# How far have we already gone?



## Old Rocks (May 4, 2012)

At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects?  According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTTlAAiwgwM&feature=relmfu]AGU FM11 - Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## wirebender (May 6, 2012)

Rocks, can you name anything that is going on in the global climate that is outside the boundries of natural variability?  Can you name anything that is even approaching the boundries of natural variability?  

I didn't think so.  Even the blatant data tampering going on with the temeprature record isn't moving the numbers anywhere close to being outside of natural variability.

You have been hoaxed rocks and every time I see you trying to justify your faith, I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or laugh in your ignorant face.

By the way rocks, sea level is not rising anywhere near the compuer model predictions and has actually decreased.  Wonder why?


----------



## Oddball (May 6, 2012)

I'd go with laughing in his face....It's more entertaining.


----------



## whitehall (May 6, 2012)

Ah, no climate change yet but....gasp....potential rapid climate change. The freaking liberals can't enjoy a mild winter without trying to extort money because of it.


----------



## wirebender (May 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Ah, no climate change yet but....gasp....potential rapid climate change. The freaking liberals can't enjoy a mild winter without trying to extort money because of it.



Well, you know that there is no means to earn money for the cause within liberalism so extortion is all they have.


----------



## Sallow (May 7, 2012)

The earth is incredibly resilient. It will survive Humans. And thanks to the Conservative denial..it may not have to wait all that long.


----------



## old navy (May 7, 2012)

I was at the beach not too long ago. The sea level looked about the same as I last remembered it.


----------



## sitarro (May 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects?  According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.
> 
> AGU FM11 - Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes - YouTube



We're canceling flights to destinations in Mexico because of the high altitude ash that makes it extremely dangerous to fly through.......... wonder what kind of effect that has on the climate?

Popocatepetl volcano (Mexico) news and eruption updates / 13 Jan - 3 May 2012


Thursday, May 03, 2012
Popocatépetl volcano (Central Mexico) activity update: ongoing ash and steam emissions, occasional explosions
CENAPRED reported that gas-and-steam plumes, occasionally containing ash, rose from Popocatépetl during 25-29 April. ...more [read all]

Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Popocatepetl volcano (Mexico): continuing ash and steam eruptions

Ash eruption at Popocatépetl volcano on 2 May 2012 (CENAPRED webcam images)
Popocatépetl volcano continues to produce ash and steam eruptions several times a day, that generate plumes rising up to 1-2 km above the crater. A more powerful emission is in progress at the time of writing (see image). [read all]

Thursday, Apr 19, 2012
Popocatépetl volcano (Mexico): activity summary 11-17 April
The weekly Smithsonian/USGS volcanic activity report summarizes the recent increase of Popocatépetl volcano as follows: ...more [read all]

Wednesday, Apr 18, 2012
Popocatepetl volcano (Mexico): alert level raised
CENAPRED has raised the alert status of Popocatépetl to the third highest level (5 out of 7) and considers the possibility of a major eruption. The volcano continues to have elevated levels of seismicity, and produces frequent steam and ash emissions raising about 1 km above the crater. ...more [read all]
to top
Monday, Apr 16, 2012
Popocatepetl volcano (Mexico): largest eruption in 2012 on 16 April, heavy ash fall
Popocatepetl volcano near Mexico City had one of its largest eruptions this year yesterday 16 April. An explosion produced an ash plume rising 2 km and caused ash fall, up to 7 cm thick, in over 30 communities near the volcano. Strong incandescence can be seen at night from the summit, suggesting that fresh magma is arriving there building up a new lava dome. ...more [read all]


----------



## konradv (May 7, 2012)

sitarro said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects?  According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.
> ...



Temporary cooling that the deniers will point to as "proof" that AGW is a hoax.


----------



## Saigon (May 7, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Rocks, can you name anything that is going on in the global climate that is outside the boundries of natural variability?  Can you name anything that is even approaching the boundries of natural variability?
> 
> I didn't think so.  Even the blatant data tampering going on with the temeprature record isn't moving the numbers anywhere close to being outside of natural variability.
> 
> ...



What on earth are you talking about?

The collapse of glaciers is far beyond any known natural variation. 

The collapse of arctic and antarctic ice is far beyond any known variation. 

It always amazes me how people who talking about laughing at ignorance represent a position which flies in the face of all scientific study.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2012)

Yes, they flap yap, but never, never put up anything from real scientists that are studying the problem. Satellites for the EU, the US, Russia, and China, even Japan, confirming the increasing heat in the troposphere and ocean, but all they do is denigrate the scientists presenting the evidence, and flaunt their willfull ignorance.


----------



## Saigon (May 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, they flap yap, but never, never put up anything from real scientists that are studying the problem. Satellites for the EU, the US, Russia, and China, even Japan, confirming the increasing heat in the troposphere and ocean, but all they do is denigrate the scientists presenting the evidence, and flaunt their willfull ignorance.



I was amazed to read the comments on this thread - I had really thought most people understood that the situation with climate change has gone far beyond being a theory. 

Just 2 weeks back the BBC launched this amazing satellite tracking tool:

BBC News - Cryosat mission's new views of polar ice

Read the material available on Cryosat tracking, I wouldn't have really thought there was any doubt at all that the situation in the Arctic is catastrophic and unprecedented. 

I think it also worth noting that Wirebender disagrees with the Science Academies of around 50 countries and the societies of virtually every related field, from the American  Society of Geology to the American Society for Climatology. 

So apparently they are all wrong, and he is right.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2012)

Another affect of the increase in CO2;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utQ41I6tkZ8&feature=relmfu]AGU FM11 - Ocean Acidification 1: Increasing ocean acidification, declining reef health - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Rocks, can you name anything that is going on in the global climate that is outside the boundries of natural variability?  Can you name anything that is even approaching the boundries of natural variability?
> 
> I didn't think so.  Even the blatant data tampering going on with the temeprature record isn't moving the numbers anywhere close to being outside of natural variability.
> 
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ-OhzFblI4&feature=related]How 2011 Became a &#39;Mind-Boggling&#39; Year of Extreme Weather - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bV5C8rDEPc&feature=related]Test Tube Earth: Extreme Weather 2011 (Extended) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXA82tTbpho&feature=related]Extreme Weather 2011 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## wirebender (May 7, 2012)

Saigon said:


> [What on earth are you talking about?
> 
> The collapse of glaciers is far beyond any known natural variation.
> 
> ...




Spoken like a true believer.  A believer, by the way, who has never taken the time to learn the first thing about the earth's history.  Are you aware that in the history of the earth, ice anywhere is the anomoly, not the norm?

It is well known that both the medieval and roman warm periods were warmer than the present.  Do you believe that the ice didn't melt then?  The vostok ice cores tell us that it most certainly did melt then and to a greater degree than any melting we see today.

The ignorance you guys display at every turn is simply astounding.


----------



## wirebender (May 7, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I was amazed to read the comments on this thread - I had really thought most people understood that the situation with climate change has gone far beyond being a theory.



AGW is not a theory and the defintion of hypothesis must be tortured in order to call the claim a hypothesis.  



Saigon said:


> I think it also worth noting that Wirebender disagrees with the Science Academies of around 50 countries and the societies of virtually every related field, from the American  Society of Geology to the American Society for Climatology.



Yeah, I am funny about disregarding the laws of physics in favor of funding.  Speaking of the laws of physics genius, can you name even one that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science?  I didn't think so.  Climate scientists are not keen on talking abou the laws of physics as they tend to contradict the piss poor hypothesis that underlies what passes for climate science.



Saigon said:


> So apparently they are all wrong, and he is right.



You do realize that when you are talking about those science academies you are only talking about the political heads, right?  Well maybe you don't realize it.  I think you probably know so little that you don't have any idea how much you don't realize.


----------



## Saigon (May 7, 2012)

Wirebender - 

Given the entire scientific community have gotten this wrong, perhaps you can explain why. Because let's face it - you know more than anyone else. 

Here is the statement of the US Geological Society - who are clearly a bunch of commies.

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse&#8208;gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources...

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Please have a look at their site, and explain where their science is wrong.


----------



## Saigon (May 7, 2012)

wirebender said:


> The ignorance you guys display at every turn is simply astounding.



Says the person who is taking a position opposed by almost every scientist on earth. 

To my mind there have been two ways people can respond to news about climate change.

One has been to read a lot of news, particularly from sources we know and trust, and compare that with our own experience.

The other is to ridicule the science and go with blind faith. 

I'm fine with you doing the latter.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > [What on earth are you talking about?
> ...



The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures


----------



## westwall (May 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects?  According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.
> 
> AGU FM11 - Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes - YouTube







Buuuullllcraaaaap.  Zero empirical evidence to support that.  Typical alarmist yap yap.  You guys crack me up.  What was the temp during the Holocene Thermal Maximum?   What happened then?  Riiiiight, a whole lot of nuthin.  Animals did good as did plant life.

Once again historical fact rears its ugly head and bites you in the ass.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2012)

ZOMG!!!

It's the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster!


----------



## westwall (May 7, 2012)

Saigon said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > The ignorance you guys display at every turn is simply astounding.
> ...








Trotting out that old meme are we?  Here's the truth of that perticular bit of fiction you cling so stridently too.....


A survey was sent out to over 3000 scientists.  They responded to some questions.  The people doing the survey then, through some tortuous methodology, eliminated all but the climatologists (there were 79 of those) and even after all of that ridiculous culling THEY STILL COULDN'T get ALL of the climatologists to agree, hence the 74 of 79 climatologists has become the meme of 97% of the WORLDS scientists believe this crap.

That is called a lie on my world.  What's it called on yours?


----------



## laughinReaper (May 7, 2012)

We're all fucked so we might as well get fucked. Commence bumping like bunnies


----------



## Oddball (May 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...


Peer review!


----------



## Saigon (May 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trotting out that old meme are we?  Here's the truth of that perticular bit of fiction you cling so stridently too.....
> 
> 
> A survey was sent out to over 3000 scientists.  They responded to some questions.  The people doing the survey then, through some tortuous methodology, eliminated all but the climatologists (there were 79 of those) and even after all of that ridiculous culling THEY STILL COULDN'T get ALL of the climatologists to agree, hence the 74 of 79 climatologists has become the meme of 97% of the WORLDS scientists believe this crap.
> ...



Seriously - that is your BEST response?!

You can find nothing at all to fault the science involved in creating the thousand or so major research projects conducted in the past decade?

Why not admit - you have no reason at all to conclude that the US Geological Society, British Academy of Sciences or US Meteorological Service are wrong, do you?

If you do have a reaon - let's see it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trotting out that old meme are we?  Here's the truth of that perticular bit of fiction you cling so stridently too.....
> ...



This isn't "Science"


----------



## Saigon (May 7, 2012)

Crsuader Frank - 

No, it's a model. A designed to help people understand science by making it simple. 

I'd be delighted to post a dozen peer-reviewed pieces of science here, all of which were conducted by US PhD level researchers, and which have been impeccably conducted. Perhaps we could start with one concerning the collapse of Alaska glaciers. 

Will you commit to reading it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Crsuader Frank -
> 
> No, it's a model. A designed to help people understand science by making it simple.
> 
> ...



Post whatever you want, I've probably read them and it's still not science.


----------



## Saigon (May 7, 2012)

Crusader - 

If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it. 

As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?


----------



## westwall (May 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trotting out that old meme are we?  Here's the truth of that perticular bit of fiction you cling so stridently too.....
> ...








What science?  There is not one iota of empirical data to support the warmist claims.  Not one.  The ENTIRE fiction of AGW has been built on the code of computer models that are so poorly written they can't recreate the weather that occured yesterday with all the variables known.

Look at 90% of the "studies" that are trotted out and they are computer models.  There was even one where they ran three computer models and then averaged the runs as if it were actual data.  That is the height of absurdity but that is the level to which it has sunk.

Now CRU has been forced to release their YAMAL data and of course it is becoming patently obvious that their "results" are fradulent.  That is why they refused to release ANY data in complete contravention of the scientific method where releasing your raw data and source code is MANDATORY so that other scientists can check your work.

I don't care that you are a true believer, I too was a believer (notice how I use religious terms?,  That's because the AGW crowd left science by the side of the road years ago, now it is a religion) I am also however a scientist...a real one.  Upon review of the "science" of AGW (or more to the point the lack thereof, I changed my mind.

The public at large is changing their minds too.  And it's not in your favour.  They are tired of throwing money down the rathole that you represent.  A tremendous amount of good things could have been accomplished with the 100 billion that has been squandered so far...interestingly enough the Manhattan Project only cost around 23 billion adjusted for inflation and in three years we had a nuclear weapon and a short two years after that the basics of nuclear power plants were designed.

After 100 billion wasted dollars we have this....for an investment of 76 trillion dollars we can lower the temperature of the globe by one degree.....maybe.  That is the best that your IPCC can come up with.


Pathetic.  And you lap it up.  Here's an idea.  Go take some science classes and then do some serious research on your own.


----------



## Saigon (May 8, 2012)

Westwall 

what science?

Well, one site I looked at the other day lists 800 peer reviewed papers. All conducted by 
noted, qualified scientists. I'm not aware of any accusations of fraud or poor science about any of them.

Of course you can troll through blogs trying to find evidence of poor science, and inevitably you'll come across one or two, but you won't find many, and probably none that involve Real Scientists. You seem to be using one or two poor examples ti discredit the entire field of scientific endevaour, which strikes me as being entirely countr-productive to understanding any issue. 

Rather than rely on blind faith, why not be open minded ans read a few of the good pieces of research?


----------



## westwall (May 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Crusader -
> 
> If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.
> 
> As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?







No, it's based on historical fact.  All of AGW "theory" requires you to ignore what occured more than 40 years ago.  It is a somewhat magical wall that states no historical data from the past may be used as that will confound the meme they are trying to present.  Namely that what is occuring now is somehow different from the past.  It's not.  Everything that is happening today has happened in the past and based on the Vostock ice core data it was warmer in the past, the Medieval Warming Period was at least 1.5 degrees warmer than today.  The Roman Warming Period was even warmer than that.

The warmists claim that those two events were regional only (well Mann tried to disappear the MWP completely as it screwed up his tall tale) but there are over 100 peer reviewed studies that show it to have been gloabl and warmer.  The same for the FWP.  Or how about the elephant in room, the Holocene Thermal Maximum?  8000 years ago the temps were 6 degrees warmer and none of the catastrophic effects the warmists claim will end civilisation occured.

Or how about the meme that global warming is leading to mass extinctions?  The last time we had major warming like back the HTM was during the PETM and other than a few foraminfera that went extinct all other life forms bloomed.  In fact the majority of the mammals that we enjoy today EVOLVED during the PETM.  So you tell me, how can critters that evolved during the PETM when it was significantly warmer, be in danger of the warming now?


----------



## westwall (May 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall
> 
> what science?
> 
> ...








You mean the pal reviewed crap they trot out?  Almost wholly made up of computer models?  That "science".  Or how about the meme that only climatologists are somehow qualified to interpret what they say?  You like that one too?  How religious of you.  Only the hogh priests can interpret the word of God you say.  

Well here's the deal.  I'm a geologist with a PhD from Caltech.  I can teach ANY climatology class you choose to have me teach with the exception of the computer code they teach.  You see it is so antiquated we stopped using it over 20 years ago.  It was a poor language then, and it is a joke now.  How about those climatologists you speak so highly of?  Well, they are not qualified to teach any graduate level geology class at all.  They would be compleatly lost.  They have no clue how to do real science (most of them, there are some legitimate ones out there but they are few and far between) and geology is HARD.  Third year students found that out when the real math, chemistry and physics hit them and they bailed on geology and instead pursued geography which is much easier.

Guess what, the MAJORITY of climatologists have bachelors in geography.  My field was far too hard for them so they went for the soft science instead.  My field requires accuracy.  If I make a prediction it will be there or I have missed the boat.  Climatologists on the other hand cover their bases by predicting BOTH sides of a problem.  Warming will cause no snow, it will cause more snow etc.  There are over 30 peer reviewed "studies" that take both sides of a prediction.

That is a pseado science on every planet but the one you live on.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2012)

Walleyes claims to be a Geologists. So what do geologists state concerning AGW?
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse&#8208;gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.



Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the large effects on humans and ecosystems if greenhouse&#8208;gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

Rationale
Scientific advances in the first decade of the 21st century have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about the amplitude and causes of recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.7 °C since the mid-1800s, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean over the last 50 years; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers since 1850; (4) an ongoing rise of global sea level for more than a century; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). 

Measurements from satellites, which began in 1979, initially did not show a warming trend, but later studies (Mears and Wentz, 2005; Santer et al., 2008) found that the satellite data had not been fully adjusted for losses of satellite elevation through time, differences in time of arrival over a given location, and removal of higher-elevation effects on the lower tropospheric signal. With these factors taken into account, the satellite data are now in basic agreement with ground-station data and confirm a warming trend since 1979. In a related study, Sherwood et al. (2005) found problems with corrections of tropical daytime radiosonde measurements and largely resolved a previous discrepancy with ground-station trends. With instrumental discrepancies having been resolved, recent warming of Earth&#8217;s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies and is no longer open to serious challenge. 

The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth's orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth's climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2012)

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
 Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system&#8212;including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons&#8212;are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956&#8211;2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change&#8212;an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade&#8212;is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and&#8212;if sustained over centuries&#8212;melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections. 

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Crsuader Frank -
> ...



LOL.  Frankie Boy believes the moon is hollow and artificial, that is the extent of his scientific prowess.LOL


----------



## Saigon (May 8, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > The public at large is changing their minds too.  And it's not in your favour.  .
> ...


----------



## sitarro (May 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall
> 
> what science?
> 
> ...



Who pays these "noted, qualified scientist"? Why are they paid? Someone has a stake in the results of all of that "science". 
It's adorable how pure you leftist think "scientist" are, just the cutest thing.


----------



## sitarro (May 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


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


----------



## PredFan (May 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Wirebender -
> 
> Given the entire scientific community have gotten this wrong, perhaps you can explain why. Because let's face it - you know more than anyone else.
> 
> ...



No, NOT the entire scientific community. The ones who continue the scam you call scientists, the ones who don't you call deniers. there are a whole lot of deniers.


----------



## PredFan (May 8, 2012)

Are you people seriously going to deny that the earth has warmer in the past? Are you seriously going to deny that the earth has been warmer even in recent (geologically speaking) times?


----------



## wirebender (May 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Wirebender -
> 
> Given the entire scientific community have gotten this wrong, perhaps you can explain why. Because let's face it - you know more than anyone else.



The entire scientific community have not gotten it wrong.  A very small eleite, well publicized core of scientists have gotten it wrong.  An unfortunately large, (but nowhere near a majority) of scientists have, in turn, become victims of an error cascade and group think.  A common enough occurence in science.  They have built ther work upon the flawed foundation that the above small group established and as a result, their findings are flawed as well.

Don't you find it odd that none of their predictions actually matches observations?



Saigon said:


> Here is the statement of the US Geological Society - who are clearly a bunch of commies.



That is a position statement by the politcal head of an organization that is interested in funding.  Do feel free to bring forward any of that claimed research that represents hard observable evidence of anthropogenic climate change.  I am sure you can't because the only data that points to man as a cause of climate change is the output of computer simulations, which does not constitute data.

What you see there is the end result of an error cascade combined with groupthink.

By the way, I have already explained where their science is wrong.  The fact that you, and the entire field of climate pseudoscience can not name a single physical law that supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience is evidence that my explanations are correct.  How goofy must one be to accept such a hoax without asking which physical law might support and predict the claims being made?  And how abjectly stupid must one be to continue to buy the hoax when it turns out that there are no physical laws that support or predict the claims that have been made?


----------



## wirebender (May 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Says the person who is taking a position opposed by almost every scientist on earth.



Not almost every scientist on earth.  Not even a majority of scientists on earth.  Nothing more than a small minority.  That claim of 90% has been proven to be a hoax as well.  That number came from a very small survey of un named scientists answering a loaded question.  The fact is that you would have a tough time naming even a hand full of scientists who are on the AGW bandwagon who do not depend on grant money to buy thier daily bread.



Saigon said:


> The other is to ridicule the science and go with blind faith.



It is you and yours who are operating on blind faith.  Again, which physical law(s) support and predict a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate pseudoscience?  The fact that neither you, nor those few elite morons who founded climate pseudoscience can answer that question is evidence of your faith.

Me, I rely on the actual laws of physics which state that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (law of conservation of energy) and that energy can not move from a cool object (the sky) to a warm object (the surface of the earth) second law of thermodynamics.  And I don't hold with corrupting mathematical formulae in an attempt to get around the laws of physics which is what was done with the Stefan -Boltzman law.

I





Saigon said:


> 'm fine with you doing the latter.



Of course you are because you are one of the faithful and lack the scientific background to either ask, or answer some very important very basic questions.  That is the good thing about faith.  You don't have to be very smart to practice it do it very well.


----------



## wirebender (May 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures



Unsurprising that you would gravitate to a picture site rocks.  Especially a site like skeptical science which is so profoundly bias that you are probably doing yourself irreprable inellectual damage by simply clicking on the link.  If you would like to see actual peer reviewed papers demonstrating that the MWP and RWP were both warmer than the present and global in nature, just ask.  I have provided them before.


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2012)

> What you see there is the end result of an error cascade combined with groupthink.



I concur.


----------



## wirebender (May 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Seriously - that is your BEST response?!



Facts tend to be the best response if you are interested in truth.



Saigon said:


> You can find nothing at all to fault the science involved in creating the thousand or so major research projects conducted in the past decade?



