010.
251. ^ Campbell, D. (20 June 2003) "White House cuts global warming from report" Guardian Unlimited
252. ^ Donaghy, T., et al. (2007) "Atmosphere of Pressure:" a report of the Government Accountability Project (Cambridge, Massachusetts: UCS Publications)[dead link]
253. ^ Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, 27 July. Obtained via FOIA request on 31 July 2006. and Teet, J. (2005) "DOC Interview Policy" Email to NOAA staff, 29 September. Originally published by Alexandrovna, L. (2005) "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved" The Raw Story, 4 October. Retrieved 22 December 2006.
254. ^ Zabarenko, D. (2007) "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists" Reuters
255. ^ Revkin, Andrew C. (29 January 2006). "Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him". New York Times. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
256. ^ Eilperin, J. (6 April 2006) "Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House" Washington Post
257. ^ "Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear". BBC Panorama. 1 June 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
258. ^ "HinesSight: Facts about George Taylor and the "state climatologist"". Hinessight.blogs.com. 8 February 2007. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
259. ^ Local News|kgw.com|News for Oregon and SW Washington[dead link]
260. ^ Hulme, Mike (4 November 2006). "Chaotic world of climate truth". BBC News. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
261. ^ "Groups Say Scientists Pressured On Warming". CBC and Associated Press. 30 January 2007. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
262. ^ Donaghy, Timothy; Jennifer Freeman, Francesca Grifo, Karly Kaufman, Tarek Maassarani, Lexi Shultz (February 2007). "Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal)". Atmosphere of Pressure  Political Interference in Federal Climate Science (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists & Government Accountability Project. Retrieved 14 April 2007.[dead link]
263. ^ Taranto, James (1 February 2007). "They Call This Science?". OpinionJournal.com. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
264. ^ "ABC World News Sunday". ABC News. 23 May 2010.
265. ^ "Statement of the AAAS Board Of Directors Concerning the Virginia Attorney Generals Investigation of Prof. Michael Manns Work While on the Faculty of University of Virginia" (PDF). AAAS. 18 May 2010. Retrieved 30 July 2010.
266. ^ Gentile, Sal. "Climate scientist calls Va. attorney generals fraud probe harassment". PBS.org (PBS). Retrieved 7 September 2010.
267. ^ Judge Dismisses Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's Misguided Investigation of Michael Mann | Union of Concerned Scientists
268. ^ Kumar, Anita (2 March 2012). "Va. Supreme Court tosses Cuccinellis case against former U-Va. climate change researcher - Virginia Politics". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
269. ^ Goldenberg, Suzanne (2 March 2012). "Virginia court rejects sceptic's bid for climate science emails : Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
270. ^ Reddy, Sudhakara (2009). "The Great Climate Debate.". Energy Policy 37 (8).
271. ^ de Granados, Oriana Zill. "The Doubters of Global Warming". PBS.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> 1)  Certainly WILL explain the bias in the CO2 accounting charged to man.. Domestic cattle should be accounted for on what biosystems they replaced. Certainly huge clouds of buffalo roaming the plains were a CO2 offset to domestic cattle.. Same with the reduction of deer, elk, beaver, and others that were hunted to their limits before the settlement of most of our ag land.. Same goes for charging man with every forest fire that occurs on claimed land.. Particularly when the "let it burn" practices that were prevailing were based on the eco-naut philosophy of "natural" processes and NOT modern land management science. Least you think this is a minor false charge to the account. Domestic cattle is a LARGE portion of the bill..
> 
> 2) What the mental midget admins of the political class have been doing exactly is making pronouncements like "the science is settled" (boxer) and "the ice is melting so fast, the tundra is in danger of floating away" (waxman).. They aren't really following the science, they are defining the outcome of the science.
> 
> ...



1) Methane emissions from domestic cattle represent about 2% of the GHG load creating current global warming (http://www.animal-science.org/content/73/8/2483.full.pdf).  Agriculture as a whole, however, is responsible for approximately 20% of greenhouse gases released every year.  IPCC methods to estimate methane production from domestic cattle have been verified for accuracy by independent industry sources. (Model for estimating enteric methane emissions from United States dairy and feedlot cattle)  Even so, they represent an enormous increase over the GHG production of the population of wild animals they replaced.  Bison did not roam on groomed, fertilized fields with antibiotics, medical care and hormone laced feed.  The population density of farmed animals is many times that of animals in the wild.  Additionally, farms are responsible for 20% of the world's fossil fuel usage and, besides the enteric methane from ruminants (and rice paddies in the east), release large quantities of nitrous oxide from nitrogenous fertilization.

2) Most Democrats and many Republican accept the findings of the IPCC and will speak accordingly - as allowed by their individual level of science education.  If the thought of a politician making a scientifically inaccurate statement really gets your goat, their have been many a faulty word expressed regarding science in general and climate science in particular before now. Look at the work of Representatives King and Inhofe if you want to see examples of dangerous ignorance in play.  But I see little chance of ever having a congress with an adequate science education.  Our best hope lies in making sure that - by statute and codification - they always have qualified, OBJECTIVE, scientific advice available to them.  And voters should always make certain that their elected representatives understand that support is based on their continued use of the best, objective data.  It would also be nice if politicians rated their constituent's physical safety higher than the thickness of the pocketbooks their industrial donors so often wave under their collective noses.

3. 97% of active climate scientists believe that the primary cause of current global warming is human GHG emissions.  If you'd like to debate the validity of that statement, we can start aother thread.  I have not seen a survey on this point, but I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that a very large majority of active climate scientists believe humans will fail to successfully check their GHG emissions in time to save us from much of anything.  As a whole, we're just too stupid and too cowardly to do anything difficult.  I mean, look at all of you.  

No one here has implied that Venus is our future.  We have stated outright that Venus clearly illustrates it is possible to have a runaway greenhouse effect.  Venus used to have oceans.  They boiled away.  I'd call that a catastrophe no matter how long it took.  And the evidence indicates that it didn't take that long.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > U really didn''t understand I thing I said did ya?
> ...



You don't need a LITERAL correlation of two variables to prove ANYTHING. Correlation specifically is a mathematical process measuring the SIMILIARITY of two vectors at different alignments. If the temperature derives from the INTEGRAL of a variable --- then they are RELATED BY an equation and whether they have a high CORRELATION is irrelevent.  Go correlate for me the actions of your thermostat and the temperature in your home... 

And you STILL didn't address why and where the (at least) 0.3W/M2 of TSI addition since 1750 was left out of the IPCC.. It is the Kryptonite of the CO2 as the sole driver of GW that is required for the fairytale.. 

It was only AFTER the theory you've been brainwashed into went off the rails in the past 12 years that we even GET to the science of how the Earth establishes a new equilibrium temp. And the realization of how juvenile it is to EXPECT to find a simple correlation with no time delay explaining it all.. 

You need to stop believing in how simple this all is and start using the tools that science gave you..


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 4, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The only person here who has made any sort of claim to being a climate scientist is WestWall (and that just because he's claimed to be better at their subjects than they are at his).  Orogenicman is a geologist.  I am an Ocean Engineer.  None of us here on either side of this argument are climate scientists.  So YOU have lied and YOU owe US an apology.

I have not "pulled a report" about anything.  I have posted an alternate picture of Arctic sea ice extent.  I will continue to post them as NSIDC updates them daily.  We will see whether or not sea ice melt has slowed one month early.

While you're here, do you still wish to contend that Venus's high temperatures are due to the high pressure at her surface?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



And just who has claimed that CO2 is the sole driver of the warming? No climate scientist that I know of. What has been claimed is that it is the primary driver of the warming. And that has been confirmed by the fact that with increasing aerosols from China and India, a decreasing TSI, and a couple of strong La Nina's as opposed to one weak and one moderate El Nino, we still are having temps above what we had prior to 1997. Well above those temps.

Now you speak of the tools that science has given us, yet you deny those very tools. And try to state that the Scientific Societies such as the American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The American Geophysical Union;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

And the American Meteorlogical Society;

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

are all in on some great conspriracy to delude us as to the fact of AGW. Now I could add many statements from other Scientific Societies in other nations, such as the Royal Society, and the list of National Academies of Science statements about their concerns about global warming, but you would simply revert to the silly arguements of people like Watts, someone with no qualifications to address the issue at all.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Westwall claims to be a Phd Geologist. But claims that the AGU is nothing but a collection of cranks. I keep asking him when he is going to present his views and evidence on the podium at the fall meeting, and he keeps avoiding the subject.

Now, at present I am just a steel mill millwright, with a life long interest in Geology and climate. And I just added another 22 credits at Portland State University last year toward getting a BS in Geology. Imagine, a BS to back up my BS


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> You don't need a LITERAL correlation of two variables to prove ANYTHING. Correlation specifically is a mathematical process measuring the SIMILIARITY of two vectors at different alignments. If the temperature derives from the INTEGRAL of a variable --- then they are RELATED BY an equation and whether they have a high CORRELATION is irrelevent.  Go correlate for me the actions of your thermostat and the temperature in your home...
> 
> And you STILL didn't address why and where the (at least) 0.3W/M2 of TSI addition since 1750 was left out of the IPCC.. It is the Kryptonite of the CO2 as the sole driver of GW that is required for the fairytale..
> 
> ...




How many PhDs in atmospheric sciences, physics, geology, planetology, chemistry and whatever other field can get into the climate sciences, do you think haven't had a semester or two of calculus?

If you're going to contend a delay of decades, you need to identify the storage location.  


Waiting...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 4, 2013)

LOL. Three quarters, and stastitics just for a lowly BS in Geology.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 4, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Now, at present I am just a steel mill millwright, with a life long interest in Geology and climate. And I just added another 22 credits at Portland State University last year toward getting a BS in Geology. Imagine, a BS to back up my BS



The day you stop learning is the day you start dying.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Slow down pardner.. It's actually EASY to explain..
> ...



You've mangled my quotes AGAIN.. Next time I will mangle yours.. Because you're not playing nice.. And please --- before you ATTACK --- think... I may be obtuse because I expect you are following developments closer than you actually are.. I ASSUME you're up to speed on the implications of Septillion joules of energy "hiding" in the oceans. Maybe you're not.. Because the old AGW fairytale required little expenditure of knowledge to parrot.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Are you coming back on this one?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Slow down pardner.. It's actually EASY to explain..
> ...





Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need a LITERAL correlation of two variables to prove ANYTHING. Correlation specifically is a mathematical process measuring the SIMILIARITY of two vectors at different alignments. If the temperature derives from the INTEGRAL of a variable --- then they are RELATED BY an equation and whether they have a high CORRELATION is irrelevent.  Go correlate for me the actions of your thermostat and the temperature in your home...
> ...



Your wait was over a post or two ago.. THERE is your "septillions of stored joules" right from the mouth of your hero.. As for the system analysis ability of climate science -- Trenberth didn't even get the UNITS right on his 1st famous "energy" diagram. And if those jewels are now in the possession of Davey Jones, he needs a NEW energy diagram doesn't he?? 

Didn't have much respect for Climate science UNTIL this latest round of excuses.. NOW -- it's suddenly resembling a science..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Of course.. Right after you tell me why the IPCC screwed the solar forcing number.. 

Looks like petty political infighting to me. Hansen gets reprimanded.. Titles being fought over --- NOT the stuff from the UN and Congress that DRIVES this bus is it?

Seriously man.. Promised the family that I'd install a new wireless router tonight. GTG...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



That you believe that what CO2 levels were throughout Earth's geologic history are relevant to the CURRENT inhabitants of the planet only indicates the level of delusion to which you are willing to stoop to promote unethical and greedy corporate behaviors.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



How much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Except that I did NOT post that.  Do I need to remind you of what I did post?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's the question I posed to you.  And I am still waiting for your answer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You're the one who fears such a thing, so tell us the level we must avoid, before it is too late for our children, and their children?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The man to answer that question, as well it can be answered at present, is Dr. James Hansen, as he has done extensive studies on the atmosphere of Venus.

However, what makes you think that the amount of warming has to reach that point before making a significant impact on all of our lives? If you were to do some real research, and not just flap your yap, you might learn what the scientists are stating are the likely consequences at present. And their past estimates of the consequences have been far too conservative. The Arctic Ice is where we expected it to be in 2050 to 2080.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 4, 2013)

James Hansen and the Three Categories of the Runaway Greenhouse: Earth Uninhabitable for Humans at ~5,000 Gigatons Fossil Fuel Burned | robertscribbler


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> James Hansen and the Three Categories of the Runaway Greenhouse: Earth Uninhabitable for Humans at ~5,000 Gigatons Fossil Fuel Burned | robertscribbler



*Total carbon emissions in 2012 (including non CO2 sources) was 45 gigatons. But on the path Republicans set, this level of emission will look minor. Peak emissions would probably pair with peak human civilization at some time around 2050 near 80-90 gigatons per year. At this point, emissions are put in check by mother natures outrage at our insults. By 2050, the burn everything strategy put in place by Republicans and enforced by conservatives around the world has resulted in near 600 ppm atmospheric CO2.*

Our only chance is if the Dems set us on a path of massive nuclear power plant construction.
Think of all the jobs we could create, and we could stop the oceans from turning into battery acid. 
Stick it to the Republicans, go BIG NUKE, before it's too late.


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



LOL, forgot who you were again?

Flac was talking to ABraham. See we know this because the quotes are between flac and abe... Not you.. Sothanks for clarifying that you are also ABe socko...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 5, 2013)

I posted that.
(
What I'm waiting for you or the sun worshipper FlaCalTennn to put up here is something supporting his charges that the IPCC lowballed the TSI values.  We see what they say it was and why and we see what he thinks it should have been (and his value falls just about at the upper end of the IPCC's error bar) but evidence on his sides... not so much.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Whether or not I fear it is irrelevant to the fact that you are willfully refusing to answer my question.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 5, 2013)

Image if all the time and effort the denialists spent pretending to be climate experts was spent on - ANYTHING - else? The pyramids of Egypt could have been rebuilt a dozen times over by now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You're obviously the expert, how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours?

Tell me, unless you don't know.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's a very good question.  So when are you going to respond to it with an answer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I'm not pushing AGW, you are.
I'm sorry you don't know how close we are to a runaway greenhouse effect.
I hope your next post doesn't kill the planet.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Right, so what you are saying is that your only point in coming here is to troll.  Got it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I want to learn. Teach me.
At what point will our evil CO2 cause a runaway greenhouse effect?

Help me, so I don't turn Earth into Venus.
You're our only hope.


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





Warmers have blamed just about everything on global warming for the last two decades, from acne through the full circle back to zits. Anyone could make a joke piece on the absurdity Of it, using only peer reviewed published papers.

Two examples from your list jumped out at me. First, Mann was investigated but key issues were left unanswered, Cuccinelli was correct in trying to get them addressed. Climate science would be better off if it was held accountable.

Second, Chris Mooney was mentioned. He is a political writer with no background in science yet he was put on the Board of Directors of the AGU! 

$10K going to skeptics gets scrutinized and publicized. That doesn't cover the expenses of a single delegate for the annual junkets to exotic destinations for the IPCC. Perhaps the warmers should study the methods of skeptics to see how to get a bang for the buck because we are changing public opinion on a shoestring budget. Of course the massive and faulty exaggerations of the warmers is doing most of the work for us.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> Warmers have blamed just about everything on global warming for the last two decades, from acne through the full circle back to zits.



Define "just about"


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Warmers have blamed just about everything on global warming for the last two decades, from acne through the full circle back to zits.
> ...



You are capable of googlling the lists yourself. They also have been presented on this MB often enough that you have seen them. 

One of my favourites is how increased CO2 has caused the obesity epidemic. Hahahaha

Edit- itfitzme probably loves that one because the correlation is so high. By his criteria it has been proved to be the cause even though it is patently absurd.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 5, 2013)

IanC said:


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



We're all waiting for your explanation of why obesity in _non-human_ animals has been on the rise. I guess all the animals just decide to go on welfare, eat at Burger king all day, and get fat?

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? Wouldn't that increase food availability? Guess what happens to animals when there is high food availability? The get fatter._ Fatter animals would actually be evidence of the denialist claim that warmer temps caused by Co2 is a GOOD thing._


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Image if all the time and effort the denialists spent pretending to be climate experts was spent on - ANYTHING - else? The pyramids of Egypt could have been rebuilt a dozen times over by now.



I can certainly imagine how climate science would look different if the focus was on solar influence rather than.the cul-de-sac of CO2. Ice had been melting since the 1800a, what is the neutral point of TSI where there is no warming or cooling? That is apretty important piece of info.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



*Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? *

Are warmists claiming increased CO2 _doesn't_ make plants grow more?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




Depends on if the plant has enough light and nutrients to make use of the extra CO2. It works in reverse - as well - extra light won't do any good unless their is CO2 to match it.

This is well known in the hydroponics community.


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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




Hahahaha. Are you actually saying that better nourished wild animals are the cause of human obesity?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 5, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Uhh, no. Are you a moron or something?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You never answered my question about your Dear Leader's mis-characterization of the science.. You also didn't address my observation about any RESTRAINT or SKEPTICISM shown on the parts of the UN or Congressional leadership.. (Short of the one example of the Bush years putting a lid on wild speculations and pronouncements coming from supposedly politically neutral govt scientists)

What you got here is a series of childish skirmishes between skeptics and warmers and few dead animals and Jew comments. 

Reality is --- the ONLY credible brakes on this biased process has COME -- not from political leadership -- but from the skeptic community as IanC pointed out. In fact, a couple years ago -- when the IPCC faced severe criticism on its review process, the momentum came from WITHIN the science community --- not from Barb Boxer or Henry Waxman. The IPCC had to ADMIT that a lot of their process was driven by the predominance of EQUAL review and comment from the NON-SCIENCE contributors to each of previous reports. In fact, the Exec Summary and sections for the poly sci political hacks often didn't even resemble the scientific comments in the report itself.. 

Your comment that::::: 



> It has been almost universally the case, since the IPCC was formed and throughout every new report's composition, that the political representatives have urged or forced the science authors to downplay the chances, the risk and the danger.



stands as an incredibly naive and breathtakingly stupid opinion on the objectiveness of the process..  Do you agree with Obama's statement? Do you understand what the CHARTER of the IPCC says? It is biased from the get-go... And it's OK to lie, cheat and frighten the kiddies..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



A moron would be a person who thinks that when food is plentiful -- animals get fatter instead of expanding their population.. Less die from lack of food. But the freedom to get fat and lazy isn't a part of Darwinian survival.. Is it?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I posted that.
> (
> What I'm waiting for you or the sun worshipper FlaCalTennn to put up here is something supporting his charges that the IPCC lowballed the TSI values.  We see what they say it was and why and we see what he thinks it should have been (and his value falls just about at the upper end of the IPCC's error bar) but evidence on his sides... not so much.



No --- you need to tell ME why the error bar only barely covers the ACTUAL reported evidence. And that the actual estimate is 4 or 5 times LOWER than the data actually shows.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> Warmers have blamed just about everything on global warming for the last two decades, from acne through the full circle back to zits. Anyone could make a joke piece on the absurdity Of it, using only peer reviewed published papers.
> 
> Two examples from your list jumped out at me. First, Mann was investigated but key issues were left unanswered, Cuccinelli was correct in trying to get them addressed. Climate science would be better off if it was held accountable.
> 
> ...



You don't seem to understand the topic under discussion.  FlaCalTenn was contending that the IPCC is politically driven to be alarmist.  I contended it was the other way around.  He asked for evidence.  I posted the material above.

I think anyone that sides with Ken Cuccinelli in his pathetic attempt to persecute Michael Mann has, I'm sorry to say, put their political longings above the well-being of our society.  I am sure you've heard that several well-known AGW-deniers voiced strenuous opposition to what Cuccinelli was trying to do.  He had to have known his effort would be squashed by the first court to get their hands on it.  So why did he do it?  To get votes from folks like you.

I couldn't care less about Chris Mooney and the AGU.  But that $10K and many hundreds of thousands if not millions more gets scrutinized because it is dedicated to the task of  to pushing a particular fiction to the American public.  It is spent exactly as money was spent attempting to push the fiction of a scientific controversy concerning the link between cigarettes and lung cancer; exactly as money was spent attempting to push the fiction of a scientific controversy concerning evolution vs intelligent design.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? *
> 
> Are warmists claiming increased CO2 _doesn't_ make plants grow more?



Scientists have stated on numerous occasions that the net effect of increasing CO2 will be a reduction in crop yields worldwide.  The idea that it will 'green the world' is patent nonsense.


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



Wow, I guess I could have made the same response to your comment but I preferred to point out the inconsistency of your logic. Obese people are not getting fatter because plants grow better with more CO2. Nor are they reacting to a minor increase in CO2 ehich is dwarfed by orders of magnitude in the lungs, or even in living spaces.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? *
> ...



More CO2 makes plants grow less?
Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? *
> ...



Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food claims differently.

_For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 3401,000 ppm (parts per million). *Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.* For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed._

You should point out their error.
Let me know what they say. Thanks!


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Even Plants May Not Like a Warmer World - TIME


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? *
> ...







Show us three of those reports please.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...







Yet more computer generated fiction.  When, oh when will you actually present some real evidence and not something manufactured out of whole cloth?   The world wonders....

"And this is only the latest in a long line of *modeling studies* and experiments that show how complicated the climate-vegetation connection can be."

Read more: Even Plants May Not Like a Warmer World - TIME


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Here is the abstract of Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content":

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

And the accompanying graphic we've all seen before:






First, I would ask you to find anywhere in Balmaseda et al 2013 a statement indicating that they now believe their to be a 30-50 year lag between forcing factors and land/ocean temperatures - as you have been claiming they so state.  The full text is available at Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Second, I would ask you to explain in the graphic above, at points where major volcanic eruptions are noted, the almost immediate response and the brief, 1-2 year recovery, if the system as a whole contains a 30-50 year lag as you contend.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



That's awesome, but he claimed higher CO2 will reduce yield.
Try again?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I'm surprised you didn't remember what thread we were in.. So I toyed with you a little, but at least now --- you understand my comments about the OP topic.. 

I'm sure the paper is not stating a lag factor for the "hidden warmth".. Trenberth has unwittingly tho opened a can of worms here. Because his personal revelation that the Earth climate has storage mechanisms was obviously new to both him and Climate community as a whole.. But this is the ultimate inference that they are making. That like charging a battery -- the warming is STILL THERE.. Unfortunately for the warmers, it's in a place right now that can't influence the weather or human conditions IMMEDIATELY. That is actually the unspoken capitualization of the paper (i have skimmed it). 

But like a battery, I can measure INSTANTEOUSLY the amount of the charge that I put into it.. So seeing immediate changes due to external forcings (like volcanoes) is not surprising to me. 

Surprises me that you are surprised at this surprise.. 

OBSERVING the act of storing is not the same as the "discharge rate" of the storage. And I imagine that eventually all this energy Trenberth originally misplaced will have to be recycled to the surface gradually where it CAN be part of the radiative and thermal exchange with the rest of the universe.. The time scales and energy flows are brand NEW to the discussion but IMPLIED by the entire premise of the work... 

Let's just say this can of worms WILL get unraveled and better models might even show a trigger point where all this "hidden storage" gets suddenly swept up into dominant ocean currents and decides to melt the Arctic in one decade.. THERE WILL BE an analysis of the delayed release of this energy.. 

In the meantime --- studying the LAG between *natural * forcings (like the substantial TSI increase since 1700)  and temperature just MIGHT REVEAL a good approximation of what the discharge rate for this stored energy might be.. Don't expect you to "get" any of this unscripted science speculation until you read about it on your favorite "warmer" blog in a few years.. 

BTW: I predict that the climateers will also realize that the ocean is NOT the only energy storage game in town.. All those massive stores of calthrates was created by ancient energy "excesses" that also got hidden.. Created at a time when WARMTH allowed for massive bioactivity in the Arctic.

It's all part of the science that was missing all along in accounting for energy "balance". The release of the calthrates would represent an "opportunistic" lag delay of release that is a delayed function of temperature wouldn't it?


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



1) Cereal Killer: Climate Change Stunts Growth of Global Crop Yields: Scientific American

2) Climate Change: A Controlled Experiment; March 2010; Scientific American Magazine; by Stan D. Wullschleger and Maya Strahl; 6 Page(s)

3) Is Global Warming Harmful to Health?; Endangered Earth; Exclusive Online Issues; by Paul R. Epstein; 7 page(s)

4) Global warming affects crop yields, but it's the water not the heat (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n5/full/nclimate1832.html)

5) Study finds growing evidence of global warming threat to future food supplies

6) Carbon dioxide could reduce crop yields

7) How Climate Change Will Affect Farms - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

8) IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. *Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?*



Yes.  I was making some of those measurements.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I'm afraid you're full of crap.  If the system is storing energy for 30-50 years, it is doing it continuously.  The energy changes caused by those eruptions were over - both directions - in less than 5 years.  Your 50 years of storage doesn't hold water.  Not a freakin' drop.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Dear Toddster,

Plant growth and crop yields are two different things.


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. *Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?*
> ...



I call bullshit. Claiming precision of one hundreth of a degree, even in the ARGO era is preposterous.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Dear Abraham, warmer and higher CO2 levels are two different things.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. *Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?*
> ...



Back in the 1950s? Cool.
How'd you do it?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



That isn't what he was claiming.


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I posted that.
> (
> What I'm waiting for you or the sun worshipper FlaCalTennn to put up here is something supporting his charges that the IPCC lowballed the TSI values.  We see what they say it was and why and we see what he thinks it should have been (and his value falls just about at the upper end of the IPCC's error bar) but evidence on his sides... not so much.



LOL, why should anybody bother with you? You are unsure who you are on here. You resposnd for yourself and for organman whenever it suits you... Get a grip on your identity crisis then maybe someone will take you seriously..LOL


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> You never answered my question about your Dear Leader's mis-characterization of the science..



The comments of Kim Jung Un are irrelevant to this discussion.



flacaltenn said:


> You also didn't address my observation about any RESTRAINT or SKEPTICISM shown on the parts of the UN or Congressional leadership.. (Short of the one example of the Bush years putting a lid on wild speculations and pronouncements coming from supposedly politically neutral govt scientists)



In a discussion of history or policy, individual persons and events are almost meaningless.  You're purposely trying to use faulty logic here.  The history of the IPCC is filled with political forces attempting to downplay the science.  



flacaltenn said:


> Reality is --- the ONLY credible brakes on this biased process has COME -- not from political leadership -- but from the skeptic community as IanC pointed out. In fact, a couple years ago -- when the IPCC faced severe criticism on its review process, the momentum came from WITHIN the science community --- not from Barb Boxer or Henry Waxman. The IPCC had to ADMIT that a lot of their process was driven by the predominance of EQUAL review and comment from the NON-SCIENCE contributors to each of previous reports. In fact, the Exec Summary and sections for the poly sci political hacks often didn't even resemble the scientific comments in the report itself..



The scientific process is not biased.



flacaltenn said:


> Your comment that:::::
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Stupid?  Why might it be that the Wiki article supported that point of view and provided NO support for yours?  Stupid?  G f y a.



flacaltenn said:


> Do you agree with Obama's statement? Do you understand what the CHARTER of the IPCC says? It is biased from the get-go... And it's OK to lie, cheat and frighten the kiddies..



Am I talking with one of the kiddies?

I agree with the findings of the IPCC.  If you think that's juvenile or stupid, feel free to sit on it and spin.


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. *Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?*
> ...



ROFL, and there it is, the "I'm an expert" line... Knew it wasn't long before you pulled that one.. You socks have no other game do you...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 5, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I posted that.
> ...



I see you can't deal with the truth.  You have no hard evidence to back up your position,  so you attempt to sidetrack the conversation with this trolling bullshit.  G.A.Y.S.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 5, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Spoken like someone with NO credentials.

Care to argue the precision of a Sippican T5 XBT with me?



> You socks have no other game do you...



Well, there is the entirety of the science, all of which supports my position because my position is that it's correct.


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



ROFL, you socks are pathetic.. You habitually say the most un-scientific, or just plain ignorant things, and then when we point it out, your defense is to proclaim victory by saying things like _"I see you can't deal with the truth."_

What truth moron? That you're an imbecile who has no other game than to claim himself an expert in the field???

Dude if we had half as many real scientists on this forum, as we have had fakes (like you) we would be the leadfing authority on just about every scientific field you can name...You fakes are always ready to try the "authority" game...

You're not fooling anybody socko. You din't fool anyone the last few times, and you're not fooling anyone this time..


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



ROFL, why don't you learn a new act? This ones old..

Face it, the scientist act isn't for you.. You just aren't sharp enough to pull it off. If you were you would have by now.. This is how many attempts now?


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 5, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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


The hydroponics community who deliver mealy-mouthed, nutrient depraved, anemic pink tomatoes and bitter yellow lettuce to the grocery store? Oh, yeah, baby!


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 5, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I'm not a scientist.  I'm an engineer.  I've told you that several times now.  Memory problem?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Most of those don't say that CO2 doesn't promote growth. THey state that the advantage of CO2 will be nullified by lack of water (not in evidence) and increasing temps (debatable).


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Yes.. Memory, scientific reasoning, manners  --- all suspect generally... 

"Dammit Jim --- I'm a DOCTOR not a mechanic." Dr. L. McCoy, Med. Officer, SS Enterprise.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








And no surprise at all, save for the first study they were ALL model studies.  I will get the first study and see what it has to say.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> That's the question I posed to you.  And I am still waiting for your answer.


Why don't you address your idiotic assertions that get called for the idiocy that they are?....Let's start with Venus being 28% closer to the sun is "slightly" nearer to the star.

I'm pretty sure someone could whip up an attractive full color chart or graph to debunk your rank foolhardiness.


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Socko, I wasn't aware you told ME you were an engineer.. Perhaps you can point that post you made to me out.. You did make this post though...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7645892-post560.html



Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. *Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?*
> ...



So that was you, claiming you made those measurements of the deep ocean back then.. ERGO, a claim of expertise on the matter, hence my point and your BS getting old now...So either you are claiming to be a scientist or an engineer, does it really matter when it's BS anyway?

You're a forum trolling sock, and one of low-rep clones we have had a rash of lately..


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

I don't think it is too much of a reach to suggest that every single poster on this board understands that CO2 produced by humans has changed our climate. 

I am not saying that some questionsdo not remain, because they do, but the basic premise of climate change has simply been known and understood for too long to make most denial credible. 

Anyone who believes in science as a concept understands that. 

What we see here now is some empty kind of theatre, of posters arguing purely for the sake of arguing. 

I have to say, I don't find that "You can't convince me!" style of debate terribly engaging.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

Oddball said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > That's the question I posed to you.  And I am still waiting for your answer.
> ...



Do you believe that what happened to Venus cannot happen to Earth?  If not, why not?  If so, Why?


----------



## speck (Aug 6, 2013)

I believe this, 

Genesis 8:22
King James Version (KJV)

22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

Speck - 

On January 1, 1990, Pope John Paul II delivered his World Day of Peace message to Catholics around the world, and for that year&#8217;s address he lamented a &#8220;widespread destruction of the environment.&#8221; World peace, he warned, was threatened not only by arms, conflict, and injustice, but by &#8220;a lack of due respect for nature.&#8221;

John Paul II&#8217;s message on that day pointed to a worldwide ecological crisis, and while it did not mention climate change by name his references were clear. &#8220;Industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants: all of these are known to harm the atmosphere and environment,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The resulting meteorological and atmospheric changes range from damage to health to the possible future submersion of low-lying lands.&#8221;

The Catholic Church and Climate Change | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I didn't say it wouldn't promote growth.  Increased CO2 increases growth and improves water use efficiency.  But the effects of GHG-induced global warming will harm crops in several ways and the net result will be reduced crop yields.

If you think a lack of water as a result of increased temperatures is "not in evidence" you need to review the world's drought record of the past several decades.  And if you think it debatable that temperatures have been increasing, I don't know why I'm wasting my time talking to you.  There's a name for people that have lost touch with reality.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:
			
		

> I'm not a scientist.  I'm an engineer.  I've told you that several times now.  Memory problem?





gslack said:


> Socko, I wasn't aware you told ME you were an engineer..



I posted it.  I have no control over what you do and do not read.  Post your personal email address and I'll make certain you don't miss anything.



gslack said:


> So that was you, claiming you made those measurements of the deep ocean back then.. ERGO, a claim of expertise on the matter, hence my point and your BS getting old now...So either you are claiming to be a scientist or an engineer, does it really matter when it's BS anyway?



I was responding to a fooking question - posted by IanC, not you - as to whether or not anyone believed the quoted resolution of bathythermograph data.  I supported my response with the fact that I have dropped and analyzed BT data for over 30 years.  You obviously have never come within a hundred yards of one or you'd be commenting on the facts of the matter instead of attacking me personally.



gslack said:


> You're a forum trolling sock, and one of low-rep clones we have had a rash of lately..



The world has a rash from the likes of you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I know what thread we're in and you weren't toying with me.  You really are full of shite.

You made several statements that Trenberth was now claiming or admitting that thermal energy was hidden in the deep ocean for 30-50 years.  Now you admit he said no such thing.

I am impressed.  You just never stop making it up, do you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I don't think it is too much of a reach to suggest that every single poster on this board understands that CO2 produced by humans has changed our climate.
> 
> I am not saying that some questionsdo not remain, because they do, but the basic premise of climate change has simply been known and understood for too long to make most denial credible.
> 
> ...



I hate to say it, but there are a number of posters here who reject the idea that CO2 has changed our climate.


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So then you can't point to one post out of "several" where YOU told ME specifically you were an engineer... Oh come now low-rep clone, we know better than that.. YOU forgot who YOU were this time, AGAIN... Dude you do it a lot...

Yes, yes you did socko.. we know, you are an expert in whatever you need to be, to win this debate.. 

ROFL, BTW.... when you said;

*" You obviously have never come within a hundred yards of one"*

One what socko? A BT data? LOL, where you just stomping your foot and saying "I know you are but what am I"???

You should just call me a doodie-head, and run off, it would have at least looked better than that childish nonsense..

And I am attacking you because you aren't debating honestly. When you got caught bullshitting instead defending it, you tried to claim some position of authority on the matter. A position that you, just like the countless times before, and under various other names, do not have..

You don't learn from your previous mistakes socko.. You pull this everytime you get either too busted, or too lazy to defend a position or claim. You suddenly pull I'm an authority" out of your ass, when you're in a pickle... WHat's worse is you say crap like *"I've told you that several times now."*when we can all see that under this name you use now, you did nosuch thing with me.. In fact  with this name you're using we haven't talked much. I figured why bother, I can talk to one of the other "you"...

How many of you now have the same rep problem? LOL 4? 5?   ROFL, it's okay junior, we are really fooled...


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I hate to say it, but there are a number of posters here who reject the idea that CO2 has changed our climate.



There are a number who 'pretend' to reject the idea, but increasingly I get the idea they are going through the motions out of sheer belligerancy rather than any real interest in science. 

It's been a long, long time since SSDD, Westwall et al showed any interest in what is actually happening in the Arctic, for instance. 

Certainly some of the less literate posters can maintain denial because they aren't likely to happen upon a newspaper in the average year, but for the average poster on this board - denial is starting to ring might hollow.


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I hate to say it, but there are a number of posters here who reject the idea that CO2 has changed our climate.
> ...



Oh stop... YOU haven't done anything here but getbusted time and again lying, editing quotes, when you even quote people, and being a general crybaby.

No one pretends here but you and the clone army...


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I hate to say it, but there are a number of posters here who reject the idea that CO2 has changed our climate.
> ...








Yet more lies from saggy I see.  Never, ever make assumptions for others.  It makes you look like an ass.  Here is the truth about the Arctic today, so far there have been half the number of days above 0C that is usually seen.  That makes this year the coldest in the Arctic so far....









COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



And yet the extent of Arctic sea ice is below normal:






Ahem.  I suppose it didn't occur to you that over half of those temperature measurements in your graph are above normal.  And I suppose it also didn't occur to you that most of those abnormal temperature measurements occurred during peak Arctic sea ice formation.

Oh, and then there is this:






Figure 3a. This image of air temperature anomalies at the 925 hPa level from July 1 to 10 July 10, 2013 shows higher than average temperatures over the Arctic, especially over the Kara Sea. Air temperature anomalies are relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

Westwall - 



> That makes this year the coldest in the Arctic so far...



Ah ha....and of course you can explain why 2013 Arctic Ice is still - as of Monday August 05 - well below the 1981-2010 average.

"Sea ice extent retreated fairly rapidly through the first two weeks of July as a high pressure cell moved into the central Arctic, bringing warmer temperatures over much of the Arctic Ocean. Ice extent remains below average on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, and is near average to locally above average in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and along much of the Eurasian coast.

While the rate of Arctic sea ice loss is normally fastest during July, the warmest month of the year, *ice loss was even faster than usual over the first two weeks of July 2013*. As a result, on July 15 extent came within 540,000 square kilometers (208,000 square miles) of that seen in 2012 on the same date. The ice loss is dominated by retreat on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, including the East Greenland, Kara and Laptev seas, and Baffin Bay. In the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and much of the Eurasian coast, the ice cover remains fairly extensive, especially compared to recent summers. Compared to the 1981 to 2010 average, ice extent on July 15, 2013 was 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below average."


Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Actually, this is a very good example of what I meant before - you know full well that Arctic Ice is collapsing. You know it as well as I do, or anyone else who reads the news does. And yet here you are arguing against it. 

Is it just belligerance or pride, or is there some reason you cannot admit what you know to be true?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

I think he must have spent far too long a time at Bible warrier school.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



No --- you need to present evidence that every drought, every flood, every snowmaggedon, every tornado is ample evidence of Global Warming.. How's that drought in Arizona coming eh?? A mere month ago -- it was proof of Climate change.. Today -- it's raining in the desert... 

Get off my cloud.. 
Aren't you embarrased claiming that weather is climate? Explain the map below to me in terms of a 1degF change in temp. in your lifetime.. 







How the Holy Hell do you go from 200% of normal to 30% of "normal" in 50 miles or less??? And then --- have the cajones to call that "Climate Change" due to CO2 ?????


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I'm truly sorry you don't have the mental flexibility to think for yourself in terms of the IMPLICATIONS of what this OP paper actually infers.. 

Tell me "if it's hiding in the oceans" when  it's gonna manifest in surface effects then.. DO YOU have a mechanism for this hidden warmth to affect weather or climate? How many years before it manifests as a thermal exchange with the surface and the atmos? 

It exists -- it just hasn't been elaborated yet.. Not "making it up" --- just quicker to grab the importance of this capitulation that the media reports simply as "it really hasn't stopped warming".. 

It was pruned to be a media event -- leaving out important justifications.. An academic sounding excuse for the stalling of the surface temps.. And your congregation has totally bit the hook.. 

Don't blame me for the slow uptake of your "climate scientists" or their desire to acheive a certain PR result.

Don't worry -- it WILL eventually unravel thread by thread...


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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








Maybe.  Of course that "normal" was taken when we were emerging from the "are we going into a new ice age" scare of the 1970's era so the ice was at an all time high.  We know through newspaper articles that the ice was much lower in the 1920's and '30's, hell almost EVERY decade one of you warmist chicken littles screamed hysterically about the "melting Arctic".  Below are just a very few examples.  Enjoy the read.....  When are you going to get you sandwich boards proclaiming the end is nigh?



























COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> 
> 
> ...








You might want to check the other posts there saggy...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Your top article. "6 degrees higher than 40 years ago" must have killed us all.
What with the runaway greenhouse effect, coastal flooding and droughts.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I'm going to assume from all this that you wouldn't know a BT if it was up your arse sideways.  The contention that Trenberth has drawn conclusions not warranted by his data is a completely unfounded assertion.  It's the sort of thing that doesn't make it past peer review.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You don't actually talk much science, do you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I don't credit individual events to global warming.  I credit trends.  Temperatures are up.  Droughts are up.  Forgive me but I see a correlation.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


>



Say, WestWall, why did you highlight the words "ice free Arctic" on the clipping above?  Were you under the impression that the article was saying that the Arctic was ice free?  Why don't you have another read and see if that's really what you wanted to put out there.


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Thanks for clarifying you were lying when you said you told me you were an engineer several times.. We knew that already...

You're the one who called BT data a "one", as in when you said, *" You obviously have never come within a hundred yards of one"*

So I ask again, one what socko?

ROFL, Trenberth is a tool, paid to create an energy budget to support a failing theory. SO he did.. His budget is a work of fiction using a flat disk sharped earth and 24/7 twilight.. It's about as realistic as you claiming to be an engineer...


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



If you mean the pseudo-science, internet expert nonsense you and clones ramble, then no.. When you actually start refering to real science I may comment scientifically.. Until then there is no point..


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



You responded to toddster,moron...LOL


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I'm truly sorry you don't have the mental flexibility to think for yourself in terms of the IMPLICATIONS of what this OP paper actually infers..



I have enough mental capacity to recognize lies when I see them.  You claimed Trenberth had identified the ocean as a holding tank for the thermal energy that would support your contention that warming is due to TSI and not CO2.  That was a lie.  He said no such thing.  He very clearly stated that recent deep ocean warming was a new and different climatic behavior that was due to variability in surface winds.  He did NOT say that it was a permanent or historical feature.  Trenberth's work does not support your hypothesis.



flacaltenn said:


> It exists -- it just hasn't been elaborated yet.. Not "making it up" --- just quicker to grab the importance of this capitulation that the media reports simply as "it really hasn't stopped warming"..



Man, you're a piece of work.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 6, 2013)

gslack said:


>



You are truly worthless.


----------



## IanC (Aug 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.

You say you worked with XBTs and they give measurrements accurate to one one hundredth of a degree. And the data from the early ones in the 60's is just as accurate as the ones today, and the readings are calibrated exactly the same.

Even if I agree to that, the ocean is a huge place and the XBTs are dropped off ships doing other tasks so the spacial coverage is less than optimal. I am having a really hard time believing that our measurements of deep ocean temps is whithin an order of magnitude of 0.01 degrees. How many XBTs have been launched? A few million? A few tens of millions? What kind of coverage does that work out to? One reading per 100 sq miles per month?per year? Less?


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Yes, my thoughts exactly.  Amazing huh..here all along we _thought_ we were alive but in reality we are mere figments of some Gods imagination!


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...








Ummmm, 'cause I DIDN'T highlight it would be my guess...  That's the way it is on the net.
And yes there have been times that the Arctic _*HAS*_ been ice free.  And in the not too distant past either.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I'm truly sorry you don't have the mental flexibility to think for yourself in terms of the IMPLICATIONS of what this OP paper actually infers..
> ...







No, you don't.  You are every bit the religious fanatic who needs only faith to carry them through!


----------



## Oddball (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


What happened on Venus is irrelevant.....Any atmosphere will trap solar radiation.....The more dense the atmosphere and the closer to that radiation source, the hotter the planet....A 70%-er student student pilot  could tell you that.

