# Evidence that global warming IS happening



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

1) The temperature record


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

2)  The loss of ice worldwide


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

3) The increased number of extreme hot days versus the number of extreme cold days


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

4) Alterations in the timing of seasonal biological events such as migrations, blooming and reproductive steps.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

5) The continuing radiative imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

6) The thawing tundra and the methane it is releasing


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

7) Rising sea levels


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 19, 2014)

Physic equations that show co2, water vapor and methane are green house gases


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2014)

Now you need some actual evidence that humans are responsible.....good luck with that.  Decades of skeptics asking for the evidence and still none has been produced....maybe you have a model you would like to offer up.
Since we all know that no actual evidence of man's responsibility for the changing global climate will be forthcoming...maybe some sort of evidence that anything in the present climate is unprecedented....or maybe outside the boundries of natural variability....got anything like that?  We both know that once again, the answer is no..  

What you have is coincidental corrobrative evidence and a hysterical streak a foot wide running up your back.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 1) The temperature record








Which one?  The original one?  The CRU altered one?  The GISS altered one?  The ACTUAL one?


----------



## Kosh (Feb 19, 2014)

Global warming is a natural process that happens on this planet with or without humans.

As soon as the AGW cultists can prove none of this would happen without humans on the planet (using actual science), the better the world will be.

Until then we have to live with the scribes rewriting the AGW scripture to fit their religious beliefs.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 2)  The loss of ice worldwide






80% of which disappeared before 1900, all when the CO2 levels were "safe".


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 19, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > 1) The temperature record
> ...



I don't want to believe that scientist don't want to advance science anymore. Destroying the temperature record by altering would be just that.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 3) The increased number of extreme hot days versus the number of extreme cold days









The 1930's CRUSH all subsequent years in number of days over 100 degree's.  Really, you should at least_ try_ and come up with facts that support your assertions.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 4) Alterations in the timing of seasonal biological events such as migrations, blooming and reproductive steps.









None of which have been explained, much less laid at the foot of global warming.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 5) The continuing radiative imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere.







Do you have a link to the current levels.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 6) The thawing tundra and the methane it is releasing








Which, according to the papers I have read, began around 8,000 years ago.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 7) Rising sea levels








Which, once again, began rising when CO2 levels were "safe" and have since slowed down.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Physic equations that show co2, water vapor and methane are green house gases








Who's physical effects have yet to be observed in the physical world.  That they are indeed GHG's is not in doubt.  How they effect the atmosphere and global temperatures is however.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 19, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Physic equations that show co2, water vapor and methane are green house gases



Meanwhile, back on planet Earth here's what the Max Planck Institute had to say, 

"Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts Warming Postponed Hundreds Of Years
By P Gosselin on 26. Mai 2013
Now that global temperatures have not risen in 15 years, a number of scientists find themselves having great difficulty coming to terms with that new reality.

- See more at: Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: ?Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts? Warming Postponed ?Hundreds Of Years?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2014)

Matthew said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You have seen ample evidence of just that.  Like it or not, some climate scientists are willing to alter the record in order to gain money, fame, and political power.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > 5) The continuing radiative imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere.
> ...



Yeah, I gave him a link.  Of course he won't be providing it because it shows that the outgoing LW is increasing, contrary to the model predictions.  No tropospheric hot spot....no decreased OLR, no temperature increase for 17 years....these guys get more pathetic every day.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Feb 19, 2014)

I thought we were in a cooling phase.  

brrrr


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Now you need some actual evidence that humans are responsible.....good luck with that.  Decades of skeptics asking for the evidence and still none has been produced....maybe you have a model you would like to offer up.
> Since we all know that no actual evidence of man's responsibility for the changing global climate will be forthcoming...maybe some sort of evidence that anything in the present climate is unprecedented....or maybe outside the boundries of natural variability....got anything like that?  We both know that once again, the answer is no..
> 
> What you have is coincidental corrobrative evidence and a hysterical streak a foot wide running up your back.



Are you pretending to be really, really stupid for some reason?

Virtually every molecule of CO2 above 280 ppm originates from fossil fuel combustion.  That happens to agree with simple bookkeeping tallying up the amount of CO2 produced by the amount of fossil fuels that humans have burned over that time period.

Where the fuck do you get the idea there's any shortage of evidence in this regard?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > 1) The temperature record
> ...



Do you really want to argue that the world has not gotten warmer?  Don't you realize what a whack job that makes you look?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > 5) The continuing radiative imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere.
> ...



ipcc.ch


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > 6) The thawing tundra and the methane it is releasing
> ...



ipcc.ch


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > 7) Rising sea levels
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Physic equations that show co2, water vapor and methane are green house gases
> ...



So you're rejecting the Greenhouse Effect.  Can't say I'm real surprised, Per-fesser.


----------



## tinydancer (Feb 19, 2014)

Oh stop already. I've already put up several times that the IPCC and the Met Office and others have all agreed that the warming trend has stalled for 17 years now.

You just make yourself look foolish trying to negate what your own AGW High Priests have reluctantly concluded.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...










Yes, I will happily argue WHEN the world got warmer.....and cooler.  You.....not so much.  Facts contradict your closely held religious beliefs.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








_Specific_ link please.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...







_Specific_ link please.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








Ummmm, no.  I'm correct....

World Climate Report » Sea Level Rise: Still Slowing Down


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...









Where did I say that?  I'm going to neg you for misrepresenting what I stated.  Now go back and read what I said and tell us what that means.


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 19, 2014)

Yet, for the 100 millionth time, global warming is real, MAN MADE global warming is not. 

Get it through your fucking thick liberal skulls. 

By blaming humans, the world governments have a free run on all sorts of green scams, that brings in hundreds of millions of dollars. 

You stupid morons who cannot get past all of the cliches. 

BIG OIL BIG OIL BIG OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HUMANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 19, 2014)

omg, it's not like GLOBULL WARNING had never happened before on the planet earth

can you take this people serious?  not unless you're a sheep easily led


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 19, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Physic equations that show co2, water vapor and methane are green house gases



Science also shows that wood is combustible.  And that the world is covered in trees.  Uh-oh, global burning!!


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Virtually every molecule of CO2 above 280 ppm originates from fossil fuel combustion



Inspected them all, did ya?  

Actually, you're wrong.  All the molecules *below* 280 ppm originate from burning fossil fuels.  They switched places with the "clean" CO2 last month after half-time.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 1) The temperature record



Which is an eye blink of the overall history of the Earth.  It's absolutely ridiculous to think that you can draw any reasonable conclusion about the grand scheme of geological activity from a 125 temperature record.

If Charles Darwin thought like you all, he would have never been able to fathom the theory of evolution.  Because hey, the past 125 years tell us everything we need to know about what's going to happen next.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> Oh stop already. I've already put up several times that the IPCC and the Met Office and others have all agreed that the warming trend has stalled for 17 years now.



So what?  It not only stalled, but plummeted in 1941.







  THAT wasn't the end of global warming.  Why do you think this is?



tinydancer said:


> You just make yourself look foolish trying to negate what your own AGW High Priests have reluctantly concluded.



Tell you what.  Let's go read that Max Planck press release (which is not particularly new) and find out what it actually says.

*Climate change: its only intermission*

*Global warming continues, even if the worst-case prognosis has become slightly less probable*

May 29, 2013

Global warming again and again poses riddles for climatologists - but one thing is almost certain:* in the next decades, the average temperature on the Earth will continue to increase*, even though it increased much more slowly from 2001 to 2010 than during the previous decade. This is *supported by new predictions from an international research team headed by scientists from the University of Oxford and under the participation of Directors Jochem Marotzke and Björn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology*. Based on current climactic data, the scientists have re-calculated how much the air at the Earths surface will have warmed once the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere has doubled.* This will be the case approximately mid-century if the concentration of greenhouse gases continues to grow at or above the current rate. The average temperature will have increased then by 0.9 to 2.0 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels*. Through to the end of the century, the atmosphere would warm up considerably more than the two degrees which the UN Climate Change Conference wants to limit this warming to.

 <p>*No all-clear signal for global warming*: The temperature at the Earth&rsquo;s surface will continue to climb, most drastically at the poles. The simulations of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology show how far the temperature in various regions will probably rise through the year 2090 compared with the average temperature from 1986 to 2005. These prognoses made by the climate model remain current, even though the Earth warmed more slowly between 2001 and 2010 than during the previous decade.</p>
Zoom Image
No all-clear signal for global warming: The temperature at the Earths surface will continue to climb, most
... [more]
© German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ) / MPI for Meteorology
Climate change has been variable over the past two decades. While the global average temperature climbed faster than ever before during the 1990s, namely 0.24 degrees Celsius, it only increased approximately 0.03 degrees Celsius during the subsequent decade.* We have not been able to explain this weakening of the temperature increase at the Earths surface with our models up to now, says Jochem Marotzke. Nevertheless, the Earth has warmed overall. However, this warming has taken place primarily in the deeper layers of the oceans.*

Jochem Marotzke is part of a team of the most renowned climatologists in the world that is now taking into account the most recent increase of surface temperatures in a new prediction of how the Earth is warming due to the effects of greenhouse gases, primarily through carbon dioxide (CO2). This prognosis confirms that the climate models correctly predict the trend in global warming over a period of several decades, to about the middle or end of the 21st century. As a result, *there are no grounds for an all-clear signal*.

Following a doubling of CO2, the ultimate warming will take place over hundreds of years
The team working with Alexander Otto and Myles R. Allen from the University of Oxford *differentiates between the medium-term and long-term reaction* of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide content in the air expected to be reached in 2050. The greenhouse effects of the gases caused by this become immediately noticeable as soon as the carbon dioxide concentration has reached this level. The extent is expressed by climatologists as the transient climate response (TCR).

Since the climate system possesses a lot of inertia and the oceans warm up only very slowly for instance, it takes a while until the effect of the greenhouse gases fully develops: warming via the greenhouse gases is amplified through numerous feedback loops, but also weakened by several processes. Only once this complicated interaction has settled does the climate attain a stable state again. Climatologists calculate this long-term reaction of climate as the equilibrium climate sensitivity, or ECS. This corresponds to the ultimate temperature increase resulting from a doubling of the CO2 concentration that presumably ensues only after several hundred years.

The medium-term climate response as well as the long-term reaction reveals something about the strength of the feedback loops between the CO2 rise and global warming. The international team has now re-calculated both values.

Besides the temperature increase measurements during the past decade, there are important factors that go into the calculation that are critical to the Earths thermal budget. The most important one is the solar energy that irradiates Earth. This also includes, however, the heat that cannot be re-radiated back out into space due to the greenhouse gas effects of carbon dioxide. This heat amounts to almost exactly 3.44 W per square metre for a doubling of the CO2 concentration. In addition, the effects of volcanic eruptions and aerosols are introduced into the calculations. In the latter case, these are particles suspended in the air that shield against solar radiation on the one hand, and serve as condensation nuclei for cloud droplets on the other. The long-term reaction of climate additionally takes into account the oceans uptake of heat over time.

Warming of far more than two degrees toward the end of the century is a threat
Using these values, the researchers have calculated that the atmosphere close to the Earths surface will have warmed by 0.9 to 2.0 degrees Celsius with 90 per cent probability for a doubling of the CO2 content. The most probable amount is a temperature increase of 1.3 degrees.* The transient climate response we have calculated using the most current measurements lies within the bounds of climate model predictions, if not at its upper boundary, says Alexander Otto, who performed the calculations at the University of Oxford.*

If no additional greenhouse gas was emitted into the atmosphere following a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration, the Earth would warm up about 1.2 to 3.9 degrees compared with the pre-industrial values with 90 per cent certainty during the following centuries. The most probable long-term reaction of the climate is a rise of about two degrees. How high the long-term warming will turn out is still quite uncertain, however, says Otto. But for most of the political decisions, it is in any case critically important just how strongly the warming will actually be over the next 50 to 100 years.

*The Earth may therefore not heat up as much as might be feared from the worst-case prognosis. That is no doubt good news, says Reto Knutti from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Zurich and one of the participating researchers. However, if the greenhouse gas emissions continue without respite, we will nevertheless have a temperature increase of much more than two degrees at the end of the century.*

How aerosols and clouds are involved with climate is not completely clear
Whether the Earth actually does warm somewhat slower, as many climate models have thus far suggested, remains uncertain  despite the measurements since 2000. In view of what we know and dont know about climate variability, *we shouldnt read too much into a single decade*, says Jochem Marotzke. This is because the researchers still need to clarify several details about how climate reacts to the increase of greenhouse gases. At the moment, we assume for example that the effect of the feedback loops remains constant over time, says Jochem Marotzke. But we dont know whether that is actually true.

In addition, the role of aerosols is uncertain. How much sunlight do particles suspended in the upper atmospheric layers reflect? And how do they influence the formation of clouds and precipitation? Speaking of clouds. They are involved with climate in numerous ways: they do not just bring rain, they also shield against sunlight. But it is not clear how they react to global warming. Do more clouds form when the Earth becomes warmer, because more water evaporates then? Or do fewer clouds form because the air currents change?

Many questions therefore remain unanswered. But the knowledge gaps are closing. Climatology is especially interesting at the moment, says Björn Stevens. The measurements of global heat exchange and the composition of the atmosphere have made enormous progress in the last two decades, he says. Since weve made further improvements to the models and can test them better, we are making rapid progress, especially regarding how the Earth will react to the rise in greenhouse gases.
***************************************************************

The "NoTrickZone" review of that press release was a complete pile of lies.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Neg away Per-fesser.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

westwall said:


> Ummmm, no.  I'm correct....
> 
> World Climate Report » Sea Level Rise: Still Slowing Down



Umm, no, you are not.  The University of Colorado is the world's leading authority on global sea level rise.  The day I take a  *3-year old* blog post over them is the day I cash in my chips.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> Yet, for the 100 millionth time, global warming is real, MAN MADE global warming is not.



No. 



Theowl32 said:


> Get it through your fucking thick liberal skulls.



I'd think about it were you to actually make a convincing case.  But you have not.  At all.



Theowl32 said:


> By blaming humans, the world governments have a free run on all sorts of green scams, that brings in hundreds of millions of dollars.



The world's governments running a scam for hundreds of millions of dollars?  Wow...  Hundreds.  Not quite in the same ballpark as Bernie Madoff, but better than that fellow switching price tags down at the grocery store.



Theowl32 said:


> You stupid morons who cannot get past all of the cliches.



And you cannot get past all the personal insults when nothing is called for but real evidence.  That you lack it should not make you angry with me.  Look to your sources.  Then try looking at the real evidence and see what it tells you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You have shown nothing but that adjustments were made to the data - and explanations were given for those adjustments.  You have NOT shown that those adjustments weren't called for and you have NOT provided any evidence that those making the adustments had ulterior motives of any sort.  You see the adjustments and simply assume that they were done for deceptive and malicious purposes when you have no evidence indicating that at all.  They call that PREJUDICE.  In severe cases, they call it BIGOTRY.  In either case, it is the result of the application of ignorance.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Physic equations that show co2, water vapor and methane are green house gases
> ...



And that passes your expert judgement in logical argumentation as a valid and meaningful response?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Virtually every molecule of CO2 above 280 ppm originates from fossil fuel combustion
> ...



YOU claimed there was no evidence that humans were responsible for the increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.  You were demonstrably incorrect.  Humans, via the combustion of fossil fuels, are responsible for almost every single bit of the CO2 above the pre-industrial 280 ppm level.  Why don't you try to hang on to that FACT because this isn't the first time I've had to explain this to you.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...












When was the CO2 level at 280ppm?  How much CO2 is directly attributable to human action?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 1) The temperature record





SwimExpert said:


> Which is an eye blink of the overall history of the Earth.



Have you ever heard anyone say that AGW was a process that has taken place throughout the "overall history of the Earth"?  No.  AGW is a process that has been taking place since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and became a serious issue in the 20th century.  Your comment is about as meaningful as saying we can't really study human space travel without looking back to the Bronze Age.  Your comment is simply ignorant.



SwimExpert said:


> It's absolutely ridiculous to think that you can draw any reasonable conclusion about the grand scheme of geological activity from a 125 temperature record.



Once again, the climate is not a "geological activity".  It does not operate on a geological scale.  This comment, which you have made before and been roundly corrected on before, is simply ignorant.



SwimExpert said:


> If Charles Darwin thought like you all, he would have never been able to fathom the theory of evolution.  Because hey, the past 125 years tell us everything we need to know about what's going to happen next.



Evolution takes place on a different time scale than does climate or human-caused climate changes.  And neither is evolution a geological activity nor does it take place on a geological scale.  Primate first diverged from other mammals 55 million years ago.    Look, here's a diagram of the geological history of the Earth.  It's done as a clock.  That line a few seconds before midnight is the appearance of the first hominids.  Right next to it is the entire span of the dinosaurs.  Have a good look at this diagram and try to get it into your head that your comment about time scales are... simply ignorant.  






Teach yourself stuff.  You need it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



Are you suffering dementia or Alzheimers?  You've heard all this before.  Repeatedly.


----------



## Darkwind (Feb 19, 2014)

The Great 'frozen' Lakes


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> The Great 'frozen' Lakes



I just started a new thread on this topic.  It seems that under more normal conditions, the jet stream circles the pole and remains to the north and at consistent latitudinal position.  However, when the temperature DIFFERENCE between the tropics and poles is reduced, the jet stream begins to wander in what is called a Rossby Wave (Rosby?).  It is these waves that are responsible for the arctic air and snow coming down through the midwest and then back up to the northeast.  Europe is suffering from another such wave.

So, what has reduced the temperature difference between the tropics and poles?  The significant heating in the Arctic and these days, the loss of albedo. We are getting polar air blowing through the midwest and northeast because of the warming at the North Pole.


----------



## Darkwind (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > The Great 'frozen' Lakes
> ...


So?

Do you really expect Me to waste My time with you in an actual discussion you will utterly ignore in favor of your own imaginings?

I've watched you ignore far to many good and proven studies that show that the evidence of man made global warming simply has not been proven and requires much more study.

Is the climate changing?  Of a certainty.  Man made?  The verdict is still out, and evidence is pointing the other way.

Will people ignore it?  Most definitely.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Are you pretending to be really, really stupid for some reason?



What's sad is I don't think you are pretending.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



You don't want to debate me?  Oh, be still my beating heart!


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...







Put the numbers up so we can rip them apart please.  I want to know which particular brand of delusion you ascribe to.  You guys have so many it's hard to keep them straight.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








Here I am wanting to debate you and you're running away.  C'mon chicken (note how I'm using your 3rd grade recess language so you can understand better?) put up, or shut up.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > The Great 'frozen' Lakes
> ...








It's Rossby, and then you need to look up Ferrel Cells to further your understanding.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 20, 2014)

Okay.  Done.  Now how does that modify the author's statement that Rossby waves are driven by the delta T between the tropics and the poles and that the reason the US is getting such shit weather is the warming of the Arctic?

"The outflow from the cell creates harmonic waves in the atmosphere known as Rossby waves. These ultra-long waves play an important role in determining the path of the jet stream, which travels within the transitional zone between the tropopause and the Ferrel cell. By acting as a heat sink, the Polar cell also balances the Hadley cell in the Earth&#8217;s energy equation."

and


*Ferrel cell*
The Ferrel cell, theorized by William Ferrel (1817&#8211;1891), is a secondary circulation feature, dependent for its existence upon the Hadley cell and the Polar cell. It behaves much as an atmospheric ball bearing between the Hadley cell and the Polar cell, and comes about as a result of the eddy circulations (the high and low pressure areas) of the mid-latitudes. For this reason it is sometimes known as the "zone of mixing." At its southern extent (in the Northern hemisphere), it overrides the Hadley cell, and at its northern extent, it overrides the Polar cell. Just as the Trade Winds can be found below the Hadley cell, the Westerlies can be found beneath the Ferrel cell. Thus, strong high pressure areas which divert the prevailing westerlies, such as a Siberian high (which could be considered an extension of the Arctic high), could be said to override the Ferrel cell, making it discontinuous.
While the Hadley and Polar cells are truly closed loops, the Ferrel cell is not, and the telling point is in the Westerlies, which are more formally known as "the Prevailing Westerlies." While the Trade Winds and the Polar Easterlies have nothing over which to prevail, their parent circulation cells having taken care of any competition they might have to face, the Westerlies are at the mercy of passing weather systems. While upper-level winds are essentially westerly, surface winds can vary sharply and abruptly in direction. A low moving polewards or a high moving equator wards maintains or even accelerates a westerly flow; the local passage of a cold front may change that in a matter of minutes, and frequently does. A strong high moving polewards may bring easterly winds for days.
The base of the Ferrel cell is characterized by the movement of air masses, and the location of these air masses is influenced in part by the location of the jet stream, which acts as a collector for the air carried aloft by surface lows (a look at a weather map will show that surface lows follow the jet stream). The overall movement of surface air is from the 30th latitude to the 60th. However, the upper flow of the Ferrel cell is not well defined. This is in part because it is intermediary between the Hadley and Polar cells, with neither a strong heat source nor a strong cold sink to drive convection and, in part, because of the effects on the upper atmosphere of surface eddies, which act as destabilizing influences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation

You're going to have to convince me that I'm wrong when I suspect that prior to this thread you'd never heard of Rossby waves or Ferrel cells and that you looked this article up and pulled the term from the text.  Now I hadn't either, but I made it pretty clear I was just passing on an article I'd read.  This would be an attempt to falsify your creds - a failure to give credit where credit was due (Wikipedia) and I may just have to neg you for it.  ;-)


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Now you need some actual evidence that humans are responsible.....good luck with that.  Decades of skeptics asking for the evidence and still none has been produced....maybe you have a model you would like to offer up.
> ...




From the fact that skeptics have been asking for actual evidence for decades now and none has been produced.  If there were any you wackos would have it in your sig line and never stop posting it.


----------



## Politico (Feb 20, 2014)

Shame no one is denying the climate is changing or you would have a point.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




Really?  Let's hear a rational scientifically sound reason for altering temperatures prior to 1960.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 20, 2014)

You are the one with the burden of proof.

However, since you will very likely make no effort in that regard, being satisfied with your prejudices:

Time of Observation Bias Adjustments

Next, monthly temperature values were adjusted for the time-of-observation bias (Karl, et al. 1986; Vose et al., 2003). The Time of Observation Bias (TOB) arises when the 24-hour daily summary period at a station begins and ends at an hour other than local midnight. When the summary period ends at an hour other than midnight, monthly mean temperatures exhibit a systematic bias relative to the local midnight standard (Baker, 1975). In the U.S. Cooperative Observer Network, the ending hour of the 24-hour climatological day typically varies from station to station and can change at a given station during its period of record. The TOB-adjustment software uses an empirical model to estimate and adjust the monthly temperature values so that they more closely resemble values based on the local midnight summary period. The metadata archive is used to determine the time of observation for any given period in a station's observational history.

and

The USHCN version 2 "pairwise" homogenization algorithm addresses these and other issues according to the following steps, which are described in detail in Menne and Williams (2009). At present, only temperature series are evaluated for artificial changepoints.
First, a series of monthly temperature differences is formed between numerous pairs of station series in a region. Specifically, difference series are calculated between each target station series and a number (up to 40) of highly correlated series from nearby stations. In effect, a matrix of difference series is formed for a large fraction of all possible combinations of station series pairs in each localized region. The station pool for this pairwise comparison of series includes USHCN stations as well as other U.S. Cooperative Observer Network stations.
Tests for undocumented changepoints are then applied to each paired difference series. A hierarchy of changepoint models is used to distinguish whether the changepoint appears to be a change in mean with no trend (Alexandersson and Moberg, 1997), a change in mean within a general trend (Wang, 2003), or a change in mean coincident with a change in trend (Lund and Reeves, 2002) . Since all difference series are comprised of values from two series, a changepoint date in any one difference series is temporarily attributed to both station series used to calculate the differences. The result is a matrix of potential changepoint dates for each station series.
The full matrix of changepoint dates is then "unconfounded" by identifying the series common to multiple paired-difference series that have the same changepoint date. Since each series is paired with a unique set of neighboring series, it is possible to determine whether more than one nearby series share the same changepoint date.
The magnitude of each relative changepoint is calculated using the most appropriate two-phase regression model (e.g., a jump in mean with no trend in the series, a jump in mean within a general linear trend, etc.). This magnitude is used to estimate the "window of uncertainty" for each changepoint date since the most probable date of an undocumented changepoint is subject to some sampling uncertainty, the magnitude of which is a function of the size of the changepoint. Any cluster of undocumented changepoint dates that falls within overlapping windows of uncertainty is conflated to a single changepoint date according to
a known change date as documented in the target station's history archive (meaning the discontinuity does not appear to be undocumented), or
the most common undocumented changepoint date within the uncertainty window (meaning the discontinuity appears to be truly undocumented)
Finally, multiple pairwise estimates of relative step change magnitude are re-calculated (as a simple difference in mean) at all documented and undocumented discontinuities attributed to the target series. The range of the pairwise estimates for each target step change is used to calculate confidence limits for the magnitude of the discontinuity. Adjustments are made to the target series using the estimates for each shift in the series.

and

Estimation of Missing Values

Following the homogenization process, estimates for missing data are calculated using a weighted average of values from highly correlated neighboring stations. The weights are determined using a procedure similar to the SHAP routine. This program, called FILNET, uses the results from the TOB and homogenization algorithms to obtain a more accurate estimate of the climatological relationship between stations. The FILNET program also estimates data across intervals in a station record where discontinuities occur in a short time interval, which prevents the reliable estimation of appropriate adjustments.

and your favorite

Urbanization Effects

In the original USHCN, the regression-based approach of Karl et al. (1988) was employed to account for urban heat islands. In contrast, no specific urban correction is applied in USHCN version 2 because the change-point detection algorithm effectively accounts for any "local" trend at any individual station. In other words, the impact of urbanization and other changes in land use is likely small in USHCN version 2. Figure 2 - the minimum temperature time series for Reno, Nevada - provides anecdotal evidence in this regard. In brief, the black line represents unadjusted data, and the blue line represents fully adjusted data. The unadjusted data clearly indicate that the station at Reno experienced both major step changes (e.g., a move from the city to the airport during the 1930s) and trend changes (e.g., a possible growing urban heat island beginning in the 1970s). In contrast, the fully adjusted (homogenized) data indicate that both the step-type changes and the trend changes have been effectively addressed through the change-point detection process used in USHCN version 2.