Profound problems have been pointed out already but you don't appear to be quite bright enough to even recognize them.  Allow me to reiterate.  Neither you, nor your climate pseudoscience priests can name a single physical law that supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate pseudoscience and which is absolutely necessary for their claims to be true.

The law of conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzman law all say that such a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate pseudoscience is not possible.  So there are just a few problems and they exist at the very foundation of climate pseudoscience.  As a result, everying that is built upon those flaws is also flawed. 

Climate pseudoscience is no more substantial than a house of cards because it is not founded on anything even resembling actual science.

]


----------



## wirebender (May 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I'd be delighted to post a dozen peer-reviewed pieces of science here, all of which were conducted by US PhD level researchers, and which have been impeccably conducted. Perhaps we could start with one concerning the collapse of Alaska glaciers.



Instead of a dozen bits of pal reviewed science, how about you post 1 peer reviewed piece which examines the basis of climate science and relates it to the actual laws of physics which climate pseudoscience has completely disregarded.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects?  According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.
> 
> AGU FM11 - Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes - YouTube



Interesting.....not.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 8, 2012)

If there's *NO* greenhouse effect then how could the earth have possibly been warmer than today 100 million years ago? A good 8-14c in some periods with tropical like conditions in the polar lats. 

The sun was dimmer at this time as it was a cooler star. So the theory that all warming comes from our star is challenged.


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Crusader -
> 
> If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.
> 
> As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?




Alaskan glaciers. good topic.

I could go on and on about how most of the loss of AGs happened in the 1800's but I would like to bring up a slightly different aspect.

first I want you to refresh your thoughts on the scientific method. is it OK to hide an experiment that doesnt give you the expected results? most scientists would say no, but climate science is a different kettle of fish.

the Canadian govt funded an ice core project for a glacier in Alaska. it was done. but no results were released. the funding required that a preliminary report must be filed and when someone FOIed that it showed that the glacier was only ~2000 years old. bad news for the global warming gang that insist that we have never been warm before. so it just sits on the shelf, hidden from embarrassing publicity. is this how science should be done?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2012)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Crusader -
> ...



When you make a claim like that, provide a link. Otherwise, it is just considered bullshit.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2012)

*You see, Ian, this is how it is done. You go to a credible site, in this case, a three decaded study of the North Cascades and other glaciated areas in the Pacific Northwest, Western Canada, and Alaska.*


Global glacier retreat

Beginning in the 1990's, using a laser measuring device mounted on the underside of an airplane, researchers compared glacier altitude differences with ground survey maps created in the 1950's. 85% of the glaciers flown over stretching from Alaska to Washington state had a reduction in altitude, and therefore, a thinning of the glacial mass. Further flights since then indicate that this thinning is accelerating and is now double what it was in the 40 years before the mid 1990's. [20] The glaciers of Denali National Park are shrinking. The National Park Service has been chronicling the retreat with repeat photographs of glaciers from locations where historic photographs exist. The program has been a cooperation between glaciologist Guy Adema and photographer Ron Karpillo.  In Denali National Park the terminus of the Toklat Glacier is retreating 24 m/year and the Cantwell Glacier 10 m/year. East Taklanika Glacier has also retreated  1100 m between . In that time the lower section of the glacier has lost over 100 m of ice thickness.  There are many surging glacier in the Park and in Alaska whose terminus responses are part due to climate and part due to surging behavior.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Crusader -
> 
> If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.
> 
> As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?



Seriously, post it and I will respond to it.


----------



## Saigon (May 8, 2012)

Frank - 

Ok, I will do. I don't have time right now, but I'll post it in a new thread at the weekend, in the environment section.


----------



## wirebender (May 8, 2012)

Matthew said:


> If there's *NO* greenhouse effect then how could the earth have possibly been warmer than today 100 million years ago? A good 8-14c in some periods with tropical like conditions in the polar lats.
> 
> The sun was dimmer at this time as it was a cooler star. So the theory that all warming comes from our star is challenged.



Are you sure that the output of the sun is hither today than it was 100 million years ago?  Exactly which empirical evidence do you base that claim on.  

That, matthew is how error cascades and group think hijack actual science.  You assume that the sun was dimmer now but no actual evidence exists that would confirm such an assumption.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



And yet I'm still waiting for you to post that one repeatable experiment that shows how a .01% change in the composition of the atmosphere by adding a wisp of CO2 raises temperature and acidifies the oceans

Also, as recently as a few months ago NASA was still analyzing the data from the Apollo 13 booster impact that had the Moon resonating as if it were a hollow body.

And there's still not a coherent theory that accounts for the natural formation of the Moon. In fact, it appears that the Double Impact Theory needs to be shelved

Moon Formation Theory Challenged by New Discovery | Moon History | Space.com

The Moon can't be there; it's too big and the orbit is wrong. One prominent astrophysics said the only way to account for the Moon is "Observational error" just assume it's not really there.  Unlike every other planet and Moon, Earth has continents, it's not a solid crust all over and we have a Moon that is made of the exact same material. It rings when it's hit, it has Mass Concentrations beneath the surface that alter the orbit of whatever ship we send around it and Carl Sagan correctly pointed out that, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."

Right, Carl


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > If there's *NO* greenhouse effect then how could the earth have possibly been warmer than today 100 million years ago? A good 8-14c in some periods with tropical like conditions in the polar lats.
> ...



HR Diagram and Stellar Evolution


----------



## westwall (May 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> ...








Where do the scientific organizations get their funding from?  Where do the scientists who run the organizations get their funding from?  Oh yeah, that's right....they get it from the taxpayers.  They get their money based on how dire their predictions are.  I wonder when they will actually get a prediction correct?  So far they've had 30 year and 100 billion dollars to make some wonderful predictions but instead, we get Hansen and his prediction which is 300% off.  But in olfrauds world that is considered pretty accurate.

And you clowns wonder why you're losing.


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I would take that under advisement from a newcomer but you have already seen the link because it has been discussed before. its funny how you always seem to completely forget any evidence that does not fit your worldview.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 8, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
> ...




His pictures are from a children's fantasy book.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 8, 2012)

Matthew said:


> If there's *NO* greenhouse effect then how could the earth have possibly been warmer than today 100 million years ago? A good 8-14c in some periods with tropical like conditions in the polar lats.
> 
> The sun was dimmer at this time as it was a cooler star. So the theory that all warming comes from our star is challenged.



The reason is that all the continents were grouped around the equator.  There was no dry land at the North or South Pole where snow and ice could accumulate.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > If there's *NO* greenhouse effect then how could the earth have possibly been warmer than today 100 million years ago? A good 8-14c in some periods with tropical like conditions in the polar lats.
> ...



Now PattyCake, look up the Wilsonian Cycles.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 8, 2012)

....................still talking temperatures, snow and ice.

fAiL


But nobody cares about the science anymore!!!


Poll: Support slips for measures aimed at curbing global warming - USATODAY.com


----------



## logical4u (May 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects?  According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.
> 
> AGU FM11 - Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes - YouTube



Well, if all you "believers" would stop having children, stop using energy (or products made by energy) and hold all your bodily gases inside of yourselves, the planet would stabilize.

Forward!  Lemmings


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2012)

Wonderful example of the epitomy of 'Conservative' intelligence.


----------



## logical4u (May 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Wonderful example of the epitomy of 'Conservative' intelligence.



Forward!




Lemmings.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The reason is that all the continents were grouped around the equator.  There was no dry land at the North or South Pole where snow and ice could accumulate.
> ...




How would that contradict what I posted?


----------



## Saigon (May 8, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> The reason is that all the continents were grouped around the equator.  There was no dry land at the North or South Pole where snow and ice could accumulate.



Actually Gondwana land extended into both polar regions. There are maps here:

Gondwana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2012)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The reason is that all the continents were grouped around the equator.  There was no dry land at the North or South Pole where snow and ice could accumulate.
> ...



The fact is most of the land was near the equator, not near the poles as it is now.  Furthermore, currently, cold water circulates around Antartica shutting it off from warming currents from the equator.  That makes it even colder than it might otherwise be.  The arctic ocean is also shut off from warm currents from the South.


----------



## wirebender (May 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> HR Diagram and Stellar Evolution



And what is that based on rocks?  Computer models, simulations, assumptions?  It certainly isn't based on observations.


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2012)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I found the original article. The Inconvenient Skeptic » The Integrity of Science. I misremebered Canadian funding but canadian research disclosure policy was part of the story.

I then googled Bona-Churchill ice core and found quite a few hits. Lonny Thompson (famous for not correcting blatant errors in Gore's AIT even though he was a consultant) did the cores in 2002, made a preliminary presentation in 2004, and the data has been supressed ever since. the website still says the data is 'in processing' 10 years later. the 18O levels show no recent warming even though Thompson said they showed unpresedented warming, there was no ash layer that they were looking for, and the lifespan of the glacier was shorter than they had hoped. all round total failure, good thing they didnt have to publish the results and give fodder to the skeptics.

oh, and BTW, Steve McIntyre predicted the whole fiasco once he noticed that the gang had shut up about the cores. the Hockey Team is so predictable in their churlish behaviour.


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > HR Diagram and Stellar Evolution
> ...




good grief! you're an astrophysicist too? the H-R diagram of stellar lifecycles has been around a long time. but I guess once you've overturned classical radiative physics you needed a new topic to keep you busy


----------



## Old Rocks (May 9, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



PattyCake, you profound ignorance is a source of amusement. Do a little research on plate tectonics. And you might also check out prior glacial periods in geological history. Not that I expect you to do any of this, but it would increase your knowledge base a great deal should you choose to.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 9, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > HR Diagram and Stellar Evolution
> ...



My, what an ignorant fuck you are proving yourself to be. The H-R Diagram is absolutely based on observations.


----------



## wirebender (May 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Really?  Describe which stars anyone on earth ever saw evolve.  Which probes have been sent to stars, decended through their depths and transmitted back data?  For that matter which probe has actually landed on the surface of a star?  And again, which stars did you say humans have observed evolving?

You operate on faith rocks and accept computer models as if they were actually observations and theories as if they were laws of nature.


----------



## westwall (May 9, 2012)

[/SIZE]





Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Really?  My gosh but you are priceless!

From wiki so a simpleton such as yourself can understand it....


Although the two types of diagrams are similar, astronomers make a sharp distinction between the two. The reason for this distinction is that the exact transformation from one to the other is not trivial, and depends on the stellar-atmosphere model being used and its parameters (like composition and pressure, apart from temperature and luminosity). Also, one needs to know the distance to the observed objects and the degree of interstellar reddening.[citation needed] Empirical transformations between various color indices and effective temperature are available in literature.[2]


Hertzsprung


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2012)

the H-R model was created back in Queen Victoria's time, wasnt it? are you guys complaining that modern computers are now used to refine it? seems like nitpicking to me.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 9, 2012)

Oddball said:


> I'd go with laughing in his face....It's more entertaining.


Wake me when we get to real greenhouse levels of 1400ppm  I'm sure the biome will be going berzerk with it's good fortune sequestering the CO2 into itself.


----------



## asterism (May 9, 2012)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I'd like to see it please.

On edit:  Thanks.


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2012)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



there you go asterism. try doing the google and checking out ongoing reports on McIntyre's Climate Audit. this one instance is emblematic of the strange goings on in climate science. while you're at Climate Audit you should check out the latest on FOI in the Yamal proxy case. it basically documents lying done by the Team, and the gross incompetence of the Oxburgh and Muir-Russell investigations.


----------



## westwall (May 9, 2012)

IanC said:


> the H-R model was created back in Queen Victoria's time, wasnt it? are you guys complaining that modern computers are now used to refine it? seems like nitpicking to me.








No, we're pointing out that observations of stellar phenomena are the equivalent of observing the single beat of a birds wing in flight and postulating it's entire genesis from birth through death from that single observation.  Thus the reliance on computer modelling.  We simply don't live long enough to make useable observations of stellar physics and to claim we do is assinine. 

That's why witnessing supernovae are so important.  In those single week long events, we learn more than in the previous hundred years of observation.


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2012)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the H-R model was created back in Queen Victoria's time, wasnt it? are you guys complaining that modern computers are now used to refine it? seems like nitpicking to me.
> ...




the H-R model was formed by catagorizing thousands of photographs of stars. the main line was formed and the outliers made for further investigation. I think if you took 10,000 pictures of random people you could model birth, growth, decline and death.


----------



## westwall (May 9, 2012)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...







Birth, no.  Growth, possibly, it depends on the event you take the photo at.  If you took a shot at a concert I kinda doubt it.  Decline, maybe, the same parameters apply, and death, once again probably not.  We have trillions of stars and have witnessed 5? super nova.

Not a good analogy.


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2012)

random people. people live for ~25000 days. 10,000 samples would give a reasonable range and enough data to synthesis an order from birth, growth to maturity, main line, and decline to death.

your mention of supernovas is interesting. the study of stars off the mainline led to exploring the reasons why they were different. regular novas are the measuring stick of the universe. blah,blah, blah.

I think you must be arguing just to argue. I thought Feynman was your hero. he had lots of examples of how aliens would figure out what was happening on earth even with incomplete information.


----------



## wirebender (May 10, 2012)

IanC said:


> the H-R model was formed by catagorizing thousands of photographs of stars. the main line was formed and the outliers made for further investigation. I think if you took 10,000 pictures of random people you could model birth, growth, decline and death.



But you can actualy observe the growth and development of a person.  With stars, it is all assumption.  There is only so much data you can glean from a snapshot of a star, no matter how many you have and that snapshot will tell you nothing about the evolution of that particular star.  The best you can do is assume that your other photos in some way relate to the one you are looking at.

What we know about stars is even less than what we know about the energy budget of the earth and that is precious little.


----------



## konradv (May 10, 2012)

wirebender said:


> But you can actualy observe the growth and development of a person.  With stars, it is all assumption.  There is only so much data you can glean from a snapshot of a star, no matter how many you have and that snapshot will tell you nothing about the evolution of that particular star.  The best you can do is assume that your other photos in some way relate to the one you are looking at.
> 
> What we know about stars is even less than what we know about the energy budget of the earth and that is precious little.



It isn't "assumption", it's 'deduction', a time honored part of science.  You should check into it.


----------



## wirebender (May 10, 2012)

konradv said:


> It isn't "assumption", it's 'deduction', a time honored part of science.  You should check into it.



Deduction based on assumptions made between 1911 and 1913.  How quaint that you would accept such as if it were fact.  Of course you also accept quaint 19th century science which was nearly immediately shown to be wrong as fact with regard to the greenhouse effect.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 10, 2012)

So while we're discussing the Fraud know as AGW, can we delve further into the astounding realization that the Warmers and Decline Hider are actually saying that the change from 350PPM to 390PPM has been cataclysmic and has caused changes unprecedented in millions of years.

Think of it, all these dire weather occurrences, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, locusts are spawned from a 40, maybe only a 20 PPM increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2

I mocked them for saying that a .01% change in the atmosphere causes climactic changes and they've countered by saying it's really only a .002% change in the atmosphere has done all the damage


----------



## wirebender (May 10, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I mocked them for saying that a .01% change in the atmosphere causes climactic changes and they've countered by saying it's really only a .002% change in the atmosphere has done all the damage



The fact that anyone has bought into the hoax is a sad testament to how profoundly the world's educational systems have been dumbed down.


----------



## konradv (May 10, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I mocked them for saying that a .01% change in the atmosphere causes climactic changes and they've countered by saying it's really only a .002% change in the atmosphere has done all the damage



We mock you for saying a a 30-40% change in an active ingredient is really a much smaller change because you're counting inactive ingredients.


----------



## meatheadmike (May 10, 2012)

westwall said:


> Where do the scientific organizations get their funding from?  Where do the scientists who run the organizations get their funding from?  Oh yeah, that's right....they get it from the taxpayers.  They get their money based on how dire their predictions are.  I wonder when they will actually get a prediction correct?  So far they've had 30 year and 100 billion dollars to make some wonderful predictions but instead, we get Hansen and his prediction which is 300% off.  But in olfrauds world that is considered pretty accurate.
> 
> And you clowns wonder why you're losing.



Do you really think that one day a bunch of Scientists from different Universities around the world collectively invented global warming for the sole purpose of gaining government funding?

Ask yourself this... which group has more to gain:

- University Scientists who  "invent global climate change" so that they can gain government funding?

    OR

- Big Oil corporations who spread misinformation that Global Climate change is a hoax, so that they can keep the entire world dependent on Oil, hold back green energy, and maximize their profits?

Before you answer, ask yourself which group of the two has more money and power?
Which of the two groups would have more resources to spread their lie?

This whole debate kind is similar to how the tobacco companies spread misinformation that cigarettes aren't bad for people all the way up until the 80s/90s.


----------



## wirebender (May 10, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> Do you really think that one day a bunch of Scientists from different Universities around the world collectively invented global warming for the sole purpose of gaining government funding?



Of course not in a single day.  This has evolved over decades with funding exponentially with the shrillness of the claims being made



meatheadmike said:


> Ask yourself this... which group has more to gain:
> 
> - University Scientists who  "invent global climate change" so that they can gain government funding?
> 
> ...



That question is easy.  Which group has money to burn and which group is always scampering about trying to wrest donations from alumni groups, sponsors, generous patrons etc?

The oil companies make money whether the coin lands heads or tails.



meatheadmike said:


> Before you answer, ask yourself which group of the two has more money and power?
> Which of the two groups would have more resources to spread their lie?



Again, an easy question to answer.  Even the most rabid of green groups only claim that 50 million has been spent by big oil in funding skeptics over the past decade.  Contrast that to the 5 billion poured into the coffers of the warmists anually by the US government alone.  Here is a report on money spent by the us from the GAO.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf

The idea that somehow skeptics are outspending warmists is absolutely laughable.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 10, 2012)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I mocked them for saying that a .01% change in the atmosphere causes climactic changes and they've countered by saying it's really only a .002% change in the atmosphere has done all the damage
> ...



1. CO2 is inert

2. If it's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO powerful why is the lab so cruel to your "theory" and refusing to collaborate?


----------



## wirebender (May 10, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 2. If it's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO powerful why is the lab so cruel to your "theory" and refusing to collaborate?



The warmist and luke warmist camp is full of scientific illiterates, but konradv has set the bar at a whole new low for them.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 10, 2012)

wirebender said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 2. If it's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO powerful why is the lab so cruel to your "theory" and refusing to collaborate?
> ...


It's MAGICAL CO2!

Everybody LIIIIMMMMMBOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!


----------



## wirebender (May 11, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> It's MAGICAL CO2!
> 
> Everybody LIIIIMMMMMBOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!



Limbo came to mind when I wrote that but somehow I couldn't picture that crotchedy tight assed group loosening up for anything that's actually fun.  I get the impression that to be a believer they must take on the robes of ascetic monks and worship constantly at the empty alters of their high priests who are usually absent due to jaunts about the world in private jumbo jets or wandering about their 50,000 square foot mansions turning on lights so they don't trip over the piles of ill gotten cash.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 11, 2012)

LOL.....even a far lefty writing in the New York Times gets it...............ready to jump off a 50 story building due to global warming but clearly see's nobody cares about the climate...........

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1336737955-p00ORg+tBTeaXE5lFtqc1A


----------



## Old Rocks (May 11, 2012)

And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?


----------



## wirebender (May 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?



And you continue to display what appears to be either abject ignorance or stunning gullibility in your failure to recognize the difference between a body of scientists and its political head.  That failure on your part is just one of a whole tragic commedy of failures that has led you to buy into one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated.  Congratulations, your family must be so proud.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?



Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peppered moth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phrenology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homeopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 11, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?
> ...



I have peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate


----------



## Oddball (May 11, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


CrusaderFrank Johnson is right that Wirebender Johnson is right....

We have CONSENSUS!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 11, 2012)

Oddball said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Sorry about the "up yours", Old Ricks

Science = Settled!

When do we get government funding?


----------



## wirebender (May 11, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?
> ...



Upon further peer review I note that you forgot to mention eugenics.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 11, 2012)

Oddball said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...


Oddball Johnson is right about Wirebender Johnson and CrusaderFrank Johnson being right about being right!

WRRRREBBISH!


----------



## meatheadmike (May 11, 2012)

wirebender said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think that one day a bunch of Scientists from different Universities around the world collectively invented global warming for the sole purpose of gaining government funding?
> ...



If you think that a bunch of scientists who need to "beg for donations, sponsors etc" have more power and influence on government and the public than a huge oil corporation such as ExonMobile, then you are being extremely naive.

You are correct that oil companies make money whether the coin lands heads or tails, but you are severely underestimating greed. Why would would they choose to risk losing any money to clean energy, when they can make more money by keeping things the way they are? Why did the tobacco companies do the same thing prior to the 80s/90s?

Also, if global climate change is such a hoax... why would Big Oil be spending any money at all in global climate research/funding skeptics? $50 million seems like a lot of money to throw away on convincing people of something that is "obvious". Would you need to spend $50 Million to convince someone that the sky is blue?


----------



## wirebender (May 11, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> If you think that a bunch of scientists who need to "beg for donations, sponsors etc" have more power and influence on government and the public than a huge oil corporation such as ExonMobile, then you are being extremely naive.



Again, spoken like someone who is able think his way into the issue about a nanometer deep.  I am sure that you don't recognize the fact since you clearly have never actually expended any intellectual wattage on the issue, but the redistribution of wealth is the motivating force behind the environmental movement.  In what way does government express its power to the greatest degree?  Why in the redistribution of wealth.  