Now, tell us all how 28% is "slight", in any context.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 6, 2013)

Most blame china for the aerosals that are stopping the warming


----------



## Oddball (Aug 6, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Most blame china for the aerosals that are stopping the warming


Most are slimy patent medicine hawkers, who will latch onto any excuse they can to try and 'splain away why their lame-assed models are always wrong.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



From YOUR link:








> The graph illustrates a decreasing trend in sea ice extent since 1978, with annual variations of occationally more than 1 million square kilometres. The 2012 sea ice minimum extented set a new minimum record. The 2012 September minimum ice extent was only approximately half the mean sea ice extent from the period 1979-2000, - often referred to as a relative stabil period for the sea ice extent. The blue trend line in the figure has a negative slope of approximately 60000 km2 per year. The data are provided by National Snow and Ice Data Center's web site (NSIDC).


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Imagine that...   You accuse ME of playing fast and loose with available evidence. 

Are these visions lucent enough to comment on the current Atlantic Hurricane season? How about Middle Tennessee tornado forecast for 2019? How about the wine harvest in Australia for the next decade? 

Is this on the level of complete charlatanism that Saigon just posted where some demented political appointee is doing pin-point REGIONAL forecasts for New Zealand in 2100?

Time for a USMB beer summit.. It would be a gas to hear you project weather events on the basis of a 1deg avg GLOBAL temp change..


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2013)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



LOL, maybe if you grew a spine and quit running away every time you get made a fool of, you would come across less like a douchebag...

You asked me for my position in the other thread and when I gave it, you ran... LOL, dude seriously you are about as cowardly a poster as there is...

He didn't say XBT he said BT and used the term like an idiot as well.. Why aren't you jumping on him for it Ian? Why not get on PMZ for his BS version of the law of conservation of energy?

You're supposed to be mr.science authority on here when someone dares question your god spencer, yet you say nothing to those schmucks again...

Like I said before, luke-warmer my ass... You're a warmer playing devils advocate...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

And you are - right.  Nobody.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 7, 2013)

IanC said:


> Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.



I'm certainly willing to give it a try.  Does this board's software have an ignore button?



IanC said:


> You say you worked with XBTs and they give measurrements accurate to one one hundredth of a degree. And the data from the early ones in the 60's is just as accurate as the ones today, and the readings are calibrated exactly the same.



Almost.  I've been dropping BTs and analyzing the data  (making raytrace plots, find the layer, sonar-type crap) for over 30 years.  XBT probes are analog devices.  They'll give you readings to a millionth of a degree if you want.  The question is their accuracy.  

The dominant device since the invention of the gadget is the Sippican XBT.  Sippican is now owned by Lockheed Martin.  Their are a few companies making competing systems and probes but they are all compatible copies of the Sippican designs. Sippican's latest kit is the Mk 21.  The probes come in several different flavors.  They have a range of units that measure temperature, but they also have probes that directly measure sound velocity, CTD probes (conductivity, temperature, depth) and current profilers.  They make launching rigs for ships, submarines and aircraft and modified probes to go with each due to the different launch vessel dynamics.

The temperature probes get launched the most frequently.  CTDs are favored by oceanographic researchers but they cost two to three times as much.  Temperature probes come in several different varieties for different depth ranges and precision.

I'm afraid I have to go to work.  I will get back to this this afternoon.  However, if you do a search on calibration and Sippican XBTs you will find a wealth of information.  The parameter most commonly bandied about is the fall rate of the things but obviously temperature is tweaked as need be.  Check out the literature.

And, yes, millions of XBTs have been dropped over the years.  That may not be much, but temperature profiles do not change rapidly as one moves around.  Near local fresh water outfalls and tidal courses, their can be dramatic local changes, but in the deep ocean, a single good BT drop will give you valid data for several square miles.  

Back this evening.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.
> ...



It does. Click on his user name, then public profile, then user lists. There are options for friends and for ignore. I also have glsack on ignore, and hopefully other users will do the same.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 7, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Wow. You're apparently an expert on animal nutrition, as well. So please explain why animals are getting fatter. You're really good at casually dismissing the theories and experiments of others without having to so much as look at them, but have zero explanations of your own. That's interesting.


I find it also odd that you are the rare human that has never continued eating past satiation, or never eaten simply for the enjoyment of tasting the food you're eating. Do you not have taste buds? If you had ever experienced these things, you would know first hand that evolution wires animals to over-consume food. This is because - in nature - there is actually some benefit to getting a little fat. When the food supply turns around and becomes scarce, the fatter animal can wait longer for the food supply to return.


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



ROFL,not very good with metaphors I see...


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.
> ...



Please,by all means ignore me socko.. LOL

BTW, I hate to interupt your re-written wikki on bathythermographs, but when Ian asked about the accuracy you claimed previously, I am pretty sure he assumed that the hundreths you claimed were the tolerances. You know as in + or - a hundreth or two.. If you say it can measure down to whatever you want, but the accuracy is the issue, than you obviously are talking about the units measure and not the accuracy. Which makes your previous claim moot...

Seems silly to claim you can measure temps down to hundreths of a degree if you can't be certain the measurement is within a hundreth of a degree of accuracy. It's kind of like balancing your checkbook by rounding everything up to the nearest dollar. 

Please continue on your babble...


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You been claiming to ignore me for months now... Please, please, please, stop being a punk and doit already..


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 7, 2013)

I posted this on another thread but it would be very relevant here too at this point.




RollingThunder said:


> Just a note for anyone who might be new to this forum: the slackjawedidiot is a troll who will never post anything actually relevant to the topic at hand. As a troll, his mission is to derail informative threads with pointless quibbles and off topic nonsense. Engaging him in debate is futile since he isn't here to debate facts but only to disrupt actual debate. Either ignore him and his clueless drivel or mock him for his idiocy. Attempting to respond normally to his demented posts and expecting a rational response is a huge waste of time.
> 
> Just so you know...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

My experience also.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 7, 2013)

Westwall said:
			
		

> We know through newspaper articles that the ice was much lower in the 1920's and '30's,



As is common, the actual science says that Westwall's references are completely incorrect. Sure, someone said those things, but they were totally wrong. Sea ice extent was far greater then than it is today. We know this because the Danish kept detailed sea ice maps starting in 1922.

It's a mark of pseudoscience, of course, when someone ignores good data in favor of cherrypicking various random comments. The cult has decreed sea ice was lower in the 1920s, so the cultists are required to only present data to support that mantra.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

You don't understand the deniers dilemma.  There is no data,  there are no theories,  that support what they want to be true.  It's a tough existence that they have.  It's like science is against them.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 7, 2013)

This is a link in to an e-book on oceanographic instrumentation.  It contains a good discussions on XBT accuracy.  See section 1.3.3 about page 14-16 as I recall.

Data Analysis Methods in Physical Oceanography - Google Books


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.
> ...



Thanks for the advice, I have put GSlack on my ignore list.

The work I linked to above indicates that the accuracy of the Sippican T-5 probe is +/-0.06C.  I am quite certain that Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's work can be trusted in that regard.  

Keep in mind IanC, that in order for the temperature rise they found to be false in the manner you suggest would require a major bias problem, not one of accuracy.  I'm not saying a bias is impossible, but one that happens to produce a consistent pattern across the world's ocean basins is extraordinarily unlikely.

The evidence suggests that changes brought about by global warming have altered the Earth's heat transport mechanisms.  Significant amounts of heat that used to remain in the atmosphere are now getting sucked into the deep ocean.  Whether the climate changes doing that will remain in place, change further or return to their original state is - as far as I've heard - unknown.  But what we do know is that the Earth is still receiving more energy than it radiates away.  We are not at thermal equilibrium.  Temperatures will continue to rise.


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> I posted this on another thread but it would be very relevant here too at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL, looks like I need to make you cry and run off again.. Seems you forgot your last breakdown..

Stalking me isn't a good idea trolling blunder, you know I don't think of you that way... 

Yes,yes, I see all your text but all I make of it is *"Gslack made me cry!!!!!"*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Atmospheric heat sucked into the deep oceans...the person sitting next to me on the train is wondering what made me laugh out loud

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Atmospheric heat sucked into the deep oceans...the person sitting next to me on the train is wondering what made me laugh out loud.


Retards like you, CrazyFruitcake, often laugh at the things that are beyond your very limited comprehension. Room temperature IQ people like you are almost always very suspicious of all of that science that you can't understand. It's part of being so severely retarded, so your attitude is not at all surprising. In fact, we've all come to expect this kind of idioticly ignorant and very pointless response from you.


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...









Yeah, cute graphic.  The maps show maximum extent and you show it at minimum.  Here's what it was at a similar time there propaganda boy....


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...









Funny how you can't seem to SHOW any change in the heat transfer system.  You guys wave your hands and mumble under your breath in a conman sort of way, but when pressed for an ACTUAL MEASURABLE EXAMPLE......why...you run and hide and call people names.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall said:
> ...


And there's the walleyedretard once again demonstrating just how retarded and/or senile he really is. Anyone sane and rational who looks at the old ice extent maps from the 1920s and 30s that mammoth posted can clearly see that they are all dated "August", which was about the time of year of minimum ice extent in those decades. But ol' Walleyed manages to make the moronic claim that: "_the maps show maximum extent_", an event that happens in March, and then he follows up with an unidentified and unattributed graphic of maximum ice extent in some year or other. LOLOL. Denier cult dingbats are soooo funny.


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

Where's the big font troll?

About time for you toblow a gasket and start shouting at everyone again... ROFL


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

Deniers have zero science that supports what they wish was true. Zero. Nothing. 

They hope to accomplish their goal of more for them at the expense of future generations through the spread of ignorance. Not unlike the role of the Church that lead to Europe's Dark Ages.

Their strategy is to attack science and scientists to try to drag them down to the level of their politics and politicians.

In other words drag dirty politics to the world of truth seeking. 

Nafarious at best.

Of course it's all for naught. They are trying to delay what's already launched. 

There is just too much opportunity to contain the doers of the world.

The bottom line for their efforts is that the harder they work at it, the more irrelevant they make themselves. And if there's one thing that they can't afford to lose any more of its relevance. 

They really seem unable to help themselves though. The ego thing. They want to seem educated and informed without investing in being educated and informed.

It's self destructive behavior.


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Deniers have zero science that supports what they wish was true. Zero. Nothing.
> 
> They hope to accomplish their goal of more for them at the expense of future generations through the spread of ignorance. Not unlike the role of the Church that lead to Europe's Dark Ages.
> 
> ...



And YOU have zero ethics and steal the work of others and pretend it's your own...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> Funny how you can't seem to SHOW any change in the heat transfer system.  You guys wave your hands and mumble under your breath in a conman sort of way, but when pressed for an ACTUAL MEASURABLE EXAMPLE......why...you run and hide and call people names.



Did you not see this?


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Deniers have zero science that supports what they wish was true. Zero. Nothing.
> 
> They hope to accomplish their goal of more for them at the expense of future generations through the spread of ignorance. Not unlike the role of the Church that lead to Europe's Dark Ages.
> 
> ...








Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion.  Keep yapping to yourself.  I ascribe it to the same sort of behavior that cats do when they are sadly on the verge of passing away and they purr to help themselves.  Keep on purring kitty....


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how you can't seem to SHOW any change in the heat transfer system.  You guys wave your hands and mumble under your breath in a conman sort of way, but when pressed for an ACTUAL MEASURABLE EXAMPLE......why...you run and hide and call people names.
> ...








Of course I did.  I just find it amusing that they produced such a wonderful graph when there WERE NO INSTRUMENTS to record their wonderful data back there in the beginning to oh about 1999 when the first ARGO floats were emplaced.....

And you suck it up because you don't need no data!


----------



## Saigon (Aug 8, 2013)

> Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion.



But of course you aren't winning, and you know you aren't winning. 

Globally, around 75% of people in 30 countries surveyed consider climate change a major issue, and that rises to more than 90% in countries where climate change ishaving a strong impact. 

Why not actually post something honest and admit that PMZ is right?


----------



## Wroberson (Aug 8, 2013)

All these graphs and charts have the same problem.  Scale.  That's right.  
It's easy to show upward movement when -.5 and +20 are separated by 
12cm, but the graph would be a flat line with a a tiny blip at the end and 
a tinier blip in the center if the chart was scaled to show -5 and +20 separated by 1mm.

I am not a believer that global warming is a problem I need to worry about.
The planet moves in cycles like the horses on a merry-go-round.
It's not a roller coaster.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 8, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> All these graphs and charts have the same problem.  Scale.  That's right.
> It's easy to show upward movement when -.5 and +20 are separated by
> 12cm, but the graph would be a flat line with a a tiny blip at the end and
> a tinier blip in the center if the chart was scaled to show -5 and +20 separated by 1mm.
> ...



Two points:

The scale at which some parameter is plotted has no inherent meaning.  It's only purpose is to make the data variations visible.  Whether or not those variations are significant depends on the parameter itself.  A variation that means absolutely nothing if we were talking about the salinity of your drinking water, for instance, can be enormously more significant if we're talking about the dioxin concentration.

The paleoclimatic history of this planet does not indicate that it "moves in cycles".  What makes you think it does?  Convenience?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> Of course I did.  I just find it amusing that they produced such a wonderful graph when there WERE NO INSTRUMENTS to record their wonderful data back there in the beginning to oh about 1999 when the first ARGO floats were emplaced.....
> 
> And you suck it up because you don't need no data!



And you tell falsehoods because that's how one supports a lie.

The XBT began to be used in the early 60s.  Prior to that was the less accurate and far more cumbersome MBT.  Both qualify as INSTRUMENTS.

That graph is the output of an ocean model whose runs were updated every ten days with instrument data.

Where do you get this stuff?  What made you think there was no instrument data in that plot?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion.  Keep yapping to yourself.  I ascribe it to the same sort of behavior that cats do when they are sadly on the verge of passing away and they purr to help themselves.  Keep on purring kitty....



And what explains your abysmal loss of the war for the opinion of the world's scientists?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yeah, cute graphic.  The maps show maximum extent and you show it at minimum.  Here's what it was at a similar time there propaganda boy....



Besides your mistake of calling August a maximum ice extent, the source of your image was NASA's "Earth Observatory" website.  The one below, which seems awfully similar, was acquired on 15 March 2013.  Did you INTEND to give the impression that it was ice extents from the 1920s?







I believe your image is actually from March of 2012 as seen near the end of this series:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php?all=y


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 8, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Atmospheric heat sucked into the deep oceans...the person sitting next to me on the train is wondering what made me laugh out loud.
> ...



You could have just explained to us how it works


----------



## Saigon (Aug 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion.  Keep yapping to yourself.  I ascribe it to the same sort of behavior that cats do when they are sadly on the verge of passing away and they purr to help themselves.  Keep on purring kitty....
> ...



Not to mention the abysmal loss of the war for opinion of the man on the street. 

Some 75% of Europeans consider Climate Change to be one of the 3 greatest challenges facing humanity, and even in the US, 63% of Americans believe climate change is for real.

*Only 16% of Americans say that climate change is not occurring.* Westwall obviously considers 16% a massive victory - strange for someone who once claimed to hvae a PhD.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 8, 2013)

Let's not forget this one Westie.






hmm... yeah... that ice is firming right up, idn't it.


----------



## gslack (Aug 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I did.  I just find it amusing that they produced such a wonderful graph when there WERE NO INSTRUMENTS to record their wonderful data back there in the beginning to oh about 1999 when the first ARGO floats were emplaced.....
> ...



LOL, I was willing to let you ramble your new found, obscure techno-babble, but now I see you are using it foolishly and being an idiot with it... So let's clarify...

Found this from the same article you got your jargon from.. 

Expendable bathythermograph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Problems[edit source | editbeta]
> 
> Since XBTs do not measure depth (e.g. via pressure), fall-rate equations are used to derive depth profiles from what is essentially a time series. For a considerable time, these equations were relatively well-established, *however in 2008 a meeting of experts [1] exposed a systematic bias in the fall-rate equations. A major implication of this is that a depth-temperature profile can be integrated to estimate upper ocean heat content; the bias in these equations lead to a warm bias in the heat content estimations. *The introduction of Argo floats has provided a much more reliable source of temperature profiles than XBTs, however the XBT record remains important for estimating decadal trends and variability and hence much effort has been put into resolving these systematic biases.


 
So they are bias towards warming... Not a shock given the history you warmers have...When did you plan on telling us mr. expert?  LOL never, I know...


BTW, you previously gave the impression that XBT's were un trustworthy, and BT's were the way to go, now it seems you are XBT happy..

So which is it, expendable bathythermographs (XBT) or bathythermographs (BT)??  LOL,never mind, I don't care...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*But of course you aren't winning, and you know you aren't winning. *

Remind me, when Kyoto was ratified by the US Senate, what were the vote totals?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 8, 2013)

We're still 8 degrees C warmer than when the last ice age ended and the Ice is still melting

Wow

How the fuck did that happen?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion.
> ...



Not sure which dark place your head is in,  but the science part is over.  The investors and engineers and doers have left the starting gate since Bush was set aside.  Your lips are flapping but nobody's listening except the other educationally deficient,  but nobody is listening to them either.  That's what irrelevant feels like.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



*but the science part is over.*

That's what the warmists keep saying. If that were truly the case, why do they need to cheat, lie and keep opponents from getting published?

*The investors and engineers and doers have left the starting gate since Bush was set aside.*

Get in on the ground floor, Solyndra shares, really cheap.

*Your lips are flapping but nobody's listening except the other educationally deficient,*

But enough about you. Get back to mee when you find the Kyoto vote totals.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If they had anything original or valid to publish, they wouldn't have a problem getting it published.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So why the push to stop their publication? 
If you were winning, you wouldn't have to cheat.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If you had anything valid to publish, it would be published.  And speaking of cheating, you really should read more about the people who are pushing the denial agenda.  Instead of offering a valid alternative theory that better explains the data, you denialists expend all your energy and money and miniscule talents on trying to refute the currently prevailing theory, and getting the mostly uninformed public to believe in nonsense (which is not a big accomplishment, by the way).  Talk about cheating!  

Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merits.  It isn't enough to simply blast away at a theory you don't like, particularly when you are not offering any original data to back up your claims, nor offering an alternative that better explains the available data.  And that's largely why most scientists lump your rants into the category of pseudoscience.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 8, 2013)

I don't have a lot of experience with irrelevant causes but I'd say that this one is on script.  In fact it's the same script that all republican politics follows. 

When you have nothing to offer,  claim the competition has even less. 

The script of losers everywhere. 

I guess everyone has to work with what they have and those with nothing to offer can't offer anything.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Michaels has a more-than-20-year record of predictions regarding climate that have turned out to be wrong.  Do you want a list?

Patrick J. Michaels - SourceWatch

Michaels' firm does not disclose who its clients are, but leaked documents have revealed that several were power utilities which operate coal power stations. On a 2007 academic CV, Michaels disclosed that prior to creating his firm he had received funding from the Edison Electric Institute and the Western Fuels Association. He has also been a frequent speaker with leading coal and energy companies as well as coal and other industry lobby groups.[4]

Michaels is also associated with a number of think tanks and advocacy groups which dispute global warming. He is a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute, a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute[5] and a member of the Advisory Board of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.[6]

Michaels is also a Scientific Advisor of the American Council on Science and Health[7].

Michaels was a "supporter" of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, an industry-funded PR front group created in 1993 and run by the APCO Worldwide public relations firm. It worked to hang the label of "junk science" on environmentalists. The group is now defunct.[8]

Between December 1998[9] and September 2001[10] he was listed as a "Scientific Advisor" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[11]


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Michaels has a more-than-20-year record of predictions regarding climate that have turned out to be wrong.  Do you want a list?


Irrelevant ad hominem.....There are literally hundreds of pieces on the 'net reporting on the same topic....I only picked one.

Debunk what he, along with countless others, reported, about the original (read: *ORIGINAL*) research on so-called "climate change" being destroyed or "lost".

Fucking bring it.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Oddball said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Michaels has a more-than-20-year record of predictions regarding climate that have turned out to be wrong.  Do you want a list?
> ...



More than relevant, as is his affiliations with the fossil fuel industry and right wing organizations promoting their anti-science agenda.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So lemme get this straight.. All I gots to do is to find a link between a contributor to the debate and a cause I don't like --- and I can discredit them and IGNORE their assertions? 

Right... The companies that keep this economy running are "anti-science".. Every single fucking one of them.. Whereas folks who believe that Unicorns will wisper energy secrets into their ears and WILL IT TO HAPPEN --- are "pro-science"....


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



If by contributing, you mean promoting lies and disinformation to what is not actually a debate, then yeah, you have my permission to ignore all the deniers, including yourself.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



If trying to keep the lights on in an advanced society is a crime.. Then sign me up dude. We are wasting too much money on windmills and other fantasies. Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



If posting strawman arguments is your idea of a scientific debate, you've got more serious problems than you are letting on.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 8, 2013)

Republicans run from problems for the simple reason that they don't have solutions. AGW is merely one of a long list of problems that they have to sell as nonexistent because if they admitted to them they'd have to confront them.  That requires people skilled at governance and their cupboard is bare.  Has been for quite a while. 

While they limp along with only their blind followers still believing they are the very definition of irrelevant. 

Let them go.  They will be replaced by something meaningful once they all get the message that we didn't fall for their BS.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Republicans run from problems for the simple reason that they don't have solutions. AGW is merely one of a long list of problems that they have to sell as nonexistent because if they admitted to them they'd have to confront them.  That requires people skilled at governance and their cupboard is bare.  Has been for quite a while.
> 
> While they limp along with only their blind followers still believing they are the very definition of irrelevant.
> 
> Let them go.  They will be replaced by something meaningful once they all get the message that we didn't fall for their BS.



*Republicans run from problems for the simple reason that they don't have solutions.*

We have a solution. 
We must spend $80 trillion so that the temperature in 2080 is 0.2 degrees lower.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans run from problems for the simple reason that they don't have solutions. AGW is merely one of a long list of problems that they have to sell as nonexistent because if they admitted to them they'd have to confront them.  That requires people skilled at governance and their cupboard is bare.  Has been for quite a while.
> ...



What price are you willing to pay to preserve this planet's biodiversity?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Wasting money is fueling power plants with obsolete and costly fuels, much less building more of them.

You don't have anything to worry about. Your "thoughts" have been considered and rejected. Irrelevant means off the hook. Join the whiners on stage and have at it. The theater is empty.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans run from problems for the simple reason that they don't have solutions. AGW is merely one of a long list of problems that they have to sell as nonexistent because if they admitted to them they'd have to confront them.  That requires people skilled at governance and their cupboard is bare.  Has been for quite a while.
> ...



We don't need to spend $80T so your solution is bogus. Or does that include recovery from extreme weather, relocation of cities away from rising seas and farms to where the rain is?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What unbridled arrogance


----------



## gslack (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Classic lefty tactic.. When you can't debate the science that you talked about, but didn't understand, pull the heart strings and go emotional...

LOL, your logic at work...

_*inside organman's head*_

_ I like science... I am as smart as any scientist... What I don't know I can find on the net... I am an expert... I am always right.... Everything I support is the way it is... Any who disagree are stupid.... Any who disagree are evil... They want to destroy the world... I will stop them.... _

And that leads to that emotional outburst... What price are you willing to pay for anything? Nothing, because you don't pay for anything. You don't pay taxes, you don't create jobs, you don't create wealth, all you do is stroll web forums playing scientist and stargaze...

Reality check...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Holy Crap man... That's the nuts of the argument here. In another post, you say that Repubs have no solutions.. Well I told you that you're solutions are whispered by Unicorns.
YOU --- have no solutions.. 

I'll give you a solution.. Do a pilot demo of the top 3 selected NEW nuclear designs. Put them in some unused BLM sandlot.. Build and test the shit out of them in just 3 years. And then CERTIFY them to be replicated WITHOUT undo regulatory delays or costs.. 

Build or start 200 new nuclear plants by 2018. Then quit bitching about who's doing what. Strawman my ass. All you got is posturing and green delusions.

Whatchagot to keep the lights on and solve (the imagined) AGW crisis??


----------



## gslack (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Obsolete? Then you have an alternative to replace it????

NO????

Then it's not obsolete is it.. Ya can't build enough nuclear plants around the world, no place toput the waste, and not everyone wants them.. Ya can't use solar because it's about 10% efficient and only works on sunny clear days... Wind power is only viable in open and clear areas with a lot of wind, and no wind, no power... Geothermal? What do you think will happen if we drill enough holes that deep to meet demands??? Hydrogen? Great now make a cheap and easy way to make enough H3 or variants that are viable...

Socko, it's not obsolete if it's still the cheapest, safest, most abundant, most available, and most reliable source...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



$100 trillion? Maybe $200 trillion?
I just hope the warming globe doesn't wipe out the mammoths and the sabertooth cats.
My kids really like those Ice Age movies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



*Wasting money is fueling power plants with obsolete and costly fuels, much less building more of them.*

Yes! Cheap, reliable energy is so passe.
We need some of that expensive, unreliable energy.
Bring on the photovoltaics and windmills.
Who needs power at night or those pesky birds?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



If we follow all of your plans, how much do we need to spend? Spell it out.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...



What real environmental protection would that be?  Where would you like to spend money?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I'll give you a solution.. Do a pilot demo of the top 3 selected NEW nuclear designs. Put them in some unused BLM sandlot.. Build and test the shit out of them in just 3 years. And then CERTIFY them to be replicated WITHOUT undo regulatory delays or costs..
> 
> Build or start 200 new nuclear plants by 2018. Then quit bitching about who's doing what. Strawman my ass. All you got is posturing and green delusions.
> 
> Whatchagot to keep the lights on and solve (the imagined) AGW crisis??



Not a single light has gone out and none ever will.

And why do you think we need new nuke plant designs?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...
> ...



I'm glad you ask that. Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism.. 

I'd have the GOVT clean up it's act. It is the nations largest and most dangerous polluter. Including it's antiquated generators in the Tenn Valley Auth. and military base dumps.

From the leaking nuclear weapons waste at Hanford and Savannah river to fulfilling the promise of completing Yucca Mtn as a waste depository.

I'd figure out how to remove 100s of sq. miles of floating waste in the oceans and do better and more efficient mitigation for ocean oil spills thru engineering. 

I'd cut the subsidies going to billionaires to make trophy cars for millionaires and do BASIC SCIENCE on hydrogen production and fuel cells. 

Plan for a recycling infrastructure for the mountain of battery waste from the ill-conceived push for plug-in EVs. 

I'd push market oriented incentives for private landowners to make provisions for nature on their lands and IMPROVE the stewardship of PUBLIC lands at the BLM and Forest Service. Consolidate STRATEGIC public lands and PLAN for habitat zones that make sense.

I'd be honest about the fallacy of using wind and solar ON GRID and instead propose meaningful work for renewables OFF GRID doing desalinization and hydrogen production.

End the subsidies for ethanol, wind, solar, and any fossil fuel as a commodity and funding or subsidies limited to only EXPLORATION and RESEARCH. 

I'd figure out exactly WHY the bees are dying and how to bolster fisheries with more market oriented practices.. 

Plenty of stuff to work on isn't there? No reason why we got to spend all our time arguing over AGW when no one wants to fix it tomorrow by unleashing 2 decades of new nuclear plant design..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I'll give you a solution.. Do a pilot demo of the top 3 selected NEW nuclear designs. Put them in some unused BLM sandlot.. Build and test the shit out of them in just 3 years. And then CERTIFY them to be replicated WITHOUT undo regulatory delays or costs..
> ...



What is being offered is a schizoid plan to simultaneously push electric conservation and at the SAME TIME talk about encouraging a 30% increase in Grid capacity by pushing EVs. Makes no sense. I'm pulling 1W chargers out of the wall while my neighbor is using a day's worth of juice to fill his Leaf.. Wind and Solar don't ADD capacity. They are supplements that must come second to PRIMARY generators capable of 24/7/365 generation. 

The lights go out when the country realizes that the cost and furor over a major grid overhaul and generation increase is out of reach given our finances.. 

Your side wants electricity to be RARE and EXPENSIVE (that's the end result of "conservation") 

And many of us believe that electricity should be CHEAP AND PLENTIFUL. 
Cheap and plentiful rubs leftists the wrong way since they see society as a blight on the planet anyway. 

Our nuclear plants are approaching 60 yrs old.. There's more computing power in a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll than a US nuclear plant. THAT'S why we need to expedite verification of latest BEST technologies and allow them to be replicated without delay.


----------



## westwall (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







What about the left wing organizations, and of course good old "I love killing Jews" Soros, that the warmists are affiliated with?


----------



## westwall (Aug 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...
> ...







Clean up all the toxic waste dumps that are out there.  Restore the orphan holes that dot the Earth.  Prevent rainforest destruction.  Save the whales.  Develop a asteroid protection system.  Develop a viable alternative energy system.

That will do for now....


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The strawman, Tennessee dude, is that none of the climate scientists that I am aware of have ever suggested that keeping the lights on is a crime.  Now, if you want to make that same argument about us amateur astronomers who absolutely want you to turn off your 5,000 watt wide area lights at night so we can see the stars, then yeah, you might have a friggin point.  We can give you an ear full about the millions of watts of lighting that are completely wasted in this country every night for no rational reason.  As for the rest - misdirection.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I'd be more worried about it wiping out our food supply, if I were you.


----------



## IanC (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



And that's what happens when you stroll into a sniper's kill zone. Nice shot flac.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Erm, the wind doesn't blow at night?  When did this happen?  As for the birds, the only birds I know of that conservatives have ever been concerned about were the ones they missed with their AK-47s.


----------



## westwall (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Wrong again Tojo...We care about the 400,000 plus birds and even more bats that are killed every year.  We CARE about the little critters.   You clowns, on the other hand, don't.  That is very, very clear.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The wind doesn't blow on Tuesday --- that's bad enough.. I'm not gonna attend a night race at Daytona with 140,000 fans using wind as the primary power source.. Go ahead and joke about the bird kill from wind farms. It makes you look like a serious environmentalist...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



With the exception of Yucca Mountain, I can't think of a single thing on your list that either isn't being worked on or isn't being planned.  I suppose you think you are the only person on the planet concerned about them, I don't know.  I do know from first-hand knowledge that all of the first four have had tens of billions of dollars thrown at the problems, and substantial progress has been made on those issues.  Is there more work to be done?  You bet.

By the way, if you want to stop arguing over AGW, be my guest.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 8, 2013)

Oro-man:

Please read the OP here ----   http://www.usmessageboard.com/7454523-post1.html

And leave me a message about how birds and wind turbines are NOT an enviro issue...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Never said that any of those are new or novel.. Although the Govt works at cross purposes on many of those by funding competing technologies to the DETRIMENT of many I've mentioned. The point was --- what are the ALTERNATIVE OPPORTUNITIES for all that money.

Substantial progress has been made on cleaning up 55 gal drums of weapons waste at Hanford and Savannah River? They are 50 or 60 yrs OLD dude.. How much progress are you measuring? 

Same for encouraging COOPERATION in market based incentives for private landowners to set-aside and better maintain habitat.. Most of what we're paying EPA to do is HARRASS, LITIGATE, and THREATEN. And that is not likely to change under a leftist admin with a new flaming activist as head of EPA..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during ice ages.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Care to put that argument in context?

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

1) Domestic and feral cats have also been considered a major source of anthropogenic-caused mortality with estimates near 100 million annual bird deaths in the US.

2) On roads near wetlands in Canada 223 birds were killed per mile per year.

3) Power lines in the US are estimated to kill approximately 130 million birds per year.

4) 97.6 to 976 million bird deaths per year in the U.S. due to collisions with windows based on an estimated 1 to 10 bird deaths per structure per year from a fatality study in New York.

5 The number of birds killed by wind farms in America: between 20,000 and 37,000 a year.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The sun doesn't shine at night.....durr.

I see, the birds are asking for it, silly birds.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You don't know that, and neither does anyone else.  Why?  Because agriculture didn't exist during the ice age.  And it wasn't because we tried and failed.  What is undeniable is that most of the Sahara desert was green while much of Europe was buried in ice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



white-throated needletail : The Two-Way : NPR

You're right, we kill too many birds, kill some more!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



So what you are saying is that we should spend billions of dollars installing "Windows" in our nuclear plants.  OMG!  Perhaps you haven't thought that through.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



*You don't know that, and neither does anyone else.*

Really? I'm pretty sure I read something about a wine industry in England and spreading Viking settlements during warm periods and famine during cold periods.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Right, so you can provide us with a list of climate scientists who's work is being influenced by Soros. And by the way, there are plenty of Jews who are working in climate science.  And I can only think of one (and he's not a scientist) who believes that climate science is a fraud - let's see if you can guess who that is.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Add bats to that list.. Their little hearts EXPLODE even in proximity to a turbine blade. 

Last time I checked -- just a single eagle kill was a felony.. 

Maybe the Canadians ought to stop building roads thru wetlands.. 

I'll remember this conversation next time there's an oil spill. 

DID YA GO TO THE THREAD I POSTED????


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Let me worry about how to keep MicroSoft the hell out of the nuclear zone... 

I'm actually working right now to update components for some of those old plants. We really don't want to keep patching them forever... One display that I just redesigned TRIPLED the processing power of that plant because I included a $1.50 microprocessor.

THere is so much exciting new nuclear tech out there. And we have not had the balls to let it thrive.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I have a very close friend who works at the EPA region 4 office.  She has conducted remediation operations at Savannah River for the past 15 years.  And it was going on before she got there.  The EPA does what it does because that is what it is mandated to do by Congress and the American people to do.  If you want "COOPERATION in market based incentives for private landowners to set-aside and better maintain habitat" there are other agencies that are better suited at handling that sort of thing.  Fish and Wildlife, U.S.D.A, National Park Service, BLM, and others.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



There is no comparison between what the Nature Conservancy can leverage with their land management programs and the BLM.. The Nature Conservancy is FAR Better at getting cooperative agreements and BUYING key land. 

What the BLM manages would be in better hands if we gave it back to the Indian Nations.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Two points.  The discussion must be put in context, which is what I did.  And second, what it means is that there are a lot of frelling birds.  And far more of them are being killed by means other than wind farms, and yet those numbers don't even come up in discussions by deniers.  The simple fact is that we don't have a good fix on the total world bird population because there are simply too many to count.  Australia has reported that there are 20 billion birds in Antarctica alone.  In the U.S., there are estimated to be 10 billion birds here in the spring, and 20 billion in the fall.  The only global count I've seen is between 200 and 400 billion birds.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yeah, and there were probably 10,000 people in all of the British Isles at the time.  What a thriving industry that was.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



And what do their little hearts do when they land on power lines?  And Tennessee dude, bats face a far worse enemy than wind farms.  White nose disease is killing them by the millions.  And there is no cure.  Just as bad is the destruction of their cave habitats by stupid people and by industry.  I used to do a lot of caving when I was a geology student back in the 1980s, and I can tell you first hand that ordinary people do far worse damage to the bat population than wind farms do.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



That's fine.  I have no problem with that.  But then, you don't need the EPA to get involved, do you?


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Yes we do.  Read the Domesday book sometime.  It was a tax record so had to be very accurate.  England produced as much wine as France did.  Something it STILL can't do today.  The Romans also reported favorably of their warm period as did the Chinese.  You need to read some history there boy.  You limit yourself to your highly biased writings and there's a whole world out there you know nothing about.

Below is one of MANY sources.....

"10th  14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum

During the High Middle Ages in Europe experienced a climate slightly warmer than in the period preceding and the period following it. The summer temperatures were between 1 and 1.4 degrees higher than the average temperature of the 20th century. The winters were even warmer with an average temperature in England of 6 degrees, which is slightly warmer than for most of the 20th century. The warmer conditions were caused by the fact that the air circulation above the Atlantic changed position, as did the warm sea currents, transporting warmer water to the arctic.

In Europe the warm conditions had positive effects. Summer after summer the harvests were good and the population increased rapidly. As a result thousands of hectares were cleared of woodland and farmers expanded their fields high into the hills and on mountain slopes. It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire. 

Under these conditions, art, literature and even science were developing apace and we see the height of medieval civilisation. The most visible achievements of this period are undoubtedly the construction of the many cathedrals all over Europe. *The good harvests had made Europe rich and the good weather freed people from the burden of the struggle against the elements. *It created the wealth and labour force to build cathedrals. It was a golden period for European Architecture and art."


Middle Ages - Environmental history timeline


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Wow, you are truly ignorant of history.

"At the time of the Domesday Book (1086) England probably had a population of about 2 million. (Much less than in Roman times). However the population grew rapidly. It may have reached about 5 or 6 million by the end of the 13th century."

A History of the Population of England

The Domesday Book Online - Home


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are confused, dude.  The last *ice age* ended 11,800 years ago.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Wow, you are STILL confused, dude. The last *ice age* still ended 11,800 years ago.


----------



## gslack (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Some people, just can't help lying... Sad really...

So tell me climate scientist..Where did you get he he said ice age? The part you highlighted didn't say anything about ice age....

So where did ya get it? Did bigfoot tell you?

ifitspmz in drag again....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2013)

Brother Warmers, pay the Deniers no heed!  We have Consensus! Science is settled


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...





Abraham3 said:


> What real environmental protection would that be?  Where would you like to spend money?





flacaltenn said:


> I'm glad you ask that. Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism..
> 
> I'd have the GOVT clean up it's act. It is the nations largest and most dangerous polluter. Including it's antiquated generators in the Tenn Valley Auth. and military base dumps.
> 
> ...



That is a lovely laundry list you've got there and I fully agree with you that most of those are deserving of our full attention.  I do not agree with you, however, if you are contending that these items are not being addressed due to time or money being spent to combat GHG emissions.  Besides which, reducing GHG emissions is a major part of "true environmentalism".  

I reject your contention that the government is the largest and most dangerous polluter.  The largest source of air pollution in this country is the combustion of fossil fuels for transportation and energy generation.  The largest source of water pollution is farming runoff.  Neither of these are activities in which the government participates to any significant degree.  Neither is the government a large producer of non-biodegradable waste material (polystyrene, polyethylene, PCBs, etc).  Military bases have been localized sources of waste and hazardous waste in the past but for the past decade and a half have been the subject of a intense and strenuously enforced program to minimize the production of such waste and to properly dispose of what is generated.

If it were at the sole discretion of the federal governnment, the nuclear waste facility at Yucca Flats would have been operational many years back.  It has been the opposition of the NIMBY locals that have halted the project.  Now whether or not Yucca Flats, as envisioned, was a truly safe location and design at which to dispose of our nuclear waste material is another question.  It is also a bit of a red herring for while the various generators are not happy building and maintaining their local storage facilities, the nation's nuke plants have the capacity in those local facilities for decades more.  

Hanford and Savannah are both environmental disasters.  However, their cleanup is not currently hampered by lack of funding.

Governments at all levels, at home and abroad, are working to eliminate the sources of all that plastic floating around  in the ocean.  Unfortunately, plastic packaging has become completely ubiquitous and will not be eliminated overnight.  And replacing it with paper may not be the best idea in the long run.  Biodegradable plastics may be the best solution but so far they're higher cost has prevented their widespread adoption.

You want to eliminate subsidies for the development of non-polluting automobiles yet ICE-powered automobiles are one of the largest polluters on the planet.  It's not just CO2 coming out of those exhaust pipes.  You cannot take the first step towards cleaning up this nation's air until you address the problem of automobile exhausts.  CAFE and emissions standards for automobiles have already produced enormous benefit but there is room for a great deal more.  The complete elimination of hydrocarbon exhaust compounds is a worthy goal.  

Every one of the world's great economies pay more - a great deal more - for each liter of gasoline they consume.  The price at the pump needs to actually reflect the cost to society of acquiring and burning the stuff.  It is toxic on many levels and no matter what amazing new discoveries are made, its supply is finite.

Obviously we disagree on whether or not the current push for EV is "ill-conceived".  I will admit that, at present, recycling LIPo batteries is a difficult and expensive process with a relatively small profit potential when those batteries no longer contain cobalt.  However, there are currently a very small number of EV vehicles on the road and most are quite new.  The supply of failed, automotive lithium batteries is minute.  There is absolutely no economy of scale.  And the mechanical processes involved in recycling lithium batteries from cameras and other small electronics is completely different from what is used to process batteries from EV automobiles.

However, I expect  the 'Lithium Era' to be rather short-lived.  Several major manufacturers plan to have hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the market in 2-5 years.  As you know, the holdup is hydrogen supply.  The advantages hydrogen fuel cells have over batteries is significant and once such vehicles are available I expect far more infrastructure progress than we've seen with EV charging stations.  A hydrogen-powered car can be refilled in a few minutes if not seconds.  Spending two - three hours at a gas station while my car batteries charge has never been a picture I (or anyone else) saw as truly feasible.  For one thing, the number of charging stations required to support a given population of EVs is dependent on the charging time.  The results are nearly unworkable unless the cars are used almost solely for local transportation and can be charged at home.  Hybrids are a stepping stone to EVs and EVs are a stepping stone to fuel cells.

Solar and wind power are well suited for hydrogen production and the like but they aren't completely incompatible with grid use.  The zero fuel cost has some remarkable powers when calculating efficiency.

I don't see anything you've listed here as being unduly limited by a competition with GHG reduction for capital resources.  The only purpose of many items on your list is to stop the effort to curtail GHG emissions.  That's not quite what you claimed it would be.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 9, 2013)

IanC said:


> And that's what happens when you stroll into a sniper's kill zone. Nice shot flac.



Not the nicest sentiment I've ever seen.  As you can see above, I did reply.  FCT's list was quite lacking on items that would "protect the environment" and that were lacking funding due to efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

Apparently a "kill zone" employing a variety of sniper rifle with a cork in the muzzle.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 9, 2013)

> Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism..



Actually, the opposite has occured.

Most of the measures designed to curb emissions also benefit the environment in other ways.

Doing away with coal, making more efficient engines and improving industrial and engine efficiency are having a huge impact on air quality, aren't they?

We are making huge savings on heating and electricity bills as people and companies work more with insulation, timer switches on lights, better light bulbs....a thousand minor changes that benefit everyone.

I totally agree that we need to save the rainforest (and I've seen this destruction first hand in the Amazon) but climate change contributes to doing so by raising awareness and by promoting better environmental practices. 

You can complain about leaking nuclear plants, but climate change is inspiring technologies like Breeder Reactors, Solar Thermal and Tidal that provide the next generation of electricity supply. 

Even recycling goes hand-in-hand with reducing emissions, not counter to it. 

I really have no idea what you are complaining about here - even if we found out tomorrow that climate change was not linked to CO2, all of the changes and developments made would be worth it, I would think.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Well said, Abe.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...





Abraham3 said:


> What real environmental protection would that be?  Where would you like to spend money?





westwall said:


> Clean up all the toxic waste dumps that are out there.  Restore the orphan holes that dot the Earth.  Prevent rainforest destruction.  Save the whales.  Develop a asteroid protection system.  Develop a viable alternative energy system.
> 
> That will do for now....



Putting money into the Superfund trust fund has been far more hampered by elected Republicans failing to fund it and failing to go after the industrial polluters themselves than it has been affected by any shortage of funds due to GHG efforts.  Saving the environment, oddly enough, has never been a high priority among CONSERVATIVES.  Go figger.

There are, to my knowledge, no rainforests of note under environmental threat in the US.  I am sure there are areas in the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico that are under threat from developers.  But if you want to use federal funds to buy up the land and take it off the market, you're going to have complaints from locals that you're preventing economic growth and expanded employment opportunities.  The truly threatened rainforest is found in equatorial regions such as the Amazon, the Congo, Indonesia.  There, of course, we have little influence save some method to curtail US consumption.  This is not something you could fix if only somehow we could stop funding the war on CO2.

