# Global Warming is happening...on Mars



## theHawk (May 15, 2011)

Explain this one warmers:




> In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
> 
> Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the *Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun*.
> 
> "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.



Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says



Or is this another one of those times we need to conveniently leave out science?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2011)

SUV's on Mars. Has to be! Nothing else fits the facts.


----------



## Sherry (May 15, 2011)

Men are from Mars....GW Bush is a man....so it's Bush's fault.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Explain this one warmers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



God ol' friday! Don't you even bother to investigate the facts before you post your stupidity for all to see!

The total solar irradiance has been decreasing since 1960. 

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Explain this one warmers:
> ...



Did you bother to even skim the article before turning into a AGW Zombie?

"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row."


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2011)

Greg's TSI Page

welcome to pmodwrc

RCimate Script: Recent Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Trends | Climate Charts & Graphs


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2011)

Yes, and at the same time Uranas is cooling. 
Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting


t is hard to understand how anyone could claim global warming is happening on Mars when we can&#8217;t even agree what&#8217;s happening on the planet we live on. Yet they do, and the alleged reasoning is this; if other planets are warming up, then there is some solar system-wide phenomena at work &#8211; and therefore that it isn&#8217;t human activity causing climate change here on Earth.

The broadest counter argument depends on a simple premise: we know so little about Mars that it's impossible to say what trends in climate the planet is experiencing, or why changes occur. We do have information from various orbiting missions and the few lander explorations to date, yet even this small amount of data has been misunderstood, in terms of causal complexity and significance.

There are a few basic points about the climate on Mars that are worth reviewing:

Planets do not orbit the sun in perfect circles, sometimes they are slightly closer to the sun, sometimes further away. This is called orbital eccentricity and it contributes far greater changes to Martian climate than to that of the Earth because variations in Mars' orbit are five times greater than the Earth. 
Mars has no oceans and only a very thin atmosphere, which means there is very little thermal inertia &#8211; the climate is much more susceptible to change caused by external influences. 
The whole planet is subject to massive dust storms, and these have many causal effects on the planet&#8217;s climate, very little of which we understand yet. 
We have virtually no historical data about the climate of Mars prior to the 1970s, except for drawings (and latterly, photographs) that reveal changes in gross surface features (i.e. features that can be seen from Earth through telescopes). It is not possible to tell if current observations reveal frequent or infrequent events, trends or outliers.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Greg's TSI Page
> 
> welcome to pmodwrc
> 
> RCimate Script: Recent Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Trends | Climate Charts & Graphs



Did you realize that the charts you posted make a mockery of your statement that "The total solar irradiance has been decreasing since 1960."?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, and at the same time Uranas is cooling.
> Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting
> 
> 
> ...



You're telling us you've eliminated all other variables in Earth based climate expect for a 60PPM increase in CO2 but you can never show us how this happen....why is that?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2011)

Hmm....  About a 110 ppm increase in CO2, which is about a 40% increase over the pre-industrial amount, 280 ppm. It has been about 15 million years since we have had this much CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, during the last interglacial, the level reached 300 ppm, and the sea level was about 6 meters higher than today. 

Given the rapidity with which we have put CO2 into the atmosphere, the cryosphere has not had time to respond, but one can clearly see the trend in the melting of the glaciers, land based icecaps, and the Arctic Ice.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmm....  About a 110 ppm increase in CO2, which is about a 40% increase over the pre-industrial amount, 280 ppm. It has been about 15 million years since we have had this much CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, during the last interglacial, the level reached 300 ppm, and the sea level was about 6 meters higher than today.
> 
> Given the rapidity with which we have put CO2 into the atmosphere, the cryosphere has not had time to respond, but one can clearly see the trend in the melting of the glaciers, land based icecaps, and the Arctic Ice.



Show us how a 110PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature in a laboratory setting


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2011)

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



Still can't do it.  Big Surprise


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2011)

*I love these threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Post up something like this and the environmental radicals have a mental meltdown. Its like a stampede of slugs heading for a dish of beer.


Its like I said in a post last week. The environmental radicals like Old Rocks need to perpetuate "global warming" the ensure their mere existence. Imagine the life of social invalids like Chris and Old Rocks when the scam is completely exposed. Their lives are basically over.

Who couldnt guess that Old Rocks response to this thread woudnt be to post up 1,000 links?????????????????????????????????


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2011)

Hey Rocks.........I dont think you posted up enough links to repudiate.................


Go.............go...............go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> ...





He posts up that link 40 times/week!!! As if it were 2006!!!!


----------



## wirebender (May 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmm....  About a 110 ppm increase in CO2, which is about a 40% increase over the pre-industrial amount, 280 ppm. It has been about 15 million years since we have had this much CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, during the last interglacial, the level reached 300 ppm, and the sea level was about 6 meters higher than today.



Tell me rocks; how hot do you believe the 400 CO2 atoms in any given million parts of air must get in order to raise the temperature of the other 999,600 atoms even by the smallest measurable amount?  Several hundreds of degrees would be my best estimate, but feel free to tell me how hot you believe they would have to get and then describe the mechanism by which you believe they achieve that temperature.



Old Rocks said:


> Given the rapidity with which we have put CO2 into the atmosphere, the cryosphere has not had time to respond, but one can clearly see the trend in the melting of the glaciers, land based icecaps, and the Arctic Ice.



Again, you completely ignore the fact that the melting has been going on for some 14,000 years now.  The glaciers had melted back almost 2000 miles and sea level had risen some 600 feet before the egyptians built the pyramids.  Explain that given your delusion that CO2 drives the climate.


----------



## wirebender (May 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



Which part of that apparent bible verse do you believe answers the challenge that was made?  You keep posting it as if it were a mantra, but the fact is that it proves nothing and doesn't even reference anything approaching proof.  It is based on assumption and the "science" it references is also based on assumption.  Nothing there is anything like proof rocks.


----------



## wirebender (May 16, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> He posts up that link 40 times/week!!! As if it were 2006!!!!



It is like a religious mantra to him.  I have read it from beginning to end and I can't imagine which part of it he beleives constitutes proof of anything.  Nothing there mentions any experimental proof, or hard observation, or repeatable result of any kind.  The mental state required to actually believe that that represents proof is just sad and an indictment on the public school system of wherever he went to school.


----------



## konradv (May 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> It is like a religious mantra to him.  I have read it from beginning to end and I can't imagine which part of it he beleives constitutes proof of anything.  Nothing there mentions any experimental proof, or hard observation, or repeatable result of any kind.  The mental state required to actually believe that that represents proof is just sad and an indictment on the public school system of wherever he went to school.



Like you don't have your own mantras!  What about "But CO2 is just a trace gas".  Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't mean it can't trap energy.  Trap enough and temps will rise.  Don't see how you get around that one.  In all your posts you never seem to explain that.  WHY???  My guess is because your objections are mainly political, since neither science nor logic are on your side, as evidenced by your ridicule of the Greenhouse Effect, a well-established scientific principle.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > It is like a religious mantra to him.  I have read it from beginning to end and I can't imagine which part of it he beleives constitutes proof of anything.  Nothing there mentions any experimental proof, or hard observation, or repeatable result of any kind.  The mental state required to actually believe that that represents proof is just sad and an indictment on the public school system of wherever he went to school.
> ...




Mars s0n...........another thorn in the side of the perpetually duped!!!


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > It is like a religious mantra to him.  I have read it from beginning to end and I can't imagine which part of it he beleives constitutes proof of anything.  Nothing there mentions any experimental proof, or hard observation, or repeatable result of any kind.  The mental state required to actually believe that that represents proof is just sad and an indictment on the public school system of wherever he went to school.
> ...






My objections are based on science.  Uniformitarianism is the backbone of modern scientific thought and all theories must deal with that underlying principle of the hard physical sciences.  Climatology is not a hard physical science as you have no doubt figured out.  Any science that allows the use of computer models as a primary scientific exploration tool is by definition not an exact science.

Nice try but you lose yet again.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Like hell your objections are based on science. Almost all scientists totally disagree with your nonsense. Uniformitarianism has zero to do with the rapid increase we are seeing in the temperatures. And it has happened several times before in geological history. 

Your uniformitarianism shit line is getting old. Change the conditions, in this case the composition of the atmosphere, and you get a change in related systems. 

Once again, Walleyes, you are a liar, and not even a very accomplished one. You flapping yap about uniformitarianism is no differant than what the goofs did when Bretz presented his evidence.

And your idiocy about the primary tool being computer models is just another idiocy on your part to divert attention from the research that has been done on the decrease in outgoing infrared at the critical wavelengths, the research showing the huge increase of heat in the oceans, the acidification of the oceans, and so many other lines of research. The computer models are trying to get a handle on what we can expect in the future, so that we can prepare.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






  UNIFORMITARIANISM NEVER GET'S OLD FOOL!  IT IS THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF GEOLOGY AND IF YOU HAD REALLY TAKEN THREE YEARS OF COLLEGE GEOLOGY YOU WOULD KNOW THAT!

However, now that we know you are a dropout from the Charter School for mathematicaly challenged children your complete lack of scientific comprehension is understandable.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2011)

westwall said:


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



LOLOLOLOL.....if you had taken more than three minutes to skim a denier cult blog article about the subject, you would know that only half of what is called "Uniformitarianism" could be called the underlying principle of geology and the other half is problematic and not widely accepted. Neither one is particularly relevant to AGW and nothing about this means what you seem to imagine it means. Once again you just demonstrate what a clueless anti-science nitwit you are when you prattle on about something you obviously don't understand.

*Uniformitarianism*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Gould expounded on similar propositions in Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle (1987), stating that Lyell conflated two different types of propositions: a pair of methodological assumptions with a pair of substantive hypotheses. The four together make up Lyell's uniformitarianism.[16]

Methodological assumptions

The two methodological assumptions are universally acclaimed by scientists, and embraced by all geologists. Gould further states that these philosophical propositions must be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science. "You cannot go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the working of unknown processes. It works the other way around." You first assume these propositions and "then you go to the out crop of rock."[17]

    * 'Uniformity of law across time and space: Natural laws are constant across space and time.[18]

    The axiom of uniformity of law is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past. As James Hutton wrote: If the stone, for example, which fell today, were to rise again tomorrow, there would be an end of natural philosophy [i.e. science], our principles would fail, and we would no longer investigate the rules of nature from our observations.[19] In essence, the constancy of natural laws must be assumed in our study of the past, because if we do not, then we cannot meaningfully study the past. Making inferences about the past is wrapped up in the difference between studying the observable present and the unobservable past. In the observable present, induction can be regarded as self-corrective. That is to say, erroneous beliefs about the observable world can be proven wrong and corrected by other observations. This is Popper's principle of falsifiability. However, past processes are not observable by their very nature. Therefore, in order to come to conclusions about the past, we must assume the invariance of nature's laws.[18]

    "The assumption of spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws is by no means unique to geology since it amounts to a warrant for inductive inference which, as Bacon showed nearly four hundred years ago, is the basic mode of reasoning in empirical science. Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore, no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations. (Since the assumption is itself vindicated by induction, it can in no way prove the validity of induction - an endeavor virtually abandoned after Hume demonstrated its futility two centuries ago)."[20]

    "Uniformity is an unprovable postulate justified, or indeed required, on two grounds. First, nothing in our incomplete but extensive knowledge of history disagrees with it. Second, only with this postulate is a rational interpretation of history possible, and we are justified in seekingas scientists we must seeksuch a rational interpretation."[21]

    * Uniformity of process across time and space: If a past phenomenon can be understood as the result of a process now acting in time and space, do not invent an extinct or unknown cause as its explanation.[17]

    Though similar to the uniformity of law, this deals with geological causes, not physico-chemical laws. We should try to explain the past by causes now in operation without inventing extra, fancy, or unknown causes, however plausible in logic, if available processes suffice.[17] This is known as the scientific principle of parsimony or Occam's razor.

    "Strict uniformitarianism may often be a guarantee against pseudo-scientific phantasies and loose conjectures, but it makes one easily forget that the principle of uniformity is not a law, not a rule established after comparison of facts, but a methodological principle, preceding the observation of facts . . . It is the logical principle of parsimony of causes and of economy of scientific notions. By explaining past changes by analogy with present phenomena, a limit is set to conjecture, for there is only one way in which two things are equal, but there are an infinity of ways in which they could be supposed different."[22]

    Gould simplified the issue, noting that Lyell's uniformity of process was also an assumption: As such, it is another a priori methodological assumption shared by all scientists and not a statement about the empirical world.[23]

Substantive hypotheses

The substantive hypotheses were controversial and, in some cases, accepted by few.[16] These hypotheses are judged true or false on empirical grounds through scientific observation and repeated experimental data. This is in contrast with the previous two philosophical assumptions[17] that come before one can do science and so cannot be tested or falsified by science.