Pull your head out of your ass long enough to look the fact that warmist are outspending skeptics over 1000 to 1.  Then ask yourself with such a disparity of funding, why is there a skeptical voice at all.  Answer, because the truth won't be denied.  Then ask yourself why with a disparity of spending of 1000 to 1 why the skeptics are winning.  Answer, because in the end, the science doesn't support the claims and reality doesn't match the predictions.



meatheadmike said:


> You are correct that oil companies make money whether the coin lands heads or tails, but you are severely underestimating greed. Why would would they choose to risk losing any money to clean energy, when they can make more money by keeping things the way they are? Why did the tobacco companies do the same thing prior to the 80s/90s?



Again, the shallowness of thought astounds.  Do you know where the biggest movement of money will be if warmist get their fondest wish, that being very strict environmental regulation in the name of reducing CO2?  Of course you don't because you don't think that deeply.  The greatest movement of money will take the form of taxes on fossil fuels.    Now, O shallow thinker, do you believe for a minute that fossil fuel companies are going to pay even a penny of those taxes out of their cofffers? 

Of course they won't.  They will pass those taxes, plus a little extra on to the consumers and as usual, liberal governance will end up hurting those who can least afford it the most.  It is the little guy who can barely afford to fill his 15 year old beater up to get to his poor paying job who gets choked out when he simply can't afford to pay the taxes that the tree huggers have imposed upon him.  Then when he applies for unemployment and other governemnt assistance, the willing press will blame everyone for his problems except the true cause.



meatheadmike said:


> Also, if global climate change is such a hoax... why would Big Oil be spending any money at all in global climate research/funding skeptics? $50 million seems like a lot of money to throw away on convincing people of something that is "obvious". Would you need to spend $50 Million to convince someone that the sky is blue?



$50 million vs over 625 Billion in the past decade.   You are laughable.


----------



## meatheadmike (May 11, 2012)

No need to try flame and belittle because you cant think rationally.



wirebender said:


> Again, spoken like someone who is able think his way into the issue about a nanometer deep.  I am sure that you don't recognize the fact since you clearly have never actually expended any intellectual wattage on the issue, but the redistribution of wealth is the motivating force behind the environmental movement.  In what way does government express its power to the greatest degree?  Why in the redistribution of wealth.



So according to you, scientists all around the world, all from different countries and economic backgrounds, invented global climate change over the course of years for the sole purpose of the redistribution of wealth in the United States.... sounds like quite a conspiracy theory.  
I won't ask for any evidence to back that up, because I know there isn't any.




wirebender said:


> Pull your head out of your ass long enough to look the fact that warmist are outspending skeptics over 1000 to 1.  Then ask yourself with such a disparity of funding, why is there a skeptical voice at all.  Answer, because the truth won't be denied.  Then ask yourself why with a disparity of spending of 1000 to 1 why the skeptics are winning.  Answer, because in the end, the science doesn't support the claims and reality doesn't match the predictions.



Disparity of funding proves nothing.  Obviously the scientists are going to be spending more money... they are the ones doing the actual research. See that's the thing about science, it takes lots of time effort and research to prove something... while on the other hand if something is completely wrong, it will get shot down almost immediately when another scientific group analyzes the data or tries to scientifically reproduce it.



wirebender said:


> Again, the shallowness of thought astounds.  Do you know where the biggest movement of money will be if warmist get their fondest wish, that being very strict environmental regulation in the name of reducing CO2?  Of course you don't because you don't think that deeply.  The greatest movement of money will take the form of taxes on fossil fuels.    Now, O shallow thinker, do you believe for a minute that fossil fuel companies are going to pay even a penny of those taxes out of their cofffers?
> 
> Of course they won't.  They will pass those taxes, plus a little extra on to the consumers and as usual, liberal governance will end up hurting those who can least afford it the most.  It is the little guy who can barely afford to fill his 15 year old beater up to get to his poor paying job who gets choked out when he simply can't afford to pay the taxes that the tree huggers have imposed upon him.  Then when he applies for unemployment and other governemnt assistance, the willing press will blame everyone for his problems except the true cause.



So according to you its all a conspiracy to raise taxes, gotcha.




wirebender said:


> $50 million vs over 625 Billion in the past decade.   You are laughable.



Again you are basing the entire argument on who spent more money, and failing to acknowledge who has more influence over the government and public. 

The fact that Oil companies spent any money at all funding skeptics should be a huge red flag to you. Why would they need to do this at all... if global climate change is so obviously not true some random scientific group in some country would have likely proved this by now and made an enormous sum of money for doing it.

But instead you think the entire scientific community around the world would rather choose to be involved in some kind of conspiracy and beg for government funding in each of their respective countries in order to spread their "lies".

Thanks for the Lols.

To be fair I personally do believe there is a certain amount of fear mongering surrounding climate change to get the public's attention... but that does not mean that it is false and you should disregard it. 
Unfortunately I realize that you are probably too brainwashed to look at the facts and make an impartial decision.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 11, 2012)

Does Meatheadmike not know that the IPCC Official Policy is to redistribute wealth through Climate Policy?


----------



## wirebender (May 11, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Does Meatheadmike not know that the IPCC Official Policy is to redistribute wealth through Climate Policy?



Meatheadmike seems to know very little.  He is an insensate sheep bleating and eating whatever his keepers feed him.  He then digests it and deposits in in the form of tiny pellets across the internet as demonstrated above.


----------



## meatheadmike (May 11, 2012)

Dodge noted.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 11, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> Dodge noted.



Meathead schooled

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- Official IPCC Policy

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


----------



## meatheadmike (May 11, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> > Dodge noted.
> ...



LMAO you are passing that off their "Official policy".

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit... re-read the headline. It says a UN IPCC official said that quote.... I hardly think that the opinion of one IPCC official dictates the "Official IPCC Policy" of the entire organization

Furthermore,  the IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. So I don't see how they are very relevant in proving/disproving global climate change.


----------



## wirebender (May 11, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> Dodge noted.



Sorry to tell you guy but you aren't good enough to warrant a dodge.  You only demonstrated further how little intellectual wattage you have invested in your position.  If you would like to be further humiliated for your lack of knowledge, by all means, I am happy to oblige.



meatheadmike said:


> So according to you, scientists all around the world, all from different countries and economic backgrounds, invented global climate change over the course of years for the sole purpose of the redistribution of wealth in the United States.... sounds like quite a conspiracy theory.



No, only a couple of scientists made this up.  It really began with the KT energy budget which is one of the stupidest bits of pseudoscience ever put out there.  As to the whole AGW hoax, I don't think scientists made it up at all.  Frankly, I don't give the hockey team enough credit to have thought up something like the hoax they promote.  If you care to discuss the pseudoscience which you blindly support as actual science, and are up to an actual discussion on the topic rather than simply spewing news bytes, let me know.

AGW is a political movement, funded by environmentalist groups and government hand outs with the express purpose of restricting industry and redistributing wealth.



meatheadmike said:


> Disparity of funding proves nothing. Obviously the scientists are going to be spending more money... they are the ones doing the actual research. See that's the thing about science, it takes lots of time effort and research to prove something... while on the other hand if something is completely wrong, it will get shot down almost immediately when another scientific group analyzes the data or tries to scientifically reproduce it.



Doing actual research.  Interesting notion but alas, not very discriptive of what has been going on within the climate pseudoscience community.  Climate pseudoscience consists almost entirely of computer models; those models being based on assumption and bias written for the sole purpose of reaching a pre decided conclusion.

In the past decade, over 600 billion has been poured into climate pseudoscience.  Can you point to a single repeatable experiment that proves that an increase in a trace atmospheric gas can alter the global climate?  Can you point to a single piece of hard, observable evidence that establishes anything more than the most etherial link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.  Can you point to a single thing going on the global climate today that even begins to approach the boundries of natural variability?  The answer to all those questions is no, but it will be interesting to see your attempts at answers.

You might start with someting easy like naming a single physical law that supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience.  The second law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, and the Stefan-Boltzman laws all predict that such a greenouse effect can't exist.



meatheadmike said:


> So according to you its all a conspiracy to raise taxes, gotcha.



No it is a political excuse to redistribute wealth.  Even when things are explained to you in detail, you don't seem to be able to grasp what you were just told.



meatheadmike said:


> Again you are basing the entire argument on who spent more money, and failing to acknowledge who has more influence over the government and public.



When you guys go after industry on any topic whatsoever, your primary argument is to follow the money.  

As to who has more influence with the government, your conclusions once again, show that thinking isn't your best thing.  Most of the universities in the US that benefit most from climate science $$ are state universities.  That is to say they are government schools.  Do you really believe an oil company with its own money holds more influence with the government than the government's own schools?  

As to influence with the public, if you are seriously arguing that oil companies have more influence than the educational system, I am going to have to point out that you have discovered a level of stupid even lower than that previously mapped out by konradv.  



meatheadmike said:


> The fact that Oil companies spent any money at all funding skeptics should be a huge red flag to you. Why would they need to do this at all...



And again, very shallow thinking on your part.  I see a trend here, how about you.  Of the paltry 50 million spent by oil companies on skeptics, the great bulk of that money was spent in the 90's when the AGW movement first started getting real traction.  The spending was a panic reaction since at the time AGW seemed that it might pose a real threat to existing energy companies.

As time went on, the best and brightest deducted that they are going to make money either way and in fact there was something to be said for the whole regulation business.  If you do a bit of research, you will find that the amount spent by oil companies since the turn of the century on skeptics is paltry indeed.  



meatheadmike said:


> To be fair I personally do believe there is a certain amount of fear mongering surrounding climate change to get the public's attention... but that does not mean that it is false and you should disregard it.



The reason to disregard climate pseudoscience has nothing to do with the fear mongering.  Climate pseudoscience should be disregarded for its dishonesty, hiding of science that proves it wrong, data tampering, failed predictions, disregard for the physical laws, and its abject failure to produce a single piece of repeatable, observable evidence establising anything even approaching a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate after having wasted over 600 billion dollars worldwide.


----------



## wirebender (May 11, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> Furthermore,  the IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. So I don't see how they are very relevant in proving/disproving global climate change.



Except that the ipcc is the political head and poster child for climate change.  To even suggest that climate pseudoscience doesn't revolve around the IPCC and its reports is absolutely laughable.


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Rocks, can you name anything that is going on in the global climate that is outside the boundries of natural variability?  Can you name anything that is even approaching the boundries of natural variability?
> ...






As your position clearly does.

Antarctic Ice is increasing as this link to the AGW sympathetic site clearly states.  They go on to explain that the increasing ice is proof of warming which is common in the topsy turvy world of AGW "Science".

There have been numerous posts on this board showing that the Arctic Sea Ice is increasing over the last several years.


Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

<snip>
One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:

i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009). 
<snip>


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, they flap yap, but never, never put up anything from real scientists that are studying the problem. Satellites for the EU, the US, Russia, and China, even Japan, confirming the increasing heat in the troposphere and ocean, but all they do is denigrate the scientists presenting the evidence, and flaunt their willfull ignorance.
> ...





What is the catastrophe you predict or observe?


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Wirebender -
> 
> Given the entire scientific community have gotten this wrong, perhaps you can explain why. Because let's face it - you know more than anyone else.
> 
> ...






5% of the Air is GHG's.  <4% of that 5% is CO2.  The CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm to about 400ppm, according to the best science over the last 140 years or so.

This increase has been very, very constant.  The climate has both warmed and cooled over that period of time.  The warming that the AGW proponents say is caused by this increase actually started in about 1600 AD.  The effect of warming pre-dates the cause of rising CO2 by about 100 years.  Interesting cause-effect relationship when the future causes the past, is it not?

The total warming over the last 2000 years is about 0.7 degrees.  The warming over the most recent 1000 years is less than half of that.  Clearly, warming has slowed.  The most recent decade or so can demonstrate a plateau or cooling.

The Maunder minimum is almost certainly the cause of the Little Ice Age from which the AGW crowd disingenuously starts its tracking of the climate rise, but this was an anomalous and significant cooling and the vast majority of the warming from this point in time and temperature was no a departure from some ideal but rather a return to normalcy and normalcy means a gradual increase in the temperature of the climate.

The TSI has been gradually increasing with variation since the bottom reached during the Maunder Minimum.  As this has risen, so has the temperature of our climate.

Our planet has been much, much warmer and our current climate is unusually cool compared to our multiple billion year history.

What are your scientists pointing to that should cause us to panic over runaway temperature increase?


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > The ignorance you guys display at every turn is simply astounding.
> ...





There is a third approach.

Look at the data yourself and draw your own conclusions.


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trotting out that old meme are we?  Here's the truth of that perticular bit of fiction you cling so stridently too.....
> ...






The only research projects that matter contain un-revised data of which there is lttle and that show the increase in temperature and how it is caused by CO2.

Do you have a study that clearly shows the absolute cause-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature?

Nobody else has EVER produced one.


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Crsuader Frank -
> 
> No, it's a model. A designed to help people understand science by making it simple.
> 
> ...





Warming does not indicate cause.


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Crusader -
> 
> If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.
> 
> As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?





Speaking of Glaciers, here's one that formed over an individual who sat down to die on dry ground and was buried for 5000 years under a glacier that recently melted to reveal him.

Shows two things:
1.  It's warmed up lately and
2.  It's been this warm before.

According to you and your science, it probably also shows that the Ancient Egyptians had Hemis in their chariots.

Iceman - National Geographic Magazine


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall
> 
> what science?
> 
> ...





Has this planet ever been this warm before?


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Walleyes claims to be a Geologists. So what do geologists state concerning AGW?
> The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change
> 
> Position Statement
> ...






And the irrefutable connection to the Cause of warming being the increase in CO2 is where?


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> ...





Your climatologists apparently don't read history.  there have been numerous plagues and climate related famines and deaths of entire civilizations like the Ancient Egyptians and others in desertified areas like the regions of Northern Africa.

It's easy to prove stuff if you ignore those facts that don't support your case.


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> ...






Populations have grown rapidly only in the very recent portion of history and this has been the result of the blessings of the uses of fossil fuels.


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> ...





In the world of journalism, this is called "Burying the lead".


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> ...






Like all AGW Proponent pieces, this contains all of the predictions of dire consequence you could want and all of the results you need and all of the call to action you could ever desire and the blame placed squarely on the Oil Industry.

Also like every one of these pointless and empty pieces, there is no cause-effect to show the causation.


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


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


----------



## wirebender (May 12, 2012)

code1211 said:


> And the irrefutable connection to the Cause of warming being the increase in CO2 is where?



Hell, I wouldn't even need an irrefutable connection.  Some simple observable repeatable science performed in the spirit of the scientific method and the naming of a couple of physical laws that support and predict a greenhouse effect as claimed by warmists would go a long way towards convincing me.  The problem is that right off the top of my head I can name 3 physical laws that state such a greenhouse effect is not possible and there isn't a shred of experimental evidence that supports the hypothesis.  The most convincing experiment I have ever seen does little more than demonstrate the heat of compression.

It is simply astounding what people will accept as science if it fits their personal political leanings.


----------



## meatheadmike (May 13, 2012)

wirebender said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore,  the IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. So I don't see how they are very relevant in proving/disproving global climate change.
> ...



Your entire argument is an attack on the science behind global warming (you called it pseudoscience many times).  Therefore attacking an organization that does not carry out its own original research or monitor climate change is a straw man fallacy and laughable.

As for your other post, you clearly are regurgitating talking points from the conservative media and are showing that it is indeed you do not have much intellectual wattage invested in your position. The greenhouse effect does NOT violate the Second Law of thermo dynamics because planet earth is not in a closed energy system and the heat source is a constant influx of energy from the sun. If the sun was somehow turned off then there would be no greenhouse effect, but the sun is always on. 

To discuss the causes of global warming is one thing, but to imply that a greenhouse effect does not exist is beyond ignorant. How is it possible that the average surface temperature on Venus is hotter than Mercury when Mercury is much closer to the sun? Which of those two planets has a CO2 rich atmosphere and which one doesnt?

I cannot post any links because I am a new member, but if you want a sources, a simple Google search on these topics should give you a sufficient starting point. Based on your responses I doubt that you possess an open mind to look at any information from an unbiased point of view, or that you would even read anything for that matter. I think you are just here to post insults to those who you dont agree with, and make yourself feel like an internet tough guy rather than have an intelligent open-minded discussion on this topic.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2012)

IanC said:


> random people. people live for ~25000 days. 10,000 samples would give a reasonable range and enough data to synthesis an order from birth, growth to maturity, main line, and decline to death.
> 
> your mention of supernovas is interesting. the study of stars off the mainline led to exploring the reasons why they were different. regular novas are the measuring stick of the universe. blah,blah, blah.
> 
> I think you must be arguing just to argue. I thought Feynman was your hero. he had lots of examples of how aliens would figure out what was happening on earth even with incomplete information.







Yes, he did.  And he gave cogent analogies with which to work.  You've given none.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Where do the scientific organizations get their funding from?  Where do the scientists who run the organizations get their funding from?  Oh yeah, that's right....they get it from the taxpayers.  They get their money based on how dire their predictions are.  I wonder when they will actually get a prediction correct?  So far they've had 30 year and 100 billion dollars to make some wonderful predictions but instead, we get Hansen and his prediction which is 300% off.  But in olfrauds world that is considered pretty accurate.
> ...







One day?  No, not one day.  It took several years before they were able to figure out what a nice gravy train it would be.  And since that time, they have been milking it for all it's worth.

And you need to look inot the money yourself.  BIG OIL is HEAVILY INVESTED IN "GREEN" ENERGY.  Just look up ENRON and the Kyoto protocol.  I dare you.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?








  And STILL THE GODDAMNED PLANET ISN"T CONFORMING TO YOUR PREDICTIONS.

DAMNIT!


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > meatheadmike said:
> ...







Who has spent the most money honey?  That's right, the scientific academies and politicians allied with the media have FAR outspent ANY of the oil companies.  You're not much of a thinker are you?


----------



## code1211 (May 13, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > meatheadmike said:
> ...





There are various reasons to doubts that AGW is a valid conclusion.

Is there a proof that you would care to present that CO2 is prime driver of climate?


----------



## meatheadmike (May 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Last time I checked Big Oil was investing less than 1 percent of their profits in renewable energy, therefore I hardly think you can conclude Big Oil being heavily invested in renewable energy.  I think we both know where their profits are coming from and where their priorities lie.

Again, I think it should come as no surprise that the scientific academies whose sole purpose is researching Global warming have spent more money in Global Warming research than Oil companies, who shouldnt have any business spending money on this topic at all.  The fact that Oil companies are spending any money on this matter at all should be your red flag.


----------



## meatheadmike (May 13, 2012)

code1211 said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Ok as I alluded to earlier, let&#8217;s make some observations about planets Mercury and Venus and then draw some conclusions. 
- Venus is nearly twice the distance from the sun than Mercury is.  
- Venus is completely covered in clouds which reflect 90% of the sun&#8217;s light into outer space, preventing most of the sun&#8217;s energy from reaching the surface.

Both of these things would lead one to assume that the surface temperature on Venus should be much cooler than that of Mercury. Yet somehow Venus&#8217;s average surface temperature is hotter... 

Now let&#8217;s look at their CO2. Venus has a very thick atmosphere that consists of 96.5% CO2 while Mercury&#8217;s atmosphere is very weak and CO2 is only found in tiny trace amounts. 

Based on these simple observations it should be obvious that the CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is acting as a greenhouse gas and trapping heat on the surface of the planet. This explains why the surface of Venus is hotter than Mercury, and illustrates how CO2 can be a driving force in climate.

You accused me of not being a thinker, but I&#8217;d like you to think about what I stated objectively, crosscheck my facts if you don&#8217;t believe me, and draw your own unbiased conclusions.

Then if you&#8217;d like to offer another explanation for why the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury I am willing to hear it.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?
> ...


Apparently Mother Nature doesn't realize who's in charge here.

Whatta bitch she is.


----------



## code1211 (May 13, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > meatheadmike said:
> ...






Well, half a truth is better than none, I suppose.

What lowers the average temperature of Mercury is the very cold side that is away from the Sun.  There is indeed a weak atmosphere on Mercury if nothing is what you call weak.  The solar wind blew all of it away millions of years ago.

Venus is very warm.  The atmosphere is very high in CO2 and is about half the distance from the Sun that we are.  A three percent change in the shape of our orbit initiates ice Ages.  It's little wonder what a 50% reduction in the distance to the Sun would do.

Lacking a relatively friendly environment, our planet would still have a CO2 rich atmosphere.  Since life has formed here, the little plants ate the CO2 and exhaled the O.  That is what reduced the CO2 around here.

That was a decent attempt to misdirect and you explained what is happening on other planets, but not this planet.

Care to try again?


----------



## meatheadmike (May 13, 2012)

code1211 said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...





Sure... my intent was not to misdirect. Plant life on Earth is indeed the reason that our planet does not have the large CO2 amounts of Venus and the reason that we have O2 in the atmosphere. But I am not trying to compare Earth to Venus, I am comparing Venus to Mercury.

You are correct that the temperature drops drastically on the night side of Mercury. However you failed to realize that even during the day time, the surface temperature on Mercury only reaches about 670K with maybe a maximum of 700K at the equator.... which is still considerably lower than the temperature on Venus which about 750K. 

Furthermore Venus's surface temperature remains the same even on the night side of the planet despite the fact that one day (full rotation of the planet on its axis) takes 243 earth days.  Such a slow rotation would normally freeze the night side of the planet... the fact that such a uniform temperature is still maintained across the entire planet demonstrates the extremely strong greenhouse effect on Venus.

I'm not going to try and insult you with a "care to try again response", instead I encourage you to think about this objectively, put any biases aside, and draw conclusions scientifically.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > meatheadmike said:
> ...