Save the Whales.  I'm with you 100%.  Unfortunately, there's not much else the US can do than what it has already done.  If you'd like to declare war on Japan, Iceland, Norway and the Inuit Nation, I'll give you a raised fist, but the whole problem has been boiled down to one of cultural reeducation.  Money is not the issue.

Asteroid protection system.  Uh-huh.  We could move current funding up a order of magnitude without impacting the budget for mosquito control.  There is no conflict between this and GHG emission reduction.

"Develop a viable alternative energy system".  I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.  The US already spends a considerable amount of money on this topic and unless you're leaving a few crucial points unspoken, I think this is part and parcel of our efforts to reduce GHG emissions.  What do you actually mean with this point?  Where would you spend money and how would it differ from efforts to develop clean coal, wind, solar, fission, fusion, hydroelectric, OTEC, geothermal, space-based or any of the dozens of other technologies in R&D?

Finally, I haven't the faintest idea what an "orphan hole" might be and neither does Dictionary.com, Wikipedia or three different search engines.


----------



## gslack (Aug 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...
> ...



A fine example lefty mentality..

You people crack me up.. You want tosave everyone from everything no matter what. Except when ever you guys cry enough to get what you want and save who or whatever it is you must save this week, another problem pops up, often caused by the steps you cried for last week for the other problem you had to save the world from..

But what do you care? none of you actually pay for any of it. You don't build the businesses, the infrastructure, create the jobs, or do anything that makes any of it actually happen. All you do is bitch, and complain until somebody else does something, and then when or if they do, you call them greedy and evil..

You all thought paying auto-workers $40 and hour was a good idea because everybody deserves that much. Now you wonder why all the better paying jobs are farmed out to 3rd world countries.. An honest wage for an honest days work has been replaced with entitlement mentality.. Instead of basing your salary expectations on the job, your training,education and experience, you base it on how much money the company makes..

Now we have debt we can never pay off, and you people are extatic because you think you will get free health care.. it's not free dumbass, the rest of us pay for it.. The value of the dollar continues to fall, and the answer form you guys is toraise the minimum wage.. WTF?  Youare bleeding from an artery in your leg, and you have a scratch on your nose, you people would worry of the nose because that's what people will see first... Morons..

Half-assed savior wannabes with grasp of reality. You want cheap, abundant fuel, but you don't do anything to create or get it. You just demand others do it somehow...

IMHO, so long as people with no real contribution to society other than their mouths and votes, are hand-held, coddled, and told how special they are despite the fact if they really were so special, they would get off their asses and contribute,society will suffer..

And while I'm up here, somebody fix the auto-correct feature on this tablet... Probably made by a lefty...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




''Whatchagot to keep the lights on and solve (the imagined) AGW crisis?''

I must live in a different part of the country than you do.  My lights never went out. In fact we're working on keeping the lights on through much higher demand and the end of fossil fuels.  That's called planning ahead,  a concept foreign to republicans. 

Also,  in my country,  energy is supplied by private enterprise.  They are investing in all kinds of sustainable supplies,  including nuclear, not in methods that have limited lives.  Look up Terrapower.  So what you wish was true is not only contrary to science but business also.  And politics.  You're a three time loser.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> What is being offered is a schizoid plan to simultaneously push electric conservation and at the SAME TIME talk about encouraging a 30% increase in Grid capacity by pushing EVs. Makes no sense. I'm pulling 1W chargers out of the wall while my neighbor is using a day's worth of juice to fill his Leaf.. Wind and Solar don't ADD capacity. They are supplements that must come second to PRIMARY generators capable of 24/7/365 generation.
> 
> The lights go out when the country realizes that the cost and furor over a major grid overhaul and generation increase is out of reach given our finances..
> 
> ...





orogenicman said:


> So what you are saying is that we should spend billions of dollars installing "Windows" in our nuclear plants.  OMG!  Perhaps you haven't thought that through.





flacaltenn said:


> Let me worry about how to keep MicroSoft the hell out of the nuclear zone...
> 
> I'm actually working right now to update components for some of those old plants. We really don't want to keep patching them forever... One display that I just redesigned TRIPLED the processing power of that plant because I included a $1.50 microprocessor.
> 
> THere is so much exciting new nuclear tech out there. And we have not had the balls to let it thrive.



There is nothing "schizoid" about urging energy conservation and simultaneously working to boost grid capacity to support EV usage.  The goal of both efforts is to burn less fossil fuels, even if those EVs are, for the most part, charged with energy created by burning fossil fuels.  The efficiency of a large power plant is grossly better than the best ICE powered automobile.  And as more and more alternative energy sources (and nuke plants) come online, the situation will only get better.

Those who believe AGW to be a real threat (that would be virtually every man, woman and child on the planet sporting a science education) do not want electrical energy to be rare.  We would like to see its price reflect its actual cost.  No one is served in the long run by government pushing the price down through taxpayer-funded subsidization and price controls.  At some point, the actual bill will have to be paid.  We think that actively moving towards alternative energy sources represents a wise investment.  The infrastructure has to change.  The sooner we get started on it,  the less it will cost and the less destructive impact the needed changes will have.

I have always been an advocate of nuclear power.  This nation has been a little short on testosterone on the topic for quite some time.  It looked like things were going to turn around and then we all got our lesson on tsunamis and why nuke plants shouldn't be built on coastlines in geologically unstable areas.  Hopefully, we can get past this sticking point.  There are few alternative sources with the promise of nuclear power wrt reducing our GHG (and CO and sulfate and particulate) emissions.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 9, 2013)

It does seem wonderfully ironic that in all Flac's hysteria, he has not noticed that the countries that have made the greatest advances in producing massive amounts of electricity from renewables are those countries most committed to combating climate change. 

It is the Luddite USA that is left in the dust with with Tidal, with Osmotic, with Solar Thermal and even with Breeder Reactors. 

The US is so fixated on fracking that they are a good 10 years behind Germany, Korea, Spain and the UK when it comes to real 21st century solutions.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

Part of engineering is knowing when science has reached an optimal position on a learning curve where the value of increased knowledge is marginal compared to the value of moving ahead.  

Early pioneers suffer the most casualties.  Late adapters never catch up. 

It will be interesting over time to see if the doers in America have hit the sweet spot,  or if the political Luddites here have prevented that.


----------



## IanC (Aug 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > And that's what happens when you stroll into a sniper's kill zone. Nice shot flac.
> ...



You don't like the way I phrased it? Too bad, I had been playing a rather violent video game with my son and it seemed like an apt description at the time.

Perhaps I should have called it a "You,sir, are no Jack Kennedy" moment. 

Flac is an educated and informed person with reasoned and we'll thought out positions on many subjects. Idont necessarily agree with everything he says but I always know his ideas are worthy of consideration because he states what he believes is realistic rather than just regurgitating someone else's talking points without understanding them.

Many of the warmers plans for changing our energy production and usage are so sophomoric and prone to unintended consequences that I cannot believe they are openly stated, let alone accepted as realistic alternatives.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 9, 2013)

Ian C - 



> Many of the warmers plans for changing our energy production and usage are so sophomoric and prone to unintended consequences that I cannot believe they are openly stated, let alone accepted as realistic alternatives.



Somehow I suspect you do not include fracking in that list of 'sophmoric' sciences. 

If you care to explain why fracking is a safer, cleaner alternative than tidal, breeder reactors or solar thermal, I'd love to hear it. Flac couldn't.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Anybody who believes himself to be above science probably assumes the same relative to business and politics too.  

I see it as an entitlement attitude. 

People who take that position are merely Dunning-Kruger graduates.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



But enough about Al Gore.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Al Gore only claimed to be a politician. But, that puts him way ahead of you. Is there anything that you can claim?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I haven't made 10s of millions spreading bad science, unlike Gore.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







No, it's you who are confused here.  Since the last ice age how many warming and cooling trends have there been?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



If you go back to post #701 (the post I responded to), note that he said:

"Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during ice ages."

There was no agriculture during the ice ages because it hadn't been invented yet, so it is not a fair comparison.  Capiche?  Jeez, even a child should be able to understand this.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...






Actually, the end of the last ice age occurred around 14,000 to 15,000 YBP


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

What caused the end of the ice age? ? Niels Bohr Institute - University of Copenhagen

The last cold ripple ended 11,711 years ago...

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism..
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Bull pucky.  People are paying MORE for the energy they use thanks to your politically driven anti-science agenda....

MidAmerican Energy seeking rate increase | WQAD.com

CPS Energy asking for rate increase | News - Home

Duke Energy rate increase would average 5 percent | WCNC.com Charlotte

Xcel Energy - Xcel Energy requests rate increase


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 9, 2013)

IanC said:


> And that's what happens when you stroll into a sniper's kill zone. Nice shot flac.





Abraham3 said:


> Not the nicest sentiment I've ever seen.  As you can see above, I did reply.  FCT's list was quite lacking on items that would "protect the environment" and that were lacking funding due to efforts to reduce GHG emissions.
> 
> Apparently a "kill zone" employing a variety of sniper rifle with a cork in the muzzle.





IanC said:


> You don't like the way I phrased it? Too bad, I had been playing a rather violent video game with my son and it seemed like an apt description at the time.



Would you mind if I described the debate action here in terms of violence and death?  I think you would.  I only ask of you the same sort of consideration.  You had no reason to be hostile towards me.  From your point of view, I had provided FCT an opportunity to make an impressive answer.  You should have praised me, not fantasized my violent demise.



IanC said:


> Perhaps I should have called it a "You,sir, are no Jack Kennedy" moment.



That seems even less apropos.




IanC said:


> Flac is an educated and informed person with reasoned and we'll thought out positions on many subjects.



But he's not the only one.  And I would have to disagree with "well thought out positions".  His positions are too simple to invalidate to be particularly well thought out.



IanC said:


> Idont necessarily agree with everything he says but I always know his ideas are worthy of consideration because he states what he believes is realistic rather than just regurgitating someone else's talking points without understanding them.



So what?  What does that have to do with my query as to how he would spend money on the environment?  Do I deserve death for having asked the question?



IanC said:


> Many of the warmers plans for changing our energy production and usage are so sophomoric and prone to unintended consequences that I cannot believe they are openly stated, let alone accepted as realistic alternatives.



So what?  Your kill zone comment was not in response to any "warmer" plans I put forth.  I posed a question giving FCT an opening through which you could have driven a truck. You celebrated what you saw as FCT's debate victory with a violent analogy.  This issue has nothing to do with FCT or me.  It has to do with your perceptions and your choices.

But, not to get too far off topic, can you identify any of the places FCT would rather spend money as areas whose funding has been curtailed due to efforts to combat AGW?  For that matter, where, exactly, do you see large quantities of taxpayer money being spent to combat GHG emissions?  Enhanced pollution regulations?  New CAFE standards?  New power plant licensing schemes?  It doesn't actually cost much to generate paper and ink.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism..
> ...



I'm curious how you can characterize a view held by the vast majority of scientists as "anti-science".

And can you identify a period of time in which utilities did NOT ask for rate hikes?  Have they ever asked to lower their rates?  It is a fact that making changes will cost money.  There's no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during cold spells like the Little Ice Age.

Better now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



The vast majority of scientists think more expensive energy is a good idea?


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...
> ...








Ask orogenicman, if he's a true geologist he'll know.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



In Europe and the northern part of North American, you are right.  Elsewhere, it had little effect on agriculture production.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> It does seem wonderfully ironic that in all Flac's hysteria, he has not noticed that the countries that have made the greatest advances in producing massive amounts of electricity from renewables are those countries most committed to combating climate change.
> 
> It is the Luddite USA that is left in the dust with with Tidal, with Osmotic, with Solar Thermal and even with Breeder Reactors.
> 
> The US is so fixated on fracking that they are a good 10 years behind Germany, Korea, Spain and the UK when it comes to real 21st century solutions.







  Flacs hysteria?   You guys bring new meaning to the word hysteria!


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Really?  Why?  Show your evidence to support your assertion...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Abandoned wells.  By the way, the EPA has spent millions doing exactly that, when it is the petroleum companies that should be doing it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



It's true, warmer is better than colder.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Until it becomes too warm, and too dry.  Next.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Your biggest claim to fame is that you haven't made 10s of millions? That's pretty bizarre. In order to know bad science, one has to know good science. That leaves you on the outside looking in.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism..
> ...



That's due to supply and demand. It's been forecast for decades now. It's just another set of predictions that you find it convenient to ignore. 

Republicans avoid problem solving because it involves taking responsibility. Whining does not. 

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future. If you have to ask why, you'll never understand the answer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's true, I can't claim to have made 10s of millions by spreading bad science.

Who said anything about claims to fame? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



*While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future. *

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid?  When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy?  Be specific.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...







Try again junior "G" man.  I thought you were a geologist.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Please feel free to show us some good science then.  So far everything you have shown is shit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid?*

The grid is ailing and aging because it's fossil fuel dominated?

*When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy?*

Show me a grid where more expensive, less reliable renewables make up a decent % of total generation.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It is fossil fuel-dominated, and it is ailing.  You do the math.



> *When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy?*
> 
> Show me a grid where more expensive, less reliable renewables make up a decent % of total generation.



It hasn't been built yet.  But that is neither here nor there as to whether it CAN be built.  I think it can, and so do a lot of other people.


----------



## IanC (Aug 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > And that's what happens when you stroll into a sniper's kill zone. Nice shot flac.
> ...



Interesting. Are you serious that you consider my comparison to someone blythly walking into an ambush was a fantasy about your demise? Hahahaha.

Perhaps you are too young to remember Bentsen gobsmacking Quayle in 1988. You should google it. A simple statement absolutely demolished by an unexpected retort.


BTW. Are you offended by the seemingly real calls for death to skeptics by some of the more extreme warmers?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



*It is fossil fuel-dominated, and it is ailing. You do the math.*

Then let's fix it up. We can power it with reliable nuke plants.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And how many death threats have environmentalists received?  Resorting to threats and violence never solved any problem.  So is this where you really want to the conversation to turn?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...
> ...



Of course I'm contending that we are wasting time and money on phoney enviro gimmicks. We did not need $Bills to go to Solyndra, or Tesla or ethanol.. We do not need to give GE $40 for every "energysaver" dishwasher that they sell. And for WAAAY too long we've told about "alternatives" that boil down to just wind and solar. BOTH of which are mature technologies and shouldn't be getting MASSIVE subsidies. You HAVE no alternatives to spend 100X the current AGW inspired budget amount on.. That's the terrible secret.. All ya got is a plan to tear down and make energy RARE and EXPENSIVE.



> I reject your contention that the government is the largest and most dangerous polluter.  The largest source of air pollution in this country is the combustion of fossil fuels for transportation and energy generation.  The largest source of water pollution is farming runoff.  Neither of these are activities in which the government participates to any significant degree.  Neither is the government a large producer of non-biodegradable waste material (polystyrene, polyethylene, PCBs, etc).  Military bases have been localized sources of waste and hazardous waste in the past but for the past decade and a half have been the subject of a intense and strenuously enforced program to minimize the production of such waste and to properly dispose of what is generated.



Not true.. As SINGLE ENTITY polluters go --- TVA has many of the dirtiest generators at the very top of the national list. As far as danger goes -- the complete disregard for enviro regs shown by the Nuclear Weapons industry is unparalled. The entire PUSH for battery wagons EVs, and ethanol production are gonna generate a mandated pollution stream of epic proportions. Not to mention the poisoning of multiple municipal water supplies from the EPA's insistence to push MTBE to "clean the air".. 

((We agree on a lot.. Including the comm. nuke industry and the fact that batterywagon EVs are gonna soon look like a primitive waste of time compared to hydrogen fuel cells)



> If it were at the sole discretion of the federal governnment, the nuclear waste facility at Yucca Flats would have been operational many years back.  It has been the opposition of the NIMBY locals that have halted the project.  Now whether or not Yucca Flats, as envisioned, was a truly safe location and design at which to dispose of our nuclear waste material is another question.  It is also a bit of a red herring for while the various generators are not happy building and maintaining their local storage facilities, the nation's nuke plants have the capacity in those local facilities for decades more.



Yucca is a safe plan.. MOst of the waste is low level waste from medical and industrial sources. Keeping spent fuel at the sites is not a good plan as seen in Japan. There have been SEVERAL Indian Nations offering up their land for a site. Get it freakin done so that those leaking barrels at Hanford and Savannah River can go home.. 



> Hanford and Savannah are both environmental disasters.  However, their cleanup is not currently hampered by lack of funding.
> 
> Governments at all levels, at home and abroad, are working to eliminate the sources of all that plastic floating around  in the ocean.  Unfortunately, plastic packaging has become completely ubiquitous and will not be eliminated overnight.  And replacing it with paper may not be the best idea in the long run.  Biodegradable plastics may be the best solution but so far they're higher cost has prevented their widespread adoption.



Offer up a bounty for efficient engineering approaches to go sweep it up. Stop it at the source.. No excuses. It's like turning a blind eye to slavery in this day and time.. GET IT DONE.  Have you seen pictures of sq. miles of storm whipped trash floating in the oceans?

You may have laws for littering --- but you still need street sweepers... 



> You want to eliminate subsidies for the development of non-polluting automobiles yet ICE-powered automobiles are one of the largest polluters on the planet.  It's not just CO2 coming out of those exhaust pipes.  You cannot take the first step towards cleaning up this nation's air until you address the problem of automobile exhausts.  CAFE and emissions standards for automobiles have already produced enormous benefit but there is room for a great deal more.  The complete elimination of hydrocarbon exhaust compounds is a worthy goal.
> 
> Every one of the world's great economies pay more - a great deal more - for each liter of gasoline they consume.  The price at the pump needs to actually reflect the cost to society of acquiring and burning the stuff.  It is toxic on many levels and no matter what amazing new discoveries are made, its supply is finite.



Not interested in MORE taxing on gasoline. They already toss all that cash into the "gen fund" never to see a highway project again. EVs get you NO WHERE on emissions that hybrids can't until you fix the generation problem.. And the Grid ain't gonna be expanded on the backs of wind or solar or both. I don't want subsidies on EV design because they are slanted to DISCOURAGE work on alternatives like fuel cells and hydrogen. And there is no common sense public discussion about the extra costs and effort to EXPAND the grid and generation to every podunk corner of America to support Plug-Ins.. It's a ridiculous plan. 



> Obviously we disagree on whether or not the current push for EV is "ill-conceived".  I will admit that, at present, recycling LIPo batteries is a difficult and expensive process with a relatively small profit potential when those batteries no longer contain cobalt.  However, there are currently a very small number of EV vehicles on the road and most are quite new.  The supply of failed, automotive lithium batteries is minute.  There is absolutely no economy of scale.  And the mechanical processes involved in recycling lithium batteries from cameras and other small electronics is completely different from what is used to process batteries from EV automobiles.
> 
> However, I expect  the 'Lithium Era' to be rather short-lived.  Several major manufacturers plan to have hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the market in 2-5 years.  As you know, the holdup is hydrogen supply.  The advantages hydrogen fuel cells have over batteries is significant and once such vehicles are available I expect far more infrastructure progress than we've seen with EV charging stations.  A hydrogen-powered car can be refilled in a few minutes if not seconds.  Spending two - three hours at a gas station while my car batteries charge has never been a picture I (or anyone else) saw as truly feasible.  For one thing, the number of charging stations required to support a given population of EVs is dependent on the charging time.  The results are nearly unworkable unless the cars are used almost solely for local transportation and can be charged at home.  Hybrids are a stepping stone to EVs and EVs are a stepping stone to fuel cells.



Completely agree about batterywagons being an ill-conceived fad. So why are wasting time and money? What entreprenuer WOULDN'T invest in distributed hydrogen refineries that use wind and solar OFF-GRID to make fuel? I would in a heartbeat.. Don't worry about the infrastructure. Europe already has an extensive Hydrogen Highway in the making. Solves the problem of MISUSING wind and solar --- Doesn't require massive investment in Grid infrastructure --- and has much better driver performance factors as you mentioned.

Charging times for EVs have also been misreprented in the public discussion. SHORTER charge times represent HIGHER LOADS on the instaneous grid demand. Charging a 300 mile Tesla for instance in 15 minutes will suck 480KWATTS !!! Get the kiddies out of the car when you try that.. 



> Solar and wind power are well suited for hydrogen production and the like but they aren't completely incompatible with grid use.  The zero fuel cost has some remarkable powers when calculating efficiency.
> 
> I don't see anything you've listed here as being unduly limited by a competition with GHG reduction for capital resources.  The only purpose of many items on your list is to stop the effort to curtail GHG emissions.  That's not quite what you claimed it would be.



Wind is non-starter.. A quick look at ANY hourly production chart will scream FAIL as an "alternative" on the grid. Solar is as best a 10 to 20% "peaker" technology. You got nothing else to fight climate change on the list.. 

So why again do you want me to roll over and give the world $4Trill to mitigate AGW? Most of that would get "redistributed" to the 3rd world beggars sponsoring the IPCC. Tuvalu and Micronesia needs your bucks.. 

What you gonna spend that on?? And what is gonna suffer because of it??


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



More expensive than what? Certainly not than doing nothing.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Uh Hello ????? IanC is the most peaceful reserved poster on this forum.. If you feel agrieved --- I'll protect ya.. 

Really not interested in devolving into the same inane nonsense that we both reject... 

I'm glad that you and Abraham joined with us. I'm sure that IanC is happy you're here as well..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



How would Oro-man handle this deflection? would it be "red herring" or "non-responsive"?

The reason the lights DON'T go out is that for every KW of wind power added to the grid, you are paying to add a KW of something else to provide PRIMARY POWER. We don't DEPEND ON WIND. That's the problem. You can scream bloody lies about cities running TOTALLY on wind -- but there are none.. Wind is there for 20 minutes and gone for an hour. LARGE QTYs of it will drag the Grid to it's knees.. ESPECIALLY when the GOVT forces primary gens to idle whenever the wind blows.. It will disincentivize the construction of primary power --- THEN the lights go out all day on Tues and Friday.. 






*How much of THAT --- should the govt FORCE US to buy???? *


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > What is being offered is a schizoid plan to simultaneously push electric conservation and at the SAME TIME talk about encouraging a 30% increase in Grid capacity by pushing EVs. Makes no sense. I'm pulling 1W chargers out of the wall while my neighbor is using a day's worth of juice to fill his Leaf.. Wind and Solar don't ADD capacity. They are supplements that must come second to PRIMARY generators capable of 24/7/365 generation.
> ...



Moving towards WHAT alternate sources?? 

RARE and EXPENSIVE is expected result by economic theory when you PUSH primarily "conservation".. Who's getting rich from conservation? GE paid no taxes because they got more "green credits" than they could use selling dishwashers and washing machines that would have been built and sold WITHOUT the credits.

Not Schitzoid?? How many 1Watt chargers do I have to pull out of the wall to get 30KWhrs for my Leaf to go 75 miles?? 

ETHANOL? Who's getting rich on ethanol? And what (predictable) perturbations to the food supply did Al Gore miss on that one? 

Gasoline is priced correctly.. The government does not need more money to spend on unrelated drone weapons and horseshit Elon Musk subsidies. Know why Tesla stock is hot? 
Over 50% of their "profits" came from govt kick-backs last quarter. 

The reality is --- you lefty greens have squandered the opportunities and managed to botch any attempt to get REAL enviro remediation with the money you've ALREADY been given.. You got NOTHING to propose except MORE conservation and dead-end plans like shifting transport energy to the electrical grid..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We've been 43 years reducing emissions and surface and subsurface pollution.  No one said it would be quick and easy, but we've made very real strides.  And in that time, millions of jobs have been generated and new industries have arisen, along with advanced technologies.  So don't tell me that we are too stupid to figure out how to add alternative energy sources to the mix without crashing the power grid, and at the same time reducing emissions and pollution even further.  It's insulting, and also not true.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



More expensive than natural gas, more expensive than coal, more expensive than nuclear and more expensive than doing nothing.

Did I leave anything out?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



He asked you for _good_ science.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Natural gas, for one.  It certainly is not rare nor expensive.  And yes, it is, at best, a stop-gap measure.  No one is saying that it is not. But it is the longest term stop-gap solution we have.  And it is far more energy efficient and less polluting that coal or fuel oil at generating electrical power.  Same with regard to transportation.  Yes, there is an infrastructure issue there.  But then, the infrastructure we have today for gasoline wasn't built over night either.  You people seem to expect solutions over night, or else none at all - meaning that you'd prefer to keep the status quo.  But that's not a solution, either, nor is it an option.  There are no overnight solutions.  It took us 150 years to get into the situation we find ourselves in today.  It is foolish to believe that we can get out of it overnight.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



That's all the comment you've got?  What did you mean when you said you'd develop an alternative energy system?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Of course it's true.. Open your eyes. Look at the graph.. 43 YEARS and we're STILL TOSSING $BILLs for an electrical generation source with THAT type of performance? 

What are you smoking???


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The Crescent Dunes concentrated solar plant with energy storage is designed and built to match Las Vegas's demand peak.  

Don't you wish that you were smart enough to think of solutions like that?  

But that's gray thinking and you only do black or white.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Well hell.. I missed Nat Gas on the Official List of Green Alternatives... 

But what I didn't miss was the news this year that our US emissions are back to 1998 levels PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE of widespread adoption of Nat Gas.. 

Imagine that -- slaying the AGW dragon IN SPITE OF the green agenda and the roadblocks and hurdles put in the path of fracking and pipelines.. How big an effort did Obama mount to MAKE that happen eh? 

Not only that --- but this "limited source" of Nat Gas doesn't include EXPLOITING those Trillions of yards of Arctic Calthrate that COULD be recovered BEFORE that giant fuel-air bomb roasts the planet.. 

I'm patient. But I'm also a practiced patron of engineering and science. And I know MATURE technologies when I see 'em.. We got out butts wiped on solar because we tried to stretch the envelope on GIMMICKS like Solyndra had --- rather than just automating the hell out of the manufacturing process. 

Let's agree that there ARE BETTER solutions out there. However, having a GOVT pick the winners and losers is a very inefficient and dissapointing lottery. GOVT should stay in R&D and the hell OUT of mature markets. 

Like I said -- you'd see hydrogen refining capability BLOOM -- without any intervention or lying or political shananigans.. ---- because it's a great biz to be in.. Especially if you leverage solar and wind to produce it OFF-grid... Same with using renewables to do large scale desalinization projects.. I've got the checkbook out --- waiting for that to happen.. 

Been toying with picking up Korean Auto stock.. Because THOSE guys are seeing the EV batterywagon disaster and going full tilt into fuel cells. Let the MILLIONS of Americans who know some shit --- make these choices.. NOT --- community organizers and technology adverse eco-nauts..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

BTW Abraham:

WestWall mentioned "clean coal" in his Christmas stocking list.. 

I've been an OPPONENT to any form "biomass conversion" that's been on the Official "alternative" list because it turns into a bait and switch for garbage incinerators.. But IF the greens are correct and you burn waste wood products and hemp for power cleanly --- then it follows that you could also burn COAL cleanly.. Given the simplicity and abundance -- I'd give them the money to "put up or STFU" on clean coal as well.. I believe it COULD be done --- complete with CO2 sequestration if YOU really want that..


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...







I can't think of one that can actually be verified.  I can think of many instances where you asshats have advocated the killing of sceptics, the imprisoning of same, the commiting to a mental facility etc., but going the other way......???  None that has been substantiated.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Actually it IS cheaper to do nothing.  A study recently put forth by the University of Cambridge says global warming will cost 60 trillion.  The IPCC wants us to spend 76 trillion so the last time I checked it IS cheaper to do nothing.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Thanks for the TP, my computer just went potty...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

Don't I remember somebody a couple days making comments about 

"That's one skeptic down".. 
"There's two.."
"All three bit the dust"... 

You know -- in this political correct enviro -- even biting your sandwich bread into the shape of a gun could get ya in trouble.. 

Yeah -- none of you newbies did any end zone dances yet...


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








Still waiting for your definition of "orphan hole" your first attempt was an abject failure.  C'mon mr. geologist.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Isn't that how the US managed to reduce to CO2 emissions to 1998 levels? By the government doing NOTHING?? In fact, the eco-left did everything they could to spoil a nat gas expansion.. 

We should DEFINATELY do more nothing more often...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> The reason the lights DON'T go out is that for every KW of wind power added to the grid, you are paying to add a KW of something else to provide PRIMARY POWER.



No, we don't.  The grid already has sufficient capacity to keep all our lights burning.  When we add a KW of wind or solar, it allows us to burn less fuel in our preexisting fossil-fueled generative capacity.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The 60 trillion was just the cost of the Arctic ice cap disappearing.  There's most of a world's worth more costs to take into account.  A real geologist would have known that, wouldn't they.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 9, 2013)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



"Kill zone"?  "Nice shot"?  Yes I do.  I read FCT telling us what a nice guy you are but at the moment I'm having some difficulty accepting that assessment.



IanC said:


> Perhaps you are too young to remember Bentsen gobsmacking Quayle in 1988. You should google it. A simple statement absolutely demolished by an unexpected retort.



Perhaps I'm not.  I was 34 years old at the time. 



IanC said:


> BTW. Are you offended by the seemingly real calls for death to skeptics by some of the more extreme warmers?



Since they haven't been directed at me I wouldn't be offended but I can't approve of violence - this is supposed to be a democracy.  However, when I think what sort of world you and FlaCalTenn and WestWall and your less thoughtful hangers-on are going to leave my children and their children, I can understand someone thinking about doing violence.  My mistakes might cost us more money than a perfect solution.  Your mistakes will cost lives.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2013)

According to ancient sea maps, the Ice was gone within recent history.






http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mapas_pirireis/esp_mapaspirireis05.htm#The Maps of Antarctica


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> Still waiting for your definition of "orphan hole" your first attempt was an abject failure.  C'mon mr. geologist.



Considering the searches I went through that found nothing, I think the only person with your definition of "orphan hole" is you.  Why don't you link us to a geology reference or textbook that uses the term.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



How much in fossil fuels do you think the development of just one solution,  the Prius,  has saved?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Doing nothing doesn't save the $76T though.  It just delays it.  Probably not by much though. 

Not to mention the lives AGW will cost.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Scientists know that the IPCC is the global repository of science knowledge on AGW. Non scientists think that Rush Limbaugh is,  when in fact,  he struggles with spelling AGW.  

You picked a losing side.  Again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



* My mistakes might cost us more money than a perfect solution. Your mistakes will cost lives. *

Your waste of trillions will cost lives.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The reason the lights DON'T go out is that for every KW of wind power added to the grid, you are paying to add a KW of something else to provide PRIMARY POWER.
> ...



That's true for mid-day solar peaking.. But it does not apply to wind.. With wind being 20 minutes up and down and a LAW that REQUIRES that you take that energy onto the grid --- you need fast-ramping generators as the primary source. Hydro can do that. Nat Gas to some extent can do that -- solar can't and coal can't.. The energy that has been contracted for and paid for in the latter cases gets dumped to ground. And cycling nat gas plants increases the wear and tear on the equipment. So you are paying for primary sources that are capable of carrying FULL GRID LOAD --- because the worst case output of your renewables is approx. zero.. 

Wind needs to be charged for that. I have yet to see it tallied as a cost.. 

Wind will fail when left to market forces because it CAN'T be contracted for. You cannot guarantee delivery. And grid operators (except in screwy Calif.) don't wake up in the morning and THEN decide where the day's energy is gonna come from.. 

So I ask you again to look at that graph (or find your own) and tell me --- HOW MUCH of the flaky shit should be FORCED to pay for??? 

Here's another one for your consideration.. This is TOTAL wind output for Germany.. 





And here's an article CONFIRMING what I just told you about investors not willing to put money into primary plants that must be idled or dumped... 



> Wind Power In Germany Puts Out Only A Small Fraction Of Rated Capacity In April. Standby Plants Losing Money
> 
> The most modern gas-fired power plant is the GUD power plant in Irrsching, which went online a year ago. It has an efficiency of about 60% when it runs near full capacity, which should be every hour of the year. But it doesn&#8217;t. To make a profit, it would need to run at least 4000 hours annually. But because renewable energy like wind and sun have priority when it comes to being feed-in into the power grid, the GUD gas plant operates only about 1600 hours per year. Therefore it is a money-loser, one that ought to be shut down. But it can&#8217;t because it always has to be on standby, ready to jump in should the wind and sun fail to deliver.
> 
> ...



Pretty much a future clusterfuck with the Govt subsidizing BOTH generators to make the scheme work...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Your mistakes don't cost us a nickel because you are irrelevant.  Nobody has any reason to pay any attention to you. 


Feel free to whine to your heart's content.  The world listens to scientists for science,  not political Dittoheads.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 9, 2013)

Wind is variable, though some locations (coastal, offshore, mountain ridges) are almost constant.  Solar power in many locations is solid from sunrise to sunset.  Let's see some graphs of solar power output from  utility scale photovoltaic  installations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power












*Economics*

Despite the overwhelming availability of solar power, little was installed, compared to other power generation, prior to 2012, due to the high installation cost. This cost has declined as more systems have been installed, and has followed a typical learning curve.
Photovoltaic systems use no fuel and modules typically last 25 to 40 years. The cost of installation is almost the only cost, as there is very little maintenance required. Installation cost is measured in $/watt or &#8364;/watt. The electricity generated is sold for ¢/kWh. 1 watt of installed photovoltaics generates roughly 1 to 2 kWh/year, as a result of the local insolation. The product of the local cost of electricity and the insolation determines the break even point for solar power. The International Conference on Solar Photovoltaic Investments, organized by EPIA, has estimated that PV systems will pay back their investors in 8 to 12 years.[65] As a result, since 2006 it has been economical for investors to install photovoltaics for free in return for a long term power purchase agreement. Fifty percent of commercial systems were installed in this manner in 2007 and over 90% by 2009.[66]
As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over the course of 2011, and a decline to prices below $2.00/watt seems inevitable:[67]

A U.S. study of the amount of economic installations agrees closely with the actual installations.
For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt are now common. In some locations, PV has reached grid parity, the cost at which it is competitive with coal or gas-fired generation. More generally, it is now evident that, given a carbon price of $50/ton, which would raise the price of coal-fired power by 5c/kWh, solar PV will be cost-competitive in most locations. The declining price of PV has been reflected in rapidly growing installations, totalling about 23 GW in 2011. Although some consolidation is likely in 2012, as firms try to restore profitability, strong growth seems likely to continue for the rest of the decade. Already, by one estimate, total investment in renewables for 2011 exceeded investment in carbon-based electricity generation.[67]

Additionally, governments have created various financial incentives to encourage the use of solar power, such as feed-in tariff programs. Also, Renewable portfolio standards impose a government mandate that utilities generate or acquire a certain percentage of renewable power regardless of increased energy procurement costs. In most states, RPS goals can be achieved by any combination of solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean, geothermal, municipal solid waste, hydroelectric, hydrogen, or fuel cell technologies.[68]

Shi Zhengrong has said that, as of 2012, unsubsidised solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels in India, Hawaii, Italy and Spain. He said "We are at a tipping point. No longer are renewable power sources like solar and wind a luxury of the rich. They are now starting to compete in the real world without subsidies". "Solar power will be able to compete without subsidies against conventional power sources in half the world by 2015".[69]


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Thought I'd check in with you PMZ --- how have you been? 
Can't imagine what fun I've missed in your posts and I am concerned about you carrying us all on your strong and stable back.. 

Actually -- the world listens to INNOVATORS --- even if they are school dropouts like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Engineers and scientists don't run much of anything except conferences and test equipment. Except in Germany and Japan -- where they are treated with more appropriate respect.

Problem is (and I'm about to step on toes) the world is increasingly run by MBAs who's ideas are not exactly "state of the art". And politicians -- most of which are dumb as stumps. And MILLIONS of consumers and voters that are manipulated by them. Survival in such a rigged game means that the average Joe only has to be increasingly smarter than your average politician. And that my bud --- is not a high bar at all.. 

Give Al Franken my regards. Tell him "lrwrwc" from brillscontent.com is alive and well and hoping he learned something from the forum...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You're right, that's why Kyoto got ratified.

What was the vote in the Senate again?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Wind is variable, though some locations (coastal, offshore, mountain ridges) are almost constant.  Solar power in many locations is solid from sunrise to sunset.  Let's see some graphs of solar power output from  utility scale photovoltaic  installations.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power
> 
> ...



Before we listen to the solar sales pitch --- let's see what the daily production for solar REALLY looks like.. It's a little more coherent than wind. Anything could be. And contrary to your assertions, doesn't matter about location.. Offshore might have some advantage, but I gave you the wind production chart for one of the BEST SITED wind farms in the world and the total German output and it STILL is useless. 

Anyway --- it is nowhere NEAR constant from sunrise to sunset.. It's good as a mid-day peaker like I said.. 






Any other realities you like to attempt to upend???


----------



## Saigon (Aug 9, 2013)

Flac -

Why do none of your posts on solar refer to Solar Thermal?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Flac -
> 
> Why do none of your posts on solar refer to Solar Thermal?



Solar thermal is fine.. It's got a lot of moving parts and complexity. And enviro considerations for it's "heat storage" element if they use salts. It also needs WATER, which is a problem in deserts where they are likely to be sited. 

Just not gonna be a LOT of Death Ray towers constructed. It's novel.. But it's not gonna power NYCity or even Salt Lake... 

You know anything that flys into beam is nicely roasted in milliseconds dontcha? 
Not exactly a harmless toy..  It's a tower of toxic salts, using water the desert doesn't have with a lethal DEATH RAY attached to the top and 1000s of motors and mirrors.. 

Have at it --- Go talk Finland or whereever you pretend you're at to build one... 



BTW: small scale solar thermal for homes is great.. It just looks funky and needs a lot of maintenance.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for your definition of "orphan hole" your first attempt was an abject failure.  C'mon mr. geologist.
> ...







Anyone who is a geologist...a real geologist that is, KNOWS what an "orphan hole" is.  When orogman gives up I'll post the definition.....


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








No, I'm a scientist....the science picked me.  Politicians and frauds BOUGHT you....


----------



## Saigon (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Flac -

While I agree about its uses in Finland, its potential in the US is more than considerable. I understand California already has a plant, actually. 

California Solar Thermal, Inc.

btw, Water is also needed in nuclear energy, isn't it? Has that presented nuclear power stations being constructed in places 1,000 miles from the sea?

My point here is that all renewables are undergoing massive development. Wind energy costs have dropped by one third in the past decade or so (in Europe, anyway) due to ever-developing technology. 

Solar may develop much, much more, should Solar Thermal be all that it is seems it might be. Its potential in Africa and the ME is extraordinary, in particular. 

It may well be that 50 years from now, the world relies on a mix of Breeder Reactors, Solar Thermal and Tidal...which I think would be ideal.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> More expensive than natural gas, more expensive than coal, more expensive than nuclear and more expensive than doing nothing.
> 
> Did I leave anything out?



Yes - facts.

Coal is far more expensive than wind.

Convetional Coal 99.6
Clean coal         140.7

Wind  96.8

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you admit it?

I don't think you can.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


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



I love the way you self-styled environmentalists just shuck off the enviro considerations of one of YOUR brainfarts. But if someone else proposes something --- and it might kill a desert toad --- they are bastards of the oil companies.. 

How can you ignore a massive pile of MOLTEN FERTILIZER in the middle of a pristine desert using water? 

Anyway --- Yes California has a couple. 

No -- new gen nuclear does not need water (several designs like that)

All the CREDIBLE renewables are all mature technologies except Tidal which is another enviro nightmare that you will convienently ignored (and have). There is nothing futuristic about building LARGER wind turbines that STILL don't provide reliable power. Or cheaper solar panels.. 



> Solar may develop much, much more, should Solar Thermal be all that it is seems it might be. Its potential in Africa and the ME is extraordinary, in particular.



So you think Arabs and Jews all go to bed before midnight and don't need power at night? 
No ice cream or indoor all night snow skiing required in Abu Dhabi eh??? 

Of course --- it's good enough for those savages in Africa.. THEY don't need reliable energy.. 

I BELIEVE --- solar thermal was first deployed in Israel --- could be wrong..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > More expensive than natural gas, more expensive than coal, more expensive than nuclear and more expensive than doing nothing.
> ...



*It includes the initial capital, discount rate, as well as the costs of continuous operation, fuel, and maintenance. This type of calculation assists policy makers, researchers and others to guide discussions and decision making.*

That's where wind loses. Thanks for the link.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > More expensive than natural gas, more expensive than coal, more expensive than nuclear and more expensive than doing nothing.
> ...



Meaningless numbers. Every KWatt of wind is as a back-up to a primary generator of some other energy. Idling those other plants wastes fuel when the wind blows. You are paying for TWO power plants when you buy wind.. You can't power a Dairy Queen in Topeka on wind alone.

It's "cost" is a fudge number based on suspension of reality...


----------



## Saigon (Aug 10, 2013)

> No -- new gen nuclear does not need water (several designs like that)



Nuclear plants currently being built do need water...which isn't a problem in any country with rivers.

I agree that in the middle of the Sahara it might be one issue, but for the US, China, Australia etc, Solar Thermal would have no more water problems than Nuclear. 

Before you go on ranting about Africa, try and remember that I work there! My thoughts on Solar Thermal are largely based on my experiences in Africa.

btw.Solar Thermal can also supply (some) energy at night, but the major needs in most hot countries are in the day and early evening, because of the use of air con, fans etc.

I don't think anyone ignores the issues with wind (birdstrike) or tidal (fishstrike), but particularly in the case of tidal these seem to be more teething problems than game changers. 

Tidal has the ability to change the global electricity market - it is that good. Why anyone would dismiss it before it has had the chance to be properly tried on a massive scale I have no idea. 



> How can you ignore a massive pile of MOLTEN FERTILIZER in the middle of a pristine desert using water?



Um...what?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Meaningless numbers. Every KWatt of wind is as a back-up to a primary generator of some other energy. Idling those other plants wastes fuel when the wind blows. You are paying for TWO power plants when you buy wind.. You can't power a Dairy Queen in Topeka on wind alone.
> 
> It's "cost" is a fudge number based on suspension of reality...



I largely agree about wind. I think its of limited use - except in countries with exceptional wind resources, such as Denmark.

Todd -

I knew you wouldn't be able to admit it. You're not that kind of poster.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > No -- new gen nuclear does not need water (several designs like that)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why would I dismiss tidal before it gets built? Because the designs I've seen are COMPLETE enviro nightmares. THere's a proposed project off Scotland(?) where the plan is to section off a 4mile squared section of sensitive marine bay. ACTUALLY FUNKING Wall it off like a dam with a sluice gap. And THAT is considered a cutting edge efficient Tidal Design. That's worse than mountain top mining for carp sake.. 

If you insist on IGNORING environmental issues and problems -- you realize the credibility for your cause goes to crap really quickly. Especially with the high bars you ecofrauds set for other ideas.. 

The "molten pile of fertilizer" reference to solar thermal is  -- that is what is USED FOR THE FREAKING STORAGE... To stretch the generation out a few hours past daylight. 