    * Uniformity of rate across time and space: Change is typically slow, steady, and gradual.[17]

    Uniformity of rate (or Gradualism) is what most people (including geologists) think of when they hear the word uniformitarianism," confusing this hypothesis with the entire definition. As late as 1990, Lemon, in his textbook of stratigraphy, affirmed that The uniformitarian view of earth history held that all geologic processes proceed continuously and at a very slow pace.[24]

    Gould explained Hutton's view of uniformity of rate; mountain ranges or grand canyons are built by accumulation of near insensible changes added up through vast time. Some major events such as floods, earthquakes, and eruptions, do occur. But these catastrophes are strictly local. They neither occurred in the past, nor shall happen in the future, at any greater frequency or extent than they display at present. In particular, the whole earth is never convulsed at once.[25]

    * Uniformity of state across time and space: Change is evenly distributed throughout space and time.[26]

    The uniformity of state hypothesis (i.e. steady-stateism) implies that throughout the history of our earth there is no progress in any inexorable direction. The planet has almost always looked and behaved as it does now. Change is continuous, but leads nowhere. The earth is in balance: a dynamic steady state.[26]

20th century

Stephen Jay Gould's first scientific paper, Is uniformitarianism necessary? (1965), reduced these four interpretations to two, methodological and substantive uniformitarianism.[27] He dismissed the first principle, which asserted spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws, as no longer an issue of debate. He rejected the second as an unjustified limitation on scientific inquiry, as it constrains past geologic rates and conditions to those of the present. So, uniformitarianism was unnecessary.

Uniformitarianism was originally proposed in contrast to catastrophism, which states that the distant past "consisted of epochs of paroxysmal and catastrophic action interposed between periods of comparative tranquility"[28] Especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most geologists took this interpretation to mean that catastrophic events are not important in geologic time; one example of this is the debate of the formation of the Channeled Scablands due to the catastrophic Missoula glacial outburst floods. An important result of this debate and others was the re-clarification that, while the same principles operate in geologic time, catastrophic events that are infrequent on human time-scales can have important consequences in geologic history.[29] Derek Ager has noted that geologists do not deny uniformitarianism in its true sense, that is to say, of interpreting the past by means of the processes that are seen going on at the present day, so long as we remember that the periodic catastrophe is one of those processes. Those periodic catastrophes make more showing in the stratigraphical record than we have hitherto assumed.[30]

Even Charles Lyell thought that ordinary geological processes would cause Niagara Falls to move upstream to Lake Erie within 10,000 years, leading to catastrophic flooding of a large part of North America.

Unlike Lyell, modern geologists do not apply uniformitarianism in the same way. They question if rates of processes were uniform through time and only those values measured during the history of geology are to be accepted.[31] The present may not be a long enough key to penetrate the deep lock of the past.[32] Geologic processes may have been active at different rates in the past that humans have not observed. By force of popularity, uniformity of rate has persisted to our present day. For more than a century, Lyells rhetoric conflating axiom with hypotheses has descended in unmodified form. Many geologists have been stifled by the belief that proper methodology includes an a priori commitment to gradual change, and by a preference for explaining large-scale phenomena as the concatenation of innumerable tiny changes.[25]

The current consensus is that Earth's history is a slow, gradual process punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants.[33] In practice it is reduced from Lyell's conflation to simply the two philosophical assumptions. This is also known as the principle of geological actualism, which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action. The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology.*


***


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 17, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > It is like a religious mantra to him.  I have read it from beginning to end and I can't imagine which part of it he beleives constitutes proof of anything.  Nothing there mentions any experimental proof, or hard observation, or repeatable result of any kind.  The mental state required to actually believe that that represents proof is just sad and an indictment on the public school system of wherever he went to school.
> ...



Science requires a few things. One is repeatable experiments. You haven't even got ONE experiment that shows anything claimed by the CO2 theory. You make the claim, it is not OUR job to disprove it, it is your job to PROVE it.

Scientifically it is a fact that before global warming became the end all be all argument of the kooks and crazies it was accepted that as CO2 went up it had a DIMINISHING effect on its supposed ability to retain heat. Further it is scientifically proven that rising CO2 FOLLOWS raising temperatures, it does not LEAD them.

Further there is no evidence that the sea levels are rising any faster now then before the claim of man made global warming. And the argument about arctic sea ice has been shown to be the canard it is. I believe the low year was 2005 and since then every year the ice has GROWN. Further the hottest year was 1998. CO2 kept going up, why didn't temperatures?

It is your theory, it is your job to USE science, not guessing, to prove your theory. Or at least make it plausible.


----------



## wirebender (May 17, 2011)

konradv said:


> Like you don't have your own mantras!  What about "But CO2 is just a trace gas".



Feel free to point to any post of mine in which I rely on such a statement as evidence to support my position.



konradv said:


> Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't mean it can't trap energy.



You are right.  The fact that it is a trace gas has nothing to do with its inability to trap energy.  Of course it can't but it is because of the composition of the molecule itself and has nothing to do with the amount of molecules there are.

Lets do a little thought experiment and pretend for a few minutes that CO2 could absorb and retain IR energy.  OK.  Lets section out a million parts of air.  In that million parts, lets say that there are 400 parts (for the sake of argument) of CO2.  

How hot do you suppose those 400 parts would have to get in order to effectively raise the temperature of the surrounding 999,600 parts?  Do keep in mind that convection and conduction are constantly working towards carrying all the energy into space.

You have 400 molecules trying to heat up 999,600 molecules with energy escaping all the time.  How hot do those molecules have to be in order to raise the temperature of the other 999,600 molecules by even the smallest signifigant amount?  My best estimate is several hundred degrees to raise the overall temperature of the surrounding molecules by even a one hundredth of a degree.  How hot do you suppose they would have to get?  Now, where do you suppose they would get enough energy to become hot enough to raise the temperature of the surrounding molecules.  They can't get any hotter than the heat radiating from the earth; conservation of energy and all; so where does the energy come from to heat them up to several hundred degrees?

Here is your opportunity to explain how you think this happens.  I certainly have no problem explaining myself, how about you?



konradv said:


> Trap enough and temps will rise.   Don't see how you get around that one.



Of course if you trap enough energy, temperatures will rise.  The problem for you is that CO2 can't trap energy.  It absorbs energy and immediately emits precisely the same amount of energy it absorbed.  Its emission spectrum proves that beyond any doubt.  If it retained any of the energy that it absorbed, its emission spectrum would not be precisely the opposite of its absorption spectrum.

I don't see how you get around that one.



konradv said:


> In all your posts you never seem to explain that.  WHY???



I have explained it repeately konradv and just explained it again.  I explained to you why water vapor can absorb energy when you didn't know that.  I am able to explain any claim that I make and further, am able to explain it in my own words because I actually grasp the material.



konradv said:


> My guess is because your objections are mainly political, since neither science nor logic are on your side, as evidenced by your ridicule of the Greenhouse Effect, a well-established scientific principle.



Do feel free to point out any political objections to climate science that I have made.  Building a strawman to attack is never a good debate strategy.  When it is exposed, your position only looks weaker.

The "greenhouse" effect is an old principle and one that has been dragged around by climate scientists for a couple of decades now like a worn out teddy bear that provides some security.  As to being well established, I'm afraid not.  There isn't a shred of hard, observed repeatable data to support it.  There are, however a growing number of peer reviewed papers that refute it as applied to the atmosphere.  Papers which, by the way, your priests avoid like the plague.  They attempt no rebuttal as the science is clearly over their heads.

Your buds on the board have repeatedly failed to provide any hard, observed evidence to support the notion that CO2 can absorb and retain energy.  Perhaps you can provide some.  You certainly haven't so far.


----------



## sparky (May 17, 2011)

the science of dismanteling science has a glowing hot spot in climatology.....


----------



## editec (May 17, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Explain this one warmers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes, that is _very _interesting.

*



			<H1 class=articleHeadline>Solar activity reaches new high
		
Click to expand...

*


> *Dec 2, 2003 *
> 
> Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years. Ilya Usoskin and colleagues at the University of Oulu and the Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy say that their technique &#8211; which relies on a radioactive dating technique - is the first direct quantitative reconstruction of solar activity based on physical, rather than statistical, models (I G Usoskin _et al._ 2003 _Phys. Rev. Lett._ *91* 211101)
> 
> ...


</H1> 
source


----------



## IanC (May 17, 2011)

sparky said:


> the science of dismanteling science has a glowing hot spot in climatology.....



lol, exactly! you probably werent referencing the missing tropical hotspot but that is a major proof that computer models just dont describe reality!

all theories have to start with understanding the simplest scenarios. with climate the simplest area is the equatorial band where most of the energy from the sun is collected. once you get away from the equator you have many more complexities from heat transfers by Hadley cells and ocean currents, etc. that is why the tropics are the most stable and polewards is more unpredictible. eg tropical temps have warmed or cooled the least.

if climate understanding and especially climate models dont work for the tropics, how can we have any faith that they work for the much more chaotic and non-linear areas away from the equator? where is the tropical hotspot? why isnt atmospheric CO2 acting and reacting the way the theories predict, even in the simplest area of the system?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



*Now are you really this stupid? There is a lot of natural variation in nature. 2007 was a very low year with the Arctic Ice. 2008, 2009, were both a little better, but 2010 was second to 2007.

The hottest years were 1998, 2005, and 2010. There was no statistically significant differance between them. And the mean for the period from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any of the high points of the mean in the previous satellite record. That according to Dr. Spencer at the University of Alabama.*

UAH Temperature Update for April, 2011: +0.12 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

*And where did you get that twaddle about sea level rise? Cracker Jacks box? All the scientific agencies that do the data state differantly*

Is sea level rising?

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century. 

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century. 

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting. 

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900. 

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year. 

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2011)

editec said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Explain this one warmers:
> ...



*Yet by 2008, we had a record minimum of sunspots. But the temperatures continued to go up. 2008, with a strong La Nina, and a record minimum, scored as the tenth warmest year on record in the last 180. 2010, with a moderate El Nino, and, at the end, a very strong La Nina, tied 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year on record. 2011, starting with a very strong La Nina, could only just break below the zero line for the first three months, and the fourth month, April, was positve, and the seventh warmest April on record.*

Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age - NASA Science

Sept. 30, 2008: Astronomers who count sunspots have announced that 2008 is now the "blankest year" of the Space Age.

As of Sept. 27, 2008, the sun had been blank, i.e., had no visible sunspots, on 200 days of the year. To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go back to 1954, three years before the launch of Sputnik, when the sun was blank 241 times.

"Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. "We're experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle." 

A spotless day looks like this:


----------



## wirebender (May 17, 2011)

sparky said:


> the science of dismanteling science has a glowing hot spot in climatology.....



Perhaps you would be more accurate if you said the science of dismantling pseudoscience has a glowing hot spot in climatology.  There is precious little actual science within climatology.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2011)

wirebender said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > the science of dismanteling science has a glowing hot spot in climatology.....
> ...






No, I think Sparky is correct.  Climatologists are constantly attacking the hard sciences (you know the sciences that actually use empirical data) in an effort to discredit any who disagree with them.  Climatology is actively attacking science and it's methodologies.  Sparky is correct.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 17, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, and at the same time Uranas is cooling.
> ...


Why yes!  yes he is!

CO2 is MAAAAAAGICAL!!!!!

at least the CO2 man produces.  that natural CO2... it's not magical!  It's just... you know... gas.


----------



## hendrickL (May 18, 2011)

this is really interesting if it's really true.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2011)

westwall said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...



Getting deep into the bullshit and lies again, there, old boy. Links? No? Of course not, because this is just another lie.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Was Phil Jones lying when he said there's been no Global Warming?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



No, Frank, you are lying because Jones did not say that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Can't be any clearer than that


----------



## konradv (May 18, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Thanks for pointing out youir own lie, Frank.    Anyone with even the tiniest bit of reading comprehension can see he DID NOT say there was no Global Warming.  The part now in BOLD plainly shows A) the question was time limited and B) they were talking about "statistical significance".  This is just another example of a denier talking out of both sides of their mouth, because if I'd posted something like that, someone would be on me in a minute saying "correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I will post it in a way a 4th grader can understand

Prosecutor: Did you murder Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown?

OJ: Yes, but only recently and not in a statistically significant sort of way

See, they key here is, much like Phil Jones hiding the decline, the admission that theres been no warming in the Manmade Global Warming


----------



## GHook93 (May 18, 2011)

It's all the Greenhouse gases the Martians (Capitalist as Hugo Chavez called them) are burning!



theHawk said:


> Explain this one warmers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## konradv (May 18, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I was right!!!  Your stupidity know no bounds!!!  I presume in your analogy Murder = GW?

If so, then "OJ's" answer was "YES".  It's in black-and-white in your own post!  Now also in BOLD, since you're not too quick on the uptake.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Right, OJ's answer is Yes and so was Phil Jones.

Glad you finally caught on


----------



## konradv (May 18, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I know, he said "Yes, there is Global Warming".  Don't what you're laughing at excepting that you're suddenly realizing what a fool you are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Is English not your first language?  How many lobotomies have been performed on you, I mean so far this week?

BBC: There's been no Global Warming

Jones: Yes

Are there any adults nearby that can read this to you?


----------



## RWatt (May 22, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Lets do a little thought experiment and pretend for a few minutes that CO2 could absorb and retain IR energy.  OK.  Lets section out a million parts of air.  In that million parts, lets say that there are 400 parts (for the sake of argument) of CO2.
> 
> How hot do you suppose those 400 parts would have to get in order to effectively raise the temperature of the surrounding 999,600 parts?  Do keep in mind that convection and conduction are constantly working towards carrying all the energy into space.



They only have to be slightly warmer than their surroundings for their surroundings to warm up over time.

Think of GHG molecules as tiny engines that convert some of the passing IR into heat. GHG molecules will absorb passing IR and some of that absorbed energy will go into increased vibrations and collisions with neighboring molecules passing heat along. If you have enough of these tiny machines throughout the atmosphere you get a general warming effect.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 22, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Are you a moron?