An example:







Figure 1. (a) Mean annual unadjusted and fully adjusted minimum temperatures at Reno, Nevada. Error bars indicating the magnitude of uncertainty (±1 standard error) were calculated via 100 Monte Carlo simulations that sampled within the range of the pairwise estimates for the magnitude of each inhomogeneity; (b) difference between minimum temperatures at Reno and the mean from its 10 nearest neighbors.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/monthly_doc.html#steps


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...





but we dont like the 'explanations'!



> From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
> To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
> Subject: 1940s
> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
> ...


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 20, 2014)

What is it you think this (I assume stolen) email says about the adjustments to the various temperature records?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You are the one with the burden of proof.
> 
> However, since you will very likely make no effort in that regard, being satisfied with your prejudices:
> 
> ...



I asked for a rational and scientifically  sound reason for altering the record prior to 1960. Got one...because what you posted isn't


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> What is it you think this (I assume stolen) email says about the adjustments to the various temperature records?



 It is an attempt to rationalize altering 
Data


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You are the one with the burden of proof.
> 
> However, since you will very likely make no effort in that regard, being satisfied with your prejudices:
> 
> ...







the homogenization algorithm is faulty for many reasons. the main reason is that it is not checked for realistic results but is simply a blackbox computation that is automatically accepted. Icelandic stations are well documented and properly adjusted but when the algorithm spots trends counter to what it anticipates, the computer code simply cuts the record into pieces and rearranges them into a more acceptable shape. when questioned, there was no explanation other than to point to the generic web site that Abe has quoted.

to reiterate-- a cooling trend is likely to be 'corrected' even if it is authentic, a warming trend is likely to be accepted even if it is spurious. the homogenization process adds a large increase to the warming trend, but in a non-transparent way that is difficult to track down or remove.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 20, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Mine, and Aristotle's.  Rebutting an argument by presenting an alternative one of comparable form, yet produces false conclusions is one of the oldest means to show an argument as failing.


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 20, 2014)

Abraham still has not proven that man made global warming is a fact. There is no consensus in the scientific community. Period. 

Him and people like him ignore all of the scams that have generated hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars. 

When CBS is even reporting these types of scams, you know what we are dealing with. 


60 minutes


It is really unreal what has happened, and how gullible people are. It truly is unreal.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 20, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> Abraham still has not proven that man made global warming is a fact. There is no consensus in the scientific community. Period.



I will never prove ANYTHING in the natural sciences. Neither will anyone else.  But I can show evidence demonstrating the likelihood (or unlikelihood) of all manner of things.  Regarding the consensus of climate scientists in support of the IPCC position that the primary cause of the last 150 years' global warming is human activity (GHG emissions and deforestation), I offer the following:

Here is an abbreviated version of the information noted in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys...climate_change

1) 2004, Science Historian Naomi Oreskes conducted a study of the scientific literature on climate change: 
*Out of 928 papers*' abstracts from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, *NONE* disagreed with the consensus position (AGW).

2) 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed* 489 randomly selected member of either the AMS or the AGU*: 
*97%* agreed that temperatures had increased over the prior 100 years
*84%* said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring
*74%* agreed that scientific evidence substantiates human-induced warming is taking place
*5%* said they thought human activity did NOT contribute to greenhouse warming

3) 2008, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch invited 2,058 climate scientists from 34 different countries to participate in a web-bases survey.
*373(18.2%) of invited scientists responded*.
o To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", *ALL* respondents answered that they agreed to some small extent, some large extent or very much. *NONE* responded that they did not agree at all.
o To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?"*98.65%* of respondents agreed to a small extent, a large extent or very much. *1.35%* did not agree at all.

4) 2009, Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman, at UI at Chicago, polled 10,257 Earth scientists and* received responses from 3,146 of them*. Results were analyzed both globally and by specialization. 79 respondents listed climate science as their area of expertise AND had published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.
Among the 79 actively publishing climate scientists:
o *96.2%* (76) believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels.
o *94.9%* (75) believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures
Among *ALL 3,146 Earth scientist respondents*: 
o *90%* agreed that temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels
o *82%* agreed that humans signficantly influenced global temperatures

5) 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US, Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010, reviewed publication and citation data for *1,372 climate researchers* and found:
o *97-98%* of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
o *the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers*

6) 2011, Farnsworth and Lichter, Repeated the 2007, Harris Interactive survey of AMS and AGU members. Published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research a survey and analysis of *489 scientists* working in academia, government, and industry. 
o *97%* agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century
o *84%* agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring
o* 5%* disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global
warming

7) 2013, Environmental Research Letters, John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, *finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting that 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.*

8) Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers. Among the *1,381 authors who chose to participate, 97.2% rated their own papers as supporting the AGW consensus. *

9) 2014, James Lawrence Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed *13,950 published research papers* on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and a follow-up analysis of *2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors* published between November 2012 and December 2013 and found:
o 24 out of 13,950 (0.172%) rejected anthropogenic global warming [leaving *99.828%*]
o 1 out of the 2,258 (0.044%) papers in the follow-up rejected anthropogenic global warming [leaving* 99.956%*]

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

So, Owl, do you still believe no consensus among climate scientists has been shown to exist?


----------



## westwall (Feb 20, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Okay.  Done.  Now how does that modify the author's statement that Rossby waves are driven by the delta T between the tropics and the poles and that the reason the US is getting such shit weather is the warming of the Arctic?
> 
> "The outflow from the cell creates harmonic waves in the atmosphere known as Rossby waves. These ultra-long waves play an important role in determining the path of the jet stream, which travels within the transitional zone between the tropopause and the Ferrel cell. By acting as a heat sink, the Polar cell also balances the Hadley cell in the Earth&#8217;s energy equation."
> 
> ...








Nothing.  You seemed to be attempting to better your knowledge so as any good per fessor would, I pointed you in the direction of more information.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 20, 2014)

As an illustration of just how much heat has gotten pushed into the oceans, this plot shows the average temps from only over the land, from the BEST data set that denialists swore was the greatest data set ever, at least until they found it disagreed with them. And to think some people are actually crazy enough to say there's been no warming. It's funny, what cults can get people to say.

Wood for Trees: Notes


----------



## mamooth (Feb 20, 2014)

westwall said:


> Ummmm, no.  I'm correct....
> 
> World Climate Report » Sea Level Rise: Still Slowing Down



"Deliberate use of obsolete data when better data is available" fallacy.

You used a 2011 article, right smack dab when the massive rains over interior Australia had temporarily dropped sea levels by 7mm. And you use that obsolete data in preference to current data, which shows the fast rebound from that 2011 drop and the continuing sea level climb.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 20, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay.  Done.  Now how does that modify the author's statement that Rossby waves are driven by the delta T between the tropics and the poles and that the reason the US is getting such shit weather is the warming of the Arctic?
> ...



But you failed to support your argument.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 20, 2014)

IanC said:


> to reiterate-- a cooling trend is likely to be 'corrected' even if it is authentic, a warming trend is likely to be accepted even if it is spurious. the homogenization process adds a large increase to the warming trend, but in a non-transparent way that is difficult to track down or remove.



Nobody in the field cares about McIntyre's claims any more, because McIntyre doesn't have a clue and refuses to get one. People tried to help him out and explain to him where he botched it, but that just brought more abuse from McIntyre, so people wised up and no longer give him the attention he craves.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 20, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Have you ever heard anyone say that AGW was a process that has taken place throughout the "overall history of the Earth"?  No.  AGW is a process that has been taking place since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and became a serious issue in the 20th century.....Once again, the climate is not a "geological activity".  It does not operate on a geological scale.



Then I don't want to hear anything more about ice cores.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 20, 2014)

The oldest ice cores ever taken go back 800,000 years.  Let's look on that geological clock diagram and see where that puts us.






Well, that barely visible bump indicating the first hominids is 2 million years back.  So our ice core would be 40% of that.

Yeah, that works.

We could even work out the actual time on the clock.  Let's say the clock is scaled to 24 hours.  Let's see:

(800,000/4,527,000,000) = (x/24)
x=24 * (800/000/4,527,000,000)
x= 0.00424121935056328694499668654738 hours
x=15.268 seconds

Yeah.  Man, now THAT'S geological!


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 20, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The oldest ice cores ever taken go back 800,000 years.





Either 125 years, or not 125 years.  You cannot have it both ways.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 20, 2014)

I haven't the faintest idea what 125 years you're talking about.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 21, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The oldest ice cores ever taken go back 800,000 years.  Let's look on that geological clock diagram and see where that puts us.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let's see.... did I do that math right?  Hmm... yup! If we scale the Earth's GEOLOGICAL history to 24 hours, the longest ice core (800,000 years) scales down to 15.268 seconds.


----------



## westwall (Feb 21, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham still has not proven that man made global warming is a fact. There is no consensus in the scientific community. Period.
> ...











  Then please do so.  Trotting out your same old list of sycophants and scientists whose monetary well being depend on the continuation of the fraud does not constitute evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 21, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...




He has a dodgy idea of what actually constitutes evidence.  Consensus certainly isn't it. Not long ago nearly 100% would have said that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and that quasicrystals didn't exist


----------



## westwall (Feb 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > to reiterate-- a cooling trend is likely to be 'corrected' even if it is authentic, a warming trend is likely to be accepted even if it is spurious. the homogenization process adds a large increase to the warming trend, but in a non-transparent way that is difficult to track down or remove.
> ...








  Sure thing admiral.  McIntyre doesn't make "claims".  That's what you clowns do.  He DESTROYS those claims in days, sometimes hours.  EVERYBODY in the field is terrified of McIntyre.  He knows how to do math and statistics, something they don't.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 21, 2014)

westwall said:


> Then please do so.  Trotting out your same old list of sycophants and scientists whose monetary well being depend on the continuation of the fraud does not constitute evidence.



Then there is really no point in discussing anything with you.  You are not debating or discussing or arguing or having a conversation.  Your mind is completely shut.  That's the way to improve yourself.  That's the way to improve the world.

Fooking idiot.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 21, 2014)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Here's a fantasy that needs a reality check: "Steven McIntyre is exceptional at statistics".  Or even more ridiculous, that ANYONE is afraid of the man.  I'm sure there are lots that dislike him.  Not the same thing.  And there are undoubtedly a hundred thousand PhDs that would blow his doors off.  His behavior in forums discussing these matters is that of an adolescent...  An emotionally immature adolescent.  If you don't see that, you need to look harder and raise your standards.


----------



## westwall (Feb 21, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Then please do so.  Trotting out your same old list of sycophants and scientists whose monetary well being depend on the continuation of the fraud does not constitute evidence.
> ...








No, it's you who are not debating.  Like all faithers you trot out your consensus bullshit and expect thinking people to park their brains at the door.  We don't do that, you guys are very accomplished at not thinking.  We get bored by not using our brains.

Here's a pointer to you....when you trot out Appeals to Authority it's YOU WHO ARE CLOSED MINDED!


----------



## tinydancer (Feb 21, 2014)

The IPCC has said there has been no warming. What the fuck is this kid on about?


----------



## Wyld Kard (Feb 21, 2014)

Evidence that global warming/climate change IS bullshit!

*Climate Change Hoax Exposed*
October 13, 2013   Exclusive From AFP 

 Censored portion of UN report leaked; says data exaggerated

By John Friend

The recently released report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is comprised of an international group of scientists sponsored by the United Nations (UN), is extremely alarmist in nature, despite the fact that numerous top climate scientists have admitted that many of their global warming predictions were wrong or seriously exaggerated. 

The 36-page summary report, issued to governments and world leaders last week, contends: 

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

The full 2,216-page report entitled Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, was accepted but not approved in detail, whatever that means. 

The summary report goes say that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that many of the changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The report also emphasizes that human influence on the climate system is clear, noting that man-made climate change is almost certain, according to a report by CNN.

Scientists working with the IPCC contend with a 95% certainty that human activity is to blame for the majority of the changes in the environment and climate, which they allege has led to rising temperatures and sea levels, warming of the oceans, loss of ice sheets, and shrinking glaciers. The report also warns that man-made climate change will also impact the intensity and size of storms, such as hurricanes and tornadoes. 

The IPCC, along with many high profile politicians and international figures, have long been calling for a reduction in fossil fuel use and a limitation on so-called green house gas emissions. The report argues: Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Last Friday, the UN Climate Panel met in Stockholm, Sweden to release and discuss the latest findings of the IPCC, and for the first time formally embraced an upper limit on greenhouse gases, The New York Times reported. 

The mainstream mass media has hysterically publicized the latest findings of the IPCC without the slightest bit of skepticism or investigation. The dire predictions and ominous future outlined by the IPCC prompted one meteorologist to vow never to fly again. Eric Holthaus, who once covered the weather for The Wall Street Journal, also decided not to have children in order to leave a lighter carbon footprint, and has considered having a vasectomy, the UKs Daily Mail reported. 

Many scientists are extremely skeptical of the IPCC, its findings, and the very nature of the organization. Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography at California State University  Stanislaus, argues that the IPCC has a political agenda promoted by international elites. 

_The idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is beneficial for life_, Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange. 

Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the global warming hysteria, and its ultimate agenda: 

*Global warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation of an international political agenda. The idea of using man-caused global warming as a surrogate for war and as a way to destroy excess wealth originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the Club of Rome back in the 60&#8242;s and 70&#8242;s.   This pseudo-science is the centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and radically reduce the human population. *

The IPCC is essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that human activity and carbon emissions cause global warming and other environmental and climate problems, even though there is little objective scientific evidence to demonstrate global warming is in fact a real phenomenon, Dr. Karlstrom says. _Climate scientists working with the IPCC and other international bodies have been known to not only spin scientific data to fit their pre-determined conclusions, but also to outright fabricate evidence to support their idea of man-made climate change_. 

Bottom line, they dont want to share resources with the unwashed masses, Dr. Karlstrom concludes.

Climate Change Hoax Exposed | American Free Press


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 21, 2014)

Emeritus Professor of Geography?  Do you understand what that is?  Do you know what "Emeritus" means?  Do you understand what a geographer studies?  Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable?  Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?


----------



## westwall (Feb 21, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Emeritus Professor of Geography?  Do you understand what that is?  Do you know what "Emeritus" means?  Do you understand what a geographer studies?  Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable?  Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?








Do you understand that most climatologists' Bachelors is in geography?  Do you also know that geographers are failed geologists for the most part?  Geology majors do very well the first year, then, when the math hit's them in the second year, they turn to geography.

What is humorous is your continued belief that climatologists are somehow endowed with mystical powers so that only they can understand what they are talking about.  That is laughable on its face, ANY PhD scientist from the hard sciences can teach any class in a climatology major.  A PhD climatologist on the other hand would have serious difficulty teaching some of the second year geology classes.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Emeritus Professor of Geography?  Do you understand what that is?  Do you know what "Emeritus" means?  Do you understand what a geographer studies?  Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable?  Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?





westwall said:


> Do you understand that most climatologists' Bachelors is in geography?



No, I don't.  Do you have some evidence to support that?



westwall said:


> Do you also know that geographers are failed geologists for the most part?



No, I don't.  Do you have some evidence to support THAT?



westwall said:


> Geology majors do very well the first year, then, when the math hit's them in the second year, they turn to geography.



And you know this because... you've asked them all?



westwall said:


> What is humorous is your continued belief that climatologists are somehow endowed with mystical powers so that only they can understand what they are talking about.



You seem to believe that you know geology better than do I.  Is that belief based on some mystical power you possess?  No.  You believe it because you claim to have had a great deal more education in that field and claim to have done original research on geological topics.  And that is why I believe that PhDs doing climate research, getting published in peer reviewed journals and getting cited by other PhDs doing climate research know more about the climate that those who do NONE of those things.



westwall said:


> That is laughable on its face, ANY PhD scientist from the hard sciences can teach any class in a climatology major.



1) We aren't talking about teaching classes
2) To my knowledge (and I imagine this will soon change) no college in the US offers a program in "climatology".
3) What you say is simply untrue.



westwall said:


> A PhD climatologist on the other hand would have serious difficulty teaching some of the second year geology classes.



A PhD from any field would be unable to teach upper level classes from any different field.  There's a reason these subjects are separated.  There's a reason you can't get a BS in "Science" or even "Physical Science" or "Natural Science".  You've got an ego problem and it shows every time you try to push on us how incredibly tough a program is - ooooo -  *G E O L O G Y*.  Unfortunately for you, I'm pretty certain that not a single individual at this board buys that your contention is valid or that you have the life experience to even make it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Then please do so.  Trotting out your same old list of sycophants and scientists whose monetary well being depend on the continuation of the fraud does not constitute evidence.
> ...



In that you are right...there really is no point till you are able to come up with something like actual evidence to support your claims....all that you have produced so far is laughable...and we both know that nothing substantial is likely to be forthcoming.  If you have any ability to think for yourself at all, surely you must see that the hoax is crashing down around your ears....

Rather than your continued blustering and bloviation, perhaps you should take a cue from matthew and start trying to develop an exit strategy....that way you won't be one of the truly stupid who rode the AGW crazy train all the way over the cliff.  Sure it will sting a bit, but how much worse when you have to leave the board out of sheer humiliation?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Emeritus Professor of Geography?  Do you understand what that is?  Do you know what "Emeritus" means?  Do you understand what a geographer studies?  Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable?  Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?
> ...



He has clearly never looked at the educational requirements for a degree in climatology....if he had, he would fully understand that climate science is a soft science...as opposed to a hard science like geology.  When the hoax finally crumbles, climatologists won't even be able to get jobs as weathermen as a degree in meteorology is superior to one in climatology.  With the fall of the hoax, a degree in climatology will be equivalent to a degree in phrenology.


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2014)

I found it kinda funny back in the day when STEM guys would take upper level courses in other fields as electives, and then proceed to blow away the competition who were supposed to know what they were talking about. My son has noticed the same thing happening today.

It is also very telling that our high schools here offer 'Earth Sciences' and 'Environmental Science' for the kids who can't hack the real science courses but need one for their transcript.

I can totally see that there is more than a grain of truth in what Westwall says about climate science not attracting the 'best and brightest', especially two or three decades ago.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Fooking idiot.





SSDD said:


> In that you are right...there really is no point till you are able to come up with something like actual evidence to support your claims....all that you have produced so far is laughable...and we both know that nothing substantial is likely to be forthcoming.  If you have any ability to think for yourself at all, surely you must see that the hoax is crashing down around your ears....
> 
> Rather than your continued blustering and bloviation, perhaps you should take a cue from matthew and start trying to develop an exit strategy....that way you won't be one of the truly stupid who rode the AGW crazy train all the way over the cliff.  Sure it will sting a bit, but how much worse when you have to leave the board out of sheer humiliation?



You have presented ZERO evidence that any of these surveys, polls and studies are invalid.  You have tried, but you have failed.  The results of these studies are remarkably consistent and the numbers accepting AGW, both in personal statements and published studies, have grown over time.  This makes your claim that a hoax is crashing down around my ears look more than a little, schizophrenically detached from reality. Your choice to reject them is yours and yours alone as it is simply and completely unsupported by the evidence.

The vast majority of active climate scientists and a very strong majority of ALL scientists accept AGW as valid.  That point is indisputable.  That you try to do so simply tells us that you have real problems.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Fooking idiot.
> ...




They are no more than smoke and mirrors based on assumptions.  What's to prove?  The burden of proof rests heavily on your shoulders and we, and everyone else knows that you can't satisfy iy


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 22, 2014)

The majority of those items were published in peer reviewed journals.  The burden is most DECIDELY YOURS.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Feb 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Emeritus Professor of Geography?  Do you understand what that is?  Do you know what "Emeritus" means?  Do you understand what a geographer studies?  Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable?  Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?



Do you understand that you are a moron who is trying to convince others that global warming is real based off of disinformation and fraudelent science.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Emeritus Professor of Geography?  Do you understand what that is?  Do you know what "Emeritus" means?  Do you understand what a geographer studies?  Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable?  Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?
> ...



No.  

What disinformation and what "fraudelent" science?


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Emeritus Professor of Geography?  Do you understand what that is?  Do you know what "Emeritus" means?  Do you understand what a geographer studies?  Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable?  Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?
> ...










This one statement shows just how completely clueless you truly are.  Thank you for the assist, I couldn't have made you look more like a fool than this.  And just so you know... 2nd year classes are NOT UPPER LEVEL!


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Really?  Gosh, if only I could count to 4 I might have been able to figure that out.

"Become familiar with other names climatology studies fall under. Although a college degree is necessary, most colleges don't offer a "climatology" degree. Instead, climatology courses are offered through other degree programs.
Atmospheric science programs, the study of the atmosphere, might be the closest match to climatology.
Other majors that include climatology studies are environmental science, earth science, oceanography, hydrology, geography and meteorology."

How to Be a Climatologist: 5 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow

"Meteorology and Climatology

Have you wondered what creates a hurricane? Why is there sometimes a rainbow after a storm? Our meteorology and climatology option can help you answer those questions and more. 

If you plan on being the next budding meteorologist or have a strong interest in weather and climate, this option was designed for you. Our goal is to teach you the general principles of science in systematic investigations of earth-atmosphere system and subsystem dynamics and to train you in the use of technology (satellites, radar, automated weather observations, and numerical weather prediction) to analyze these systems on a variety of spatial and temporal scales 

This option has been broken into two tracks to address a variety of career interests. If youre considering a career where knowledge of operational meteorology and climatology somewhat relates to your job, then our general track would be your option, leading to careers in emergency management, environmental analysis, and transportation planning. 

Our professional meteorologist track  meets the American Meteorological Society (AMS) qualifications for the title "meteorologist" and Federal Civil Service requirements (GS1340) for employment by the National Weather Service. 

If your goal is to be a broadcast meteorologist, we have several opportunities to help you learn. We work with our nationally recognized Department of Telecommunications to help you get comfortable in front of the camera. You will also have hands-on broadcast opportunities such as your own spot on Cardinal-Vision 57, Ball States student-run television station, or an opportunity with NewsLink Indiana, which delivers news to east central Indiana."

https://cms.bsu.edu/academics/collegesanddepartments/geography/academicsadmissions/programs/bachelors/meteorologyclimatology

"Just what IS a climatologist? What degree do they have?
Bullseye asked 6 years ago
I always hear that GW advocates only take the word of climatologists-- weather forecasters, geologists, etc etc opinions don't count. 

Here are the resumes-- and educational background for several "climatologists". 
Personnel | Southeast Regional Climate Center 

Until VERY recently universities did not teach "climate" as a stand-alone degree-------- so basically right now most folks claiming to be climatologists actually have degrees in other types of Earth sciences.
Additional Details
Edit-- so it appears that the current crop of "climatologists" are no different than physicists, mathematicians, geologists, and meteorologists-- or anyone else having multiple degrees in the physical sciences-- or a career in Earth "sciences".
6 years ago
Edit-- then why -- when a group of "Earth" scientists reject GW theory --- are they immediately rejected by the GW advocates?? with the statement, "they are not climatologists". Actually there is no such thing as a Climatologist!"

Just what IS a climatologist? What degree do they have? - Yahoo Answers

And so forth.

Clueless.


----------



## westwall (Feb 23, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Really?  Gosh, if only I could count to 4 I might have been able to figure that out.
> 
> "Become familiar with other names climatology studies fall under. Although a college degree is necessary, most colleges don't offer a "climatology" degree. Instead, climatology courses are offered through other degree programs.
> Atmospheric science programs, the study of the atmosphere, might be the closest match to climatology.
> ...








Yes, I agree you truly are clueless.


----------



## Kosh (Feb 23, 2014)

Once again another failed thread from the AGW cult.

Global Warming will happen on this planet with or without humans.

CO2 does not drive climate.

AGW is farce based on religious dogma.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 23, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...





We might begin with making predictions based on the AGW hypothesis when they remain unsure what the sensitivity of the atmosphere is to CO2.

It demonstrates how broken the peer review process in climate pseudoscience is.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 23, 2014)

The question was addressed to Mr Wildcard.  Are you Mr Wildcard?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 23, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Do you understand that you are a moron who is trying to convince others that global warming is real based off of disinformation and fraudelent science.





Abraham3 said:


> No.
> What disinformation and what "fraudelent" science?





SSDD said:


> We might begin with making predictions based on the AGW hypothesis when they remain unsure what the sensitivity of the atmosphere is to CO2.
> 
> It demonstrates how broken the peer review process in climate pseudoscience is.



Well, I'm guessing Mr Wildcard will not be back to explain his comments, so let's deal with yours.

The precise value of either the transient or long term climate sensitivity has no bearing on the validity of AGW.  You didn't say it did, but obviously you reject AGW.

The projections being made cover a wide range of parameters, the two most common being sensitivity and various emission scenarios.  For some time now, the position of the IPCC, and thus of the community of climate scientists, has been that the most likely value for TRANSIENT sensitivity is 3C but that it possibly ranges from 2C to 4.5C.  

Many of these parameters will never be known with great precision because they do not possess precise values.  If you plan on taking no action till our knowledge has reached some arbitrary level of accuracy, you will never take action.  Obviously, that is your core intent and has been all along.  But, as a general policy for dealing with potential threats, endlessly waiting for improved data is the sort of policy that minimizes response cost at the expense of maximizing harm.  Pardon me if I don't buy it.

PS: None of that is disinformation or fraudulent science.  It is your effort to prevent any action that would harm fossil fuel industry profits regardless of the danger such inaction presents to humanity.  That effort involves all manner of disinformation and has made use of a VERY high percentage of fraudulent science.  I'm quite certain the world's climate scientists would agree with me.  But you don't trust scientists, do you.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 23, 2014)

Want to take action?

Accept nuclear
Invest big time in fusion

Both sides will agree and we can move forward.


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 23, 2014)

Just go purchase your carbon credit and leave us rational thinkers alone.

Also, keep sticking with the left wing cliches....like big oil and capitalism being the reasons for the so called man made GW.

It obviously works on simple minds.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 23, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The precise value of either the transient or long term climate sensitivity has no bearing on the validity of AGW.  You didn't say it did, but obviously you reject AGW.



Of course it does as that is the basis for the GCM's operating based on the AGW hypothesis.  That also explains their abject failure.  GCM's with very low sensitivity to CO2 outperform those with higher sensitivity upon which alarmist claims are based.