And you're not listening real well.. There are several types of NEW nuclear plant designs that DO NOT REQUIRE water for cooling.. In fact, the exciting developments are small scale reactors that can be buried and forgotten.. Tenn is getting 2 of these in the next couple years in conjunction with the Oak Ridge Nat Lab..


----------



## Saigon (Aug 10, 2013)

Flac- 

I think you've been getting poor and/or outdated information. Tidal is up and running in a half-dozen places around the world, and  it simply isn't a major environmental problem.

There is an issue with the massive turbine blades killing fish, and experts tell me that is something that they will be able to fix when they have enough information. It's just about positioning the blades at the right depth, angle etc. 

This is the smaller of two in NZ, the massive Cook St program is only at the pilot stage...

Kaipara Tidal Power Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see anyone ignoring the environmental problems, but we need to look at them objectively. You act as if Hydro or Coal had 0 impact on the environmental and wind and tidal did. Basically, any form of electricity generation will cause some problems, and we need to balance those against the value of the energy delivered. 



> here are several types of NEW nuclear plant designs that DO NOT REQUIRE water for cooling..



That could be...but the latest plant being constructed here at Pori is still water cooled.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 10, 2013)

> THere's a proposed project off Scotland(?) where the plan is to section off a 4mile squared section of sensitive marine bay. ACTUALLY FUNKING Wall it off like a dam with a sluice gap. And THAT is considered a cutting edge efficient Tidal Design. That's worse than mountain top mining for carp sake..



I think you need to check your sources.


----------



## westwall (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Flac-
> 
> I think you've been getting poor and/or outdated information. Tidal is up and running in a half-dozen places around the world, and  it simply isn't a major environmental problem.
> 
> ...







"Pilot" stage?  More like still in the planning stage.  Need to check your sources there saggy, wiki is not reliable....



Crest Energy Limited has been granted consents to construct a marine tidal turbine power station in the mouth of the Kaipara Harbour in Northland, northern New Zealand. The project comprises up to 200 completely submerged marine tidal turbines with a maximum generating capacity of around 200MW, located invisibly underwater.  


Tidal power - Crest Energy




Kaipara Tidal Power Station (Planned)

The Kaipara Tidal Power Station is a proposed tidal power project to be located in Kaipara Harbour. Crest Energy, has resource consent for up to 200 turbines with an ultimate capacity of 200 MW by 2023.

Crest plans to place the turbines at least 30 metres deep along a ten kilometre stretch of the main channel.The output of the turbines will cycle twice daily with the rise and fall of the tide. Each turbine will have a maximum output of 1.2 MW, and is expected to generate 0.75 MW averaged over time.

Crest has not yet made a decision on the initial supplier or suppliers of turbines for the project.

In August 2011, Todd Energy acquired the majority shareholding in Crest Energy.


Kaipara Tidal Power Station - Marine - POWER PLANTS

And, of course, there are major concerns which you all just _luuuuuve_ to ignore...


Snapper may be off the fish n'chips menu at local takeaway shops if Crest Energy's plan to build a tidal power station in the Kaipara Harbour goes ahead, according to Maori MP Hone Harawira. 

Mr Harawira told media that 90 percent of New Zealand's snapper nursery comes from the Kaipara harbour, "there's no way you can put up a stop sign up to stop them swimming through". 

"The Kaipara harbour is the food basket for the people of the Kaipara and this project will destroy this asset." 

The Environment Court made a positive recommendation to Conservation Minister Tim Groser on a proposal from Crest Energy to generate electricity from the harbour earlier this year. 

This could see the country's largest harbour providing power to 250,000 homes within 10 years. 

Mr Harawira says he will be discussing his concerns over fish stocks with the with Prime Minister John Key. 

Asked why he thought the Prime Minister should do something about it, Mr Harawira said, "because the Kaipara harbour is in his territory". 

"Anyone who likes snapper should be concerned, Maori and Pakeha." 

Mr Harawira asks, "where in the world has this technology been tested commercially and why test it in one of the worlds greatest fisheries?" 

Power station will affect snapper - MP | Stuff.co.nz


And then of course there's this.....

*Kaipara tidal power project paused*

*The future of a Kaipara power station is looking uncertain with Crest Energy stepping away from predictions construction will start this year.*

 The companys chief executive Anthony Hopkins said, in May 2010, the earliest date for construction on the $600 million project would be two years away.

 In 2011, a Government grant of $1.85 million was withdrawn when deadlines around the tidal power project were missed.

 Mr Hopkins is now refusing to give a date, saying three factors need to be resolved for the project to progress.

 These include the future of the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter which may increase electricity capacity to the New Zealand market by 10 percent or more if it closes; the long-term implications of the Governments privatisation programme; and the impact of new energy supplies such as fracking on world markets.

 Mr Hopkins says fracking has completely changed the US energy market in the last two years.

The uncertainty of the world oil market could have an impact on New Zealand oil markets, which will have an effect on New Zealand electricity markets.

Kaipara tidal power project paused

Yep, you too had better check your sources....


----------



## Saigon (Aug 10, 2013)

Westwall - 

Have you EVER got ANYTHING right on this board?!

I have never come across any poster on any forum so desperate to score points - and so prepared to sacrafice facts to do so. Really...you just post any drivel at all, won't you? 

A Maori curse does not mean the project has stopped. As someone who claimed to have lived in NZ might be expected to know, negotiations with tangata whenua always take place when a makutu is in place. The curse has no legal standing. The project is continuing as of May 2013.

You might also want to learn the difference between the Kaipara Harbour and the Cook Strait. They are two entirely unrelated projects, a thousand miles apart.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 10, 2013)

Here is a 2011 video on NZ tidal energy for anyone not suffering from Westwall Syndrome (notable for foaming-at-the-mouth, psychotic rage and a profound inability to be be honest about anything, ever.)

Craig Stevens on Cook Strait tidal energy on Vimeo

In April 2008, a resource consent was granted to Neptune Power for the installation of a $10 million experimental underwater tidal stream turbine capable of producing one megawatt. The turbine has been designed in Britain, and will be built in New Zealand. It will be 14 metres in diameter and constructed of carbon fibre. It will be placed in eighty metres of water, 4.5 kilometres due south of Sinclair Head, in waters known as the &#8220;Karori rip&#8221;. Power from the turbine will be brought ashore at Vector's Island Bay substation. The turbine is a pilot, and will be sited in slower tides for testing. Neptune hopes to generate power from the unit by 2010.* The company claims there is enough tidal movement in Cook Strait to generate 12 GW of power, more than one-and-a-half times New Zealand's current requirement*s.[14][15][16][17] In practice, only some of this energy could be harnessed.[18] As of December 2012 the Neptune Power website is a placeholder with no further announcements.

On the other side of the strait, Energy Pacifica has applied for resource consent to install up to 10 marine turbines, each able to produce up to 1.2 MW, near the Cook Strait entrance to Tory Channel. They claim Tory Channel is an optimal site with a tidal current speed of 3.6 metres a second and the best combination of bathymetry and accessibility to the electricity network.[17]

The power generated by tidal marine turbines varies as the cube of the tidal speed. Because the tidal speed doubles, eight times more tidal power is produced during spring tides than at neaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Strait#Tidal_power


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I posted it yesterday.  Are you blind?  An orphan hole is an abandoned well.  Also, some call abandoned strip mines orphan holes.  But abandoned wells are primarily what you are referring to.  And by the way, since you obviously missed out on that conversation, the EPA and the states have spent millions of dollars plugging them (when it should have been the responsibility of those who drilled them in the first place).  Now, do you have any comment on my post, above?  Or are you just glad to see me?


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Flac-
> 
> I think you've been getting poor and/or outdated information. Tidal is up and running in a half-dozen places around the world, and it simply isn't a major environmental problem.
> 
> ...


 *There is an issue with the massive turbine blades killing fish, and experts tell me that is something that they will be able to fix when they have enough information. It's just about positioning the blades at the right depth, angle etc.*

You didn't know? They've already depleted food sources in the areas they "serve" and brought a number of important mammals to the "endangered" list who may never recover in European waters.  We've had this conversation a few weeks back, and it will take them a decade to figure out how to stop eliminating biodiversity at which time there will be none since there is now little already.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 10, 2013)

Freedom -

Try and post things with a little common sense.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 10, 2013)

Has anyone else noticed progress here? The deniers have given up denying AGW and are now denying sustainable energy.

Denying AGW requires the denial of science while sustainable energy denial denies engineering,  venture capitalism,  and mankind's demonstrated ability to progress.  

Bottom line?  I can't imagine how conservatives benefit mankind.  They are a 100 percent liability.  Easiest path for them but worse than useless for us.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > No -- new gen nuclear does not need water (several designs like that)
> ...



Here's a new (sort of) possibility for nuclear that solves even more problems.

TerraPower, Bill Gates and the Reactor - WSJ.com

Ain't progress grand?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Meaningless numbers. Every KWatt of wind is as a back-up to a primary generator of some other energy. Idling those other plants wastes fuel when the wind blows. You are paying for TWO power plants when you buy wind.. You can't power a Dairy Queen in Topeka on wind alone.
> ...



You're right, I won't admit your useless wind number is in any way useful.
I'm not that kind of poster.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's a new (sort of) possibility for nuclear that solves even more problems.



It would still need water, though. Until someone figures out a way to turn raw heat into electricity on a massive scale without using a steam turbine, it's going to need water. Nuke plants may replace the water in the primary coolant with something else, but the secondary loop still needs water to make steam, and to cool the turbine condensors. Not rivers or oceans of it, but you do need a reliable supply.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Freedom -
> 
> Try and post things with a little common sense.


Sure.

Mankind should stop being a Neanderthal in his quest to pursue modern energy sources that eliminate threatened and endangered species on this planet. Someday we'll be able to communicate with the animals and learn what they know. You can't learn something from a being that was extincted by man's stupidity toward beasts.

The mentality "It doesn't matter to me if those seals are here or gone because they have funnier-looking fur than other seals I've seen," is bad. We should not destroy more species, and I do mean decimate where tidal water turbines are concerned.

/sardonic attitude


----------



## westwall (Aug 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









Ahhh, yes finally you got it on the second try.  Orphan Holes have always been the appellation given to abandoned strip mines.  Those have been a blight on the planet for well over a century and there is no one around to fix them.  This is one place where government can do a good job.


----------



## westwall (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Have you EVER got ANYTHING right on this board?!
> 
> ...







Far more than you ever will junior.  To your point..... Here is YOUR link....

"The Kaipara tidal power station is a proposed tidal power project to be located in the Kaipara Harbour. The project is being developed by Crest Energy, with an ultimate size of 200MW at a cost of $700 million.[1]

Crest plans to place the turbines at least 30 metres deep along a ten kilometre stretch of the main channel Historical charts show this stretch of the channel has changed little over 150 years. The output of the turbines will cycle twice daily with the predictable rise and fall of the tide. Each turbine will have a maximum output of 1.2 MW, and is expected to generate 0.75 MW averaged over time.[1]"


Kaipara Tidal Power Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are MY links....

Kaipara Tidal Power Station (Planned)

The Kaipara Tidal Power Station is a proposed tidal power project to be located in Kaipara Harbour. Crest Energy, has resource consent for up to 200 turbines with an ultimate capacity of 200 MW by 2023.

Crest plans to place the turbines at least 30 metres deep along a ten kilometre stretch of the main channel.The output of the turbines will cycle twice daily with the rise and fall of the tide. Each turbine will have a maximum output of 1.2 MW, and is expected to generate 0.75 MW averaged over time.

Crest has not yet made a decision on the initial supplier or suppliers of turbines for the project.

In August 2011, Todd Energy acquired the majority shareholding in Crest Energy.


Kaipara Tidal Power Station - Marine - POWER PLANTS


Snapper may be off the fish n'chips menu at local takeaway shops if Crest Energy's plan to build a tidal power station in the *Kaipara Harbour* goes ahead, according to Maori MP Hone Harawira. 


Power station will affect snapper - MP | Stuff.co.nz


Notice how they're about the SAME place?  I know you must absolutely hate it when I destroy your stupid posts but accusing me of being dumb or not knowing what I'm talking about when it is so clearly YOU who is the ignorant jackass does you no favors.

I suggest you remove your head from your ass and actually do some research that doesn't involve wiki.

Twit....


----------



## westwall (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Here is a 2011 video on NZ tidal energy for anyone not suffering from Westwall Syndrome (notable for foaming-at-the-mouth, psychotic rage and a profound inability to be be honest about anything, ever.)
> 
> Craig Stevens on Cook Strait tidal energy on Vimeo
> 
> ...








And sadly for you I watched the video and surprise, surprise (well, actually no) it is still pending.  The wonderful turbine they show in the video is actually in IRELAND and is one of TWO contenders for the type of turbine that they envision using.

Once again reality bites you in the ass.  For a supposed journalist you sure aren't very knowledgeable about your subject matter....


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Either answer is correct.  But why are you whining about strip mines and simultaneously whining about alternative energy?  And why are you insisting that the government provide corporate welfare to irresponsible mine operators when the law is very clear with regard to  who is responsible for reclaiming those lands?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Meaningless numbers. Every KWatt of wind is as a back-up to a primary generator of some other energy. Idling those other plants wastes fuel when the wind blows. You are paying for TWO power plants when you buy wind.. You can't power a Dairy Queen in Topeka on wind alone.
> ...



Not EVEN in Denmark.. NOT EVEN OFF-shore.. Middlegrunden is an Off-shore danish wind park.. You can follow each turbine daily at --- http://www.middelgrund.com/

What are their 2MWatt turbines producing right now??? \

T11 4.4 956 139.7 
T12 4.5 916 134.0 
T13 4.7 1,176 191.4 
T14 4.4 1,460 156.5 
T15 4.6 748 143.6 
T16 4.7 1,256 161.5 
T17 5.0 2,752 179.0 
T18 4.9 988 154.3 
T19 5.0 3,468 200.4 
T20 4.3 4 61.3 

Last number is the POWER output in KWatts.. T18 is producing 0.154Mwatt for a 2.000Mwatt investment.. 

THIS is how Danish off-shore wind produces energy..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > THere's a proposed project off Scotland(?) where the plan is to section off a 4mile squared section of sensitive marine bay. ACTUALLY FUNKING Wall it off like a dam with a sluice gap. And THAT is considered a cutting edge efficient Tidal Design. That's worse than mountain top mining for carp sake..
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to check your sources.



Read the quote in my footer AGAIN.. Why is it that you don't believe what people tell you?

Is it because you lie a lot --- or are woefully misinformed on the topics you choose to champion?? 






THey are gonna DAM OFF a large portion of coastal habitat.. THAT'S what a reliable Tidal power project looks like.. 

*IT'S a fu-king ENVIRONMENTAL SCAR on the landscape.. *

Just like mountain-top mining... Only MORE species die....


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Have you EVER got ANYTHING right on this board?!
> 
> ...



The Maori are CORRECT to curse this project.. ANYONE in touch with the environment would.. You Eco-Frauds are making excuses like blood-thirsty savages for the carnage that you are willing accept to see your flaccid wet dreams get built. 

The problem isn't just killing a few snapper.. Plenty of snapper in New Zealand. The problem is HABITAT DESTRUCTION. Because those stations have the potential to completely WIPE OUT local populations of certain fish and crustaceans.. And KEEP them wiped out.. You should be ashamed -- but you're too arrogant..  As evidenced in your 1st sentence reply to WestWall.. 

Take responsibility for your mistakes occasionally.. Builds character..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Less than 8%?
Does than mean it's still cheaper than coal?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Has anyone else noticed progress here? The deniers have given up denying AGW and are now denying sustainable energy.
> 
> Denying AGW requires the denial of science while sustainable energy denial denies engineering,  venture capitalism,  and mankind's demonstrated ability to progress.
> 
> Bottom line?  I can't imagine how conservatives benefit mankind.  They are a 100 percent liability.  Easiest path for them but worse than useless for us.



Just for the record --- THIS POST got you put back in ignore.. 

You're the dude who has 105 pages of bragging about how you know all this and the solutions are obvious if only Rush would overdose and FlaCalTenn had a stroke.. 

But all you got is more preaching? Don't feel you need to CRUSH ME with facts on renewables and the dozens of GREAT IDEAS on that HUGE list of alternatives you're packing??? 

Get off my screen....


----------



## whitehall (Aug 10, 2013)

Does the radical environmental extortionist left really think the world was created less than 10,000 years ago? Do the alleged "scientists" even understand geological time? Real science seems to indicate that the oceans have been warming before Henry Ford built his first model T. The globe has been in the process of emerging from an ice age and whatever is happening to the oceans, MANKIND DIDN'T FREAKING DO IT.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 10, 2013)

mamooth said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a new (sort of) possibility for nuclear that solves even more problems.
> ...



Nope.. Neither you OR Saigon are up to speed here.. 

The most exciting sector of comm. nuclear reactors is the Small Modular Reactors that can be buried and forgotten for 4 years.. When the 4 yrs is up, either a twin starts up in the buried package or you truck in a new one and recycle the old one.. 

Up to 150MWatts in each.. Several designs exist.. Tenn is preparing to install 2 of them at Oak Ridge Nat. Lab. 



> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/b...ve-hauled-by-a-truck.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> In addition to being small enough to ship, the reactors are small enough to be installed underground, offering the advantage of earthquake protection; buried structures are less vulnerable than those above the surface. They may also be easier to defend from attack.
> 
> ...



As soon as NuScale goes public --- I'm gonna consider buying..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Wind junkies have a lot of problems with basic math and science. 

You just have to buy about 20 times the power you need and ...... whoops.. That don't fly either does it?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 10, 2013)

There is nothing that riles conservatives as much as action does. All they think of is failure. They're consumed with risk. 

If anyone paid any attention to them progress would grind to a halt. 

But, nobody does. So mankind solves problems. We consider risk/benefit, we look at alternatives and we act. With much more success than failure. We learn from our mistakes. While they shudder, paralyzed by negativity. 

The way things have always been.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is nothing that riles conservatives as much as action does. All they think of is failure. They're consumed with risk.
> 
> If anyone paid any attention to them progress would grind to a halt.
> 
> ...



*We consider risk/benefit,*

If only you did.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone else noticed progress here? The deniers have given up denying AGW and are now denying sustainable energy.
> ...



You make it sound like being ignored by you is a bad thing. I can't imagine why it would be.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing that riles conservatives as much as action does. All they think of is failure. They're consumed with risk.
> ...



Actually what I do is of no consequence. What scientists in general do, engineers, venture capitalists, energy businesses, government regulators, they're the ones running with the ball. Nobody is paying any attention to Rush's army of ignorance, heads firmly entrenched in the ground, imaginations set on stunned, all with a propensity for inaction. 

You have no solutions to offer so you are irrelevent to our future. 

Progress will empower the future, not worry. Knowledge will lead us there, not ignorance. Investment will guide us, not certainty. But, don't worry. We won't leave you behind.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 10, 2013)

> We consider risk/benefit,
> 
> If only you did.



If you are considering costs, how is it that you did not know how expensive coal is?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > We consider risk/benefit,
> >
> > If only you did.
> 
> ...



I knew it was cheaper than wind.
Why didn't you?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 11, 2013)

Todd -

As I said at the time - I would never have thought you would have the integrity to admit that you were wrong. 

Is it any wonder you find it so difficult to understand this topic?

I think not.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Because the irresponsible mine owners responsible for the orphan holes are long dead.  Most have been dead for 50 years or more.  There is no record of ownership for the vast majority of them.  That's why it is proper for the government to clean them up.  They were paid royalties and taxes by the original mine owners after all.

It sucks, but it IS reality.  And, more to the point...we would actually be GETTING SOMETHING for our collective money.  Unlike the AGW fraudsters who have been pocketing billions of taxpayer dollars and so far the taxpayer has received exactly what for their investment?

Oh yeah, higher energy rates, higher taxes and nothing else.  Sounds _great...._


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > THere's a proposed project off Scotland(?) where the plan is to section off a 4mile squared section of sensitive marine bay. ACTUALLY FUNKING Wall it off like a dam with a sluice gap. And THAT is considered a cutting edge efficient Tidal Design. That's worse than mountain top mining for carp sake..
> ...







He's an automated, uniformed, ignorant, drone.  What do you expect, a reasonable informed conversation?  From one of them?


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...







Can't, it's a drone...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> As I said at the time - I would never have thought you would have the integrity to admit that you were wrong.
> 
> ...



Your unreliable wind power is cheaper than coal?

It shouldn't require subsidy, if that were the case.

Keep trying.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is nothing that riles conservatives as much as action does. All they think of is failure. They're consumed with risk.
> 
> If anyone paid any attention to them progress would grind to a halt.
> 
> ...








The problem is you idiots cause more damage than the things you wish to replace.  MTBE, as mandated by you fools, has caused more environmental damage in 15 years than the oil companies have managed to do in 100 years.

It is those sorts of environmental catastrophes that we are trying to prevent.  You're just to stupid to realize it....


----------



## Saigon (Aug 11, 2013)

Todd - 

Wind IS cheaper than coal. Period.

Nothing to do with subsidies. 

Why not go and check, as you are more likely to believe what you find yourself. 

I'm not a big supporter or wind myself, but I'd still prefer to stick to facts when evaluating it.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing that riles conservatives as much as action does. All they think of is failure. They're consumed with risk.
> ...



The truth of the matter is that MTBE was a compromise with the petroleum industry.  It was the least expensive way to increase the oxidation of pollutants in the exhaust of automobiles.  The petroleum industry heavily promoted it for this purpose because for them it was a waste product of the refinery process.  Getting the government to adopt THEIR plan was a big financial win for them.  It wasn't until it got into the ground water from THEIR leaking underground storage tanks that the real problem with MTBE became apparent.  It doesn't easily break down once it is released into the environment because there are no microbes that can readily digest it.  And so California banned it, and many other states have since followed.  It was a case of good intentions (on the part of the government) having a bad result.  Believe me, they've learned from that mistake.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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







Of COURSE they did.  It was a pain in the ass, and expensive for them to remove so they convinced the libtard enviro idiots that it was the bee's knee's and the libtards obliged.

We warned them about the caustic nature of MTBE and how it was potential carcinogen and they ignored us.

Who was right?  We conservationists.  Who was wrong.....YOU were....


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Who is "we?  No one had given it a second thought until California tried to clean up MTBE from leaking tanks, and then banned it for use in gasoline in California.  You Republicans cannot claim that.  You had nothing to do with it.  In fact, it was your bosses in the petroleum industry that wanted to add it to gasoline in the first place.

Oh, and speaking of carcinogens, it's odd that you would mention MTBE as a carcinogen (particularly as it is not a known human carcinogen - MTBE) and yet have nothing at all to say about benzene (one of the most carcinogenic substances known to man) having replaced methyl lead as an anti-knock agent in gasoline since at least the late 1980s and is still in there.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



According to the IARC of the WHO, MTBE is not carcinogenic.

Additionally, from the Wikipedia article on MTBE: _Advocates of both sides of the debate in the United States sometimes claim that gasoline manufacturers have been forced to add MTBE to gasoline by law. It might be more correct to say they have been induced to do so, although any oxygenate would fulfill the law._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Wind IS cheaper than coal. Period.
> 
> ...



*Wind IS cheaper than coal. Period.*

How can you say that when the examples in post #832 hardly reached 10% of their capacity, period.

You should try running your computer on one, we'd miss your posts, that's for sure.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 11, 2013)

Todd - 

I can say that because I have prices here from FIVE different energy markets which all say that wind is cheaper than clean coal. 

Do you want to see them?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 11, 2013)

Ok, here we go.

Wind 86.6

Clean Coal 135.5

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

When you have acknowleged this, I'll present the others.OK?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ok, here we go.
> 
> Australia
> 
> ...



That's awesome!
Does the fact that the wind generator might only produce 10% of capacity make it a better or worse investment?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 11, 2013)

Todd - 

Please acknowledge the information provided before moving on to other points. 

I'm not a big fan of wind myself - but I do like facts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Please acknowledge the information provided before moving on to other points.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of wind myself - but I do like facts.



The link that you added shows estimated costs for plants entering service in 2018.
What would you like me to acknowledge?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 11, 2013)

Todd - 

I can post as many examples as you like. They all show wind as cheaper than clean coal.  Why not go and check for yourself, that way you might believe what you see?

I'm asking you to acknowledge this so that we will know that you have understood.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> I can post as many examples as you like. They all show wind as cheaper than clean coal.  Why not go and check for yourself, that way you might believe what you see?
> 
> I'm asking you to acknowledge this so that we will know that you have understood.



Sure, post some real world numbers, not estimates for 2018.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 11, 2013)

Todd - 

OK, sure. 

Total Systemized Costs: Averages

Wind:  96.8

Clean Coal: 140.7

And while weare at it, here is the UK:

Wind: 80 - 110

Clean coal: 100 - 155

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> OK, sure.
> 
> ...



Your wiki numbers table said this at the top.

*Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017[10]*

I did notice this.......

*In the case of wind energy, the additional costs in terms of increased back up and grid interconnection to allow for diversity of weather and load may be substantial. This is because wind stops blowing frequently even in large areas at once and for prolonged periods of time. Some wind advocates have argued that in the pan-European case back up costs are quite low, resulting in overall wind energy costs about the same as present day power.[25] However, such claims are generally considered too optimistic, except possibly for some marginal increases that, in particular circumstances, may take advantage of the existing infrastructure*


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

Despite the efforts by conservatives, this country will not fail. We will accept science. We will pursue all of the opportunities inherent in the complete retooling of the world's energy system. We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels. We will rebuild civilization where it needs to be given the new and different climate we have forced on our planet. 

But, throughout it all, we will do it to the steady drone of their whining. The constant negativity of those with inadequate faith in mankind. Against their pull of ignorance based limitations. Because, simply, that's what mankind has always done. 

The title of media biased conservatives may be modern, but what they preach has been preached through the millennia. Nothing new. They are the drag that doers always overcome with the energy of discovery. 

They didn't become irrelevent. That's what they've always been.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Despite the efforts by conservatives, this country will not fail. We will accept science. We will pursue all of the opportunities inherent in the complete retooling of the world's energy system. We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels. We will rebuild civilization where it needs to be given the new and different climate we have forced on our planet.
> 
> But, throughout it all, we will do it to the steady drone of their whining. The constant negativity of those with inadequate faith in mankind. Against their pull of ignorance based limitations. Because, simply, that's what mankind has always done.
> 
> ...



*We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels.*







Yes we will. LOL!


----------



## Saigon (Aug 11, 2013)

Todd - 

Still waiting for you to admit that wind is cheaper.

Why it is so damn difficult for you, I cannot imagine.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







You're as uniformed as your alter ego saggy I see.  I suggest you look up Dr. Bill Wattenberg and his efforts to derail the MTBE debacle before it got started.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Wiki?  Please, find a better source.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> I can post as many examples as you like. They all show wind as cheaper than clean coal.  Why not go and check for yourself, that way you might believe what you see?
> 
> I'm asking you to acknowledge this so that we will know that you have understood.







I already showed you how in the real world the wind farm built for Reno is an abject failure.  The BEST case scenario for it is a 300 year payback.  Kind of difficult when the windmills only last for 25 years or so.

In other words you can post any type of propaganda bullshit you want....the REAL facts are that wind is a terrible investment and I too would love to see you go full windpower....it would be the last we ever see of you and your bullshit propaganda.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Despite the efforts by conservatives, this country will not fail. We will accept science. We will pursue all of the opportunities inherent in the complete retooling of the world's energy system. We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels. We will rebuild civilization where it needs to be given the new and different climate we have forced on our planet.
> 
> But, throughout it all, we will do it to the steady drone of their whining. The constant negativity of those with inadequate faith in mankind. Against their pull of ignorance based limitations. Because, simply, that's what mankind has always done.
> 
> ...








Yes, despite your best efforts to fuck this wonderful country up you will fail.  There's too many good smart people to let a bunch of morons like you run this place.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Still waiting for you to admit that wind is cheaper.
> 
> Why it is so damn difficult for you, I cannot imagine.








Still waiting for you to post an honest cost analysis of your wind power.  Not projections and propaganda.  Please show us the real world figures for Scotland and the Low Countries please.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Still waiting for you to admit that wind is cheaper.
> 
> Why it is so damn difficult for you, I cannot imagine.



How is your estimate for new capacity in 2017 or 2018 proof of your claim?

Wind could be cheaper than coal and still useless if it only produces for 20% of the day.

You do understand that, at least, don't you?

Your computer won't work very well if you tried to power it using a windmill, will it?


----------



## IanC (Aug 11, 2013)

How often does Todd or any other realistic poster have to point out to you that wind and solar are intermittent power sources that HAVE to be backed up by an on-demand alternative? When will wind and solar costs realistically add this dimension rather than penalize fossil fuel by adding in idling time?

Would you open a restaurant without knowing if you had dependable power? What wouldthe cost of that be? Check the economies of contries that have habitual rolling blackouts.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> How often does Todd or any other realistic poster have to point out to you that wind and solar are intermittent power sources that HAVE to be backed up by an on-demand alternative? When will wind and solar costs realistically add this dimension rather than penalize fossil fuel by adding in idling time?
> 
> Would you open a restaurant without knowing if you had dependable power? What wouldthe cost of that be? Check the economies of contries that have habitual rolling blackouts.



How many times does it have to be said that no one is expecting the current solar and wind technology to replace every conventional energy source available today?  And why shouldn't fossil fuel (with the exception of natural gas) be penalized?  It is the primary (though not the sole reason) reason why the push for alternative energy sources is happening in the first place.

But let's look at what we have in place already, shall we?  Is there ANY evidence whatsoever that the current solar and wind resources we have online today has resulted in shortages, permanently rising prices, blackouts or other downtime on the grid?  Any at all?  Why don't you folks have a problem with other alternative sources (like hydroelectric) that have been online for over 100 years, but get bent out of shape when any other source is considered?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Still waiting for you to admit that wind is cheaper.
> 
> Why it is so damn difficult for you, I cannot imagine.



Hang in there Toddster --- you are correct. The accounting for the cost of wind is bogus by any means --- because it doesn't include the costs of spent fuel from the PRIMARY GENERATORS or the cost of labor and maintenance for the primary generators as they try to cycle up and down to follow the screwy wind patterns.. 

Almost all those simplistic comparisons are shams. Disgusting lying shams -- just like the morons who push this nonsense..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Despite the efforts by conservatives, this country will not fail. We will accept science. We will pursue all of the opportunities inherent in the complete retooling of the world's energy system. We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels. We will rebuild civilization where it needs to be given the new and different climate we have forced on our planet.
> ...




That was pure entertainment..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



I noticed you had nothing to say about the comparative costs of fuel for conventional power plants, as opposed to the cost of fuel for alternatives such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric.  Any comment on those costs?  Any comment on the comparative costs of eliminating waste products of the various methods of power generation?  Any comment on the comparative costs of generating the fuel needed to run the various methods of power generation (including environmental and health and safety implications)?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > How often does Todd or any other realistic poster have to point out to you that wind and solar are intermittent power sources that HAVE to be backed up by an on-demand alternative? When will wind and solar costs realistically add this dimension rather than penalize fossil fuel by adding in idling time?
> ...



*And why shouldn't fossil fuel (with the exception of natural gas) be penalized?*

Because our economy needs cheap, reliable energy, not expensive, unreliable, "green" energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



*I noticed you had nothing to say about the comparative costs of fuel for conventional power plants, as opposed to the cost of fuel for alternatives such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric.*

Free fuel is great.
That's why wind and solar don't need any taxpayer subsidy, right?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Are you suggesting that conventional power generation isn't or has never been subsidized?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Wouldn't take wind if they PAID ME.. Solar is what it is.. 

A commercial nuclear plant generates just 0.7 ounce of waste to power a household for a year.. CERTAINLY we should be able to handle that economically.. That's about one AA battery sized wastestream.

Not interested in phoney accounting.. I'm looking at making energy PLENTIFUL and RELIABLE...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Despite the efforts by conservatives, this country will not fail. We will accept science. We will pursue all of the opportunities inherent in the complete retooling of the world's energy system. We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels. We will rebuild civilization where it needs to be given the new and different climate we have forced on our planet.
> ...



You're not saying that the cost of American natural gas is representative of what all fossil fuels cost are you?  On top of that,  you need to add on the taxpayer cost of relocating significant pieces of civilization to adapt to our new climate.  Or,  you can close your eyes,  and keep your head in the dark place.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

We don't have any solution for nuclear waste yet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*You're not saying that the cost of American natural gas is representative of what all fossil fuels cost are you? *

No, I'm saying it's funny when I can refute your whining with a simple graph.

*On top of that,  you need to add on the taxpayer cost of relocating significant pieces of civilization to adapt to our new climate.*

Sounds cool, where are we doing that?
Or is that just happening in the dark place?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We don't have any solution for nuclear waste yet.



We could reprocess it, but that would make sense.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have any solution for nuclear waste yet.
> ...



The vast bulk of nuclear waste cannot be reprocessed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The high level, "spent" fuel waste can.

The low level stuff cannot.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

I hate to burst your bubble but you didn't refute a thing about fossil fuel prices as supply gets more and more limited and costly to obtain and demand continues up. 

And,  we've been making significant nuclear fuel waste for 50 years and haven't solved it yet.  Must be it's a problem.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste.  That's the problem.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








The problem little boy is you can't point to anything that says climate change is occurring.  In fact quite the opposite is true.  I understand that you are following the Goebbels method of propaganda but just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Why?  Let's see your geology creds at work here.  Tell us about radioactive waste...


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Has anyone else noticed progress here? The deniers have given up denying AGW and are now denying sustainable energy.
> 
> Denying AGW requires the denial of science while sustainable energy denial denies engineering, venture capitalism, and mankind's demonstrated ability to progress.
> 
> Bottom line? I can't imagine how conservatives benefit mankind. They are a 100 percent liability. Easiest path for them but worse than useless for us.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes, there is a lot of low level (low radioactivity) waste.
That's not why we were working on Yucca Mountain.

The dangerous stuff is the spent fuel and can be reprocessed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I hate to burst your bubble but you didn't refute a thing about fossil fuel prices as supply gets more and more limited and costly to obtain and demand continues up.
> 
> And,  we've been making significant nuclear fuel waste for 50 years and haven't solved it yet.  Must be it's a problem.


*
you didn't refute a thing about fossil fuel prices as supply gets more and more limited and costly to obtain *

It's awful, the supply continues to shrink and the price continues to rise.






We're doomed!!!


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > THere's a proposed project off Scotland(?) where the plan is to section off a 4mile squared section of sensitive marine bay. ACTUALLY FUNKING Wall it off like a dam with a sluice gap. And THAT is considered a cutting edge efficient Tidal Design. That's worse than mountain top mining for carp sake..
> ...


They have to dam off coasts. The detritus dredged up from the ocean water is so muddy, no sunlight can get through to the areas where sea life depends on a semblance of clarity to avoid calamity. Also, the water turns brown all around the turbines and litters the coast with detritus. You've heard the cheerful sound when someone says, "It's all good?" This sound is a knell for the death it routs up from the sea floor because it's all bad.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Here's what the nuclear industry says about waste nuclear fuel.  Compare it to what Todd wishes was true.

'' High-level Waste may be the used fuel itself, or the principal waste separated from reprocessing this. While only 3% of the volume of all radwaste, it holds 95% of the radioactivity. It contains the highly-radioactive fission products and some heavy elements with long-lived radioactivity. It generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling, as well as special shielding during handling and transport. If the used fuel is reprocessed, the separated waste is vitrified by incorporating it into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass which is sealed inside stainless steel canisters for eventual disposal deep underground.''

''On the other hand, if used reactor fuel is not reprocessed, all the highly-radioactive isotopes remain in it, and so the whole fuel assemblies are treated as high-level waste. This used fuel takes up about nine times the volume of equivalent vitrified high-level waste which is separated in reprocessing. Used fuel treated as waste must be encapsulated ready for disposal.''

''Both high-level waste and used fuel are very radioactive and people handling them must be shielded from their radiation. Such materials are shipped in special containers which shield the radiation and which will not rupture in an accident.''

''Whether used fuel is reprocessed or not, the volume of high-level waste is modest, - about 3 cubic metres per year of vitrified waste, or 25-30 tonnes of used fuel for a typical large nuclear reactor. The relatively small amount involved allows it to be effectively and economically isolated.''


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Quick, point out the part of your post that refuted anything in my post.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



There are 4 IPCC reports that say climate change is occurring.  The fact that you are incapable of understanding them is irrelevant.  You have a problem.  They don't.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have any solution for nuclear waste yet.
> ...



Tell the troll that "we don't have a solution" for mercury, lead, cadmium or other materials who's toxic half-life is just as long or LONGER than nuclear waste. Except segregating them best we can from the landfills.. 

How long is mercury toxic --- compared to a discarded Barium Enema??


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



And that "vast bulk" has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. The LL maintenance waste from 50 nuke plants PALLS in comparision to 2600 Nuclear Medicine hospital wings and related industries. 

Whatcha wanna do? Close the Nuclear Med Centers?? 
Best call you new girl at the EPA and tell her to get her ass over to Yucca Mtn and pay off whoever needs to get paid off...


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Where's the link silly person?


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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







Wrong again as usual.  I see reading at a fourth grade level is beyond you.  A shame really, the dumbing down of the population thanks to the Public Schools.  They used to be good.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...







You can always tell who the ignorant are when they spout off about how bad nuclear waste is and they don't know the difference between high level and low level.  They think they are the same and they are so very different.  I'm still waiting for our newest "geologist" to educate us on the subject...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


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



You're saying that the IPCC ARs don't claim AGW? That's really bizarre.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I'm still waiting for you to tell us something that might indicate you have any education at all.  So far, the only qualification I've seen from you is being a world class asshole.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I see that Google is beyond you too.

Radioactive Waste Management | Nuclear Waste Disposal


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



I've been waiting for quite a while, and no indication yet. I keep hoping to learn that he was educated in Nowhereistan and only through 4th grade but he keeps the details secret.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Depends on whether you're considering volume or hazard level.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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







What ya want to know?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

Less of what you've shown us since I got here.  A lot less.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?


----------



## gslack (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ in drag^^^^^


----------



## Saigon (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> A question for AGW deniers:
> 
> what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?



That is a VERY good question. 

I hope we see some similarly on-topic answers.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

There is only one real source of heat on earth.


----------



## gslack (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> A question for AGW deniers:
> 
> what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?



LOL, 2 rep clone, do you have anything we can verify the claim with first?

With a rep like yours, taking your word for anything you write here is not likely to happen...


----------



## gslack (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is only one real source of heat on earth.



According to warmers there is two sources.. The sun and GH gases... You guys have spent pages telling us that CO2 warms the planet further than it already warms from the sun...

If you want to change your story now, be my guest...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

Nobody claims that GHGs initiate energy.  What they do is restrict the planet's ability to unwarm (cool) until it gets warmer.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



My point is only that most radioactive waste is low level waste, and that most of the low level waste cannot be recycled, which is true.  Man, what have you been smoking?


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> A question for AGW deniers:
> 
> what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?







What increase?  There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all.  The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > A question for AGW deniers:
> ...



How come you never offer any evidence for that which you want to be true?


----------



## IanC (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > A question for AGW deniers:
> ...



Peilke Sr put up a lot of info on this a couple of years ago. While heat content is the correct units to measure ocean warming people do not realize how small the actual temperature changes are, or how uncertain past measurements are. When trends are smaller than the error bars it is unlikely that the results are valid, especially when the mechanism of energy transport is contrary to past explanations. Trenberth is trying to change the Null Hypotheses on very flimsy evidence. Again.


----------



## IanC (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Because Google brings up links that are publicly broadcast and follow the consensus view. I have often found it difficult to find information that I know exists, let alone find new evidence.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> A question for AGW deniers:
> 
> what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?



I left my SUV running idle when I was waiting for my son to arrive at the train station.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> What increase?  There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all.  The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...



You seem to have a reading comprehension issue.  From the abstract of Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content":

"The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced."

The Argo data shows *greater* deep warming than the non-Argo data.

I find it funny as all get-out that you think you know "how science works" better than the three PhDs who wrote this paper and the several more PhDs that reviewed it for publication.  When was the last time you were in the field, dude?  And how far offshore was that?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> A question for AGW deniers:
> 
> what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?





IanC said:


> Peilke Sr put up a lot of info on this a couple of years ago. While heat content is the correct units to measure ocean warming people do not realize how small the actual temperature changes are, or how uncertain past measurements are. When trends are smaller than the error bars it is unlikely that the results are valid, especially when the mechanism of energy transport is contrary to past explanations. Trenberth is trying to change the Null Hypotheses on very flimsy evidence. Again.



If we're only looking at noise, how do you explain the very clear indications from volcanic eruptions Agung, El Chichon  and Pinatubo and the 1997-98 El Nino?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

IanC, have you read this paper?  It's not particularly long or difficult.  I think you will find all of your concerns addressed there.  Give it a shot.

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/ATS421-521/2013/papers/balmaseda13grl_inpress.pdf

In particular, take note of discussion of the effect of the Argo data on the final results.  A No Argo run was conducted and plots of that data are displayed in the appendices.  If Pielke was suggesting that Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's results were counter to the Argo data, he has erred.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What increase?  There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all.  The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...
> ...



It is really bizarre how non-scientists believe that they can guess at things that are more likely to be true than those who have the most sophisticated modeling capability in the world.


----------



## IanC (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > A question for AGW deniers:
> ...



That is a good question. I'm not getting your graphic on my phone but I have seen quite a few of them anyways. The volcanic dips often start before the eruption or are quite weak. In some cases this could be caused by averagingbut when anyal data only are used this confounding effect is still present. Of course if your graphic is showing obvious deep eater effects with little to no time lag that should also be questioned.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 12, 2013)

> The volcanic dips often start before the eruption or are quite weak.



That is, of course, nonsense.  Effect before the cause?  In what alternate universe?  Pinatubo had a strong measurable effect.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> How come you never offer any evidence for that which you want to be true?





IanC said:


> Because Google brings up links that are publicly broadcast and follow the consensus view. I have often found it difficult to find information that I know exists, let alone find new evidence.



I could opine that's a pretty weak excuse...  Google is not the only search engine on the planet.  Might I suggest www.Ixquick.com.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

People who are guessing at science wish it to be intuitive which it sometimes is.  But those who know science know when it is and when it isn't.  

What Einstein and others have taught us is the most significant discoveries are those  that are the least intuitive. 

Considering the earth as one system,  and simple energy conservation,  AGW is intuitive and compelling.  The more detail one considers though the less intuitive it becomes,  and the more one has to rely on pure and complex science to understand.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> > The volcanic dips often start before the eruption or are quite weak.
> 
> 
> 
> That is, of course, nonsense.  Effect before the cause?  In what alternate universe?  Pinatubo had a strong measurable effect.



Ian, Ian, Ian... Oro is right of course.  The deep ocean cools before the eruption takes place?  Come on, man.  When you can, look at the graphic on a good display.  AND READ THE PAPER.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> People who are guessing at science wish it to be intuitive which it sometimes is.  But those who know science know when it is and when it isn't.
> 
> What Einstein and others have taught us is the most significant discoveries are those  that are the least intuitive.
> 
> Considering the earth as one system,  and simple energy conservation,  AGW is intuitive and compelling.  The more detail one considers though the less intuitive it becomes,  and the more one has to rely on pure and complex science to understand.