Phil Jones agrees that there's been no warming


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 22, 2011)

RWatt said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Lets do a little thought experiment and pretend for a few minutes that CO2 could absorb and retain IR energy.  OK.  Lets section out a million parts of air.  In that million parts, lets say that there are 400 parts (for the sake of argument) of CO2.
> ...



Sounds interesting.  

Can you show us one single repeatable laboratory experiment where a 60PPM increase gives those tiny CO2 warming engines the opportunity to raise temperatures as you allege?


----------



## daveman (May 22, 2011)

sparky said:


> the science of dismanteling science has a glowing hot spot in climatology.....



Indeed.  The AGW cultists certainly are making a mockery of science, aren't they?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 22, 2011)

Indeed, Daveboy, you are making a mockery of the idea that Conservatives have any brains at all. 

The 'cultists' include virtually every Scientific Society on this planet, every National Academy of Science, and every major University. NASA, NOAA, USGS, and every like agency of other nations have vast amounts of data demonstrating the warming of our planet. 

It is people like yourself that are cultists, refusing to look at or try to understand the data the scientists are presenting.


----------



## daveman (May 22, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Indeed, Daveboy, you are making a mockery of the idea that Conservatives have any brains at all.
> 
> The 'cultists' include virtually every Scientific Society on this planet, every National Academy of Science, and every major University. NASA, NOAA, USGS, and every like agency of other nations have vast amounts of data demonstrating the warming of our planet.
> 
> It is people like yourself that are cultists, refusing to look at or try to understand the data the scientists are presenting.


Stamping your feet and pouting are not compelling arguments, guy.


----------



## Sallow (May 22, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Explain this one warmers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well it looks as if Mars is teeming with life as well..right?

If we continue the way we are..the earth will resemble mars in more ways then one.


----------



## RWatt (May 22, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



I am not personally familiar with this area of science other than the overview to know individual lab experiments.


----------



## daveman (May 22, 2011)

Sallow said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Explain this one warmers:
> ...



Wait...I thought only conservatives fear-mongered.


----------



## Sallow (May 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



It's not "fear mongering". It's science.

You can't keep dumping crap alien to the environment into the soil, water and air and hope for a good outcome.


----------



## daveman (May 22, 2011)

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


"ZOMG we're gonna kill every last thing on Earth if we don't adopt world socialism!!" isn't fear-mongering?

Uh huh.


----------



## Sallow (May 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...





Keep those logical leaps coming boys and girls.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 22, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Except to an acolyte of the Chicken Little Cult.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 22, 2011)

Sallow said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Explain this one warmers:
> ...


Really?  And we know this from whom?  Science FICTION writers?  Did Heinlein tell you this to be true?  Or are we flashing back to that science documentary "Soylant Green"?

Straight line predictions are always wrong over time.


----------



## daveman (May 22, 2011)

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



If you don't like what you say being pointed out, don't say it.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 22, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Indeed, Daveboy, you are making a mockery of the idea that Conservatives have any brains at all.
> 
> The 'cultists' include virtually every Scientific Society on this planet, every National Academy of Science, and every major University. NASA, NOAA, USGS, and every like agency of other nations have vast amounts of data demonstrating the warming of our planet.
> 
> It is people like yourself that are cultists, refusing to look at or try to understand the data the scientists are presenting.


----------



## boedicca (May 22, 2011)

Oh No.  The Sun is HOT!

We're all gonna die.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 22, 2011)

This just in..................

Who knew?? Of course the Mars ice caps are melting..............scientists are now reporting that in fact, it is due to SUV volume in high traffic area's in the Northern Hemisphere of the planet.

Who knew??? But now it makes sense...................


----------



## skookerasbil (May 22, 2011)

IDK????

Given the certainty of global warming being due to levels of pollution in the earth.........according to the alarmists in here like Rolling Thunder, Rocks, Chris, Edcynic et. al...........thus the massive loss of ice in the Arctic.......then accordingly, we should be seeing cars, planes, trains, cows and smokestacks on the surface of Mars, right???

Now..........my eyes arent the best, but does anybody else see any man made or Martian made shit on the surface of Mars from the pic below???


----------



## RWatt (May 22, 2011)

I don't understand the mars thing.

The mars ice cap is made of frozen CO2. Because Mars has a high temperature variation between seasons the ice cap largely melts away in summer and then comes back in winter.

There will be a trend with the solar cycle, but there is no known longterm warming or cooling trend on mars because there have not been sufficient observations made.


----------



## konradv (May 23, 2011)

RWatt said:


> I don't understand the mars thing.
> 
> The mars ice cap is made of frozen CO2. *Because Mars has a high temperature variation between seasons the ice cap largely melts away in summer and then comes back in winter.*There will be a trend with the solar cycle, but there is no known longterm warming or cooling trend on mars because there have not been sufficient observations made.



But the skeptics would tell you it's exactly the same as earth!!!  Since it melts away on Mars due to the sun, it MUST BE the same on earth.  As you can see, the skeptics are short on logic.  Just because a given effect has one cause here, doesn't mean it couldn't have a different cause elsewhere.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2011)

Long term trend on planet Earth the past 14,000 years has been that glaciers have been melting.

AGW Cultists pretend Earth reached some "steady state" in 1850 and mankind alone restated glacial melting.

It's just not science.


----------



## konradv (May 23, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Long term trend on planet Earth the past 14,000 years has been that glaciers have been melting.
> 
> AGW Cultists pretend Earth reached some "steady state" in 1850 and mankind alone restated glacial melting.
> 
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Long term trend on planet Earth the past 14,000 years has been that glaciers have been melting.
> ...


----------



## daveman (May 23, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Believed?  AGW has to be believed?


It does for the goal of world socialism to be realized.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Long term trend on planet Earth the past 14,000 years has been that glaciers have been melting.
> ...


----------



## k2skier (May 23, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Explain this one warmers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. 

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years. 

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth. 

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. 

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said. 


Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface. 

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars. 

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin. 

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.


Mars and Earth are too different to compare, lame strawman, even for republicans, laughable...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2011)

k2skier said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Explain this one warmers:
> ...



Can you post one (1) repeatable laboratory experiment that verifies that a 60PPM increase in CO2 does ANY of the things you claim it does?

If not, why not?


----------



## freshie (May 25, 2011)

****sealevel.colorado.edu/content/new-web-site-new-sea-level-release*** (can't post links yet)

As we are becoming better at measuring global temperatures, it's becoming clear the AGW models are breaking down rather quickly.  The new frontier for the warmist crowd is that the oceans will rise up and swallow us.

The link above shows the source of this grossly exaggerated ocean rising.

It's pretty funny.  The warmist crowd is pushing the whole ocean swallowing us thing and their commander in chief (Al Gore) just bought a $9,000,000.00 ocean front property.  

I have to hand it to the guy.  He is one of the most brilliant salesman of all time.  He and his cohorts are making billions of dollars.  His marketing plan is brilliant.  The simplicity of his plan is based on only one element which is the hubris of Humanity.  The funniest part of his plan is that he is extracting the most money from his blind followers.


----------



## Meister (May 25, 2011)

freshie said:


> ****sealevel.colorado.edu/content/new-web-site-new-sea-level-release*** (can't post links yet)
> 
> As we are becoming better at measuring global temperatures, it's becoming clear the AGW models are breaking down rather quickly.  The new frontier for the warmist crowd is that the oceans will rise up and swallow us.
> 
> ...



Here you go:
New web site - new sea level release | CU Sea Level Research Group


----------



## Old Rocks (May 25, 2011)

New web site - new sea level release | CU Sea Level Research Group

GMSL Rate Updates
CU: 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/yr
AVISO: 3.25 ± 0.6 mm/yr
CSIRO: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr
NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)

New web site - new sea level release
Page edited: 2011-05-05 Steve Nerem's blog Share CloseShareWelcome to the new webpages from the University of Colorado sea level group! We apologize for the delay in updating our sea level releases, but the transition to these new web pages took longer than we thought. In addition, we have made many improvements to our data (new orbits, new tide model, new corrections) which ultimately had little effect on global mean sea level, but brought us up to date with the latest advances in the field.

One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), so you may notice that the rate of sea level rise is now 0.3 mm/year higher than earlier releases. This is a correction to account for the fact that the global ocean basins are getting slightly larger over time as mantle material moves from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. Simply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction.

You may also note that rate of sea level rise over recent years has been less than the long-term average. This is believed to be due to the recent La Nina's we have been experiencing, though research on this is continuing. We will soon add a plot to the web site illustrating this effect.

Let us know if you spot any bugs in the new web pages. Thanks for your interest!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 25, 2011)

:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC ::

Introduction
A very brief history of sea level: 

Over the last 140,000 years sea level has varied over a range of more than 120 metres. The most recent large change was an increase of more than 120 metres as the last ice age ended 
Sea level stabilised over the last few thousand years, and there was little change between about 1AD and 1800AD 
Sea level began to rise again in the 19th century and accelerated again in the early 20th century 
Satellite altimeter measurements show a rate of sea-level rise of about 3 mm/year since the early 1990s - a further increase in the rate


----------



## freshie (May 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Introduction
> A very brief history of sea level:
> 
> Over the last 140,000 years sea level has varied over a range of more than 120 metres. The most recent large change was an increase of more than 120 metres as the last ice age ended
> ...



Do you even look at the links you provide?

The first graph shows sea levels 120,000 years ago equal to what we have now.  Those SUVs now have the power to time travel I guess.

The second graph, with the scary red hockey stick is a quadratic fit to tide gauge estimates.  It's a freakin' best fit to an estimate.  For someone that likes to admonish people that the argument is settled, that's some pretty weak sauce.

The best thing about this site is there is no mention of the above adjustment.

Here's a link to OBSERVED sea levels.  They also show where the adjustments were made to help further the AGW argument:

***.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf*** (can't post links)

It's hilarious.  The AGW crowd is once again placing all their marbles in another theoretical "hockey stick model".  If you need a theoretical model, it's nowhere near settled.

Climate change - always has, always will


----------



## Meister (May 25, 2011)

freshie said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Introduction
> ...



Here ya go:
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf


----------



## RWatt (May 25, 2011)

freshie said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Introduction
> ...



No-one is arguing the recent sea level is higher than any point in history, just that sea level is rising and if it rises far enough there will be detrimental effects due to us having built a lot of our stuff just above present day sea level. 

120,000 years ago sea levels were not the same as today, they were about 15 feet higher than today. Well it must be fine then if it's happened before. If cities like New York survived 15 feet sea level rise 120,000 years ago there must be no problem if 6ft sea level rise happens today!

Well that's obviously illogical because New York wasn't around 120,000 years ago, but this is a great example of how things-happening-naturally-in-the-past doesn't automatically mean they are fine if they happen again today. A lot of global warming effects have happened at a greater scale in the past, not just sea level rise. The unique point today which makes such changes risky is this is the first time they will impact a civilization of 6 billion humans. 



> The second graph, with the scary red hockey stick is a quadratic fit to tide gauge estimates.  It's a freakin' best fit to an estimate.  For someone that likes to admonish people that the argument is settled, that's some pretty weak sauce.



I would think the red line was the most accurate.



> Here's a link to OBSERVED sea levels.  They also show where the adjustments were made to help further the AGW argument:
> 
> ***.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf*** (can't post links)



The PDF claims there has been no sea level rise since the 50s. This defies the ice sheet mass losses, and the warming since 1950 - both ocean surface and ocean heat content. Both of which would cause a sea level rise. Zero sea level rise since 1950 makes no sense.

And look at figure 10 in that PDF. Tilting graphs to remove the trend? I recommend the previous source over this one.


----------



## freshie (May 26, 2011)

RWatt said:


> freshie said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You did notice that the red line is an ESTIMATE, yet you offer up that is the most accurate.  That's completely laughable that someone would offer up an ESTIMATE as more accurate than observed empirical data.

Well that's ok.  If you look at the second graph, there is virtually no sea level rise in the last 40-50 years.  The red line is what a model tells you is going to happen.  Just like the Mann hockey stick.  Models aren't settled, otherwise they wouldn't call it a model, but a mathematical law.

So yeah, I'm ok with those figures because the observed sea rise in the last 40-50 years is flat.  It's just the scary red hockey stick ESTIMATE that is based on a model that is complete trash.  The only place these two links different is the doom and gloom red line ESTIMATE.  Warmists may want to actually provide links that support their arguments.

Now let's talk about how warmists think it's insignificant that sea levels were actually higher 120,000 years ago.  Are you serious?  It's VERY significant.  If they were actually higher 120,000 years ago then what caused it?  It wasn't SUVs or anything else that has to do with the human race, so what was it?  You don't think it's significant that there were sets of forces, completely non-human, that made the oceans rise that high?  Do you reject the possibility that these forces could be at work as we speak?  Guess what, if these non-human forces are at work their isn't a damn thing we can do about it except move inland.  I think it's absolutely hilarious that your commander in chief (Al Gore) is moving to the beach while his blind followers try to convince us that AGW is causing the oceans to swallow us up.

Climate Change - Always has, always will (Even 120,000 years ago)


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2011)

Satellite altimetry is measuring a 3 mm+ change per year at present. And, by almost everybodies measurements, it is accelerating.


----------



## freshie (May 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Satellite altimetry is measuring a 3 mm+ change per year at present. And, by almost everybodies measurements, it is accelerating.