The problem is you are attributing the temperature to the greenhose effect when it is actually attributable to the Ideal Gas Laws.  The atmospheric density of venus is 90+ times that of Earth and in addition to the CO2 is constituted with a great deal of sulfuric acid (I don't remember the exact percentage) and you are attempting to compare Venus with Earth?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2012)

code1211 said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



A23A


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2012)

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## meatheadmike (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...




If you are attributing the surface temperature of Venus to the Ideal Gas laws, then how is it possible that the night side of Venus remains the same temperature as the side facing the sun despite the fact that one night on Venus lasts 243 earth days?
Clearly the greenhouse effect is responsible for trapping heat on the surface of the planet, otherwise the night side would freeze given the very long duration that it faces away from the sun.

Also, I'll remind you of the percentages... Venus's atmosphere consists of 96.5% CO2 while Sulfur dioxide makes up only about 0.015% of the Atmosphere.  It is obvious that CO2 is the dominant driving force behind the greenhouse effect on Venus.

Instead of ignorantly throwing stuff at the wall to see if it will stick, perhaps you should re-evaluate and abandon your previous position. I am not trying to make you feel stupid... on the contrary, accepting that you were previously misinformed and that you have now learned something new, by definition will make you smarter.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > meatheadmike said:
> ...







No, I'm attributing the temperature of Venus to a combination of the Ideal Gas Laws and the overall density of the atmosphere.  Really, you don't think an atmospheric density of 93 bar has ANY bearing on the temperature?  Really?


----------



## meatheadmike (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You are making a straw man argument...I never said the atmospheric pressure has NO bearing on temperature. I am saying that it alone fails to explain why the night side of Venus does not freeze during the long 243 days that Venus takes to rotate on its axis.

As was mentioned earlier, the temperature on Mercury drops from around 680K during the day to 100K at night, and one day (full rotation of the planet) on Mercury is much shorter than a day on Venus.
We do not see this temperature drop on Venus because of the greenhouse effect trapping heat on the surface of the planet. Why continue to embarrass yourself when your position is clearly wrong?


----------



## wirebender (May 14, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> Last time I checked Big Oil was investing less than 1 percent of their profits in renewable energy, therefore I hardly think you can conclude Big Oil being heavily invested in renewable energy.  I think we both know where their profits are coming from and where their priorities lie.



You just keep showing everyone that thinking isn't your big thing.  We all know, at least those of us who are rational thinkers, that renewables are at least 100 years from providing anything like the majority of our energy if ever.  If greens have thier way, CO2 will be reduced through outrageous taxes on fossil fuels.  Oil companies will simply raise thier prices by the amount of the taxes plus a few percent for good measure and continue on in a business as usual fashion.  They make money whether the coin lands heads or tails.

One of the primary problems with you liberals is that you just aren't very good at thinking.  You imagine renewables actually providing an appreciable amount of energy in your lifetime which is a fantasy, and you imagine that energy companies will pay the taxes imposed upon them.  Again, pure fantasy.  The one who gets hurt most in the green's plan is the smoe with a poor paying job who is just barely able to meet his expenses and pay for gas to get back and forth to work.  Raise the cost of gas by much more and he can no longer afford to get to work.  In usual fashion, the people greens hurt the most with their good intentions is the very people who can least afford to be hurt.  There is a very good reason that liberals are known as the kings of unintended consequences.



Saigon said:


> Again, I think it should come as no surprise that the scientific academies whose sole purpose is researching Global warming have spent more money in Global Warming research than Oil companies, who shouldnt have any business spending money on this topic at all.  The fact that Oil companies are spending any money on this matter at all should be your red flag.



More evidence that you don't have a clue.  Those scientific academies you seem to respect so much are not in the business of researching anything.  What?  Do you believe that they are actual schools or research institutions?  How quaint and naive.  Those academies are nothing more than clubs that scientists belong to.  The American Academy of Science for example has no actual campus.  They have a suite of offices that the political head works out of and scientists pay dues to be members so that they can put membership on thier resume.  There is no research going on in the American Academy of Science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > meatheadmike said:
> ...



Do you have the text of this speech available?


----------



## wirebender (May 14, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> Ok as I alluded to earlier, lets make some observations about planets Mercury and Venus and then draw some conclusions.
> - Venus is nearly twice the distance from the sun than Mercury is.
> - Venus is completely covered in clouds which reflect 90% of the suns light into outer space, preventing most of the suns energy from reaching the surface.
> 
> Both of these things would lead one to assume that the surface temperature on Venus should be much cooler than that of Mercury. Yet somehow Venuss average surface temperature is hotter...



And there my friend is the cherry on top of the sundae.  You prove beyond even the smallest possible doubt that you literally don't know jack with regard to the science.  You have proven yourself to be nothing more than a sheep, bleating whate you believe you have been told to say.

If you had the slightest clue, you most certainly would not intuit that the surface temperature of venus would be cooler than that of the earth.  If you had the slightest inkling of the ideal gas laws, you would be able to predict that the surface temperature of venus would be quite hot.  

The atmospheric pressure at the surface of venus is more than 90 times that of earth.  I suppose the term PV=nRT flies right past you, but if you had more than the most rudimentary knowledge of science, you would recognize those letters, in combination with the reality of the atmosphere of venus to be a recipe for a very hot place.

Of course, if you travel up in the atmosphere of venus to an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on the surface of the earth, and make a minor adjustment calculation to compensate for the difference in the amount of incoming solar energy between venus and the earth, you will find that the two temperatures are nearly identical even though the atmosphere of venus is almost entirely composed of so called greenhouse gasses.  

Now, if you were a thinking person, you would derive from that bit of scientific fact that atmospheric composition has little to nothing  to do with surface temperature which should tell you that CO2 is not a culprit.  



meatheadmike said:


> Based on these simple observations .....



Simple is right.  Simple, as in Simple Simon.  Your observations have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of venus because you have completely ignored the fact that the atmospheric pressure is more than 90 times that of earth and the equation PV=nRT tells us that it will be a very hot place no matter what the atmosphere is composed of.  



meatheadmike said:


> You accused me of not being a thinker, but Id like you to think about what I stated objectively, crosscheck my facts if you dont believe me, and draw your own unbiased conclusions.


]

Not only are you not a thinker, but you aren't very bright either.  You obviously crosschecked nothing because you neglected the precise reason the surface temperature of venus is so high.  



meatheadmike said:


> Then if youd like to offer another explanation for why the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury I am willing to hear it.



Pressure is the reason.  The phenomenon is called the heat of compression.  The atmospheric pressure on mercury is one nanopascal or ten to the negative fourteenth bar.  Or about one one trillionth that of earth.

Congratulations, you have proven yourself to be truely clueless.  Don't pretend scientific knowledge that you don't have.  The pretense can't hold up very long.


----------



## wirebender (May 14, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> Furthermore Venus's surface temperature remains the same even on the night side of the planet despite the fact that one day (full rotation of the planet on its axis) takes 243 earth days.  Such a slow rotation would normally freeze the night side of the planet... the fact that such a uniform temperature is still maintained across the entire planet demonstrates the extremely strong greenhouse effect on Venus.



You know so little that you didn't even realize that you gave the correct answer and certainly couldn't recognize the why several posts back.  As you said, most of the light incoming from the sun is, in fact, reflected back away from venus.  Atmospheric pressure is the reason it is so hot and atmospheric pressure doesn't care whether it is day or night.  You can apply the ideal gas laws in light or dark and that is precisely why there is so little difference between daytime temps and night time temps on venus.  The sun really isn't much of a factor.



meatheadmike said:


> I'm not going to try and insult you with a "care to try again response", instead I encourage you to think



The fact is that you don't know enough to insult anyone but yourself and with this little venus exchange you have done your intellect a grave disservice.  That you have shown your self to be so wrong in public is sad to watch.

And I encourage you to actually learn something.  Your knowledge base is so small that I can only suggest that perhaps you begin with some elementary school science texts.  You don't know enough at this point to even consider thinking about the topic.


----------



## wirebender (May 14, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> You are making a straw man argument...I never said the atmospheric pressure has NO bearing on temperature. I am saying that it alone fails to explain why the night side of Venus does not freeze during the long 243 days that Venus takes to rotate on its axis.



He is making the only rational argument to make since it is the only factual argument supported and predicted by the laws of physics.  As you stated, most of the sun's energy is reflected away from venus before it gets into the atmosphere therfore something else must be causing the temperature of venus to be so high.  

A fictitious greenouse effect as described by cliamte science requires that sunlight reach the surface, be absorbed, and then be emitted as infrared radiation which is where CO2 is able to absorb.  CO2 hardly absorbs any incoming energy because its absorption band is so small.  In order for the fictitious greenhouse effect to work on venus, sunlight would have to reach the surface, be absorbed and then emitted again as IR.  You, yourself have stated that precious little, if any sunlight reaches the surface. 

Atmospheric pressure is the sole reason it is hot on venus and the reason it is hot on both the daytime and night time sides of the planet.


----------



## code1211 (May 14, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > meatheadmike said:
> ...






The density of the atmosphere on venus is a little less than 100 tines that of Earth which is about right for us.  We'd be crushed on venus.

At that density, and at its distance from the sun, it stands to reason that it would be very warm there and that the variation in temperature from day to night would be negligible.

The high content of CO2 is the basic ingredient of a witch's brew of toxic gases boiling on the surface.

We are talking about Global Warming on Earth and you are bringing up planets that are so unlike Earth they have no useful correlations.

What is your purpose?


----------



## code1211 (May 14, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > meatheadmike said:
> ...






And you will kindly explain how the climate is driven by this prime driver and show the exact correlation between the rises and falls of temperature to rises and , well the rises of CO2?


----------



## meatheadmike (May 14, 2012)

wirebender said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> > You are making a straw man argument...I never said the atmospheric pressure has NO bearing on temperature. I am saying that it alone fails to explain why the night side of Venus does not freeze during the long 243 days that Venus takes to rotate on its axis.
> ...



My god, I cannot believe how flawed your logic is... so now your argument has regressed to the point where you are saying sunlight has no effect on temperature.  Let me break it down even further so your feeble brain can understand:

I think that we can agree that atmospheric pressure remains the same everywhere on the planet. Therefore when we introduce another variable... the sun, which bombards one side of the planet with radiation for about 121 days, one would expect that the temperature on that side should increase.....

Yes Venus's atmosphere scatters about 90% of sunlight... but this still MEANS 10% IS GETTING THROUGH. You are failing to realize that even if a fraction of a percent of sunlight made it through, this should elevate surface temperatures significantly given the amount of time one side is exposed... while the temperatures on the side receiving no light would be significantly lower.

And yet the temperature on Venus is the same on both sides... the reason is Venus has extremely strong winds that blow at 60 times the planet's rotational speed, evenly distributing the hot air from the side that is being heated by the sun to the night side. 
And of course the heat on night side of the planet is trapped by...... 
The greenhouse effect!


----------



## wirebender (May 14, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> My god, I cannot believe how flawed your logic is... so now your argument has regressed to the point where you are saying sunlight has no effect on temperature.  Let me break it down even further so your feeble brain can understand:



You are full of it and you have demonstrated it beyond any reasonable doubt.  In order to have a greenhouse effect as claimed by warmers you must have IR from the sun reaching the surface, being absorbed, and then being emitted as IR which CO2 can then absorb and re eimit.  How much energy from the sun, in watts per square meter reaches the surface of venus?  Answer?  About 2% of the solar energy that reaches venus actually reaches the surface.  Sorry but the numbers don't add up to a greenhouse effect.



meatheadmike said:


> I think that we can agree that atmospheric pressure remains the same everywhere on the planet. Therefore when we introduce another variable... the sun, which bombards one side of the planet with radiation for about 121 days, one would expect that the temperature on that side should increase.....



Again, 2% of the energy from the sun actually reaches the surface.  Not enough energy to explain the temperature in terms of a fictitious greenhouse effect.  It is atmospheric pressure, simple as that.  Nikolov and Zeller (a couple of PhD physicists) recently produced a body of work using nothing more than the atmospheric pressure, and distance from the sun to accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere, and demonstrated via the DIVINER data from the moon that the SB equations being used by climate sciecne are so flawed that they are essentialy useless.



meatheadmike said:


> Yes Venus's atmosphere scatters about 90% of sunlight... but this still MEANS 10% IS GETTING THROUGH. You are failing to realize that even if a fraction of a percent of sunlight made it through, this should elevate surface temperatures significantly given the amount of time one side is exposed... while the temperatures on the side receiving no light would be significantly lower.



Sorry, but only 2% reaches the surface.  Not enough energy to produce the temperatures on venus even if you multiplied the claimed greenhouse effect by 10 orders of magnitude.  But feel free to do the math if you care to try and prove your point,



meatheadmike said:


> And yet the temperature on Venus is the same on both sides... the reason is Venus has extremely strong winds that blow at 60 times the planet's rotational speed, evenly distributing the hot air from the side that is being heated by the sun to the night side. And of course the heat on night side of the planet is trapped by......
> The greenhouse effect!


{/quote]

Atmospheric pressure, and that is it.  N&Z accurately predicted the temperature of venus using only its atmospheric pressure and distance from the sun.  Atmospheric composition is irrelavent as far as anything like a greenhouse effect goes.  They have proven that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses are not the reason for the temperature anywhere.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > meatheadmike said:
> ...







I am not an atmospheric physicist but i would be happy to wager a rather large sum, that the density is the vastly dominant variable in the temperature of Venus.


----------



## meatheadmike (May 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> > My god, I cannot believe how flawed your logic is... so now your argument has regressed to the point where you are saying sunlight has no effect on temperature.  Let me break it down even further so your feeble brain can understand:
> ...



Not sure where you got 2% seeing as all sources I see say Venus has an albedo of .75. But this doesn't matter much anyway because a great portion of the sun's heating power is on the infared specturm.... which does not get reflected.

Also to entirley base the surface temperature on preasure leaves some question marks... as you must know when you posted the ideal gas law equation "rudimentary knowledge of science" tells us that that temperature and pressure are directly proportional therefor  pressure can increase temperature, BUT also temperature can increase pressure. So we observe high temperature and high pressure on Venus, but where is the causality and to what degree?

As for Nikolov and Zeller, as you mentioned their paper came out recently sometime this year.. so the jury is still out on them. Doing a simple internet search reveals there are many other "PHD Physisits" who disagree with them. I'm not going to condone or condemn their theory as I don't know what methods and equations they used (and I'm sure you don't either)... but I'd like to point out how ironic it is that one who claims to be a skeptic is quick to whole hartedly embrase something so fast. You probably are not even aware that their model apperently predicts the mean surface temperature of Mercury to be 40K lower than the earth's.... something that most "skeptics" might quesiton.

You just seem to take pick and choose whatever laws of science you want and there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you seeing as you are only concerned with flaming.

Don't bother wasting your time respoing with more insults, they will only make you look like you are trying hard to look superior on the internet because I'm telling you right now that not going back in this thread to check for responses.


----------



## wirebender (May 16, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> Not sure where you got 2% seeing as all sources I see say Venus has an albedo of .75. But this doesn't matter much anyway because a great portion of the sun's heating power is on the infared specturm.... which does not get reflected.



Here, from one of your own idiot AGW sources.

Venus

And again, you demonstrate that you are nothing but a poser who doesn't know jack.  A very little portion of the incoming energy from the sun is in the form of IR.  That is why greenhouse gasses aren't a factor where inicoming radiation from the sun is concerned.  Most of the sun's energy is in the visible to UV range.  It is absorbed by the surface of the earth and then radiated back out towards space in the form of infrared.  

Perhaps you should stop talking because the more you speak, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat.



meatheadmike said:


> Also to entirley base the surface temperature on preasure leaves some question marks... as you must know when you posted the ideal gas law equation "rudimentary knowledge of science" tells us that that temperature and pressure are directly proportional therefor  pressure can increase temperature, BUT also temperature can increase pressure. So we observe high temperature and high pressure on Venus, but where is the causality and to what degree?



And where might the energy to raise temperature on venus come from since 98% of the sun's energy is reflected away from the planet before it even enters the atmosphere?  As I pointed out, N&Z have accurately predicted the temperatures at every altitude for every planet in the solar system using little more than the ideal gas laws and the relative distances from the sun proving that atmospheric composition is the next thing to irrelavent.  The laws of physics supports and predicts their work while the laws of physics deny your faith.



meatheadmike said:


> As for Nikolov and Zeller, as you mentioned their paper came out recently sometime this year.. so the jury is still out on them. Doing a simple internet search reveals there are many other "PHD Physisits" who disagree with them.



Scientists who will no doubt be out of work when they change the paradigm.



meatheadmike said:


> I'm not going to condone or condemn their theory as I don't know what methods and equations they used (and I'm sure you don't either)... but I'd like to point out how ironic it is that one who claims to be a skeptic is quick to whole hartedly embrase something so fast.



Well, we both know that you don't have a clue as to what sort of equations they are using or what methods.  I, on the other hand do.  In fact, if you go back to some earlier discussions I have had with ian you will see that a very large part of my arguments with ian have been born out by N&Z and those arguments were made before N&Z's work was even presented.  Especially my arguments about the corrupted and therefore invalid SB equations in use by climate pseudoscience.

I am sure that you like to imagine that the people on this board are an uneducated and unknowledgeable as you and like you, arguing from a position of faith in those you call scientists.  Alas, that isn't true. 

I am a skeptic, but I am an educated skeptic.  I examined N&Z's work with the same skepticism that I apply to everything.  The difference between their work and that that climate pseudoscience as a whole is putting out is that the laws of physics actually support and predicted the outcome of their work while the laws of physics flatly deny that of climate pseudoscience.



meatheadmike said:


> You probably are not even aware that their model apperently predicts the mean surface temperature of Mercury to be 40K lower than the earth's.... something that most "skeptics" might quesiton.



That would be because they are using the proper form of the SB equations as opposed to the corrupted equations in use by climate pseudoscience.  If you care to discuss those equations, just ask.



meatheadmike said:


> You just seem to take pick and choose whatever laws of science you want and there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you seeing as you are only concerned with flaming.



Since there are no laws of physics that support or predict a greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience, there is no need to pick and choose.  And of course we can't have a rational discussion because you don't know enough about the science to enter into a rational discussion.  For example, here is the actual SB equation:







Would you care to show me, or attempt to explain where backradiation in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics might be found in that equation?



meatheadmike said:


> Don't bother wasting your time respoing with more insults, they will only make you look like you are trying hard to look superior on the internet because I'm telling you right now that not going back in this thread to check for responses.



We both know who can actually discuss the science here.  And of course you won't be back because it has become clear that you have already got in way over your head.  Now, like the school yard bully when called on his bluff, you are telling me that it's lucky for me that you hear your mother calling you for dinner.  I am so relieved.

You skirted dangerously close to actually having to enter a scientific discussion there and scared the hell out of yourself.  There is precious little available on the internet to cut and paste in defense of your position because on close examination of the planet venus, it becomes abundantly clear that the conditions on venus aren't due to a greenhouse effect.

In order to bolster the lack of info on the internet, you have to leave the script and then do nothing more than show how little you actually know like claiming that a great portion of the sun's energy is in the IR spectrum.  

Here, from the chemistry departement of Duke University:

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~bonk/EnvSupp/Chp7/Chp7.html

CLIP:_ "Due to this high temperature, the Sun emits relatively high energy radiation, *primarily in the ultraviolet and visible portions of the spectrum*. Recall that high-energy radiation has short wavelength and high frequency. When this radiation strikes Earth, it is absorbed by rock and soil. After the radiant energy is absorbed, the rock and soil re-emit it. But the Earth's surface is much cooler than the Sun's" and on average is about 15 deg. C. Using Wein's Law, 2.9 x 106 K nm = lambdamax (278 K), gives lambdamax = 1.0 x 104 nm. *The radiation emitted by Earth is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum.*_


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> And again, you demonstrate that you are nothing but a poser who doesn't know jack.  A very little portion of the incoming energy from the sun is in the form of IR.  That is why greenhouse gasses aren't a factor where inicoming radiation from the sun is concerned.  Most of the sun's energy is in the visible to UV range.  It is absorbed by the surface of the earth and then radiated back out towards space in the form of infrared.
> 
> Perhaps you should stop talking because the more you speak, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat.













 do you mind if I quote you?........."Perhaps you should stop talking because the more you speak, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat."


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore Venus's surface temperature remains the same even on the night side of the planet despite the fact that one day (full rotation of the planet on its axis) takes 243 earth days.  Such a slow rotation would normally freeze the night side of the planet... the fact that such a uniform temperature is still maintained across the entire planet demonstrates the extremely strong greenhouse effect on Venus.
> ...



So, Bent, what you are stating is that even without the sun, the surface of Venus would melt lead. You are really full of shit.


----------



## wirebender (May 16, 2012)

IanC said:


> do you mind if I quote you?........."Perhaps you should stop talking because the more you speak, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat."



Perhaps I should have got my crayons and drew a picture of IR in a frequency that matters in so far as so called greenhouse gasses go.  I forget that you warmers and luke warmers as a group simply aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.  IR not in the absorption range of the so called greenhouse gasses is as irrelavent to the conversation as are x rays.


----------



## wirebender (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> So, Bent, what you are stating is that even without the sun, the surface of Venus would melt lead. You are really full of shit.



Do you ever understand anything you hear?  I said that the temperature on venus is not a result of a greenouse effect because the temperature of the planet can be accurately predicted, at any altitude without taking atmospheric composition into account.  That is not to say that venus's closer proximity to the sun is not a factor.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

OK, Bent. What you are stating is that if the atmosphere of Venus was the same as the Earth's, it would still have the temperatures it does today. But according the astro-physicists, Venus is in the Goldilocks zone. So, where does that leave your hypothesis?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2012)

On the coming clean tech bust.....................