Yes.  "The devil is in the details".


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 12, 2013)

In fact, several years ago I took satellite photos of the Pinatubo eruption and created a short animation of the eruption as seen from space:






The ash cloud punched through an incoming hurricane, spread out into the stratosphere and circled the Earth for two years.  It was a massive eruption, the largest in the 20th century, in fact.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> A question for AGW deniers:
> 
> what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?



I don't know that there IS a recent increase in this metric.. You got good enough historical data to come up with another one of those MEANINGLESS "Global" figures for >700m?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Wish I had been smoking something.. 

Look -- it's just not relevent to the questions of adopting nuclear power for electricity.. It's part of the strategic problem of nuclear waste. 

Would be like realizing that not ALL EVIL OIL is used for gasoline.. And that we'll still have to deal with drilling and selling about 1/2 of it ---- when and if we move transportation energy elsewhere..


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> In fact, several years ago I took satellite photos of the Pinatubo eruption



Dang. I wish I had my own satellite. 

(And yes, I know what you meant.)


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What increase?  There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all.  The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...
> ...



Without the armada of Argo floats --  what you're left with is not much better than the historical data. And the MODERN portion of the data probably departs DRASTICALLY with the earlier data.. 

How you gonna make a general like that one --- CLAIMING TO BE COVERING THE GLOBE --- with not enough data?

Seems to me --- they ought to concentrate on the MAJOR sub-surface TRANSPORT streams and do a GOOD JOB OF THAT FIRST.. Because that's the big Cuisinart Mixer that moves the heat around.. 

The fact that went for a GLOBAL number just to make a PUBLIC EXCUSE for the lack of atmospheric warming --- is just more media centered science.. 

A GLOBAL average at 700m is elusive and meaningless...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > A question for AGW deniers:
> ...



The full text of the work is available.  Why don't you show us where they went wrong.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Oil is not evil.  It's a lovely resource material.  It just sucks to burn.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









I absolutely agree with you on this.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Yeppers.. I'll get right on that.. As soon as you show me how the IPCC mangled that TSI number back in the other thread..  

That MIT-UConn paper I posted there has a LOT to do with my thoughts on this latest TrenBerth media event.  Because I suspect that limiting the study of finding miniscule amounts of ocean warmth to the actual ocean conveyors of that warmth -- would have been a far more intelligient thing to do than faking another Global average..


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The ORAS model takes global inputs and gives global results.  

The divergence between before and after about 1998 seems to be due to changes in tropical wind patterns tripped off by la Nina.  That air, land and SST should stop climbing at the same time the deep ocean starts heating rapidly provides an answer to the TOA deficit. You don't have an alternative, do you.

On what do you base this charge that they were looking for an excuse for the lack of atmospheric warming?  What do you believe they did?  Do you think these model runs are lies?  Do you think they fed the models made up data?  Do you think they're all lying?  Cause that's what you're saying.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I can see why you might be afraid to read it.  Much too easy to badmouth it when you don't even know what it actually says.  Let senile, incompetent bumblers like Pielke do it for you. 

So, you think Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen are lying?  You think their paper is a complete fraud?  Have the guts to say it outright.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Without the armada of Argo floats --  what you're left with is not much better than the historical data. And the MODERN portion of the data probably departs DRASTICALLY with the earlier data..



I realize you won't read the paper.  No sense spending ten minutes getting smarter.  But you could have wasted the ten seconds it would have taken to read my post with your brain engaged.

THE ARGO DATA SHOWS MORE WARMING BELOW 700 METERS AFTER 1998 THAN DOES THE NON-ARGO DATA.



flacaltenn said:


> Seems to me --- they ought to concentrate on the MAJOR sub-surface TRANSPORT streams and do a GOOD JOB OF THAT FIRST.. Because that's the big Cuisinart Mixer that moves the heat around..



Seems to me you ought to read the paper.



flacaltenn said:


> A GLOBAL average at 700m is elusive and meaningless...



You wish.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

Defense lawyers know that their job for jury trials is  typically aimed at creation of some doubt.  If they can get that up to ''reasonable'' in the minds of jury,  they have won. 

So it is with deniers. They have no science that supports their politics,  so they have elected to try the creation of doubt methodology. Of course as science has built the case proving AGW and it's impacts,  the doubt business has moved from tough to impossible.  And truth be told, the trial is long over and the doers of the world are solving the problems rather than trying to deny the science. 

But,  I think that this discussion will go on for several more years as that is easier for deniers than admitting they've been so wrong for so long.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Just checked the other thread where we were addressing how and why the IPCC mangled the TSI numbers.. Still no response from you.. The paper I referenced there is key to any comments I might make about this "revelation".. 

I did scan the ENTIRE paper weeks ago -- that's why I'm still chuckling about the diving walruses.. How much of the "global" ocean did they cover?

Don't think B T & Kallen are lying.. I think they are LEARNING. I applaud a better approach to climate science. I certainly rejected Trenberth's ORIGINAL whacks at it. NOW -- he needs to take a few courses in Linear System Theory and he'll be closer to understanding forcing functions and temporal response of systems with complex storage... 

I KNOW what "the paper actually says".. And these guys made a calculated decision to try and fix the public perception that the warming has halted with a "global" measurement of very tiny numbers. RATHER than doing IMPORTANT science like how that energy gets transported or affects the surface/atmos energy exchange. 

The entire purpose of that paper was to make the news cycle with an excuse for the failure of their previous simplistic assumptions about heat energy exchange within the climate system.

Too much energy expended leaping to conclusions about how this warming "adds" to the actual OBSERVED surface temperatures..


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








Yes, the MODEL can come up with anything you want it to.  That's why it's results are not considered DATA.  Show us DATA that says the oceans are warming below 700 meters


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Without the armada of Argo floats --  what you're left with is not much better than the historical data. And the MODERN portion of the data probably departs DRASTICALLY with the earlier data..
> ...








It does?  Show us.  And not models, we want raw data.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

The ARGO data is not necessary to prove AGW.  That has been done by theory,  modeling and data.  No matter how much deniers wish it to be otherwise.  

The ARGO data is important for other reasons like to understand the transitional mechanisms the land,  oceans,  ice and atmosphere go through in response to the higher energy the earth receives due to higher GHG concentrations.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 12, 2013)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I'm with Ian on this one. 

Although I think this abstract from the paper cited earlier is interesting.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content :

[1] The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/ATS421-521/2013/papers/balmaseda13grl_inpress.pdf

I think we are 10 years away from PROVING what most of us believe to be true. 

Even 2 oe 3 years from now, Argos won't have been able to build up much of a picture. It's going to take time. Clearly the smart money is on deep ocean warming, but right now that is more theory than fact. 

We also know that Argos results won't make a shred of difference to most Sceptics on this board.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The ARGO data is not necessary to prove AGW.  That has been done by theory,  modeling and data.  No matter how much deniers wish it to be otherwise.
> 
> The ARGO data is important for other reasons like to understand the transitional mechanisms the land,  oceans,  ice and atmosphere go through in response to the higher energy the earth receives due to higher GHG concentrations.








  Nothing is proven in science you ignoramus.  NOTHING!  Science is concerned with FACTS, not TRUTH.  One need only look at your tortured posts to realize you know nothing about science, the scientific method, or scientific enquiry.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Took about 20 milliseconds to find it.  Have at it:

Temperature Data

You wanted the raw data.  You got it.  Now, What I want from you is to take that data and produce something (anything) that refutes the papers based on this data that says the oceans are heating up (particularly at depth).  Shit or get off the pot.


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The ARGO data is not necessary to prove AGW.  That has been done by theory,  modeling and data.  No matter how much deniers wish it to be otherwise.
> 
> The ARGO data is important for other reasons like to understand the transitional mechanisms the land,  oceans,  ice and atmosphere go through in response to the higher energy the earth receives due to higher GHG concentrations.



Theory, modeling and data proves nothing... LOL, you just tried to claim a theory can prove itself correct, and are obviously either too stupid to know it, or to ignorant to understand the significance of that ignorance...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

It's interesting that deniers, who are fueled 100% by folks managing public opinion, instead of science, believe that the IPCC should ignore public understanding of their complex and obscure to non scientists technology, and keep it complex and obscure.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The ARGO data is not necessary to prove AGW.  That has been done by theory,  modeling and data.  No matter how much deniers wish it to be otherwise.
> ...



"Theory, modeling and data proves nothing"

This is a stupid statement even at Slacksack's normal level of stupidity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



*"Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed. After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion." *

Did you actually say that?


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Why yes he did.. LOL, he also called the science settled, and then said the science was never settled in the same thread, on the same subject...

He's an idiot..


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Unfamiliar with what proof is.. Not surprising... A model using data is not proof, it's evidence but not proof. There can be other mitigating circumstances, other factors involved, or the assumptions on the data could be wrong. All of which we find quite often in research.

But then what else can we expect from an obvious zealot...


----------



## IanC (Aug 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I don't think that quote was originally composed by pmz. 

Only an idiot would consider that quote as evidence of idiocy.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



"Theory, modeling and data proves nothing"

That is a stupid statement.  The word "data" is plural.  It should have read that they "prove nothing".  Stupid, stupid, stupid.  The opinion as well.


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...








Yeah, about those models....

"Current Crop of Computer Models *Close to Useless*

It is this second class of models, the economic/climate hybrids called Integrated Assessment Models, that Pindyck discusses. Pindycks paper is titled, Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us? Here is his shocking answer, contained in the abstract:

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome.  IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading. [Bold added.]"







Institute for Energy Research | Scathing MIT Paper Blasts Obama?s Climate Models


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

From the reference above.

"Robert S. Pindyck is a professor of economics and finance at MIT, with several decades experience publishing articles and books dealing with energy. Moreover, as he explains in this interview, Pindyck believes that man-made emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will impose climate change damages on future generations, and is an advocate of a carbon tax agreement among the major world governments (though he is doubtful such a tax is politically feasible). With a pedigree like that, you might expect Pindyck to be very complimentary about the computer models that the Obama Administration and other policymakers are using to justify the economics of anti-carbon measures. But as it turns out, Pindyck has written a new, peer-reviewed paper (forthcoming in the Journal of Economic Literature) that is absolutely scathing in its critique of such models. In this post Ill highlight some of his points."

"Two Types of Computer Models"

"In the climate change policy debate, there are two types of computer models. One type refers to models of the Earths climate that are created as simplified simulations of the atmosphere, ocean, suns radiation, etc. that rely just on the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology. These are the computer models that people have in mind when they say things like, Global temperatures have been basically flat for years, and yet the official models predicted more warming than has actually occurred."

"But there are another set of modelscalled Integrated Assessment Models or IAMsthat have been created by economists, not climate scientists. The IAMs rely on condensed versions of the full-blown climate models as part of their structure, but they also rely on (crude) simulations of the global economy to try and assess the interaction between the economic and climate systems. In addition to all of the uncertainty stemming just from the physical science itselfsuch as asking how much global temperatures will increase in the long run, in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrationsthe IAMs have another layer of guesswork. For example, they have to make projections of business as usual growth in carbon dioxide emissions, in order to understand the full economic impact of emitting one more ton of CO2 today. These computer simulations are then used to gauge the likely results of various types of government policies to restrict emissions, which will affect both the economy and the climate."

All of the discussion here has been about climate models assembled by the IPCC. 

So, this is a brand new topic. Economic and business models. 

I for one have never read one, by anybody. So I have no opinion on this paper.

The guy could be completely right, completely wrong, or, most likely, someplace in between. 

And, at least in this article, he doesn't seem to be specific about which papers he's criticizing. 

For sure he has no expertise in the science of climatology.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 13, 2013)

As the man said, every model ever discussed heretofore was a climate model, not some sort of new hybrid.  This does not rescue GSlack from having said a very stupid thing.


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> From the reference above.
> 
> "Robert S. Pindyck is a professor of economics and finance at MIT, with several decades experience publishing articles and books dealing with energy. Moreover, as he explains in this interview, Pindyck believes that man-made emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will impose climate change damages on future generations, and is an advocate of a carbon tax agreement among the major world governments (though he is doubtful such a tax is politically feasible). With a pedigree like that, you might expect Pindyck to be very complimentary about the computer models that the Obama Administration and other policymakers are using to justify the economics of anti-carbon measures. But as it turns out, Pindyck has written a new, peer-reviewed paper (forthcoming in the Journal of Economic Literature) that is absolutely scathing in its critique of such models. In this post Ill highlight some of his points."
> 
> ...







Yes, thank you for making the point that the man who wrote the paper is a WARMIST, and even HE says the models are SHIT!

When you put your foot in it do you have to open wide or is your pie hole just simply huge?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

mamooth said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, several years ago I took satellite photos of the Pinatubo eruption
> ...



You do.  If you are an American, you paid for a large fraction of the ones up there, so technically, you do own them.  And yes, you too can access the data coming down from a lot of them, if you know where to look for it (some of it costs for access).


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I disagree.  Disposal of nuclear waste is critical to any policy promoting nuclear energy.  Using oil to power our machines is extremely wasteful, because it is a finite resource, and has so many critical uses elsewhere, such as in medicine and plastics.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



How is that paper coming along, westwall?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 13, 2013)

We've been told several times now that the Greenhouse Effect cannot be made to work on other planets.  I'd like a link to a peer reviewed paper supporting that contention.


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



LOL, going to add liar to your list of accomplishments Ian? The quotes are legit asshole... You want to call me a liar? Man up and do it then... Go and find the quotes here, prove me a liar...

You have it to do coward, if you cannot prove them false, I expect an apology...


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

Here's the link to the quote Ian just accused me of inaccurately citing to his pal PMZ...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7656080-post113.html



> *Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.
> 
> After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.*




His words bolded, taken verbatim from the sourced post...Incidently, everything in that post, save for a few of the more ignorant lines was stolen from another website, i pointed this out to the plagarizing weasel, and his excuse was he had "" in it.. No link, no source, no atribution, the dude even edited in his own line into the thing... My response to that post where I show this fact with links...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7656213-post115.html

I expect may apolgy now Ian....


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Seems like these guys (Oro-man and Abraham) believe that this short technical "letter" was a fully illuminated "study".. There is a massive amount of handwaving regarding data prep in that short story we're discussing.

A note here about "bias correction being done with the modern Argo data" --- A note there about the model adding "corrections" to the historical data.. And NO FREAKING idea of how much of the result is data and how much is programming. 

MAYBE --- on SOME other PLANET --- scientists are happy to TRUST and be disinterested in details.. But not in the circles I inhabit..  And CERTAINLY not for climate scientists who just discovered that the Oceans store 90% of the energy.. 

I want to know HOW they covered the planet with the available data. 

Want to know how seasonal corrections were made.. How undersampled historical data was used. I want to know HOW MANY SAMPLES below 700 meters were USED to drive the model.. 

Not interested in the details of the MODEL resolution.. I want to know about HISTORICAL resolution of the data. 

Anybody that knows crap about the oceans ---- KNOWS that thermal effects at depth are LOCALIZED artifacts. Miss ONE major thermocline and you're data is crap..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2013)

Given what I asked above about how much DATA was used used below 700m.. 

You might want to reference what the SPATIAL distribution of that "warming" might be..












Miss a warm current at 250m, find a warm spot at 800... Does the MODEL do this for you?


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







What was that olfraud?  BUSTED!


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What it was about is that you demanded the RAW data, and now after someone presented it to you, you are apparently refusing to do anything with it.  Like I said, shit or get off the pot.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



What we DON'T believe in is the credibility of anyone who says "don't show me the models, show me the RAW data", and when  presented with the requested data, refuses to do anything at all with it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Anybody that knows crap about the oceans ---- KNOWS that thermal effects at depth are LOCALIZED artifacts. Miss ONE major thermocline and you're data is crap..



This line tells me that it is you that doesn't know crap about the oceans.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Given what I asked above about how much DATA was used used below 700m..
> 
> You might want to reference what the SPATIAL distribution of that "warming" might be..
> 
> ...



You might want to review the caption on your graphic and tell us what GCM stands for, oh Despiser-of-Models


----------



## Saigon (Aug 14, 2013)

It's a very strange thing that many of our Sceptical posters despise models, but use them frequently should the models back their case in some way.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Seems like these guys (Oro-man and Abraham) believe that this short technical "letter" was a fully illuminated "study"..



It's been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication.  Now I know you don't have much to do with that sort of thing, preferring to reference blogs and... well... blogs.  But I actually put some value into that sort of thing.

I have found it to be a fairly common practice among AGW-deniers to scream that "the data isn't available", when it fact it is available.  As far as the spatial resolution of the data: it is what it is.  The datasets they used are extensive but filling in the gaps is accomplished with short term model runs.  The model is set up with all the data they've got and then run for ten days.  Then it gets reset to the data once again and run for another ten days.  I wager the results are more robust than the GCM output you just posted.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> We've been told several times now that the Greenhouse Effect cannot be made to work on other planets.  I'd like a link to a peer reviewed paper supporting that contention.



Actually, you have been told that the greenhouse effect calculations when applied to other planets with atmospheres don't even get close to the observed temperatures.  Perhaps you should first learn to read and comprehend what was said before you attempt science.  

And I gave you links to start on another thread.  Are you such a whiner that you must wine the same whine on all available threads?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > We've been told several times now that the Greenhouse Effect cannot be made to work on other planets.  I'd like a link to a peer reviewed paper supporting that contention.
> ...



I for one am fully prepared to read anything you've got that supports your claim wrt ghg calculations applied to other planets.  The ball is in your court.  Links?


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

I am going to randomly post this until Ian apoloigizes...

Here's the link to the quote Ian just accused me of inaccurately citing to his pal PMZ...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7656080-post113.html



> *Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.
> 
> After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.*




His words bolded, taken verbatim from the sourced post...Incidently, everything in that post, save for a few of the more ignorant lines was stolen from another website, i pointed this out to the plagarizing weasel, and his excuse was he had "" in it.. No link, no source, no atribution, the dude even edited in his own line into the thing... My response to that post where I show this fact with links...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7656213-post115.html

I expect my apolgy now Ian....


----------



## IanC (Aug 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> I am going to randomly post this until Ian apoloigizes...
> 
> Here's the link to the quote Ian just accused me of inaccurately citing to his pal PMZ...
> 
> ...



Poor gslack. So little brain power. It must be difficult for him to even get through common daily tasks. I pity his wife.

Why would I apologize for stating that I don't believe pmz was the author of that quote? You are too retarded to understand the meaningof the quote so I will apologize for implying that you are sn idiot. It was unnecessary piling on


----------



## PMZ (Aug 14, 2013)

Both sides in this are burdened by Slacksack.  He does neither any good and subtracts from all dialog.  A true troll.


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to randomly post this until Ian apoloigizes...
> ...



Douchebag, you claimed the quote wasn't his or at least an inaccurate depiction of his words...

The fact is the quote is verbatim. It's right there in plain sight. The link to verify as well..

You can either apologize or be considered a liar, and a coward... Come tothink of it, that's what we already know about you anyway...

Kiss my ass you cowardly litle punk..


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Both sides in this are burdened by Slacksack.  He does neither any good and subtracts from all dialog.  A true troll.



Any answer on what's up with your rep socko?

Was it plagiarizing or socking?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> And I gave you links to start on another thread.  Are you such a whiner that you must wine the same whine on all available threads?



The Nikolov/Zeller comments at the link you provided do NOT indicate that temperatures on other planets cannot be calculated from greenhouse effects.  They simply show that they can do it with their ATE.


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And I gave you links to start on another thread.  Are you such a whiner that you must wine the same whine on all available threads?
> ...



Why don't you man upand explain the rep problem you and PMZ developed at the same time socko?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Bump.  Well?  I'm waiting.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Both sides in this are burdened by Slacksack.  He does neither any good and subtracts from all dialog.  A true troll.



A better nickname for him would be fleastack.


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Both sides in this are burdened by Slacksack.  He does neither any good and subtracts from all dialog.  A true troll.
> ...



Nah, I think I should be called Mr. Make the warmers cry... You crybabies lack the abilty, fortitude, and moral/ethical backbone to be anything more than what we see here.. Fakes..You claim you're scientists or engineers or whatever, and cannot even be bothered to make a good show of it. When you get caught being ignorant of your claimed expertise, you goand come back as a new person.. But a new person with the same problems the last one got caught with.. Ignorance...

When any of you, get the ability to post honestly and with some substance, maybe you will do a better job. But until then all we have to do is wait and watch your pride and desire to appear more than what you are overtake you.. You will always overstate, overcompensate, overreach, and overly commit yourself to an absolute that you cannot defend...

Just like you have done...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Pity poor Slacksack. He's made a fool of himself most every day here. Whenever he tries to spout some science he gets it all wrong and has to backpedal like crazy. So, he's left with only trolling. Making up conspiracies hoping that folks won't notice zero substance. 

Who wouldn't notice?


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Oh stop crying socko... Just come back as a new poster again.. You do it all the time anyway.. You post as this or that until it gets busted, and then you come back as another person.. Next time come back as a janitor.. Then you can clean up the crap post..


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Both sides in this are burdened by Slacksack.  He does neither any good and subtracts from all dialog.  A true troll.



It's the Ignore List's raison d'etre


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

Hmmm...







I don't think summer is quite over up there.  Do you?  FCT?  WestWall?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

I thought summer was the rainy season...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

*NCDC Releases June 2013 Global Climate Report*

According to NOAA scientists, the globally averaged temperature for June 2013 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest June since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 37th consecutive June and 340th consecutive month (more than 28 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average June temperature was June 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month was February 1985.

Many areas of the world experienced higher-than-average monthly temperatures, including north-central Canada, most of Alaska and the western United States, much of northern and eastern Europe, western Russia, part of northern Siberia, and north-central Australia. Meanwhile, northeastern Canada, much of western and southern Europe, central Asia, Far East Russia, and most of India were notably cooler than average.

This monthly summary from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides to government, business, academia, and the public to support informed decision-making.

NCDC Releases June 2013 Global Climate Report | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I thought summer was the rainy season...



LOL, the "rainy seasons" vary by region..

Wet season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The wet season, monsoon season or rainy season is the time of year when most of a region's average annual rainfall occurs. It usually lasts one or more months.[1] The term "green season" is also sometimes used as a euphemism by tourist authorities.[2] Areas with wet seasons are dispersed across portions of the tropics and subtropics.[3] Under the Köppen climate classification, for tropical climates, a wet season month is defined as a month where average precipitation is 60 millimetres (2.4 in) or more.[4] In contrast to areas with savanna climates and monsoon regimes, mediterranean climates have wet winters and dry summers. Tropical rainforests technically do not have dry or wet seasons, since their rainfall is equally distributed throughout the year.[5] Some areas with pronounced rainy seasons will see a break in rainfall mid-season, when the intertropical convergence zone or monsoon trough moves poleward of their location during the middle of the warm season.[6]
> When the wet season occurs during a warm season, or summer, precipitation falls mainly during the late afternoon and early evening hours. The wet season is a time when air quality improves, freshwater quality improves, and vegetation grows substantially, leading to crop yields late in the season. Floods cause rivers to overflow their banks, and some animals to retreat to higher ground. Soil nutrients diminish and erosion increases. The incidence of malaria increases in areas where the rainy season coincides with high temperatures. Animals have adaptation and survival strategies for the wetter regime. Often, the previous dry season leads to food shortages in the wet season, as the crops have



And what kind os "expert" did you claim to be?

ROFL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> *NCDC Releases June 2013 Global Climate Report*
> 
> According to NOAA scientists, the globally averaged temperature for June 2013 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest June since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 37th consecutive June and 340th consecutive month (more than 28 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average June temperature was June 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month was February 1985.
> 
> ...



*the globally averaged temperature for June 2013 *

I always laugh when I see this phrase. How many data points did they use? How did they average them?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > *NCDC Releases June 2013 Global Climate Report*
> ...



Way more data points than you have.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Awesome! How many?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

We know how many you have.  Zero. If you want to be equally informed about the NCDC,  you can be.  Research it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We know how many you have.  Zero. If you want to be equally informed about the NCDC,  you can be.  Research it.



You don't know how many data points? LOL!


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't do ice.. Watching small ice cubes melt tells me NOTHING important.. 
When 15% ice coverage is the definition --- you know someone rigged the game in their favor... Not worth the effort... 

You want IMPORTANCE to the Arctic -- Yet you never commented on the MIT-UConn paper I posted to educate you about REAL SCIENCE of ocean temperatures on climate. THAT will tell you more about ice melts than watching that stupid graph.. 

Also never told me why the IPCC LIED about TSI...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm...
> ...



You don't do ice. Ever think that that may be your problem? That's lots of latent heat energy with no rise in temperature. Think how long it will have to be at freezing and below someday when and if the climate that we built civilization around returns before all of that ice gets remade.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm...
> ...



Show us in this IPCC report specifically where the lies are.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

[MENTION][/MENTION]





Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We know how many you have.  Zero. If you want to be equally informed about the NCDC,  you can be.  Research it.
> ...



Everybody knows how many data points you have. Zero.


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> [MENTION][/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL, and you just pulled a pee wee herman.... "I know you are but what am I?"

Where's your mother? Why isn't she watching you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> [MENTION][/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not claiming to know the globally averaged temperature .
LOL!

Let me know when you find out how many data points.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > [MENTION][/MENTION]
> ...



Clearly all denialists share the same data, science, theory, and modeling. 

None. Zero. Their equivalent to the IPCC is Rush Radio. 

But, that doesn't slow them down from taking on science. 

After all, there's no reason why ignorance shouldn't be considered as equal to learning.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > [MENTION][/MENTION]
> ...



Let me get this straight. You don't know what this years globally averaged temperature is, but you know that what the IPCC's data says it is is wrong. 

Explain to us how that works.


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



LOL, if you don't have a response to my post why bother responding?

Dude get some freaking sleep...You look like a tweaker...


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




ROFL, you are an idiot... He didn't say he didn't know, he didn't say he did, he is saying that you don't know how many data points..

And the sad part is, nobody knows the true globally averaged temp for this year is yet.. The years not over yet dumbass, any attempts to show the years global average is either to current date, OR speculation based on models or predictions....

Jesus, you are ignorant.. Get some sleep before you pass out socko..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"Globally averaged temperature" is a joke. 

Let me know when you find out how many data points they used to pull that number out of their ass.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

Consider: if you are a Dittohead, you are committed to a cult whose intellectual opposition is this:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC."	
*
"The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."
*
"Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva."
*
"The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions."
*
"Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive."

With near zero in resources, education, tools, expertise, respect and relevance, how could such a PR battle turn out in any way favorable for the Dittoheads?

In other words what bands the conservative cult together in a debate between such massively desperate capabilities? 

But more important, what does the intellectual equivalent of David vs Goliath say about our culture? 

We have always been a country where contribution has been rewarded, but are at least now flirting with the opposite, because public propaganda has developed such that it has at least marginally the influence to pull it off. 

The significance behind Dunning-Krugar is not that it's an abstract thought, it is that it's the foundation of advertising and in our technology advertising is pervasive. 

The empowerment of ignorance is real now, and an extremely lucrative business. I have a feeling that we can't even imagine the threat that that truth is to democracy. 

Democracy depends on an informed electorate. Business depends on a less informed market. Where will that lead?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are a joke. Globally averaged temperature is a calculation made from data by those educated enough to know how, with the resources to gather the data. 

That leaves you so far unqualified to discuss it, that, anyone who is qualified, would regard you as irrelevant.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Globally averaged temperature is a calculation made from data by those educated enough to know how, *

That is unbelievably, incredibly awesome. 

How many data points did they use?

*That leaves you so far unqualified to discuss it, that, anyone who is qualified, would regard you as irrelevant.*

Qualified people love to talk about how they achieved their results.
They don't need a room temperature IQ clown like you to defend them.


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Consider: if you are a Dittohead, you are committed to a cult whose intellectual opposition is this:
> 
> "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC."
> *
> ...



LOL, everytime sockogets caught being an idiot he posts appeals to authority and hides..

basically he is saying he might be an idiot but that doesn't mean the IPCC is wrong!

ROFL


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're right and that's why I'm not defending them.  They don't to be.  

You're the problem.  I'm attacking you  because you have no data,  no resources,  little education,  no expertise,  so you have no valid reason to express any opinion at all,  but as Dunning-Kruger predicts,  you'd like to share what you don't know hoping that,  if you don't know what you don't know,  others will be fooled too.

There are areas in which each of us is ignorant.  Those are areas where smart people listen. You however believe thaf you can sell your politics with your ignorance of science.  

I'm going to stand in the way of that.  Count on it.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Consider: if you are a Dittohead, you are committed to a cult whose intellectual opposition is this:
> ...



What authority?  Hide where, from whom?. 

As the forum's Dunning-Kruger poster boy,  you have no idea of how little you know.  None. 

My job is to help others avoid making that same mistake and accidentally rewarding your ignorance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*You're the problem. I'm attacking you because you have no data, no resources*

When you find the data and resources used to determine "globally averaged temperature", count the data points they used and let me know.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No. 

If you have a question,  research it.  I guarantee the answer's out there.  Your ignorance is exclusively your problem.


----------



## IanC (Aug 16, 2013)

Todd is correct when he states that the type, number and position of the stations used make a difference in the global temperature. The infilling of empty grids and the homogenization process even more. Every change in methodology for the last two decades has increased the trend in historical readings. I find it unlikely that we were incorrectly reading thermometers before 1995.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Tell you what, I'll research it if you tell me how many data points we would need to get an accurate "globally averaged temperature".


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm...
> ...



You've told me you don't "do ice".  Considering your contention and what the ice has been doing, I'm not surprised.  Your contention that ice extents is meaningless, however, is unsupportable.  

Whatever you intended to convey with the phrase "You want IMPORTANCE to the Arctic" is indiscernible.

A thousand pardons for not reading your MIT U-Conn paper.  I was new and this board is not really well laid out.  Too easy to lose track of where things are.  If you could post it once more, I will have a look.

But, while we're talking about that sort of thing; do you really think you're justified to call the NSIDC data "stupid"?  I don't think you are and I find your expression offensive.

I would also like to ask you where you believe the IPCC lied about TSI.  Was it in this graphic:






?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

TS.2.5	Net Global Radiative Forcing, Global Warming Potentials and Patterns of Forcing <>
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the effect of human activities since 1750 has been a net positive forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m&#8211;2. Improved understanding and better quantification of the forcing mechanisms since the TAR make it possible to derive a combined net anthropogenic radiative forcing for the first time. Combining the component values for each forcing agent and their uncertainties yields the probability distribution of the combined anthropogenic radiative forcing estimate shown in Figure TS.5; the most likely value is* about an order of magnitude larger than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in solar irradiance*. Since the range in the estimate is +0.6 to +2.4 W m&#8211;2, there is very high confidence in the net positive radiative forcing of the climate system due to human activity. The LLGHGs together contribute +2.63 ± 0.26 W m&#8211;2, which is the dominant radiative forcing term and has the highest level of scientific understanding. In contrast, the total direct aerosol, cloud albedo and surface albedo effects that contribute negative forcings are less well understood and have larger uncertainties. The range in the net estimate is increased by the negative forcing terms, which have larger uncertainties than the positive terms. The nature of the uncertainty in the estimated cloud albedo effect introduces a noticeable asymmetry in the distribution. Uncertainties in the distribution include structural aspects (e.g., representation of extremes in the component values, absence of any weighting of the radiative forcing mechanisms, possibility of unaccounted for but as yet unquantified radiative forcings) and statistical aspects (e.g., assumptions about the types of distributions describing component uncertainties). {2.7, 2.9}


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

From Wikipedia "Solar Irradiance"

In contrast to older reconstructions,[39] most recent reconstructions of total solar irradiance point to an only small increase of only about 0.05% to 0.1% between Maunder Minimum and the present.[40][41][42]

39. ^ a b Board on Global Change, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research Council. (1994). Solar Influences on Global Change. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-309-05148-7.
40. ^ Wang, Y.-M.; Lean, J. L.; Sheeley, N. R. (2005). "Modeling the Sun's magnetic field and irradiance since 1713". The Astrophysical journal 625 (1): 522&#8211;38. Bibcode:2005ApJ...625..522W. doi:10.1086/429689.
41. ^ Krivova, N. A.; Balmaceda, L.; Solanki, S. K. (2007). "Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux". A&A 467 (1): 335&#8211;46. Bibcode:2007A&A...467..335K. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066725.
42. ^ Steinhilber, F.; Beer, J.; Fröhlich, C. (2009). "Total solar irradiance during the Holocene". Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 (19): L19704. Bibcode:2009GeoRL..3619704S. doi:10.1029/2009GL040142.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

*Solar variation and climate*

Both long-term and short-term variations in solar activity are hypothesized to affect global climate, but it has proven extremely challenging to directly quantify the link between solar variation and the earth's climate.[54] The topic continues to be a subject of active study.

As discussed above, there are three suggested mechanisms by which solar variations may have an effect on climate:

1) Solar irradiance changes directly affecting the climate ("Radiative forcing"). This is generally considered to be a minor effect, as the amplitudes of the variations in solar irradiance are much too small to have significant effect absent some amplification process.[11]

2) Variations in the ultraviolet component. The UV component varies by more than the total, so if UV were for some (as yet unknown) reason having a disproportionate effect, this might explain a larger solar signal in climate.

3) Effects mediated by changes in cosmic rays (which are affected by the solar wind) such as changes in cloud cover.

Early research attempted to find a correlation between weather and sunspot activity, mostly without notable success.[5][14] Later research has concentrated more on correlating solar activity with global temperature.

Crucial to the understanding of possible solar impact on terrestrial climate is accurate measurement of solar forcing. Unfortunately accurate measurement of incident solar radiation is only available since the satellite era, and even that is open to dispute: different groups find different values, due to different methods of cross-calibrating measurements taken by instruments with different spectral sensitivity.[1] Scafetta and Willson found significant variations of solar luminosity between 1980 and 2000.[55] But Lockwood and Frohlich[56] find that solar forcing has declined since 1987.






*Effect on global warming*
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) concluded that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases but acknowledges in the same report that there is a low level of scientific understanding with respect to solar variation.[57][58]

Estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes have decreased since the TAR. However, empirical results of detectable tropospheric changes have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change. The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays.[2]

In 2002, Lean et al.[59] stated that while "There is ... growing empirical evidence for the Sun's role in climate change on multiple time scales including the 11-year cycle", "changes in terrestrial proxies of solar activity (such as the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes and the aa geomagnetic index) can occur in the absence of long-term (i.e., secular) solar irradiance changes ... because the stochastic response increases with the cycle amplitude, not because there is an actual secular irradiance change." They conclude that because of this, "long-term climate change may appear to track the amplitude of the solar activity cycles," but that "Solar radiative forcing of climate is reduced by a factor of 5 when the background component is omitted from historical reconstructions of total solar irradiance ...This suggests that general circulation model (GCM) simulations of twentieth century warming may overestimate the role of solar irradiance variability." More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in September 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time.[11][60] Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."[61]

A paper by Benestad and Schmidt[62] concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[63] who claim that solar variability has a significant effect on climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argue that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[64] with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.).[65] Under this scenario, according to Scafetta and West, the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[10] Stott et al. estimate that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999.[66]


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> From Wikipedia "Solar Irradiance"
> 
> In contrast to older reconstructions,[39] most recent reconstructions of total solar irradiance point to an only small increase of only about 0.05% to 0.1% between Maunder Minimum and the present.[40][41][42]
> 
> ...



Starting to lose faith in you Abraham.. Thought you were sharper... What is the current W/M2 of solar irradiation? About 1366 isn't it? And what is 0.1% of 1366? 

How does 1.37 W/m2 compare to the IPCC claim? That's about 0.7W/m2 at the surface SINCE MMin and at least 0.4W/m2 in the historical timeframe of that shoddy IPCC propaganda piece.. 

Do you understand how stupid it is to DEFEND this serious omission from the "OFFICIAL" AGW literature? And the FORGERY of that number that appears in your IPCC chart above?

Just tell me that the Warmer Clergy doesn't WANT the debate to use REAL numbers for TSI --- and we can move on a more pleasant matters.. And you TRUST THEM so explicitly that you will LEAP on little factoids like the one you offered in this post --- without even sanity checking it..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I answered the IPCC question above.. They lie.. On purpose.. 

"You want importance to the Arctic" --- means a technical paper that describes HOW ocean heat ENDS up in the Arctic. The MIT/UConn paper describes how it's NOT "globally averaged ocean temperatures" at any depth that drives the warm water currents ---- but temperature DIFFERENTIALS between equator and pole that moves the heat. Stupid reasoning like that in the Trenberth article for this thread LOSES the meaning of the physical process that DRIVES this differential by stupidly AVERAGING every ounce of ocean water. (if you really believe they accounted for every ounce of seawater all over the globe in the 1st place).. 

SIExtents are not meaningless.. But defining "ICED" as 15% of the surface volume is stupid.
Any patch with 15% ice IS GONNA MELT in the summertime. It's just a few cubes floating at the whims of weather and current. I did a stint in Earth Satellite Image processing. We did surveys on everything imaginable, from trees to asphalt to urban heat island measurements. And you could change the report just by making new definitions.. 

The light is almost gone from the Arctic now. The peak was almost 60 days ago.. The excitement is pretty much over for another 8 months..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> *Solar variation and climate*
> 
> Both long-term and short-term variations in solar activity are hypothesized to affect global climate, but it has proven extremely challenging to directly quantify the link between solar variation and the earth's climate.[54] The topic continues to be a subject of active study.
> 
> ...



That graph -- whatever dumpster you found it in --- is WOEFULLY wrong. The vertical axis is in tenth of a watt/m2. And BOTH the SORCE/TIM graph and several other MAINSTREAM graphs contradict those values.. AND your graph purposely HIDES the major uptick of solar forcing between 1750 and 1850... Clear indication of someone hiding the data to make points.. 

The number for solar contribution since 1750 is CERTAINLY AT LEAST 30% of the surface forcing. I'd accept that -- but I believe it's higher.. 
IPCC could NEVER have that statement appear in it's pages.. Because they'd lose the interest of the politicians and policy wonks that give them credibility..


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Solar forcing 1850&#8211;2050 used in a NASA GISS climate model. Recent variation pattern used after 2000.



Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's the dumpster I found it in.

Let's see your dumpster, the one showing more TSI


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I would think that anyone qualified to question the IPCC would know the answer to that without my help.


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

I think PMZ/abraham needs to get sleep.. Dudes been on here nonstop for at least 24 hours... Frankly his posting shows it.. Dude just posted multiple times and did nothing but either re-state what has already been covered (if on topic at all) or talk in a circle...

Dudes going to have a breakdown soon...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> I think PMZ/abraham needs to get sleep.. Dudes been on here nonstop for at least 24 hours... Frankly his posting shows it.. Dude just posted multiple times and did nothing but either re-state what has already been covered (if on topic at all) or talk in a circle...
> 
> Dudes going to have a breakdown soon...



You're nowhere near that lucky. I know the recruiter told you that trolling is easy. Anybody can do it. Even you. 

We'll see.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Solar forcing 18502050 used in a NASA GISS climate model. Recent variation pattern used after 2000.
> ...



I've posted the SORCE/TIM graph for you at LEAST 3 times and you've ignored it or at least learned nothing from it.. Would be better if you invested a minute to look up both SORCE and TIM and learn it's origin and validity.. 

Wiki?? NASA GISS Climate Model??? Don't make me laugh.. It HAS to be underestimated input to the model --- otherwise it wouldn't give the results that NASA GISS wants..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You don't know how many data points you need for a "globally averaged temperature"?

Maybe you can find in in Wikipedia? I'll wait.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > *Solar variation and climate*
> ...



I'm surprised with all of your expertise and resources the IPCC didn't include you. What could they have been thinking?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I did look in Wikipedia for data, theory, science, or even ideas contrary to AGW. Didn't find a thing. Nothing. Apparently science hasn't caught up with Rush yet. 

When do you think that Wikipedia will start publishing your work?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So what do you think, 10 data points enough?
How about 100? 1000? Maybe Rachel Maddow can help you?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Solar forcing 18502050 used in a NASA GISS climate model. Recent variation pattern used after 2000.
> ...



Abe, here is some interesting information on someone who seems to think a lot like Flacaltenn.

Tim Ball - RationalWiki


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

ROFL, PMZ, didn't even realize the wikki insult... WOW...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I think that you're struggling to say that you have nothing. No expertise, no data, no resources, no science, no theories, Z. E. R. O. 

Tough position to be in.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



But enough about you.
Let me know when you figure out how many data points we need to get an accurate "world average". LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> ROFL, PMZ, didn't even realize the wikki insult... WOW...



And then he looked!

He's not very bright.


----------



## gslack (Aug 17, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > ROFL, PMZ, didn't even realize the wikki insult... WOW...
> ...



Nope.. See why I poke him? ROFL, it's so easy...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Then it should be really easy to post it again.

Standby, looking at the reconstruction at http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

I downloaded the data set and did an 11 year average centered on 1750 and on the last 11 years of the set (2002-2012).  I get a difference of 0.6087W/m*2.  Certainly greater than the IPCC shows in the graphic I posted.  Why don't we look into the IPCC's sources?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 17, 2013)

2.7 Natural Forcings - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) *have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005)*. However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002).

Well, lots of sources, not a lot of certainty.  Explains the large error range on the TSI bar in their forcings graph.


Here's a good link to Hoyt and Schatten: http://www.leif.org/EOS/93JA01944.pdf

and here is their summary:

5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 
There is plausible evidence for long-term changes in solar irradiance. Over the last two decades, diagnostic measurements of the equivalent width of lines, the limb darkening of the Sun, and line bisectors all indicate secular changes in solar convection, the photospheric temperature gradient, and solar irradiance are possible. Additional evidence for long-term irradiance changes come from such proxy measures as sunspot structure, sunspot decay rates, the length of solar cycles, the normalized solar cycle decay rate, the equatorial solar rotation rate, and the time rate of change of the solar diameter. The variations in these indices can plausibly be explained as arising from a common source, namely secular changes in solar convective energy transport or convective velocities. We recognize that such changes fall outside the domain of usual theories of stellar structure, but then all the observed solar variations do so too. Without any consideration of the arguments put forth in this paper, it seems more plausible for all these solar proxies to play some role in the varying solar irradiance than it would be for all these variations to exist with an invariant solar brightness. For all the proxy models considered the solar output varies by less than about -+0.2% in the last century. The solar convection zone stores approximately 10 45 ergs. A perturbation in radiative flux of 0.2% lasting for one century amounts to 1 part in 40,000 of the total thermal energy stored in the convection zone. For comparison, the thermal energy storage in the Earth's atmosphere has varied by --&#8226; 1 part in 500 over the last century. Energetically, there seems little reason to rule out these irradiance variations. The longer the timescale of the variations, the deeper the likely source for the perturbation will be. Relatively short variations from sunspots and faculae, lasting days, are the result of perturbations in the top few thousand kilometers below the photosphere. The root source of the longer variations may arise from deep within the convection zone, perhaps at its base or just below its base, because of the observed solar rotation changes. Endal et al. [ 1985] and Nesmes-Ribes and Manganey [1992] explore possible mechanisms for irradiance variations on the timescale of decades to centuries. Candidate mechanisms include (1) a perturbations in which stochastic variations in the energy transport arise from the finite number of convective cells involved, and (2)/3 perturbations in which changes in pressure, perhaps arising from changes in the strength of the magnetic field, alter the rate of energy transport. Plausible arguments can be made in behalf of both mechanisms. 