Abraham3 said:


> projections being made cover a wide range of parameters, the two most common being sensitivity and various emission scenarios.  For some time now, the position of the IPCC, and thus of the community of climate scientists, has been that the most likely value for TRANSIENT sensitivity is 3C but that it possibly ranges from 2C to 4.5C.



So you are saying that the predictions are based on a climate sensitivity with a margin of error of greater than 100%....the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is nearing zero.  The only effect CO2 has on the temperature is its addition to atmospheric pressure.  The fact that CO2 has continued to rise for the past 17 years while temperatures have flatlined or dropped slightly is evidence that other factors that are not understood at all at this time are driving the temperature.  How long must the temperature remain flat or drop before you can bring yourself to admit that CO2 is irrelevant beyond its contribution to the atmospheric pressure.



Abraham3 said:


> of these parameters will never be known with great precision because they do not possess precise values.



They are nothing more than fudge factors to plug into GCM's to get desired results to fuel the hoax.



Abraham3 said:


> you plan on taking no action till our knowledge has reached some arbitrary level of accuracy, you will never take action.



I am light years ahead of you....you have fallen for the hoax and I recognized it upon my first view of trenberth's cartoon energy budget.  Every observation since has confirmed my initial position.  You, on the other hand are apparently going to ride the hoax to the bitter end either from abject stupidity or fierce political motivation.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 23, 2014)

The ENSO forecast keeps leaning more towards an El Nino forming in the summer.

Air temperatures lag the ENSO state by around 6 months, and 2014 started with a weak La Nina, so 2014 won't be a record breaking year. 2015, on the other hand, probably will be. And when that happens, denialists will instantly flip flip from "La Nina doesn't affect temps!" to "The new record high doesn't count because El Nino affected the temps!". And then they'll use 2015 as the new baseline to prove all post-2015 warming has stopped.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 23, 2014)

The validity of AGW requires only that transient climate sensitivity be a positive, non-zero number.  

When you say "...the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is nearing zero" are you suggesting that it is a variable?  What was climate sensitivity between 1980 and 2000?  How about between 1941 and 1979?  How about between 1900 and 1940?

Just for your information, climate sensitivity is not always a climate model parameter. CMIP5, a coupled land-ocean-atmosphere GCM used by the IPCC, produces climate sensitivity as an output or emergent parameter.  Essentially, it works the model to match reality and tells you what sensitivity is required to do so.

Let's look up a few terms.  The first bit is from Wikipedia's article on climate sensitivity.  The second is from AR4, though I assume there is an equivalent section in AR5.  It likes 3C.

*Equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity*

The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide concentration (&#916;Tx2). This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.[4] This is a change from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), which said it was "likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C".[5] Other estimates of climate sensitivity are discussed later on.
A model estimate of* equilibrium sensitivity thus requires a very long model integration*; fully equilibrating ocean temperatures requires integrations of thousands of model years. A* measure requiring shorter integrations is the transient climate response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year.* The transient response is lower than the equilibrium sensitivity, due to the "inertia" of ocean heat uptake.
Over the 50&#8211;100 year timescale, the climate response to forcing is likely to follow the TCR; for considerations of climate stabilization, the ECS is more useful.
An estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity may be made from combining the effective climate sensitivity with the known properties of the ocean reservoirs and the surface heat fluxes; this is the effective climate sensitivity. This "may vary with forcing history and climate state".
A less commonly used concept, the Earth system sensitivity (ESS), can be defined which includes the effects of slower feedbacks, such as the albedo change from melting the large ice sheets that covered much of the northern hemisphere during the last glacial maximum. These extra feedbacks make the ESS larger than the ECS &#8212; possibly twice as large &#8212; but also mean that it may well not apply to current conditions.

and

8.6.2.1	Definition of Climate Sensitivity

As defined in previous assessments (Cubasch et al., 2001) and in the Glossary, the global annual mean surface air temperature change experienced by the climate system after it has attained a new equilibrium in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is referred to as the &#8216;equilibrium climate sensitivity&#8217; (unit is °C), and is often simply termed the &#8216;climate sensitivity&#8217;. It has long been estimated from numerical experiments in which an AGCM is coupled to a simple non-dynamic model of the upper ocean with prescribed ocean heat transports (usually referred to as &#8216;mixed-layer&#8217; or &#8216;slab&#8217; ocean models) and the atmospheric CO2 concentration is doubled. In AOGCMs and non-steady-state (or transient) simulations, the &#8216;transient climate response&#8217; (TCR; Cubasch et al., 2001) is defined as the global annual mean surface air temperature change (with respect to a &#8216;control&#8217; run) averaged over a 20-year period centred at the time of CO2 doubling in a 1% yr&#8211;1 compound CO2 increase scenario. That response depends both on the sensitivity and on the ocean heat uptake. An estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity in transient climate change integrations is obtained from the &#8216;effective climate sensitivity&#8217; (Murphy, 1995). It corresponds to the global temperature response that would occur if the AOGCM was run to equilibrium with feedback strengths held fixed at the values diagnosed at some point of the transient climate evolution. It is computed from the oceanic heat storage, the radiative forcing and the surface temperature change (Cubasch et al., 2001; Gregory et al., 2002).

The climate sensitivity depends on the type of forcing agents applied to the climate system and on their geographical and vertical distributions (Allen and Ingram, 2002; Sausen et al., 2002; Joshi et al., 2003). As it is influenced by the nature and the magnitude of the feedbacks at work in the climate response, it also depends on the mean climate state (Boer and Yu, 2003). Some differences in climate sensitivity will also result simply from differences in the particular radiative forcing calculated by different radiation codes (see Sections 10.2.1 and 8.6.2.3). The global annual mean surface temperature change thus presents limitations regarding the description and the understanding of the climate response to an external forcing. Indeed, the regional temperature response to a uniform forcing (and even more to a vertically or geographically distributed forcing) is highly inhomogeneous. In addition, climate sensitivity only considers the surface mean temperature and gives no indication of the occurrence of abrupt changes or extreme events. Despite its limitations, however, the climate sensitivity remains a useful concept because many aspects of a climate model scale well with global average temperature (although not necessarily across models), because the global mean temperature of the Earth is fairly well measured, and because it provides a simple way to quantify and compare the climate response simulated by different models to a specified perturbation. By focusing on the global scale, climate sensitivity can also help separate the climate response from regional variability.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 23, 2014)

For some reason, there's no THANKS button on the post this came from.  Let me try it this way:

THANKS MAMOOTH!



mamooth said:


> The ENSO forecast keeps leaning more towards an El Nino forming in the summer.
> 
> Air temperatures lag the ENSO state by around 6 months, and 2014 started with a weak La Nina, so 2014 won't be a record breaking year. 2015, on the other hand, probably will be. And when that happens, denialists will instantly flip flip from "La Nina doesn't affect temps!" to "The new record high doesn't count because El Nino affected the temps!". And then they'll use 2015 as the new baseline to prove all post-2015 warming has stopped.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 23, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The validity of AGW requires only that transient climate sensitivity be a positive, non-zero number.
> 
> When you say "...the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is nearing zero" are you suggesting that it is a variable?  What was climate sensitivity between 1980 and 2000?  How about between 1941 and 1979?  How about between 1900 and 1940?



As i said, it is nearing zero.  Its only contribution to the temperature is it's contribution to atmospheric pressure.

The AGW hypothesis just took another hit with a recent release of information by the MET in the UK.  They find a significant global increase in specific humidity and a significant global decrease in relative humidity.  Climate models based on the physics of the AGW hypothesis assume that while the climate warms, relative humidity will remain constant while specific humidity increases.   Observation disproves this prediction time and time again.

Any idea who predicted precisely what would, in reality happen?  Miskolczi's hypothesis predicted what would happen and guess what?  It happened.

Here:  From the MET:

HadISDH: Global land surface humidity monitoring from HadOBS (Met Office Hadley Centre): Quicklook decadal trends from direct PHA homogenised T, Td, Tw, e, q and RH from 1973 to 2012

Clip: Specific Humidity

There are widespread significant moistening trends across the globe, especially over the Tropics. These are less pervasive as the moistening trends shown for dewpoint temperature. They are very similar to trends in vapour pressure but not identical.....

Relative Humidity

There are widespread significant decreasing trends in relative humidity across the globe, especially over the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes. This may be referred to as drying which is confusing when all other moisture variables show moistening....

Miscolczi actually has a grasp of the physics and developed a hypothesis which actual observation bears out....as well as the fact that adding additional so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere do nothing.

The Saturated Greenhouse Effect

Clip:  The GHE is dominated by water vapour, so how it changes with increasing CO2 is critical.
All the General Circulation Models, also known as Global Climate Models (GCM), just set various evaporation and precipitation parameters to achieve approximately the result:
         Relative humidity = constant.

This result is based on short term observations of temperature changes while CO2 concentrations were approximately constant, so they only hold true over periods when CO2 does not change much. It is invalid to extrapolate these observations to long term periods with increasing CO2. The modellers just assume relative humidity is also constant while CO2 concentrations change.

There is no physics in support of this assumption, and no way to calculate its value from first principles. This assumption means that if temperatures increase for any reason, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases. But water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, so the GHE becomes stronger and temperatures increase more. The current theory does not determine this - it is only an assumption. If this assumption is only slightly wrong, it completely changes the expected response of increasing CO2 because water vapour is such a dominant greenhouse gas.

The assumption, that relative humidity is constant when CO2 concentrations increase, is completely absurd. This violates fundamental energy conservation laws. There are not separate energy balance equations for different greenhouse gases. There is not one set for water vapor, and a different set for CO2; there is one set of energy balance equations for the total atmosphere including all greenhouse gases. So it makes no sense to assign an arbitrary rule for one of the greenhouse gases.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 23, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> For some reason, there's no THANKS button on the post this came from.  Let me try it this way:
> 
> THANKS MAMOOTH!
> 
> And when the high temps don't materialize, what will be your excuse then?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 23, 2014)

Excuse?  From what would I need an excuse?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Excuse?  From what would I need an excuse?




Right...you, as always will simply ignore observation and continue to wail that the sky is falling.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

So, given the definition of Transient Climate Sensitivity I provided, explain how you conclude that it is "approaching zero".  Read them carefully.  I'm not sure I understand what they're saying.  

And keep in mind that the Greenhouse Effect is small (~1W/m^2) and while it has a significant effect over time, it can be fairly easily overriden by other, transient influences.  So that while the transient climate sensitivity of the system is relatively constant, but it may be difficult to see in the noise.


----------



## Kosh (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Excuse?  From what would I need an excuse?



The fact that you can not post datasets with source code to prove that CO2 drives climate as your religion says it does.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> So, given the definition of Transient Climate Sensitivity I provided, explain how you conclude that it is "approaching zero".  Read them carefully.  I'm not sure I understand what they're saying.



I have been sure that you actually understand next to nothing for quite some time now.  Aproaching zero = no effect.  The idea that CO2 can cause warming is an idiot's belief.  



Abraham3 said:


> keep in mind that the Greenhouse Effect is small (~1W/m^2) and while it has a significant effect over time, it can be fairly easily overriden by other, transient influences.  So that while the transient climate sensitivity of the system is relatively constant, but it may be difficult to see in the noise.



There is nothing but noise....no CO2 signature in the climate whatsoever...it is a hoax...a scam...a fabrication....invented by charlatans and believed by idiots.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 24, 2014)

It is idiotic to "debate" climate change.
It's like trying to debate one of Newton's Laws.

The far right tries to pretend that there is some scientific doubt on the issue. There is not. There is no "scientific conspiracy" among thousands of scientists from dozens of different countries. This suggestion is right up there with holocaust deniers and 9/11 inside job nutballs.

If there is some reason for doubt, why haven't skeptics produced numbers and models in a scientific format for scientific review.

Because they have none. All they have is political rhetoric.

Political questions may remain - the scientific question has not been questioned - scientifically.

Produce your data in a format that can be replicated for proof or disproof and then we'll talk. Until then, the "skeptics" can just walk around with a sticker on their heads that says, "I'm an idiot." It will be a lot quicker.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 24, 2014)

The most powerful thing the skeptics have is the pause.  This alone means doubt and a valid argument that co2 might not be that strong of a green house gas....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 24, 2014)

The pause of the last 15 years has made climate science look like a total ass to the general public. Skooks is kind of right.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Do you realize how rare you are in holding such an opinion?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Do you realize how rare you are in holding such an opinion?



Just pointing out the reality that the past 15 years haven't seen 1/3rd of the warming of the 1980s and 1990's. This is exactly what the public sees.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Do you realize how rare you are in holding such an opinion?



Observing reality is not rare....crazies like you are the actual minority.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

I have multiple quotations from people generally on your side of the argument, to the effect that denying that global warming is taking place or that CO2 causes it, is the choice of the intellectually handicapped.  You have now denied both.  I'm not sure we have enough in common to have a conversation.  We don't seem to be talking the same language.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I have multiple quotations from people generally on your side of the argument, to the effect that denying that global warming is taking place or that CO2 causes it, is the choice of the intellectually handicapped.  You have now denied both.  I'm not sure we have enough in common to have a conversation.  We don't seem to be talking the same language.



We aren't....I speak reality...you speak fiction....I speak observation....you speak model predictions....I win....you lose....I am laughing at you and you are too afraid of the CO2 boogie man to laugh at all.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

I'll just have to try to console myself with the support of >97% of the world's climate scientists.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I'll just have to try to console myself with the support of >97% of the world's climate scientists.



Once more, you console yourself with fiction.  I wish it were actually 97%.  It would please me to no end to know that I was in such a very small minority who actually understood the science well enough to be a skeptic when the hoax finally comes tumbling down.   Like phrenology, and eugenics, and plate tectonics, however, when the climate hoax crumbles, you won't be able to find any real scientist who was in support of the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 25, 2014)

Show us a non-bullshit study, poll or survey that finds any significantly different number.  I have asked for this on numerous occasions and guess-fucking-what?  

*NOBODY'S GOT ONE*​


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Show us a non-bullshit study, poll or survey that finds any significantly different number.  I have asked for this on numerous occasions and guess-fucking-what?
> 
> *NOBODY'S GOT ONE*​



Thus far all you have is bullshit studies....Why do you want something different from skeptics?  Any such study is political in nature and has nothing to do with science and everything to do with supporting the hoax.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 25, 2014)

WHERE is a fucking study that says anything different?  

I don't want to hear ANYTHING from your shit-eating mouth till you've got one.​


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> WHERE is a fucking study that says anything different?
> 
> I don't want to hear ANYTHING from your shit-eating mouth till you've got one.​



As is said, any such study would be political in nature....there is no place in science for politics...all your studies are bullshit designed to support the hoax.  Screaming like a little pussy because someone is telling you the truth doesn't alter the truth a bit.  I am genuinely enjoying the fact that I can get so deep under your skin to make you unravel like that.  A true exhibition of insecurity on your part.  Thanks.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 25, 2014)

Can I see a study showing co2 isn't a green house gas? Or I'd love to see the studies showing if IT IS the *low sensitivity*. Peer reviewed...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Can I see a study showing co2 isn't a green house gas? Or I'd love to see the studies showing if IT IS the *low sensitivity*. Peer reviewed...



The term greenhouse is a misnomer...CO2 does absorb and emit very narrow bands of LW radiation but it does not cause warming.  And the best performing GCM's are those that are based on a very low sensitivity to CO2 even though they don't do a very good job either...but they are far superior to those which assume 2-4 degrees for doubling.

I will ask you the same question I just asked abraham...

Explain, if the greenhouse effect is responsible for the temperature on earth, why the base of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than the earth even though it is 30 times further away from the sun than the earth and has an atmosphere composed primarily of hydrogen and helium.

The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science does not exist.  It is an ad hoc construct that attempts an alternate explanation (other than the ideal gas laws) for the temperature on earth, which (I might add) can't even come close to explaining the temperature on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...an explanation that serves the function of gathering and concentrating political power.

By the way Matthew, there is no study that empirically measures the greenhouse effect....all such claims are false as it has never been measured and quantified outside of a failed computer model of the climate.


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Can I see a study showing co2 isn't a green house gas? Or I'd love to see the studies showing if IT IS the *low sensitivity*. Peer reviewed...
> ...



Plus, the obvious statistic of the pause of the warming. If CO2 was the major cause, and if CO2 is still being admitted due to human behavior (which all warmists claim and we all know why the governments blame human activity.....$$$) then what is the cause for the pause?


They avoid that like the plague. My prediction is now that the governments have now changed the terminology to "climate change" they will now be shifting into an area (if the cooling trend continues) they will take credit for the warming trend ending. 

Get that? There will be a concerted effort (assuming the trend continues like it has over the last 15 years) to take credit for the change. 

Count on it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 25, 2014)

You are ALL so incredibly stupid.

Show us some peer reviewed studies by qualified climate scientists that support your nonsense.  Do it before you repeat it.


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You are ALL so incredibly stupid.



WHat is the cause for the pause?

Thanks. 

Please, go easy on us. Cause we are all knuckle dragging mouth breathers don't you know?

Why, has there been a cooling trend over the last 15 years? Is it because there is less CO2 being admitted? Is that the reason?

If CO2 is the main catalyst to THE GLOBAL WARMING, and IF the CO2 has been admitted at the same rate it has been over the last 50 years, then what is the cause of cooling trend. 

That ought to be pretty simple to explain to us.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You are ALL so incredibly stupid.
> 
> Show us some peer reviewed studies by qualified climate scientists that support your nonsense.  Do it before you repeat it.




The ideal gas laws support my claims.  Which physical laws support yours.  

I can't help but notice that you didn't
Try to explain the temp on Uranus


----------



## Wyld Kard (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I'll put it another way.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE......

and......

........YOU ARE THE PARROT WHO IS REPEATING THOSE LIES.

Damn you're gullible!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You are ALL so incredibly stupid.
> 
> Show us some peer reviewed studies by qualified climate scientists that support your nonsense.  Do it before you repeat it.



Show me a study that produces a measured quantity of the greenhouse effect.  I predict, no such study will be forthcoming as no greenhouse effect has ever been measured.  For all the talk about the greenhouse effect, don't you suppose it might have been measured and quantified if it existed?

You believe in a hoax because you aren't very bright.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Feb 25, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub4hSZjCCzY]Global Warming Hoax - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 25, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



What disinformation?  What fraudulent science?  What lies?

Are you having trouble coming up with particulars?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You are ALL so incredibly stupid.
> ...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
*Starting back in the late1850s*, [John] Tyndall studied the action of radiant energy on the constituents of air, and it led him onto several lines of inquiry, and his original research results included the following:






Tyndall's setup for measuring the radiant heat absorption of gases. Detailed explanation at File:TyndallsSetupForMeasuringRadiantHeatAbsorptionByGases annotated.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Tyndall explained the heat in the Earth's atmosphere in terms of the *capacities of the various gases in the air to absorb radiant heat, also known as infrared radiation*. His measuring device, which used thermopile technology, is an early landmark in the history of absorption spectroscopy of gases.[7] He was the *first to correctly measure the relative infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc*. (year 1859). He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small. Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth's atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. The proof was that water vapor strongly absorbed infrared radiation.[8] Relatedly, *Tyndall in 1860 was first to demonstrate and quantify that visually transparent gases are infrared emitters*.[9]
He devised demonstrations that advanced the question of how radiant heat is absorbed and emitted at the molecular level. He appears to be the first person to have demonstrated experimentally that emission of heat in chemical reactions has its physical origination within the newly created molecules (1864).[10] He produced instructive demonstrations involving the incandescent conversion of infrared into visible light at the molecular level, which he called calorescence (1865), in which he used materials that are transparent to infrared and opaque to visible light or vice versa.[11] He usually referred to infrared as "radiant heat", and sometimes as "ultra-red undulations", as the word "infrared" did not start coming into use until the 1880s. His main reports of the 1860s were republished as a 450-page collection in 1872 under the title Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat.
In the investigations on radiant heat in air it had been necessary to use air from which all traces of floating dust and other particulates had been removed.[12] A very sensitive way to detect particulates is to bathe the air with intense light. The scattering of light by particulate impurities in air and other gases, and in liquids, is known today as the Tyndall Effect or Tyndall Scattering.[13] In studying this scattering during the late 1860s Tyndall was a beneficiary of recent improvements in electric-powered lights. He also had the use of good light concentrators. He developed the nephelometer and similar instruments that show properties of aerosols and colloids through concentrated light beams against a dark background and are based on exploiting the Tyndall Effect. (When combined with microscopes, the result is the ultramicroscope, which was developed later by others).
He was the first to observe and report the phenomenon of thermophoresis in aerosols. He spotted it surrounding hot objects while investigating the Tyndall Effect with focused lightbeams in a dark room. He devised a better way to demonstrate it, and then simply reported it (1870), without investigating the physics of it in depth.[14]
In radiant-heat experiments that called for much laboratory expertise in the early 1860s, he showed for a variety of readily vaporizable liquids that, molecule for molecule, the vapor form and the liquid form have essentially the same power to absorb radiant heat.[15] (In modern experiments using narrow-band spectra, some small differences are found that Tyndall's equipment was unable to get at; see e.g. absorption spectrum of H2O).
He consolidated and enhanced the results of Desains, Forbes, Knoblauch and others demonstrating that the principal properties of visible light can be reproduced for radiant heat &#8211; namely reflection, refraction, diffraction, polarization, depolarization, double refraction, and rotation in a magnetic field.[16]
Using his expertise about radiant heat absorption by gases, he invented a system for measuring the amount of carbon dioxide in a sample of exhaled human breath (1862, 1864). The basics of Tyndall's system is in daily use in hospitals today for monitoring patients under anesthesia.[17] (See capnometry.)
When studying the absorption of radiant heat by ozone, he came up with a demonstration that helped confirm or reaffirm that ozone is an oxygen cluster (1862).[18]
**********************************************************************
So _incredibly_ stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2014)

So no actual measurement and quantification of the greenhouse effect.  That's what I thought.  You have  been so thoroughly duped that you see evidence where none exists everywhere.

By the way, those transparent gasses only emit what they have absorbed.....no actual measurement of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 25, 2014)

Read the article.  Tyndall made quantitative measurements of IR absorption.  And that was 1859-1860.  Do you think there might have been a little more work on the topic?  Do you think there might have been some developments in test equipment?  


Now it YOUR GODDAMNED TURN TO SHOW US SOME PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIMS.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You're a slow learner.  Must be all that Kool-Aid that you drink? 



> What disinformation?  What fraudulent science?  What lies?


EVERYTHING!  Every goddamn thing about global warming is a lie!

 Why global warming science is nothing but fraud - English pravda.ru


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 25, 2014)

Pravda?  Are you fucking kidding me?  PRAVDA?

Fucking idiots.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Feb 25, 2014)

abraham3 said:


> pravda?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Pravda?
> 
> Fucking idiots.



your fucking ignorance bores me!


----------



## Meister (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Pravda?  Are you fucking kidding me?  PRAVDA?
> 
> Fucking idiots.



*31,000 scientists signed a petition* that basically said you're wrong.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

31,000 scientists did not sign a petition saying I was wrong.  Pravda has as much integrity and credibility as the National Enquirer.

The people who signed the OISM petition were NOT even predominantly scientists and were definitely NOT climate scientists.  The signatories make up roughly 0.3% (3 out of 1,000) of science graduates and includes the names of only 39 climate scientists (1 in 1,000 signatories). The degrees allowed by the OISM include numerous categories who have nothing to do with any branch of climate science (medical doctor, veterinarian, electrical engineer, nuclear engineer, biologist, etc) and requires that signatories have only a bachelor's of science degree or higher.  No one with a BSc is doing professional research and few even with masters degrees.  Neither is it possible to verify the accuracy of the OISM list.

The IPCC has made use of thousands of degreed, working climate scientists.  Their analysis reports, thousands of pages long, are based on hundreds of peer reviewed studies published in refereed journals.  They are compendiums of the results of reviewed, comprehensive and detailed studies by PhDs in climate sciences of climate problems and topics; not the offhand opinions of a nearly random selection of people who chose to mail a pre-printed post card.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > pravda?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Pravda?
> ...



Then feel free to get back to the Cartoon Channel. And don't let  your mom catch you getting her makeup on your Batman sheet set.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

SSDD

John Tyndall performed quantitative experiments demonstrating and measuring the absorption and reradiation of IR from most of the atmosphere's greenhouse gases.  That satisfies your demand.  Your turn.  Show us some valid research that supports your contentions.



SSDD said:


> The term greenhouse is a misnomer...CO2 does absorb and emit very narrow bands of LW radiation but it does not cause warming.  And the best performing GCM's are those that are based on a very low sensitivity to CO2 even though they don't do a very good job either...but they are far superior to those which assume 2-4 degrees for doubling.





SSDD said:


> The ideal gas laws support my claims.





SSDD said:


> no greenhouse effect has ever been measured.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Read the article.  Tyndall made quantitative measurements of IR absorption.  And that was 1859-1860.  Do you think there might have been a little more work on the topic?  Do you think there might have been some developments in test equipment?
> 
> 
> Now it YOUR GODDAMNED TURN TO SHOW US SOME PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIMS.



No one is claiming that CO2 doesn't absorb IR.  You seem to believe that absorbing IR constitutes a greenhouse effect and therefore accounts for the temperature on earth.  It doesn't.  I can't help but notice that you completely avoided my earlier question and I suspect that you will continue to avoid it as answering will, in fact, cast serious doubt on the greenhouse hypothesis.  So I will ask again.

If the greenhouse effect as described by climate science accounts for the temperature on earth, why is the base of the troposphere on Uranus 33K warmer than the base of the troposphere on earth in spite of being 30 times further away from the sun and having an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium....certainly not GHGs?  

And lets expand that thought further....here on earth, the dry adiabatic lapse rate...that is the adiabatic lapse rate without the primary greenhouse gas (H2O) is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate.  Twice as steep.  Do you understand what the adiabatic lapse rate is?  If so, then answer this question.... Since the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate....does the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere warm or cool?