Boom and Bust: Renewable Energy's Future? - Energy & Environment Experts



*Ooooooooops!!!!*


So..........how exactly is all the "real science"mattering?


----------



## IanC (May 17, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > do you mind if I quote you?........."Perhaps you should stop talking because the more you speak, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat."
> ...



????

do you not know how to look at a graph?

the gray line is the theoretical blackbody radiation for an object at the Sun's temperature. the yellow portion is the Sun's actual radiation as measured at the top of the atmosphere. the red is the amount of radiation that makes it through the atmosphere to reach the surface at sea level. eyeballing the graph, it looks like ~5% of the energy received in in UV, and the rest is pretty evenly split between visible and IR. 






and yet you say IR makes no difference. is this another case of magically disappearing photons?

I find it insulting that you pretend to be 'instructing the message board on physics' when you in fact dont know the basic facts and continue to throw out priceless bits of buffoonery. remember when you swore up and down that molecules and atoms couldnt absorb radiation of the same wavelength that they emit? and then you found an obscure link with an out-of-context sentence to back up your claim? hahahahaha priceless!


----------



## IanC (May 17, 2012)

meatheadmike said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > meatheadmike said:
> ...



one of my biggest issues with N&Z's theory is that heat of compression is a one time thing. sure things heat up when you compress them but once there is no longer a change in compression other factors define how that heat is distributed. 

of course it is a tricky question that has had some of the great physicists of all time on either side but even if there is some residual effect it will be swamped by other mechanisms of heat distribution.


----------



## wirebender (May 17, 2012)

IanC said:


> and yet you say IR makes no difference. is this another case of magically disappearing photons?



Exactly how much water vapor is present in the atmosphere of venus?  



IanC said:


> I find it insulting that you pretend to be 'instructing the message board on physics' when you in fact dont know the basic facts and continue to throw out priceless bits of buffoonery.



Ian, I can't instruct you.  You are terribly wrong but unable to recognize it.  You have some very mistaken notions but are so set on being right that you simply can't see how wrong you are.  Then in an effort to somehow save face, you throw up a graph pointing out how much LW is absorbed by water vapor when there is virtually no water vapor on venus.




IanC said:


> remember when you swore up and down that molecules and atoms couldnt absorb radiation of the same wavelength that they emit? and then you found an obscure link with an out-of-context sentence to back up your claim? hahahahaha priceless!



I didn't swear up and down to anything.  I stated that a CO2 atom couldn't absorb the emission spectra of another CO2 atom.  Then I provided a link which was from the departement of energy describing in exactly the same context as my statement.  You have become such a liar in your frenzied attempt to be right.  Here is the link:
Renewable & Alternative Fuels - Analysis & Projections - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)  And here is the pertinent clip:

CLIP: _ "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation."_

Hardly out of context ian and not "a" sentence either.  In fact, it reiterates exactly what I said.  Bad enough you are wrong but now you are wrong and demonstrably dishonest.

Here is another link that describes precisely why a CO2 molecule can't absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule in a much more formal way.  Do feel free to do the math to prove the author wrong if you like.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/recycling-of-heat-in-the-atmosphere-is-impossible/


----------



## konradv (May 18, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Ian, I can't instruct you.



LOL!!!  You'e the one that's uninstructable.  You've wasted enough of my time with your fantasy theories.  I won't be responding any longer and suggest others do the same.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Bent. What you are stating is that if the atmosphere of Venus was the same as the Earth's, it would still have the temperatures it does today. But according the astro-physicists, Venus is in the Goldilocks zone. So, where does that leave your hypothesis?



Composition or volume or both?


----------



## IanC (May 19, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > and yet you say IR makes no difference. is this another case of magically disappearing photons?
> ...




I cant believe you have taken any physics courses. atoms and molecules absorb and emit the exact same wavelengths. it is the principle used in spectography.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~jbattat/a35/cont_abs_em.html


> Key Points:
> Anything that absorbs also emits.
> A cloud of cool gas that absorbs certain colors from a blackbody will emit exactly those colors as the gas atoms de-excite
> If we look at the cloud without the blackbody in our line of sight, we will see an emission line spectrum.
> ...



I could understand if you were saying that higher energy wavelengths will tend to be transformed into lower energy wavelengths as they are absorbed and emitted. but that is entirely different than saying  a molecule of CO2 or methane is incapable of absorbing  radiation emitted by the same type of molecule. the type of radiation absorbed is exactly the same as the type of radiation emitted.


----------



## code1211 (May 19, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Bent. What you are stating is that if the atmosphere of Venus was the same as the Earth's, it would still have the temperatures it does today. But according the astro-physicists, Venus is in the Goldilocks zone. So, where does that leave your hypothesis?






The "Goldilocks" Zone?

What does this mean in terms of how warm Earth Would be if if it was in the same orbit that Venus now occupies?


----------



## code1211 (May 19, 2012)

IanC said:


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


----------



## IanC (May 19, 2012)

code1211 said:


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


----------



## code1211 (May 19, 2012)

IanC said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


----------



## IanC (May 19, 2012)

code1211 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


----------



## wirebender (May 20, 2012)

IanC said:


> I cant believe you have taken any physics courses. atoms and molecules absorb and emit the exact same wavelengths. it is the principle used in spectography.



Then ian, you know exactly jack about spectrography.  Tell me ian, how do you suppose the energy that a CO2 atom absorbs causes a vibration within the molecule without expending some small bit of the energy?  Do you believe that vibration happens without the loss of any energy at all?  And if there is some energy expended in causing the vibration, how could the molecule emit exactly the same frequency as it absorbed.

Again, you are so far off here that I am becoming embarassed for you.

I suggest that you read this and try your best to actually learn something from it.

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


----------



## skookerasbil (May 20, 2012)

On the coming clean tech bust.....................

Boom and Bust: Renewable Energy's Future? - Energy & Environment Experts



Ooooooooops!!!!


So..........how exactly is all the "real science"mattering? 
__________________


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I cant believe you have taken any physics courses. atoms and molecules absorb and emit the exact same wavelengths. it is the principle used in spectography.
> ...



it really is interesting trying to deduce what your understandings and misunderstandings are.

perhaps we should find out what we agree upon first. quantum mechanics is based on the principle that electrons can only occupy certain energy states in the atom, otherwise the electron would radiate its energy and collapse into the nucleus. next, an incident photon with the correct amount of energy can knock an electron into a higher orbital (quantum state) but that electron wants to shed energy so it emits one or more photons as it jumps back down to groundstate in one or more individual steps. the various paths that electrons can take match up to the emission and absorption spectra. are we OK so far?

with molecules it is more complex. CO2 has three vibrational modes that are activated by incident IR photons. the molecule either vibrates or it doesnt, there is no half vibration, no 'leaking' of energy. I am unaware of one vibrational state transforming to another but it is possible. 

molecular collisions also add to the complexity. polar bear had an interesting analogy to bumper cars that deform the electron envelope storing energy, then release it. I will not agree or disagree with that possibility although it seems like an interesting way to produce blackbody radiation.

your link says that the radiation going into CO2 is followed by radiation coming out at longer wavelengths and lower energy. I have no problem with that. it is to be expected, entropy increases. what I do have a problem with is you stating  that an atom or molecule can emit radiation that _cannot_ be accepted by the same type of molecule or atom. some wavelengths will be less preferencially absorbed, especially if they are partial early steps down the quantum ladder to groundstate when a higher energy photon is transformed into two or more lower energy photons.

my question to you is this. any normal energy reaction is reversible although the reaction rates are effected by entropy as the arrow of time. so even if the reaction goes 99% one way it is incorrect to say that the other way is impossible. and yet you keep proclaiming all sorts of things are impossible just because they are less likely. the SLoT is a numerical description of systems. even if something is only slightly more favoured it is close to a statistical certainty when multiplied by 100 iterations, or a trillion, or ten to the 24th power.

quite often what you have to say is somewhat correct in reality but your stated reasons for what happened are totally wrong. sometimes your assumptions are just wrong. for instance you state that the radiation absorbed by CO2 is released so quickly that it doesnt matter but any slowing down of radiation from the speed of light is _still slowing down._ I dont really care why you think the way you do but I am concerned that other people are being misinformed by your obviously wrong explanations that you proclaim so loudly and confidently.


----------



## wirebender (May 21, 2012)

IanC said:


> it really is interesting trying to deduce what your understandings and misunderstandings are.



I am afraid that is impossible for you ian since you are laboring under about as profound a misunderstanding of what is actually happening with energy transfer between the surface and the atmosphere as is possible.



IanC said:


> perhaps we should find out what we agree upon first. quantum mechanics is based on the principle that electrons can only occupy certain energy states......



blah blah blah....  Yeah, I get that you can cut and paste and perhaps even paraphrase.  What you don't seem to be able to do is understand that which you cut and paste and paraphrase.   



IanC said:


> your link says that the radiation going into CO2 is followed by radiation coming out at longer wavelengths and lower energy. I have no problem with that. it is to be expected, entropy increases.



You can't possibly understand that because you followed it with a complete contradiction.




IanC said:


> what I do have a problem with is you stating  that an atom or molecule can emit radiation that _cannot_ be accepted by the same type of molecule or atom.



ian, the man told you what frequencies CO2 molecules absorb and emit.  The emissions are at different frequencies than the emissions.  How difficult is it to grasp?  Geez ian, you say you get it that the radiation exists the molecule at a longer wavelength at a lower frequency and then suggest that the rest of the CO2 molecules somehow start absorbing at the wavelengths emitted by that molecule even though the wavelength isn't one to be found within the CO2 absorption bands.

With that statement you have said as clearly as possible that you didn't grasp the meaning of your first statement.  You can say the words but aren't able to put what they say into practice in your brain.  Perhaps it is because to actually acknowledge what is being said and what is happening would crack your faith and that would be worse than admitting you are wrong.  We both know that if you acknowledge that if CO2 can't absorb the emission of other CO2 molecules, your luke warmer fantasy about CO2 somehow holding IR in the atmosphere as if it were some sort of blanket would crumble.  

Well step on up and prove professor Nahle wrong.  He didn't just pull those numbers out of his ass.  They are derived from experiment.



IanC said:


> my question to you is this. any normal energy reaction is reversible although the reaction rates are effected by entropy as the arrow of time.



Geez ian, did you even read what you were given.  In nature, no reversible processes happen.  In other words, no reversible process happens in nature:

CLIP:  "*All the spontaneous processes occurring in nature are irreversible processes 7, 8. Absolutely-reversible processes do not exist in the natural world 9, while absolutely-irreversible processes do exist in the natural world*."

He backs up the statement with the following:

 7. What are Reversible and Irreversible Processes in Thermodynamics?

 8. The second law and entropy. II. Irreversible processes - Journal of Chemical Education (ACS Publications and Division of Chemical Education)

 9. Thermodynamics eBook: The Carnot Cycle




IanC said:


> so even if the reaction goes 99% one way it is incorrect to say that the other way is impossible. and yet you keep proclaiming all sorts of things are impossible just because they are less likely.



Which part of "all the spontaneous process in nature are irreversible is it that you fail to grasp?  Which part of that suggests less likely to you?  Therein lies the bulk of your problem ian.  You read words and fail to grasp their meaning if they don't mesh with your belief.  Irreversable.  Look up the word and try to get it through your head.  And yet one more example of how wrong you are comes to the surface.  Reversible process in the open atmosphere.  What a laugh.



IanC said:


> the SLoT is a numerical description of systems. even if something is only slightly more favoured it is close to a statistical certainty when multiplied by 100 iterations, or a trillion, or ten to the 24th power.



I am sure that you actually believe that but the fact remains that there exists not one single example of the second law being wrong or meaning anything other than what it says.  The second law is a statement made in absolute terms.  If it were no more than a general statement, first, it wouldn't be a law, and second it would not exist in absolute terms.  Your belief that it is nothing more than a description of a set of statistics is best defined as *MENTAL MASTURBATION*




IanC said:


> quite often what you have to say is somewhat correct in reality but your stated reasons for what happened are totally wrong.



Pardon me if I am not complimented.  The fact is ian, that you know exactly squat.  Your understanding of the topic is so flawed that it has become pointless to talk to you.  You made that abundantly clear when you acknowledged that the emission of a CO2 molecule is of a different wavelength than its absorption band but then turn around and cliam that it can still be absorbed even though it is outside of the absorption band.  How much more flawed could your understanding possibly be?




IanC said:


> sometimes your assumptions are just wrong. ]



I don't assume anything ian.  That is your MO.  You assume that a photon is something other than that which every scientific dictionary I can lay my hands on defines it as.  You assume that the second law of thermodynamicis means something other than it states.  Hell, you even assume the existence of photons when the fact is that not a single photon has ever been detected in flight.  Every bit of "evidence" of photons is the result of emergy exchange at the final destination of the theorized photon.   

Here, look at this at the risk of having your faith cracked:

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5711.pdf

Note the assorted and assundry problems associated with the existence of photons that modern science doesn't seem to want to examine.



IanC said:


> for instance you state that the radiation absorbed by CO2 is released so quickly that it doesnt matter but any slowing down of radiation from the speed of light is _still slowing down._


_

First, who said it is slowing down?  Second, how much would it have to slow down in order to cause the effect you ascribe?  Third, does it slow down anywhere near that amount?

_


IanC said:


> I dont really care why you think the way you do but I am concerned that other people are being misinformed by your obviously wrong explanations that you proclaim so loudly and confidently.



The real problem would be that people might believe you and aquire your crazy notions on photons and the second law and all manner of other fantasies and delusions under which you labor.  I don't describe any process that isn't backed up by the various laws of physics or recognized definitions while you remain unable to square what you believe with any law of physics or scientific dictionary.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > it really is interesting trying to deduce what your understandings and misunderstandings are.
> ...





wow! so you really are just a crackpot. no such thing as photons described by Einstein and every other physicist since. I guess we'll all just have to wait for your scientist to overturn the whole field of physics. I wont hold my breath though.


----------



## wirebender (May 22, 2012)

IanC said:


> wow! so you really are just a crackpot. no such thing as photons described by Einstein and every other physicist since. I guess we'll all just have to wait for your scientist to overturn the whole field of physics. I wont hold my breath though.



That statement cuts to the core of your problem ian.  You obviously remain blithely unaware that Einstein himself was not comfortable at all with the ramifications of photons.  What you believe with all your heart that you know is little more than a piss poor patchwork of assumptions held together with a few declarations.  Much like the claims of climate science.  

Do you have any idea what Einstein himself had to say about the idea of photons?  He said:

_"All my attempts to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this new type of knowledge (Quantum Theory) failed completely. It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could have built." -Albert Einstein 1949

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken" - A. Einstein, 1951_

Among the many unresolved problems with the of light as photons the following are near the top of the list:

_ The particles of light quanta should have mass = E/c2, yet by his own theories, no matter can obtain the speed of light

 Light quanta couldn't account for interference of light

 Particulate light quanta could not be split, and had no way to account for partial reflection

 A helically travelling photon would have to exceed the speed of light on its helical path_

Physics as a science, over time, attempted to reconcile those  problems by simply declaring, without the least bit of evidence that photons had no mass and that wave particle duality was simply the way things are.  Again, very much the approach climate science has taken with its AGW claims.  

So in the end, rather than address the fact that what you think you know doesn't jibe with reality, namely even a small change in wavelength would preclude one CO2 molecule's emission from being absorbed by another CO2 molecule, you call me a crackpot because I don't blindly accept a declaration made by a branch of science over time based on nothing that even begins to approach actual evidence.  



			
				ianc said:
			
		

> no such thing as photons described by Einstein and every other physicist since. I guess we'll all just have to wait for your scientist to overturn the whole field of physics. I wont hold my breath though



That idiot statement sounds exactly like rocks, konradv, et. al. with their claims that because some scientists have said it, that it must be true.  You, like they, also assume that "every" scientist including Einstein said it as if it must be true.  That is as big a lie as rocks and konrad and the gang claiming that 97% of scientists are onboard with the hypothesis of AGW.  You are obviously unaware that Einstein himself was never comfortable with the idea of photons because of the obvious conflicts that photons had with observable reality.  The fact that you believe he said photons exist as a declarative statement backed up by his theory is evidence of the distortion the truth has experienced at the hands of physicists over the years.  

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5711.pdf


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > wow! so you really are just a crackpot. no such thing as photons described by Einstein and every other physicist since. I guess we'll all just have to wait for your scientist to overturn the whole field of physics. I wont hold my breath though.
> ...





now you are just resorting to the 'we dont know everything so we dont know anything gambit'. in fact we know a tremendous amount about photons and it is an integral part of many of our technologies. we dont have to know how gravity works to be able to predict its effects, especially in commonplace conditions such as on earth.

science often moves forward by studying the paradoxes or slight inconsistencies at the edge of our knowledge base. I am all for continuing the quest for knowledge but the esoteric details are not necessary to describe the mundane effects of physics on most earth systems. Newton was supplanted by Einstein but that didnt much of a difference to most of our real world functions.

why dont you describe in your own words how EM fields make photons disappear without interacting with matter? I have described different scenarios and how they are mediated by photons but all you ever do is say that I am wrong. time for you to step up to the plate. for instance, it is my opinion that every particle in two opposing magnetic or electric fields affects every particle opposite it and that the sum of the forces is seen in the net effect. we never see the multitudes of photons involved but that doesnt mean that they arent there. why dont you explain the physical mechanism of how the photons 'disappear' rather than just apply their forces leaving only the residual net effect that can be measured? it certainly seems much more straight forward to me that every photon just does its job rather than magically disappearing (to some other dimension, some other universe, we dont know because you wont tell us).


----------



## HUGGY (May 22, 2012)

*How far have we already gone? 
*


In my lifetime ?..  Around 38 trillion miles.


----------



## wirebender (May 25, 2012)

IanC said:


> now you are just resorting to the 'we dont know everything so we dont know anything gambit'. in fact we know a tremendous amount about photons and it is an integral part of many of our technologies.



Of course I'm not; and in fact, we know exactly jack about photons.  To date, we don't have the slightest bit of hard, observable evidence that they exist.  What we do have is a theoretical explanation for an observed phenomenon.  A theoretical explanation which, by the way, the man who came up with the theory wasn't very convinced of because of the glaring problems it created but had no anwer for.



IanC said:


> we dont have to know how gravity works to be able to predict its effects, especially in commonplace conditions such as on earth



No, but if you want to make specific claims about the effects you observe, you do.  As you "should know" being able to predict an effect does not necessarily mean that you understand the cause.  



IanC said:


> science often moves forward by studying the paradoxes or slight inconsistencies at the edge of our knowledge base.



The problems with photons are far more than "slight" inconsistencies at the edge of our knowledge base.  For example, light as particles can't account for interference.  By Einstein's own theory, photons should have mass, but no matter (according to him) could ever reach the speed of light.  Light as photons can't be split, so the phenomenon of partial reflection can't be explained.  And then there is the business of a photon having to exceed the speed of light if it were travelling in a helical.  

The notion of wave/particle duality is not based on any sort of actual knowledge or observation; it was a declaration which served no other purpose than to brush obvious problems with the idea of photons to the side rather than simply admit a lack of knowledge.  And the whole idea of photons not actually existing till they get to where they are going is as laughable as anything climate science has ever come up with.



IanC said:


> I am all for continuing the quest for knowledge but the esoteric details are not necessary to describe the mundane effects of physics on most earth systems.



The problems associated with the questionable existence of photons are not mundane effects.  Those problems go right to he heart of the physics and call into question the present explanation for said physics and that doesn't even begin to speak to your personal misconceptions of what photons are, how they behave, and what brings their possible existence to an end.

Newton was supplanted by Einstein but that didnt much of a difference to most of our real world functions.



IanC said:


> why dont you describe in your own words how EM fields make photons disappear without interacting with matter?



I have, over and over ian.  The explanation is not going to change so feel free to refer back to one of the many times I have already described what happens in my own words.  Why don't you try to explain how the magnitude of an EM field can be diminished or cancelled entirely by another EM field without "disappearing" photons.



IanC said:


> I have described different scenarios and how they are mediated by photons but all you ever do is say that I am wrong. time for you to step up to the plate.



Already have ian.  Over and over.  And my explanation jibes with the laws of physics.  Your senarios, on the other hand, require mutilation of both the laws of physics and completely new definitions of what photons are in order for them to make sense.


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > why dont you describe in your own words how EM fields make photons disappear without interacting with matter?
> ...



if you have stated where when and how photons magically disappear into thin air (and I havent seen it to the best of my recollection), then simply repeat it  or bump the relevent quote up to the top. I have asked to see it dozens of times and yet you can't or won't produce it.


----------



## bobgnote (May 29, 2012)

Here's how the hockey stick players fall down, without all this Lord of Light review (as we all know, _A Song of Fire and Ice_ refrains, with no more of that ice, in Wilding territory:

CO2 is accompanied by methane release, from glacial ice, warming waters, and land, formerly covered by permafrost, to accelerate warming.

The CO2 exchanges with acid, in water, so kindly notice all the die-offs, in oceanic areas, like oysters in the Pacific NW.  Since the plankton bloom rides the O2 cold-water up-welling, since cold water bears carbonic acid more efficiently, the sub-Alaskan food chain is in big trouble.  Cod are not recovering.  When reefs, eggs, and little fish all die, lock and load!

The land food chain can be affected, in unpredictable ways.  Bees are dying, some say from pesticides.  Will acid rain ruin forests, so the rising CO2 must be absorbed, by waters?  