Don't think so.  If you use a model or estimate you might be able to justify that.

Let's look at unadjusted empirical data:

***sealevel.colorado.edu*** (can't post links yet)

This is from a source the warmists have loved until the data started changing.  For those of you who know how to read a simple graph, notice the trend?  That's right, the oceans are actually receding now, just like they did 120,000 years ago.

Why do you think they decided to add the .3mm adjustment?  When you look at unadjusted empirical evidence, the oceans are in a receding trend.  You need to actually fabricate data to support the oceans rising.  It's freakin' hilarious all you guys are arguing with me while your commander in chief (Al Gore) moves into his $9,000,000.00 ocean front propeprty.  The guy's a complete genious.

Some would argue we shouldn't be looking at short term events.  A model is not settled until it can predict the short term.  The short term AGW model for the ocean rising is failing, yet people want to argue that the science is settled.  It's not settled, it's not a scientific law, and it fails the test of a theorem.  AGW is just another unproven postulate.  If you don't know what a theorem or postulate is, I once again laugh at you for telling us the science is settled.

Climate Change - always has, always will


----------



## Meister (May 26, 2011)

freshie said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Satellite altimetry is measuring a 3 mm+ change per year at present. And, by almost everybodies measurements, it is accelerating.
> ...



Let me help you with that:
CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado


----------



## daveman (May 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Satellite altimetry is measuring a 3 mm+ change per year at present. And, by almost everybodies measurements, it is accelerating.



Yeah.  Remember that episode of _Gilligan's Island_ where the Professor said the island was sinking?  Turns out Gilligan was tying a lobster trap to the Professor's gage and moving it our further into the lagoon every day.


----------



## Trakar (May 26, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Satellite altimetry is measuring a 3 mm+ change per year at present. And, by almost everybodies measurements, it is accelerating.
> ...



And you see this sitcom slapstick situation as analogous to multiple and continuous international satellite measurements over the last 3-4 decades how?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2011)

It is the only answer that Daveboy has.

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

Nice graph on this site. Note the run above the linear line from 2002 to 2007. The recent run from 2007 to 2010 has a steeper slope than the line. And the drop for 2011, due to a very strong La Nina, will have a steeper line yet, and rise significantly above the line. And by 2025, they will either have to make a new line, or bend that one upward at about 2012 or 2013. 

Now how is that for hanging my neck out? Are you willing to make a predicition that the sea level will decrease, or at least not accelerate?


----------



## daveman (May 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





Old Rocks said:


> It is the only answer that Daveboy has.
> 
> CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado
> 
> ...


This may come as a complete shock to you two, but sea levels went up and down long before man showed up.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2011)

My, my, so that will be consolation for drowning the world's great seaports? Sea level rises and falls for various reasons over geological time. The reason at present that we are seeing an accelerating sea level rise is the GHGs that we are pumping into the atmosphere.


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Indeed they did, in response to planetary warming and cooling, just as is happening now.


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> My, my, so that will be consolation for drowning the world's great seaports? Sea level rises and falls for various reasons over geological time. The reason at present that we are seeing an accelerating sea level rise is the GHGs that we are pumping into the atmosphere.



And how long will it take to drown the world's seaports at 3 millimeters a year?


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


Yes.  And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2011)

It was 1.8 mm per year not that long ago. And nature tends to do things in spurts, not the nice even lines you see on graphs. A 2 meter rise, which is likely by 2100 would critically damage many of the present ports.


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> It was 1.8 mm per year not that long ago. And nature tends to do things in spurts, not the nice even lines you see on graphs. A 2 meter rise, which is likely by 2100 would critically damage many of the present ports.


Obviously, global socialism is the only thing that will save us!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2011)

Yes, maybe the sea levels are rising. All over the planet there are massive, ancient cities now underwater.

Can you show me one repeatable laboratory experiment demonstrating how a 60PPM increase causes melting ice caps and raising seas?  If not, why not?


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

daveman said:


> Yes.  And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.



And?

Presumably you have a reason for stating the obvious and well evidenced.


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > It was 1.8 mm per year not that long ago. And nature tends to do things in spurts, not the nice even lines you see on graphs. A 2 meter rise, which is likely by 2100 would critically damage many of the present ports.
> ...



Who, beyond the strawman above, is proposing such?


----------



## Meister (May 27, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.  And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.
> ...



Your kidding, right?


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Not at all. 

Science knows, has compelling evidence of, and has a pretty solid understanding of the causes of nearly all the previous geologic periods of warming and cooling on our planet.

Just as it has a very good understanding of the current warming and the causes of that warming.


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.  And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.
> ...



Yeah.  Not every single adverse weather event can be blamed on American SUVs.


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Every single "solution" to AGW ultimately boils down to advocating world socialism.


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



No.  It _thinks_ it does.


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.

If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


I'm not a scientist, and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.

What I've seen calls the whole premise into question.  No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents, and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



For the most part, I could care less about the people, the politics or "the movement," my primary interest and focus is on the science. Knowing and understanding much of the science involved allows me to distinguish and seperate those who are accurately portraying it and those who are not. As long as they are remaining fairly accurate and in accord with the science, I'm really uninterested in any other aspect of their political or social spin or manuevering with regards to the science.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?

Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.

So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?

It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.


----------



## Meister (May 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before.  You will never admit that there was agenda driven science going on by the IPCC.  Get over it ol' boy.


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


The people are responsible for the science.  And their actions are irresponsible.


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


There is nothing I could show you that would sway you, Old Cultist.  Stop pretending you're interested in debate.  Your mind is as closed as any fundamentalist's.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2011)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Evidence for which is?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The evidence for which is?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Since you have yet to show anything from a scientific source, how would you know that?


----------



## Meister (May 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Go back over all the damn threads, roxie.  There has to be no less than 2 dozen of them.  It still won't change your mind what the truth actually is.  Your part of the cult movement, son.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2011)

As are all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities. In fact, as is just about any thinking person. Of course, that excludes you.


----------



## Meister (May 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> As are all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities. In fact, as is just about any thinking person. Of course, that excludes you.



  You put that broken record on again, huh?


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


According to AGW scientists, climate change has dire consequences for humanity.

Yet they refuse to share their work.  FOIA requests are delayed or ignored.  Methodologies are not revealed.  Dissenting studies are suppressed and dissenting scientists are punished.  

AGW scientists are more concerned about publication and grants than they are about humanity.

Like I said:  Irresponsible.


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


I have posted information from scientific sources.  You don't even read the damn articles.  Coward.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Which is simply a lie. They share their work all the time, you can find it in peer reviewed journals. What the dingleberries are doing is to create time consuming searches for details that are irrelevant.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Really?  They share it?  Then no one has ever had to file a FOIA request.

Oh, wait...

So, it's not a lie.  You idiot leftists need to learn that something you disagree with is not a lie.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


So what do the church 'scientists' think about the Earth revolving around the Sun, M. Galileo?  Are you ready to recant?

Science is always our 'best guess' of how things work based on empirical repeatable evidence.  That is how science is SUPPOSED to work.  Assert, then provide the evidence others can test.

But we've left this realm in climatology a long time ago and now base conclusions on assumption, innuendo and hearsay, otherwise known as models and mathematical projections.  Not the stuff of hard science, but of faith and philosophy.

Consensus of peer review was supposed to be, before it became absolutely corrupted, for the peers to then undertake their OWN study and repeat the experiments, discover where any errors may lie and then go forth.  But with only computer models and assumptions... It's not science, it's opinion with heavier math PRETENDING to be science and objective fact.


----------



## Greenbeard (May 28, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Explain this one warmers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I used to think there were three camps:


Those who accept anthropogenic forcings as a dominant driver of climate change.
Those who believe non-anthropogenic forcings are the dominant drivers of climate change.
Those who reject the notion that the climate is changing.
 
The last camp would be the "look, it's snowing!" folks or the "see, the oceans aren't rising, the ice isn't melting" people or those who challenge the measurement process or, presumably, those who issue challenges to "warmers." The middle camp are those folks who point to things like the Medieval Warm Period or alleged indirect evidence for increasing solar irradiance or other non-anthropogenic forcings to account for climate change.

But the more I look around, the more blurred the lines between those second and third camps become (despite the fact that, ostensibly, they hold completely opposite views on climate change). Rather, certain folks seem to seize on arguments for either position--non-anthropogenic forcings for climate change or no climate change at all--based only on what's expedient at the moment. Which implies their position has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of a current period of climate change at all. I suppose that's obvious but it's still rather disappointing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2011)

Warmers still cannot produce a single repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 spawns killer tornadoes, Cat 5 hurricanes (we were supposed to get at least one a year after Katrina, remember?) melts ice caps or even raises temperature


----------



## The T (May 28, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Warmers still cannot produce a single repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 spawns killer tornadoes, Cat 5 hurricanes (we were supposed to get at least one a year after Katrina, remember?) melts ice caps or even raises temperature


 
These idiots are living on an unproven _hypothesis driven by political goals._

That's all anyone needs to know. Peer review in their minds is a high five and a pat on the back...


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



This is your assertion and it is either supported by compelling and verifiable objective evidence, or it is not. I see no scientifically compelling evidence for what you assert. if you have compelling evidences please present them.



> Consensus of peer review was supposed to be, before it became absolutely corrupted, for the peers to then undertake their OWN study and repeat the experiments, discover where any errors may lie and then go forth.  But with only computer models and assumptions... It's not science, it's opinion with heavier math PRETENDING to be science and objective fact.



If you have access to compelling scientific evidence that refutes or supports an alternative to the mainstream scientific theories of AGW, please present your evidence and understandings


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ...(we were supposed to get at least one a year after Katrina, remember?)...



Please support this assertion with confirming reference or link.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

Meister said:


> Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before.  You will never admit that there was agenda driven science going on by the IPCC.  Get over it ol' boy.



Have you offered objectively compelling verifiable and generally unambiguous evidence that supports this contention of agenda-driven science? If so please link to, cite, or otherwise reference this material as I would be most interested in reviewing it. I have investigated and follwed climate science very closely for much of the last couple decades and am unaware of any such evidence.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

daveman said:


> The people are responsible for the science.  And their actions are irresponsible.



Quite possibly, in fact I'm sure that this is occassionally the case with individual researchers whether we are talking about the fields of Economics, Theoretical Physics, Climatology or any other field of scientific study. This, however, is not a reasonably compelling reason to throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, any more than one oddfellow's penchant for "tapping his toes" in airport bathrooms is a compelling reason to dismiss and discard centuries worth of socially conservative considerations and contributions to the modern political discourse.


----------



## Meister (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before.  You will never admit that there was agenda driven science going on by the IPCC.  Get over it ol' boy.
> ...



Dude....Just look in this forum for other threads, it all there....links....cites...or otherwise referenced material..  Your new so I won't hammer on you.  This has been hashed out before in this forum.  You do YOUR own homework.  I doubt that's what your looking for though. 

PS....it's a shame that the only remedy is a socialism remedy, huh?  curious about that.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I have always been under the impression that it was obligated upon the person making claims and assertions to provide supporting evidences of their claims and assertions.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > The people are responsible for the science.  And their actions are irresponsible.
> ...



The work of an irresponsible scientist should not be accepted at face value.  And AGW scientists are behaving irresponsibly.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


If solutions other than socialism were advocated, the motive wouldn't be questioned.


----------



## Meister (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Claims and assertions have been made....it's just an endless cycle.  Do your own homework with the other threads....it's all there.  I'm not going to waste my time to try and change your mind, that would be an act of futility, as you with me.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



There may be some instances of behaviors and circumstances that could be portrayed in the manner you speak of. These, however, are neither widespread nor all-inclusive with regards to climate science. More importantly, despite the few outlier instances where such may have occurred, it apparently didn't involve any actual distortion or manipulation of data or significant scientific findings, as the results of even the few contentious studies (with regards to such issues) have generally been in full accord with the findings of the multitude of fully open source and data studies that make up the bulk of the research into climate issues.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 28, 2011)

> This is your assertion and it is either supported by compelling and  verifiable objective evidence, or it is not. I see no scientifically  compelling evidence for what you assert. if you have compelling  evidences please present them.


Which is my exact point about your assertions.  But since I don't have to prove something DOESN'T exist, you must prove that it DOES exist, the onus is on you, bigboy.



> If you have access to compelling scientific evidence that refutes or  supports an alternative to the mainstream scientific theories of AGW,  please present your evidence and understandings


I'm sorry.  Are we now supposed to accept that pink dancing/singing elephants don't exist? You've proof to show they don't?

Where's your proof for your allegations that MANKIND is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for climatological change on a global scale through the production of 'greenhouse gases'.  Can you show me an experiment which I can repeat to confirm your assertations?

Just as a reminder, NASA, NOAA's surface stations, Mann/Jones and the East Anglia CRU have all been debunked as frauds in this manner, and therefore invalid as source material due to data bias (cherrypicked or deliberately biased placement of sensors) or deliberate deletion or false manufacture.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 28, 2011)

daveman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


There is allegorical proof that the issue is political and religious, not scientific.