Following the same line of thought, explain why the temperature on the dark side of venus doesn't get cooler during its 2000 hour night.  Why do you suppose that is?  And speaking of venus, why do you suppose that the temperature in the Venusian atmosphere where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that of earth, the temperature is the same as that of earth even though the atmosphere is almost entirely composed of CO2?  And on the other end of the spectrum...Uranus which is 30 times further from the sun than earth has a temperature at the base of the troposphere that is 33k warmer than the base of the troposphere of earth.

When one looks at the temperature profiles of the various planets in the solar system, and tries to apply the greenhouse effect as described by climate science, one finds that it only works here....and only by coincidence since direct measurement shows us that the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere cools rather than warms since the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice that of the wet adiabatic lapse rate.

I would like to see a rational and scientifically sound explanation for the examples above.  If the greenhouse effect is king, why doesn't the surface of venus cool during a 2000 hour night and why is the base of the troposphere of Uranus 33k warmer than here on earth?  

Clearly, when you look around the solar system, gravity and pressure are responsible for the temperatures of the various planets, not a greenhouse effect as described by climate science....and while you are explaining, try explaining why the greenhouse effect as described by climate science only works here on earth.....do you believe the laws of physics change once you leave earth?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Pravda?  Are you fucking kidding me?  PRAVDA?
> 
> Fucking idiots.



Can you actually refute the article or is a circumstantial ad hominem against Pravda the best you can do?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 31,000 scientists did not sign a petition saying I was wrong.  Pravda has as much integrity and credibility as the National Enquirer.
> 
> The people who signed the OISM petition were NOT even predominantly scientists and were definitely NOT climate scientists.  The signatories make up roughly 0.3% (3 out of 1,000) of science graduates and includes the names of only 39 climate scientists (1 in 1,000 signatories). The degrees allowed by the OISM include numerous categories who have nothing to do with any branch of climate science (medical doctor, veterinarian, electrical engineer, nuclear engineer, biologist, etc) and requires that signatories have only a bachelor's of science degree or higher.  No one with a BSc is doing professional research and few even with masters degrees.  Neither is it possible to verify the accuracy of the OISM list.
> 
> The IPCC has made use of thousands of degreed, working climate scientists.  Their analysis reports, thousands of pages long, are based on hundreds of peer reviewed studies published in refereed journals.  They are compendiums of the results of reviewed, comprehensive and detailed studies by PhDs in climate sciences of climate problems and topics; not the offhand opinions of a nearly random selection of people who chose to mail a pre-printed post card.



You keep telling yourself what while you answer the questions I posed to you above.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

You're never going to provide any evidence to support your contentions because it doesn't exist.  Don't fret about it, though.  We knew that from the beginning.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD
> 
> John Tyndall performed quantitative experiments demonstrating and measuring the absorption and reradiation of IR from most of the atmosphere's greenhouse gases.  That satisfies your demand.  Your turn.  Show us some valid research that supports your contentions.



I am afraid that it doesn't.  As I pointed out, the dry adiabatic lapse rate...that is the adiabatic lapse rate without the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (H2O) is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate.  This tells us that H2O has a cooling effect in the atmosphere...and again, there is the inconvenient fact that the base of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than the base of the troposphere on Earth in spite of the fact that Uranus is 30 times further away from the sun and has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium....and the fact that the surface of Venus doesn't cool during its 2000 hour night....

The fact of the matter is that if the earth had no atmosphere, the temperature would be 255K....the temperature with so called GHGs is 288K and the temperature here with the same mass but no GHG's would be approximately 304K...and before you erupt into hand waving paroxysms of wailing...remember that the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate...that means that the dominant GHG in the system has a cooling effect.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You're never going to provide any evidence to support your contentions because it doesn't exist.  Don't fret about it, though.  We knew that from the beginning.



That was science....sorry you didn't recognize it.  I can't believe that you don't think the ideal gas laws are science or evidence to support a claim.  What sort of idiot are you?

What will NEVER happen is you being able to explain the temperatures on other planets using the greenhouse hypothesis...it only works here because it is an ad hoc construct...not science.

Everyone is watching you not being able to answer my questions....you see yourself as so smart but are unable to answer my questions...you claim that I am an idiot but can't answer my straight forward questions....if the greenhouse effect were real, you could apply it to the atmosphere of any planet and provide an answer with which to slap me down....is that happening?  Of course not.  You are running away from the questions hurling insult and ad hominem as fast as you can in an attempt to make the questions disappear.  You have been pwned...congratulations.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

And so we are to accept that you are smarter than 99% of the world's atmospheric scientists?  Yes or no.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> And so we are to accept that you are smarter than 99% of the world's atmospheric scientists?  Yes or no.



I asked you a few questions...perhaps you could refer to that mythical 99% of the worlds scientists and get an answer.....at this point, you are dodging and everyone sees you dodging.

Why is the temperature at the base of the troposphere of Uranus 33K warmer than at the base of the troposphere of earth in spite of being 30 times further away from the sun with an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium if mass and pressure and the ideal gas laws aren't king?  Why is the dry adiabatic lapse rate twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate if the most dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere does not have a cooling effect?  

Answer the questions buckwheet...they aren't going away.


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 31,000 scientists did not sign a petition saying I was wrong.  Pravda has as much integrity and credibility as the National Enquirer.
> 
> The people who signed the OISM petition were NOT even predominantly scientists and were definitely NOT climate scientists.  The signatories make up roughly 0.3% (3 out of 1,000) of science graduates and includes the names of only 39 climate scientists (1 in 1,000 signatories). The degrees allowed by the OISM include numerous categories who have nothing to do with any branch of climate science (medical doctor, veterinarian, electrical engineer, nuclear engineer, biologist, etc) and requires that signatories have only a bachelor's of science degree or higher.  No one with a BSc is doing professional research and few even with masters degrees.  Neither is it possible to verify the accuracy of the OISM list.
> 
> The IPCC has made use of thousands of degreed, working climate scientists.  Their analysis reports, thousands of pages long, are based on hundreds of peer reviewed studies published in refereed journals.  They are compendiums of the results of reviewed, comprehensive and detailed studies by PhDs in climate sciences of climate problems and topics; not the offhand opinions of a nearly random selection of people who chose to mail a pre-printed post card.











917 Signers out of 31,487 Total in US. Before you say that is only 917 signers, these are just from the letter A. Let me know if you want me to list A through Z. 

Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, PhD, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron, Ralph F. Abate, Hamed K. Abbas, PhD, Wyatt E. Abbitt II, Bernaard J. Abbott, PhD, David J. Abbott, MD, David M. Abbott Jr., Donald W. Abbott, Douglas R. Abbott, Eugene Abbott, Frank D. Abbott, Paul Abbott, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD, Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD, Albert S. Abdullah, DVM, Alan E. Abel, MD, Jason Abel, Janis I. Abele, Joseph M. Abell, Robert E. Abell, Gene H. Abels, MD, Philip H Abelson, PhD*, Wayne Aben, Jerrold Abernathy, Marshall W. Abernathy, Grady L. Ables, Earl Arthur Abrahamson, PhD, Alan V. Abrams, MD, Carl M. Abrams, Robert C. Abrams, Paul B. Abramson, PhD, Jose L. Abreu Jr., Joe L. Abriola Jr., B. Steven Absher, Sally Absher, Ahmed E. Aburahmah, PhD, Joseph P Accardo, Austin R. Ace, David A. Acerni, John W. Achee Sr., Billy R. Achmbaugh, Daniel T. Achord, PhD, Ernest R. Achterberg, Ava V Ackerman, DVM, Gene L. Ackerman, John R. Ackerman, William L. Ackerman, Richard E. Ackermann, Terry D. Ackman, Donald O. Acrey, Lee Actor, Humberto M. Acuna Jr., Robert K. Adair, PhD, William G. Adair Jr., Brian D. Adam, PhD, Chris Adam, Anthony F. Adamo, Albert H. Adams, MD, Ann S. Adams, Anthony W. Adams, MD, Audrey W Adams, Brook W. Adams, Bryan C. Adams, Bryant L Adams, PhD, Charles K. Adams, Daniel B Adams Jr., Daniel Otis Adams, PhD, Dell H. Adams, Donald Adams, Dwight L. Adams, MD, Eugene Adams, Gail D. Adams, PhD, George Baker Adams, PhD, George F. Adams, Gerald J. Adams, PhD, Gregory A Adams, Harold Elwood Adams, PhD, Henry J. Adams, Howard J. Adams, James D. Adams, James William Adams, Jim D. Adams, John Edgar Adams, PhD, John Adams, Kent A. Adams, Lee A Adams Jr., Leonard Caldwell Adams, PhD, Lewis R. Adams, Louis W. Adams, PhD, N. Adams, Neil Adams, PhD, Opal Adams, Phillip Adams, PhD, Richard Ernest Adams, Richard L. Adams, Richard W. Adams, MD, Roy Melville Adams, PhD, Roy B. Adams, Stanley D Adams, Steve W. Adams, Steven W. Adams, William W. Adams, William P. Adams, MD, William M. Adams, PhD, William John Adams, William D. Adams, Wilton T. Adams, PhD, Verne E. Adamson, Wayne L. Adamson, Karlis Adamsons Jr., PhD, George Adcock, Robert E. Adcock, Rusty Adcock, MD, Lionel Paul Adda, PhD, Ben J. Addiego, Albert W. Addington, Tim Addington, William H. Addington, Paul Bradley Addis, PhD, Marshall B. Addison, PhD, Winford R. Addison, Joseph E. Adducci, MD, John K. Addy, PhD, Wayne F. Addy, C. William Ade, Albert H. Adelman, PhD, Barnet R. Adelman, Gary N. Adkins, L. A. Adkins, Michael F. Adkins, Ronald R. Adkins, PhD, T. Adkins, Wilder Adkins, Perry Lee Adkisson, PhD, Norman Adler, PhD, Jacques J.P. Adnet, Eric R. Adolphson, John H. Adrain, MD, Anthony J. Adrignolo, PhD, V. Harry Adrounie, PhD, Richard A. Adsero, Steve E. Aeschbach, Stanley P. Aetrewicz, Stephen B. Affleck, PhD, Siegfried Aftergut, PhD, Jack G. Agan, Frederick A. Agdern, Larry Delmar Agenbroad, PhD, Sven Agerbek, David Agerton, PhD, George Aggen, PhD, Vincent Agnello, MD, Kenneth Agnes, Mark R. Agnew, Nathan Agnew, Robert F. Agnew, MD, Sean R Agnew, Thomas I. Agnew, PhD, M. C. Agress, John Aguilar, Jorge T. Aguinaldo, Aida M. Aguirre, Robert Aharonov, Richard Ahern, Phillip S. Ahlberg, Kevin Ahlborg, Mark Ahlert, Terry Ahlquist, Richard G. Ahlvin, Edward J Ahmann, MD, Mumtaz Ahmed, PhD, Rafique Ahmed, PhD, Robert A. Ahokas, PhD, H. William Ahrenholz, Edward Ahrens, Rolland W. Ahrens, PhD, Robert M. Ahring, PhD, John J. Aiello, Robert P. Aillery, Brian R. Ainley, Alfred Ainsworth, Oscar Richard Ainsworth, PhD, Steven L. Ainsworth, Sol Aisenberg, PhD, John W. Ake, John Hvan Aken, Arthur W. Akers, David J. Akers, Stuart R. Akers, Gary L. Akerstrom, Wayne Henry Akeson, MD, Munawwar M. Akhtar, Frank Jerrel Akin, PhD, Thane Akins, Frederick I. Akiya, MD, John S. Akiyama, M. H. Akram, PhD, Philip R. Akre, MD, Zeki Al-Saigh, PhD, Zaynab Al-Yassin, PhD, G. James Alaback, Lloyd Alaback, John A. Alai, Robert J. Alaimo, PhD, Rogelio N. Alama, Greg Alan, Janet Alanko, Randy A Alanko, MD, Vincent M. Albanese, Henry Albaugh, Grant Alberich, Daniel C. Albers, Kenneth O. Albers, MD, Timothy A. Albers, Arthur Edward Albert, PhD, Edward G Albert, Eric K. Albert, PhD, James T. Albert, Tom J. Albert, William L. Albert, James L. Alberta, Leland C. Albertson, Roy A. Albertson, Frank Addison Albini, PhD, Allan J. Albrecht, Robert M. Albrecht, Rudolph C. Albrecht, Fred Ronald Albright, PhD, James C. Albright, PhD, Jay Donald Albright, PhD, Robert Lee Albright, PhD, William D. Albright, Marcus Albro, Allwyn Albuquerque, Evelyn A. Alcantara, PhD, Ernest Charles Alcaraz, PhD, Garrett D. Alcorn, John C. Alden, PhD, Ronald Godshall Alderfer, PhD, Thomas Alderson, PhD, Ben Alderton, Franklin Dalton Aldrich, PhD, Harl P. Aldrich, PhD, Reuben J. Aldrich, Richard John Aldrich, PhD, Samuel Roy Aldrich, PhD, Robert Aldridge, Gabriel C. Aldulescu, MD, Perry Baldwin Alers, PhD, Alex F. Alessandrini, Steven J. Alessandro, Andrew J. Alessi, Stephen R. Alewine, Joseph J. Alex, Danrick W. Alexander, Dave Alexander, Dennis J. Alexander, Fred Alexander, George C. Alexander, DVM, Harold R. Alexander, Ira H. Alexander, James B Alexander, James F. Alexander Jr., John C. Alexander, Kelsey Alexander, Kevin Alexander, M. Dale Alexander, PhD, Michael L. Alexander, Moorad Alexanian, PhD, Igor Alexeff, PhD, Charles D. Alexson, Rodolfo Q. Alfonso, Jennifer M. Alford, Mary E. Alford, Rex Alford, Robert L. Alford, Luis A. Algarra, Roger C. Alig, PhD, Mark J. Alkire, MD, R. Allahyari, PhD, Louis John Allamandola, PhD, Roger L. Allard, Joel W. Alldredge, William David Alldredge Jr., Fred A. Allehoff, John F. Alleman, Ben C. Allen, PhD, Charles W Allen, PhD, Charles M. Allen, PhD, Charles C. Allen, Christopher G. Allen, Clayton H. Allen, PhD, David M. Allen, David J Allen, PhD, Emma Allen, PhD, Eric R. Allen, PhD, Gary L. Allen, PhD, James L. Allen, PhD, Jason D. Allen, John L. Allen, Joshua C. Allen, Kenneth L. Allen, Kimbol R. Allen, Kristin L. Allen, Levi D. Allen, Madelyn H. Allen, DVM, Marvin E. Allen, Merrill P. Allen, Paul W. Allen, PhD, Randall Allen, Robert K. Allen, MD, Robert G. Allen, DVM, Robert C. Allen, Roger B. Allen, PhD, Stewart J. Allen, Thomas Hunter Allen, PhD, William Allen Jr., Robert T. Van Aller, PhD, George L. Allerton, Carl J. Allesandro, Robert Q. Alleva, Ernest R. Alley, Jonathan Alley, MD, William Edward Alley, PhD, George L. Allgoever, Robert H. Allgood, Robert W. Allgood, Richard Alan Alliegro, Mike E. Alligood, Craig Allison, Gary L. Allison, Kevin R. Allison, Randall W. Allison, Ronald C. Allison, MD, Terry G. Allison, Charles E. Allman, George J. Allman, Philip D. Allmendinger, MD, John J. Allport, PhD, Albert L Allred, PhD, Bruce W. Allred, Ivan D. Allred, Victor Dean Allred, PhD, Gary W. Allshouse, Arthur W. Allsop, R. A. Allwein, Ronaldo A. Almero, Frank Murray Almeter, PhD, Anthony H Almond, Kent A. Alms, Richard E. Almy, Jorge L. Alonso, Ramon J. Alonso, PhD, James A. Aloye, Ali Yulmaz Alper, Reevis Stancil Alphin, PhD, Allen A. Alsing, A. Frank Alsobrook, Robert C Alson, Albert W. Alsop, PhD, John Henry Alsop, PhD, Randy J. Alstadt, Sally S. Alston, Charles Alt, Greg A. Altberg, Vincent O. Altemose, Nicholas A. Alten, Frederick C. Althaus, George A. Alther, Howard W. Althouse, Timothy L. Altier, Ashton Altieri, Martin E. Altis, David Altman, PhD, Larry W Altman, Melvyn R. Altman, PhD, Ronny G. Altman, Peter Christian Altner, MD, Herbert N. Altneu, Sidney J. Altschuler, Edward E. Altshuler, PhD, Burton Myron Altura, PhD, Patrick Aluotto, PhD, Raul C. Alva, Anthony B. Alvarado, Antonio R. Alvarez, Raymond Angelo Alvarez Jr., PhD, Virgilio E. Alvarez, Dayton L. Alverson, PhD, R. Byron Alvey, Stephen Edward Always, PhD, Vern J. Always, James I Alyea, Bradley A. Aman, Farouk Amanatullah, Larry C. Amans, James L. Amarel, Charles David Amata, PhD, Carmelo J. Amato, Paul Gerard Amazeen, PhD, Ronald F. Amberger, PhD, Leonard Amborski, PhD, Joseph R. Ambruster, Donald Ford Amend, PhD, Marvin Earl Ament, Richard Amerling, MD, Edward J. Ames II, Lynford L Ames, PhD, Martin R. Ames, Donald R. Amett, Michael R. Amick, Wayne P. Amico, Dean P. Amidon, Pushpavati S. Amin, Duane R. Amlee, Kenneth S. Ammons, Moris Amon, PhD, Richard D. Amori, Lee Amoroso, PhD, Bonnie B. Amos, PhD, Dewey Harold Amos, PhD, A. Amr, PhD, Fred Amsler, MD, Robert L. Amster, DVM, Thomas A. Amundsen, Adolph L. Amundson, Keith L Amunson, James P. Amy, Barry M. Amyx, MD*, Raymond J. Anater, Sal A. Anazalone, Kenneth L. Ancell, Melvin M. Anchell, MD, Ernest J. Andberg, Kenneth J. Anderer, G. Anderle, PhD, John P. Anders, MD, D. Andersen, Donald A. Andersen, PhD, Donald R. Andersen Jr., Doug E. Andersen, Gene P. Andersen, George H. Andersen, Lawrence D. Andersen, Terrell Neils Andersen, PhD, Torben B. Andersen, PhD, Wilford Hoyt Andersen, PhD, Robert W. Andersohn, Alan J. Anderson, Albert S. Anderson, MD, Amos Robert Anderson, PhD, Amy L Anderson, Andrew S. Anderson, PhD, Anita Teter Anderson, Arthur G. Anderson, PhD, Arthur E. Anderson, Arvid Anderson, Barry D. Anderson, Bernard Jeffrey Anderson, PhD, Bruce Martin Anderson Jr., C. M. Anderson Jr., Charles R Anderson, PhD, Chris Anderson, Christopher Anderson, Conrad E. Anderson, MD, Corby G. Anderson, PhD, Craig A. Anderson, David W. Anderson, David Robert Anderson, PhD, David O. Anderson, PhD, David B. Anderson, David A. Anderson, David Anderson, PhD, David Anderson, Donald Anderson, PhD, Donald Heruin Anderson, PhD, Douglas J. Anderson, MD, Elmer A. Anderson, PhD, Eric Anderson, Fred G. Anderson, MD, Gerald L. Anderson, Glenn L. Anderson, Greg J. Anderson, H. C. Anderson, Harrison Clarke Anderson, MD, Ingrid Anderson, PhD, J. Hilbert Anderson, James R. Anderson, James R. Anderson, James P. Anderson, James K. Anderson, James Anderson, Jane E. Anderson, Janis W. Anderson, Joel Anderson, John C. Anderson, PhD, John O. Anderson, Jon C. Anderson, MD, Joy R. Anderson, PhD, Julia W. Anderson, PhD, Keith R. Anderson, Ken Anderson, Kenneth E. Anderson, Larry Anderson, PhD, Leif H. Anderson, Leslie Anderson, PhD, Louis Weston Anderson, Lowell Ray Anderson, Lynn C. Anderson, DVM, Mark Anderson, Mark A. Anderson, Mary P Anderson, Mike E. Anderson, Mitchell Anderson, Nathan Anderson, Orson Lamar Anderson, PhD, P. Jennings Anderson, Percy G. Anderson Jr., R. L. Anderson, Randall H. Anderson, Reece B. Anderson, Richard Alan Anderson, PhD, Richard C. Anderson, Robert Anderson, Robert E. Anderson, Robert J Anderson, MD, Rodney C. Anderson, PhD, Roger O. Anderson, Roscoe B. Anderson, MD, Ross S. Anderson, PhD, Roy E. Anderson, Russell Anderson, Theodore D. Anderson, Thomas P. Anderson, Thomas F. Anderson, PhD, Thornton Anderson, Tom Anderson, Tom P. Anderson, Walton O. Anderson, Warren Ronald Anderson, Wilbert C. Anderson, William L. Anderson, Karen Andersonnoeck, Charles S. Andes, David J. Andes, Mark J. Andorka, Robynn Andracsek, John Robert Andrade, PhD, Manuel Andrade, John Andrako, PhD, Ivan J. Andrasik, Peter R. Andreana, PhD, Gilbert M. Andreen, Eva Andrei, PhD, George Andreiev, Richard M. Andres, PhD, Douglas R Andress, Steven M. Andreucci, James F. Andrew, PhD, James M. Andrew, Felixe A. Andrews, Frederick T. Andrews, Harry N. Andrews, John Stevens Andrews, PhD, Marion L. Andrews, Mel Andrews, Raynal W. Andrews, Russell A. Andrews, Russell S. Andrews, PhD, Scott Andrews, PhD, Timothy Andreychek, Lois Andros, Edward A. Andrus, M. B. Andrus, PhD, Walter S. Andrus, Robert E. Angel, Ernest F. Angelicola, Vincent Angelo, PhD, Francis M. Angeloni, PhD, T. Angelosaute, Steven T. Angely, Claude B. Anger, Robert H. Angevine, Ernest Angino, PhD, Keith Angle, Walter C. Anglemeyer, Howard P. Angstadt, PhD, Micheal J. Anhorn, Kevin P. Ankenbrand, William D. Ankney, William L Anliker, Stuart H. Anness, MD, Stig A. Annestrand, Edward J Annick, B. M. Anose, PhD, Mohammed R. Ansari, Gregory W. Antal, Bradley C. Antanaitis, PhD, John Allen Anthes, PhD, Elizabeth Y. Anthony, PhD, Jack R. Anthony, Lee Saunders Anthony, PhD, Robert D. Anthony, Charles H. Antinori, PhD, Achilles P. Anton, MD, Herbert D. Anton, Nick J. Antonas, Dan Antonescu-Wolf, MD, Rolando A. Antonio, Wilfred L. Antonson, Stephen P. Antony, Mary J. Anzia, PhD, Clarence R. Apel, MD, Henry W. Apfelbach, MD, P. J. Apice, Carl Apicella, Bruce W. Apland, David R. Appel, Kenneth P. Apperson, Norman Apperson, W. H. Appich Jr., Lynn Apple, Alan Appleby, PhD, Robert H. Appleby, Donald Applegate, DVM, James K. Applegate, PhD, Lowell N. Applegate, John K. Applegath, Herbert S Appleman, Douglas E. Applequist, PhD, Morris Herman Aprison, PhD, Charles Apter, PhD, Richard Apuzzo II, J. B. Aquilla, MD, Arturo Q. Arabe, PhD, Ara Arabyan, PhD, Steven B. Aragon, MD, Orlando A. Arana, Eric C. Araneta, Jonathan Arata, PhD, Howard Arbaugh, Anatoly L Arber, PhD, Harry D. Arber, R. Kent Arblaster, Jaime Arbona-Fazzi, PhD, Earl F. Arbuckle, John Arcadi, MD, Antonio E. Arce, Ed Arce, James R. Arce, Frank G Arcella, PhD, Byron J. Arceneaux, Leon M. Arceneaux, Webster J. Arceneaux Jr., John Arch, Diane M Archer, Donald Archer, William W. Archer, Patrick J. Archey, Philip Archibald, Robert L. Archibald, John L Archie, Angela N. Archon, William Bryant Ard, PhD, William Ard, Richard J. Ardine Arthur, Joe R. Arechavaleta, Christopher Arend, Robert W. Arends, Elton E. Arensman, Vittorio K. Argento, PhD, Harold V. Argo, PhD, Guvenc Argon, John W. Argue, Lawrence Ariano, MD, William J. Arion, PhD, Gary Arithson, Zaven S. Ariyan, PhD, Alfred Arkell, PhD, Raymond D Arkwright, Giacomo Armand, PhD, Gertrude D. Armbruster, PhD, Thomas G. Armbuster, MD, Bradley Armentrout, Richard W. Armentrout, PhD, Lew Armer, Joseph S Armijo, PhD, Ralph Elmer Armington, PhD, Bobby M. Armistead, William E Armour, Robert L. Arms, Baxter H. Armstrong, PhD, Clifford B. Armstrong Jr., Desiree A. Armstrong, PhD, Glenn M. Armstrong, James E. Armstrong, James R. Armstrong, DVM, Lou Armstrong, Lowell Todd Armstrong, Mark Armstrong, Marvin D. Armstrong, PhD, Melvin B. Armstrong, Robert L. Armstrong, PhD, Robert Lee Armstrong, PhD, Robert Emile Arnal, PhD, Dana Arndt, Harold H. Arndt, Jerome C. Arnett Jr., MD, Ross Harold Arnett, PhD, William S. Arnett, Charles Arney, Philip J. Arnholt, PhD, Aaron J Arnold, Charles W. Arnold, Charles Arnold, PhD, David Arnold, Edwin L. Arnold, Gregory B. Arnold, Herbert K. Arnold, Jack N. Arnold, John K Arnold, DVM, Lance L. Arnold, Marcia L. Arnold, R. Arnold, PhD, Randall W. Arnold, Robert Arnold Jr., DVM, Stephen Arnold, Timothy D. Arnold, William Archibald Arnold, PhD, John H Arns, Jr, Lester C. Arnwine, James T. Arocho, MD, Sidney O. Arola, Casper J. Aronson, Seymour Aronson, PhD, George V Aros Chilingarian, PhD, Joseph Bartholomew Arots, PhD, Adrian Arp, PhD, Charles Hammond Arrington, PhD, Dale E. Arrington, PhD, Donald R. Arrington, Clement R. Arrison, Rhea T. Van Arsdall, John V. Artale, James S. Arthur, PhD, Charles G. Artinian, MD, Robert Artz, Jaime N. Aruguete, MD, Delano Z. Arvin, PhD, Joseph J. Arx, Goro G Asaki, George J. Asanovich, Charles H. Asbill, Bob J. Ascherl, Alvin G. Ash, Michael W. Ashberry, Edward V. Ashburn, Joe E. Ashby, PhD, Kenny Ashby, Randolph W Ashby, PhD, Raymond A. Ashcraft, Charles R. Ashford, A. Ashley, PhD, Doyle Allen Ashley, PhD, Edward E. Ashley, Holt Ashley, PhD, Maynard B. Ashley, Warren Cotton Ashley, PhD, Wayne A. Ashley, William M. Ashley, Alvin Ashman, Jerome P. Ashman, Abhay Ashtekar, PhD, Philip T. Ashton, Romney A. Ashton, MD, Walter R. Ashwill, Bob Ashworth, Jim F. Ashworth, Monroe Ashworth, Robert A Ashworth, Robert S. Ashworth, Victor Asirvatham, PhD, Orv B. Askeland, Ann Askew, B. Askildsen, Charles W. Askins, Philip R. Askman, Tom Asmas, PhD, Robert C. Asmus, Erik Aspelin, Winifred Alice Asprey, PhD, Don O. Asquith, PhD, Mike Assad, Andrew P. Assenmacher, Orazio J. Astarita, Jacob F. Asti, Everett L. Astleford, Eugene Roy Astley, R. Lee Aston, PhD, Raymond J. Astor Sr., Otilia J. Asuncion, MD, Charles E. Atchison, James Atchison, Curtis L. Atchley, Greg J. Aten, Robert Aten, PhD, James Athanasion, Michael J. Atherton, PhD, William J. Atherton, PhD, Robert D. Athey Jr., PhD, Arthur C. Atkins, David C. Atkins, Larry P. Atkins, Mark D. Atkins, D. O. Atkinson, Erika J Atkinson, John P. Atkinson, MD, John R. Atkinson, Keith Atkinson, Larry N. Atkinson, Lynn A Atkinson, Matthew R. Atkinson, Stanley L. Atnipp, Richard Attig, Leonardo D. Attorre, William J. Attwooll, Jerry C. Atwell, Mark Atwood, PhD, Robert C. Atwood, Luben Atzeff, MD, Jerry Y. Au, Lester C. Auble, Darrel D. Auch, James C. Auckland, Walter Auclair, PhD, Daniel J. Aucutt, Bryan Audiffred, William H. Audley, Louis A. Auerbach, Victor Hugo Auerbach, PhD, Keith H. Aufderheide, PhD, William R. Aufricht, Dale A. Augenstein, PhD, Owen H. Auger, Dustin M. Aughenbaugh, Gregory S Augspurger, Joe Augspurger, PhD, Brad August, James K. August, Mike August, Brian Augustine, PhD, W. David Augustine, Frederick N. Aukeman, J. Todd Aukerman, C. Mark. Aulick, PhD, Luther Aull, PhD, Neil N. Ault, PhD, Kathi A. Aultman, MD, John B. Aultmann Jr., Thomas E. Aumock, Bob J. Aumueller, Henry Spiese Aurand, Richard A. Aurand, Richard Aurisano, PhD, Joeseph D Aurizio, Brian E. Ausburn, Kent E Ausburn, PhD, Kenny Ausmus, Kurt L. Austad, Alfred Ells Austin, PhD, Carl Fulton Austin, PhD, Carlton L. Austin, D. Austin, D. Austin, PhD, Harold T. Austin, Lloyd H. Austin, Michael N. Austin, Paul E. Austin, Robert L. Austin, Robert H Austin, PhD, Roger J. Austin, PhD, Ward H. Austin, Edward T. Auth, Donald W. Autio, Amalia R. Auvigne, MD, Andrew B. Avalon, William E. Avera, Mark Averett, Jon R. Averhoff, Frank Averill, PhD, Rosario D. Averion, MD, Alex Avery, Donald Avery, Nathan M. Avery, Philip J. Avery, Kenneth Avicola, Arthur J. Avila, Luis A. Avila, Teresita D. Avila, MD, Joseph Avruch, MD, Theodore C. Awartkruis, PhD, Steven G. Axen, M. Friedman Axler, PhD, William P. Aycock, Jessica Ayers, Robert C. Ayers Jr., PhD, Bruce D. Ayres, PhD, T. G. Ayres, Wesley P. Ayres, PhD, Dany Ayseur, Alison M. Azar, Max Azevedo, Azizollah Azhdam