We re-green, or else.  See if anybody can get over to search, and hit 'ford, diesel, hemp,' like a bolt of lightning.


----------



## bobgnote (May 29, 2012)

Here's how the hockey stick players fall down, without all this Lord of Light review (as we all know, _A Song of Fire and Ice_ refrains, with no more of that ice, in Wilding territory):

CO2 is accompanied by methane release, from glacial ice, warming waters, and land, formerly covered by permafrost, to accelerate warming.

The CO2 exchanges with acid, in water, so kindly notice all the die-offs, in oceanic areas, like oysters in the Pacific NW.  Since the plankton bloom rides the O2 cold-water up-welling, since cold water bears carbonic acid more efficiently, the sub-Alaskan food chain is in big trouble.  Cod are not recovering.  When reefs, eggs, and little fish all die, lock and load!

Carbonic acidification is accelerating.   

The land food chain can be affected, in unpredictable ways.  Bees are dying, some say from pesticides.  Will acid rain ruin forests, so the rising CO2 must be absorbed, by waters?  

We re-green, or else.  See if anybody can get over to search, and hit 'ford, diesel, hemp,' like a bolt of lightning.


----------



## wirebender (May 29, 2012)

IanC said:


> if you have stated where when and how photons magically disappear into thin air (and I havent seen it to the best of my recollection), then simply repeat it  or bump the relevent quote up to the top. I have asked to see it dozens of times and yet you can't or won't produce it.



Sorry ian, not inclined to help you.  You were party to the conversation (I went back and checked) and had nothing whatsoever intelligent to say then and nothing you have said lately has convinced me that you would have any more to say now.


----------



## wirebender (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CO2 is accompanied by methane release, from glacial ice, warming waters, and land, formerly covered by permafrost, to accelerate warming.



So describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2, or any other so called greenhouse gas other than water vapor can cause warming.



bobgnote said:


> The CO2 exchanges with acid, in water, so kindly notice all the die-offs, in oceanic areas, like oysters in the Pacific NW.



Predators and pollution are the problem there, not CO2.  Learn something; don't be a shill.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Here's how the hockey stick players fall down, without all this Lord of Light review (as we all know, _A Song of Fire and Ice_ refrains, with no more of that ice, in Wilding territory:
> 
> CO2 is accompanied by methane release, from glacial ice, warming waters, and land, formerly covered by permafrost, to accelerate warming.
> 
> ...







Sooooo, what happened during the Holocene Thermal maximum when temps were at least 6 degrees warmer than today.  Why didn't the world end back then?  All evidence says the globe thrived.  Absolutely thrived.  During the PETM when temps were likewise much warmer the planet thrived.  Other than some localised species of foraminifera all other species (including those that we have today like horses, camels, etc.) either evolved or bloomed to unhear of levels.

The PETM is as far from the extinction event you claim as it is possible to be.  How is that?


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is accompanied by methane release, from glacial ice, warming waters, and land, formerly covered by permafrost, to accelerate warming.
> ...







Can't.  It's yet another olfraud sockpuppet.  He's got a million of 'em cha cha cha.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 29, 2012)

westwall said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Here's how the hockey stick players fall down, without all this Lord of Light review (as we all know, _A Song of Fire and Ice_ refrains, with no more of that ice, in Wilding territory:
> ...


Oh wow, walleyedretard, your denier cult myths are just too funny for words. You must be an absolute idiot to believe in those anti-science fantasies and lies.

*Holocene climatic optimum*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal. This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about two millennia ago.*

*Global effects

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).[1] The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.[4]
*


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > if you have stated where when and how photons magically disappear into thin air (and I havent seen it to the best of my recollection), then simply repeat it  or bump the relevent quote up to the top. I have asked to see it dozens of times and yet you can't or won't produce it.
> ...





hahahaha. pretty cowardly of you then. I assume that you went back and found out that your position is simply muddled garbage that did not explain the where, when and how of photons magically disappearing. you are a pathetic joke.

the last time you even came close to explaining it you said something to the effect of "the process is not well understood".

hahahaha


----------



## wirebender (May 29, 2012)

IanC said:


> hahahaha. pretty cowardly of you then. I assume that you went back and found out that your position is simply muddled garbage that did not explain the where, when and how of photons magically disappearing. you are a pathetic joke.



Psychology isn't your thing either ian.  That wasn't even a good try.  

And I don't subscribe to magic.  As I have told you before, if you wan't to know where the photons go, you need look no further than the subtraction of EM fields.  Sorry your faith interferes with your ability to think critically ian.  It is sad.


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hahahaha. pretty cowardly of you then. I assume that you went back and found out that your position is simply muddled garbage that did not explain the where, when and how of photons magically disappearing. you are a pathetic joke.
> ...



OK, it is too embarrassing for you to bump up your explanation for anyone to see. how about linking up to some source that says EM fields subtract by photons disappearing rather than simply measuring the net effect of the combined fields?


----------



## wirebender (May 30, 2012)

IanC said:


> OK, it is too embarrassing for you to bump up your explanation for anyone to see. how about linking up to some source that says EM fields subtract by photons disappearing rather than simply measuring the net effect of the combined fields?



Nope, it is simply more effort than I am willing to expend on you.  And again, psychology isn't your thing.  

Feel free to explain how one might reduce the magnitude of an EM field without reducing the number of photons if EM fields are, indeed, made of photons.  Add critical thinking to the list of things that simply aren't your thing.  

When destructive interference reduces the magnitude of an EM field, the measurable strength of the field is smaller.  

Your instinct of measuring the net effect of combined fields is fine if the fields are travelling in the same direction along the same vector because when you combine fields you are only adding. (see constructive interference - the interference of two or more waves of equal frequency and phase, resulting in their mutual reinforcement and producing a single amplitude equal to the sum of the amplitudes of the individual waves. ) 

 When, through destructive interference, both EM fields are reduced, or one field is cancelled and the other is reduced, or both are cancelled entirely, where do those photons go if the fields are indeed made of photons?  The concept is so simple ian, I doubt that you will ever find a serious text that feels the need to explain it in terms simple enough for you to accept.

By definition, an EM field is composed of photons:

_photon - a region separated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits a transfer of matter or energy across it. _

If EM fields are made of photons, then by definition, the reduction of, or cancellation of an EM field is the reduction of, or cancellation of photons.

_destructive interference - the interference of two waves of equal frequency and opposite phase, resulting in their cancellation where the negative displacement of one always coincides with the positive displacement of the other. _

Describe how an EM field might be cancelled without losing any of the "stuff" of which it is made?


If you can't look at the definitions and grasp the implications of what is happening, I can only offer you condolences as your knowledge base is to small to make effective use of any serious text I might offer you as reference.  You would simply read the words and continue to fail to understand what they mean.  It is interesting that you readily, and instinctivly accept constructive interference and the associated ramifications, but the same instinct leads you to completely reject destructive interference and its obvious results.


And again, the second law is stated in absolute terms.  Nothing at all like the ethereal flexible "as needed" definition you assign to it.  Why do you suppose that might be.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > OK, it is too embarrassing for you to bump up your explanation for anyone to see. how about linking up to some source that says EM fields subtract by photons disappearing rather than simply measuring the net effect of the combined fields?
> ...


----------



## wirebender (May 30, 2012)

IanC said:


> you just admitted you know where it is.



I never said that I didn't know where it is.  In fact, I have said more than once that I went back to check that you were, in fact, part of the conversation and had nothing intelligent to say then and have given no indication that you have anything intelligent to say now.  

Feel free to answer the questions put to you if you like or continue your completely ineffective and pathetic attempts at psychology.    I am afraid that I can't be manipulated but it is interesting to watch you try if you like and fabricate any number of reasons that I don't comply to your wishes.  If it makes you feel good to call me a coward, help yourself.  You can't hurt me with such comments because I don't care for you enough to be moved by what you think or say.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2012)

*A presentation, with math, from 1981, by a real atmospheric physicist.*

We first describe the greenhouse mechanism and use a simple model to compare potential radiative perturbations of climate. We construct the trend of observed global temperature for the  past century and compare this with global climate model computations, providing a check on the ability of the model to simulate known climate change. Finally, we compute the CO2 warming expected in the coming century and discuss its potential implications.

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> *A presentation, with math, from 1981, by a real atmospheric physicist.*
> 
> We first describe the greenhouse mechanism and use a simple model to compare potential radiative perturbations of climate. We construct the trend of observed global temperature for the  past century and compare this with global climate model computations, providing a check on the ability of the model to simulate known climate change. Finally, we compute the CO2 warming expected in the coming century and discuss its potential implications.
> 
> http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf



so the warmers have decided to go back 30+ years? reset to a guess made in the far past. does that mean all the billions spent in the last 30 years on climate models was wasted?  the first general effort done on computers barely more powerful than one of today's smart phones is more accurate than the recent work on supercomputers with massive technological support? 

so you are implying that we are going backwards in our knowledge? or are you just hunting around in the attic for something that looks better than the pathetic recent attempts?


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > you just admitted you know where it is.
> ...



Im not trying to hurt you. Im not even trying to insult you. Im just stating the obvious in saying that you are cowardly in not bumping your 'explanation' to the top so people can read it. apparently you stated it once and ever since then you have challenged people to prove you wrong but you refuse to show it. stop saying it exists if you are not willing to produce it. 

wirebender thinks that if the rope in tug-of-war isnt moving it is because all the people disappeared into thin air.


----------



## wirebender (May 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> *A presentation, with math, from 1981, by a real atmospheric physicist.*



Interesting.  1981 and there is, I suppose, one of the earliest versions of the flawed SB equation upon which the credibility of climate science rests and which Nikolov and Zeller have recently proven is completely wrong and useless as employed by climate pseudoscience.  Note the double use of the SB constant.

d(cT)ldt = aT14 - aT4

As you can see, the predictions made by that paper not only failed, but failed miserably.  Why?  Because it was not founded on correct science.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hahahaha. pretty cowardly of you then. I assume that you went back and found out that your position is simply muddled garbage that did not explain the where, when and how of photons magically disappearing. you are a pathetic joke.
> ...


You dont subscribe to reality or intelligence either


----------



## wirebender (May 30, 2012)

IanC said:


> Im not trying to hurt you. Im not even trying to insult you. Im just stating the obvious in saying that you are cowardly in not bumping your 'explanation' to the top so people can read it. apparently you stated it once and ever since then you have challenged people to prove you wrong but you refuse to show it. stop saying it exists if you are not willing to produce it.



Tell you what ian, you give a satisfactory answer to the questions that have been put to you regarding the subtraction of EM fields and I will point you in the direction of one of the conversations you want to see.  Good luck with that.


----------



## wirebender (May 30, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> You dont subscribe to reality or intelligence either



How sad and miserable it must be to be the sock puppet of an idiot like rocks.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> *A presentation, with math, from 1981, by a real atmospheric physicist.*
> 
> We first describe the greenhouse mechanism and use a simple model to compare potential radiative perturbations of climate. We construct the trend of observed global temperature for the  past century and compare this with global climate model computations, providing a check on the ability of the model to simulate known climate change. Finally, we compute the CO2 warming expected in the coming century and discuss its potential implications.
> 
> http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf



With math?

ZOMG!

That clinches it for the Warmers!

So far, they've used tree ring, hockey sticks and roulette wheels to make their "point" I don't think we'll be able to counter their settled consensus science if they use math.

Signed, 

About to Surrender to the Decline Hiders
Manhattan, NY


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

Here's the latest complete study of acidification, since the CO2 moves from air, to water, to acid:
Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate

The hockey 'stick' is about the acceleration of warming AND acidification, leading to general warming AND AGW upturn data, which hockey 'puck' idiots won't use, to play their own game, which will move, from tard-hockey, to re-green, or die!

Look at all the spam up, for hooking and cross-checking.  Homework time, me tardies, flathead, wienerbender, T-tard, who ya got?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2012)

The angry rising oceans are turning acidic!

They will corrode our coastlines!


----------



## IanC (Jun 1, 2012)

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


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The angry rising oceans are turning acidic!  They will corrode our coastlines!


The oceans will lose creatures, at an awesome rate.  Then they will change the coastlines, when the sea-level rises.  Even a fuck-tard like you could come to that conclusion.  Take the puck out of your butt, pick up the hockey stick, and swat.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The angry rising oceans are turning acidic!  They will corrode our coastlines!
> ...



What is it with you Warmers and your hockey sticks?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What is it with you Warmers and your hockey sticks?


What is with you fuck-tards and your puckey, and you want to avoid posting live links, to scientific reports and news, but you want to cross-check and hook, without picking up on the hockey stick?

You fuck-tards don't know how to play a pretty good game.  As for research, the only question I have for you is _how stupid are you?_  Surely, you must have a limit.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Here's the latest complete study of acidification, since the CO2 moves from air, to water, to acid:
> Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate
> 
> The hockey 'stick' is about the acceleration of warming AND acidification, leading to general warming AND AGW upturn data, which hockey 'puck' idiots won't use, to play their own game, which will move, from tard-hockey, to re-green, or die!
> ...








I _love_ the header!


"Environment FUKUSA Europe Australia Latina Africa"

And that's exactly what the enviro Nazis are trying to do.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The angry rising oceans are turning acidic!  They will corrode our coastlines!
> ...







So Mr. know it all.  why did NONE of this happen during the MWP, the RWP or the Holocene Thermal Maximum?  Is this warming trend somehow different from those that came before?

If it is, you absolutely MUST show us why it's different and show your work.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > What is it with you Warmers and your hockey sticks?
> ...







Show us some decent research and we'll listen to you.  What you have produced so far is wonderful for a beginner in middle school, but for a scientist I would expect something ACCURATE!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2012)

westwall said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You have yet to demonstrate that.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

westwall said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > The oceans will lose creatures, at an awesome rate.  Then they will change the coastlines, when the sea-level rises.  Even a fuck-tard like you could come to that conclusion.  Take the puck out of your butt, pick up the hockey stick, and swat.
> ...


Why in the world would I need to post more links, since you don't post links?

As for summary of my posts, so you don't load up the rink with puck and refuse the stick and go skating off like you are Sonja Heinie or whoever, so I am supposed to cross-check nothing, and you are a hooker, with no hockey stick, kindly read what I wrote, once.  CO2 is at 400 ppm, when 350 ppm is safe, 275 ppm was the start of the industrial age, and carbonic acidification and warming are _accelerating._

That acceleration is the 'hockey stick' you fucktards keep ranting against.  Up goes the graph!  Up goes carbonic acid concentrations.  Down go life-forms and the food chain.

The data for all those ancient events you refuse to link is useless, to us, since you are trying to pretend it means humans did not steward the planet, since, to wreck the place.  Who cares if the warming wasn't as hot, in the Holocene, or Roman, or Middle Ages?  You don't link, to any information you subscribe to, and I insist modern information is better, and it indicates an urgent problem matrix, including deadly acidification.

If you want to compare data, hey, die-offs happened, back in the day.  Maybe we will live, to gather data, for your fuck-tard descendants, to wave around!  Human stewarship AND CO2 emissions went up, concentrations went up, and human reaction isn't evident.

But stupid assholes like you keep farting and shitting up all the media channels, in what hope?  Preventing re-greening?  I say the food chains are in jeopardy, asshole!  Got chow?  Not forever!  Screw you, for dropping names and not linking and reviewing.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2012)

bobgnote said:


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






I've posted more links than you could ever hope too bucko so pipe your twerp ass down.  I challenge you to look at the historical record and look at the paleo climate of the MWP, the RWP, and the HTM and you will see that even though the temps were much higher, NONE of the catastrophic things you all claim are going to happen.....ever did.

Here is the wiki link for the HTM to get you started.  As you can see it was MUCH warmer and yet none of the catastrophic things happened.





Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

Yeah, right, in the Holocene, did the methane trapped in receding ice-affected areas get released, measured, and amount to a hockey puck, much less a hockey stick?

Again, Intestinalwall, you neglected to post a link.  And what makes you think I am not as big as you are?

You are like any other sassy boy in speedos, parading around for new bath-houses, when the old baths had to close, since gays in the days got around with speed and butt-sex, so HIV became a problem.  You are too queer to admit, the CO2 is here, the carbonic acid is here, and the species are going away.  You are too gay, so get married, punk!  Who is your wingnutty-buddy?  I know you guys like to swing out at straight people, Log Cabin geek.  I admit, I'm straight, so when I say, 'fuck you,' don't think I don't mean screw you, with plastic gear.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 2, 2012)

Number of experiments showing how a (pick a number between 20-120) ppm increase in CO2 causes "Global warming", melts the ice caps, turns the oceans to acid: 0


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Number of experiments showing how a (pick a number between 20-120) ppm increase in CO2 causes "Global warming", melts the ice caps, turns the oceans to acid: 0


Crosstard gets stupid!  The hockey stick is driven by methane, released from melting ice, lands, and waters.  There aren't any experiments like you want Crosstard, since those aren't valuable enough to hit search.  

The CO2 is up to 400 ppm, 350 ppm is the safe limit, and CO2 converts to H2CO3 and kills oysters, reefs, eggs, little fish, and after that, the entire oceanic food chain.

The problem with you, Crosstard, is you are like every young queer, who wants new bath-houses, after the dead homosexuals already taught us shooting speed and banging butts in bath-houses passes HIV, and neglecting meds leads to full-blown AIDS.  But I guess over at your branch of the Log Cabin Club, you get to keep your head up your ass, and your brothers think you are sexy, so eat shit.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 3, 2012)

IanC said:


> that was my latest answer to your question wirebender. electric or magnetic fields cancel out to leave residual _net effects._ if you measure between them you will find some spots where there will be zero effect but move the measuring spot somewhere else and there will be a net force.



I read your answer ian and it simply doesn't jibe with observation.  Reduction of magnitude or complete cancellation of one EM field by another is observable and measurable.  When one field is in opposition to another, there is a measurable decrease in the magnitude of both and depending on the relative magnitudes, one may be cancelled out entirely.  Give me a rational explanation that doesn't violate any laws of physics for the reduction in magnitude or complete cancellation of an EM field that does not involve a diminishing of the number of photons in the field if indeed photons actually exist.



IanC said:


> there is no magical disappearance of photons anywhere!



No ian, it isn't magic.  It is supported and predicted by the laws of nature.  Sorry that it seems like magic to you.  Again, learn something about the subtraction of EM fields and perhaps the truth may penetrate your skull.



IanC said:


> and you refuse to present any mechanism to explain why you think they do.



Look who is talking about refusal to present a mechanism.  He who believes CO2 can cause warming by scattering IR.  You have been shown repeatedly that a CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule thus some how holding in the energy and yet you still believe.



IanC said:


> probably wise on your part. "better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt of it"



I have been suggesting that to you for a long time now and you just don't listen.  It is my claim that is supported and predicted by the laws of physics and supported by the definitions provided in every scientific dictionary that I can lay my hands on.  Thus far, you have not been able to even name a single law that supports, much less predicts your claims and forget about scientific definitions because none describe photons as you claim them to exist.

By the way ian, you have removed all doubt.  N&Z's work continues to gain further substantiation at every turn and you just keep believing in the fantasy.  KOOK aid, even in small quantities is not good for you ian.  

You might take a few minutes to look at the work of Roderich Graeff which has further subtantiated the work of N&Z and Hans Jelbring  via observable, repeatable experimentation.  This work is producing the "real and true nails" for the coffin of the greenhouse effect and all of the scandalous rape of the various natural laws required to offer it any support and you just keep the faith.  How much more hard, verifiable, and substantiable evidence must be provided before you admit that you have been in error?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Number of experiments showing how a (pick a number between 20-120) ppm increase in CO2 causes "Global warming", melts the ice caps, turns the oceans to acid: 0
> ...



Instead of babbling you could have posted the lab experiment showing these results from a 120PPM increase in CO2, right?

I asked for an experiment that controlled for 120PPM of CO2 increase and I got spittle sprayed in every direction

If it works as you say, if CO2 is SO powerful show us one time how this works


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

IanC said:


> good grief! you're an astrophysicist too? the H-R diagram of stellar lifecycles has been around a long time. but I guess once you've overturned classical radiative physics you needed a new topic to keep you busy
> 
> The "Hockey Stick" is shorthand for two ways of thinking about global warming. For anti-carbon crusaders, a 1998 paper and its 1999 follow-up showing temperatures over the past 1,000 years demonstrated the terrible and immediate threat that man poses to the planet. For global-warming skeptics, though, the graph and the name are prime examples of the overblown claims and sloppy science behind much of climatology.


Good grief, you fart and don't pull your head out of your ass?

Runaway Methane Global Warming

"The accelerated global warming described in article 1 could lead to a runaway methane global warming effect due to the release of methane currently trapped in unstable methane hydrate deposits in the arctic that could be destabilised by accelerated global warming effects."

Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats - Science - News - The Independent

Hockey stick!  See my article on wingnut intransigence, to hockey, given their puckey but refusal to get on the stick, which may be related to Log Cabin Club rituals.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2012)

The warming in the USA of the 30's and the 21st century seems to coincide with Dem control of Congress and the White House.

Therefore, Dems cause Global Warming


----------



## wirebender (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Crosstard gets stupid!  The hockey stick is driven by methane, released from melting ice, lands, and waters.



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


----------



## wirebender (Jun 3, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The warming in the USA of the 30's and the 21st century seems to coincide with Dem control of Congress and the White House.
> 
> Therefore, Dems cause Global Warming



If correlation = causation as warmers seem to believe, I think you would have a stronger case than them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2012)

wirebender said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The warming in the USA of the 30's and the 21st century seems to coincide with Dem control of Congress and the White House.
> ...