I'm still waiting on my challenge for one private sector, non-governmental solution to the supposed problem.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Persuading private sector entities to invest in making their operations and communities carbon neutral have always been a large part of the push to address AGW issues.
Though many of the following sites and discussions include public sector encouragements of private sector action, the also include many plans, ideas and the record of past private sector actions to address climate change.

http://europa.eu/epc/pdf/workshop/4-6_ajay_narayanan_presentation_-__brussels_april_12_2011_en.pdf

UN Leadership Forum Discusses Private Sector Role in Climate Change Solution - Climate Change Policy & Practice

Ceres - Igniting 21st Century Solutions for a Sustainable Economy &mdash; Ceres (Mercer: Climate change poses risk and opportunities for investors &mdash; Ceres)

There is actually a wide panoply of voluntary private sector addressments that have and can be implemented to help address issues of climate change, unfortunately, we've already waited too late for private sector solutions alone to do more than assist larger efforts by individuals and governments. If massive private sector initiatives had been instigated and maintained 3-4 decades ago, it may have been possible to significantly and predominantly address the issues of AGW without the need for any major governmental addressments. But that is water under the bridge and there is little sense in going down that coulda, shoulda, woulda discussion.


----------



## Meister (May 28, 2011)

I guess we could just pay third world countries for our polluting sins like the UN wants us to.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 28, 2011)

> Persuading private sector entities to invest in making their operations  and communities carbon neutral have always been a large part of the push  to address AGW issues.


A solution for a problem that hasn't been improved to exist.  And if someone refuses?  Penalties under the law?  Fines, cost increases, extra governmental monitoring?  these are still government solutions unless someone can freely opt out.



> There is actually a wide panoply of voluntary private sector  addressments that have and can be implemented to help address issues of  climate change, unfortunately, we've already waited too late for private  sector solutions alone to do more than assist larger efforts by  individuals and governments.


Right.  The use of force.  Since voluntary programs haven't changed society because the problem cannot be proven to exist, we just have to force the issue and mandate it.

the whole point is to deliver global socialism/fascism.  Just as long as society bends to your will, eh?



> If massive private sector initiatives had been instigated and maintained  3-4 decades ago, it may have been possible to significantly and  predominantly address the issues of AGW without the need for any major  governmental addressments. But that is water under the bridge and there  is little sense in going down that coulda, shoulda, woulda discussion.



Once empirical proof of an actual crisis exists, I'd get behind solving it 100%.  Since the proof does not exist and nothing man could do can change it anyway... it's irrelevant.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > This is your assertion and it is either supported by compelling and  verifiable objective evidence, or it is not. I see no scientifically  compelling evidence for what you assert. if you have compelling  evidences please present them.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is my exact point about your assertions.  But since I don't have to prove something DOESN'T exist, you must prove that it DOES exist, the onus is on you, bigboy.



Science has made its case on the issues relating to AGW, you are making claims of fraud and conspiracy against those findings, it is up to you to support those assertions of fraud and conspiracy. Please provide the evidence that supports your assertions or leave them as the unsupportable assertions they appear to be.



> > If you have access to compelling scientific evidence that refutes or  supports an alternative to the mainstream scientific theories of AGW,  please present your evidence and understandings
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  Are we now supposed to accept that pink dancing/singing elephants don't exist? You've proof to show they don't?



Not at all the scientific evidence supporting AGW is listed in the IPCC documents and published science archives. It is the mainstream science perspective. If you wish to refute or offer an alternative to the mainstream scientific perspective or simply assert that the mainstream perspective is wrong, then burden is on you to support your refutation, alternative or assertion. Please do so, or leave your assertions as the unsupported claims they appear to be.



> Where's your proof for your allegations that MANKIND is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for climatological change on a global scale through the production of 'greenhouse gases'.  Can you show me an experiment which I can repeat to confirm your assertations?



Measure the absorption spectra for major natural greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere.

Calculate the radiative transfer energies and processes through the Earth's atmosphere based upon the measured composition of the atmosphere.

measure the average Carbon isotope composition of coal, oil and natural gas, compare to historic and modern Carbon isotope compositions of atmospheric compounds. plot and track evolving isotope ratios over the historic record period. 

Calculate volume of CO2 generated by the open cycle combustion of fossil fuels over the last 200 years. Plot and compare ratio shifts due to the addition of fossil fuel combustion products to the atmosphere over the historic record of such assessments.

These are the essential bases of AGW, and they are fairly trivially demonstrated with the proper devotion of time and effort.  



> Just as a reminder, NASA, NOAA's surface stations, Mann/Jones and the East Anglia CRU have all been debunked as frauds in this manner, and therefore invalid as source material due to data bias (cherrypicked or deliberately biased placement of sensors) or deliberate deletion or false manufacture.



This is an assertion you continue to make that is, thus far, without objective substantiation nor compelling evidentiary support.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 28, 2011)

> you are making claims of fraud and conspiracy against those findings,


Accurately making claims.  http://www.climategate.org



> Not at all the scientific evidence supporting AGW is listed in the IPCC  documents and published science archives.


The IPCC has stated it's data is bad, and has been based on anecdotal sources from activists.  I'm supposed to believe them, when?

I don't have to find sources to back my claim it doesn't exist when your own sources have been shown to be frauds.  I leave it to westwall, Meister, Oddball, and many many others to provide you with data to links you'll ignore anyway.  I just have to use basic logic and understanding of what science is to know you've not proven your case.



> Calculate volume of CO2 generated by the open cycle combustion of fossil  fuels over the last 200 years. Plot and compare ratio shifts due to the  addition of fossil fuel combustion products to the atmosphere over the  historic record of such assessments.
> 
> These are the essential bases of AGW, and they are fairly trivially  demonstrated with the proper devotion of time and effort.



Huh... really?  that's what you're going to claim?  Well work your way out of this.

In Junior High, we learned about atmospheric composition in science class.  We learned that CO2 is around .4% of the total atmospheric composition.  Of that, mankind produced 0.06% of the amount.  Now you tell me that an increase of less than 0.003% of the total atmospheric condition will significantly raise the temperature of the world?  Why do I need to know more to know you're fulla shit?  Tha's some magical CO2 coming out of them tailpipes.



> This is an assertion you continue to make that is, thus far, without  objective substantiation nor compelling evidentiary support.


You have one link, and look for "climategate" in google will produce hundreds of thousands of hits.  To find NOAA's bias, go here:

http://www.surfacestations.org

Do you enjoy cracking your skull on the bottom of the pool, or is this an accidental pleasure you've come by?


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Many of the FOIA requests being objected to by some researhers, are not requests for direct raw data or even methodologies and source code. Most of the FOIA requests are being made for unofficial and casual communications documents, memos, emails, phone records, working paper notes and notebooks, etc.,. They are "fishing expeditions" being launched to harass researchers, impede their work and generally hunt for any ancilliary issue that can be twisted to publically ridicule and intimidate the leading researchers in the field of climate research.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You made specific assertions, you need to provide specific support for such assertions. If you cannot, or choose not to, support your assertions, you are free to leave them as the unsupported accusations they appear to be.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Love the emails where Mann and Jones talked about dodging and ignoring FOIA requests and illegally blocking them.  Criminal acts to cover up fraud and scam?

Things that make you go... hmmmmmm.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF2ayWcJfxo]YouTube - &#x202a;Things That Make You Go Hmmmm....&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No scientist's word is to be accepted at face value when it comes to issues of science, regardless of issues of responsible or irresponsible. Climate science is based upon supporting evidences not the reputations or behaviors of individuals. Thus far you have presented no objective, compelling evidence of any single scientist who has acted irresponsibly, yet alone that all or even most climate scientists are behaving irresponsibly.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

daveman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Strawman

Please indicate any climate scientist or even any group of climate activists that have advocated socialism as a remedy for AGW.

To paraphrase your own admonishing, characterizing people, actions and ideas you don't like as "socialist/ism" is not sufficient to actually make such ideas representative of socialism.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Support your claims and assertions or leave them as the unsupported/unsupportable rhetorical rants they appear to be, the choice is yours.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> ...Once empirical proof of an actual crisis exists, I'd get behind solving it 100%.  Since the proof does not exist and nothing man could do can change it anyway... it's irrelevant.



Are you seriously unaware of the internally conflicting and self-contradictory clauses in the above assertions?


----------



## Meister (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



If your too lazy to do the research that's on this board, just say so, it's there.  I'm not going to jump through your hoops, son.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > ...Once empirical proof of an actual crisis exists, I'd get behind solving it 100%.  Since the proof does not exist and nothing man could do can change it anyway... it's irrelevant.
> ...


I'm aware of your inability to get it though.

You chicken littles quickly devolve into religious insanity.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > you are making claims of fraud and conspiracy against those findings,
> 
> 
> Accurately making claims.  http://www.climategate.org



This is a nonfunctioning link



> > Not at all the scientific evidence supporting AGW is listed in the IPCC  documents and published science archives.
> 
> 
> 
> The IPCC has stated it's data is bad, and has been based on anecdotal sources from activists.  I'm supposed to believe them, when?



Reference?



> I just have to use basic logic and understanding of what science is to know you've not proven your case.



Please do, so far I have seen no evidence of your use of either.




> > Calculate volume of CO2 generated by the open cycle combustion of fossil  fuels over the last 200 years. Plot and compare ratio shifts due to the  addition of fossil fuel combustion products to the atmosphere over the  historic record of such assessments.
> >
> > These are the essential bases of AGW, and they are fairly trivially  demonstrated with the proper devotion of time and effort.
> 
> ...



that is what the calculations and measurements I outlined will demonstrate to you, it is not that difficult. These experiements are conducted and the effects demonstrated in High School and lower level university classrooms daily around the world.



> > This is an assertion you continue to make that is, thus far, without  objective substantiation nor compelling evidentiary support.
> 
> 
> You have one link, and look for "climategate" in google will produce hundreds of thousands of hits.  To find NOAA's bias, go here:
> ...



This doesn't appear to be a site dedicated to the use or application of rigorous scientific methodology/analyses nor the proper scientific verfication of results procedures. That said when analyses and results from this site's efforts are applied to the actual data measurements how does it impact and compare with the overall USHCN station information and the modelling work resulting from the use of such data?

(Hint: if you aren't sure, here are a few of the actual studies that have taken the data and information provided by Surfacestation.org and fully analyzed the findings:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/2006tp1073.pdf

http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs/menne-etal2010.pdf



> Abstract
> Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous U.S. (CONUS). To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, trends derived from poor and well-sited USHCN stations were compared. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. *Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (&#8220;cool&#8221 bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (&#8220;warm&#8221 bias in minimum temperatures.* These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of non-standard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (&#8220;cool&#8221 bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. *Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting*.



and if you don't like these analyses and results, how about this recent paper that Pielke, Watt and a few others managed to get published in the AMS journal presenting the findings of Watt's SurfaceStation.org to the scientific community:

AMS Journals Online - Distribution of Landscape Types in the Global Historical Climatology Network


> Abstract -
> The Global Historical Climate Network version 2 (GHCNv.2) surface temperature dataset is widely used for reconstructions such as the global average surface temperature (GAST) anomaly. Because land use and land cover (LULC) affect temperatures, it is important to examine the spatial distribution and the LULC representation of GHCNv.2 stations. Here, nightlight imagery, two LULC datasets, and a population and cropland historical reconstruction are used to estimate the present and historical worldwide occurrence of LULC types and the number of GHCNv.2 stations within each. Results show that the GHCNv.2 station locations are biased toward urban and cropland (>50% stations versus 18.4% of the world&#8217;s land) and past century reclaimed cropland areas (35% stations versus 3.4% land). However, widely occurring LULC such as open shrubland, bare, snow/ice, and evergreen broadleaf forests are underrepresented (14% stations versus 48.1% land), as well as nonurban areas that have remained uncultivated in the past century (14.2% stations versus 43.2% land). *Results from the temperature trends over the different landscapes confirm that the temperature trends are different for different LULC and that the GHCNv.2 stations network might be missing on long-term larger positive trends. This opens the possibility that the temperature increases of Earth&#8217;s land surface in the last century would be higher than what the GHCNv.2-based GAST analyses report.*





> Do you enjoy cracking your skull on the bottom of the pool, or is this an accidental pleasure you've come by?



Thinking you are seeing other people when you look in a mirror seems a rather peculiar manifestation to me.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> ...Love the emails where Mann and Jones talked about dodging and ignoring FOIA requests and illegally blocking them.  Criminal acts to cover up fraud and scam?...



Do you have a link to an objective, reliable reference to support these assertion/insinuations?


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



They aren't my hoops, young'un. These are the standards of any logical and reasoned discourse. The person who makes an assertion is responsible for providing the support for their assertions. As you mature and hopefully continue on in your education, you will come to see that this is the manner of most adult exchanges and interactions.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > This is your assertion and it is either supported by compelling and  verifiable objective evidence, or it is not. I see no scientifically  compelling evidence for what you assert. if you have compelling  evidences please present them.
> 
> 
> Which is my exact point about your assertions.  But since I don't have to prove something DOESN'T exist, you must prove that it DOES exist, the onus is on you, bigboy.
> ...



"Nobodys to the trusted but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee!"

LOL, break out the little tinfoil hats, gents, Fritz is ready to be fitted for one.


----------



## Meister (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Son, don't tell me about education....I did just fine, if you need a mentor, just PM me.
Those ARE your hoops because you don't have the drive (or just being lazy) to go bone up on what has been hashed out over the last 2+ years.  Just go back and read them and catch up to speed, then get back to me and we can discuss.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Have you been paying attention at all?


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Well, I hope you're not holding your breath.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


And as we saw with Climategate, these types of communications show manipulation and intent to deceive.