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

Do not worry Abraham. We get it. You know more than all of these PHDs. 

Since you go on about peer-reviewed research, lets take a look. 

Global Warming Petition Project

Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research

Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an understanding of the scientific method, and a mental model that encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines. This model serves as the basis of their thoughts about scientific questions.

When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about aspects that interest him.

The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is authored by approximately 600 scientists. These authors are not, however  as is ordinarily the custom in science  permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. *They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy*


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 31,000 scientists did not sign a petition saying I was wrong.  Pravda has as much integrity and credibility as the National Enquirer.
> 
> The people who signed the OISM petition were NOT even predominantly scientists and were definitely NOT climate scientists.  The signatories make up roughly 0.3% (3 out of 1,000) of science graduates and includes the names of only 39 climate scientists (1 in 1,000 signatories). The degrees allowed by the OISM include numerous categories who have nothing to do with any branch of climate science (medical doctor, veterinarian, electrical engineer, nuclear engineer, biologist, etc) and requires that signatories have only a bachelor's of science degree or higher.  No one with a BSc is doing professional research and few even with masters degrees.  Neither is it possible to verify the accuracy of the OISM list.
> 
> The IPCC has made use of thousands of degreed, working climate scientists.  Their analysis reports, thousands of pages long, are based on hundreds of peer reviewed studies published in refereed journals.  They are compendiums of the results of reviewed, comprehensive and detailed studies by PhDs in climate sciences of climate problems and topics; not the offhand opinions of a nearly random selection of people who chose to mail a pre-printed post card.


You keep running from the facts, sonny.  Stomp your foot and keep repeating, "My religion is AGW, My religion is AGW".
idiot


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

Where are you abraham?  If the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate (observed by hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft thermometers, and a host of other observation methods) indicating that the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, in reality, has a cooling effect, what does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science?  Clearly the real world observations prove beyond doubt that they have it wrong.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Where are you abraham?  If the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate (observed by hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft thermometers, and a host of other observation methods) indicating that the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, in reality, has a cooling effect, what does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science?  Clearly the real world observations prove beyond doubt that they have it wrong.



Please explain how the difference in the two lapse rates leads water vapor to be a net coolant.

And, just for jollies, make certain you include _what_ is getting cooled by the water vapor and _where_ the heat energy ends up.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Where are you abraham?  If the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate (observed by hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft thermometers, and a host of other observation methods) indicating that the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, in reality, has a cooling effect, what does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science?  Clearly the real world observations prove beyond doubt that they have it wrong.
> ...



Are you saying that for all your bluster you don't know what the adiabatic lapse rate of dry air vs wet air means?  I will provide you an answer but for all your talk of being an ocean engineer, etc, it strikes me as damned interesting that you wouldn't know and understand such a basic piece of information.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

Here abe, it seems that you might not know what the adiabatic lapse rate is and what is meant by the difference in the lapse rate of wet air vs dry air.





Notice the rate of change for moist tropical air vs dry polar air....see how much more the change is for moist air vs dry air....H20, the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has a cooling effect like it or not.  Now square that with the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science.


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Here abe, it seems that you might not know what the adiabatic lapse rate is and what is meant by the difference in the lapse rate of wet air vs dry air.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He has climbed so high on the man made global warming lie that the fall will be too great. He just has no ability to see how the whole thing is a global scam. 

He does not even get the hint when Lirch (John Kerry) attacked BIG OIL in his last speech. These types of brainwashed sheep just fall for all of the democratic cliches. 

They have no idea.....

They just have no idea....

The fall is too painful for anyone like him to acknowledge any of these facts. Yes, he has painted himself to that corner. All we can do is laugh at him. 

Personally, I have never seen liberals be on the proper side of any subject. Not one.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > abraham3 said:
> ...



^^^Is this your weak-assed attempt at an insult, just like your weak-assed attempts at trying to prove global warming is real when it isn't? 

I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Let's see what you've got.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Here abe, it seems that you might not know what the adiabatic lapse rate is and what is meant by the difference in the lapse rate of wet air vs dry air.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see.  I happened to know what the dry and wet or saturated lapse rates are.  What I didn't know - and still don't - is why you think they will cause moisture to be a net coolant.  Let me start out by pointing out a bit of a mistake on your part.  The saturated lapse rate is, as I thought you first stated, shallower than the dry.  Wet air does NOT cool off faster than dry air with increasing altitude.  It cools off more SLOWLY because latent heat is used condensing its water vapor.  Go ahead and look it up.

Now at that point you just gave us a "Hey Presto, I win"  How about a REAL explanation as to why you think the differences in lapse rates and humidity make water vapor a net coolant.  I'd also like to know what you think is being cooled and where you think the heat is going.  

Think you can handle that?

ps: you originally said: "If the* dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate* (observed by hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft thermometers, and a host of other observation methods)".  P'raps you need to settle on what it is you actually want to say here first.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

I'd also like to ask you where you got that chart.  That would appear to be a simple temperature vs altitude graph.  If so, that is NOT an illustration of lapse rate.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

Owl?  Wildcard?  Maybe you can give your man a hand.


----------



## Kosh (Feb 26, 2014)

And still no proof from the AGW cultists with datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate as the AGW scribes tell them.

So far zero science has been used to show that humans are behind "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", which ever term they need to use to justify their religion.

Then again the AGW cultists would have to prove that the globe would not warm or the climate would not change if humans did not exist on this planet.

Good luck with that AGW cultists.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

If what you have to say is only what you've said before, why not just keep it to yourself?  We heard you the first time.  Having missed it is not the reason no one responds to your posts.  And if you stop putting the same post up here time after time, perhaps it'll give you the time to read IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and see just how astoundingly ignorant your statements sound to be.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD
> 
> John Tyndall performed quantitative experiments demonstrating and measuring the absorption and reradiation of IR from most of the atmosphere's greenhouse gases.  That satisfies your demand.  Your turn.  Show us some valid research that supports your contentions.
> 
> ...



1) Please demonstrate that the best GCMs use low sensitivity values.

2) Please demonstrate how the idea gas laws support your claims

3) Please give us a reputable reference stating that no greenhouse effect has ever been measured.


----------



## Kosh (Feb 27, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> If what you have to say is only what you've said before, why not just keep it to yourself?  We heard you the first time.  Having missed it is not the reason no one responds to your posts.  And if you stop putting the same post up here time after time, perhaps it'll give you the time to read IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and see just how astoundingly ignorant your statements sound to be.



Speaking of ignorant comments, but it is totally expected from an AGW cultist that has no science to back up their religious beliefs.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 27, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I'd also like to ask you where you got that chart.  That would appear to be a simple temperature vs altitude graph.  If so, that is NOT an illustration of lapse rate.



Temperature for the tropics, midlats and polar areas of our planet is what that graph shows. The Tropics are warmer because the air is warmer and expands upward as warmer air is less dense...On the other hand colder air is more dense so the tropopause is shallower at the poles with less moisture.

You have the equatial trough(ITCZ) at around 5 north converging upwards and then moving northward with the Hadley cell as because as you move away from the equator the momentum go's from the planet into the atmosphere to conserve to the conservation of momentum...

SSDD is right that water vapor and the warmer air at the tropics is the cause for the tropical troposphere being higher. On the other hand I doubt this explains away the green house effect. 

The unbalanced ionic symmetry of the molecules of the green house gases are why co2, water vapor and methane absorb LWR and then readmit them. Certainly cold can't flow into warm directly but lets imagine that the green house effect acts as kind of like layer of clouds, slowing down the outward radiation. You do know SSDD how much warmer cloudy nights can be?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 27, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Here abe, it seems that you might not know what the adiabatic lapse rate is and what is meant by the difference in the lapse rate of wet air vs dry air.
> ...



Yep,

Wet lapse rate is around 3c/1,000m and dry is around 5.5 something/1,000m. The air parcel moves upwards and expands to saturation at the level of free convection and releases latent heat as it changes from vapor to liquids within cloud droplets in the cloud.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

I don't see Mssrs SSDD, or his cheering section: Owl and Wildcard, returning after that faux pas. Though I see, that like most mornings, SSDD is online.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

SSDD, obviously someone TOLD you that the lapse rate variation had some effect on the Greenhouse Effect or on global warming.  You didn't come up with that on your own.  So, where'd it come from?  Give us a reference that would justify your belief.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Here abe, it seems that you might not know what the adiabatic lapse rate is and what is meant by the difference in the lapse rate of wet air vs dry air.
> ...



I see that once again, you prove to the whole board that you can not, indeed, read a graph so once again, us skeptics will step up and help you.  Look back at my statement, I said that the  dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate and as the graph points out, this is true.  Since you can't read a graph, it stands to reason that you don't know what that means.

The vertical plane of the graph is altitude...see over there on the right side where it says altitude?  It also says (km) which means that the measurement is in kilometers.  Now look at the horizontal plane of the graph...that is the bottom.  See what it says?  it says mean temperature...that means temperature.  It also says (k).  Do you know what that means?

Ok now lets look at what the dry adiabatic lapse rate being twice as steep as the wet rate actually means.  Look at the blue, or polar, or dry air profile.  Lets go from the ground up to the 5 km level.  In that first 5 km, the temperature drops from about 245K to 239K.  The math is easy but just to be on the safe side, I will tell you that the drop is about 6 degrees K,  Now look at the red line which represents wet tropical air.  Again, look at the base of the graph or ground level.  The temperature is about 307K...now follow the red line up to the 5km mark.  The temperature there is about 275K.  Once again, the math is easy but the temperature has dropped 32 degrees K.  

So in 5 km, the temperature of dry air drops 7 degrees K and the temperature of wet air drops 32 degrees K.  Think carefully....which air is cooling more rapidly as the altitude increases?  7 degrees K vs 32 degrees K.  Which is the largest number?

Now that the basics of reading the graph have been explained to you, do you need for me to continue to describe the changes as we get on up into the atmosphere?  Now you will probably notice that the profile for very wet air changes once we exit the troposphere but that is irrelavent as the so called greenhouse effect is purported to be a tropospheric effect causing the troposphere to be warmer.

So as you can see we have air saturated with the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere cooling faster than air with little of the predominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.  This tells us that the predominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is a cooling agent.  Simple, yes?




Abraham3 said:


> at that point you just gave us a "Hey Presto, I win"  How about a REAL explanation as to why you think the differences in lapse rates and humidity make water vapor a net coolant.  I'd also like to know what you think is being cooled and where you think the heat is going.



So I am going to guess that statement is a result of you not being able to read a graph.  Now that you can (in theory) read and understand the graph and see for yourself that mosit air cools at a more rapid rate as the altitude increases, do you really want to continue to as ignorant questions?  Can you really still not see that the presence of the dominant greenhouse gas results in losing more degrees per kilometer than the absence of it?



Abraham3 said:


> : you originally said: "If the* dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate* (observed by hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft thermometers, and a host of other observation methods)".  P'raps you need to settle on what it is you actually want to say here first.



Yeah, twice as steep...that I shat I meant to say.  The word steep refers to the amount of temperature lost as the altitude increases.  More basic graph reading here...listen closely.  The more steeply you increase along the vertical scale, the more slowly you move along the horizontal scale.  In this case, it means that the more steeply you climb the vertical scale, the more slowly the temperature falls.  The less steeply you climb the vertical scale, the more distance you cover along the horizontal scale...again, the less steeply you assend the vertical (or altitude) scale, the more ground you cover on the horizontal (or temperature) scale...ie...the less steep the profile, the more temperature change you see as the altitude increases....on this scale the wet air is bleeding temperature more quickly than the dry air...the only difference between the two is pressure and the presence, or absence of the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere....If you claim the change in temperature is due to pressure, then you falsify the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science...if you claim the change is due to the H2O, you either falsify the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science or you claim that H2O is not a greenhouse gas.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Yep,
> 
> Wet lapse rate is around 3c/1,000m and dry is around 5.5 something/1,000m. The air parcel moves upwards and expands to saturation at the level of free convection and releases latent heat as it changes from vapor to liquids within cloud droplets in the cloud.



Making the presence of H2O a cooling factor, not a heat "trap" even though the radiative profile of H2O dominates and completely eclipses that of CO2.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I don't see Mssrs SSDD, or his cheering section: Owl and Wildcard, returning after that faux pas. Though I see, that like most mornings, SSDD is online.



The only faux pas was yours abe..not knowing how to read a temperature/altitude profile.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD, obviously someone TOLD you that the lapse rate variation had some effect on the Greenhouse Effect or on global warming.  You didn't come up with that on your own.  So, where'd it come from?  Give us a reference that would justify your belief.



As I have been telling you all along, there is an atmospheric thermal effect, not a greenhouse effect as described by climate science driven by a trace gas in the atmosphere.  What I know comes from many sources, including my own humble education that actually look at what is being claimed vs observation and the physical laws.  You didn't come up with the greenhouse effect on your own and you don't provide sources for everything you claim to know.  The graph is the result of information gathered from the public domain aeronautical software site.  I would suppose that I trust what aeronautical engineers have to say regarding how atmospheric conditions change at various altitudes...after all they prove their science every time an aircraft leaves the ground.....I am still waiting for you to provide a single measurement, from anyone, of a greenhouse effect.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

Well...
1)  Your understanding of the word "steep" is not the rest of the world's understanding of the word
2)  The "vertical plane" of the graph is not altitude.  The vertical AXIS of the graph is altitude
3) Your graph does not represent lapse rate, it represents temperature vs altitude.  

I can not only read a graph, I can read the TITLES on graphs.  So why don't you put the title and the origin of this graph up here so we don't accuse you of just making shit up.

As to the difference between lapse rates, let's try some authorities with a little better record than... you.

From Wikipedia:

*Dry adiabatic lapse rate*

Emagram diagram showing variation of dry adiabats (bold lines) and moist adiabats (dash lines) according to pressure and temperature
The dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR) is the rate of temperature decrease with altitude for a parcel of dry or unsaturated air rising under adiabatic conditions. Unsaturated air has less than 100% relative humidity; i.e. its actual temperature is higher than its dew point. The term adiabatic means that no heat transfer occurs into or out of the parcel. Air has low thermal conductivity, and the bodies of air involved are very large, so transfer of heat by conduction is negligibly small.
Under these conditions when the air rises (for instance, by convection) it expands, because the pressure is lower at higher altitudes. As the air parcel expands, it pushes on the air around it, doing work (thermodynamics). Since the parcel does work but gains no heat, it loses internal energy so that its temperature decreases. The rate of temperature decrease is 9.8 °C/km (5.38 °F per 1,000 ft) (3.0°C/1,000 ft). The reverse occurs for a sinking parcel of air.[7]

*Saturated adiabatic lapse rate*

When the air is saturated with water vapor (at its dew point), the moist adiabatic lapse rate (MALR) or saturated adiabatic lapse rate (SALR) applies. This lapse rate varies strongly with temperature. A typical value is around 5 °C/km (2.7 °F/1,000 ft) (1.5°C/1,000 ft).
*The reason for the difference between the dry and moist adiabatic lapse rate values is that latent heat is released when water condenses, thus decreasing the rate of temperature drop as altitude increases.* This heat release process is an important source of energy in the development of thunderstorms. An unsaturated parcel of air of given temperature, altitude and moisture content below that of the corresponding dewpoint cools at the dry adiabatic lapse rate as altitude increases until the dewpoint line for the given moisture content is intersected. *As the water vapor then starts condensing the air parcel subsequently cools at the slower moist adiabatic lapse rate if the altitude increases further*.

If you haven't suffered enough embarrassment, try the following links:

lapse rate (meteorology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Lapse Rate - Overview of Lapse Rate

Lapse rates, Moisture, Clouds and Thunderstorms.

Lapse Rate and Adiabatic Processes

Dry versus Moist-Adiabatic Processes

This last one has a handy graphic.







Note the temperatures of the two pieces of air.  After rising (the act your graph does not actually illustrate), which piece of air is warmer?

Is it coming clear yet?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Yep,
> ...



The numbers that Matthew gave, which likely came from the Wikipedia article, show LESS TEMPERATURE DROP FOR THE SATURATED AIR.  That is the OPPOSITE OF YOUR CLAIM.  

You need to read things a little more carefully.  Or at all.

When you finally get it sorted out which air cools more, we can have a discussion about where that heat is going (if it's going anywhere at all - look up the word "adiabatic" dude).

That you think this argument shows you smart and me dumb is absolutely hilarious.  Did I say that out loud?  How could you have stuck your neck out that far without checking your facts?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2014)

It is only your ignorance that keeps you from being embarassed off the board.....Still waiting for that explanation of the lower tropospheric temperature of Uranus using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science.  When might that be forthcoming?  By the way, I can't help but notice that your cartoon graph only goes up 1km...why do you suppose that is.  Picking cherries again?  Arbitrary start stop points to fool the idiots?  Refer back to my graph for the answer....look at 1km dry air vs wet air.


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 27, 2014)

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ?No Scientific Proof? Climate Change Is Caused By Humans [POLL]

*Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says &#8216;No Scientific Proof&#8217; Climate Change Is Caused By Humans*


Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, known as one of the co-founders of the activist group Greenpeace, has a history of sharply dissenting from policies supported by major environmental groups, including the one he helped create. Moore&#8217;s latest departure is to assert that climate change, particularly the gradual warming of Earth&#8217;s surface temperature over the last century,* is not caused by humans.
*








*&#8220;There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth&#8217;s atmosphere over the past 100 years,&#8221; *Moore said during an appearance before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday. &#8220;If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.&#8221;


Moore argued that the sophisticated computer models scientists use to predict patterns in global climate are &#8220;not a crystal ball.&#8221; He maintained that the claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that humans are &#8220;extremely likely&#8221; to be the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century is bogus, given that the scale used to measure probability was constructed by IPCC members themselves.

&#8220;Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of &#8216;extreme certainty&#8217; is to look at the historical record. &#8230;When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia,&#8221; Moore argued.

Moore said this &#8220;fundamentally contradicts&#8221; the notion that man&#8217;s CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm.

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


It is a long way down Abraham. It is a long long way down. You should not have climbed so high. 


I suggest you start researching exit strategies. 







You won't though. Go ahead and keep on falling for the cliches. 

Must be very difficult being so wrong about this.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> It is only your ignorance that keeps you from being embarassed off the board.....Still waiting for that explanation of the lower tropospheric temperature of Uranus using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science.  When might that be forthcoming?  By the way, I can't help but notice that your cartoon graph only goes up 1km...why do you suppose that is.  Picking cherries again?  Arbitrary start stop points to fool the idiots?  Refer back to my graph for the answer....look at 1km dry air vs wet air.



You really think that gets you off the hook?  Why do you keep digging?  Every single reference I put up there and a hundred more besides says you are 180 degrees out with dry vs wet and not a ONE of them says diddly squat about any affect of that difference on global warming.  

Did you look up the word adiabatic?

_ad·i·a·bat·ic  [ad-ee-uh-bat-ik, ey-dahy-uh-]  Show IPA
adjective
occurring without gain or loss of heat (opposed to diabatic ): an adiabatic process._

When you've figured out how an adiabatic process can warm or cool anything, you let us know.

And if you ever received a passing grade for a thermo class, you need to send it back.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ?No Scientific Proof? Climate Change Is Caused By Humans [POLL]
> 
> *Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says No Scientific Proof Climate Change Is Caused By Humans*
> 
> ...



Just a quickie.  Wanted to know if you're sticking with SSDD about lapse rates.  Yes or no?


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 27, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ?No Scientific Proof? Climate Change Is Caused By Humans [POLL]
> ...








Hope you have a parachute.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

I thought about it and I looked it up and here's what turns out to be the case.

The slower cooling by rising, wet air turns out to be a negative feedback from global warming.

As the world heats up, our computer models tell us that we will see increased evaporation and thus higher average humidity in the atmosphere.  Given the way lapse rates actually work, that means warmer air aloft.  That means more LW radiation getting out to space than were that warmth to stay low.  So there was a measure of correctness in SSDD's position.  I should have seen it earlier.  Just a few points though.

It first has to get warmer for the humidity to increase and the amount of warm air aloft to increase.  This is a feedback mechanism, not a barrier or an independent process.  Feedback mechanisms cannot stop their driving processes or make them reverse, they can only mitigate.  Per the laws of physics, this can NOT cause water vapor to be a net coolant.  And if you want to treat this process as being adiabatic, which it comes quite close to if you're only considering conductive and convective cooling, than it has NO effect on global warming because, by choice, you would NOT concern yourself with any LW radiation or any other means of heat transfer.  Just to get this point across, a parcel of air rising through the atmosphere does not require losing thermal energy to its surroundings to cool.  It cools because pressure is dropping and the parcel is expanding.  In essence, you have to spread the same amount of energy across a larger volume and thus the energy density (ie, the temperature) has to drop.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Just a quickie.  Wanted to know if you're sticking with SSDD about lapse rates.  Yes or no?





Theowl32 said:


> Hope you have a parachute.



I think I'll simply rely on mainstream science instead.  How many degreed atmospheric scientists do you see arguing that water vapor is an atmospheric coolant?  Any?  Why don't you do a search and see who you can find suggesting that's the case.

You probably weren't aware of this, but SSDD rejects quantum mechanics and believes that bodies only radiate in the direction of colder temperatures; not that such is the net result, but that they actually sense their surroundings and choose in which direction to radiate.  I know you're more than a little weak on this stuff, but he might not be the best fellow in the room to follow on science matters.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

BTW Owl, Patrick Moore was booted from Greenpeace and has been an industry shill for years now.  His education is in ecology, not climate, not atmosphere, not physics.  He hasn't conducted an iota of research or been published anywhere in decades on ANY topic and NOTHING on which he ever DID research had ANYTHING to do with the climate or global warming.  Why in heaven's name should we have the slightest interest in his opinion on these matters?  Would you like to know what my dog thinks?  Same value.

And my dog's been dead for three years.