The postulated irradiance variations are only a few/tenths of a percent over periods of several decades and therefore will be difficult to detect. Present measurement plans do not appear to provide sufficient redundancy and overlap to detect low-level secular irradiance variations. The correlation of the solar indices and modeled solar irradiance with the Earth's temperature are significant at better than the 99% confidence level. However, if the amplitude of the solar irradiance variations is only -0.14% from 1880 to 1940 and if the Earth's climate responded with a 0.5 øK warming, then the climate would be much more sensitive to solar forcing than is commonly assumed. The direct effect of a 0.14% increase in solar irradiance could only account for a -0.23 øK increase if the sensitivity to solar influences is 1.67 øK per 1% increase in solar output (based upon the last decade of satellite observations). The amplitude of the solar variations remains highly uncertain with most estimates ranging from 0.14% to 0.38% over the past century. With the higher-amplitude estimates there are less problems connecting the solar variations to climatic changes. On decadal timescales the climate sensitivity can be expected to be larger due to several positive feedbacks. Potential positive feedbacks include a decrease in the ice and snow cover, an increase in plant absorptivity as it becomes greener in a warmer world, an increase in absorption by water surfaces as wind velocities decrease (based upon changes in the length of the day), and changes in plant orientation and albedo as wind velocities change. The last three potential feedback loops are not included in present day climate models. The postulated solar irradiance variations may explain part of the Earth's interannual temperature variations although their effects would be most evident in long-term trends in temperature on hemispheric and global spatial scales.

For Lean et al 1995, I've found their dataset but not their actual study.  The data may be found at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/lean1995/irradiance_data.txt


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 17, 2013)

Looking at their reasoning for adjusting irradiance downward: Here is Wang et al 1995:

Wang, Lean, & Sheeley, Secular Evolution of Sun's Magnetic Field

And here is Wang's irradiance record:






A significant decrease in variation over Lean.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 17, 2013)

Here is Hall and Lockwood, 20004, the other citation for having downsized solar variation since 1750.

Hall & Lockwood, Chromospheric Activity of Solar Analog Stars

Let me have a look and see what's there.

ABSTRACT

We present an analysis of more than 3700 observations of the Ca II H and K lines in 57 Sun-like stars and over 3000 analogous observations of the Sun. Ten of the 57 stars under consideration are observed in flat states, but these stars do not always exhibit overall Ca II H and K core brightness below that of solar minimum. Solar activity minimum lies near the lowest level observed for stars with cyclic or irregular variability, but many flat stars have HK activity levels comparable to or exceeding that of solar minimum. While flat activity stars may be in periods of extended activity minima analogous to the solar Maunder minimum, a significant reduction in magnetic activity during such periods is not implied (although it is also not rejected) by the data.

1. INTRODUCTION

     In the past quarter century, major efforts have been made to understand the Sun's role in climate change, spurred in large part by Eddy (1976), who coined the term "Maunder minimum" to describe the period between 1645 and 1715 during which solar activity was greatly reduced and which coincides neatly with one of the severe episodes of the so-called Little Ice Age. Space-based measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI) began in 1978 with the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment aboard Nimbus 7 (Hoyt et al. 1992), which allowed workers to attempt reconstructions of long-term solar irradiance by connecting the TSI data with proxies (such as the sunspot number) for which longer time series are available (Lean & Foukal 1988; Foukal & Lean 1990).

* Foukal & Lean (1990), among others, have noted that the well-determined 0.1% TSI excursion from solar minimum to maximum (Willson & Hudson 1988; Fröhlich 2000) appears quite insufficient to account for the observed rise in global temperature over the past century. If the Sun is the dominant driver of recent global warming, either the effects of its 0.1% variation must be significantly underestimated by present models, or it must be capable of larger variations than have been directly observed since 1978.*

     A suggestion that the latter possibility may be the case appears in a widely cited paper by Baliunas & Jastrow (1990; hereafter BJ90). These authors used data series from the Mount Wilson Observatory (MWO) stellar cycles program to examine the Ca II H and K behavior in a set of Sun-like stars, measured using the familiar activity index S. Their paper has two essential results. First, approximately one-third (4 out of 13) of the stars with extended time series displayed flat or nearly flat activity records. This agreed well, in a statistical sense, with the inferred record of solar activity over the past 1000 yr, which suggests the Sun may have spent about one-third of that time in a noncycling state (Eddy 1977), although it was noted thereafter (Saar & Baliunas 1992; Baliunas et al. 1998) that in the full MWO records, only about 15% of stars had flat time series. Second, the stars with flat activity records also showed Ca II H and K activity levels below that of solar minimum. Since the TSI is positively correlated with magnetic activity level, BJ90's result suggests that Sun-like stars (and, by inference, the Sun) may become fainter in Maunder minimum states by considerably more than their cycle excursion variability.

     These results were extended quantitatively to the solar context (White et al. 1992; Lean et al. 1992) with the result that if the reduction in overall magnetic activity found by BJ90 is used to reconstruct long-term solar irradiance variations, the TSI may have been as much as 0.24% lower during the Sun's Maunder minimum than at its present cycle mean&#8212;a much larger excursion than currently observed by TSI experiments, possibly accounting for half of the observed global warming since 1860 and one-third of the warming since 1970 (Lean et al. 1995).

*We have revisited this issue using 10 yr of data collected with the Solar-Stellar Spectrograph (SSS) at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. Using a larger sample of well-observed stars, we find that the essential feature of the BJ90 stellar activity ensemble, a distinct difference between the activity level of cycling stars versus that of flat stars that leads to a bimodal activity distribution, is not recovered. The distributions of Ca II H and K core brightness in cycling and flat stars are identical at a very high confidence level. In this paper we present these results and discuss their implications.*

****************************************************************************************************

I hate to say it, but it looks like another washout for Dr Bailunas.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 17, 2013)

So... FCT, you with me there?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> So... FCT, you with me there?



Clearly,  you've made your point that IPCC decisions are based on their overwhelming resources and science capabilities, instead of the conspiracy theories that are the only cards held by the deniers. 

In that way all of the research that you've demonstrated has a payoff.  Deniers aren't slowing down our progress on the lowest total cost solution to the reality  of AGW but the more votes that we have in the science camp the less likely is a slowdown in progress caused by the political camp.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> So... FCT, you with me there?




I'm years ahead of you on this.. I've already read the IPCC excuses for lying about the TSI from 1750... You can always find a study or two to mangle towards your agenda.. 

Fact remains --- The major ACCEPTED reconstruction/satellite results all get that TSI is responsible for about 30% or more of the warming since 1750.

I find this gem you unearthed particularly entertaining.. 



> Foukal & Lean (1990), among others, have noted that the well-determined 0.1% TSI excursion from solar minimum to maximum (Willson & Hudson 1988; Fröhlich 2000) appears quite insufficient to account for the observed rise in global temperature over the past century. If the Sun is the dominant driver of recent global warming, *either the effects of its 0.1% variation must be significantly underestimated by present models*, or it must be capable of larger variations than have been directly observed since 1978.



Wonder how that could happen Abe?? You just coughed up a DISTORTED PLOT of TSI that was used to feed the NASA GISS climate model... Wonder why the present models "significantly underestimates the effect of TSI" do ya???
That's funny...     GIGO   Look it up.... 



I'll wade thru your "discoveries" and get back to you on the quality of the "excuses"...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > So... FCT, you with me there?
> ...



''Fact remains --- The major ACCEPTED reconstruction/satellite results all get that TSI is responsible for about 30% or more of the warming since 1750.''

Depends on what you assume the contribution of AGW is. 

The fact remains,  that even if you were the rightest person in the world,  despite being of very few resources and nearly alone in your opinions,  nothing would change. We can't change TSI.  We can,  and have to,  move to sustainable energy leaving fossil fuels odd man out.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> > Foukal & Lean (1990), among others, have noted that the well-determined 0.1% TSI excursion from solar minimum to maximum (Willson & Hudson 1988; Fröhlich 2000) appears quite insufficient to account for the observed rise in global temperature over the past century. If the Sun is the dominant driver of recent global warming, either the effects of its 0.1% variation must be significantly underestimated by present models, or it must be capable of larger variations than have been directly observed since 1978.


I saw that.  I even highlighted it.  Believe it or not, I read what I post.  But what do you think this is saying?  When the line starts with the word "If" you have to realize the writer is giving you two options; one of which is that the sun is NOT the dominant driver of recent global warming.



flacaltenn said:


> Wonder how that could happen Abe??



How what could happen?  How a study might actually have objective and accurate information and not be a conspiratorial snakes-nest of lies?  Go figger.



flacaltenn said:


> You just coughed up a DISTORTED PLOT of TSI that was used to feed the NASA GISS climate model...



I never looked into the source of the NASA GISS graphic.  And you have no evidence that anything I've put up here is "distorted" with any intent other than to make it more accurate.



flacaltenn said:


> Wonder why the present models "significantly underestimates the effect of TSI" do ya??? That's funny...     GIGO   Look it up....



I know why the IPCC reduced the TSI variation estimate because they and their sources explained it to us.   You are no where near the level of objective justification that the IPCC provides.  Your incessant accusations of dishonesty and conspiracy approach a significant level of paranoia.  You need to step back, take some deep breaths and start over again with a cooler head.



flacaltenn said:


> I'll wade thru your "discoveries" and get back to you on the quality of the "excuses"...



Don't bother.  I'm pretty sure we've already heard your conclusions.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 18, 2013)

There are a number of scientific studies now that show that the oceans have been absorbing about 90% of the extra heat energy the Earth is retaining due to CO2 driven global warming. 






*Total Earth Heat Content from 1962 to 2008 (Church et al 2011).
*
Other studies have determined that natural variations in climate caused by the things like the ENSO cycle cause periodic variations in the rate of warming and may, at times, even temporarily overpower the ongoing background warming trend that is being caused by the over 40% increase (and still climbing fast) in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Recent research has confirmed that the current slight slowdown in surface temperature increases is largely happening because these natural variations have resulted in more of the excess heat energy being transported to the ocean depths. This heat has not vanished but will shortly, as the natural cycles move in the other direction, at least partially return to the surface and drive surface temperatures to new record highs.

*
Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us* 
SkepticalScience
 by Rob Painting
15 October 2011
(excerpts)
*In a stable climate (i.e no human-caused global warming, or some other natural climate forcing) the 'peaks and valleys' of natural variability in global surface temperatures  would average out to zero over the long-term.




The ocean heat content of the real world, however, is steadily increasing, and this affects global surface temperatures. Therefore if we take that natural oscillation, with a long-term average of zero, and now plot it on a warming trend:




* Meehl (2011) is a climate model-based study that shows hiatus decades, of little or no increase in global surface temperatures, are relatively common even under conditions of global warming similar to the present.
* This see-sawing pattern of global surface temperatures has been apparent in climate model projections for some time now. 
* These hiatus decades are simply the cool phase of a cool-warm natural cycle where heat is exchanged between the surface and subsurface ocean. 
* The deep ocean warms during these hiatus decades because heat builds up in mid-latitude regions and is quickly funneled downwards.
* Heat buried in the deep ocean remains there for hundreds to thousands of years. It is not involved in the heat exchange occurring in shallower layers. 
* Oceanic patterns in the hiatus decades are very similar to both La Niña and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. So the model is simulating well-observed phenomena.
* The ocean, as a whole, is still steadily building up heat, so the next warm phase of this natural cycle may drive global temperatures to new record highs (the ocean heat coming back to haunt us).*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > So... FCT, you with me there?
> ...




What amazes me is that you actually think you know what you're talking about.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 18, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> What amazes me is that you actually think you know what you're talking about.



To whom is this addressed?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I've already read the IPCC excuses for lying about the TSI from 1750... You can always find a study or two to mangle towards your agenda..



Yes, I guess you can.  So... did you conclude they were lying before or after reading their "excuses"?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 18, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> There are a number of scientific studies now that show that the oceans have been absorbing about 90% of the extra heat energy the Earth is retaining due to CO2 driven global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There certainly are AGW unknowns.  Chief among them is the response of land,  water,  ice,  and atmosphere in dealing with energy imbalance.  If we stopped adding to our past indiscriminate dumping of GHGs right now,  I believe that it's anybody's guess as to how long it would take before we would see balance restored between energy in and energy out. Years?  Decades?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I've already read the IPCC excuses for lying about the TSI from 1750... You can always find a study or two to mangle towards your agenda..
> ...



The number for TSI and the error bar are OUTRIGHT misrepresentations of the BASIC science data that's out there... I don't really CARE how they mangled it and lied about it. 

I read their exposition on how they arrived at that number -- and It twas STILL mangled.

You only have to know ONE THING to understand WHY... 



> ROLE
> 
> 2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information *relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change*, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.



It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers.. 
Right there from the beginning...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Those words certainly read different to you than to me.  I believe that to be a very precise definition of what they should be doing.  AGW has been a given for decades. The risks associated with it are the question to be answered by science.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 19, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > What amazes me is that you actually think you know what you're talking about.
> ...



To the guy the post says its addressed to.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





Dude - you are full of shit. Complete bullshit. I can smell it a mile away. You have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.





flacaltenn said:


> It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
> Right there from the beginning...



No it's not.  Your interpretation is whacked.  Are the police all criminals?  That's precisely what you are saying.  They are working to assess the risk.  Neither the UN nor the IPCC discovered AGW.  Why would you fixate on those few words and ignore "comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis"?  You do so because you are desperately trying to justify an unjustifiable position.

The science is NOT on your side.  THAT'S what you should care about.  That and the sort of world that YOUR current work here is going to leave to your children and theirs.

Ridiculous.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 19, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
> ...





Morons like flatulence think the IPCC invented AGW and that "climate change" is a new term the media invented to brainwash everyone.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

It has been well establish that without the warming of GHGs in the atmosphere,  earth would be inhospitable to life.  That fact is why the science of them has been well understood for so many decades before AGW was a concern. 

But,  like so many things,  too much of a good thing is a bad thing.  If we were to start building civilization now, we could site in properly for the new climate that we are creating,  but it's too late now.


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









If AGW is such a "given", why has it stopped?  If it is such a "given", why can't they produce a single lab experiment demonstrating it?  If it's such a "given" why is it that the only time it is even seen is in the addled workings of computer models that Harvard has proclaimed "nearly useless"?


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








Looked in the mirror lately?


----------



## 007 (Aug 20, 2013)

Why are these stupid, worthless, bull shit threads resurrected?


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
> ...







Actually the science IS on our side.  That's why you guys have had to lie for so long.  To cover up the fact that the planet stopped warming in contravention of everything you all were saying....

Here is the latest backtrack from the fraudsters in the queue....

Of course what they say is laughable, but they have had to admit that what they've been saying for the last couple of years has been horseshit so they *had * to come up with something to cover their collective asses.

I'm just amazed they came up with something so patently stupid...

*Global Sea Level Rise Dampened by Australia Floods *

Newswise  BOULDER - When enough raindrops fall over land instead of the ocean, they begin to add up.

New research led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) shows that when three atmospheric patterns came together over the Indian and Pacific oceans, they drove so much precipitation over Australia in 2010 and 2011 that the worlds ocean levels dropped measurably. Unlike other continents, the soils and topography of Australia prevent almost all of its precipitation from running off into the ocean.

The 2010-11 event temporarily halted a long-term trend of rising sea levels caused by higher temperatures and melting ice sheets.




Global Sea Level Rise Dampened by Australia Floods


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

007 said:


> Why are these stupid, worthless, bull shit threads resurrected?







'Cause the fraudsters need to train their socks so bring threads up to try and rewrite history.  You know where they don't get their asses handed to them....


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
> ...



What part of ".... relevent to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced ....." didn't you comprehend? Where are your manners? Telling me I'm full of shit for educating you on the ROLE and REASON for formation of the IPCC? 

Do you understand NOW why they lied about the magnitude of solar insolation since 1750?

What's this got to do with the police? And why do you think "the science" is on your side if the outcome of the science is pre-determined by the Mission Statement of the lead Global panel on the topic?


----------



## IanC (Aug 20, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




The term 'climate change' blossomed when it became obvious that temps were not following CO2 theory. The term 'extreme weather' became popular when reality showed no sign of cooperating. There is always extreme weather somewhere.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 20, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The IPCC exists ONLY to study MAN-MADE causes of global warming. That's clearly in their charter. And as such -- they are free to study ONLY THE SCIENCE that confirms their charter. That ---- doesn't bother you? 

You got an alternative reason why the IPCC reports purposely low-balled the 1.0W/m2 increase in solar insolation since 1700? Or you just want to be a parrot-head and attack me personally because you're incapable of debate?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



It hasn't stopped and you know it.  It's heating earth's water mass rather than it's land mass.  Why do you assume that it's possible to put planet earth in a testube?  There are an infinite number of things that take 100s of experiments to confirm. One professor at Harvard proclaimed business models that study the economic impact of AGW caused extreme weather as questionable. 

Does it ever occur that if you have to make up crap like this to attempt to prove your point that your point is pointless? 

Stop acting stupid.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



If you have science that proves X,  would you spend your career trying to prove not X? Do you believe that there are people researching the absence of gravity? 

You know the explanation behind the IPCCs choice of TSI values.  You disagree.  Your choice.  They have the responsibility,  the science and the resources. You have nothing but your opinion.  You know what they say about opinions?


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


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









Actually I DO KNOW that the temps have stopped rising.  So does Hansen, he who was the font of all temperature records....  And more to the point...So. Do. You.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 20, 2013)

westwall said:


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




Yesterday's high was 12 degrees above average.  So, no, temps have not stopped rising.

Temps are rising and falling all the time, different in different locations, different at different times of the year.  They can neither be said to have stopped rising or continued to rise, in your overgeneralized and mutable sense of context.


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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







   When you decide to make a stupid statement you really go all out don't you!

Special Weather Statement

SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
 FAIRBANKS AK AUG 16 2013

NORTHEASTERN BROOKS RANGE-
 INCLUDING&#8230;ANAKTUVUK PASS&#8230;ATIGUN PASS&#8230;GALBRAITH LAKE&#8230; SAGWON&#8230;FRANKLIN BLUFFS

AN EARLY FALL STORM IS FORECAST TO IMPACT THE NORTH SLOPE AND WEST COAST OF ALASKA SUNDAY AND IMPACT THE ALASKA INTERIOR MONDAY AND TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK.

A LOW DEVELOPING OVER NORTHEAST RUSSIA AND CHUKCHI SEA SATURDAY WILL BEGIN TO IMPACT THE WESTERN NORTH SLOPE SUNDAY WITH PERIODS OF RAIN&#8230;HEAVY AT TIMES.

GALE FORCE NORTH WINDS WILL DEVELOP IN THE SOUTHERN CHUKCHI SEA AND THROUGH THE BERING STRAITS SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY.

RAIN&#8230;HEAVY AT TIMES WILL DEVELOP IN WESTERN ALASKA SUNDAY NIGHT.

AN UNSEASONABLY COLD AIR MASS MOVING ON TO THE NORTH SLOPE BEHIND THIS SYSTEM WILL CHANGE RAIN TO SNOW IN AREAS FROM THE BROOKS RANGE NORTH SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY WITH SOME WET SNOW ACCUMULATION POSSIBLE IN THE BROOKS RANGE ABOVE 3000 FEET SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY.

National Weather Service, Fairbanks Forecast Office, AK

And how about this,, a 50% growth in sea ice in the Arctic from last year...

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e
Or how about Missouri where it is colder than when Mark Twain lived there....


----------



## IanC (Aug 20, 2013)

The interesting part about the whole global warming debate is how the focus keeps changing. Mann' hockeystick was irrefutable proof 10 years ago but when it was refuted warmers stopped talking about it. Every new hockeystick arrives to much prepublication publicity only to get shot down. AlGore's AIT won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize but he is unwelcome at the warmers' table now that it has been shown to be exaggerated in the few places that weren't outright lies. GRACE, 
hurricanes, etc, etc all get trotted out for their 15 minutes of fame only to be exposed as less than what was hoped for. Trenberth's deep water warming is simply the latest. It was already exposed as crap two years ago but skeptic rebuttal hasn't really broken the surface of public knowledge yet. What will the next fad be?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> The interesting part about the whole global warming debate is how the focus keeps changing. Mann' hockeystick was irrefutable proof 10 years ago but when it was refuted warmers stopped talking about it. Every new hockeystick arrives to much prepublication publicity only to get shot down. AlGore's AIT won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize but he is unwelcome at the warmers' table now that it has been shown to be exaggerated in the few places that weren't outright lies. GRACE,
> hurricanes, etc, etc all get trotted out for their 15 minutes of fame only to be exposed as less than what was hoped for. Trenberth's deep water warming is simply the latest. It was already exposed as crap two years ago but skeptic rebuttal hasn't really broken the surface of public knowledge yet. *What will the next fad be?*



AGW Headline coming soon... 

"WideSpread Adoption of Solar Power is Slowing the Global Warming"

Trenberth will back them up with a revised energy budget and they'll be pics from space to show "cool spots" on the planet where Solar panels have soaked up incident radiation.

Don't laugh at me man --- I'm dialed in on this one..


----------



## IanC (Aug 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The interesting part about the whole global warming debate is how the focus keeps changing. Mann' hockeystick was irrefutable proof 10 years ago but when it was refuted warmers stopped talking about it. Every new hockeystick arrives to much prepublication publicity only to get shot down. AlGore's AIT won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize but he is unwelcome at the warmers' table now that it has been shown to be exaggerated in the few places that weren't outright lies. GRACE,
> ...



Excellent!

My money is on ocean currents. It is a perfect ares, little actual data with huge swings for small changes.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



      ((The Missouri warming is hiding in the Mississippi.))

Try looking in the Lousiana delta..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 20, 2013)

So you jokers are looking at local weather trends and calling it climate change?  Bhwahahahahahahahahaha!

You're insane.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 20, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> So you jokers are looking at local weather trends and calling it climate change?  Bhwahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> You're insane.



Really? An exception to your theory --- and you want to ignore it? Is it really weather when it's a 100 year trend? Or are you just here to kick your own ass?


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> So you jokers are looking at local weather trends and calling it climate change?  Bhwahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> You're insane.







Yes olfraud we're taking a page from your playbook.  Remember when the Russian heat wave was proof positive of global warming?  Or how about the floods in India?  Or , well hell.  Just about every single thing is "proof" of global warming.  Till we shoot it down of course...


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > So you jokers are looking at local weather trends and calling it climate change?  Bhwahahahahahahahahaha!
> ...







Hell, he'd have to find it before he could kick it.  That would be a problem for him....


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > So you jokers are looking at local weather trends and calling it climate change?  Bhwahahahahahahahahaha!
> ...



Yes, a 100 year local rain event is still a local rain event.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Yes, a 100 year local rain event is still a local rain event.



Just out of curiosity....can you define "is" for me?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 20, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Not quite O-man.. A 100 yr rain event is a statistical occurence.. Happens once (on average) every 100 years. But what we see in that graph is a 100 yr trend. 

Diff between a rare statistic and a trend? --- Missing the due date for a 100 yr rain by 10 or 20 years is a don't care.. Screwing up the trend line in a 100 yr trend for 10 or 20 yrs will matter to the confidence of the trend.

What's worse --- is that it completely IGNORES the CO2 concentration over the state of Missouri.. That's your bigger problem.. And it does that --- throughout the entire EXISTENCE of AGW theory.

The whole platform of AGW based on a mere 50 years of intense CO2 concentration increase -- that's not too short for you to consider THAT climate change is it?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

Deniers lack one thing.  They have nothing as even a hypothesis that explains how higher atmospheric concentrations of GHGs don't cause AGW.  Their only game is the old defense attorney trick of creating some doubt about the credibility of the 'witnesses' or the evidence.  

No explanation at all of why something that nobody questions worked since earth has been around,  now stops working. 

No ideas even.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



What you see is a 100 year trend in one locality.  Look at another locality and you might get a different 100 year trend.  That is why it is called weather (or local climate, if you will).  Until you add up all the local trends, you aren't seeing the global picture.  That is why it is called global warming, not local warming.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

Climate is the reaction to long term changes in the big energy picture for mother earth.  Weather is the local process of energy balance being restored.  Weather is never stable.  Climate usually is.


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Deniers lack one thing.  They have nothing as even a hypothesis that explains how higher atmospheric concentrations of GHGs don't cause AGW.  Their only game is the old defense attorney trick of creating some doubt about the credibility of the 'witnesses' or the evidence.
> 
> No explanation at all of why something that nobody questions worked since earth has been around,  now stops working.
> 
> No ideas even.









That's because we don't need to.  YOU are the ones who need to prove your theory.  You haven't and you can't.  I gave you a hypothesis for the CO2 rise...it is an artifice of the MWP which occurred 800 years ago and the Vostock records show a 400 to 800 year lag in CO2 rise after a global warming period.


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








That's true.  Of course there are many trends going lower...the only trends going up seem
to be in urban areas.....how not shocking....


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Climate is the reaction to long term changes in the big energy picture for mother earth.  Weather is the local process of energy balance being restored.  Weather is never stable.  Climate usually is.









  Usually?  You're too funny.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Climate is the reaction to long term changes in the big energy picture for mother earth.  Weather is the local process of energy balance being restored.  Weather is never stable.  Climate usually is.
> ...



Use your words. Speaking with pictures went away back in the cave days when your science also did.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...











westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers lack one thing.  They have nothing as even a hypothesis that explains how higher atmospheric concentrations of GHGs don't cause AGW.  Their only game is the old defense attorney trick of creating some doubt about the credibility of the 'witnesses' or the evidence.
> ...



You seem to change your story daily. 

What do you believe? 

1) that burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2?

2) that CO2 doesn't end up in the atmosphere? 

3) that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas? 

4) that the earth hasn't been warmed by greenhouse gasses since the beginning? 

5) that the atmospheric concentration of GHGs hasn't risen in proportion to fossil fuel use. 

6) that restricting energy out of the earth system by redirecting it back to earth does not create energy imbalance? 

7) that weather is not the process of the earth dealing with energy imbalance either locally or globally? 

Tell us what you believe and what evidence supports that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



*What do you believe? *


I believe that giving idiot politicians, I repeat myself, like Al Gore more power over the economy is a really, really bad idea.

If you want to waste your own money to reduce your own "carbon footprint", feel free.
Your first step should be turning off your computer.
Your electricity probably comes from evil coal.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Just what I've always said.  AGW denial is based solely on politics and the absence of science. 

What a stupid approach to solve technical problems.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You apparently believe that spending money on recovery from extreme weather caused by AGW is a good investment. We believe that it's throwing good money thrown after bad. 

And no matter what,  we will run out of fossil fuels and have to move on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Just what I've always said. AGW promotion is based solely on politics and the absence of science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*You apparently believe that spending money on recovery from extreme weather caused by AGW is a good investment.*

You apparently believe hurricanes didn't occur before global warming.
Ditto for droughts and floods.

Stop posting, you're KILLING the planet!!!

*And no matter what,  we will run out of fossil fuels and have to move on.*

Let's build a bunch of thorium power plants.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I believe that giving idiot politicians, I repeat myself, like Al Gore more power over the economy is a really, really bad idea.



The Gore Rule: First person to bring up Al Gore a global warming discussion loses.

If a person on any side brings up Gore, you know you're listening to a political crank. Those who can discuss the issues, do. Those who can't, yammer about Al Gore.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that giving idiot politicians, I repeat myself, like Al Gore more power over the economy is a really, really bad idea.
> ...



He does make your side look silly.

I can see why you'd rather not discuss him. 

He did make it possible for later, no talent assclowns to win the Nobel Peace Prize (cough...Obama...cough).


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I see the green sin of envy spreading out over someone's jaw.  Hoo-haw!


----------



## IanC (Aug 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Its funny how these hypocritical clown fawned over Gore, praised his winning a Nobel and an Oscar, and practically made it manditory for students to watch AIT in school. But now he is off limits for discussion. 

Every new study is proclaimed definitive proof of global warming but when they are shown to be exaggerated and faulty, it doesn't matter because they are just a small piece of a large pile of evidence. What warmers don't realize is that almost all of these studies are exaggerated and faulty when examined closely.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



If only there was some theory or evidence that demonstrated even the possibility of some response to increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs other than AGW.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

One of the global problems with AGW is that scientists are specialists in facts and politicians are specialists in lying.  

So it's a match up between truth and lies.  

As many here prefer what the liars promise to what the truth predicts,  it's an uphill battle for AGW.


----------



## westwall (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...










  The deluded leading the blind!  The only people to have changed their story is you fraudsters!  Global Warming.... gave way to Climate Change....gave way to Global Climate Disruption.....gave way to Biodiversity Attack....etc. etc. etc.

You guys have changed your story so many times no one even knows what you are talking about anymore....much less YOU!


----------



## westwall (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One of the global problems with AGW is that scientists are specialists in facts and politicians are specialists in lying.
> 
> So it's a match up between truth and lies.
> 
> As many here prefer what the liars promise to what the truth predicts,  it's an uphill battle for AGW.








You fraudsters have had the POLITICIANS _and_ the MEDIA in your pockets for 30 years.  It is indicative of the failure of your fraud that even with unrequited support you have still lost the battle for the minds of the people.  Science eventually won out over fraud.


----------



## westwall (Aug 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...








No, that's called pity.  Pity that a once great organization has sold its soul....


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



It's "global" ---- but there are regions where it doesn't exist.. Do I have that right? 
So a 100 year trend in a region that DOESN'T OBEY your theory is no problem? 

Wasn't N. America one of those regions where the RECENT warming has been the most pronounced? 

Who's not thinking straight? 100 year trend IS climate by your definition. It can't be GLOBAL if there are INCONVIENIENT local exceptions by logic and reason.. 

Is this why AGW morphed into "climate change"?? 

Is this why a distinguished recent Senate Panel said it was "important to NOT focus on the Global Atmosphere and surface temps...... and address SPECIFIC REGIONS only".. That is was REGIONAL SIGNALS that we should be looking for...

The story is getting a little muddled -- isn't it??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Where?


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 21, 2013)

More recent research from the World Meteorological Organization using data from 139 countries confirms what the world scientific community has been saying for the last few years - global warming and its associated climate changes are still accelerating. 
*
UN: Global warming is accelerating, and with disastrous consequences*
By John Heilprin,  Associated Press
RYOT News
July 3, 2013
(excerpts)
*GENEVA (AP)  Global warming accelerated since the 1970s and broke more countries temperature records than ever before in the first decade of the new millennium, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday. A new analysis from the World Meteorological Organization says average land and ocean surface temperatures from 2001 to 2010 rose above the previous decade, and were almost a half-degree Celsius above the 1961-1990 global average. The decade ending in 2010 was an unprecedented era of climate extremes, the agency said, evidenced by heat waves in Europe and Russia, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa, and huge storms like Tropical Cyclone Nargis and Hurricane Katrina. Data from 139 nations show that droughts like those in Australia, East Africa and the Amazon Basin affected the most people worldwide. But it was the hugely destructive and deadly floods such as those  Pakistan, Australia, Africa, India and Eastern Europe that were the most frequent extreme weather events.

Experts say a decade is about the minimum length of time to study when it comes to spotting climate change. From 1971 to 2010, global temperatures rose by an average rate of 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade. But going back to 1880, the average increase was .062 percent degrees Celsius per decade. The pace also picked up in recent decades. Average temperatures were 0.21 degrees Celsius warmer this past decade than from 1991 to 2000, which were in turn 0.14 degrees Celsius warmer than from 1981 to 1990. Natural cycles between atmosphere and oceans make some years cooler than others, but during the past decade there was no major event associated with El Nino, the phenomenon characterized by unusually warm temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Much of the decade was affected by the cooling La Nina, which comes from unusually cool temperatures there, or neutral conditions. Given those circumstances, WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud says the data doesnt support the notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull, in the pace of planetary warming in recent years. The last decade was the warmest, by a significant margin, he said. If anything we should not talk about the plateau, we should talk about the acceleration. Jarraud says the data show warming accelerated between 1971 and 2010, with the past two decades increasing at rates never seen before amid rising concentrations of industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.
*

Copyright 2013 RYOT LLC 

(_In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes._)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If you watched Gore's silly movie, you could see the warming came first, then the higher CO2 levels.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > If only there was some theory or evidence that demonstrated even the possibility of some response to increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs other than AGW.
> ...



Well, Toadthepatsy, if you kept up with the scientific research on this subject (or if you could comprehend it, which is pretty doubtful), you would know that CO2 increases actually do come before the warming and then the increased CO2 also amplifies the warming in a feedback loop.
*
Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation*
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
*Nature* 484, 4954 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Published online - 04 April 2012 

*Abstract

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.*

*Ice Bubbles May Solve Carbon-Temperature Paradox*
Climate Central
February 28th, 2013
(excerpts)
*Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward. In a new analysis of bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, published Thursday in Science, lead author Frederic Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysics of the Environment, in Grenoble, France, and his colleagues write that at the end of the last ice age, about 20,000 years ago, . . . Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of CO2, as has been suggested in earlier studies. Scientists had been saying the CO2 was an amplifier of global warming, but not the initial cause, Parrenin said. Now were saying it could be the cause. 

This doesn't mean CO2 isnt an amplifier as well. If the oceans warm, basic chemistry says that some of the carbon dioxide dissolved in the water will emerge into the atmosphere. And if the permafrost that covers about a quarter of the Northern Hemispheres land surface melts, it will put enormous amounts of carbon dioxide (plus methane, an even more powerful greenhouse), into the atmosphere as well. Still, if there remained any doubt that CO2 itself could initiate global warming, this paper  along with a 2012 paper that also showed no time lag  should go a long way toward putting that doubt to rest. The time lag suggested by those earlier studies didnt call into question the well-established relation between CO2 and warming, and did nothing to lessen scientists confidence  and fear  that without curbing human greenhouse-gas emissions, global temperatures will continue to rise dangerously through the rest of this century. Nevertheless, the new research emphasizes that the CO2-warming relationship could be somewhat more straightforward in some ways than previously thought.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*February 28th, 2013
(excerpts)
Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward.*

Are you saying that at the time Gore made his movie, scientists thought that increases in CO2 came hundreds of years after rising temps?

That lying sack of shit.

Is he going to give back his Oscar and Nobel?


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I suppose it is not very surprising that you are apparently much too retarded to understand this, you poor brainwashed little troll.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



*Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward.*

I understand fine. 
Now they're claiming CO2 increases at the same time or before temps rise, previously, they thought temps rose first.
Previously, when Gore lied about it in his movie.
Get it, idiot?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 21, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> More recent research from the World Meteorological Organization using data from 139 countries confirms what the world scientific community has been saying for the last few years - global warming and its associated climate changes are still accelerating.
> *
> UN: Global warming is accelerating, and with disastrous consequences*
> By John Heilprin,  Associated Press
> ...



Wow.. Written just for morons like the dweebs who post this shit.. 

This part borders on all out desparation and LYING... 



> Experts say a decade is about the minimum length of time to study when it comes to spotting climate change. From 1971 to 2010, global temperatures rose by an average rate of 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade. But going back to 1880, the average increase was .062 percent degrees Celsius per decade. *The pace also picked up in recent decades. Average temperatures were 0.21 degrees Celsius warmer this past decade than from 1991 to 2000, which were in turn 0.14 degrees Celsius warmer than from 1981 to 1990.*



Notice the deviant shift from talking about RATES OF INCREASE to just averages??? 
*NO PACE HAS PICKED UP THIS PAST DECADE*.. They are completely lying and FOS... 

It's fucking propaganda.. No way to justify it.. And the media just FAILS to vet it... 
And the public just looks at the relative SIZE of the numbers, GASPS and buys the big lie.. 

We can pretty END this forum right here. The panic has started to set in.. This is all they got left. To rely on the stupidity of the public and the Mainstream Media.. They know they are hosed..

And WHO EXACTLY is responsible for this massive lie? The header says it's UN.. But the text says World Met. Org.   We should KNOW who doesn't have a leg to stand on...


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



LOLOLOL....what I "_get_", Toadthepatsy, what is clear as day, is that you are idiotically obsessed with former VP Gore, who was only the messenger conveying the scientific truths about AGW to the public, not the source of the scientific facts. You are filled with fraudulent denier cult myths about how 'inaccurate' his movie was. Actually his movie was quite accurate on almost all of the important points and only contained a few minor errors, as many climate scientists have affirmed. Scientists then, at the time of the movie, knew quite well that increased CO2 causes temperature increases and that mankind's actions in burning fossil fuels and deforestation were responsible for the rising CO2 levels and those rising levels were responsible for the trend of rising temperatures, melting ice, etc., etc.. Gore was right about the fact that rising CO2 levels were responsible for the ending of the last glacial period, and scientists knew that at the time, even if there was some uncertainty at the time about exactly what factors started the warming cycle.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 21, 2013)

what a dummy.......


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 21, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> what a dummy.......



Yup, you sure are. It must suck to be as retarded as you are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



*Scientists then, at the time of the movie, knew quite well that increased CO2 causes temperature increases *

And that temperature increases increase CO2 levels.
I don't remember him mentioning that.
I'm not obsessed with that fat liar, I just laugh at him.
And the idiots he's fooled.
Hey, there you are.


----------



## westwall (Aug 21, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > what a dummy.......
> ...










  Does that _still_ work on the playground junior?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You're saying that global warming caused the increase in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere instead of fossil fuels? 

Bizarre.  What's the theory behind that?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Certainly the way that you tell it,  it is.  But you lie to make your point.  Which means that you have no point.  Science,  on the other hand,  does.  For those who understand science.  Not for those whose understanding is limited to politics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



If you watched Gore's silly movie, you could see the warming came first, then the higher CO2 levels.

You don't know that warming increases CO2? Bizarre.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > One of the global problems with AGW is that scientists are specialists in facts and politicians are specialists in lying.
> ...



What science concluded a 100 years ago is that GHGs warm the planet.  And they've explained why.  You have nothing that explains anything. Just what you wish was true.  When you come up with a theory and data that demonstrates how GHGs do anything other than warm our climate,  give us a call.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No,  you have changed our story many times.  Because you hate the truth.  Your choice but you have to accept being wrong.


----------



## westwall (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


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







Wrong again Tojo!  What the scientists figured out a century ago is that GHG's EXIST.  That's a huge difference from what you claimed.

Better get your facts straight...


----------



## westwall (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Thanks for the religious dogma but once again you are (color me unsurprised) wrong.  Science couldn't give a rats ass about "truth".  We care about facts.  I havn't changed my story one time little fraudster.  

Unlike YOU!


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 22, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> And WHO EXACTLY is responsible for this massive lie? The header says it's UN.. But the text says World Met. Org.   We should KNOW who doesn't have a leg to stand on...



You know, they have a forum here on USMB specifically FOR conspiracy theories.

Have you listened to yourself lately?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 22, 2013)

westwall said:


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



As usual,  what you wish was true,  is nothing more than a political lie to keep Dittoheads barefoot and pregnant. 

It's been known for a century that in the absence of GHGs,  our long term global average temperature would be just about freezing.  Thereby making it much less likely for life to begin here.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And WHO EXACTLY is responsible for this massive lie? The header says it's UN.. But the text says World Met. Org.   We should KNOW who doesn't have a leg to stand on...
> ...



The President of the US recently declared that "the world CONTINUES to warm faster than ever predicted"... Is THAT a lie??? 

Was not the statement I discussed in WMO propaganda above  --- ALSO a blatant lie?? 

When a Senate Panel of warmers blames the death of 19 firefighters in Arizona on CO2 -- are THEY being honest?

What about the misreprentation of TSI in the IPCC report?? Might not be a lie.. But it's close.. At least they have an excuse. It's not in their job description to explore Global Warming --- if it's not attributable to human activity.. 

It's not about me.. You're ignoring the CONTENT of what I ask you and what I say.. So I'd say the relationship is going on the rocks pretty quickly --- if all you can do is harass my intentions..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


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











flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



As near as I can tell your intentions are to represent right wing politics in a debate about science.  

Science has organized globally around the IPCC to represent the thousands of scientists researching further understanding of the risk that we've put future generations in. 

Ring wing cult leaders have organized around media political entertainers to deny science and sow instead doubt among those who don't understand the science.  

Thats the side that you've chosen.  Don't pretend otherwise.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 24, 2013)

Yep, the globe warmed for 80 t0 100 years, then it just stopped for no reason.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 24, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


No, it wasn't. The world is continuing to warm faster than originally predicted. Global warming continues to accelerate, as many scientific reports cited on this thread confirm.





flacaltenn said:


> Was not the statement I discussed in WMO propaganda above  --- ALSO a blatant lie??


No, it wasn't. You're just a brainwashed denier cult retard.





flacaltenn said:


> When a Senate Panel of warmers blames the death of 19 firefighters in Arizona on CO2 -- are THEY being honest?


The increase in wildfires is scientifically linked to the increased temperatures and the climate changes, like increased dryness, in America's southwest.

*Increased extent and intensity of wildfire linked to Global warming*








flacaltenn said:


> What about the misreprentation of TSI in the IPCC report??


LOLOLOL.....that's all your own insanity and nothing to do with reality.






flacaltenn said:


> It's not about me..


Yes it is. You're an insane little denier cult retard who posts nothing but denier cult myths, misinformation, pseudo-science and propaganda. 





flacaltenn said:


> You're ignoring the CONTENT of what I ask you and what I say..


The "_CONTENT_" of what you say is the mental equivalent of a pile of rotting pigshit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 24, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


U apologize well for all the liars and the lying.
So how much has  the worrld warmed in the last decade PRINCESS?.?.?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 24, 2013)

There's no data to suggest that it's accelerating but there are scientist wondering why it is slowing.

Hansen for one...Aerosals and oceanic movement of water are two theories.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

Matthew said:


> There's no data to suggest that it's accelerating but there are scientist wondering why it is slowing.
> 
> Hansen for one...Aerosals and oceanic movement of water are two theories.



The warming hasn't slowed at all.  What's constant lately is the climate average temperature over land.  What's growing at an increasing rate is ocean heat content.  

There is no model other than AGW that predicts how the earth reacts to a surplus of energy, due to a reduction in outgoing energy and addition of that same energy to earth's incoming energy.  

But AGW says energy balance must and will be restored by heating of earth's land,  water,  ice,  and atmospheric masses. The dynamics of that transition are yet to be determined.  

When it can be modeled it will be in the form of a long term weather forecast.


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








Yes, the fraudsters try and link every single thing to "global warming"  That IS their mantra.
Sadly for them the people aren't as stupid as they thought and are pretty much ignoring them now...


And yes!  Looky who the link is!  It's Indybay a one world collectivist organization...why am I not surprised....


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > There's no data to suggest that it's accelerating but there are scientist wondering why it is slowing.
> ...








Yeah sure.  Heat in the oceans that somehow can't be measured.  How do you make such ridiculous claims?  Oh yeah, you're a propagandist!  That's how!


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 24, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


What are you talking about, fecalhead? I am certainly not apologizing for all of the stooges and fronts for the fossil fuel industry or their lies and deceptive misinformation and propaganda. They can all go fuck themselves. There is no possible apology or excuse for those traitors to humanity. 