If climate scientists object to releasing such communications, perhaps they need to stop colluding among themselves and start practicing science the way it's supposed to be done.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


I get the feeling there is no amount of evidence you would find compelling.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Really?  Didn't you just have this conversation with Big Fitz?  Every "voluntary" measure you presented was not, in fact, voluntary, but forced on the public by government.


----------



## Meister (May 28, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



True, with that.  Him thinking we'll take the bait is just too friggin' hilarious.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2011)

Bait? You as in an intelligent discussion?

Well, for sure that is not going to happen with you fellows.

However, for those observing the conversation, it is pretty obvious who is presenting evidence, and who is presenting BS.


----------



## Meister (May 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Bait? You as in an intelligent discussion?
> 
> Well, for sure that is not going to happen with you fellows.
> 
> However, for those observing the conversation, it is pretty obvious who is presenting evidence, and who is presenting BS.



Hey, roxi...how's that swine flu pandemic coming along for you?


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Bait? You as in an intelligent discussion?
> 
> Well, for sure that is not going to happen with you fellows.
> 
> However, for those observing the conversation, it is pretty obvious who is presenting evidence, and who is presenting BS.



"Evidence" being defined, of course, as "anything that supports AGW".


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2011)

Nobody has prevented you from presenting evidence from peer reviewed sources that would support your opinion. You do understand what a peer reviewed source is, don't you?


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Nobody has prevented you from presenting evidence from peer reviewed sources that would support your opinion. You do understand what a peer reviewed source is, don't you?



Yes.  It's a publication that has been blessed by the AGW elite.  Without their say-so, nothing gets published.


----------



## RWatt (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody has prevented you from presenting evidence from peer reviewed sources that would support your opinion. You do understand what a peer reviewed source is, don't you?
> ...



So nothing has been published skeptical of AGW?


----------



## Meister (May 29, 2011)

RWatt said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Are you one of those that come in the last 5 min. of a movie and ask "what's happened so far?"


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

RWatt said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Very little.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2011)

Okay, you're a fraud too, Trakar.  Can see even correcting that one link, the posts you made after it and comments into it, no evidence will ever be enough for you.  I'm not wasting any time on you either.  Into the dumfuckery with the rest of the chicken littles.  You're just another acolyte of ecofascism not worth listening to.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


That didn't take long to figure out did it?  I thought it funny I read this only after I had posted mine.

I'm sure that if confronted with the Algorical himself recanting everything every said with the empirical evidence to back it, Trakar would be first in line with a pitchfork to compost him.


----------



## The T (May 29, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Children do say the darnedest things! 
When you find legitimate and verifiable support for your misunderstandings be sure to bring them to the table, and I'll be happy to review and properly consider your findings, til then its probably best that you run along and let the grownups continue in their conversation.


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> Have you been paying attention at all?



Obviously moreso than you have, if your posts are any indication of your actual percpetions and understandings.


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> And as we saw with Climategate, these types of communications show manipulation and intent to deceive.
> 
> If climate scientists object to releasing such communications, perhaps they need to stop colluding among themselves and start practicing science the way it's supposed to be done.



Amazing that you actually persist in promoting this multipley disproven set of perceptions?!

Please cite any reputable, objective, non-partisan evaluation of the incident and the emails which supports your assertions!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Bait? You as in an intelligent discussion?
> ...



I have Peer Reviewed this post and find it 100% Accurate

If we get one more Peer review, we have Consensus; two more and it's "Settled Science"


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Well, its nice to see that your psychic abilities are on par with your scientific and social skills. It was the solid, verifiable and compelling scientific evidence that changed my perspective on this issue once, and if there is compelling scientific evidence indicating that I need to revise or change my position again, I have no problem with that, It would certainly be comforting to be wrong about an issue with the implications that climate change possesses.


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No that was Fitz's assertion made, obviously without reading the supporting references I gave, not an accurate evaluation of the exchange and offerings.


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2011)

Meister said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



bait?! seriously!? you see requests for verifiable and objective support for assertions made as some sort of trap to be avoided at all costs?! really!? 

I've seen a lot of pseudoscientific sycophancy and pedantic pandering in the name of apparent ideological slavishness in the last six and a half decades, but in most cases those who hold such positions are smart enough not to publically admit and buddy talk about their dysfunction.  In most cases.


----------



## The T (May 29, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 
I will make it a third...No high five needed or implied for this peer review...


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Bait? You as in an intelligent discussion?
> ...



No, "evidence" being any verifiable, objective and legitimate support for whatever claim, assertion, or assessment is being presented.


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody has prevented you from presenting evidence from peer reviewed sources that would support your opinion. You do understand what a peer reviewed source is, don't you?
> ...



I'm coming more and more to appreciate the irony of the term "oxymoron," in ways that I never considered previously.


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Okay, you're a fraud too, Trakar.  Can see even correcting that one link, the posts you made after it and comments into it, no evidence will ever be enough for you.  I'm not wasting any time on you either.  Into the dumfuckery with the rest of the chicken littles.  You're just another acolyte of ecofascism not worth listening to.



You presented no, objective, verifiable and compelling scientific evidence. You gave a dead link to a no longer existing partisan snipe blog, and a whack job agenda driven pseudoscience public circle jerk organized by a former TV weathercaster, whose own analysis of the "data," that effort collected indicates that the official NOAA temp analysis may well be underestimating the warming that has already occurred.

again, you seem to be looking in a mirror and thinking you are seeing other people,...perhaps you should adjust the backlighting, so you quit seeing yourself in other people's words on the computer screen.


----------



## Meister (May 29, 2011)

Take the politics out of your science and you have nothing.


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2011)

Meister said:


> Take the politics out of your science and you have nothing.



Must be a contagious affliction, now you too appear to be looking in the mirror and thinking you are seeing other people's situations.

I understand why you don't want to talk about science, it can be intimidating for those who aren't used to the rigors of thought and analysis that the physcial sciences demand. It is nothing to be ashamed of, and is something that you can remedy with some time and effort.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2011)

Had to use this, Trakar, just perfect for this line of discussion.

Badass Quote of the Day
Posted on: May 18, 2011 9:29 AM, by Ed Brayton

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov


----------



## Meister (May 29, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Take the politics out of your science and you have nothing.
> ...



I also understand that your religion of AGW is a powerful belief.....you too can remedy with time and effort.  Maybe I should have said, "take the religion out of science and you have nothing."  In the end, sonny, you have nothing.  Now run along back to your sandbox.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2011)

Here we go again, when presented with real sources of information, resort to senseless yap-yap. 

Since you have yet to present any real evidence for your opinion, it strikes me that it is based on faith, with is, of course, religion.


----------



## Meister (May 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Here we go again, when presented with real sources of information, resort to senseless yap-yap.
> 
> Since you have yet to present any real evidence for your opinion, it strikes me that it is based on faith, with is, of course, religion.



Your science has been debunked with the deception from all your "peer reviewers".  Nice try, but go climb a tree with your buddy, tracker.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2011)

I see. When faced with the evidence presented by the AGU, AIP, and the Royal Society, you scream, 'Deception!'. And post dingbat blogs. 

Poor Meister, determined to prove himself an ingnoramous.

95 out of 97 climatologists state the AGW is real. The two that don't, also testified in front of Congress that tobacco was harmless.


----------



## Meister (May 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. When faced with the evidence presented by the AGU, AIP, and the Royal Society, you scream, 'Deception!'. And post dingbat blogs.
> 
> Poor Meister, determined to prove himself an ingnoramous.
> 
> 95 out of 97 climatologists state the AGW is real. The two that don't, also testified in front of Congress that tobacco was harmless.



Again, you got your broken record going, roxie....it's old and used.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


religious conditioning can be overcome with hoverbikes.


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Have you been paying attention at all?
> ...


Have some more Kool-Aid.


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


"Burn the witch!!"


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > And as we saw with Climategate, these types of communications show manipulation and intent to deceive.
> ...


No reason I should bother, really.  You continually prove you accept nothing as "reputable, objective, non-partisan" unless it meshes perfectly with your pre-conceived notions.

So, enjoy your fantasy.


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


  When do the grants start rolling in?


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


I seriously doubt that.


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


Riiiight.  So what happens when not enough people voluntarily alter their lifestyles to suit the solution?

Hint:  You will clamor for the government to force them to.  

Guaranteed.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


End the grants for 'proving' anthropogenic global warming exists and watch the 'scientific concensus' disappear inside the year.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 29, 2011)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go again, when presented with real sources of information, resort to senseless yap-yap.
> ...



Who has it been debunked by?


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I see that Word of the Day toilet paper is really paying off.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


What also floats?


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Awww, it's cute how you pretend your mind isn't cemented shut.


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


There are _reams_ of things you never considered.


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Had to use this, Trakar, just perfect for this line of discussion.
> 
> Badass Quote of the Day
> Posted on: May 18, 2011 9:29 AM, by Ed Brayton
> ...


It's really funny the way someone as dumb as you are considers himself an intellectual.  Settin' the bar really low, aren't you?


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Isn't it funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!" -- but only for deniers?

I think they honestly believe AGW scientists are working solely for the betterment of mankind.


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


A polar bear!


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You can't build a bridge out of polar bears!


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Note for the moron.... read before you wipe.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Had to use this, Trakar, just perfect for this line of discussion.
> ...


And to think.  Asimov's great achievement is to have published a book under every heading in the Dewey Decimal System.

But he's most known for science FICTION.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 29, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Doubtful...very doubtful..

You are very cynical ya know.....


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


true true, there will be lots of screams of 'heretic and traitor' from the zealots, but the rest of the world will be happy to see the foolishness die off and no longer have to suffer the histrionics of the hoax.

It's interesting because so many have called me an optimist.


----------



## Meister (May 29, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Who, or what?  Their own private emails to one another proved their deception, Grump


----------



## Dr Grump (May 29, 2011)

Meister said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You are not telling the whole story Meister...

You are picking and choosing, just like those cherrypickers stating that Obama said Israel needs to go back to the borders of 1967...


----------



## Meister (May 29, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



When they state in certain emails that they're hiding or altering the truth....Yeah, I guess I'm guilty of cherry picking, Grump.  If everything is fact and evidence, they wouldn't have to be altering or hiding evidence.  But, that's just my take on it.


----------



## Slapshot28 (May 29, 2011)

Pardon the interruption.  (I'm a newbie here, and likely will get flamed with no mercy.)  Here goes anyway.

The global warming argument kind of reminds me of religion.  Now, I'm not a big believer in religion (sort of a deist, if you will), but I'm also inclined not to take too many chances.  So, I act as morally as I can, in case I run into Him (or Her) some day.  

With global warming, on the other hand, I am much more of a believer.  (It's the engineer in me, I guess.)  Regardless, shouldn't we all act as if GW _might be true_?  After all, there are side benefits to conservation, like preserving reasonably-priced oil for a bit longer--at least long enough to let our children reap some of the benefit.

I can just imagine our great-great-great grandchildren asking their teacher, "What DID our ancestors DO with all that petroleum?"  Answer: "*They burned it...*"

[Deflector shields engaged]


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2011)

Slapshot28 said:


> Pardon the interruption.  (I'm a newbie here, and likely will get flamed with no mercy.)  Here goes anyway.
> 
> The global warming argument kind of reminds me of religion.  Now, I'm not a big believer in religion (sort of a deist, if you will), but I'm also inclined not to take too many chances.  So, I act as morally as I can, in case I run into Him (or Her) some day.
> 
> ...


You ARE new here. 

Don't worry about Chicken Littles flaming you.  They throw punches like old arthritic women with Parkinsons severe osteoporosis.

You just keep looking at some of the other threads here, and see how often the sane conservatives here have been saying just that.  Particularly me these past few weeks.

Welcome to the funny farm.  We play rough here so don't forget to wear your cup and helmet.

here's your standard issue lolcat.







Besides they'll whine more for the Parkinsons crack than anything else.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Did they really say that? Are you sure?


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Slapshot28 said:


> Pardon the interruption.  (I'm a newbie here, and likely will get flamed with no mercy.)  Here goes anyway.
> 
> The global warming argument kind of reminds me of religion.  Now, I'm not a big believer in religion (sort of a deist, if you will), but I'm also inclined not to take too many chances.  So, I act as morally as I can, in case I run into Him (or Her) some day.
> 
> ...



Welcome to the board.

I don't think anyone is claiming we should dig up piles of coal just to burn them.  I don 't know anyone who has a problem with conservation, despite the hyperbole of the left.

However, as an engineer, you should know that there are no alternative energy sources that can economically replace hydrocarbons at this time.  And to regulate hydrocarbon use out of existence before their replacements are available is simply stupid and suicidal.


----------



## Slapshot28 (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> However, as an engineer, you should know that there are no alternative energy sources that can economically replace hydrocarbons at this time.  And to regulate hydrocarbon use out of existence before their replacements are available is simply stupid and suicidal.



Yes, that's an excellent point.  I totally agree: regulation is _not_ a good solution.

I am a bit concerned that private enterprise, entirely on its own, may not be able to solve the energy riddle.  Private enterprise is efficient, no doubt, and always looking for new ways to make a buck.  (I know, because I've started several companies, and I'm always looking for the next big thing.)

Yet some problems/opportunities may be just too big for private enterprise entirely on its own.  The risks are too large and the needed investment is too huge.