----------



## Meister (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> BTW Owl, Patrick Moore was booted from Greenpeace and has been an industry shill for years now.  His education is in ecology, not climate, not atmosphere, not physics.  He hasn't conducted an iota of research or been published anywhere in decades on ANY topic and NOTHING on which he ever DID research had ANYTHING to do with the climate or global warming.  Why in heaven's name should we have the slightest interest in his opinion on these matters?  Would you like to know what my dog thinks?  Same value.
> 
> And my dog's been dead for three years.



Such a typical tactic coming from the left wing nuts.....if they don't like what somebody says, they attack the messenger....you Abe are part of the left wing nuts.

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earths atmosphere over the past 100 years, Moore said during an appearance before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday.* If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.*

The ecologist, who worked with Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986 and left *not necessarily by his own choice,* went on to found Greenspirit Strategies, an environmental and sustainability consulting firm in Vancouver.  

*After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left*, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective, Moore said. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.
*
Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of extreme certainty* is to look at the historical record. *When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today*. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia, Moore argued.
Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ?No Scientific Proof? Climate Change Is Caused By Humans [POLL]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: *It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. *

Extremely likely is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The *IPCC defines extremely likely as a 95-100% probability*. But upon further examination it is clear that *these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been invented *as a construct within the IPCC report to express expert judgment, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including *Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.*

*There is some correlation, but little evidence,* to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia.* The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.*
Confessions of a ?Greenpeace Dropout? to the U.S. Senate on climate change | Watts Up With That?

 You religious AGW cultists must be butthurt that somebody that high up on the environmentalist food chain could possibly turn on your flock and tell the truth.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 28, 2014)

Avalanche o' crap tactics, like Meister just used, are a sign of a helpless cut-and-paste parrot. Honest people can make a simple point. Cultists can't, because they stink at the science, and because all the data contradicts them. Hence they just fling massive amounts of shit in the hope that something sticks.

Outside of Meister's right-wing-kook political cult, denialism doesn't exist. That's because it's purely a political movement. The cultists don't care about the science, they only care about whatever helps them hate the liberals who stole their girl and took their lunch money and had all the fun.

In direct contract to Meister's political cult, AGW science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, being that it's actual science.


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Avalanche o' crap tactics, like Meister just used, are a sign of a helpless cut-and-paste parrot. Honest people can make a simple point. Cultists can't, because they stink at the science, and because all the data contradicts them. Hence they just fling massive amounts of shit in the hope that something sticks.
> 
> Outside of Meister's right-wing-kook political cult, denialism doesn't exist. That's because it's purely a political movement. The cultists don't care about the science, they only care about whatever helps them hate the liberals who stole their girl and took their lunch money and had all the fun.
> 
> In direct contract to Meister's political cult, AGW science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, being that it's actual science.





Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says &#8216;No Scientific Proof&#8217; Climate Change Is Caused By Humans


Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, known as one of the co-founders of the activist group Greenpeace, has a history of sharply dissenting from policies supported by major environmental groups, including the one he helped create. Moore&#8217;s latest departure is to assert that climate change, particularly the gradual warming of Earth&#8217;s surface temperature over the last century, is not caused by humans.

*&#8220;There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth&#8217;s atmosphere over the past 100 years,&#8221; *Moore said during an appearance before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday. &#8220;If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.&#8221;


Moore argued that the sophisticated computer models scientists use to predict patterns in global climate are &#8220;not a crystal ball.&#8221; He maintained that the claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that humans are &#8220;extremely likely&#8221; to be the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century is bogus, given that the scale used to measure probability was constructed by IPCC members themselves.

&#8220;Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of &#8216;extreme certainty&#8217; is to look at the historical record. &#8230;When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia,&#8221; Moore argued.

Moore said this &#8220;fundamentally contradicts&#8221; the notion that man&#8217;s CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm.


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

The fact that mamooth is arguing that man made global warming is truly happening is proof in itself that it is a global scam. Seriously, is there a dumber poster on this board? Rightwinger and truthmatters gives him a run for his money, but I think he takes the cake for the dumbest of all left wing hacks. 

No offense.


----------



## Meister (Feb 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Avalanche o' crap tactics, like Meister just used, are a sign of a helpless cut-and-paste parrot. Honest people can make a simple point. Cultists can't, because they stink at the science, and because all the data contradicts them. Hence they just fling massive amounts of shit in the hope that something sticks.
> 
> Outside of Meister's right-wing-kook political cult, denialism doesn't exist. That's because it's purely a political movement. The cultists don't care about the science, they only care about whatever helps them hate the liberals who stole their girl and took their lunch money and had all the fun.
> 
> In direct contract to Meister's political cult, AGW science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, being that it's actual science.



Why don't you read the thread with my own opinions?  Every once in a while I like to break out the quotes and sources....goofball.
I can't help if your religion doesn't allow you to use your own mind with just a touch of common sense and let you think for yourself.
If you did you would see that it is political with your religious AGW movement.


----------



## Meister (Feb 28, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Avalanche o' crap tactics, like Meister just used, are a sign of a helpless cut-and-paste parrot. Honest people can make a simple point. Cultists can't, because they stink at the science, and because all the data contradicts them. Hence they just fling massive amounts of shit in the hope that something sticks.
> ...



You did notice that because he couldn't attack what was in my post, he attacked me.  Just like what Abe did with Moore.  Shows the lack of intellect from these goofballs.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

1) Explain why 120/400ths of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide shows the isotopic signature of having originated in the combustion of fossil fuels?
2) Explain what happened to the carbon dioxide that man produced burning fossil fuels from the beginning of the industrial revolution to the present?
3) Explain what DID cause the unprecedented rate of warming we've experienced over the last 150 years if it wasn't Greenhouse Effect from all that carbon dioxide.
4) Explain why every instance in the paleoclimatic record, when increasing temperatures caused the liberation of carbon dioxide from natural sequestration, the temperature increase carried on beyond the end of the original forcing and tracked CO2 levels thereafter (See Shakun 2012).

Show us the PROOF you seem to believe the correct theory should sport.  Not just evidence of yours, not just criticism of ours; I want to see PROOF of whatever the F you claim has actually been happening, even if your claim is that nothing has happened.


----------



## Meister (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 1) Explain why 120/400ths of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide shows the isotopic signature of having originated in the combustion of fossil fuels?
> 2) Explain what happened to the carbon dioxide that man produced burning fossil fuels from the beginning of the industrial revolution to the present?
> 3) Explain what DID cause the unprecedented rate of warming we've experienced over the last 150 years if it wasn't Greenhouse Effect from all that carbon dioxide.
> 4) Explain why every instance in the paleoclimatic record, when increasing temperatures caused the liberation of carbon dioxide from natural sequestration, the temperature increase carried on beyond the end of the original forcing and tracked CO2 levels thereafter (See Shakun 2012).
> ...


Don't want to discuss what Moore stated, huh?  I don't blame you, son.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

I've already told you why I have no interest in what Moore has to say on this topic or any other.  The man is a sellout.

Would you like to discuss AR5?  It has just a tiny bit more scientific validity than Moore's press release.


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> ]I've already told you why I have no interest in what Moore has to say on this topic or any other.  The man is a sellout.[/B]
> 
> Would you like to discuss AR5?  It has just a tiny bit more scientific validity than Moore's press release.



The irony of this statement. 

We have shown you who the sell outs are, and why the scientific community sells this man made global warming scam. 

You are a funny hypocrite.


----------



## Meister (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I've already told you why I have no interest in what Moore has to say on this topic or any other.  The man is a sellout.
> 
> Would you like to discuss AR5?  It has just a tiny bit more scientific validity than Moore's press release.



The man has blown you out of the water, you just don't know it, Abe.

 The man was one of your own, he saw what this green movement was all about from the inside out and he left it because it just came down to politics not actual facts. 
It's not rocket science, you just need to look at all the facts, not the cherry picked facts, son.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

Moore has never been one of my own.  I am not into cult mentalities. I respect properly done science and Moore has done NONE.  On what research are his opinions based?  What are his qualifications to make the pronouncements he's made?  None and none.

AR5, on the other hand, is a summation of a tremendous amount of properly done science by properly educated scientists.  Why do you seem to be shying away from it.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 28, 2014)

Coldest winter ever: Green Bay sees record 49th day below zero

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com...ver-Green-Bay-sees-record-49th-day-below-zero


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 28, 2014)

Record-low temperatures set in Michigan; some schools close | Detroit Free Press | freep.com


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 28, 2014)

Misery Index Confirms Our Worst Winter In 30 Years « CBS Minnesota


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Misery Index Confirms Our Worst Winter In 30 Years « CBS Minnesota



...er because of manmade global warming just as predicted by the models

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

Now if only you could replace "Green Bay" with "Earth" it might mean something.


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham calls him a sell out. I just cannot get over the irony of that statement. Watch this....and see how he squirms his way explaining this. 

According to the White House, the stimulus package funneled more than $90 billion in government funds and tax incentives towards &#8220;clean&#8221; energy, including $29 billion for energy efficiency, $21 billion for renewable energy generation, $6 billion for advanced batteries and parts for advanced vehicles and fuel technologies, and $2 billion in clean energy manufacturing tax credits to make wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, and other domestic clean energy equipment.

More spending on green energy may be down the road as the Brookings Institute reports that the federal government will spend more than $150 billion between 2009 and 2014 &#8212; three times as much as was spent between 2002 and 2008.



Recovery Act Fourth Quarterly Report - The Public Investment Provisions of the Recovery Act | The White House

A.  Categories of Public Investment Spending  
The Recovery Act funded a broad variety of programs.  We have classified the public investment spending into 10 functional categories:

1. Clean Energy.  A central piece of the ARRA is more than $90 billion in government investment and tax incentives to lay the foundation for the clean energy economy of the future.  The CEA&#8217;s second quarterly report grouped these clean energy investments into eight sub-categories: $29 billion for Energy Efficiency, including $5 billion to pay for energy efficiency retrofits in low-income homes; $21 billion for Renewable Generation, such as the installation of wind turbines and solar panels; $10 billion for Grid Modernization to develop the so-called &#8220;smart grid&#8221; that will involve sophisticated electric meters, high-tech electricity distribution and transmission grid censors, and energy storage; $6 billion to support domestic manufacturing of advanced batteries and other components of Advanced Vehicles and Fuels Technologies; $18 billion for Traditional Transit and High-Speed Rail; $3 billion to fund crucial research, development, and demonstration of Carbon Capture and Sequestration technologies; $3 billion for Green Innovation and Job Training to invest in the science, technology, and workforce needed for a clean energy economy; and about $2 billion in Clean Energy Equipment Manufacturing tax credits that will partner with private investment to increase our capacity to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, and other clean energy components domestically.13


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

What is your point?  I see absolutely no relevance to Moore's comments?  And what is it you think would make me squirm?  That we're spending money trying to reduce our carbon emissions?  I don't think we're spending enough.  Is that squirmy enough for you?


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> What is your point?  I see absolutely no relevance to Moore's comments?  And what is it you think would make me squirm?  That we're spending money trying to reduce our carbon emissions?  I don't think we're spending enough.  Is that squirmy enough for you?



Wow, it is more than just a little incredible, isnt it?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

It would seem that you really don't have anything to say on this topic.


----------



## Meister (Mar 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Moore has never been one of my own.  I am not into cult mentalities. I respect properly done science and Moore has done NONE.  On what research are his opinions based?  What are his qualifications to make the pronouncements he's made?  None and none.
> 
> AR5, on the other hand, is a summation of a tremendous amount of properly done science by properly educated scientists.  Why do you seem to be shying away from it.



Shying away?  Like the manipulated data from your cult, or those pesky emails between your cultists?  What Moore stated has everything to do with your religion, he wasn't going to be part of the sham.  These are red flags that would have woken up anyone who didn't have an agenda.  But, your religion has an agenda.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 1, 2014)

Seriously, why are all the crazy people raving about Moore? They're not making a bit of sense. Though I get part of it, that they're a bunch of LSD-addled old hippies who still consider Moore to be one of their gurus. Outside of the denialist hippie crowd, nobody else heard of the guy or cares about him..

But then, if all the facts disagree with you, I suppose it makes a handy deflection. Denialists keep needing more and more of those deflections as time passes.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

Moore stabbed Greenpeace in the back many years ago.  His name has been anathema to the environmental movement for decades.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

THE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING






Note that hugely significant TSI factor


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

For those of you thinking changes in the sun total irradiance has something to do with this







Note the peaks might actually be rising 0.1 Wm^-2 but, unfortunately, the troughs decrease about 0.2 Wm^-2 over the same period.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

I'm curious about something.  FCT spent a great deal of time arguing that the relationship between TSI and global temperature was likely complex and non-linear with significant and apparently variable delays. I'm just curious where and how the Earth can store the energy from sunlight without raising the temperature of SOME component of our climate.  As Vitamin D?  In all the world's Crooke's Radiometers?  In massive mountaintop deposits of phosphorescent strontium aluminate?  How?


----------



## Kosh (Mar 2, 2014)

Once gain for the AGW cult.

Global Warming/Climate Change is a natural process that happens on this planet with or without Humans.

AGW is a farce religion.


----------



## IanC (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I'm curious about something.  FCT spent a great deal of time arguing that the relationship between TSI and global temperature was likely complex and non-linear with significant and apparently variable delays. I'm just curious where and how the Earth can store the energy from sunlight without raising the temperature of SOME component of our climate.  As Vitamin D?  In all the world's Crooke's Radiometers?  In massive mountaintop deposits of phosphorescent strontium aluminate?  How?




_argumentum ad ignorantiam?_

first things first. we need to know what level of TSI is neutral. the 20th century was a maximum for TSI as far as we can tell from the short history of solar observation.

second- highly ordered shortwave from the sun is capable of doing work. disordered, low energy longwave from backradiation is not. sunshine powers the ocean and atmospheric currents. how much energy (converted to temperature equivalents) are there in a one micrometer per second increase of  the Gulf Stream? a one millimetre per second increase in Hadley Cell overturning? the majority of energy comes in through the tropics but the majority of energy leaves elsewhere.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious about something.  FCT spent a great deal of time arguing that the relationship between TSI and global temperature was likely complex and non-linear with significant and apparently variable delays. I'm just curious where and how the Earth can store the energy from sunlight without raising the temperature of SOME component of our climate.  As Vitamin D?  In all the world's Crooke's Radiometers?  In massive mountaintop deposits of phosphorescent strontium aluminate?  How?
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Now if only you could replace "Green Bay" with "Earth" it might mean something.



So the entire Earth is warmer or just the deep Pacific Ocean?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

When one says "The Earth", Frank, it includes the deep Pacific Ocean... several other locations as well.

;-)

The temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere, as a whole, are still increasing.  The radiative balance at the ToA makes that unavoidable.


----------



## IanC (Mar 2, 2014)

back radiation is disordered and of negligible temperature differential, on balance the energy flow and capacity to do work is surface -on-atmosphere not the other way about. 

backradiation _can_ affect how solar energy transits through various parts of its path through the system but it is not doing the work.

air and ocean currents are powered by differentials in pressure, not necessarily the increase of temperature.

especially in the tropics, extra available energy goes into more evaporation, which leads to convection etc, not increased temperatures.


----------



## Meister (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Moore stabbed Greenpeace in the back many years ago.  His name has been anathema to the environmental movement for decades.



No doubt about that, he left the flock with good reason.  He wasn't going to make his agenda a political one and voiced his opposition.  Your religion couldn't let that happen.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> When one says "The Earth", Frank, it includes the deep Pacific Ocean... several other locations as well.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> The temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere, as a whole, are still increasing.  The radiative balance at the ToA makes that unavoidable.



Based on Mann's tree rings?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> When one says "The Earth", Frank, it includes the deep Pacific Ocean... several other locations as well.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> The temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere, as a whole, are still increasing.  The radiative balance at the ToA makes that unavoidable.



LW at the TOA is increasing, not decreasing as the AGW hypothesis predicts.  You have seen the graphs showing an increase of LW escaping at the TOA...why do you persist in telling the lie that less LW is escaping?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I thought about it and I looked it up and here's what turns out to be the case.
> 
> The slower cooling by rising, wet air turns out to be a negative feedback from global warming.
> 
> ...



Again with the models...they have failed spectacularly...anyone who references what a model predicts, considering their record is a buffoon....oh, never mind, it is you who is referencing models.....nuff said.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

In that case, your contention concerning lapse rates and warming is completely without merit.  Those models' predictions that AGW would lead to increased humidity was the only thing you had going for you.


----------



## racewright (Mar 2, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Physic equations that show co2, water vapor and methane are green house gases



That works both ways in this debate.

There is NO compelling scientific evidence that Man is causing global warming (of which, none has actually happened for close on a decade).

We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.

It makes no sense, in any way, to continue to waste money offsetting an effect that a) hasn't existed for a decade, and b) when it did exist was in keeping with earlier similar periods of warming when man's activity is not being blamed.

What the AGW "consensus" theory comes down to is "We've made these predictions, so far all past predictions have been wrong, but we are still confident in our methodology so you better believe our current predictions".

In comparison Pascal made a serious attempt at a compelling argument.

All The Best

Uh What you mean my car is being over regulated, who do we sue, how about the environment wackos.


----------



## racewright (Mar 2, 2014)

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming
Submitted by chris cudnoski on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 18:41
in Current Events
 Quicklink


http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-s...

There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.



There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earths atmosphere over the past 100 years, according to Moores prepared testimony. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-s...

We know  he is lying 








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


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

racewright said:


> We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.



You don't consider the fossil fuel industry a "vested interest"?

The majority of the errors in the predictions of the IPCC have been towards the conservative side.  GHG emissions are matching their worst case scenario.  Until the hiatus, models the IPCC chose were consistently BELOW observed temperatures.

I don't understand why you say there is no evidence that man is causing global warming then say that Moore, who has said the exact same thing, is lying.  Perhaps you need to clarify what you're trying to say there.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> In that case, your contention concerning lapse rates and warming is completely without merit.  Those models' predictions that AGW would lead to increased humidity was the only thing you had going for   you.



Not models...actual data goober.  The compiled results of literally hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft measurements, etc.  I know it must be difficult for you, but model data is not actual data....and when observed data differs from the models, the models are patently wrong.

Are ready to start explaining, using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science, why the bottom of the troposphere on Uranus (as you pointed out, one of the coldest places in the solar system) is warmer than the bottom of the troposphere on earth?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You don't consider the fossil fuel industry a "vested interest"?



Not really since they stand to make money no matter which way the coin falls.  If prices increase due to green regulation, they simply pass the cost on to the consumer and as always, the green way hurts those who can least afford it.  I can pay 5 or 6 bucks a gallon or more for gas...I won't like it, but I can pay it and continue to drive my 4WD pickup...what happens to the poor folks who can't afford it?



Abraham3 said:


> majority of the errors in the predictions of the IPCC have been towards the conservative side.  GHG emissions are matching their worst case scenario.  Until the hiatus, models the IPCC chose were consistently BELOW observed temperatures.



Bald faced lie.  Refer to the chart below....maybe you don't understand what majority means.  See all the lines above the measured temp on the chart below...see how there are many more of them than likes that approximate the measured temperature?  That means that the majority are wrong..and not wrong on the conservative side...they predicted warming that didn't happen.


----------



## racewright (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> racewright said:
> 
> 
> > We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.
> ...



My comment about lying is meant to be sarcastic ,as that is what the environuts always say when faced with any thing they do not agree with.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't consider the fossil fuel industry a "vested interest"?
> ...



Bullshit.  The oil and coal industries stand to lose billions and they are fighting AGW measures tooth and nail.  There's a reason they've been the largest contributors to denialist blogs and bogus research for years now.



Abraham3 said:


> majority of the errors in the predictions of the IPCC have been towards the conservative side.  GHG emissions are matching their worst case scenario.  Until the hiatus, models the IPCC chose were consistently BELOW observed temperatures.



Bald faced lie.  Refer to the chart below....maybe you don't understand what majority means.  See all the lines above the measured temp on the chart below...see how there are many more of them than likes that approximate the measured temperature?  That means that the majority are wrong..and not wrong on the conservative side...they predicted warming that didn't happen.






[/QUOTE]

Here, from Dr Spencer's mouth, the source of Spencer's BALD FACED LIE

"In this case, the models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models&#8217; results for comparison to the observations."

Spencer SHIFTED the output of all these models upwards and his UAH data downward.  Here's is what the model outputs and data ACTUALLY look like:






An explanation and other data: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

And I'm just about certain this has all been explained to you before Sid.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Bullshit.  The oil and coal industries stand to lose billions and they are fighting AGW measures tooth and nail.  There's a reason they've been the largest contributors to denialist blogs and bogus research for years now.



Not only have you been duped on the climate hoax, but you obviously don't understand the first thing about business.  First, off, oil companies don't set the price for oil...it is sold on the open market and the highest bidder sets the price...oil companies are making record profits due to high gas prices which are the result, in large part, to green regulation....again, who do you think is hurt worse by such regs?  Hint...those who can afford it the least.


As to the rest....the models have failed.. Either you are to dishonest or too stupid to grasp that fact.  

Now, when are you going to explain, using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science why the bottom of the troposphere on Uranus, one of the coldest spots in the solar system, is warmer than the bottom of the troposphere on earth...and why the temperature doesn't drop on the night side of venus even though the night is 2000 hours long....

Surely the greenhouse hypothesis can explain such things since the laws of physics operate the same there as they do here....unless of course, the greenhouse hypothesis doesn't have the physics right....which is clearly the case because there is no explanation for the two problems I gave you using that steaming pile of shit hypothesis.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

Tell us how well the liquor industries did during Prohibition.

I have explained Uranus' troposphere to you twice.  Try to keep up.   I won't be doing it again.  I also pointed out the idiocy of trying to refute the Greenhouse Effect with Venus' ability to stay hot.

As for Spencer's deception: I don't think there's an acceptable excuse to present.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Tell us how well the liquor industries did during Prohibition.



Are you claiming petroleum products are going to become illegal?  Again, not the first idea of how business runs.  Maybe that is why you hate free enterprise.



Abraham3 said:


> have explained Uranus' troposphere to you twice.  Try to keep up.   I won't be doing it again.  I also pointed out the idiocy of trying to refute the Greenhouse Effect with Venus' ability to stay hot.



And you got it wrong both times..  Again, from wiki which you seem to trust..the temperature profile of the atmosphere of Uranus.  The bottom of the troposphere on Uranus is warmer than the bottom of the troposphere on earth...30x further away from the sun with almost no daylight reaching the surface....explain that using the greenhouse hypothesis....oh, that's right...you can't because the greenhouse hypothesis is an ad hoc construct that only works on earth.







And the temperature on venus has nothing to do with the greenhouse hypothesis as it does not cool off during a 2000 hour night.....learn something.  If the greenhouse effect were the reason for the temperature on venus, it would cool down during the long night.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us how well the liquor industries did during Prohibition.
> ...



Do you not see the hydrocarbon and methane components of the Uranusian troposphere?  Were you unaware that her rocky core is at 5000K and is surrounded by a turbulent liquid layer?  There was nothing wrong with Wikipedia's description of Uranus.  It gave a value for the temperature at the bottom of its troposphere that was warmer than ours.  Unlike you, however, no one else seems to think it all that surprising.

The atmosphere of Venus loves to absorb IR.  That prevents heat energy from leaving, whether or not the sun is shining on it.  Venus' thick, turbulent atmosphere is perfectly capable of a significant amount of convective heat transfer from the dayside to the nightside.

This crap about the Greenhouse Effect not working on other planets is just that: crap.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Do you not see the hydrocarbon and methane components of the Uranusian troposphere?  Were you unaware that her rocky core is at 5000K and is surrounded by a turbulent liquid layer?  There was nothing wrong with Wikipedia's description of Uranus.  It gave a value for the temperature at the bottom of its troposphere that was warmer than ours.  Unlike you, however, no one else seems to think it all that surprising.



Care to hazard a guess as to why that rocky core so far from the sun is 5000K?



Abraham3 said:


> atmosphere of Venus loves to absorb IR.  That prevents heat energy from leaving, whether or not the sun is shining on it.  Venus' thick, turbulent atmosphere is perfectly capable of a significant amount of convective heat transfer from the dayside to the nightside.



You actually believe that?



Abraham3 said:


> crap about the Greenhouse Effect not working on other planets is just that: crap.



The greenhouse hypothesis is crap...  Explain why in the venusian atmosphere, if you travel up to the level where the atmospheric pressure is 1 bar, the temperature is very close to that of earth even though the atmosphere is almost entirely CO2.  The greenhouse hypothesis is crap and damned near every planet in the solar system proves it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

If you want to convince me that 99% of the scientists in the world are completely wrong about a very basic mechanism of atmospheric physics... you're going to have to float down out of my sky with a host of angels.  Personally, I think you're so fixated on being a contrarian you've simply turned yourself into an excellent simulacrum of an ignorant fool.


----------



## Meister (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> If you want to convince me that 99% of the scientists in the world are completely wrong about a very basic mechanism of atmospheric physics... you're going to have to float down out of my sky with a host of angels.  Personally, I think you're so fixated on being a contrarian you've simply turned yourself into an excellent simulacrum of an ignorant fool.



99% of the world's scientists?  Really?  And, you're calling someone else an ignorant fool?
Son, YOU have really been brainwashed.  There is nothing else that can be said.....


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

We're talking about the Greenhouse Effect.  Do you think there exists any debate among scientists about the Greenhouse Effect?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> If you want to convince me that 99% of the scientists in the world are completely wrong about a very basic mechanism of atmospheric physics... you're going to have to float down out of my sky with a host of angels.  Personally, I think you're so fixated on being a contrarian you've simply turned yourself into an excellent simulacrum of an ignorant fool.



And back we go to the same old fallacy...appeal to authority.  No explanation for the questions I ask, which are reality and can not be explained by the greenhouse hypothesis.  I ask them precisely because they can not be explained by the hypothesis.

Funny thing about hypotheses....they can be supported by a thousand coincidences but one example where the hypothesis doesn't work and it is rendered invalid.  Personally, I am fine with being in the very small minority who have a firm enough grasp on the topic to spot a hoax when we see it.  