I have peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Crosstard gets stupid!  The hockey stick is driven by methane, released from melting ice, lands, and waters.
> ...


Gee, I thought the curve in the stick was the graphic upswing in warming, from release of sequestered methane, but if you fucktard birthers have a tree, hey now.

Wienerbender claims a hockey stick, from THAT?  You don't see the dramatic, current release of sequestered methane, upwellings, release from melted ice and unfrozen lands, or birther farts, in some tree.  Any steady warming accelerates, with the methane, so the graph bends, like a hockey stick.  WTF, you have this tree, and all along, I thought you birther dumbfucks had a beef, with Al Gore's _graph._

So why do you claim a 'hockey stick,' if it isn't the upswing in global temperatures?  Explain this to me, dumbfuck Wienerbender.  Did you guys get a tree and make a stick, you didn't immediately put up your own asses?  The one I refer to has a bend, coming, like watch out on the road, ahead.  You know.  Like that thing you do, to your wiener!

You are kinky, as punks on speed, turning tricks, never mind the HIV.  Explain your queer hockey, Wienerbender.  I need to cross-check something, you Log Cabin boyz have, that poor, straight me didn't understand.  Go over the 'hockey stick,' for Log Cabin science.

Kindly refer to IanCrapforbrains or any other reference, even Al Gore.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Aw, look.  They are circle-jerking at the Log Cabin picnic, withums widdle heads up each others' assholes.

Now that you can do that in public, go over 'hockey stick,' come up with a consensus, and get back to work, birther-poofters.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > good grief! you're an astrophysicist too? the H-R diagram of stellar lifecycles has been around a long time. but I guess once you've overturned classical radiative physics you needed a new topic to keep you busy
> ...









Hmmm, methane release linked to conditions 8,000 years ago.  And STILL an infinitisimal trace gas, even after all these millenia, and once again all of your fear mongering is based on computer models.   What a tard, actually believes computer models that can't model conditions from a day ago with perfect knowledge of the variables involved.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Gee, I thought the curve in the stick was the graphic upswing in warming, from release of sequestered methane, but if you fucktard birthers have a tree, hey now.



It is clear that you haven't done much thinking at all.  The hockey stick is based on tree ring studies and is weighted on one tree.  If you didn't even know that very basic bit of information, then you are clearly in over your head.  Of course we already knew that, didn't we rocks?



bobgnote said:


> So why do you claim a 'hockey stick,' if it isn't the upswing in global temperatures?



I don't claim a hockey stick at all goober.  I state with supreme confidence that the hockey stick is the poster child of smoke and mirrors used by climate pseudoscience in an attempt to eradicate the oh so inconvenient medieval warm period.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



All I see is another opportunity you passed up to post the requested experiment. Kids who forgot their homework can learn a lot from you guys

And you fear you're gay too.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, I thought the curve in the stick was the graphic upswing in warming, from release of sequestered methane, but if you fucktard birthers have a tree, hey now.
> ...



You are a piece of shit, who made a claim about how the stick comes from your stupid tree, I didn't buy it, so now you stink, you stupid, lying, con-gaming piece of shit.  You are a punk Mr.Hankey is the only science you know.  Howwwdy Ho!  Shit.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No, Crosstard.  I don't want to spread a dose of global warming and acidification, like the dead queers, who wanted to ignore HIV, turn tricks, shoot speed, and turn up with full-blown AIDS.  YOU are the guy who does that, and one of your wingpunks is out:



Quantum Windbag said:


> I was stationed on a nuclear ship when I was in the Navy, it is a lot safer than you think it is. The major problem with it right now is that fearmongers are preventing the industry from upgrading to newer plants that are even safer than the 1st generation reactors that you are worried about.
> 
> Don't worry though, I am gay, and stupid.



If I were stupid, I'd be afraid of that, I _imagine._  But I'm not stupid, you are.  And you act as queer, as a three-dollar-hillbilly, from a Log Cabin tea-room.  You have a dose, for the whole planet!  So why aren't you out, since you are so dumbfuck proud, with queer wingpunks getting sassy, pushing your stupid dose around?

You want to help your buddy define the 'hockey stick,' or are you giving up on that shit?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Your gayness should no longer terrify you, you have issues and may need professional hlep


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Now that you can do that in public, go over 'hockey stick,' come up with a consensus, and get back to work, birther-poofters.
> ...


Say, Crosstard, what's 'hlep?'  I've been making do, typing with the ballgame on TV, and I read Trakar and O.R., when they have time for any of this.  None of us is gay, wingpunk.  We just do this because we have time for it.  If I were better at tennis, I'd be outside, right now.

Wanna spell out my issues for me, or is that too challenging?  Want some 'hlep?'

Meanwhile, you neglected to 'hlep' your circle-jerking wingpunk Intestinalwall, so he keeps changing his definition of 'hockey stick,' and you at least have that stupid remark at the bottom of every one of your posts, which should qualify you to eat your foot and feed the leftovers, to Intestinalwally.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...






Dude, you're so homophobic you MUST be gay.  And that's OK.  Embrace who you are.  You'll feel better for it.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

westwall said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Typical punk position.  I knew you were experienced at daisy chains and blow-buddy.

But you are also a dose-purveyor, which is exactly where closets and Log Cabin punk-spectrum run off to.  You want the planet to catch a hot-house dose of CO2 poisoning, and damn the sequestered methane, so we should all read your fake science shit, about spectral analysis, which is crudely done, by stupid shits, you and your blow-buddies.

You are so fake, the only thing you could be is queer.  And your brand of queer is not gay, like Quantum Windbag admitted, but queer, as a three-dollar-bill, worthless, to any but your own kind.  Fuck yourself, shitter.  You are _exactly like fruity-pies who wanted to keep tricking and shooting speed, when HIV was discovered,_ and many died.

So you think I'm afraid, instead of understanding?  You blown-out shitter!  Fear the queen, over there?  Fuck you, queen of shitters, and your bogus sphinctrum-analysis.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 4, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> You are a piece of shit, who made a claim about how the stick comes from your stupid tree, I didn't buy it, so now you stink, you stupid, lying, con-gaming piece of shit.  You are a punk Mr.Hankey is the only science you know.  Howwwdy Ho!  Shit.



Geez guy, you have to be one of the stupidest socks on the board.  Are you really unaware of the methodology used to arrive at the hockey stick?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

And, you, Bent, pretend to be unaware of the fact that over a dozen independent studies, using other proxies, have come up with the same graph. Here is one published by our National Academy of Science;

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> And, you, Bent, pretend to be unaware of the fact that over a dozen independent studies, using other proxies, have come up with the same graph. Here is one published by our National Academy of Science;
> 
> Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia



hahahahahahahaha.

you're pulling our leg, right?

what? you're not kidding?!?

you think that citing Mann08, of Tiljander fame, is an independant study?

the one where Mann (and his buddies Bradley and Hughes are there too) uses the same tawdry treering proxies to show a (reduced) hockey stick, then takes them out and uses the upsidedown Tiljander cores and makes another (reduced) hockey stick? 

you can't be serious.

Mann's response to being caught using an upsidedown proxy-


> Their non-dendro network uses some data with the axes upside down, e.g. Korttajarvi sediments, which are also compromised by agricultural impact (Tiljander, pers. comm.)
> To which Mann replied:
> 
> The claim that upside down data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.



why didnt he show a non-dendro, non-Tiljander graph? because it wouldnt be a hockey stick. the versions without one or the other showed a reduced HS, with neither there is no HS.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > You are a piece of shit, who made a claim about how the stick comes from your stupid tree, I didn't buy it, so now you stink, you stupid, lying, con-gaming piece of shit.  You are a punk Mr.Hankey is the only science you know.  Howwwdy Ho!  Shit.
> ...


Shove your Jesus in your gay asshole.

You claimed a tree was used to get the data for the 'hockey stick' graph.  You are a foil-hat geek, spamming this forum, with your shit.  If you don't refer to the upswing in warming, then let's hear all about your theory, since your theory is shit, and it isn't even the same shit your wingpunks are driving.

Your shit _is_ gay in traffic, so eat it and die, punk.  Es verdad.  Your pants are on fire, and so is the planet.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 4, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> You claimed a tree was used to get the data for the 'hockey stick' graph.  You are a foil-hat geek, spamming this forum, with your shit.  If you don't refer to the upswing in warming, then let's hear all about your theory, since your theory is shit, and it isn't even the same shit your wingpunks are driving.



Sorry guy, but this is all way over your head and it doesn't appear that there is much to be done for it.  Do you have any idea what the term proxy data means?  The hockey stick is ased on proxy data.  Inappropriate proxy data according to the National Academy and various other panels that investigated the research.  In the case of the hockey stick, the proxy used was tree ring data and it is all hinged on a single tree designated YAD06 and as a result, that single tree has come to be known as the most influential tree in the world.

Here, have yourself a read if indeed you can read.

Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world' - Telegraph

YAD06 &#8211; the Most Influential Tree in the World « Climate Audit

&#8216;The Most Influential Tree in the World&#8217; - By Edward John Craig - Planet Gore - National Review Online


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Sorry guy, but this is all way over your head and it doesn't appear that there is much to be done for it.  Do you have any idea what the term proxy data means?  The hockey stick is ased on proxy data.  Inappropriate proxy data according to the National Academy and various other panels that investigated the research.  In the case of the hockey stick, the proxy used was tree ring data and it is all hinged on a single tree designated YAD06 and as a result, that single tree has come to be known as the most influential tree in the world.
> 
> Here, have yourself a read if indeed you can read.
> 
> ...



Oh.  You mean your complete bullshit is euphemistically "(sic)ased on proxy data," instead of _facts._  Since you are using circular or non-logic, to loop bogus media in favor of your bogus objective, you insert "proxy" shit, in lieu of facts and related issues.  You are busted, like Zimmy, punkhole.  Your references are fucktard-skeptic media, which does not refer to the ongoing upswing in warming, from methane release:

Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats - Science - News - The Independent

Flood Maps

Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise | Climate Change - Health and Environmental Effects | U.S. EPA

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

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

You are a hooking, lying, fucktard piece of shit, so get off the ice and into the box:

Climate wars heat up over global warming - Video on msnbc.com

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet More Studies Back Hockey Stick: Recent Global Warming Is Unprecedented In Magnitude And Speed And Cause | ThinkProgress

You know how to hook, but you suck, at cross-checking and slapping puckey.  Get on the stick, or shut the fuck up.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2012)

Wait. Global warming is melting the ocean floor in the Arctic? 

Are you sure about that?

How does that work?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
> ...



Tardwally, close up your boozey rants, with the text of your quote, so your post doesn't take up half a page, for no gain, but repeating O.R.'s post.

Scientific organizations don't do any 'swing' thinking, which is why governments are in no hurry to cut emissions, start aggressive biomass, and re-green, simultaneously.  I don't see organizations putting up cumulative human stewardship effect-estimates or biomass and re-greening suggestions.  So that leaves a lot of media, for fucktards, like you, and here you are!  

Remember, Christians kept evolution out of schools, until 1958, when oil-exporting Soviets put up Sputnik.  Wait till tards for Jesus all find out about re-green, or die!  We are liable to lose our habitat, already.

I don't know what your excuse is, Wally, since you don't seem like a Christian; You're just dumb as Christians, aren't you.  In fact, you're so stupid, I'd wail, if I had time.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 4, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Oh.  You mean your complete bullshit is euphemistically "(sic)ased on proxy data," instead of _facts._  Since you are using circular or non-logic, to loop bogus media in favor of your bogus objective, you insert "proxy" shit, in lieu of facts and related issues.  You are busted, like Zimmy, punkhole.  Your references are fucktard-skeptic media, which does not refer to the ongoing upswing in warming, from methane release:



Dude, your writing, and apparently your thinking as well is so disorganized that I don't have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.  It is as if you have nothing to say so you toss in a liberal helping of impotent ad hominem with an equally liberal helping of nonsense and apparently believe you have said something worth note and reply.

Alas you have not.  Let me know when you feel able to speak coherently.  Maybe we can actually discuss the topic.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 4, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wait. Global warming is melting the ocean floor in the Arctic?
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> How does that work?



Do you have any idea what he is talking about?  Do you get the impression that he believes the hockey stick is about methane and is not based on proxy data cherry picked from tree cores?

I have talked to some rambling, incoherent people in my time, but that guy takes the cake and he is so homophobic that he must be a highly frustrated closet drag queen or some such.  Perhaps a self loathing pedophile for all the anger he is apparently unable to contain.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wait. Global warming is melting the ocean floor in the Arctic?  Are you sure about that?  How does that work?



Once again, Crosstard, you have a browser, with Google or Ask on it, so hit search.  All melted glacial and permafrost areas give up sequestered methane, as does the bottom of bodies of water, which are warming, frozen or not.  Then along comes the hockey stick!

There's all kinds of this information for you to read, but you have to search for yourself.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Oh.  You mean your complete bullshit is euphemistically "(sic)ased on proxy data," instead of _facts._  Since you are using circular or non-logic, to loop bogus media in favor of your bogus objective, you insert "proxy" shit, in lieu of facts and related issues.  You are busted, like Zimmy, punkhole.  Your references are fucktard-skeptic media, which does not refer to the ongoing upswing in warming, from methane release:
> ...


Asshole!  Look up the links, Wikipedia and the other one, about 'hockey stick:'

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's another one:

Live Q&A: Climate scientist Michael Mann on the 'hockey stick' controversy | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Read it, bitch!  Your punk talk about 'cherry-picked' applies to YOU, and your crap about 'proxy data,' which represents something not evident or generally accepted.  Read!  Your proxy shit about the tree is from your own retarded busload of wingpunks.

'Alas' you are queer, watching RuPaul and telling me about it, but you don't read, search, or hit links, even.  Stupid bitch.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2012)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And, you, Bent, pretend to be unaware of the fact that over a dozen independent studies, using other proxies, have come up with the same graph. Here is one published by our National Academy of Science;
> ...



I looked into Mann08 a little more. it turns out that if you take out either the dendro _or_ the cores(Tiljander) then the temp reconstruction is not valid pre 1750, as per Gavin Schmidt. why then was Mann, the hockey team and the rest of the warmist world shouting to high heaven that they had a paper proving the exceptional present warmth without using contested proxies? why do these guys lie so much? why does the media believe them?

by a happy coincidence CA had an article on Mann's use of the Law Dome ice cores today. how many times have the skeptics complained about climate science using outdated or suspiciously truncated proxies? I bet you can figure out what is coming next right?

Mann08 uses a truncated version of Law Dome with mysterious adjustments from 1997 instead of the full version from 2003 even though he had it.






same old story


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Read it, bitch!  Your punk talk about 'cherry-picked' applies to YOU, and your crap about 'proxy data,' which represents something not evident or generally accepted.  Read!  Your proxy shit about the tree is from your own retarded busload of wingpunks.



Still not coherent huh?  Maybe if you got back on your meds you would make sense.  It is worth a shot, don't you think?

Maybe if you read your links for comprehension, you would begin to grasp that the hockey stick is based on highly selected proxy data; specifically tree cores.

Here are some clips from your own links.  Do try to comprehend what the words mean.

CLIP: _Mann carried out a series of statistical sensitivity tests, removing each proxy in turn to see the effect its removal had on the result. He found that certain proxies were critical to the reliability of the reconstruction, particularly one* tree ring dataset *collected by Gordon Jacoby and Rosanne D'Arrigo in a part of North America Bradley's earlier research had identified as a key region_

CLIP: _The report said that MBH method creates a PC1 statistic dominated by bristlecone and foxtail pine *tree ring series *(closely related species). However there is evidence in the literature, that the use of the bristlecone pine series as a temperature proxy may not be valid (suppressing "warm period" in the hockey stick handle); and that bristlecones do exhibit CO2-fertilized growth over the last 150 years (enhancing warming in the hockey stick blade). _

CLIP:  _ *Mann said*, "Ten years ago, the availability of data became quite sparse by the time you got back to 1,000 AD, and what we had then was weighted towards* tree-ring data*_

CLIP:  _Mr Mann, Don't you think that a very good test of the validity of a proxy is that it matches the instrumental temperature record? Given this is the case, doesn't the divergence problem tell you that *tree rings *aren't a very good proxy for temperature? _

Do at least try to read the references and gain at least a rudementary understanding of the material.  Mann's hockey stick fraud was based on tree ring studies and trees that the chairman of the national academy of science panel, the head of the royal academy statistical society, and the American Statistical Society all agreed that the method by which mann produced the hockey stick was scientifically unsound.  Here is an exchange from the  House Energy and Commerce Committee:

_CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegmans report?
DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we dont. We dont disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent. _

This is some of what the NAS had to say regarding mann's methodology and conclusions:

_The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero.

M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or strip-bark records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th  century warmth is not robustin other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Manns results are strongly dependent on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

The NAS said "* Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.*_


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2012)

it really is amazing that both sides walked away from the NAS, Wegman and North panels saying they had won. in reality, science lost.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2012)

wirebender said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wait. Global warming is melting the ocean floor in the Arctic?
> ...



I consider Bob to be the spokesperson for the Warmers and Decline Hiders. You learn so much by just listening sometimes


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wait. Global warming is melting the ocean floor in the Arctic?  Are you sure about that?  How does that work?
> ...



And global warming is causing the undersea volcanic activity?

Is that how it works?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I consider Bob to be the spokesperson for the Warmers and Decline Hiders. You learn so much by just listening sometimes


You punks parade this guy Mann and your shit about tree-rings, like modern hockey players should all put down their sticks because Lord Stanley isn't alive, anymore.

Assholes, the hockey stick is a generic concept.  But since your assholes have this guy Mann up a tree, you keep barking, and the temperatures and acidity will keep _rising._

This time of writing and reading will pass.  When it gets hot enough, it's off to the pool.  And if some tribe of hunter-gatherers roasts up some wingpunk, in the future, the dog might have to eat some.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I consider Bob to be the spokesperson for the Warmers and Decline Hiders. You learn so much by just listening sometimes
> ...



Geez guy, you really are behind the 8 ball on this.  Without the hockey stick there is no basis for alarmism as without the hockey stick the roman and medieval warm periods take the wind out of the alarmist sails so to speak.  With the roman and medieval warm periods being considerably warmer than the present without the benefit of so called greenhouse gasses being emitted by man, the present warming becomes nothing more than the paltry natural variation that it is.

The hockey stick is important to warmers entirely because it supposedly erased the warm periods over the past couple of thousand years.  It has nothing to do with methane release from the arctic which surely happened to a greater degree during both the medieval and roman warm periods as they were both considerably warmer than the present and as anyone who cares to look can see, the releases of both those periods brought about no harmful effects unless of course, you want to blame the little ice age on them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I consider Bob to be the spokesperson for the Warmers and Decline Hiders. You learn so much by just listening sometimes
> ...



How much Carbonic acid do you have to add to the ocean (as if its generic like a liter of water, but let's pretend it is) to get a .1 drop in pH?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How much Carbonic acid do you have to add to the ocean (as if its generic like a liter of water, but let's pretend it is) to get a .1 drop in pH?


Ocean Acidification - What is Ocean Acidification? | NRDC

"Earth&#8217;s atmosphere isn&#8217;t the only victim of burning fossil fuels. About a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the earth&#8217;s oceans, where they&#8217;re having an impact that&#8217;s just starting to be understood.

Over the last decade, scientists have discovered that this excess CO2 is actually changing the chemistry of the sea and proving harmful for many forms of marine life. This process is known as ocean acidification.

A more acidic ocean could wipe out species, disrupt the food web and impact fishing, tourism and any other human endeavor that relies on the sea.

The change is happening fast -- and it will take fast action to slow or stop it. Over the last 250 years, oceans have absorbed 530 billion tons of CO2, triggering a 30 percent increase in ocean acidity."

-530 billion tons of CO2 went in, over 250 years.  

Ocean Acidity | Climate Change | US EPA

-You will notice the pH went down, as the CO2 rose, 1983-2005.

Carbon Dioxide and Carbonic Acid

Relative H2CO3 concentration is really CO2 (aq) in equilibrium with water.

In summary;
	CO2 enters water through interface with the atmosphere and the biological processes of organic carbon digestion and photosynthesis.  Aqueous carbon dioxide, CO2 (aq), reacts with water forming carbonic acid, H2CO3 (aq).
	Carbonic acid may loose protons to form bicarbonate, HCO3- , and carbonate, CO32-. In this case the proton is liberated to the water, decreasing pH.
	The complex chemical equilibria are described using two acid equilibrium equations.  The first acid equilibrium constant accounts for the CO2 (aq) - H2CO3 (aq) equilibrium. It concequently seems to have a high pKa.
	The fraction of the inorganic carbon in a particular form is call the "alpha" and there are simple equation to describe this alpha."

-To compute the incremental weight of CO2 to add to seawater, which today is about pH 8.1-8.4, you need to know how to evaluate the molecular weight, acidity (pKa), and conversion to carbonate, in the exchange of CO2 to carbonic acid to carbonate:

Carbonic acid is diprotic: it has two protons, which may dissociate from the parent molecule. Thus, there are two dissociation constants, the first one for the dissociation into the bicarbonate (also called hydrogen carbonate) ion HCO3&#8722;:

H2CO3  HCO3&#8722; + H+
Ka1 = 4.5×10&#8722;7 ; pKa1 = 6.367 at 25 °C.[1]
The second for the dissociation of the bicarbonate ion into the carbonate ion CO32&#8722;:

HCO3&#8722;  CO32&#8722; + H+
Ka2 = 4.69×10&#8722;11 ; pKa2 = 10.329 at 25 °C and Ionic Strength = 0.0

-Here's the Wikipedia link.  If you are smart enough, you find out what a liter of seawater weighs, and YOU can figure it out. That is bitchwork.  I need a cup of coffee, first:

Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How much Carbonic acid do you have to add to the ocean (as if its generic like a liter of water, but let's pretend it is) to get a .1 drop in pH?
> ...