Government can have a positive impact (occasionally...  no, rarely).  For example, some would argue that NASA--in its heyday--had a positive economic impact, with many beneficial spin-off technologies.

So here are two questions for this group: Can we leave the energy problem to private enterprise, entirely on its own?  If not, then what is/are the best solution(s) for rational and effective government involvement?  (OMG what an oxymoron!!!)

Happy Memorial Day!

Chris


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2011)

Slapshot28 said:


> Pardon the interruption.  (I'm a newbie here, and likely will get flamed with no mercy.)  Here goes anyway.
> 
> The global warming argument kind of reminds me of religion.  Now, I'm not a big believer in religion (sort of a deist, if you will), but I'm also inclined not to take too many chances.  So, I act as morally as I can, in case I run into Him (or Her) some day.
> 
> ...



Part of what you said it true, Warmers are a religious cult.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



If you want a purely private response its up to you to find a functional and viable response that addresses the issue. 

I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem. 

I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Slapshot28 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > However, as an engineer, you should know that there are no alternative energy sources that can economically replace hydrocarbons at this time.  And to regulate hydrocarbon use out of existence before their replacements are available is simply stupid and suicidal.
> ...


And to you too.  

Do we need a Manhattan Project type of enterprise to develop alternative energy sources?  It's hard to say.  Look at private spaceflight:  It's progressing rapidly, with minimal or no government funding.  

I don't foresee any major breakthroughs in alternative sources that would justify government funding.  There's only so much power to be culled from a square meter of sunshine or a knot of windspeed.

And electricity is only a part of what we use hydrocarbons for.  Plastics, fertilizers, pesticides all rely on oil and natural gas.

The people who think we can eliminate hydrocarbon use are simply dreaming.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

Slapshot28 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > However, as an engineer, you should know that there are no alternative energy sources that can economically replace hydrocarbons at this time.  And to regulate hydrocarbon use out of existence before their replacements are available is simply stupid and suicidal.
> ...



Regulation is not a "dirty word." It is a common and effective means of monitoring and insuring the public commons. Which is one of the primary responsibilities and reasons for governments to exist. Anything can be excessively overdone, and there are certainly examples of ilconsidered and generally improper regulations whose mistakes and errors should be learned from, but these don't argue against regulation, they argue against poorly considered regulation. 

What exactly is your understanding of climate change and the science indicating and supporting such?


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


No.  _It's up to you to prove there's a problem that needs to be addressed to begin with._


Trakar said:


> I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.
> 
> I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.



Once again, you advocate threat of government force to modify behavior.  

That's all you've got.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



And there we have it, taxation is the cure.  This would be on a global scale, a redistribution of wealth that the UN wants.  The use of manipulated science to obtain a desired outcome.  
THIS IS the issue at hand. A tip of the hat to you, Trakar.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


He'll be along later to claim that's not what he meant, and you need to provide valid peer-reviewed research that proves you're not _stu_-pid.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Yeah, he is a condenscending twit.


----------



## Slapshot28 (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> What exactly is your understanding of climate change and the science indicating and supporting such?



I'm far, far from an expert (or even mildly educated).  I am a chemical engineer, so at least I understand some of the words.  

I'm pretty close to Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth (an overseer), and I respect many people there.  I don't know of one Thayer person who denies Global Warming.  In fact, it's pretty much assumed, worrisome, and deserving substantial effort.  It's one of our three strategic priorities at the school.  (They have data and knowledge.  I don't.)

While certainly I would not stake my life on Wikipedia, the GW articles there are quite convincing.  One of the most interesting facts is that whereas GW largely is acknowledged in most countries, the American public has become surprisingly skeptical (a little over half the population no longer views it as a serious concern).  This is a bit dismaying, since apparently scientists by-and-large have a completely different view:

Wikipedia: "The scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and is mostly the result of human activity. This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not rejected by any scientific body of national or international standing."

I'm sure there are quotable scientists who take the opposite view; although I worry that they may not represent the majority.  (I hope that Rush Limbaugh knows what he is talking about, because he is influential.)  And again, I do not swear by Wikipedia, although it's usually pretty good in my experience.

One sound-bite that really resonates with me is the story of the Norwest Passage.  It's a compelling anecdote:

Wikipedia: "Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 19031906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable."

The opening of the Northwest Passage (stuff of fables, literally) is pretty scary.

Finally, my friends who live in Alaska (and/or have visited Alaska) are totally convinced about GW, without exception.  Admittedly, it's hearsay, but these are by no means dyed-in-the-wool, liberal, tree-hugging idiots.  In fact, most of them are ardent republicans!

Sorry, none of this is hard data, but it's the best I've got...  

Again, my position is to act as though Global Warming _*might be true*_.

Thank you very much for asking!

Chris


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


I don't know what it is about leftists, but there sure are an awful lot of them who are arrogant with no reason to be.

I guess they think that believing the way they do is sufficiently praiseworthy.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Slapshot28 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly is your understanding of climate change and the science indicating and supporting such?
> ...


I agree that there is global warming, also.  But, I think that's it's been happening all along since the peak of the last iceage.  Global warming isn't an inherent issue with just our planet, like some on the left would want us to believe.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The problem is apparent and well evidenced to the professional community and the quasi-scientific/political international investigative body that President Reagan instituted to survey the professional community and study the science of climate change and regularly report upon their current findings and understandings. That you seem to dislike the current political implications of these findings and understandings, does nothing to impact their veracity. I care little about your personal misperceptions or unsupported denialisms. 




Trakar said:


> I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.
> 
> I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.



Once again, you advocate threat of government force to modify behavior.  

That's all you've got.[/QUOTE]

Twist as you like, its all in the wind and without any apparent support.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


i'm sure you don't.  And your "findings" have proven nothing except the climate is changing -- something it's always done.


Trakar said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.
> ...


What's to twist?  You want to use government to force people to modify their behavior.  You admitted it yourself.  

AGW is a scam designed to bring about greater government control over individual lives.  

Screw that.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



A cure? not even close! 

But a carbon tax is one of the most appropriate means of recompensing the public commons for the true societal costs of open cycle fossil fuel combustion. Truth be told I would prefer an outright ban on the open-cycle combustion of fuels made from previously sequestered carbon products. Perhaps incrementally engaged, but firm bans with strictly enforced penalties would be my preference. As it is direct and directly attacks the source of the problem. "Taxes" are a concession to those who prefer to push for market pressure solutions.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



No wonder you think so little of projections made from scientific understandings, as your own projections are so often so badly wrong!


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


Scratch a leftist, find a totalitarian.

Okay, so you want an outright ban on the open-cycle combustion of fuels.  Do you use electricity?  Drive a car?  Fly somewhere on vacation?  Mow your lawn?  Grill a steak?

Then you need to give all that up.  _Right now_.  

But you won't, because you're a flaming hypocrite.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Of course it is, this is the desired outcome from the global left, Trakar.
Just remember...in the end, it will be the consumer that pays those taxes....not the polluter.  The poor will be the least able to afford, but I'm sure they will be thought of as collateral damage.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



There goes that mirror thing again! "projection," used to be the psych term but I believe that "transference" is all the vogue currently.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



If the shoe fits, wear it, trakar.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

Slapshot28 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly is your understanding of climate change and the science indicating and supporting such?
> ...



As a chemical engineer, you should have more than enough tools to engage this topic more directly,...of course, time and motivation are significant factors in the pursuit of that goal.

please feel free to ask if you ever have any questions or would like some good basic information concerning climate science, it makes up a large section of my personal database collection regarding climate science. If I can't help you directly, I would be glad to help point you in the right direction. I'll be on the boards as I have a bit of free time for the next week, but I'll probably be dropping back to once a week (or so) for the rest of the summer after that.



> ...Finally, my friends who live in Alaska (and/or have visited Alaska) are totally convinced about GW, without exception.  Admittedly, it's hearsay, but these are by no means dyed-in-the-wool, liberal, tree-hugging idiots.  In fact, most of them are ardent republicans!
> 
> Sorry, none of this is hard data, but it's the best I've got...
> 
> ...



I lived up in SE Alaska for about 5 years, in the mid 80s, and still visit family and friends up there every year or two. Beautiful country, but yes its a lot easier to deny the tremendous changes that are taking place if you happen to live in a place that hasn't seen much change in the last couple of decades,...or don't really pay much attention to the natural world to begin with. I was raised hunting and fishing and spending lots of my free time out in and amongst the natural world. This also explains why so many hunting and fishing organizations are such natural advocates for taking action on climate change issues.

Ducks Unlimited - Climate Change and Waterfowl

Trout Unlimited -  Climate Change | Trout Unlimited - Conserving coldwater fisheries

Pheasants Forever - Pheasants Forever Press Release

American Sportsfishing Association/B.A.S.S. masters - http://www.seasonsend.org/pdfs/Sportsmens_letter_to_U.S._Senate.pdf

and most national and international hunting and fishing organizations.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> I agree that there is global warming, also.  But, I think that's it's been happening all along since the peak of the last iceage.  Global warming isn't an inherent issue with just our planet, like some on the left would want us to believe.



Got verifiable, empiric evidences that support the belief (that global warming is a sustained, global trend in extension of the process that instigated the current interglacial epoch) or the assertion (that other planets are undergoing similar and concurrent climate change)?


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is apparent and well evidenced to the professional community and the quasi-scientific/political international investigative body that President Reagan instituted to survey the professional community and study the science of climate change and regularly report upon their current findings and understandings. That you seem to dislike the current political implications of these findings and understandings, does nothing to impact their veracity. I care little about your personal misperceptions or unsupported denialisms.
> ...



Reagan's IPCC and the science they are mandated to review, says differently.

https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf





> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



This is the unsupported conspiracy theory you keep promoting.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Yes, my projection is wrong.  I never thought you'd freely admit you support government control over individual lives, the utter destruction of the American energy industry, and global socialism.

I mean, you rarely see someone come out and admit they're stupid.  I stand corrected.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Reagan's IPCC and the science they are mandated to review, says differently.
> 
> https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf


And the IPCC has no credibility.  
A London newspaper reports today that the unsubstantiated Himalayan-glacier melt figures contained in a supposedly authoritative 2007 report on climate warming were used intentionally, despite the report&#8217;s lead author knowing there were no data to back them up. 

Until now, the organization that published the report &#8211; the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change &#8211; had argued the exaggerated figures in that report were an accident: due to insufficient fact checking of the source material.

Uh, no. It now appears the incident wasn&#8217;t quite that innocent. 

The Sunday Mail&#8217;s David Rose reached Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report&#8217;s chapter on Asia. Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the report&#8217;s claim that Himalayan glaciers &#8211; the source of drinking and irrigation water for downstream areas throughout Asia &#8211; could dry up by 2035. Said Lal: &#8220;We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.&#8221; In other words, Rose says, Lal &#8220;last night admitted [the scary figure] was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.&#8221;​Do you call that science?  Because it's not.  It's agenda-driven politics.  That you agree with the agenda does not make it real science.


Trakar said:


> This is the unsupported conspiracy theory you keep promoting.


Your blind unwillingness to see it does not make it unsupported -- because I have indeed supported it.

AGW is simply bad science.

And your continued invocation of Reagan, as if I'd suddenly support the IPCC's actions because he started it, reveals far more about you than it does about me.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar;3701343
> A cure? not even close!
> 
> But a carbon tax is one of the most appropriate means of recompensing the public commons for the true societal costs of open cycle fossil fuel combustion. Truth be told I would prefer an outright ban on the open-cycle combustion of fuels made from previously sequestered carbon products. Perhaps incrementally engaged said:
> ...


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



That is your mantra, thus far you have not offered any compelling evidences to support your delusions.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Funny, I've watched you proudly declare your ignorance and idiocy repeatedly and consistently over the last 6 months.

You can continue to twist and lie as you are wont to do, it doesn't change my actual words or the realities around us and accurately reflected in the science.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> My electricity is produced with a combination of solar, wind and a bio-diesel fuelled back-up generator. Both my car and my plane run on biodiesel mixes (with both, there is some cold weather conditioning necessary to keep the diesel from waxing up), the riding mower is lithium battery powered, and I use chunk charcoal and personally cut hardwood chips to do my outdoor grilling.
> 
> Again, probably best not to assume that everyone else does as you do, advocating one thing, while using different rules for yourself.



I'm impressed, bearing in mind that anyone can say anything on the internet.

Yet I can't help but notice you're connected to the internet.  Do you know how much carbon that adds to the atmosphere?

Or are there some things you're not willing to give up for principle?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2011)

And there is still not a single experiment showing how a 60 or 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature or does any of the other things its supposed to (Melt ice caps, kill polar bears, killer tornadoes, Cat 5 hurricanes)


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Funny, I've watched you proudly declare your ignorance and idiocy repeatedly over the last 6 months.


What is it with you leftists and your refusal to use dictionary meanings of words?

One more time:  Ignorance and idiocy DON'T mean "something a leftist disagrees with".  


Trakar said:


> You can continue to twist and lie as you are wont to do, it doesn't change my actual words or the realities around us and accurately reflected in the science.



There you go again.  I haven't twisted or lied about anything.  I've used your words, and the words of so-called climate "scientists".  That you call it twisting and lying merely shows how dishonest you are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2011)

AGW "Science", pointing somewhere and going, "Oh looky! Global Warming!!"


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan's IPCC and the science they are mandated to review, says differently.
> ...