Even when confronted with multiple realities that can't be explained by the greenhouse hypothesis...you continue to believe because a dishonest, greedy, power grubbing cadre of criminals tells you to.  You are a sad one abraham...very sad.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2014)

Meister said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to convince me that 99% of the scientists in the world are completely wrong about a very basic mechanism of atmospheric physics... you're going to have to float down out of my sky with a host of angels.  Personally, I think you're so fixated on being a contrarian you've simply turned yourself into an excellent simulacrum of an ignorant fool.
> ...



Got to hand it to him...when he gets duped, he is all in.  Not a skeptical cell in his body....which in and of itself calls his claimed scientific knowledge into question...science is by nature skeptical...religion on the other hand can't and doesn't tolerate skepticism.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> We're talking about the Greenhouse Effect.  Do you think there exists any debate among scientists about the Greenhouse Effect?



We are talking about a hypothetical greenhouse effect...and effect which, by the way, has never been quantified or measured by anyone.  There are a few who have not left the scientific method behind who question the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...those few who still recognize the conflict between the greenhouse hypothesis and the laws of physics.

But that is the way it always is abraham...there were very few who thought that stomach ulcers were not caused by stress...there were very few who thought that the continents moved around...there were very few who believed quasi crystals were real....there were only a few who saw through the pseudoscience of eugenics...and phrenology....and on and on.  At some point, it will become undeniable that the greenhouse hypothesis is terribly flawed and at that point, the movement will be back towards science and away from cultish faith enforced by the majority.  Ten years after that, you won't be able to find a single scientist who believed in the greenhouse hypothesis as described by present climate science.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 3, 2014)

racewright said:


> There is NO compelling scientific evidence that Man is causing global warming (of which, none has actually happened for close on a decade).



A very large percentage of scientists who specialize in this precise topic say you're wrong.  Whether that's from ignorance or political bias is your call.



racewright said:


> We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.



The fossil fuel industry is the largest vested interest at this party.  To ignore that or to reject it is prima facie evidence that you don't hold honest high in your list of priorities.



racewright said:


> It makes no sense, in any way, to continue to waste money offsetting an effect that a) hasn't existed for a decade, and b) when it did exist was in keeping with earlier similar periods of warming when man's activity is not being blamed.



Warming has been taking place for the last 150 years at a rate very likely unprecedented in the last 65 MILLION years.  That warming is due primarily to anthropogenic CO2 and deforestation.  We can say definitively that CO2 has not been at the CURRENT level for AT LEAST 800,000 years and it's still increasing at an accelerating rate.  A hiatus, significantly stronger than the present phenomenon, took place between 1941 and 1978 - 37 years - but did NOT mark the end of AGW.  So the current hiatus is well within natuural variation.  And given the significant rise in deep ocean temperature and the behavior of ENSO at the same time surface warming slowed, it is not clear that total warming of the Earth has changed at all.  And, finally, given that satellites have seen NO reduction in the radiative imbalance at the ToA, it's simply not possible that total warming has changed.  Our direct measurements show net energy flux is still increasing the Earth's total heat content.



racewright said:


> What the AGW "consensus" theory comes down to is "We've made these predictions, so far all past predictions have been wrong, but we are still confident in our methodology so you better believe our current predictions".



You've been listening to the wrong sources.  Here is what the models and the observations have actually done:







An explanation and other data: HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 3, 2014)

racewright said:


> There is NO compelling scientific evidence that Man is causing global warming (of which, none has actually happened for close on a decade).



A very large percentage of scientists who specialize in this precise topic say you're wrong.  Whether that's from ignorance or political bias is your call.



racewright said:


> We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.



The fossil fuel industry is the largest vested interest at this party.  To ignore that or to reject it is prima facie evidence that you don't hold honesty high in your list of priorities.



racewright said:


> It makes no sense, in any way, to continue to waste money offsetting an effect that a) hasn't existed for a decade, and b) when it did exist was in keeping with earlier similar periods of warming when man's activity is not being blamed.



Warming has been taking place for the last 150 years at a rate very likely unprecedented in the last 65 MILLION years.  That warming is due primarily to anthropogenic CO2 and deforestation.  We can say definitively that CO2 has not been at the CURRENT level for AT LEAST 800,000 years and it's still increasing at an accelerating rate.  A hiatus, significantly stronger than the present phenomenon, took place between 1941 and 1978 - 37 years - but did NOT mark the end of AGW.  So the current hiatus is well within natural variation.  And given the significant rise in deep ocean temperature and the behavior of ENSO at the same time surface warming slowed, it is not clear that total warming of the Earth has changed at all.  And, finally, given that satellites have seen NO reduction in the radiative imbalance at the ToA, it's simply not possible that total warming has changed.  Our direct measurements show net energy flux is still increasing the Earth's total heat content.



racewright said:


> What the AGW "consensus" theory comes down to is "We've made these predictions, so far all past predictions have been wrong, but we are still confident in our methodology so you better believe our current predictions".



You've been listening to the wrong sources.  Here is what the models and the observations have actually done:







An explanation and other data: HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> racewright said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO compelling scientific evidence that Man is causing global warming (of which, none has actually happened for close on a decade).
> ...




The fact that no compelling evidence of AGW can be produced says that climate  science is wrong


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> The fact that no compelling evidence of AGW can be produced says that climate  science is wrong



That is not a fact.  It has simply been YOUR choice to reject all of the enormous amount of evidence supporting AGW.  97% of the world's experts on this topic DO accept it and I have to believe that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them know the topic one HELL of a lot better than do you.


----------



## driveby (Mar 3, 2014)

70 year record low in Philly tomorrow ......


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 3, 2014)

70 year record high in Anchorage


----------



## Wyld Kard (Mar 3, 2014)




----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 3, 2014)

Have you ever attempted to provide evidence to your claims?  Without it, all you have are unsubstantiated assertions.  Like "I had lunch with a unicorn today" and "Carmen Electra is waiting in my bed this instant" and "Bill Gates just gave me a billion in cash for being so cool".

Get the idea?


----------



## driveby (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 70 year record high in Anchorage



34 degrees is a 70 year high?

No wonder faggots like you can't be taken seriously.....


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 3, 2014)

Faggots?  Why don't you call back when you get out of elementary school.


----------



## Meister (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Have you ever attempted to provide evidence to your claims?  Without it, all you have are unsubstantiated assertions.  Like "I had lunch with a unicorn today" and "Carmen Electra is waiting in my bed this instant" and "Bill Gates just gave me a billion in cash for being so cool".
> 
> Get the idea?



Your cult haven't supplied any evidence of AGW. And you want the AGW deniers to prove that AGW is false?  Really?


----------



## driveby (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Faggots?  Why don't you call back when you get out of elementary school.



Your claim that Anchorage is experiencing a 70 year high makes you a lying faggot, pull up your poopy drawers and deal with it......


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 3, 2014)

Here's your evidence Whizzo  IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 3, 2014)

driveby said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Faggots?  Why don't you call back when you get out of elementary school.
> ...



Sorry... kindergarten.


----------



## Meister (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 70 year record high in Anchorage


70 years?  The Earth is around 5,000, 000, 000 years old and you talking about the last 70, huh?


----------



## driveby (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Here's your evidence Whizzo  IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



Evidence of what numbnuts?


----------



## Meister (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Here's your evidence Whizzo  IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



IPCC? 

They cherry picked the papers, son.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 3, 2014)

How stupid ARE you people?

That child posted that tomorrow would be a 70 year low in Pittsburgh or whatever fucking place he hangs his diaper.  If you look at a diagram of the circumpolar jet stream and what it's doing now that the warming of the Arctic has led to the creation of deep Rossby waves, you will see that the cold in the American northeast is off set by warmth in the American northwest.  Work your way around the globe and you'll find unseasonably cold followed by unseasonably warm followed by cold followed by warm.

The US northeast is not the whole planet.  

You idiots.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 3, 2014)

Meister said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's your evidence Whizzo  IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> ...



I realize you're entirely too stupid to understand prose that technical.  Find someone with a high school education to read it to you and explain the big words.


----------



## driveby (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> How stupid ARE you people?
> 
> That child posted that tomorrow would be a 70 year low in Pittsburgh or whatever fucking place he hangs his diaper.  If you look at a diagram of the circumpolar jet stream and what it's doing now that the warming of the Arctic has led to the creation of deep Rossby waves, you will see that the cold in the American northeast is off set by warmth in the American northwest.  Work your way around the globe and you'll find unseasonably cold followed by unseasonably warm followed by cold followed by warm.
> 
> ...




I told the truth, you lied about Anchorage. I understand though, your whole religion is based on lies.....


----------



## Meister (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



 IPCC with the manipulated data and the emails trying to cover their ass?  That IPCC?  Drink some more kool ade.


----------



## driveby (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...




You can link a propaganda site, impressive.....


----------



## whitehall (Mar 3, 2014)

I don't usually quote "Greenpeace" but the founder said it so eloquently. "The enemy of life is frost and freezing temperatures". A recent survey found that more than half of the registered democrats surveyed are not aware of the most basic part of the understanding of global physics, that the earth revolves around the sun. It's likely that this is the core of the political global warming support. The sun is not a static energy source. Stuff happens to the sun that scientists are not able to comprehend and geological evidence points to a likelyhood of less energy from the sun from time to time which translates to ice age or mini-ice age and we have no defense for it.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 4, 2014)

You don't see the rational people here raving about their imaginary political enemies. As Whitehall demonstrates, denialism is a hallmark of an extremist fringe cult. Denialistm itself isn't the cult; it's a required belief of a weird political cult. And as driveby and meister show, all they have left now is deranged conspiracy theories about the great global socialist plot. Since all the data contradicts them, their only choice is to declare all the data is faked. Standard cult behavior.

In direct opposition, global warming science is embraced by all political types all around the world. That would be because it's actual science.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 4, 2014)

whitehall said:


> I don't usually quote "Greenpeace" but the founder said it so eloquently. "The enemy of life is frost and freezing temperatures".



If you were under the impression that the world's climate scientists are suggesting we're all going to burn to death from a 2C temperature rise, you need to go back and review the basics.  Global warming is going to cause changes to sea level, precipitation and weather, water supplies, crop cycle timing, predator-prey relationships and a host of other issues. It is not going to burn us up.



whitehall said:


> A recent survey found that more than half of the registered democrats surveyed are not aware of the most basic part of the understanding of global physics, that the earth revolves around the sun.



I'm going to have to throw the bullshit flag on that one.  I'm also going to point out that the validity of AGW is established and quantified by the level of acceptance among the world's experts, not the lay public and not the fictional characters in your fictional survey.



whitehall said:


> It's likely that this is the core of the political global warming support.



It's quite certain that it is not.



whitehall said:


> The sun is not a static energy source.



No it's not.  Here's what it does.









whitehall said:


> Stuff happens to the sun that scientists are not able to comprehend



So, you've decided that all the evidence supporting AGW is somehow refuted by something we "are not able to comprehend".  Like magic?



whitehall said:


> and geological evidence points to a likelyhood of less energy from the sun from time to time which translates to ice age or mini-ice age and we have no defense for it.



Changes in received solar radiation, primarily from long term orbital mechanics (Milankovitch cycles) do cause climatic changes on the Earth and are likely the primary cause of our ice ages.  But that geological evidence - one of many products from the very same scientists you've just characterized as incompetent - also indicates that on every occasion that the Earth has warmed, CO2 held in sequestration has been released and, at least during the last 22,000 years, Greenhouse warming from the CO2 eventually overtook whatever factors had originated the warming.  CO2 is both the result of warming and causes warming.  In our case, we skipped the typical first step and have put significant amounts of CO2 directly into the atmosphere ourselves.  We DO have a defense for that: get as close as we can to a full stop on emitting GHGs.

BTW, rejecting what we know out of fear of what we don't is not a successful strategy in any endeavour.  Neither is lying about the characteristics of your opponents.  You should read your Sun Tzu.


----------



## Meister (Mar 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> You don't see the rational people here raving about their imaginary political enemies. As Whitehall demonstrates, denialism is a hallmark of an extremist fringe cult. Denialistm itself isn't the cult; it's a required belief of a weird political cult. And as driveby and meister show, all they have left now is deranged conspiracy theories about the great global socialist plot. Since all the data contradicts them, their only choice is to declare all the data is faked. Standard cult behavior.
> 
> In direct opposition, global warming science is embraced by all political types all around the world. That would be because it's actual science.



You also don't see the rational people agreeing with AGW.
Nobody is denying the existence regarding climate change, it's the AGW that the cultists are clinging to.  Even though their science hasn't proven the existence of it.
Thirty one thousand scientists in the USA would disagree with you and Abe on this matter.  Why?  Because your religion hasn't been able to prove their premise.  They've manipulated data, they've had emails between one another that suggest that they don't have it. We didn't declare their data faked.....they did it themselves.
You can't deny the truth, kitten....no matter how you try and smear the deniers.  

If you want to see who is part of the extremist fringe cult, just look in the mirror.  So run along to your kitty box.


----------



## Meister (Mar 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > I don't usually quote "Greenpeace" but the founder said it so eloquently. "The enemy of life is frost and freezing temperatures".
> ...



Yet, all your scientists can do is put garbage data in and create a model.  If it was so cut and dry with the science, there wouldn't have been a need to manipulate the data nor trying to cover their asses via emails.  Everything would have been crystal clear....but it's not.  Stupid fools will always be stupid fools, Abe.....and you wear like a badge.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Here's your evidence Whizzo  IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



Only an idiot would believe anything at all that the IPCC has to say about the climate.  You believe them?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> How stupid ARE you people?



Not as stupid as those poor deluded koolaid junkies who believe the IPCC.

T


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2014)

driveby said:


> I told the truth, you lied about Anchorage. I understand though, your whole religion is based on lies.....



If lies are all you know, then you tell lies....If one spends any time at all talking to alarmists, it is obvious that all they have is lies.  Some are useful idiots who don't know they are lying and some are deliberate liars who believe the ends justify the means...I believe abraham is just a liar...he can't be as stupid and duped as he pretends to be.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 4, 2014)

> Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport broke a 141-year-old record low temperature, reaching 4 degrees. The National Weather Service said the low reached early Tuesday broke a 5-degree record set on the day in 1873. It was also a record low for the month of March. Dulles International Airport - also outside Washington - tied a 1993 record for the month at -1 degree.
> 
> Another blast of arctic air follows latest snow - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 4, 2014)

Lake Michigan 90 Percent Covered In Ice, Equals Highest Level Ever « CBS Chicago


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 4, 2014)

Snow is caused by global warming.

Increased arctic ice is caused by global warming

Messy desks are caused by global warming.

Slutty Oscars dresses are caused by global warming.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> 70 year record high in Anchorage



Global warming causes grants to third rate hacks.

Global warming causes hacks to lie through their fucking teeth.

10 Day Weather Forecast for Anchorage - weather.com

Record was set in 1936 - in the 50's - tomorrow will reach 35.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 4, 2014)

Meister said:


> They've manipulated data,



Yes, those conspiracy theories play well with your political cult, and you'll defintely get brownie points and accolades from your fellow cultists for chanting them. However, those outside your cult just roll their eyes and walk away.

That clearly bothers denialists a great deal, the fact that the world is ignoring them now. They've got boy-who-cried-wolf credibility issues, in that they've spouted BS too loudly and too often for anyone to ever take them seriously again. Denialists, enjoy that permanent seat at the kiddie table you've worked so hard to get. The world has passed you by, and all you can do about it is sip your juicebox and pout.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> How stupid ARE you people?



Not stupid enough to believe your bullshit.



> That child posted that tomorrow would be a 70 year low in Pittsburgh or whatever fucking place he hangs his diaper.  If you look at a diagram of the circumpolar jet stream and what it's doing now that the warming of the Arctic has led to the creation of deep Rossby waves, you will see that the cold in the American northeast is off set by warmth in the American northwest.  Work your way around the globe and you'll find unseasonably cold followed by unseasonably warm followed by cold followed by warm.
> 
> The US northeast is not the whole planet.
> 
> You idiots.



The problem you have hack, is that the warming in Alaska is something that has occurred in the last week, where the unprecedented cold in the North East has been going on for a third of the year.

Look, you're a grant whore and AGW is a cash cow. You're very protective of the free money well and don't want some damned facts getting in the way of the flow of cash. I get it, virtually ALL AGW proponents are in the same boat, milking the gravy train for every penny before you get caught. Problem is, you've been exposed so many times that the public has grown tired of the lies and absurdities you feed us.

Your con is over - sorry.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 4, 2014)

As Uncensored so kindly illustrates for us, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories are literally all his cult has left. They're not even trying to talk about science any longer.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> As Uncensored so kindly illustrates for us, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories are literally all his cult has left. They're not even trying to talk about science any longer.



Tin foil is caused by global warming.


----------



## Meister (Mar 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > They've manipulated data,
> ...



Have you ever thought why your religion changed their catchy slogan from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? 
Talk about credibility issues.
Now run along to your kitty box.


----------



## driveby (Mar 4, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> > Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport broke a 141-year-old record low temperature, reaching 4 degrees. The National Weather Service said the low reached early Tuesday broke a 5-degree record set on the day in 1873. It was also a record low for the month of March. Dulles International Airport - also outside Washington - tied a 1993 record for the month at -1 degree.
> >
> > Another blast of arctic air follows latest snow - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG



But it's 34 degrees in Anchorage! .......


----------



## driveby (Mar 4, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Lake Michigan 90 Percent Covered In Ice, Equals Highest Level Ever « CBS Chicago



Oops.........


----------



## mamooth (Mar 4, 2014)

Meister said:


> Have you ever thought why your religion changed their catchy slogan from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?



The Bush Administration did that. And Bush would be your DearLeader, your messiah, the object of your abject worship, God's chosen servant on earth. Take the most extreme Obama devotees, multiply their adulation a hundred-fold, and it still doesn't match the fervor of the Bush-worship of even an average conservative.

Of course, that was then. Conservatives are a fickle lot, and their mancrushes constantly shift. Bush fell out of favor after his failures embarrassed the cult too badly, so now conservatives are commanded to revise history and pretend Bush wasn't ever their messiah.



> Talk about credibility issues.



Indeed. How will you live down a screwup like that?



> Now run along to your kitty box.



I use the cat avatar specifically to bait certain personality types into revealing their true faces. It works.

Oh, I see driveby still has troubles with the word "global", and is still crying about high temps in Anchorage. Go fig. You cultists all deserve each other. Please get a room, so you can whisper "Lie to me, big boy!" out of earshot of the normal people who are kind of grossed out by it.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snow is caused by global warming.
> 
> Increased arctic ice is caused by global warming
> 
> ...



I thought bush was the cause of all that....maybe bush was caused by global warming.


----------



## Meister (Mar 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever thought why your religion changed their catchy slogan from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?
> ...


Your religion never backed away from the new coined term from Lutz.  He coined that new term for a reason....he certainly didn't make it up out of thin air, kitten.
All the weather predictions from your religion have not provided any fruit for your cult.
Just an observation......


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> As Uncensored so kindly illustrates for us, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories are literally all his cult has left. They're not even trying to talk about science any longer.



Niagara Falls comes to frozen halt AGAIN as subfreezing temperatures freeze water | Mail Online


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Snow is caused by global warming.
> ...



Global warming caused Bush!


----------



## Wyld Kard (Mar 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Have you ever attempted to provide evidence to your claims?  Without it, all you have are unsubstantiated assertions.  Like "I had lunch with a unicorn today" and "Carmen Electra is waiting in my bed this instant" and "Bill Gates just gave me a billion in cash for being so cool".
> 
> Get the idea?



STFU Stupid!


> *Have you ever attempted to provide evidence to your claims?*



Really?  Do you have to ask that stupid question, Dishonest Abe?

I have provided evidence that global warming is a lie.  It's not my fault that you forget, but no matter what kind of evidence, or proof, or facts are presented that clearly states that global warming is a lie you and the other kool-aid drinking gullible idiots will always automatically reject it because it does not support the bullshit that you all believe in.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever attempted to provide evidence to your claims?  Without it, all you have are unsubstantiated assertions.  Like "I had lunch with a unicorn today" and "Carmen Electra is waiting in my bed this instant" and "Bill Gates just gave me a billion in cash for being so cool".
> ...



Science is by definition skeptical and always looking for what's wrong with a hypothesis..and discarding one if it even fails one test....religion on the other hand is about faith and believing in spite of evidence to the contrary.  It is more than obvious that the alarmists on this board approach AGW from a religious point of view and are more than eager to attack anyone who isn't part of their religious circle.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> We're talking about the Greenhouse Effect.  Do you think there exists any debate among scientists about the Greenhouse Effect?



Can you explain to the class how a real greenhouse works?

And are you claiming that CO2 and so called greenhouse gasses behave in the same manner?

Hmmmmm?

See, unlike Mamooth, I think you actually do know the subject. I think you whore for grants and see facts as "pliable" in pursuit of grants. How far will you go to keep the welfare flowing into your pocket?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > We're talking about the Greenhouse Effect.  Do you think there exists any debate among scientists about the Greenhouse Effect?
> ...



I would like to see some evidence that a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere has ever been measured and quantified....Surely with 97% of scientists on board, it has actually been measured...Hasn't it?  

The answer is no, it has not been measured.  It is a hypothesis unprovable by any known experiment...unmeasurable by any known technology....and fervently believed in by people whose intelligence and ability to think critically is questionable.


----------



## rdean (Mar 4, 2014)

The climate has changed only once in the entire 6,000 year history of the world.  And that was Noah's flood.  Then God pulled the plug.  But put it back in before all the water could run out.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> We're talking about the Greenhouse Effect.  Do you think there exists any debate among scientists about the Greenhouse Effect?





Uncensored2008 said:


> Can you explain to the class how a real greenhouse works?



Yes, but it would be essentially irrelevant to this discusion.



Uncensored2008 said:


> And are you claiming that CO2 and so called greenhouse gasses behave in the same manner?
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm?



Yes I am. CO2 is classified as one of the Greenhouse gases.



Uncensored2008 said:


> See, unlike Mamooth, I think you actually do know the subject.



That's nice of you as far as I'm concerned, but I think Mamooth and I are on very similar footing.




Uncensored2008 said:


> I think you whore for grants and see facts as "pliable" in pursuit of grants. How far will you go to keep the welfare flowing into your pocket?



I am an engineer and am employed by a government contractor.  I do not work for grant money and I do not see facts as pliable.  The money that goes into my pockets - just like the money that goes into the pockets of research scientists, is earned.  

For you to opine that you can judge the level of my knowledge on this subject includes the presupposition that YOU have an equal or higher level of knowledge than do I.  Unfortunately, your thought that research scientists put grant money into their pockets shows that  is simply not the case.  You DON'T know what you're talking about. Research scientists are salaried.  Grant money pays for the conduct of their research.  It does not pay their salary.  It does not make them rich.  It could be said that it helps them keep their jobs or even to make promotions, but that's not what you're implying, is it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > We're talking about the Greenhouse Effect.  Do you think there exists any debate among scientists about the Greenhouse Effect?
> ...



Not quite Bullwinkle.. I've been a Staff Mgr for groups of research scientists in industry and YES --- we were salaried.. But the TIMECARDS were charged to the Govt projects and Grants that I got by flying my ass to DC twice a month and SELLING with all the right "buzz words" and hot button issues of the day... 

And I also worked as a contractor in the Govt side. And it may not be grants per se that determine the size of the their tech staff -- but their BUDGETS are based on how well they respond to and address the "politically correct" issues of the year...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2014)

rdean said:


> The climate has changed only once in the entire 6,000 year history of the world.  And that was Noah's flood.  Then God pulled the plug.  But put it back in before all the water could run out.



According to you and yours, that seems to be the general consensus.  You seem to believe that the climate is static and has been static forever till the time when the internal combustion engine was invented and then the climate started to change.  

We skeptics on the other hand spend a great deal of time pointing out that the climate is always changing and asking you believers what is going on in the climate today that didn't happen back before the internal combustion engine was invented.  So far, you have not provided any examples.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I am an engineer and am employed by a government contractor.  I do not work for grant money and I do not see facts as pliable.  The money that goes into my pockets - just like the money that goes into the pockets of research scientists, is earned.



You may fetch coffee for an engineer...or dump out an engineer's trash, or even pass by an engineer's home on your way to and from work...but you are no engineer.  Far to many very basic errors in your arguments....


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

I have two words for you

*LAPSE RATE*​
Oh, and a third, critical term I almost forgot

*Asshole*​


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> I would like to see some evidence that a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere has ever been measured and quantified....Surely with 97% of scientists on board, it has actually been measured...Hasn't it?
> 
> The answer is no, it has not been measured.  It is a hypothesis unprovable by any known experiment...unmeasurable by any known technology....and fervently believed in by people whose intelligence and ability to think critically is questionable.



About a dozen years ago, when there was still a lot more evidence supporting the AGW position, I was in a debate similar to this one. It dawned on me that the person I was debating had no interest in the facts. It was vitally important to them that AGW be real, they desperately needed it to be real. It was then that I stopped debating global warming, and decided that I would only mock the proponents. So I apologize in advance for not engaging in serious debate with the zealots here.

I posed the question of greenhouses to Abraham because the question itself reveals the fraud involved in AGW.

A greenhouse works by impeding convection with a physical barrier. In convection, water vapor traps heat and carries it away. The glass keeps the vapors trapped and thus retards convection.  If the greenhouse becomes too warm, opening windows at the top of the greenhouse allows convection and cools the atmosphere inside.

So, does the atmosphere of Earth work this way? Is there a physical barrier of CO2 that blocks convection? Did we 'close a window' that was keeping the Earth regulated at a cooler temperature?

Well, no... Since we sit in the vacuum of space, convection outside of our atmosphere would quickly result in the extinction of all life on the planet. Further, CO2 is not a physical barrier at all. 

Greenhouses retard convection, the mechanism that Abraham misattributes retards radiation. I know, it sounds like I'm picking nits, but this is actually a vital question, because unlike the physical barrier impeding convection, the process of retarding radiation is far more complicated. 

The basic greenhouse effect works like this;






A key concept in this is "loading." the reality is that the components of the troposphere cannot exceed 100%. In simple terms, for there to be more CO2, there must be less of another gas. So the way CO2 would affect the transfer of radiation in to space is by replacing a gas that has a lower ability to absorb and delay transference. To affect Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect the CO2 would need to displace an inert gas. 