530B tons CO2, which makes mockery of the AGW notion that the oceans are net displacing CO2 as the temperature rise. 

There is no Positive CO2 Feedback Loop!

"A brief aside: are the oceans a net source or sink of CO2?

One interesting question about the marine carbon cycle concerned whether or not the oceans are a source of CO2, adding it to the atmosphere, or a sink, removing it from the atmosphere. Recent research indicates that the oceans are a net sink, though some regions (generally colder and more turbulent) absorb CO2, and other regions (warmer and less turbulent) release CO2. The North Atlantic Ocean accounts for about 60% of the CO2 absorption by the global ocean. (CO2 is less soluble in warm water than in cold water.) For a variety of reasons, global warming could convert the oceans from a sink to a source, which is an example of bad positive feedback."

Total ocean mass = 1.4*10^18

5.3*10^11/1.4*10^18= 3.7*10^-7 (I said it was a really small number, remember?)

.000037% increase in CO2 over the last 250 years.

"A Brief Summary of Carbonate Buffer System Chemistry

Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in seawater and is hydrated to form carbonic acid, H2CO3. Carbonic acid is divalent; that is, it can undergo two de-protonation reactions to form bicarbonate (HCO3-), and carbonate (CO32-). The co-existence of these species in seawater creates a chemical buffer system, regulating the pH and the pCO2 of the oceans. Most of the inorganic carbon in the ocean exists as bicarbonate (~88%), with the concentrations of carbonate ion and CO2 comprising about 11% and 1%, respectively"

http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/TEACHERS/CHEMISTRY/

Carbonic acid in the ocean breaks down into Bicarbonate, which is an alkaline

"*Bicarbonate is alkaline*, and a vital component of the pH buffering system[2] of the human body (maintaining acid-base homeostasis). 70 to 75 percent of CO2 in the body is converted into carbonic acid (H2CO3), which can quickly turn into bicarbonate (HCO3&#8722.
With carbonic acid as the central intermediate species, bicarbonate &#8211; in conjunction with water, hydrogen ions, and carbon dioxide &#8211; forms this buffering system, which is maintained at the volatile equilibrium[2] required to provide prompt resistance to drastic pH changes in both the acidic and basic directions. This is especially important for protecting tissues of the central nervous system, where pH changes too far outside of the normal range in either direction could prove disastrous.[citation needed] (See acidosis, or alkalosis.) Bicarbonate also acts to regulate pH in the small intestine. It is released from the pancreas in response to the hormone secretin to neutralize the acidic chyme entering the duodenum from the stomach.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate

Now Carbonic acid has a pH of 6.367 (pKa1), 10.329 (pKa2) and I have no idea how to do that math after this but if you take the "Ocean pH" which varies from 8.1 to 8.4 and add .000037% Carbonic acid (pH of 6.3), my guess is you would see no measurable decrease in ocean CO2

*So, to highlight:*

1. Global Warming is total bullshit

2. There is NO positive CO2 feedback Loop

3. Whatever CO2 is added to the oceans is less than a gnats fart into a Cat V hurricane and would have no measurable impact on ocean chemistry even if it didn't degrade into an alkaline as it does


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 5, 2012)




----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 530B tons CO2, which makes mockery of the AGW notion that the oceans are net displacing CO2 as the temperature rise.
> 
> There is no Positive CO2 Feedback Loop!
> 
> ...



But Crosstard, the more acidic colder waters are killing oysters and plankton, and reefs can all go down, by 2050.  If eggs and little fish die, down goes the food chain.  If eggs on land follow, in 100 years, we are in shit.  Hey, Crosstard, even if you don't live over by the ocean, you will notice this.

Your bullshit about carbonate as buffer is just that, total bullshit.  Carbonate is in the exchange, but it doesn't buffer enough, to stop die-offs.  530 tons is the estimate of CO2 dissolution, which has moved ocean pH from about 8.7 to between 8.4 and 8.1, and that is enough variance, to kill organisms, already, given cold-water spike phenomena.  So pull your cheerleader, Saveshit, out of your butt and sock up a post for him.

Global warming is killing, CO2 is killing, and humans are going on the endangered list.  Since you are a sub-human, you aren't worried.  Sub-humans don't have to go near the water.  But you could wind up under water, one day.  I don't believe you wrote that shit, about 'degrade,' when the phenomenon is an _exchange,_ with tendencies, and these tendencies are deadly.  But hey, I knew you were stupid, but cunning enough, to bullshit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 530B tons CO2, which makes mockery of the AGW notion that the oceans are net displacing CO2 as the temperature rise.
> ...



Because you say so...got it. 530B tons of CO2 is less than a rounding error, but it's acidifying the oceans.  Righhhht.

My suspicion is that for CO2 to cause a .4 drop in pH you'd have to add 5,300,000 Billion tons and not just 530 as you allege. The math is not in your favor.

You might want to go to the library and pick up math books and maybe a few books on "How to come out" as a gay man in America in 2012


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> But Crosstard, the more acidic colder waters are killing oysters and plankton, and reefs can all go down, by 2050.  If eggs and little fish die, down goes the food chain.  If eggs on land follow, in 100 years, we are in shit.  Hey, Crosstard, even if you don't live over by the ocean, you will notice this.



It never ceases to amaze me how easily, and thoroughly the uneducated can be duped.  That in and of itself is justification for higher education.  bobgnote, your inability to research and your willingness to be the shill of anyone who you believe shares your political leanings has led you to this sad point of being nothing more than a willing mouthpiece for unscrupulous people seeking money and power.

This issue with the oysters of the north pacific isn't new and not so long ago (2009) was thoroughly studied and the problem was identified.  Here is a link to the study:

http://www.pcsga.org/pub/science/Emergency_Seed_Proposal_Indesign-1.pdf

The report was a joint effort by the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, Whiskey Creek Hatchery, Taylor Hatchery, Pacific Shellfish Institute, Willapa-Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association, Lummi Indian Tribe Hatchery, U.S. Department of Commerce (NOAA Aquaculture Program), Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NOAA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (ARS and CSREES), Oregon State University, AquaTechnics, Inc., and the Nature Conservancy 

The issue was carefully studied and while CO2 is an issue, it has absolutely nothing to do with man's emissions of the gas or acidification of the oceans by man's CO2 emissions.  

Here, from the report is a description of the cause of the problem:

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

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

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

&#8226; Larval and juvenile shellfish are highly sensitive to acidic (low pH) seawater because their shells are formed from calcium carbonate, and dissolves when pH is low.

&#8226; Because this hypoxic and relatively acidic up-welled water is coming from deep basins and is cold (8 - 10 oC), it is saturated with dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen while at the same time being low in oxygen as a result of biological decomposition in the benthic zone. *When hatcheries heat this gas-saturated seawater to 25 - 28 oC in order to meet the temperature requirements of young shellfish, the
seawater becomes super-saturated. Preliminary experiments indicate that oyster larvae are very sensitive to gas super-saturation under these conditions.*

&#8226; A third problem for shellfish hatcheries is the *recent increase in the prevalence of a pathogenic bacterium (Vibrio tubiashii or Vt) that seems to out-compete other, more benign species in this distorted environment. *Vt infections are lethal to shellfish larvae and juveniles. High levels of mortality in shellfish hatcheries and in the wild have been associated with high levels of Vt in 2006, 2007, and intermittently in previous years, such as in 1998 when environmental conditions favored disease outbreaks.

&#8226; There is potential for further stress to oyster seed given the difference between water conditions in the hatcheries where larvae are produced, and quality of water found in the remote settings where larvae set onto cultch (&#8220;mother shell&#8221 are planted in the natural environment for grow-out._
I know that the language might be a bit technical for you so allow me to help you out.  What the study found was that very cold water from very deep is upwelling into the sound.  The CO2 found in the deep cold water of the ocean is not due to man's CO2 emissions.  It is ocean oscilations bring that water up from the depths.  Oscilations such as the PDO and ENSO bring it up.    Then the hatcheries themselves heat the water in order to bring it up to a useful temperature and in doing so, supersaturate the water with CO2.  

Then on top of that, there is a bacteria competing with the oyster larva for what oxygen is available in that cold oxygen deprived water from the deep ocean and then on top of that there is the inherent stress involved in moving the oyster larvae into a new environment.

I read the whole report and there is nothing there about oceans absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere.  Of course, when that report was written, the global warmig hoax had not fallen apart to nearly the extent that it has today and the ocean acidification hoax wasn't even really a blip on the horizon.  

The people who have so successfully scared you with the ocean acidification hoax were perfectly aware of that report and they knew perfectly well that ocean acidification was not the cause for the problems the oyster industry in the north pacific is having.  They count on the ignorance of people like you and your willingness to repeat their claims without a clue or even a care as to whether the claims are accurate.

Tell me, what does it feel like to be so uneducated that you can be duped and used by anyone with some snake oil to sell who you perceive as being on your side politically?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Because you say so...got it. 530B tons of CO2 is less than a rounding error, but it's acidifying the oceans.  Righhhht.
> 
> My suspicion is that for CO2 to cause a .4 drop in pH you'd have to add 5,300,000 Billion tons and not just 530 as you allege. The math is not in your favor.
> 
> You might want to go to the library and pick up math books and maybe a few books on "How to come out" as a gay man in America in 2012



Those are the totals, and since they involve data since the 19th Century, and good climate models for total human interaction since then are not yet evident, these are estimates.  That includes the 530 billion tons.  It's all shit, anyway, since up go the temperatures, down goes productivity, and here comes the die-off.  It will take till after our lifetimes, to all go down, but to survive, humanity has to evolve smart people.  That means you don't get to make babies, is all.

But you are unlikely, to make a kid.  You are a suspected queen of the internet.  You don't do math; you just spout shit.  You are in denial of the accelerating warming and acidification, which is just like the gay dose, you dodged, somehow, with speed and tricks.  But your Navy buddy Quantum Windbag is out, in your style, so don't proselytize, you miserable punk.  You paraded in here, with your own kind, you post crap like this is your own tea-room, so bitch, out!


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> but to survive, humanity has to evolve smart people.



If your side believes that you are an example of "smart people" we are in trouble.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > but to survive, humanity has to evolve smart people.
> ...



Hey.  Wiener.  Psst!  See the thread on acidification, where I wrote the OP?  See about ten of my posts, which you were too gay to read, but they all mention _carbonic acidification, and how the carbonic acid has an affinity, for cold water?_  Preach, if you must, DD+D.

OMG, Wiener found out about the dead oysters.  What's next, Wiener admits the reefs are due to die, by 2050, and the eggs, little fish, plankton, and whatever can go, any time?  What's next, Wiener rants about CO2 being all the way, to 400 ppm?  Go Wiener, go Wiener, go Wienerbitch!  Earth to Wiener . . .


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > but to survive, humanity has to evolve smart people.
> ...



LOL. Look who is talking.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

And Wienerbitch, wasn't Crosstard Fucknbitch trying to lecture all of us, on the way carbonic acid "degrade(s)," into carbonate, and I answered, telling him his characterization was inaccurate?

You seem to be trying to prove any of my points, with your post on acid, which has a non-current allegation of a pathogenic organism, but current allegations, of _carbonic acid_ activity?  Read my OP, re acidification, for the _current report._  Here's some math, meanwhile:  what do you get, when you add D + D + D?  Wienerbitch!  Wienerbitch!  Don't forget Crosstard Fucknbitch.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Hey.  Wiener.  Psst!  See the thread on acidification, where I wrote the OP?  See about ten of my posts, which you were too gay to read, but they all mention _carbonic acidification, and how the carbonic acid has an affinity, for cold water?_  Preach, if you must, DD+D.



Do you even know what the word affinity means?  I guess not as carbonic acid does not have an affinity for cold water.  CO2 does not seek out cold water.  It doesn't pass through warm water in search of cold.  Cold water holds more CO2 than warm water but "affinity" has nothing to do with it.  



bobgnote said:


> OMG, Wiener found out about the dead oysters.



The dying oysters that have nothing to do with the CO2 emissions of man.  The oysters that you believe are dying because atmospheric CO2 levels have reached some arbitrary point.  The dying oysters that were employed to completely dupe and use you.  If you believe my post on the oysters in any way laid the blame on atmospheric CO2 levels, then you are even less perceptive than I had given you credit for.



bobgnote said:


> What's next, Wiener admits the reefs are due to die, by 2050, and the eggs, little fish, plankton, and whatever can go, any time?



Sorry guy, none of those things are going to happen due to any amount of CO2 in the air.  Published peer reviewed study after published peer reviewed study tells us that it simply isn't going to happen.




bobgnote said:


> What's next, Wiener rants about CO2 being all the way, to 400 ppm?  Go Wiener, go Wiener, go Wienerbitch!  Earth to Wiener . . .



Realy guy, get back on your meds,  you might make more sense and you certainly won't look nearly as stupid.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



Yep.  Someone who actually grasps the science and can do the math as opposed to......well, you know.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Read my OP, re acidification, for the _current report._



By "current" you mean hype not founded in fact but supports the current reason warmists give us that the sky is falling?

The dying oysters have nothing whatsoever to do with ocean acidification.  If atmospheric CO2 were 100 ppm, the deep ocean water would still be saturated with CO2 and have a very low oxygen content.  Read for comprehension.  The upwelling water from the deep pacific is what is killing the oysters, not acidification due to mankind's CO2 emissions.

By the way, love the constant name calling.  Tells me that you are intimidated and feel the need to comfort yourself if even a small amount by name calling.  It is like whistling when you walk by a graveyard to show the ghosties in there that you aren't scared even though they can all see your knees knocking.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 530B tons CO2, which makes mockery of the AGW notion that the oceans are net displacing CO2 as the temperature rise.
> ...



You're ranting again.

530B additional tons of CO2 over 250 years, cannot possibly have the effect that you describe. It just not possible for it to lower pH by even .1 much less .4 as you allege

Yes, if you take the trouble to read the articles you link to you'll see that Carbolic acid breaks down into bicarbonate which is an alkaline, the opposite of an acid.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yes, if you take the trouble to read the articles you link to you'll see that Carbolic acid breaks down into bicarbonate which is an alkaline, the opposite of an acid.



Pointless for him to take the time to read what he links to.  Like rocks, he lacks the intelligence to actually understand any of it.  He is merely posting scripture that is to be taken on faith and anyone who questions it is a heretic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2012)

So says the dumb ass that cannot do simple research to verify his stupid post concerning CO2 levels at the beginning of the present ice age.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Hey.  Wiener.  Psst!  See the thread on acidification, where I wrote the OP?  See about ten of my posts, which you were too gay to read, but they all mention _carbonic acidification, and how the carbonic acid has an affinity, for cold water?_  Preach, if you must, DD+D.
> ...



"Realy guy," you are fucking queer and you can't spell, with your thumb up your butt.  And you can't remember the shit you paste, which you don't ever read.  The other day, you should have learned how CO2 exchanges with carbonic acid which exchanges with carbonate, but human emissions and defoliation have screwed up the ocean's balance, which you balk at understanding:

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The natural pH of the ocean is determined by a need to balance the deposition and burial of CaCO3 on the sea floor against the influx of Ca2+ and CO2&#8722;
3 into the ocean from dissolving rocks on land, called weathering. These processes stabilize the pH of the ocean, by a mechanism called CaCO3 compensation...The point of bringing it up again is to note that if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes more slowly than this, as it always has throughout the Vostok record, the pH of the ocean will be relatively unaffected because CaCO3 compensation can keep up. The [present] fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike will be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years."

In the 15-year period 19952010 alone, acidity has increased 6 percent in the upper 100 meters of the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii to Alaska.[29] -unquote, Wienerbitch.

You aren't taking your meds, that's for shit-sure.  Get some smart pills, to get to tardy-level intelligence, instead of fucktard-level stupidity.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...








So, riddle me this queer boy (or do you prefer poofter?), how do you claim this is an extinction when well over 20,000 NEW species have been discovered in the last 5 years?  

Your math should be quite amusing.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 15, 2012)

westwall said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _The population is up, too high, for the declining human and animal habitat to support.  Like a helicopter with the tail rotor compromised, a forced landing is necessary, and something fatal is likely to happen.  Your usual method of flapping won't save you, from a chopper-type crash or from a dose of HIV, moving to full-blown AIDS, which are like the problems, posed by global warming.  We've been over why you are into AIDS-type dilemmas._
> ...



_*With your Wally-head up your asshole, while living in a Nevada closet, you start to ass-u-me.  When you assume, you project your own denials, about your closet and the similarity of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, to your denial, about dangerous climate change.

If I were queer, Wallyfucktard, I wouldn't live in a closet and rant at straight people, like you do.  I'd get out and freak.  I would not be both gay and stupid, like your fellow Log Cabin Club freak, Q-bag, who outed himself, posted smilies, and ran off.

I don't do either gay or queer lifestyles, and I resent your redundant denials and crude accusations, which impose your queer agenda, on any part of the public, gay or straight.  You closet queens need to be deposed, if you won't be outed, since you are like the dead queers, who shot speed and tricked HIV all the way, through AIDS, to death.  While you are at your pansy-rants, try to type, without skipping 8 lines, first.

You might want to suck balls over at wattsupwiththat and load your buddy's graph, or are you committed to mere rants, over here?  Go get us a graph, regal bitch!

Since you are absolutely queer, you somehow reason because species are still being discovered, habitat and extinction must not be evident.  But you are stupid, first, queer, second.  If you were queer, first, maybe you'd step out, admit you are gay, and fuck off.

Since you are stupid, first, you will eat shit, and die, no doubt.*_


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2012)

bobgnote said:


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









I believe what you are doing is called PROJECTION.  Look it up junior.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2012)

westwall said:


> I believe what you are doing is called PROJECTION.  Look it up junior.



He sure likes talking about male genitals doesn't he?  I thought the topic was climate change but he just keeps on and on about johnsons.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I believe what you are doing is called PROJECTION.  Look it up junior.
> ...



_*Why do you guys come over to threads like this, Wiener and Wally?  Do you crave despicable camaraderie?  

Wiener posted two graphs.  One was shit, without labels for the plots.  The other was Vostok core plots, for CO2 and temperature, but Wiener couldn't read it, and you wouldn't try, Wally, even though I invited you to read the graph.  Wally doesn't post graphs.  Wally likes to talk down to me.  We know what you mean by that, don't we.

I've posted numerous graphs, but you guys don't comment, on those.  So I've been commenting on how queer you stupid, aggressive, experienced, closet homosexuals are, since you offer nothing on-topic, see O.R.'s OP.

I'd be glad to write about how far we have gone, but how far did you guys go?  All the way off-topic, and then you like the outing you get, so you come back for more.  Wienerbitch, you are undeniably a hermaphrodite, who tries to pretend he's queen of science, but you are no damn good.  Wallyfucktard is clearly a royal pussy, who won't load a graph, and he waits 8 lines, to write a reply, to darned near any quote in quote in quote.

When you guys get tired of hearing what shit you are, you can go act like shit, at some thread, with the OP, about how shitty you are, instead of hijacking environment pages.*_


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I believe what you are doing is called PROJECTION.  Look it up junior.
> ...









No doubt he has a peanut sized mbwebwe as Garrett Morris used to say!


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> No doubt he has a peanut sized mbwebwe as Garrett Morris used to say!



Thanks, I just blew orange juice out of my nose.  Now there is some acidification that I can believe in.  Observation...... you know.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> The other was Vostok core plots, for CO2 and temperature, but Wiener couldn't read it, and you wouldn't try,



Well, one of us couldn't read it anyway bob.  I provided 5 or 6 published, peer reviewed studies which stated, as I did, that the ice core data show that temperature increase preceeds an increase in atmospheric CO2 by at least 200 years.  

You, on the other hand, talked a bit about my genitals, vented some of your repressed homosexuality, and I believe cut and pasted something that you didn't understand.  In the grand and small scheme of things bob, I believe I win.  Sorry guy.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > The other was Vostok core plots, for CO2 and temperature, but Wiener couldn't read it, and you wouldn't try,
> ...



*I gave you the title of Wienerbitch, so I can stand to post stuff, for you to rant at.  Since you can't deny you are a closet queen, you want to take the position of long-dead queers, who shot speed and tricked their HIV, all the way through AIDS, to death, and so now, you are a bitchin' conservative!  Eat your own shit and die, geek!

Since you are still in the closet, with Wally, you guys think you can project your own preferences, onto others, while driving your dose, on the downlow.

Your "peer" reviewed studies are shit, to which you won't refer, simultaneously, with links and text, since you are a queer, claiming "peer," while masking your regal queenie tricks, in your downlow closet.  You loaded one graph worth a shit, about Vostok cores, but you couldn't read that or the 400,000 year CO2-temperature trends, and Wallyfucktard wouldn't try to read them, since Wally is stupid, he knows you are stupid, he likes stupidity, so why should he try to read a graph?

Read Vostok posts, queer who claims "peer."  Look at how you tried to get me to comment, on off-chart data.

You went and loaded that piece of shit, without labeled plots or Holocene data, so why would Wally read that, since you probably forgot to PM him, with a layoff advisement.  The reason you forgot that is you are so stupid, you think a graph without labeled plots must somehow be worthwhile, if it comes from queerporn.org.  But Wally was ready.  He and suckassbil are plainly too stupid, to read a real graph, so why sort your shit?*


----------