No I call that "Ginning the Controversy" by a popsci rag uncritically reprinting a UK Tabloid article that I might expect to find accompanying a full page feature on the latest escapades by BatBoy in an American publication of equivilant standing.

What you don't seem to understand, is that even if politicians or one stripe or another manage to slip a couple of tidbits of false or misleading information into a voluminous  overall analysis, it doesn't discredit anything other than that information itself. AGW did not critically depend upon whether some few glaciers in the one particular valley of the Himilayans were melting slightly slower than portrayed by some reckless Indian politicos who had input into the nation's contributions to the last IPCC report, and neither does this impact the overall veracity of the IPCC's findings with regards to Climate Change any more than your forgetting to apply special sauce to a single Big Mac is likely to be a significant factor in McDonald's corporate quarterly profits. 

If anything this argues for pulling the political component completely out of IPCC process and turning it over entirely to the global scientific community.



> And your continued invocation of Reagan, as if I'd suddenly support the IPCC's actions because he started it, reveals far more about you than it does about me.



seriously?! I was simply using Reagan to date reference the timing of the IPCC establishment. Your protestations and huffiness over the Reagan administration's role in supporting and mandating the methodology and procedures of operation for the IPCC are interesting, however, in a mildly meh manner.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that there is global warming, also.  But, I think that's it's been happening all along since the peak of the last iceage.  Global warming isn't an inherent issue with just our planet, like some on the left would want us to believe.
> ...



Are you a moron....do you need proof that the sun rises everyday?  
What's happened to the glaciers since the last iceage? 

Did YOU even bother to look at the original OP? (Global Warming is happening...on Mars) 
Like I said you need to bone up.  Try doing some of your own thinking instead of having others do it for you.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



 Like I said....I'm not going to jump through your hoops....There are threads where this has already been exploited.  If you really want to see the evidence....try doing your own damn research IN THIS FORUM.  You have an agenda trakar, it has already shown to be political....by your own words.  YOU are the one who is delusional.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > My electricity is produced with a combination of solar, wind and a bio-diesel fuelled back-up generator. Both my car and my plane run on biodiesel mixes (with both, there is some cold weather conditioning necessary to keep the diesel from waxing up), the riding mower is lithium battery powered, and I use chunk charcoal and personally cut hardwood chips to do my outdoor grilling.
> ...



Is denial a habit you use for every aspect of life you find inconvenient?



> Yet I can't help but notice you're connected to the internet.  Do you know how much carbon that adds to the atmosphere?



Who's internet? The section I'm linked to is sustainably powered, if yours isn't that's a problem you should be concerned about, all I can do is advocate for people to pay more attention to their planet and their pocketbook and choose sustainable practices to advantage both.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Excuse me while I get my boots on....the bullshit is getting deep.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> AGW "Science", pointing somewhere and going, "Oh looky! Global Warming!!"



It's not even "Global Warming" any longer....now it's, "Global Climate Change".  That should cover any type of climate.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



ROFLOL first transference/projection and now freudian slips 

"exploited" - Used (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way.



> If you really want to see the evidence....try doing your own damn research IN THIS FORUM.  You have an agenda trakar, it has already shown to be political....by your own words.  YOU are the one who is delusional.



you are seeing yourself in other's words and twisting other's words to fit that misperception of reality. you demonstrate it in every post you make. You leave me filled with sadness and pity at the way you have been twisted and warped into the caricature of arrogant ignorance that you seem to be. It is sad to see such a waste of potential.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

Slapshot28 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly is your understanding of climate change and the science indicating and supporting such?
> ...



Slapshot, this link is to the American Institute of Physics, and has a huge amount of information concerning the history of the study of atmospheric gases and the retention of heat by GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Here is an hour long lecture presented by Dr. Richard Alley at the 2009 American Geophysical Union Convention, tracing the geological linkage of CO2 and temperatures through geological age.

A23A

And a couple of other revelent lectures from the same source;

C24A

H22A


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Don't feel sadness, moron....I haven't been a total waste. You haven't brought anything to this forum, and your one lazy ass not to do a little research.  You cannot deny that this is a political with you.  You want the government to remedy something Man cannot change.  
The one thing that I do know about myself is that I tend to ignore shit except for when I step in it.  You have been spreading it on pretty thick in a couple of your Holier than thou posts.  Your full of bullshit dude....trust me I know.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> No I call that "Ginning the Controversy" by a popsci rag uncritically reprinting a UK Tabloid article that I might expect to find accompanying a full page feature on the latest escapades by BatBoy in an American publication of equivilant standing.


Yeah.  Too bad for you they interviewed "Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC reports chapter on Asia."

I think it's safe to say that Lal knows more about what he did and why than you do.


Trakar said:


> What you don't seem to understand, is that even if politicians or one stripe or another manage to slip a couple of tidbits of false or misleading information into a voluminous  overall analysis, it doesn't discredit anything other than that information itself. AGW did not critically depend upon whether some few glaciers in the one particular valley of the Himilayans were melting slightly slower than portrayed by some reckless Indian politicos who had input into the nation's contributions to the last IPCC report, and neither does this impact the overall veracity of the IPCC's findings with regards to Climate Change any more than your forgetting to apply special sauce to a single Big Mac is likely to be a significant factor in McDonald's corporate quarterly profits.
> 
> If anything this argues for pulling the political component completely out of IPCC process and turning it over entirely to the global scientific community.


You mean like  Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC reports chapter on Asia, who knowingly inserted bogus information into the report?



Trakar said:


> seriously?! I was simply using Reagan to date reference the timing of the IPCC establishment.


Unlikely.


Trakar said:


> Your protestations and huffiness over the Reagan administration's role in supporting and mandating the methodology and procedures of operation for the IPCC are interesting, however, in a mildly meh manner.


Huffiness?    That was mockery, fool.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


You mean like you're doing with Lal's statement, playing "The liberal didn't say what he said!!"?

Hell, you're playing that with your OWN statements.  



Trakar said:


> > Yet I can't help but notice you're connected to the internet.  Do you know how much carbon that adds to the atmosphere?
> 
> 
> 
> Who's internet? The section I'm linked to is sustainably powered, if yours isn't that's a problem you should be concerned about, all I can do is advocate for people to pay more attention to their planet and their pocketbook and choose sustainable practices to advantage both.


A Harvard University physicist says a typical search on a desktop computer generates about 7 grams of carbon dioxide. Thus, performing two searches is comparable to bringing a kettle to boil, according to a report Sunday in The Times of London. While that may not sound like a lot, the report notes that Google handles about 200 million searches daily.

Read more: Measuring your Google search's carbon footprint | Green Tech - CNET News​
I hope you're not Googling talking points.  That's egregiously irresponsible, and makes baby Gaea cry.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

The glaciers of Asia, most of which are in rapid retreat. So says the USGS.

USGS Professional Paper 1386-F: Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World -- Asia


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

Daveboy, same intellectual prowess as Kooky, without the cartoons.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2011)

So how come Wamers never have a lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

How come Franky doesn't bother to look at the many places where controlled experiments have done exactly that.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The glaciers of Asia, most of which are in rapid retreat. So says the USGS.
> 
> USGS Professional Paper 1386-F: Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World -- Asia


So then why did Lal put the bogus information in the IPCC report, damaging its credibility?

Oh, yeah -- because morons like you blindly believe anything they say.  Good job, Useful Idiot.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Keep displaying your ignorance, it is doing wonders for your position!!

And you are right ranting and name-calling is so much more compelling that objective evidence and logical reasoned discourse. 



> Did YOU even bother to look at the original OP? (Global Warming is happening...on Mars)



poorly written popsci blurbs and the partisan rants based upon such without supporting references aren't any better than your numerous unsupported assertions here on this board.

If you are looking to actually understand the science that was misrepresented in the OP you might look at something like these:

"Global Warming on Mars" - Global Warming on Mars

Which explains the mechanisms involved in some short-term warmings and coolings in the Martian climate.

(full letter at: http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/pdf/fenton/nature05718.pdf )

Or this later paper "Intense polar temperature inversion in the middle atmosphere on Mars"
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~oa/publications/mccleese_2008_ngs.pdf

Which further clarifies additional climate forcing factors and impacts in the Martian atmosphere.

Mars appears to be undergoing multiple minor episodes of weather and climate shift, both cold and warm over a period of a few Martian years (2-3 Mars years, 4-6 Earth years). Observations and measurements seem to indicate albedo shifts due to martian sand storms and cyclic mid atmosphere shifts over the poles that seem to among other things trigger intensified or reduced sandstorm production. There is no indication of any commonality between the Earth's warming over the last half century and Mars' shifts back and forth every few years between colder and hotter episodes. I am not new to these issues. I am fully aware of almost all the most common rhetorical arguments typically used by the science denier contrarians in their attempts to politicize and confuse the issue, as well as having thoroughly investigated these assertions and having found no supportive scientific basis in these arguments. If you are aware of some scientific standing and support that I have missed or not given proper evaluation, please make your case, nothing could please and releave me more than to be given a compelling, scientifically supported reason to not dread the unfolding of this coming century (or at least what little of it I may see).



> Like I said you need to bone up.  Try doing some of your own thinking instead of having others do it for you.



like I said, asking someone to support their assertions with solid and compelling evidences and referenced citations, is neither onerous nor unusual among adults in the serious discourse of mature discussion. That you treat it as a dreadful task, in itself, speaks to the nature of your considerations and understandings,...or rather to the lack thereof.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Agreed, looks like it's piling up pretty high over there, I don't think boots are gonna cut it, better look for a cork before you fill that room and drown!


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Has anyone ever told you that you talk funny.  Geeze, nobody converses like that.  I have friends that are doctors and lawyers, much more brilliant than you, and they don't carry a conversation like that.  Who are you trying to impress? Get over yourself.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Dude....I caught you in one of your lies.....yes, YOU lied in at least one of your posts.  I won't put it on the open board.  But it is YOUR bullshit....no one elses.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



In other words, you have no answer for Trakar. Expected.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Aren't you ever so kind. You will accuse someone of lying but not put the accusation on the board.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Won't waste my time, rox.  I see how you two handle differing science.......


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

Oh, I see. You say someone lies, but you are afraid to state what the lie is. 

How we handle science? You mean as in posting reports and articles from scientists? Such lowdown unfair tactics, eh? Introducing science into an scientific discussion.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh, I see. You say someone lies, but you are afraid to state what the lie is.
> 
> How we handle science? You mean as in posting reports and articles from scientists? Such lowdown unfair tactics, eh? Introducing science into an scientific discussion.



I'm not "afraid to state it...it would be unethical.  Something you wouldn't know anything about.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> How we handle science? You mean as in posting reports and articles from scientists? Such lowdown unfair tactics, eh? Introducing science into an scientific discussion.



And when it's handed back to you, you have a meltdown, crying "blasphemy!"
I get it, rox.  Now you know why I won't play your silly ass game.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Present it or leave it as unsupported as all the other calfdirt running down the back of your leg.

I have no problem acknowledging any mistake, misstatement or issue if it is legitimate and verifiable. If there is an issue that needs to be addressed it is better to get at the root of the issue.

Bring it


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



As those professionals evidently have a need or desire to favorably engage and interact with you, I'm sure they adjust their speech to fit your level of understandings and comfort. Personally, I could care less whether you understand me or are cognitively comfortable with my syntax. I have made zero claims or assertions of intellectual or social superiority. DO not mistake your own feelings of personal and professional inadequacy with the imaginings of other's claims of superiority.


----------



## Meister (May 31, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Trust me....the only time they need to communicate at that level is when they are on their clock.  Not interacting on a messageboard.   You are a prize, but your this board's prize.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 31, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Door(stop) or boobie?

And can we re-gift him?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



In other words, they put what they have to say to you in a form that you can understand. Not exactly something that I would brag about.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2011)

To focus more directly upon the thread's topic:

"Surface dust redistribution on Mars as observed by the Mars Global Surveyor and Viking orbiters"
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, E11008, doi:10.1029/2005JE002485
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/mir/Szwast_JGR2005JE002485.pdf 



> ...Finally, we show that the apparent long-term
> darkening of the southern mid and high latitudes between the Viking and MGS eras is
> largely a consequence of the timing of image acquisition relative to global dust storms
> and surface dust &#8216;&#8216;cleaning&#8217;&#8217; by the seasonal ice cap; it does not represent a steady
> ...



IOW, When major global dust storms happen, as they are known to do every few years, the lighter coloured dusts tend to be the last to settle out of the atmosphere creating an overall lightening of the planet's surface. As a lighter surface reflects more of the Sun's radiations we see a cooler Mars in the immediate aftermath of these storms. Between such global dust storm events the surface gradually returns to its normally darkened condition through a variety of local factors (chemical interactions, and mechanical (wind and dust-devil mostly) redistributions). These darkened features absorb more of the Sun's radiations and we see a warmer Mars. This study confirms that the evidences that led to some considerations of a "warming Mars" are due almost entirely to the fact that the early (1977) photos of Mars indicating it was extremely cold, were taken immediately after a particularly large planetary dust storm, whereas the later photos of a dark and warmer Mars used in the study proposing a warming Mars, were taken after a rather long period without any major planetary dust storms. A more comprehensive study of Martian photos over the entire period rather than merely at the very beginning and very end of the period reveals that major planetary dust storms occur on Mars every few years, and Mars' temperature rises and falls in tune with these storms and the lulls between them.


----------