Abraham has a financial stake in promoting the myth of AGW. When the con fails, it will literally impede cash from taxpayers from flowing into his pockets. So I expect him to fight the exposure of the AGW fraud with everything he has.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Yes, but it would be essentially irrelevant to this discusion.



So, whether greenhouse gasses actually function as a greenhouse is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect?





> Yes I am. CO2 is classified as one of the Greenhouse gases.



Then your claim is that CO2 is a physical barrier to convection?



> That's nice of you as far as I'm concerned, but I think Mamooth and I are on very similar footing.




It wasn't a complement.

There are two possible explanations for your postions; ignorance or fraud.

Mamooth is clearly ignorant, blindly reciting talking points that he has no hope of understanding.



> I am an engineer and am employed by a government contractor.  I do not work for grant money and I do not see facts as pliable.  The money that goes into my pockets - just like the money that goes into the pockets of research scientists, is earned.



Then you are indeed like Mamooth, arguing from a position of ignorance.



> For you to opine that you can judge the level of my knowledge on this subject includes the presupposition that YOU have an equal or higher level of knowledge than do I.  Unfortunately, your thought that research scientists put grant money into their pockets shows that  is simply not the case.  You DON'T know what you're talking about. Research scientists are salaried.  Grant money pays for the conduct of their research.  It does not pay their salary.  It does not make them rich.  It could be said that it helps them keep their jobs or even to make promotions, but that's not what you're implying, is it.



In most cases, grant monies DO flow into the pockets of researchers. Now the students who do the actual work are unpaid, but Michael Mann is living it up on taxpayer bucks.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Yes, but it [explaining how a grower's greenhouse works] would be essentially irrelevant to this discusion.





Uncensored2008 said:


> So, whether greenhouse gasses actually function as a greenhouse is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect?



Yes, and I think almost everyone here already knew that.  If you were thinking you were going to impress someone with that tidbit, you might check with Skookerasnoc or Crusader Frank.  Otherwise, I think you'll find you're out of luck.



Abraham3 said:


> Yes I am [claiming that CO2 and greenhouse gases work in the same manner (being one and the same)]. CO2 is classified as one of the Greenhouse gases.





Uncensored2008 said:


> Then your claim is that CO2 is a physical barrier to convection?



Obviously not.  I never said or implied or intended any such thing.  I'd appreciate it if you ceased trying to put words into my mouth particularly when your obvious intent is to con me into agreeing to a falsehood.



Abraham3 said:


> That's nice of you as far as I'm concerned, but I think Mamooth and I are on very similar footing.





Uncensored2008 said:


> It wasn't a complement.



Yes it was.  You just wish it hadn't been.



Uncensored2008 said:


> There are two possible explanations for your postions; ignorance or fraud.



There seems to be only one for yours.



Uncensored2008 said:


> Mamooth is clearly ignorant, blindly reciting talking points that he has no hope of understanding.



I disagree and I find it ironic that you would make such a comment.



Abraham3 said:


> I am an engineer and am employed by a government contractor. I do not work for grant money and I do not see facts as pliable. The money that goes into my pockets - just like the money that goes into the pockets of research scientists, is earned.





Uncensored2008 said:


> Then you are indeed like Mamooth, arguing from a position of ignorance.



1) You have corrected me on nothing.
2) You have corrected Mamooth on nothing.
3) You have yet to convey the slightest hint of original or advanced knowledge on any of the topics of discussion here
4) Your behavior is that of a child.
5) My response - informing you that I am an engineer - was in response to your contention that I do research and profit from research grants.  It was intended to point out that you were wrong on that point; as you've been wrong on everything else about which you've bent our ears.



Abraham3 said:


> For you to opine that you can judge the level of my knowledge on this subject includes the presupposition that YOU have an equal or higher level of knowledge than do I. Unfortunately, your thought that research scientists put grant money into their pockets shows that is simply not the case. You DON'T know what you're talking about. Research scientists are salaried. Grant money pays for the conduct of their research. It does not pay their salary. It does not make them rich. It could be said that it helps them keep their jobs or even to make promotions, but that's not what you're implying, is it.





Uncensored2008 said:


> In most cases, grant monies DO flow into the pockets of researchers. Now the students who do the actual work are unpaid, but Michael Mann is living it up on taxpayer bucks.



I don't want to say you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about, so I will just say that you are incorrect.

Find us an objective source that details grant money being provided to researchers as a direct compensation rather than a stipend to cover reasonable expenses incurred in the course of conducting the funded research.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 5, 2014)

Still no links to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drive climate.

Lots of AGW religious mantra, but no real science to back up their religion.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 5, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Still no links to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drive climate.
> 
> Lots of AGW religious mantra, but no real science to back up their religion.



Hey,

That's the job of the noaa, ipcc, Hadley center, and every major sciecific organizion on this planet. They should have a page for that. 

Slackers!


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

Don't encourage him Matthew.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 5, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Still no links to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drive climate.
> ...



And still no links to any datasets with source code to show their proof, just the tired old look at the AGW cult propaganda sites.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Don't encourage him Matthew.



Yes please don't as I will ask for you to back up your AGW cultist claims using actual science (which none of you have done thus far).


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

I thought the rest of you deniers liked Kosh.  Why won't any of you be honest with him?


----------



## Kosh (Mar 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I thought the rest of you deniers liked Kosh.  Why won't any of you be honest with him?



Mathew is not a denier he is a AGW cultist like yourself, who does not believe in science.

Yet you still won't post links to datasets with source code to prove that CO2 drives climate (the basis of your religion).

Come on now, can you do it or not? If so then do so...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 5, 2014)

Mann's tree rings confirms the altered data fed into the predetermined conclusion AGWCult model

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## Kosh (Mar 5, 2014)

Like I keep posting Global Warming/Climate Change will happen with or without humans on this planet.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 5, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Like I keep posting Global Warming/Climate Change will happen with or without humans on this planet.



I see. So, you will die, whether or not you smoke or do herion. So, why not do both?


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mann's tree rings confirms the altered data fed into the predetermined conclusion AGWCult model
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China







Evidently, China thinks Mann is a fraud >>>


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mann's tree rings confirms the altered data fed into the predetermined conclusion AGWCult model



Says who?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mann's tree rings confirms the altered data fed into the predetermined conclusion AGWCult model



SkookerakookS quoting Crusader Frank.  That has to violate some fundamental axiom of information theory.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

Or maybe it's the Info Theory analog to Dark Energy.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Like I keep posting Global Warming/Climate Change will happen with or without humans on this planet.
> ...



And end up like you?  No way...


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 6, 2014)

End up as all of us do: in a world made worse by our presence here.  That can be changed.  Ever been to Norway?


----------



## Meister (Mar 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> End up as all of us do: in a world made worse by our presence here.  That can be changed.  Ever been to Norway?



Now we're getting to the crux of it....we just all need to change to how Norway lives.
Pie in the sky dreamer, Abe.....that's what you are.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2014)

Meister said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > End up as all of us do: in a world made worse by our presence here.  That can be changed.  Ever been to Norway?
> ...



abe should go naked out into nature and take his rightful place in the food chain.  He thinks a hunter gather existence is so great...he should try it for a while.


----------



## Meister (Mar 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Maybe go back before the wheel was even invented.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> End up as all of us do: in a world made worse by our presence here.  That can be changed.  Ever been to Norway?



I know places in the Mojave that are virtually untouched by human. Feel free to go try and survive in your perfect world.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > End up as all of us do: in a world made worse by our presence here.  That can be changed.  Ever been to Norway?
> ...




Funny thing...damned near every pristine place on earth is a place that will kill you in a minute if you aren't on your toes...

Nature wants us all dead post haste and our nutrients being recycled. 

These wackos should step up and do natures bidding.  Me?  I am fighting her tooth and nail.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Funny thing...damned near every pristine place on earth is a place that will kill you in a minute if you aren't on your toes...
> 
> Nature wants us all dead post haste and our nutrients being recycled.
> 
> These wackos should step up and do natures bidding.  Me?  I am fighting her tooth and nail.



But, but, the Indians lived in peace and harmony sharing the land and living lives of perfect health and plenty.....

Abraham knows this cuz he saw it and it is too true....


----------



## Theowl32 (Mar 6, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Funny thing...damned near every pristine place on earth is a place that will kill you in a minute if you aren't on your toes...
> ...



I heard they turned into blue flying creatures and went to a distant place called Pandora. Where, they lived in even greater harmony under a big beautiful tree. 

Where, it just happened to be on top a very very valuable resource. Where, it just so happens cliche white Americans sought to invade the distant moon, where these beautiful creatures live.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 6, 2014)

None of you got my point. What one sees in Norway is an amazing level of respect by the Norges for the Earth on which they live.  As far as I can tell from the deniers here, the RNC has obliged you all to consume the place in its entirety before you slip this mortal coil.


----------



## driveby (Mar 6, 2014)

You have no point, only propaganda.........


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> None of you got my point. What one sees in Norway is an amazing level of respect by the Norges for the Earth on which they live.  As far as I can tell from the deniers here, the RNC has obliged you all to consume the place in its entirety before you slip this mortal coil.



Proving once again that you know exactly squat.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 6, 2014)

What  do you believe I don't know?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> What  do you believe I don't know?



The rules of logic.

The scientific method.

Just to start with....


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 6, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What  do you believe I don't know?
> ...



And on what do you base that?


----------



## Meister (Mar 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



The rules of logic has been thrown out by you, Abe.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 6, 2014)

Meister said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Email James Hansen and the other warmers and say that!


----------



## Meister (Mar 6, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Hansen with the manipulated data?  I doubt he would have much to say with what I said.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 6, 2014)

Meister said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Besides being bad grammar, that is an unsubstantiated assertion.  Do you have some example of me throwing out the rules of logic - whatever that's actually supposed to mean?

PS: to throw them out I would have to know them.  The original accusation was that I did not KNOW the rules of logic.

PPS: would this have anything to do with my conversations with logic expert Swimexpert The Absent?


----------



## damirpavla80 (Mar 6, 2014)

Storm during summer...


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 6, 2014)

Dark when the sun goes down...


----------



## elektra (Mar 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Now you need some actual evidence that humans are responsible.....good luck with that.  Decades of skeptics asking for the evidence and still none has been produced....maybe you have a model you would like to offer up.
> Since we all know that no actual evidence of man's responsibility for the changing global climate will be forthcoming...maybe some sort of evidence that anything in the present climate is unprecedented....or maybe outside the boundries of natural variability....got anything like that?  We both know that once again, the answer is no..
> 
> What you have is coincidental corrobrative evidence and a hysterical streak a foot wide running up your back.



excuse  me, but they have no evidence that a record number of days set any record, its a theory at best, further they actually got caught using temperatures from one month that was hot for the month that was cold. They also selectively sample temperatures that prove the theory. The scientist ignore the facts and evidence that proves their is no global warming, just the natural ebb and tide of temperatures. 

There is no evidence of Global Climate change. Period. It not just there is no evidence of man's responsibility, there is no evidence, there is not one fact, that supports any of the theories.

I agree with you except, there simply is no evidence that anything other than the normal seasons of earth are occurring.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 7, 2014)

Complete fabrication







Nothing but lies






Laughable






Meaningless nonsense






Obvious math error






Complete fantasy






The REAL cause!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2014)

elektra said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Now you need some actual evidence that humans are responsible.....good luck with that.  Decades of skeptics asking for the evidence and still none has been produced....maybe you have a model you would like to offer up.
> ...



It isn't a theory...it is a hypothesis and a piss poor one at that.  Don't give them credit for actually elevating that steaming pile of dung to the status of theory.  They call it theory in an attempt to legitimize it...hypothesis and theory have specific meanings and a hypothesis must pass certain tests to be elevated to theory....AGW, and the greenhouse effect remain unprovable by any known experiment and untestable by any known technology...they both remain hypotheses.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Complete fabrication
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See how easy it is to find altered data to support the hoax?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 7, 2014)

Actually, what I took from that was some amazement that someone could look at all that and say it doesn't exist.  The paranoid fantasy required to even consider what you and Moonglow are contending here requires a VERY flexible grasp on reality.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> And on what do you base that?



The canon of your posts.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I emailed the ShamWOW guy and ask him why his product didn't work the way he claimed.

Really weird, he never responded.

Hmmmm, it's almost like con-men don't care that they're lying......


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Why would I want to email that hack? Of course I can just go to the university he works at and just call him a hack to face. It is more fun that way.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 7, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > And on what do you base that?
> ...



The canon of my posts.  That might have been an impressive turn of speech if it hadn't been completely inapplicable.

Have you got one in particular that demonstrates my unfamiliarity with the rules of logic and the scientific method?  Or - as all your writings tend to indicate - do you have nothing to spew at us but the moot by-products of your puerile animus and overflowing bitterness at so consistently being wrong?  And irrelevant.  And someone who would actually quote Sarah Palin in their sig.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Yes you are far left for one which means you don't live in reality and on top of it all you think AL Gore is some kind of environmentalist.

Not to mention you promote AGW as actual science, thus proving you don't understand squat.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Does anyone have anything specific?  No?
> 
> Don't you realize what you look like when you make accusations that you don't seem able to even BEGIN to back up?  I mean... it's an honest impression and all.  I just didn't think it was the specific impression you wanted to set out in the town square.



See the far left AGW cultists can not see their own errors or that which exists in their religious belief. Even when pointed out directly they still deny the existence of their errors.

And further empirical evidence to show they do not live in reality.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 7, 2014)

Does anyone have anything specific?  No?

Don't you realize what you look like when you make accusations that you don't seem able to even BEGIN to back up?  I mean... it's an honest impression and all.  I just didn't think it was the specific impression you wanted to set out in the town square.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Does anyone have anything specific?  No?
> 
> Don't you realize what you look like when you make accusations that you don't seem able to even BEGIN to back up?  I mean... it's an honest impression and all.  I just didn't think it was the specific impression you wanted to set out in the town square.



See the far left AGW cultists can not see their own errors or that which exists in their religious belief. Even when pointed out directly they still deny the existence of their errors.

And further empirical evidence to show they do not live in reality.


----------



## Politico (Mar 8, 2014)

Repeat much?


----------



## Kosh (Mar 8, 2014)

For decades this NASA graph based on the database of Great Britain's Climate Research Unit shows a dramatic increase in temperature was accepted by scientists as proving that there was a dramatic increase in earth's temperature starting in the late 1970s. CO2 levels also increased during this period starting in the late 1940s, leading to the conclusion that man was responsible for the temperature increase. However, this data is corrupted with the heat island effect. Also, note that the increase in atmospheric CO2 started in the late 1940s, just when earth was going through a cooling period. The heat island effect is supposed to have been mostly removed from the United States data set, which accounts for one-fourth of the worlds measuring stations. However, in the fall of 2009 and into the winter of 2010, it was revealed that rather than removing the heat island effect, NASA and NOAA may have actually amplified it. Also, the main temperature data base at the Climate Research Unit in Great Britain has deliberately corrupted the database used in producing the graph.






A serious error was found in the NASA temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was 1934, followed 1998. 1921 became the third hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years, three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years. Notice that the US data do not have the same steep increase in temperature shown in the corrupted data of Britain's Climate Research Unit's data in the graph above. This dramatically changes scientists understanding of the importance of the warming that has occurred since 1975. The period between 1995 and 2009 is no warmer than the period between 1920 and 1935. This error in the NASA data has lead to discoveries of other errors in the data which are raising concern about data integrity of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.






More at: Lesson 1 Graphs n' Charts

Notice the first graph, that is the one that the AGW cultists post (or something similar) all the time.

The second graph is the corrected graph that that AGW cultists will deny exists. They claim they listen to NASA, but obviously they do not as empirical evidence shows.

Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- NASA has revised climate data to show 1934 as the hottest year on record in the U.S., ousting 1998 and challenging the argument that national temperatures are reaching new highs amid global warming. 

NASA Fixes Data; 1934 Ousts 1998 as Hottest U.S. Year (Update1) - Bloomberg

However you will watch them feverishly use AGW propaganda to claim this is false, even though it is from NASA a source they claim to believe without question.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 8, 2014)

Let's give that link again to Kosh's nutty cult website.

Lesson 1 Graphs n' Charts

Now, Kosh thinks it's brilliant. Those with broken BS meters would. However, the well-informed crowd immediately identifies it all as a mix of standard denialist logical fallacies, crazy conspiracies, Gore Derangement Syndrome, bad physics, cherrypicking, and fudging like only a denialist can fudge. Kind of boring. Nothing we haven't seen a hundred times before.

No matter. Kosh wants to believe in the fudgy goodness, hence he believes. He wasn't reasoned into his belief, so he can't be reasoned out of it. He'll still be raging about Al Gore on his deathbed.


----------



## Meister (Mar 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Let's give that link again to Kosh's nutty cult website.
> 
> Lesson 1 Graphs n' Charts
> 
> ...



You have a lot of nerve telling someone about their "nutty cult website", mams.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 8, 2014)

nasa and the noaa = cult! LOL Proud member of that cult I am


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Let's give that link again to Kosh's nutty cult website.
> 
> Lesson 1 Graphs n' Charts
> 
> ...



Really?? I just spent an hour tracing the origin of the data for that chart on the Lesson 1 page that shows higher temps in the last 5000 yrs from Vostok Ice Data. 

Data was from archive at the CO2 research facility at ORNLab. And I pumped into a graph in Excel and it matches EXACTLY what is published on that site.. 

You have the brains and talent to pick a different one and tell us 

A) Where the data came from?
B) what is wrong with a chart?
C) why you have a resistance to CHECKING facts before you fart out accusations?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 8, 2014)

This is hilarious.  You get on someone else's case for not looking in to the provenance of a claim before challenging it.  You look into it and conclude it's good.

Did you look into what ORNLab does and WHAT the purpose of that CO2 dataset actually is?  No, you didn't.  You probably ought to do that before you dig yourself in any further.  Here's a hint:

Exploring Data: Datasets
http://exploringdata.net/datasets.htm
The datasets available here were 
designed to support the activities, 
worksheets, assessment, and articles 
in the Exploring Data website (above).
Each data set is identified by topic 
and available in three formats: Excel 
4.0, NCSS Jr. 6.0, and Tab Delimited. 
Some examples of datasets include: US 
Draft Lotteries, AIDS/HIV, Air Pollution, 
Anscombe&#8217;s Dataset, Bradmanesque, 
*Carbon Dioxide*, Carbon Emissions, 
Challenger, Cloud Seeding, Codeine 
Concentration, Density of the Earth, 
Density of Nitrogen, Diamond 
Rings, Galileo&#8217;s Experiments, Global 
Temperature, Metric Estimates, Oil 
Production, Old Faithful, Olympic Gold, 
Oscar Winners, Pottery, Smoking and 
Cancer, Speed of Light, and World 
Population.
You can find Math Forum at:
http://mathforum.org/


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> This is hilarious.  You get on someone else's case for not looking in to the provenance of a claim before challenging it.  You look into it and conclude it's good.
> 
> Did you look into what ORNLab does and WHAT the purpose of that CO2 dataset actually is?  No, you didn't.  You probably ought to do that before you dig yourself in any further.  Here's a hint:
> 
> ...



WTF you talking about Wilbur??? Talk about farting out accusations.. Too bad you're not familiar with OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORIES !!! OR SPECIFICALLY the 

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)

CARBON DIOXIDE INFORMATION ANALYSIS SECTION of that prestigiuous lab.. 
Yeah it's hysterical all right. You don't have the tools to follow these discussions.. 

THAT'S where the Vostok Ice Data that made one of those graphs came from. One of MANY places where the official data is archived.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 9, 2014)

That is pretty good.  But that's not what comes up on a Google search of "ORNLab".  I got an ornithology lab at Lund University to which was attached a page with sample datasets to help students practice computing techniques.  Try it yourself.

Made perfect sense.  ;-)


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 9, 2014)

Some of those graphs are a riot.  Did you notice the one from the Vostok ice cores?






  It uses 1950 as "The Present", which is perfectly acceptable and a standard usage.  However, he stops plotting data at 1950 as well.  If you were to plot TODAY's CO2 and temperature on that graph, the CO2 would be completely off the top of the graphic while the temperature would be 0.7C higher than the end of the displayed data at 1950.  CO2 at the least, would be higher than ANYTHING actually plotted.

Is that what you call honesty and good science Skooks?  And you think those sorts of LIES should be fed to our children?

Asshole.


----------



## tinydancer (Mar 9, 2014)

I hit one degree today. Holy toledo I am breaking out the sunscreen!


----------



## tinydancer (Mar 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Some of those graphs are a riot.  Did you notice the one from the Vostok ice cores?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are one sick puppy. Tell me your degree. And I will validate it or not.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 9, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> I hit one degree today. Holy toledo I am breaking out the sunscreen!



Avged over the entire world. Some area's are more like 5-7c around the arctic. :eek Not so simple as to say that your area has warmed a avg of one Celsius.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 9, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of those graphs are a riot.  Did you notice the one from the Vostok ice cores?
> ...



Tell me how he's wrong? The graph really does stop at 1950!


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 9, 2014)

It does not take a college degree to read a graph.  Plot 400 ppm (the current CO2 level) on the upper graph and see where you end up.  

As to the temps, look at the graph below and see what they look like in 1950.  Measure the vertical difference between 1950 and today.






Can we say CHERRY PICKING.

And I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering.  What've you got?  And where do you get off calling me "one sick puppy"?


----------



## Meister (Mar 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> It does not take a college degree to read a graph.  Plot 400 ppm (the current CO2 level) on the upper graph and see where you end up.
> 
> As to the temps, look at the graph below and see what they look like in 1950.  Measure the vertical difference between 1950 and today.
> 
> ...



Garbage in, garbage out....Mr. ocean engineer. 
You sure are full of yourself for a government employee......just an observation


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 9, 2014)

You attack me but don't touch my arguments.  How should I take that?  As the work of an ignorant ass?  Maybe so.

Tiny Dancer specifically asked me for my education.  It is not the first time I have provided my education here.  Since you know I work with (not for) the government, you have seen that information before.  So, again, why the comment?

And do you have any thoughts of the way CO2 and temperatures were plotted in Skooks article?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 9, 2014)

Meister said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > It does not take a college degree to read a graph.  Plot 400 ppm (the current CO2 level) on the upper graph and see where you end up.
> ...



So you believe that the entire 130 years of global temperature = garbage! Do you have any data sets of the same period that you don't think are garbage?


----------



## Meister (Mar 9, 2014)

So you and mr. Ocean engineer don't mind tainted data as long as it falls in line with your premise.  I understand that, just ignore it and it never happened.  By the way we're just taling about the last 40 years.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 9, 2014)

Meister said:


> So you and mr. Ocean engineer don't mind tainted data as long as it falls in line with your premise.  I understand that, just ignore it and it never happened.  By the way we're just taling about the last 40 years.



Oh''I do mind rather it is tainted or not. I just wish to see a data set that you believe isn't?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> You are one sick puppy. Tell me your degree. And I will validate it or not.



He claims to be an engineer.  Any engineer who makes as many basic errors as he does should be put out to pasture.  Personally, I believe that maybe he fetches coffee for an engineer, or maybe empties an engineer's garbage can a couple of times a day.  One would hope that even an engineer who graduated dead last in his class would not make as many basic errors as he does.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> It does not take a college degree to read a graph.  Plot 400 ppm (the current CO2 level) on the upper graph and see where you end up.
> 
> As to the temps, look at the graph below and see what they look like in 1950.  Measure the vertical difference between 1950 and today.
> 
> ...



Data tampering at it's best.  I really can't believe that you simply take garbage like that on faith.

Here is what the temperatures looked like back in the 70's before the advent of the hoax.






An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Compare...











http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Mar 9, 2014)

I don't believe in made-made global warming. That being said - the earth is getting hotter, people ... get your heads out of your asses!


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Some of those graphs are a riot.  Did you notice the one from the Vostok ice cores?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are such a whining baby..  When I looked at the ORNL vostok data points, the time increments for EARLY DATA were in decades.  Here youASSSUME that ice core data would exactly replicate todays conditions..  BEFORE YOU call out assholes ,  check the mirror Bullwinkle.  As soon as I get to a real computer,  I will SHOW you what that data can and cannot do......


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 9, 2014)

I put some * for temperature of the 1955-1977 graph SSDD shown onto the GISS Graph. Certainly SSDDs is slightly warmer for the start....

This was exactly within the middle of the cold period/pause. I'd like to see this extended back another 40 years.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 9, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of those graphs are a riot.  Did you notice the one from the Vostok ice cores?
> ...



Whining baby?  Do you support teaching our children falsehoods to protect corporate profits at the expense of the rest of the human species?  What the fuck is wrong with you people?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 9, 2014)

I thought not.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



This has NOTHING to do our future children.. (perish the thought).... It has to do with your inability to read and interpret data.. You're looking at 400,000 yrs of history there and whining like a baby because 50 yrs of that record was not represented. 50 yrs on that scale is about ONE PIXEL WIDE on large monitor. It would be foolish to expect that to matter. 

FURTHERMORE -- the data set ITSELF will never replicate the modern temperature record with any amount of accuracy because it's ICE CORES --- not thermometer data.. In FACT -- here are the first (most modern) sample points in the data.. 

Vostok, Antarctica
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat

 Depth   Age     DU Content Temp Variation
  (m)    (yr BP)   (delta D)    (deg C)

   0          0       -438.0          0.00
   1         17       -438.0         0.00
   2         35       -438.0         0.00
   3         53       -438.0         0.00
   4         72       -438.0         0.00
   5         91       -438.0         0.00
   6        110       -438.0        0.00

Using this methodology -- the first 100 yrs (from 1999 in this case) show NO temperature variation over the top 6 meters of ice. 

HOWEVER -- the site you babies are whining about DID PRODUCE ANOTHER chart which I discussed above that BLEW UP THE SCALE on the last 5,000 yrs or so of ice proxy data... 






So the site in question did the logical and rational thing giving the 400,000 yr overview in ONE slide and a magnified view of recent history in ANOTHER. Anyone whining about that -- has never prepared data for presentation.. YOU DON'T GET SUFFICIENT TEMPORAL RESOLUTION TO RECORD RECENT TEMP HISTORY in these ice cores.. *Duuuuuhhhhh..*. 

Any other phoney tantrums from the peanut gallery before bedtime?


----------