The fact that you firmly believe that the world scientific community, the Pentagon, and most world leaders are all lying to you about the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes is one of the most obvious of all of the signs of your insanity and disconnect from reality. And, of course, that's all part of that whole 'conspiracy theory nut' thing you have going.






flacaltenn said:


> So how much has  the worrld warmed in the last decade PRINCESS?.?.?


LOLOLOL...."_PRINCESS_"???.....LOLOL......are you still in grade school?....even your insults are laughably lame....

As far as your question goes, the world warmed a little bit more this last decade than it did the previous decade, in spite of the increase in volcanic and industrial aerosols, prolonged and repeated La Nina events, and an extra long and low solar minimum. As usual, most of the extra heat energy retained in the Earth system went into the oceans, with slightly more going there in recent years due to stuff like those La Nina's. If you want numbers, they are in this article below.

*4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second*
(excerpts)
*....to examine the physical reason why there is a long-term warming trend - because the planet is building up heat. This is vividly demonstrated in the following graph which shows surface temperature jumping up and down from year to year while the Earth's total heat content shows a steady, near-monotonic increase.*





_*The blue line in this graph is not a statistical long-term trend or a 5-year average - it's actual yearly data of total heat content. The long-term warming trend is grounded in physical reality - the planetary energy imbalance.

In 2012, several Skeptical Science contributors teamed up with John Church to publish a paper (Nuccitelli et al. 2012) in response to a flawed publication by Douglass & Knox (2012).  In our paper, we analyzed global heat data, created by combining pentadal (5-year average) ocean heat content data to a depth of 2,000 meters from Levitus et al. (2012), and land, atmosphere, and ice heating data from Church et al. (2011). As this figure shows, there has been no significant slowing in global heat accumulation, contrary to the mythical 'global warming pause'.  So, how do we come up with 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonation equivalents per second from this data? The slope of the global heat accumulation graph tells us how rapidly the Earth's climate is building up heat.  Over the past decade, the rate is 8 x 10 to the 21st Joules per year, or 2.5 x 10 to the14th Joules per second.  The yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 6.3 x 10 to the 13th Joules, hence the rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second.  That's nearly 2 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, when we're told global warming supposedly 'paused'.  That has to be the worst pause ever. The data used in Nuccitelli et al. (2012) are now available for download so you can check it out for yourself.
*_

*Nuccitelli et al 2012 Total Heat Content*





_*Global warming is sometimes thought of as just an increase in the air temperature, and it is a recurring myth that global warming has magically stopped whenever there is a pause in the long-term trend of increasing air temperature.  However, heat is exchanged between all parts of the Earth System, and the oceans can hold vastly more heat than the air.  Global warming is actually the total accumulated heat in the whole Earth System that results from the imbalance between incoming solar energy and outgoing heat and reflected energy.  This figure from Nuccitelli et al. (2012) [PDF] shows the change in the total heat content of the Earth System since 1960 in terms of its major components:  the total land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red) from Church et al. (2011), and the ocean heating for the 0-700 meter layer (light blue) and the 700-2,000 meter layer (dark blue) from Levitus et al. (2012).  More than 90% of global warming goes into heating the oceans, while less than 3% goes into heating the atmosphere.  Even relatively small exchanges of ocean heat with the atmosphere, as occurs during the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), can produce short-term fluctuations and pauses in the increasing air temperature.*_

(Creative Commons License - 	Skeptical Science Graphics by Skeptical Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.)


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








I love it!  Graphs created by people using figures they created that are beyond the capability of the instruments involved to measure.  Only a true propagandist would listen to such crap.

*HELLO PROPAGANDIST!*


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> I love it!  Graphs created by people using figures they created that are beyond the capability of the instruments involved to measure.


LOLOLOL....actually it's more like 'figures that are way beyond the capacity of anti-science denier cult retards like walleyed to comprehend'.








westwall said:


> Only a true propagandist would listen to such crap.


Only a true denier cultist would deny science he hasn't looked at or even tried to understand. Not that you could ever understand it, walleyed, even if you studied it for years.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 24, 2013)

Matthew said:


> There's no data to suggest that it's accelerating but there are scientist wondering why it is slowing.
> 
> Hansen for one...Aerosals and oceanic movement of water are two theories.



Actually there is a great deal of data showing that global warming has continued to accelerate since the beginning of the millennium, in spite of reflective volcanic and industrial aerosols, low solar minimums and prolonged repeated La Nina's. Scientists have been looking into the factors that have resulted in a slowdown in surface temperature rises but then, only 3% of the extra heat energy that the CO2 is trapping goes into heating the atmosphere and around 90% has always gone into the oceans. The overall energy imbalance at the TOA has continued so the Earth as a whole has continued to gain heat energy. More of it has gone into the oceans recently than was the case in some previous decades but that heat will eventually, and probably pretty soon too, come back to the surface in a big El Nino event (w/ something similar in the Atlantic) and result in accelerated surface temperature warming.


----------



## westwall (Aug 25, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > There's no data to suggest that it's accelerating but there are scientist wondering why it is slowing.
> ...








Sure it has.  Funny how the heat can't seem to be found or measured but we are expected to believe those statements?  Get real.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...






Over 14k posts on the subject and you still have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## westwall (Aug 25, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







More than you ever will dopey.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Scientist are having no problem finding and measuring the heat that is passing into the oceans. It is only the ignorant reality deniers like you, walleyed, who are so lost in conspiracy theory nuttyness that you can convince yourself that virtually all of the world's climate scientists are lying to you. Scientists have been studying the oceans very intensely for many decades with some very advanced instrumentation and techniques and they are not nearly as clueless about temperatures and trends as your anti-science propaganda tells you they are. You just can't understand what they do or how because you're so stupid and brainwashed, not because they're not doing what they say they're doing.

*Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content*
(*You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article*)
Magdalena A. Balmaseda1,*, Kevin E. Trenberth2, Erland Källén1
Geophysical Research Letters
Volume 40, Issue 9, pages 17541759, 16 May 2013
Article first published online: 10 MAY 2013
DOI: 10.1002/grl.50382
(excerpts)
*Abstract
 The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.
Summary and Conclusions
[15] The time evolution of the global OHC for the period 19582009, as estimated by the ORAS4 ocean reanalysis, is dominated by a warming trend and pronounced cooling episodes, and shows an increasing warming trend at depths below 700 m. The cooling episodes correspond to cooling seen in SSTs in response to the El Chichón and Mt Pinatubo eruptions, and the radiative imbalance associated with the latter [Trenberth and Dai, 2007] is consistent with the cooling found here. More surprising is the extra cooling following 1998, a likely consequence of the ocean heat discharge associated with the massive 19971998 El Niño event [Trenberth et al., 2002]. Meehl et al. [2011] have demonstrated in a model study how La Niña events and negative PDO events could cause a hiatus in warming of the top 300 m while sequestering heat at deeper layers. This mechanism can also explain the increasing role of the depths below 700 m after 1999 in the ORAS4 OHC, consistent with La Niña-like conditions and a negative phase of the PDO which has dominated the last decade. The deep ocean warming, which mostly involves the depth range 7002000 m, may also be related to the weakening of the MOC after 1995, which is present in ORAS4 [BMW13]. Possibly changes in MOC and PDO are connected through changes in the atmospheric circulation patterns.
[16] The deep ocean has continued to warm, while the upper 300 m OHC appears to have stabilized. The differences in recent trends among the different ocean layers are profound. The small warming in the upper 300 m is belied by the continuing warming for the ocean as a whole, with considerable warming occurring below 700 m. However, this raises the question of whether this result is simply because of the new Argo observing system? The results shown here suggest otherwise, although Argo clearly is vitally important quantitatively. Instead changes in surface winds play a major role, and although the exact nature of the wind influence still needs to be understood, the changes are consistent with the intensification of the trades in subtropical gyres. Another supporting factor is the uniqueness of the radiative forcing associated with global warming.
[17] The magnitude of the warming trend is consistent with observational estimates, being equivalent to an average 0.47&#8201;±&#8201;0.03 W m2 for the period 19752009. There is large decadal variability in the heat uptake, the latest decade being significantly higher (1.19&#8201;±&#8201;0.11 W m2) than the preceding record. Globally this corresponds to 0.84 W m2, consistent with earlier estimates [Trenberth et al., 2009]. In an observing system experiment where Argo is withdrawn, the ocean heating for the last decade is reduced (0.82&#8201;±&#8201;0.10 W m2), but is still significantly higher than in previous decades. The estimation shows depths below 700 m becoming much more strongly involved in the heat uptake after 1998, and subsequently accounting for about 30% of the ocean warming.
[18] The analysis of ORAS4 OHC shows some interesting signals. In particular, the prolonged and intense cooling events during the 1980s and 1990s are not as distinct in other observation-only analyses [BMW13], and the rapid involvement of the deep ocean starting around the 19981999 La Niña needs further investigation. Sensitivity experiments indicate that these features are robust, and suggest that changes in the atmospheric circulation play an important role in the heat uptake. Detecting, understanding and modeling the processes that lead to the vertical distribution of heat within the ocean is a key for the correct initialization of decadal predictions, because the trends in forecasts of the SST will likely depend on whether the ocean is in a recharge (low stratification) or discharge (high stratification) mode.*

©2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

_(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes)_


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



We do have to take into account that deniers have no resources and no science so can't measure a thing and can't prove a thing.  Their whole act is conspiracy theory.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 26, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



There is a difference between critical thinking and what the deniers do, what they believe is critical thinking.  In order to think critically it is required to know the subject first.  You can't critique science, climate science, unless you first accept and learn the science.  There in lies their issue.  They can't even approach the material enough to learn it because they have already rejected it.  They can't be critical of it because they can't begin to learn it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2013)

Here it comes... Next reincarnation of Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Variability --- Are U READY ??? 

The earth has a fever.. We need to drill to find it.. ((Think large rectal thermometer inserted thru the Mantle))

But it's there.. And it's NOT measurable in the space we live in and it's BARELY measurable where we are searching for it ---- but SCIENCE IS CERTAIN --- it's all caused by CO2... 

Take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning..  And PLEASE --- stop defending liars like the Prez and the Climate Science frauds..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Here it comes... Next reincarnation of Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Variability --- Are U READY ???
> 
> The earth has a fever.. We need to drill to find it.. ((Think large rectal thermometer inserted thru the Mantle))
> 
> ...



Here it comes. The next incarnation of denial.  No facts,  no science,  no theories even.  Just,  we,  the ignorant,  wish that it wasn't,  and we feel entitled to our own truth.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Here it comes... Next reincarnation of Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Variability --- Are U READY ???
> ...



I feel the same way when I discuss CRIME stats and argue my case. The other side really doesn't have facts, science or theories...Only whining....

I agree as facts and data are needed.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 27, 2013)

Matthew said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Thats why the world hired and commissioned the IPCC.  To separate facts as they can be determined scientifically from politics.  Which they have done.  Unfortunately,  the fact that that has been done doesn't eliminate the politics as you see here.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Here it comes... Next reincarnation of Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Variability --- Are U READY ???
> 
> The earth has a fever.. We need to drill to find it.. ((Think large rectal thermometer inserted thru the Mantle))
> 
> ...



Well, now that is a pretty stupid post.


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Here it comes... Next reincarnation of Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Variability --- Are U READY ???
> ...











Describes your hoax EXACTLY.


Interestingly enough this is the mildest summer in the US in 100 years.  Fewer areas with temp readings of 100 or over than have been seen in a century.








ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Um, yeah, just as predicted by the AGW models!  Sometimes it get cooler as it get warmer. See the hotness is absorbed by the deep oceans as the Earth tries to break the manmade fever AGW inflicts on it


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


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









Yes, their problem is they don't understand the term "hotness".  This is "hotness"







Theirs....not so much...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2013)

An old favorite, declaring a short local trend is a long-term global trend. 

But then, if logical fallacies are all you have, I guess you're forced to use them.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



What is the average?

It is, afterall, a question of global mean temperature, not number of days over 100.  Why not over 90?  Or 80?  How about over 75?    What about the minimums?  How about days below 50?  60?

Why leave out all those days?


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Since when do you belive the temp record is correct?


You've made some sort of math error then.

"The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years."



NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

Average = sum ( magnitude data points ) / number_of_data_points.

You should go back and finish your GED.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> It is, afterall, a question of global mean temperature, not number of days over 100.  Why not over 90?  Or 80?  How about over 75?    What about the minimums?  How about days below 50?  60?
> 
> Why leave out all those days?



Good psuedoscience always clouds the data as much as possible. Why just list the average temp, when you can cherrypick some new arcane statistic? That'll toss a lot more FUD in the mix, which is the point.


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> An old favorite, declaring a short local trend is a long-term global trend.
> 
> But then, if logical fallacies are all you have, I guess you're forced to use them.









Yes, you fraudsters are master practitioners of the art.  I find that spike in 1930 to be quite interesting...don't you?  Then you compare it with 1998 (supposedly the hottest year evah!) or with any of the years in this last decade and NONE of the recent years comes even close to that spike.

Yet you all blissfully make claims based on nothing but blather.


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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













You will be graduating from kindergarten this year.....right?  Note how your assertion doesn't address the graph I posted?  We're supposed to listen to you why?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > It is, afterall, a question of global mean temperature, not number of days over 100.  Why not over 90?  Or 80?  How about over 75?    What about the minimums?  How about days below 50?  60?
> ...



Both of you dupes are clueless as to what your own theorists state.. Hansen comes out and says  --'if you move the MEAN --- than the distribution of EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS will shift to the "more likely" category' --- and thus GW became CChange.. 

Moving the MEAN by 1degC can cause MORE HURRICANES, MORE SNOW, MORE DROUGHT, MORE TORNADOES, MORE MOSQUITOES, MORE Forest Fires  ------



............. but it can't cause more MORE 100 deg readings?? Get a clue.. Or at least be consistent. Makes all of ItfitzMe attempts at math look silly.. Or was Hansen just blowing smoke??


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> Funny how the heat can't seem to be found or measured but we are expected to believe those statements?  Get real.



Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen are quite real.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



If you had to make a prediction, what would you predict would be the result of adding more and energy to the atmosphere over a sustained period of time?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how the heat can't seem to be found or measured but we are expected to believe those statements?  Get real.
> ...



What effect does miniscule "warming" at 700m deep have on the weather?

 WHEN and HOW will emerge back into the Atmos thermal exchange? 

Is this a positive or negative feedback?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Duuhhhh.... More 100 degree days in the summer?? 

Did I get that right? 

What does +0.6degF surface temp. mean to a building thunderstorm?? To a tornado??
Is it a SUFFICIENT CONDITION for DEADLY MAYHEM?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



*It is, afterall, a question of global mean temperature*

Ohhhh....global mean temperature. How many data points do you need to calculate that?


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how the heat can't seem to be found or measured but we are expected to believe those statements?  Get real.
> ...








Yeah?  So?  Trenberths assertion is ridiculous on its face.  It is an excellent example of the con man in action.  Never make a prediction that can be checked..........ever.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Aye Matey.. Arrgh.. Only Davey Jones knows where it's hidden..
And maybe a half dozen diving Walruses working for NOAA..

B, T, and K are NOT REAL --- their "letter" was inadequate to assess what happened, and the results are from a MODEL (not real). 

Seriously -- since this is yet another juvenile "GLOBAL" study --- are you surprised that the temperature at certain depths is coherent enough worldwide to leave those footprints? 

The concept that the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME was surveyed NOT ONCE but for a 60 year continuous record. And that at 650meters -- EVERY PLACE ON the globe returned a warming signature that is barely measurable at that exact depth? --- Aint that just about the limit of credibility right there?

That in the Indian Ocean 650meters down is the same thermocline structure as in the Atlantic 650meters down? And Globally --- shows such a consistent temperature increase at that exact depth? 

This model surely was vetted by veteran submariners and oceanographers right??


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

The model B,T and K used was reset with measured values every ten days.  How far do you think it could have wandered from reality with that arrangement?

And just for a bit of a reality check, what's the average distance between Argos floats?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

146 kilometers.  And that's including the sensors mounted on turtles and elephant seals.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



That you have repeatedly made fun of the animal-mounted sensors tells me you aren't familiar with the Argos program.



flacaltenn said:


> B, T, and K are NOT REAL --- their "letter" was inadequate to assess what happened, and the results are from a MODEL (not real).



Are you suggesting that it's only a "letter" because it was published in Geophysical Research Letters"?  Don't be an idiot.  It's a research paper that has been published in a peer reviewed journal.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full



flacaltenn said:


> Seriously -- since this is yet another juvenile "GLOBAL" study --- are you surprised that the temperature at certain depths is coherent enough worldwide to leave those footprints?



Have you had ANY oceanography class work?



flacaltenn said:


> The concept that the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME was surveyed NOT ONCE but for a 60 year continuous record. And that at 650meters -- EVERY PLACE ON the globe returned a warming signature that is barely measurable at that exact depth? --- Aint that just about the limit of credibility right there?



No, it is not.



flacaltenn said:


> That in the Indian Ocean 650meters down is the same thermocline structure as in the Atlantic 650meters down? And Globally --- shows such a consistent temperature increase at that exact depth?



This was the line that told me you don't know diddly squat about ocean dynamics.  See if you can tell me why its no surprise at all to find the same "structure" 650 meters down at widely separated areas.  If you can't figure it out, ask a student.  If you can't find a student, just pull up a dozen BT traces and examine their structure at 650 meters and tell us what you find.



flacaltenn said:


> This model surely was vetted by veteran submariners and oceanographers right??



It likely was.  Or did you mean me?


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The model B,T and K used was reset with measured values every ten days.  How far do you think it could have wandered from reality with that arrangement?
> 
> And just for a bit of a reality check, what's the average distance between Argos floats?







Who cares.  Models ARE NOT DATA!  Never have been, never will be.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Well, you can always download the data and crunch the numbers yourself.  You can do that, can't you?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The model B,T and K used was reset with measured values every ten days.  How far do you think it could have wandered from reality with that arrangement?
> ...



Models are small facsimiles of the real thing.  Models are used in weather forecasting every day with great success.  Are they perfect?  No, and no one has said that they are.  But every scientific discipline uses them.  I've conducted ground water modeling to determine flow direction, contaminant dispersal, and the heterogeneity of permeability of an aquifer in order to make predictions on the fate of those contaminants.  The are useful tools that can provide valuable insights that can't otherwise be obtained in complex systems.  And until you actually use one, I suggest you keep your uninformed criticisms to yourself.


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








No, they're not.  They are fictitious representations of the world skewed by the abilities (or, in the case of the climate modelers, their_ INABILITIES_) governed by algoreithims (sic!) that generate the results the climate modelers wish to generate.  They bear no resemblance to the real world and as MIT stated in the paper released a few weeks ago they are "CLOSE TO USELESS"

ABSTRACT
Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to
estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models
have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the
discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models'
descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or *empirical
foundation*; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility
of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge
and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.


http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 27, 2013)

*Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating* 

not for the last 200 months 

*- no "lull"*

yes for the last 200 months 

with dropping for the last 120 months 

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



That paper does not conclude that all models are useless.  His conclusion is that IAMs (generated by economists) are useless in assessing the possibility, for the purposes of policy-making, of a catastrophic (economic) climate outcome.  But those models are not the climate models we are discussing here.  He also doesn't agree with your apparent conclusion that global warming is not real and is not manmade.  In his introduction, he states:



> There is almost no disagreement among economists that the full cost to society of burning a ton of carbon is greater than its private cost. Burning carbon has an external cost because it produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that accumulate in the atmosphere, and will eventually result in unwanted climate change  higher global temperatures, greater climate variability, and possibly increases in sea levels.



Furthermore, in his concluding remarks, he states:



> My criticism of IAMs should not be taken to imply that because we know so little, nothing should be done about climate change right now, and instead we should wait until we learn more. Quite the contrary. One can think of a GHG abatement policy as a form of insurance: society would be paying for a guarantee that a low-probability catastrophe will not occur (or is less likely).  Some have argued that on precautionary grounds, there is a case for taking the Interagency Working Groups $21 (or updated $33) number as a rough and politically acceptable starting point and imposing a carbon tax (or equivalent policy) of that amount.20 This would help to establish that there is a social cost of carbon, and that social cost must be internalized in the prices that consumers and firms pay. (Yes, most economists already understand this, but politicians and the public are a different matter.) Later, as we learn more about the true size of the SCC, the carbon tax could be increased or decreased accordingly.



Did you even read it?


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 28, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> *Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating*
> 
> not for the last 200 months
> 
> ...



Read the OP, you brainless bozo. There's more to the story than just surface temperatures. The oceans have been absorbing at least 90% of the extra solar energy that the increased CO2 has been retaining. However, even the surface temperatures show clear warming. This last decade was the warmest decade on record and the last twelve years are all among the 14 warmest years on record. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record globally and 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. Shove your cherry-picked short term temperature charts up that dark stinky place where you keep your head.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 28, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > *Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating*
> ...



* even the surface temperatures show clear warming*

no it does not 

i just posted a graph  showing that not to be the case


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> 146 kilometers.  And that's including the sensors mounted on turtles and elephant seals.



How wide is the Gulf Stream>???? 

You're a freaking dupe... Did the model include the major ocean currents? THOSE carry the majority of the "heat".. How did they model the Depth coordinate. The "letter" (it was NOT even a full paper -- and SHORTER than a page on USMB) only gave the patch sizes.

The model could EASILY lurch "off the rails" in terms of actual heat transport and thermal layering characteristics of EACH ocean.. 

And the numbers are SO small --- that forming this as A GLOBAL number is just a concession to getting the press and politicians to buy in.. 

Tell you what ---- Let them publish a REAL PAPER, with actual interactive graphics of the thermal layering --- for just ONE OCEAN --- and do a convincing job of THAT.. And then we'll all leap to conclusions about the "global" implications.. 

Is that a REASONABLE proposal???


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



I don't pretend to own a comprehensive and unbelievably accurate computer MODEL of the entire GLOBAL OCEAN THERMAL COMPLEX in 3 dimensions.. *And they don't have one either.* 

If I had one --- I'd be rich.. 

They did not publish enough intermediate results from the model. It was NOT a comprehensive paper --- just a rush to judgement in a "letter" form...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I've BUILT models for earth resource estimation.. Some are still in use. NONE of them purported to map an entire GLOBAL volume equivalent to ALL THE WATER IN THE OCEANS to several THOUSAND meters of depth.  Looking for a couple Joules of energy per meter depth.. I'd be embarrassed to show myself at the next conference.. 

 And for you to select that last paragraph about "let's tax it anyway" --- really shows how little interest you have in the science of the topic..


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I've BUILT models for earth resource estimation.. Some are still in use. NONE of them purported to map an entire GLOBAL volume equivalent to ALL THE WATER IN THE OCEANS to several THOUSAND meters of depth.  Looking for a couple Joules of energy per meter depth.. I'd be embarrassed to show myself at the next conference..



Built or programmed?

If programmed, when?

How big was your address space?  That is, how much memory did you expect to have available to people running your code?


----------



## westwall (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









Yes, I did.  As well as this one...

Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? | Hans von Storch - Academia.edu

And this one....

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/3489/2013/cpd-9-3489-2013.pdf

And this one....

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


All of which tell us that the models are worthless.


Then I found this paper which makes a compelling case for planetary mechanisms.  It was a far more accurate model than any of your precious climate models...

http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_EE_2013.pdf


----------



## westwall (Aug 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I've BUILT models for earth resource estimation.. Some are still in use. NONE of them purported to map an entire GLOBAL volume equivalent to ALL THE WATER IN THE OCEANS to several THOUSAND meters of depth.  Looking for a couple Joules of energy per meter depth.. I'd be embarrassed to show myself at the next conference..
> ...









Uh oh spaghetti O.  You're in trouble now....  you see....unlike you...flac really does do this stuff.  What are you a undergrad?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 28, 2013)

From the Von Storch et al paper to which you linked:

What do these inconsistencies imply for the utility of climate projections of anthropogenic climate change? Three possible explanations of the inconsistencies can be suggested: 1) the models underestimate the internal natural climate variability; 2) the climate models fail to include important external forcing processes in addition to anthropogenic forcing, or 3) the climate model sensitivities to external anthropogenic forcing is too high,.The first explanation is simple and plausible. Natural climate variability is an inevitable consequence of a slow system (climate) interacting with a fast system (weather)
(10).

 The forcing of the slow system by the (white noise) low-frequency components of the fast system produces a &#8220;Brownian motion&#8221; of the slow system, represented by a red variance spectrum - in qualitative agreement with observations. However, the details of the response depend strongly on the internal dynamics of the slow system in the time scale range of interest - in the present case, on decadal time scales. It is long known, from successive reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (4), that contemporary global climate models have only limited success in simulating many such processes, ranging from the variability of the ocean circulation, ENSO events, various coupled ocean-atmosphere oscillation regimes, to changes in sea ice, land surface, atmospheric chemistry and the biosphere. The inability to simulate the statistical internal climate variability may have been artificially compensated in the past by tuning the models to prescribed external forcings, such as volcanic eruptions and tropospheric aerosols.This would explain why simulations with historical forcing by different GCMs tend to be very similar and follow closely the observed record. This artificial &#8220;inflation&#8221;(11) of forced variability at the expense of unpredictable natural variability works, however, only in the period of tuning, and no longer in the post-tuning phase since about 2000. The net effect of such a procedure is an underestimation of natural variability and an overestimation of the response to forced variability.

Do you understand what the man is saying?  Your attempted characterization does not indicate that you do.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> From the Von Storch et al paper to which you linked:
> 
> What do these inconsistencies imply for the utility of climate projections of anthropogenic climate change? Three possible explanations of the inconsistencies can be suggested: 1) the models underestimate the internal natural climate variability; 2) the climate models fail to include important external forcing processes in addition to anthropogenic forcing, or 3) the climate model sensitivities to external anthropogenic forcing is too high,.The first explanation is simple and plausible. Natural climate variability is an inevitable consequence of a slow system (climate) interacting with a fast system (weather)
> (10).
> ...



Indeed, I was going to comment on that paper as well.  Westwall claims that climate models are useless.  And he has tried to support his claim by posting papers that don't actually support that claim.  For instance, what Von Storch is saying is that although the models worked well in the past, conditions developed in recent years climate models didn't predict, and so need to be tweaked to better reflect conditions for which they are modeled.  Everyone knows this.  All scientific models work that way.  You punch in the data for the parameters for which you are testing, and then compare the results with the real world.  If there is variance, you change the model parameters and/or refine the data until it more precisely reflects real world conditions.  In this way you find what works and what doesn't work, and what can reveal unforeseen conditions that need to be accounted for, thus refining the model further.  This is how all scientific models work.  So to say that the models are useless is a meaningless statement.  Models of the 1970s were less robust than models of the 1980s, which were less robust than models of the 1990s, which were less robust than the models 10 years ago, which were less robust than the models today, which will be less robust than the models of the future.  Etc., etc., etc.  And none of the assessment and reassessments of these models refute the fact that global warming is occurring and is, in fact, ongoing.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I've BUILT models for earth resource estimation.. Some are still in use. NONE of them purported to map an entire GLOBAL volume equivalent to ALL THE WATER IN THE OCEANS to several THOUSAND meters of depth.  Looking for a couple Joules of energy per meter depth.. I'd be embarrassed to show myself at the next conference..
> ...



The company paying my salary was one of the worlds largest suppliers of Image Array Processors. At that point in time -- that was RACKS of equipment with boxes that had 10 or 20 FRAMES of image data memory plus the ALUs and digital signal processing to accelerate the process. So it was NOT a general computing application -- tho ---- some smart cookies have PORTED our work to GP platforms in later years. 

There was generally a row of GP computers with direct DMA access to the image memory.
Later on -- we pioneering "memory centered" digital processing with multiple PCs and also pioneered work on applying Neural Network array hardware to image feature extraction and classification.. Neural Nets and Machine Learning is the CRUX of understanding modeling from a data centered point of view.

That good enough for ya?? I'm the Forest Gump of image/signal processing. Been literally everywhere -- done more than my share.. 

Now what distinction did you expect between "built or programmed"???  You expect the semantics there is important? 

Build a model -- program a model. What's the big diff?


----------



## westwall (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > From the Von Storch et al paper to which you linked:
> ...








Show me a model that can recreate the weather we had yesterday.  Should be easy peasy, you have perfect knowledge of every variable in play.  A model that can't do a simple hindcast is worthless.

The most sophisticated models in use today are the CFD models used to design aircraft and F1 racecars.  They cost millions of dollars to build and operate, and they STILL need to be checked in the wind tunnels.  They are focused on ONE thing aerodynamics, and they still make basic mistakes.  Get one variable wrong and you are losing .5 seconds per lap.

You claim that "simple computer models" can tell us what the long term climate is going to be like and I can guarantee you that they can't predict what will happen tomorrow.  You really think that those laughable pieces of dog shit are useful?  

Get real....  Spend some real money and hire some of those CFD people and see what they can do.  In 10 years they would probably have something useful....what you have is a pathetic joke...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 28, 2013)

This reminds me of a lecture I heard during a course on Engineering Creativity (fun course). 

The Navy in the 30s was trying to model hydrodynamics for torpedo design. Lots of slide rule action, miles of chalkboard, little results. 

Some navy admiral got wind of this and got impatient. Ordered a 400 lb bar of soap to be made and delivered to Pearl Harbor. Monkeyed around with some stabilizers and weights and designed a good directional towing vector. Tied it to the back of a Cruiser and took it out on exercises for a week.. 

Got back to port with the ideal torpedo shape. Urban legend? Maybe.. I don't know. Sounds plausible for the 30s..

Maybe F1 needs to make a sheddable tissue chassis and place it in a wind tunnel.. Chuck the models..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



No one (least of all me) made any claim about these models being simple.  If they were simple, they wouldn't need mainframe time.  Play the conspiracy card if that helps you sleep at night, but the fact is that nothing in your response refutes the my response. So sorry for you.


----------



## westwall (Aug 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> This reminds me of a lecture I heard during a course on Engineering Creativity (fun course).
> 
> The Navy in the 30s was trying to model hydrodynamics for torpedo design. Lots of slide rule action, miles of chalkboard, little results.
> 
> ...










They actually (well the top level teams with loads of cash) make up multiple parts and check each one in the wind tunnel.  Ferrari and McLaren were famous for running their full sized moving roadway wind tunnels 24/7.  They tested every component of the car before and after assembly.  The F1 teams are so far ahead tech wise that some have partnered with aviation companies to develop new aircraft.


----------



## westwall (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










I never did.  The pushers of the fraud use that terminology ALL THE TIME.  THEY are the ones saying they are simple...and they are.  They are ridiculously simple and yet you clowns fall all over yourselves saying how profound they are.

You guys are jokes.


C3: Simple Climate Model Continues To Embarrass "Experts" and The IPCC's Billion-Dollar Computer Climate Simulations

Simple Models of Climate

Using a Very, Very Simple Climate Model in the Classroom

http://cybele.bu.edu/courses/gg312fall02/documents/lab02.pdf

Climate Models | WMO

UCAR E&O - Randy Russell - Very Simple Climate Model interactive


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

> The pushers of the fraud use that terminology ALL THE TIME



Like I said,  Play the conspiracy card if that helps you sleep at night.  You can be certain that it puts the rest of us fast asleep.


----------



## westwall (Aug 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> > The pushers of the fraud use that terminology ALL THE TIME
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said,  Play the conspiracy card if that helps you sleep at night.  You can be certain that it puts the rest of us fast asleep.











Yet another pathetic tactic pulled from the Saul Alinsky play book.  You really do suck at this oltrakartrollingorogenicblunderfraud...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I was wondering whether or not you might be talking about a papier mache globe.

Okay, you've got racks and racks of memory.  You didn't answer the question.  How much memory was it?  What was your tally in MALLOCs?  

And what climate modelling did you do with it? 

Your point here is unfounded.  You're trying to claim that the results Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kalllen obtained from the ORAS4 model are inaccurate because they could not have modeled every cubic meter of the ocean.  Is that a fair statement?

If so, please explain for us why they need to model every cubic meter.  I know you know they don't.  So why'd you say so?

And that "Earth resource estimation": that wasn't oil was it?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > > The pushers of the fraud use that terminology ALL THE TIME
> ...



Saul Alinsky?  Really?  Has what to do with anything I've posted?  Wow, you truly have gone fishing, dude.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You GoreButts are worse than Joseph McCarthy.. YES I am so deep into the pockets of big oil that I exhale lint.. I own 3 Nascar Caps with PennZoil, Quaker State and Jiffy Lube on them.. My entire education was paid for by Al Gores daddy and his Occidental Petroleum holdings and a couple research grants from that great LEFTIST oilman George Soros. 

No climate modeling.. Mostly merging multi-spectral satellite with radar and hi-res imagery to monitor vegetation and drought conditions. LOTS of spatial "warping" and resampling and filtering before we even started to extract useful data. 

So --- you got a decent mapping of the Gulf Stream out of the B, T K study? Can I see it?? 
Did they find any new major heat pathways previously unmapped? Can I see those? 

BTK is so easy to remember.. Just like in Bind, Torture, Kill...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 29, 2013)

The IPCC is the source of science on climate change commissioned to advise legitimate political entities on the consequences of various paths forward.  

What's represented here are illegitimate political entities who have given up their seats at the table of government by pandering to the interests of the few at the cost of the many.  Including future generations.  They have no sense of responsibility so they only attack,  futilely,  science, that they're incapable of understanding. 

Nobody should be the least bit surprised.  They believe only in the  power to impose what they believe is best for them on everyone else.  

Has nothing at all to do with science or legitimate government.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 29, 2013)

So what flac says is how he was focused on one specialty, and thus assumes a totally different specialty has to work exactly the same way.

It's often called "The engineer's fallacy".


----------



## IanC (Aug 29, 2013)

Computer models are a great tool to test current understanding. They are a failure for predicting the future of chaotic systems.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 29, 2013)

IanC said:


> Computer models are a great tool to test current understanding. They are a failure for predicting the future of chaotic systems.



Chaos,  by definition,  cannot be modeled.  However,  sometimes,  science mistakes systems that are too complex,  with true chaos.  

As I've said,  the only way for the dynamic response to be predicted would require multi year weather forecasts involving land,  water,  ice and atmosphere.  Decades away.  Maybe forever away. 

But,  no more science is required to know that the action of GHGs of increasing atmospheric concentration requires the earth system to warm,  and that history gives good clues as to what will happen when conditions of the past are recreated.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 29, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So what flac says is how he was focused on one specialty, and thus assumes a totally different specialty has to work exactly the same way.
> 
> It's often called "The engineer's fallacy".



*EAT ME....*







I've worked with marine mammals.
I've helped blind people to "see".
I've sat in on 30 or more cardiac cath lab procedures. 
I've worked with many of Americas three letter spy agencies. 
I've developed biometric ID and RFID techniques.
I've done optical computing, Neural Network classifiers/detectors, and radar/sonar processing.
I've got equipment in almost every major hospital and medical research facility.
I've got clients for my services around the world.
I've got papers in image, signal, and display processing journals.
I've worked at Kennedy Space Center.
I've done several oceanography related projects involving 3D mapping and thermoclines.
I've processed and enhanced almost every type of signal and image on earth.
I have advanced degrees in Biomedical, and Electrical Engineering.
I've taken all the pre-med reqs PLUS advanced courses in chemistry, biology and physics.

Tell me about "the engineer's fallacy". 
I've been blessed with an extraordinary career. I'm not scared of a temperature graph.


----------



## IanC (Aug 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Computer models are a great tool to test current understanding. They are a failure for predicting the future of chaotic systems.
> ...



I am not trying to be dismissive or insulting here but have you ever considered that your interpretation of how CO2 affects surface temperatures is just as simplistic and wrongly framed as SSDD's interpretation of the SLoT? The people who suffer from D-K seldom seem to recognize it in themselves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So what flac says is how he was focused on one specialty, and thus assumes a totally different specialty has to work exactly the same way.
> ...


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



*The are useful tools that can provide valuable insights that can't otherwise be obtained in complex systems.*

if you can not obtain the data through the complex system 

the model certainly is not a facsimile


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So what flac says is how he was focused on one specialty, and thus assumes a totally different specialty has to work exactly the same way.
> ...


Brilliant response.....if you happen to be in the fourth grade.







flacaltenn said:


> I've worked with marine mammals.
> I've helped blind people to "see".
> I've sat in on 30 or more cardiac cath lab procedures.
> I've worked with many of Americas three letter spy agencies.
> ...



But.....if you've done all that, why do you still come across as a scientifically ignorant and very clueless nitwit? Why do you post misinformation and pseudo-science? Why do you lie about the facts so often?

On an anonymous forum like this one, it is easy to claim great expertise but it is a lot harder to actually demonstrate some depth of knowledge on a scientific topic. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you actually know very little about AGW/CC but rather that you are filled with an enormous amount of misinformation and fossil fuel industry propaganda. If the rest of what you post is anti-science nonsense, why on Earth would anyone believe your very dubious claims about your career and expertise in science? You're just another phony and another denier cult poseur.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 29, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Good question. I guess you're right.. I should listen to YOU more often TinkerBelle. After all it's CLEAR that you are the more qualified to interpret scientific press releases and critically assess their worth.. 

I am now a Warmer.. A VEHEMENT warmer and I want revenge on all those who duped me.. Where do I start Tink?

PM me on ANY of those topics I listed on my career.. We'll chat.. 

BTW princess ---- I just spent about 30 hours over on other threads trying to defend the Atmos physics behind basic GreenHouse theory against some REAL DENIERS.. Should I stop supporting science there also ??? 

In that 30 hours --- I didn't project "ANY" knowledge relevent to AGW/CC theory? Hmmm.. I guess I'm a worthless hack..


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I guess I'm a worthless hack..



It's good that you can be honest about yourself... ;-)


----------



## westwall (Aug 29, 2013)

IanC said:


> Computer models are a great tool to test current understanding. They are a failure for predicting the future of chaotic systems.








If they can't do a hindcast they are simply useless, period.


----------



## westwall (Aug 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Computer models are a great tool to test current understanding. They are a failure for predicting the future of chaotic systems.
> ...







And yet that's what the climate fraudsters are trying to do.  So nice of you to admit that they are puruing that which is unobtainable.  And they want us to spend trillions of dollars on models of the impossible.

Good to know!


----------



## mamooth (Aug 30, 2013)

> Tell me about "the engineer's fallacy".



Sure. It happens when some logic-deficient crank declares that he knows every single thing about every topic, and that all must bow down and kiss his ass without question, solely because he's skilled in some area unrelated to the topic at hand.

You can see that fallacy displayed by many of the denialists here. It's kind of humorous, how cranky they get when the expected asskissing doesn't materialize.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Computer models are a great tool to test current understanding. They are a failure for predicting the future of chaotic systems.
> ...



That's glaringly obvious, walleyed. Unfortunately for your denier cult myths and fantasies, climate models do successfully hindcast twentieth century temperatures and climate.

*Climate Models: How Good Are They?*
Environmental Defense Fund
By Lisa Moore - a scientist in the Climate and Air Program
July 18, 2007
(excerpts)
*Weather is a short-term, local phenomenon. Climate is the average weather pattern of a region over many years. I may not be able to predict the weather in New York City on December 15, but I can predict with confidence that it will be colder than it is today, in mid-July. A climate model could make the same prediction without a single past temperature reading. Basic orbital mechanics tell us that the northern hemisphere is colder in winter than summer. As I explained in my previous post, a climate model is a mathematical description of the physics and chemistry of the climate system &#8211; for example, how heat is transferred from one place to another. The inputs to the model are things like solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and human-produced greenhouse gas emissions. Based on these inputs and the laws of physics, the model predicts temperature, precipitation, and other aspects of climate. 

Which brings me to how we know the models are credible. What if the model inputs were actual observations from a time period in the past where we have full climate measurements? If the model is any good, it should accurately "hindcast" what we know the climate conditions were. In fact, hindcasting is the technique scientists use to evaluate models. If a model can accurately hindcast, we can have some confidence in its forecasts of the future. In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.*





*Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]*


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 2, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...





Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate: Record Cold in the Northern Interior


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 2, 2013)

The models are a fucking joke.........


The models are wrong | Behind The Black


----------



## PMZ (Sep 2, 2013)

Perhaps if I was ignorant about science, I too would have more faith in politics than in science. But I'm not.  So I know that science is based on available evidence.  Politics is only what different groups wish was true.  Not much competition.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 3, 2013)

Another study showing that global warming/climate change is still accelerating.

*Climate Changing Faster Than Expected*
Discovery.com News
FEB 11, 2013 
(excerpts)
*As climate change exceeds the worst projections, scientists underscore the urgency of reducing emissions. By just about any measure, global warming is matching or exceeding experts' worst projections, and could bring drastic change to our planet, including a 19-foot sea level rise and the extinction of many species, according to a new report released today. The study was published by 26 climate scientists, the majority of whom were authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007. The researchers point to a gloomy slate of evidence: Carbon dioxide emissions are 40 percent higher than in 1990. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting at an accelerated pace. Sea level crept 80 percent higher over the last 15 years than projected in 2001. It is on track to rise twice as much by 2100 as the IPCC projected in 2007. Arctic sea ice melted 40 percent more than the average prediction in the IPCC report. "This stunned the scientific community because it was far greater than any projection," said climate scientist and study co-author Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada's British Columbia. "Things are happening faster and with greater magnitude than when the IPCC was published in 2007," Weaver said.

"We are in the lead-up to an historic climate summit -- the Copenhagen climate summit -- and it is absolutely essential that any policy making regarding climate change be based on the best and most up-to-date science," said co-author Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University in State College. Scientists have learned a lot since summer 2006 -- the cutoff for publication of research considered in the 2007 IPCC report. "What this report is an attempt to do is to provide an update of the current scientific understanding," Mann said. "We are all concerned that we are basically on target for changes that are in general larger than what was projected from the IPCC report," he continued. "The observations are telling us that changes in many respects are happening faster than models projected." To avoid a 3.6 degree increase, immediate action is needed, the researchers said. Global emissions must peak within the coming decade and they most drop off rapidly after that. "Among the things we've learned that we were not so sure of three years ago is that there is an urgency to this problem that isn't a political issue," said report author Richard Somerville of Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. "It's Mother Nature herself." The science that has emerged since the 2007 IPCC report appears to point to accelerating climate change, said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, Calif., who was not a part of the study.*


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 3, 2013)

Two researchers have created an advanced model that, when fed information about water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, is able to recreate the surface warming hiatus of the last 15 years.






The Pacific Ocean fills in another piece of the global warming puzzle, and puzzles Curry

Note the purple line that keeps climbing.  That's what happens when you just work with surface and air temps.  The red line is the new model and note how well it tracks the black - observations - line.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 3, 2013)

SkepticalScience?? Not worth the time to vet.. Models that finally INCLUDE all those "NATURAL" variations?  How clever... Shows how bad the science has been to date.. 

You're smart enough to be embarrassed that well-known effects like ENSO were not INCLUDED in those models and conclusions you worshipped. But you wont adopt any humility.. 

Bad news for you is --- before the excuses stop flowing --- there's gonna be a MUCH REDUCED role of CO2 forcing, a few mighty powerful NEGATIVE feedbacks realized, and a lot less Global Hysteria..


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 3, 2013)

ENSO runs on a pseudo-cycle.  This is only a backcast.  No one has yet figured out how to do long range ENSO forecasts.  And I see NO reduction in the significance of CO2 in the atmosphere.  AGW is simply overlain on a complex system of significant natural variability.  The long term trend is still upward at an accelerating pace.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> ENSO runs on a pseudo-cycle.  This is only a backcast.  No one has yet figured out how to do long range ENSO forecasts.  And I see NO reduction in the significance of CO2 in the atmosphere.  AGW is simply overlain on a complex system of significant natural variability.  The long term trend is still upward at an accelerating pace.



I think its the PDO that they're talking about....
1915-1940= warm phase
1940-1975= cold phase
1975-2000= warm phase
2000-2030=cold phase

What happens is during a 
Warm phase the heat is near the atmosphere
but during the cold phase it is pushed deeper(700+ meters) into the ocean...AWAY from the atmosphere. 

Remember...This movement of heat doesn't add or subject from the system. Either does a enso cycle.

By 2030-2070 we will likely see the global temp catch up with where it was suppose to be. A big shock.




> Research led by Gerald Meehl has similarly focused on the importance of the Pacific Ocean in short-term global surface temperature changes. His climate model predicts that there will be decades when surface temperature changes are relatively flat because more heat is transferred to the deep oceans, precisely as we have observed over the past decade. Meehl discussed the Kosaka & Xie study with Carbon Brief,
> 
> 
> "This paper basically confirms, with a novel methodology, what we originally documented in our Nature Climate Change paper in 2011 and followed up with in our Journal of Climate paper ... We went beyond [the new paper] to show that when the tropical Pacific was cool for a decade ... more heat is mixed into the deeper ocean, something the new paper doesn't address."



This period is acting like 1940-1975....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 4, 2013)

I just put the PDO on the bottom on the temperature chart since 1850.

Blue = cold phase
red = warm phase

The up an down turns model it perfectly... If more energy wasn't going into the system the warming since around 1915 wouldn't be happening as mid term climate charge within the pacific doesn't add energy into the system.

It would be a flat sin wave.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:
			
		

> SkepticalScience?? Not worth the time to vet.. Models that finally INCLUDE all those "NATURAL" variations?  How clever... Shows how bad the science has been to date..
> 
> You're smart enough to be embarrassed that well-known effects like ENSO were not INCLUDED in those models and conclusions you worshipped. But you wont adopt any humility..
> 
> Bad news for you is --- before the excuses stop flowing --- there's gonna be a MUCH REDUCED role of CO2 forcing, a few mighty powerful NEGATIVE feedbacks realized, and a lot less Global Hysteria..



The study itself has been published in Nature.  Is that worth the time to vet?  Christ, such a convenient out.

Many thanks to Matthew for the ENSO-PDO correction.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Two researchers have created an advanced model that, when fed information about water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, is able to recreate the surface warming hiatus of the last 15 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bernie Madoff accounting

My models show a 10% after tax ROI

Bernie, your models don't account for the 50% tax.

Hmm, OK, fixed. My models show a 10% after tax ROI

Bernie! You genius! Where can I sign up?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 4, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Two researchers have created an advanced model that, when fed information about water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, is able to recreate the surface warming hiatus of the last 15 years.
> ...



What the F are you talking about?

Newton, F=ma, v=dx/dt, a=dv/dt.

Einstein, L'=L*sqrt( 1-(v/c)2), t'=t/sqrt( 1-(v/c)2)

It's called resolution.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

Clearly,  the best science available to the deniers comes from Bernie Madoff. 

They are running blindly from the giant flushing get sound.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 4, 2013)

The problem with denial is the absolute vacuum of replacement theories.  What have we heard as alternative possible causes for the climate's temperature trend of the last 150 years:

1) Increased solar radiation with an absolutely magical time correlation 
2) Super-elastic rebound from the LIA 
3) Cosmic rays doing _something_ to our clouds
4) Black parking lots and AC condensors being built next to every weather station on Earth
5) Random, idiopathic, climatic wandering

Have I missed any?  Tell me I've missed some.  There's GOT to be an alternative explanation with a little less nutcase-factor to it.  Anyone?  Anyone?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 4, 2013)

Once I lock onto what is right, I try not learning what is wrong.

The obvious concern is how high the temp will jump up once it cycles.  The longer it takes, the greater will be that rate of change.  It will rise and overshoot the linear trend.  And it is always the rate of change of energy, power, that kills things.  That it is low is far worse.

AWG is the slowest moving issue ever.  You can just come back and check it every New Year.  100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend.  After that, it is little more than noting how far off the expected value that the natural variability is taking it.

CARVE remains the current hot ticket item, seeing what comes of the methane.  The problem is that the natural variability is currently working against the heating factors and masks any absolute measurement of new effects.

It's been moving that way and getting bigger, for better than fifty years.... A person has to be pretty F'in stupid not to get that...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Once I lock onto what is right, I try not learning what is wrong.
> 
> The obvious concern is how high the temp will jump up once it cycles.  The longer it takes, the greater will be that rate of change.  It will rise and overshoot the linear trend.  And it is always the rate of change of energy, power, that kills things.  That it is low is far worse.
> 
> ...



*100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend.*

Yes! Because the temperature has gone up in a straight line for the last 100 years. Wut?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > AWG is the slowest moving issue ever.  You can just come back and check it every New Year.  100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend.  *After that, it is little more than noting how far off the expected value that the natural variability is taking it*.
> ...



Reading all the words is hard,  Especially if you're Todd.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Once I lock onto what is right, I try not learning what is wrong.
> ...



Yeah, math (adding and subtracting) is hard, statistics and regression is really tough, especially for you.

Do you know what ANOVA means?  R^2?  Sum of squares?  Sum of square error?  

Like I said, Tod, "A person has to be pretty F'in stupid not to get that..."

Go learn some math.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Once I lock onto what is right, I try not learning what is wrong.
> ...



Yeah, cuz things only move in straight lines.  Doh!!!!


----------



## TheSeventhTiger (Sep 4, 2013)

The 2014 winter will most likely answer all questions regarding Global Warming. we all just have to wait till March to see how bad the winter was.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Perhaps if I was ignorant about science, I too would have more faith in politics than in science. But I'm not.  So I know that science is based on available evidence.  Politics is only what different groups wish was true.  Not much competition.





OK s0n....you have now established yourself as the most naïve mofu on the forum!!! Take a bow!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps if I was ignorant about science, I too would have more faith in politics than in science. But I'm not.  So I know that science is based on available evidence.  Politics is only what different groups wish was true.  Not much competition.
> ...



OK, nitwit....you have long since established yourself as the most ignorant, retarded, deceptive, brainwashed troll on the forum!!! Pull your head out of your ass so you can take a bow!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2013)

TheSeventhTiger said:


> The 2014 winter will most likely answer all questions regarding Global Warming. we all just have to wait till March to see how bad the winter was.



So.....you're STILL completely clueless about the difference between long term climate patterns and yearly weather variations. Too bad you're so mentally handicapped.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> TheSeventhTiger said:
> 
> 
> > The 2014 winter will most likely answer all questions regarding Global Warming. we all just have to wait till March to see how bad the winter was.
> ...



Anyone who can't distinguish between science and politics, can't be expected to distinguish between weather and climate. Or facts and fantasy. Or Fahrenheit and Centigrade. Or women and sheep. 

Clueless for them is as accurate a description as dittoheads.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 4, 2013)

How accurate were thermometers 100, 150 years ago?

AGW Cult is very culty


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yeah, I know, pretty stupid.

*100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend.*

LOL!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How accurate were thermometers 100, 150 years ago?
> 
> AGW Cult is very culty



The AGW position is determined by qualified scientists with virtually unlimited capabilities and resources. 

The denier position is determined by political hacks and entertainers. What they wish was true.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How accurate were thermometers 100, 150 years ago?
> ...



*The AGW position is determined by qualified scientists with virtually unlimited capabilities and resources. *

You're right. Here's one now.






Looks like a Category 6.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



There are highly educated scientists who do research on the climate and mankind's influence on it.....

....and then there are those who communicate those scientific findings to the public....

....Al Gore is one of the latter....

....the fact that you are incapable of distinguishing between the two is just another symptom of your severe retardation, Toad.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




I take them daily on here s0n......at the expense of you and all the other climate crusader nutters and without all the multitude of personal insults so typical of the progressives!! But for we deniers....its evidence of one thing: we're winning!! The climate crusaders? Not so much. The lots of you are akin to being like vampire slayers trying to convince the world that we better get them by daylight!! Nobody is caring


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...














*consensus WHAT???!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



The funniest post of the day. 

Winning what? 

How much is being invested today to expand capacity for fossil fuel extraction,  transport,  refining,  or use? 

So,  exactly what are you winning?  The bullshit wars?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I don't know.  Looks like an educated,  rational,  accomplished version of Rush,  to me.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 5, 2013)

TheSeventhTiger said:


> The 2014 winter will most likely answer all questions regarding Global Warming. we all just have to wait till March to see how bad the winter was.



or may 

we had over 8 inches of global warming on May 1st


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 5, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> TheSeventhTiger said:
> 
> 
> > The 2014 winter will most likely answer all questions regarding Global Warming. we all just have to wait till March to see how bad the winter was.
> ...



Why should 2014 hold all the answers?  There is no revelation on the way.  There is only the continuous processes of climatic evolution.  The world will change as the laws of physics and the algebraic sum of all external forcings say it will change.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 5, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How accurate were thermometers 100, 150 years ago?



Not bad.  I think even 150 years ago, they knew how to calibrate them.  The phase change points of water have not changed.  And besides, many of those thermometers are still in existence and can be tested.

Besides which, as I've pointed out to you before, unless you think they were all biased in the same direction, the question is irrelevant.

IS that what you think Frank?  Did all the old thermometer read low?  Do all new thermometers read high?  All of them Frank?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How accurate were thermometers 100, 150 years ago?
> ...



Odd that all those qualified scientists with virtually unlimited capabilities and resources still can't show us one single lab experiment showing how a 200PPM change in CO2 will raise temperature

Maybe their resources should be more in line with the validity of their theory


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



In his Peer reviewed Bible, "Earth in the Balance", Al Gore said water vapor was the main driver of climate change


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 5, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How accurate were thermometers 100, 150 years ago?
> 
> AGW Cult is very culty



one also must consider how much the environment changed 

over the past one hundred years 

from a grassy area to a parking lot for example


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



They can absolutely demonstrate what they've proven to their colleagues. Thats what models are for.  They are the data,  mathematically expressed theories,  assumptions,  limitations,  uncertainties,  steady state,  dynamics,  etc that represent the latest science.  

Why should they explain it to those whose education and experience preclude them from understanding it? 

The obligation is not on them but on you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Why should they explain it to those whose education and experience preclude them from understanding it? *

Because then you wouldn't sound so silly when you post here.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I believe that he said water vapor is the main driver of global warming.  Which it is.  However it's not what's changing.  CO2 is.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Is English not your first language?

I asked for experimental evidence, not jackoff computer models.

We can create a mini-black hole in a lab, how hard it is to add an additional 200PPM of CO2 to a test tank?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



All people of science sound silly to politicians who are not used to the concepts of facts and reality. I read you yammering on about what you wish was true and think why does he think that anybody cares what he wants? His fantasies are irrelevent.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



If you are not capable of understanding experimental evidence why should anybody bother to give it to you? The evidence has been around and available for years. But it takes science knowledge to understand it. Your problem comes from your inability to understand it. That's nobody's problem but yours. Fix it and come back and we can talk. 

You're a classic Dunning Kruger.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 5, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



What is really "odd", CrazyFruitcake, is that you keep making these silly bogus claims that are based only on your own ignorance and gullibility. There is, in fact, a great deal of experimental evidence that demonstrates and verifies the existence of the CO2 greenhouse effect.

Every paper cited here has an embedded link to the source but you will have to go to the site linked in the title below to find those links. I'm not going to spend a lot of time copying them into this post.

*Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties*

*This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I dont think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.

UPDATE (September 23, 2012): Burch & Gryvnak (1966) added.
UPDATE (February 6, 2010): Miller & Watts (1984) added.
UPDATE (July 25, 2010): I modified the introduction paragraph a little to reflect the current content of the list. The old text was a little outdated.
UPDATE (June 22, 2010): Lecher & Pernter (1881) added.
UPDATE (March 31, 2010): Tubbs & Williams (1972), Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) and Ångström (1900) added.
UPDATE (March 6, 2010): Barker (1922) added.
UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) added.
UPDATE (September 25, 2009): Miller & Brown (2004) added, thanks to John Cook for bringing it to my attention (see the discussion section below).

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 43007000 cm&#8722;1  Toth et al. (2008) A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm&#8722;1

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence  Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm&#8722;1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values. [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment  Miller et al. (2005) The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions  Miller & Brown (2004) High-resolution near-infrared (40009000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMathPierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported.  This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537]. [Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 &#956;m. I: model and laboratory measurements  Niro et al. (2004) Temperature (200300 K) and pressure (70200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm&#8722;1.

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes  Boulet (2004) The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by retrieval technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the perturbers are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2  Benech et al. (2002) Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.

Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas  Teboul et al. (1995) Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 101000 cm&#8722;1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 101000 cm&#8722;1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10470 cm&#8722;1 are compared.

The HITRAN database: 1986 edition  Rothman et al. (1987) A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.

Rotational structure in the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide dimers  Miller & Watts (1984) High-resolution infrared predissociation spectra have been measured for dilute mixtures of CO2 and N2O in helium. Rotational fine structure is clearly resolved for both (CO2)2 and (N2O)2, the linewidths being instrument-limited. This establishes that predissociation lifetimes are longer than approximately 50 ns.

Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide  Tubbs & Williams (1972) An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters &#947;0 for lines in the R branch of the &#957;3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of &#947;0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section &#963;.

Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases  Burch et al. (1970) From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.

Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines  Burch et al. (1969) The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm&#8722;1.  New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.

High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2  Ludwig et al. (1966) Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2 were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.

Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation  Burch & Gryvnak (1966) Extensive measurements of the absorption by H2O and CO2 have been made in the region from 0·6 to 5·5 microm. Two different multiple-pass absorption cells provided path lengths from 2 to 933 m, and sample pressures were varied from a few &#956;Hg to 15 atm. Approximately thirty new CO2 bands were observed and identified, and the strengths of the important bands determined. The H2O data provide enough information for the determination of the strengths and widths of several hundred of the more important lines. The wings of CO2absorption lines were found to be sub-Lorentzian, with the shapes depending on temperature, broadening gas, and wavelength in ways which cannot be explained by present theories. The absorption by H2O and CO2 samples at temperatures up to 1800°K has been studied from 1 to 5 microm. The transmission of radiation from hot CO2 through cold CO2 and from hot H2O through cold H2O has been investigated to determine the effect of the coincidence of emission lines with absorption lines. Darrell E. Burch, David A. Gryvnak, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, Volume 6, Issue 3, MayJune 1966, Pages 229240, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-4073(66)90072-0.

Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 &#956; band of CO2  Winters et al. (1964) Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm&#8722;1 to 2575 cm&#8722;1.

Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ  Davies (1964) The emissivity of carbon dioxide has been measured for temperatures from 1500° to 3000°K over the wavelength range from 4.40 to 5.30 µ.

Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared  Burch et al. (1962) The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.

Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared  Burch et al. (1962) Total absorptance has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm&#8722;1.

Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths  Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.

The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide  Martin & Barker (1932) The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental &#957;1 appears only in combination bands, but &#957;2 at 15&#956; and &#957;3 at 4.3&#956; absorb intensely.

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red  Barker (1922) Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 &#956;.  New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 &#956; region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 &#956; and 2.767 &#956;. The 4.3 &#956; band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 &#956;. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 &#956; region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a head in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 &#956; band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets. [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre  Ångström (1900)

Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum  Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near &#955; = 14.7 &#956;.  The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 &#956; to 16 &#956;, with the maximum at 14.7 &#956;. [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

On the absorption of dark heat-rays by gases and vapours  Lecher & Pernter (1881) Svante Arrhenius wrote in his famous 1897 paper: Tyndall held the opinion that the water-vapour has the greatest influence, whilst other authors, for instance Lecher and Pernter, are inclined to think that the carbonic acid plays the more important part..

The Bakerian Lecture  On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction  Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text] [Wikipedia: John Tyndall]

Closely related

The HITRAN Database  The laboratory work results on the absorption properties of carbon dioxide (and many other molecules) is contained in this database.

*


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > ENSO runs on a pseudo-cycle.  This is only a backcast.  No one has yet figured out how to do long range ENSO forecasts.  And I see NO reduction in the significance of CO2 in the atmosphere.  AGW is simply overlain on a complex system of significant natural variability.  The long term trend is still upward at an accelerating pace.
> ...



Don't think it's been established what role PDO has on "pushing heat deeper".. But yes -- your observation about what remains when you remove it is largely correct. Except that if PDO didn't exist -- the heat would REMAIN IN PLAY as part of the surface exchange with the atmos.. If indeed it is "pumping heat deeper" during any part of its' phase, it would need to RETRIEVE the same heat stored to produce its' warm phase to be (as you described) energy neutral. 

If on the other hand, it stores during a cold phase and RE-WARMS from incident radiation during a warm phase (does not retrieve stored heat) --- then it is a NEGATIVE feedback on surface warming calculations. Essentially another heat sink in the analysis of surface temps that REMOVES heat energy from the interchange.

I think it HIGHLY unlikely that this "heat pump" works in both directions.. I could believe that it might assist in moving heat deeper, but RETRIEVING IT back to the surface sounds like an awfully sketchy proposition* since "stored heat" (of the BTK study)  is in EXTREMELY frigid water*.. 

Question is --- why wasn't this effect removed PREVIOUSLY ?? It certainly wasn't apparent as an additive effect in any projected models that I saw.. 

What REMAINS of the global temp rise chart could still be combinations of other CYCLICAL effects. You can get a linear ramp from a simple SUM of multiple "sine waves". Only need 2 or 3 to build a ramp-like signal. Wouldn't expect mere climate scientists to look for sine waves when they see a ramp tho.. But that's the math behind breaking down simple looking signals and functions.. 

What do ya get for instance when you add BOTH AMO and PDO together over the past 80 or 100 years? Add that to the 22 yr solar cycle... If they are all drifting in time with respect to each other --- PERIODICALLY --- they can combine to create VERY linear looking signals.

*The idea that we're looking for a SINGLE LINEAR FORCING --- isn't the only thesis in the game..*

This is why MULTI-DISCIPLINARY scientific inquiry is so important. Because alternate views and ideas and suggestions should ALWAYS be encouraged.. No ONE discipline does good science in isolation..


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 5, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Apparently, you haven't been paying attention.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 5, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You can do it yourself.  Here is what you should do.  This summer, purchase 500 lbs of dry ice.  Seal off all the openings to your car, air vents, door jams, windows, etc.  Put the ice in the back seat of your car, park in the sun, and close the doors and windows.  Now wait for a couple of hours and see how hot your car gets.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Some of the basic physics that is apparently beyond you is pretty simple. A body in space.  An absorber and radiator.  Energy balance.  No exceptions. 

Combined with an increasing concentration of longwave absorbing atmospheric gasses. 

If you knew just a little physics,  you'd know that global warming is the only possible result.  And if you were the IPCC you'd know how much climactic warming at current and expected future concentrations. 

But,  you,  apparently,  can't handle even those basics. 

Why would you think that you stand a chance on the complex stuff?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



From Wikipedia :

HITRAN - HITRAN (an acronym for High Resolution Transmission) is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere. The original version was compiled by the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (1960s). It is maintained and developed at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge MA, USA.

HITRAN is the worldwide standard for calculating or simulating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance from the microwave through ultraviolet region of the spectrum.[citation needed] The current version contains 42 molecular species along with their most significant isotopologues. These data are archived as a multitude of high-resolution line transitions. There are in addition many molecular species collected as cross-section data. These latter include anthropogenic introduced constituents in the atmosphere such as the chlorofluorocarbons.

The HITRAN database can be downloaded in its entirety from an FTP site at the HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics. There is no charge for downloading the database, but access must be requested in advance by completing an online form. An online tool for browsing and plotting the data called HITRAN on the Web is also provided. This tool was developed by the HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the V.E. Zuev Institute of Atmosperic Optics.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Any signal can be decomposed into a series sum of any cyclical function.   A series of sinc functions also works.  In order for the additive signal to not be periodic, it has to be an infinite series.  So? The climate isn't. AMO, PDO and solar cycle is three, not an infinite series.

So do it,. add both AMO, PDO and the solar cycle and show us what you get.  Surely you can use Excel.   You can think it's "HIGHLY unlikely" all you want.  You can speculate and suppose all you like.  It doesn't mean anything, all the supposin'.  It could be fairies and unicorns, Santa and his elves, it could be lots of things. But it isn't.  Your lack of knowledge doesn't mean a lack of knowledge on anyone elses part.  Yeah, "MULTI-DISCIPLINARY scientific inquiry is so important".  Let us know when you have some as undiciplines "might be", "could  be", "I don't know" don't mean nuthin.

If were all about speculation, a cycle doesn't need to retrieve anything.  It,  may just as well, store then not store.   It may store alot then store a little then store alot again.  It could do alot of things.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Thank you for making my case. All of those experiments mentioned CO2 but not one of them tested for temperature increase from some minimal increase in earth atmosphere.

Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 5, 2013)

I believe completely that there is absolutely nothing that we can do to stop global climate change. Nothing.

The oceans are dying and there is not anything we can do to stop it.

Ice caps melting and no way to stop it.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 5, 2013)

"With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."
 --- John Von Neumann

What he's saying is that curve fitting alone is unimpressive, since with enough parameters, you can fit a summation of cyclic functions to any curve.

Denialists love curve-fitting exercises. What they don't do well is explain _why_ the curves fit, or make predictions based on the curve-fitting.

And because physicists are fun people ...

http://java-srv1.mpi-cbg.de/publications/getDocument.html?id=ff8080812daff75c012dc1b7bc10000c


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> I believe completely that there is absolutely nothing that we can do to stop global climate change. Nothing.
> 
> The oceans are dying and there is not anything we can do to stop it.
> 
> Ice caps melting and no way to stop it.



We can't stop it.  We will limit the consequences of it.  We will limit the extent of it.  And by we,  I don't mean the people here.  I mean the engineers and investors and builders and government agencies that we've commissioned to do so.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Because that's not the purpose of the HITRAN database.

What is your theory and proof of what happens to a body in space when reflection of incident EM is limited by atmospheric absorbers?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

Wow... do you think you actually shut them down?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Wow... do you think you actually shut them down?



They have so little that's real to argue from.  Nothing,  really.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow... do you think you actually shut them down?
> ...



Actually they do have something to argue from. It's called '*uninformed, arrogant stupidity fueled by the Dunning-Kruger Effect*'. Nothing real, of course, but when did that ever stop a rightwingnut from arguing? Blowing smoke on topics they can't comprehend solely on the basis of their own massive ignorance is pretty much their 'thing'.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > I believe completely that there is absolutely nothing that we can do to stop global climate change. Nothing.
> ...





Why s0n? Why such a waste of money when the world goes into the shitter further and further every day? You panty waist bozos who have to be in a perpetual state of being hysterical have some serious connect the dots issues. Shit.....even the director of the Global Warming Foundation the "dangers" have been mega-hyped by the green industry.........

The whole "consensus" crap is exactly that: crap!!!!




*The background to all this &#8211; and the "97 per cent of climate scientists say&#8230;." meme &#8211; is expertly covered in a new paper for the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Andrew Montford.

In a sane world it wouldn't have needed writing. An obscure green political activist called John Cook and a few of his eco-cronies produced a pseudo-scientific paper so riddled with flaws that it ought to have been tossed straight in the bin. Instead, it was bigged up by a compliant mainstream media, a desperate and propaganda-hungry green industry, and by the US President as a vitally significant meta-analysis offering indisputable proof of the scientific "consensus" on "climate change."

Montford concludes:


The consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. The survey methodology therefore fails to address the key points that are in dispute in the global warming debate."*


If you still believe in 'climate change' read this? ? Telegraph Blogs




The climate nutters continue to lose........


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)

bad news for the ice melt enthusiasts...........laughed my balls off when I saw this graph >>>>>>



Tough Times For Sea Ice Melt Enthusiasts? | Watts Up With That?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Tough Times For Sea Ice Melt Enthusiasts? | Watts Up With That?



Your graph shows a loss of ~1.35 million square kilometers of ice since 1979.  Hard to read due to the way the graph has been scaled and formatted.  Heck, if they'd just blow the vertical axis up they could make it look flat as pancake.

That's complete shit.

Every time I read your posts I get this vague impression - hard to identify.  But it's finally come to me.  Your posts are the electronic equivalent to littering.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Tough Times For Sea Ice Melt Enthusiasts? | Watts Up With That?
> ...






More k00k losing........top story today on DRUDGE >>>>>


Heres the headline.......



*Cold Arctic summer leads to record increase in ice cap...*

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph


I damn near split my sides laughing!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)




----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Tough Times For Sea Ice Melt Enthusiasts? | Watts Up With That?
> ...



I've always thought that one source of the stupidity of the street is a complete lack of Statistical education.  Something that could be remedied by high schools. 

The difference between random and assignable variability is a critical concept in most everyone's lives but those without college statistics just can't grasp it.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 9, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



60% is easier to get when it is 60% of less.

I got an idea.  You give me 90% of your paycheck, and I will give you back 160% of what you have left. That's the math you like, eh?

Let us know when volume and extent return to pre 1980 levels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Why not the 1800 levels?
Or the 8000 BC levels?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Because we didn't build today's civilization around 1800 levels or 8000 BC levels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Not much civilization built near the Artic ice.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Right,  but lots at the old sea level,  near the ocean,  where molten ice goes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Are you afraid that melting Arctic ice will flood our coasts?


----------



## Ropey (Sep 9, 2013)

It keeps getting worse for the environmentalist's agenda. 



> Leaked draft of climate report *struggles *with drop in warming



 @ struggles

Leaked draft of climate report struggles with drop in warming | Fox News


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It already has. Several times.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Ropey said:


> It keeps getting worse for the environmentalist's agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only Fox would write a headline like that for the contents of that article.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



LOL! I thought you claimed you were good at science?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Show me the science that demonstrates that the damage due to super storm Sandy was not made worse by the last 100 years of sea level rise. 

Here's a reference for you.

Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Show me the science that demonstrates that the damage due to super storm Sandy was not made worse *

When you make a claim, YOU have to prove it.

For instance, the claim that melting Arctic ice has flooded our coast.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 9, 2013)

Ropey said:


> It keeps getting worse for the environmentalist's agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 From the article:



> Global surface temperatures rose rapidly during the 70s, but have been relatively flat over the past decade and a half, according to data from the U.K.s weather-watching Met Office. Climate skeptics have spent months debating the weather pattern, some citing it as evidence that global warming itself has decelerated or even stopped.


 
Pardon the pun, but "cool!"


----------



## Ropey (Sep 9, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > It keeps getting worse for the environmentalist's agenda.
> ...





Cool as a cucumber. 











^^ Not pleased anymore.


----------



## Spoonman (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



actually the damage from sandy was made worse  because of the direction the storm hit the area.  as far as intensity and wind speeds, it was no worse than other storms that have hit the area.  but most storms that hit NY/NJ come up from the south along land and don't bring the surge.   Sandy, had it take its traditional path and continued north would have generated very little damage.   but it took a hard right and swept directly across the low lying areas, bringing with it a storm surge. to make it worse it hit at high tide, with a full moon.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



PMZ thinks it's because of melted Artic ice.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > It keeps getting worse for the environmentalist's agenda.
> ...



You need to learn the difference between global surface temperatures and heat. 

Global Warming Includes Oceans Too - and Continues to Rise Fast

AGW hasn't slowed at all.


----------



## Ropey (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > It keeps getting worse for the environmentalist's agenda.
> ...



Yes, it is a catchy headline. 






Look at the NOAA sea level elevations since 1857.

Sea Levels Online - Mean Sea Level Trending

There is a slow steady increase that sure doesn't presuppose influence by man. If there were influences then the slow steady trend would be disrupted because since 1857 population growth and so use of natural resources and industrial mechanization has sky-rocketed.

The relevant data does not exist to support these nonsensical and whimsical sky-is-falling conjectures.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Higher sea level contributed to the damages.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Ropey said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



"There is a slow steady increase that sure doesn't presuppose influence by man."

Nor does it deny AGW. You need more analysis to determine that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Which you think is because of melted Artic ice.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

A good place to start learning.

Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Melted ice and warmer water expansion.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

It's amazing to me the number of folks who deny science then try to use an out of context scientific detail to make a point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Floating ice melts and that raises sea levels?

You may be dimmer than I first thought.


----------



## Ropey (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It denies it by the very indifference of nature to it.

There's been no sharply dramatic change to the increase yet man's increase of natural resources has been sharply dramatic.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The vast majority of ice is not floating. It's on land. 

You are dimmer than I thought.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Ropey said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



You have, apparently, avoided reading any of my references. Is learning painful to you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



How much of the Arctic Ice is on land?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Don't be so lazy. Look it up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Why do I need to look it up?
We're talking about Arctic Sea ice levels.......


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 9, 2013)

It's CALLED THE PDO!!!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You don't need to look it up because your conclusions have no impact on the solution. Your dream of putting all of the energy costs of our generation on the next generation are kaput. We will take responsibility for our actions. We will help to solve the problems that we created. 

What you do is your business.


----------



## Ropey (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You lack relevant data and since you lack relevant data you ask for relevant data to disprove your opinionated conjectures and yes, some of those conjectures are by scientists who are conjecturing without relevant data.

Scientific extrapolations are still extrapolations and for every opinion you can gather, there's opposite views and extrapolations on that view as well.



> Look at the NOAA sea level elevations since 1857.
> 
> Sea Levels Online - Mean Sea Level Trending
> 
> ...



Sea Level Trends

That's hard data.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 9, 2013)

Here's the data ;0

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado


----------



## Ropey (Sep 10, 2013)

Yep, and if you look at that data in the long term, you will see the trending smoothen out.  That's why it's taken out of the distribution and 'extrapolated'.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Ropey said:


> Yep, and if you look at that data in the long term, you will see the trending smoothen out.  That's why it's taken out of the distribution and 'extrapolated'.



Hard data is merely a pile of numbers.  It's how it's interpreted that's meaningful.  You want to believe that this data interprets in a way that makes what you want, true. 

I like objective, thorough interpretation better.  It's much more likely to be correct.  

That's why I posted those references yesterday.


----------



## Ropey (Sep 10, 2013)

Ropey said:
			
		

> There is a slow steady increase that sure doesn't presuppose influence by man. If there were influences then the slow steady trend would be disrupted because since 1857 population growth and use of natural resources and industrial mechanization has sky-rocketed.
> 
> The relevant data does not exist to support these nonsensical and whimsical sky-is-falling conjectures.



Sea Level Trends

That's hard data. 



PMZ said:


> Hard data is merely a pile of numbers.  It's how it's interpreted that's meaningful.  You want to believe that this data interprets in a way that makes what you want, true.
> 
> I like objective, thorough interpretation better.  It's much more likely to be correct.
> 
> *That's why I posted those references yesterday.*



The hard data is compiled and trended from 1857 to 2012.  There's no need for interpretation.* The interpretation is necessary when you take the long term trending out of the distribution and extrapolate a small data upward trend that doesn't show in the long term trending.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*We will take responsibility for our actions. *

Excellent! 
You should spend all your own money on the next Solyndra and leave my tax dollars out of it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Ropey said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why are you avoiding my references that have a different interpretation?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I'm sure that you'd love us to carry you across the finish line for free.  The ultimate entitlement gig.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Ropey said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yeah, you not wasting my money is an entitlement. LOL!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No. You thinking that you can live off of the work and responsibility and contributions of others is an entitlement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



If I believed that, I'd be a liberal like you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



At least that's what your cult instructs you to say. 

My experience however is just the opposite. Without liberals we'd be going backwards.  Liberals look forward to better,  not backwards to safety. Conservatives avoid investing in the future and involvement with others towards common goals. All in  all,  a predominantly conservative world would be a pretty awful place.  Probably Afghanistan is as close as we have here and now.


----------



## Ropey (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Why are you avoiding my references that have a different interpretation?



I'm not.



Ropey said:


> The hard data is compiled and trended from 1857 to 2012.  There's no need for interpretation.* The interpretation is necessary when you take the long term trending out of the distribution and extrapolate a small data upward trend that doesn't show in the long term trending.*



This is my response.  Your data is a subset of the full set and extrapolates a curve that is not shown in the long term trending.

I'm not discounting your information. It discounts itself as a simple snapshot that's been taken out of the full data set in order to extrapolate a sequence in the future.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Ropey said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you avoiding my references that have a different interpretation?
> ...



Thank you for your inexpert opinion,  but I'm going with the big picture from real climate experts.  The IPCC. I believe that the odds of insight from the man on the street compared to the most qualified in the world  are miniscule.


----------



## Ropey (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...





It's not my opinion, it's hard data being misused for short term use in long term scientific extrapolations.

Sure it's OK if you don't want to see the entire set of your subset.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Ropey said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



You keep insisting that data speaks for itself.  It does not.  It needs to be interpreted in the context of all of the data.   That,  by one person,  is bound to reflect their limited objectivity. Thats why the IPCC is a large international group.


----------



## Ropey (Sep 10, 2013)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



My cult? LOL!

*Without liberals we'd be going backwards. *

Spending tens of trillions to not solve a nonexistent problem might be progress to a liberal......


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Tripe

Climate change: Sea ice, global cooling, and other nonsense






Given just how extreme it was, its not too surprising that it would not be as extreme this year.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



We're not talking about Arctic Sea ice levels? Okay......


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



LOLOL...ROTFLMAO....retards are so funny.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 10, 2013)

Weather patterns have a huge effect on the yearly melting of sea ice.  The trend over the last few decades is what we should be discussing.


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...








Because your references are PROPAGANDA!  There's a _HUGE_ difference between RAW DATA and the massaged BS your propagandists are foisting off to the world.


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








What?  You mean your "real" experts who peer reviewed and passed a paper that was destroyed in 10 hours by a mere statistician?  Yeah, I would really pay attention to _those _clowns....

They, like you, are idiots who can't be trusted to do simple math...


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








The reality....  The satellite record is far longer than the graph that is used.  I wonder why they started the graph when they did?  I _woooonder _why????

Could it possibly be that the actual historical record doesn't support their BS?  Here's the real graph....you tell us...


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 11, 2013)

Just out of curiosity, why did your graphic end at 1990, 23 years ago.  Was there something someone didn't want us to see?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...




''What?  You mean your "real" experts who peer reviewed and passed a paper that was destroyed in 10 hours by a mere statistician?  Yeah, I would really pay attention to _those _clowns....''

Another conservative myth designed to silence science so conservative ignorance prevails.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

It's amazing the energy that conservatives invest in dragging the conversation away from the basic physics of AGW.  They know that it is indisputable science.  Thats standing in the way of imposing their will on the rest of the world.  They were raised on dirty politics.  It's all that they know.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



THe IPCC has launched SATELLITES ???? Say WHAT???? I thought they barely had the technology to call out for Dim Sum...

Although I'm confused by the IPCC launching satellites, I'm shocked that Abraham not's following along on the discussion..
The point WAS ------ Why did they take the average and 2 STD envelope from 1981 on? WestWall merely provided the answer to that with a chart showing what occurred JUST PRIOR to 1981.. That's the germane point. NOT why that chart doesn't go further into the present era..


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 11, 2013)

There's an explanation on NSIDC's web page as to why they changed the span they were using for a baseline.  Have you not read it?

*Updating the sea ice baseline*

This July, NSIDC plans to change the baseline climatological period for Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis and the Sea Ice Index, the data set we use for our sea ice analysis. We are making this change to match the comparison time frames used by other climate research.

Until now, we have used the 22-year period 1979 to 2000 when comparing current sea ice extent to past conditions. When NSIDC first began to monitor and analyze sea ice extent, a longer period was not available. Since the satellite record is now extended, we are choosing to move to a more standard 30-year reference period, from 1981 to 2010.

A 30-year period typically defines a climatology (comparsion period) and is the standard used by organizations such as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Thirty years is considered long enough to average out most variability from year to year, but short enough so that longer-term climate trends are not obscured.

These maxims about climate averages come from the world of weather and climate. Sea ice responds to changes in energy or heat differently from other systems on Earth. So the assumptions behind the use of 30-year averages for weather may not hold true for sea ice, particularly in light of the rapid decrease and repeated record low minimum extents in the Arctic during the past decade. However, matching the 1981 to 2010 period brings us in line with other climate research.

The monthly and daily sea ice extent images and data values will not change, but data and images that are based on the average or median will change. For example, the trend plot for sea ice extent will have a different scale, and the value of the slope, expressed as change in percent per decade, will change, because this value is relative to the average period. On the the monthly and daily extent images, the position of the average extent lines will change.

In our July analysis, we will provide more information to help readers put these changes into the larger context of changing climate and changing ice.

This entry was posted in Analysis by Jane Beitler. Bookmark the permalink.


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> There's an explanation on NSIDC's web page as to why they changed the span they were using for a baseline.  Have you not read it?
> 
> *Updating the sea ice baseline*
> 
> ...









Yes, we know that they stopped their graphs 30 years ago.  If they had included the older data they wouldn't have a tall tale to tell.


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's amazing the energy that conservatives invest in dragging the conversation away from the basic physics of AGW.  They know that it is indisputable science.  Thats standing in the way of imposing their will on the rest of the world.  They were raised on dirty politics.  It's all that they know.









The only thing indisputable is the climate alarmists don't have a clue what they're talking about.  The only thing indisputable is the alarmists data sets have been screwed with in a vain attempt to lie about the actual temp status of the world.

The only other indisputable thing is that PMZIFITZMEOLTRAKARTROLLINGBLUNDERFRAUD is a propagandist of the first order.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2013)

I've got another idea.. Why CHANGE the baseline? If you're trying to show historical trend, you should use the OLDEST 30 average that you got.. 

In reality -- sliding the baseline average masks the descent of current data just as much as it ignores the older negative period pre-1981..


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Just out of curiosity, why did your graphic end at 1990, 23 years ago.  Was there something someone didn't want us to see?



?????

You do realize that this is a graphic from an IPCC report? It stops in 1990 because it was made in ~ 1990.

The last time I showed this figure I compared it to a more recent graphic showing a steady drop in ice extent during the 80s and 90s. 

This is yet another case of revisionist history where data published in earlier times looks nothing like the 'corrected version' published now.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 12, 2013)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Just out of curiosity, why did your graphic end at 1990, 23 years ago.  Was there something someone didn't want us to see?
> ...



I've seen maps that say things like "Here there be sea serpents".  Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?

I did not realize it was an IPCC graphic.  Perhaps that was because WestWall posted no link to the graph's origin.  You say you've used this specific graphic before.  Do you have such a link?

Can I take it that you agree with the accusation that these organizations picked their baseline starting points to maximize the apparent drop in ice extent?  You know, of course, that the original baseline was the average of a 20 year span and that it is now that of a 30 year span.  How far would the baseline have changed had its start point been pushed back to where you think it should have been?  Do you have that information?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 12, 2013)

Ian

This is from AR4 at https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-4-1-figure-1.html

Do you believe the ice extent data sets shown here are artificially truncated at their starts?  That the data could have been extended further back and would have reduced the apparent ice loss?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 12, 2013)




----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...











Baseline should be all data that is known to be factual.  The satellite data extends 20 years into the past that the warmers ignore because if they include it none of their scary tales are scary.  They rely on the ignorance of people in general and especially the willfull ignorance
of champions such as yourself.

Instead of trying to defend the indefensible, you should ask yourself  why did they choose to start there?  What benefit did it get them?  Why did they need that benefit?  All simple questions that the unthinking and the willfull ignore.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> The reality....  The satellite record is far longer than the graph that is used.  I wonder why they started the graph when they did?  I _woooonder _why????



I wonder why Westwall posted a trunctated data set. He appears to be deliberately hiding data. Here, I'll post all the data, instead doing a Westwall-style cherrypick. This is from NSIDC.

SOTC: Sea Ice








> Could it possibly be that the actual historical record doesn't support their BS?



Yep. that's exactly what it is. The historical record flatly contradicts Westwall's crazy fiction. I imagine that's why he discarded all the data except for a select cherrypicked 1975-1990 interval.

Westwall, you got some 'splainin to do. You implied that omitting data makes someone a fraud, but you were just caught omitting data. That means, by your own standards, you're a fraud.

Now, you could just admit you were mindlessly parroting again, and that you weren't being deliberately dishonest, just gullible. However, that also requires you to admit that your leaders lied to you, not to mention that I was right, so we know that's not going to happen. Thus, we'll get to watch you rage and dig in deeper. Please proceed.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

The denialists have a simple political strategy.  Everything that denies their religion of avoiding problems,  must be wrong.  Must be part of the global conspiracy by diabolical scientists in the pay of communist dictators. 

Because the only other possibility is that they are,  and have been for quite a while,  simply and lavishly wrong.  Clearly not possible. 

What they will ultimately learn,  is that their egoes have done in their entire movement.  They have thorough trashed their credibility in all issues. 

Frankly,  that's why I keep them stirred up.  It compels them to expose their weak underbelly. Their inability to learn and adapt except from the Fox boobs and boobies and their cult leaders. 

They certainly aren't the first cult to self destruct. Nor the last. They sowed the seeds of their own destruction. 

But,  the world will move on now unencumbered by their nonsense.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


>



Statistics has emerged in these data intensive times as an essential tool of everyday life.  Those who haven't been pretty thoroughly educated in it are severely handicapped in even reading the news every day.  And of course the nefarious among us have field days misleading those ill equipped to defend themselves. 

Your little animation is a good example. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

For those who care about being knowledgeable about Arctic ice extent history. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-4-2-3.html


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Seeing as 1+1=2 is so difficult, I bumped these.



Abraham3 said:


> Ian
> This is from AR4 at https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-4-1-figure-1.html
> Do you believe the ice extent data sets shown here are artificially truncated at their starts?  That the data could have been extended further back and would have reduced the apparent ice loss?





mamooth said:


>



So how is the second inconsistent with the first? 

The answer is, it isn't.

"why did they choose to start there?"  

Because that is when it started.

"What benefit did it get them?" 

None.

" Why did they need that benefit? "

There is none.




westwall said:


> Could it possibly be that the actual historical record doesn't support their BS?  Here's the real graph....you tell us...





So what is the answer regarding the one you posted, which doesn't include all available data?   What is that data for? NH? SH? Where'd it come from?

 A "simple questions that the unthinking and the willfull ignore".

My impression is that it simply isn't "the real graph".  It certainly isn't satellite data, it starts before both satellites were launched.  The time scale isn't noted.  The meaning of the light gray vs dark isn't noted.  The meaning of what I assume is a smoothed data line isn't noted.

How is it that the smoothed line manages to begin at the point that the point data begins?  A averaging line must begin after some averaging period has passed. Same question for any graph with a smoothing line.


----------

