# To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid



## Crick (Nov 14, 2015)

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Nov 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.



At least they'll be good at chess.

Was%20Bobby%20Fischer%E2%80%99s%20Chess%20Genius%20Linked%20to%20His%20Paranoia%20and%20His%20Delusional%20Disorder%3F


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 14, 2015)

I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 14, 2015)

There have been multiple ice ages. There have been multiple warmings. And we didn't have one freaking thing to do with it.

And because of so many AGW useful idiots we are going to turn the economies of the planet over to scientists who treat computer models like crystal balls. I can't get a 14 day proper forecast but I'm supposed to believe that these fools can give me a 50 freaking year forecast?

And turn over quizzillions of dollars to the United Nations to redistribute to third world nations dictators? Who never redistribute our tax dollars to their own people who are still living in mega poverty after decades upon decades of foreign aid?

This is a shell game of wealth distribution of epic proportions.


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.



Who do you believe has been "fudging the data" and what is your evidence?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.
> ...



Google is your friend, try it and enlighten yourself


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2015)

Paranoid,, paranoid? the ones screaming the sky is falling are the ones paranoid and let's don't forget it.  By the way NASA and NOAA have both admitted making adjustments.  So that is a just a fact as previously posted.

Nice deflection thread, but anyone who is anyone know the real ones paranoid and scared.  Petrified....


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2015)

tinydancer said:


> There have been multiple ice ages.



Yes, there have.  So what?



tinydancer said:


> There have been multiple warmings.



Yes, there have.  So what?



tinydancer said:


> And we didn't have one freaking thing to do with it.



"With it"?  Don't you mean "with them"?  For those that took place before the Industrial Age, of course we didn't.  Again, so what?



tinydancer said:


> And because of so many AGW useful idiots we are going to turn the economies of the planet over to scientists who treat computer models like crystal balls.



Working backwards: the evidence for AGW consists of immense amount of empirical evidence.  Computer models are used primarily to produce projections.  There's no other way to do so.  And the accuracy of such models has improved as scientists knowledge and their ability to build that knowledge into models has increased.  Climate modelers know better than anyone the limitations of their models - none better.  Second, no one has suggested turning the world's economies over to scientists and no scientists have demanded or event suggested that they do so.  Climate science has certainly identified and quantified the threats we face and has suggested a variety of means by which such threats might be ameliorated.  Whether or not we listen to them, accept their conclusions and act on them is our choice to make.  I believe we should.  You believe we shouldn't.



tinydancer said:


> I can't get a 14 day proper forecast but I'm supposed to believe that these fools can give me a 50 freaking year forecast?



Apparently you still don't understand the difference between weather and climate.



tinydancer said:


> And turn over quizzillions of dollars to the United Nations to redistribute to third world nations dictators?



Can you actually identify a single dollar that the US has "turned over to the United Nations" for redistribution?



tinydancer said:


> Who never redistribute our tax dollars to their own people who are still living in mega poverty after decades upon decades of foreign aid?



Does this comment actually have anything whatsoever to do with the validity of anthropogenic global warming?  Obviously, no.



tinydancer said:


> This is a shell game of wealth distribution of epic proportions.



Your game is one of wealth concentration to levels never before seen in this nation. However, again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of AGW.  Your comments have done nothing but support my contention that the only argument deniers have - that they have EVER had - is the grand conspiracy theory.

And, I repeat, it is not a SANE argument to make.


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



No.  I want to know who YOU believe to be fudging data and why. The only source that can provide that information is YOU.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data ...*

*Tracking Climate Fraud | Real Science*

*The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science ...*

*Scientists Launch Investigation into Climate Data ...*


*Climate scientists manipulate data to support warming*


Pick your poison


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2015)

PS: would you like to make all US Message Board's advertisements disappear?  Go to the HPHOSTS website and follow their instructions for populating your HOSTS file.  Presto!


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> *More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data ...*
> 
> *Tracking Climate Fraud | Real Science*
> 
> ...



So, you actually had no idea.  You had simply heard that someone was fudging the data and you accepted it.  This is a random collection of Google links.  These do not represent your opinion, save that you actually have none.  This is not your conclusion as you never had a conclusion.  You've simply been spouting back what you've heard from the biased and ignorant sources to which you refer. 

Do you understand what I'm saying?  If you had actually developed that idea from valid sources, you would have been able to answer the question from your own head.  You might have gone to specific websites and pulled up information supporting your conclusions.  But you did not because you could not.

Why don't you do the world a favor: open your mind to knowledge and learn what is actually happening.  Read what scientists conclusions actually are and how and why they have arrived at them.  Go to www.ipcc.ch and look up AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.  If you'd prefer a shorter and less technical presentation, read the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) at the same site.  Try working from knowledge rather than preexisting biases.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Dude believe what  you want, you're just  another duped dumbass. Nothing more and nothing less. Have  a good weekend


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2015)

I don't blame you (much) for running away but you could have given your self-respect a hike by simply admitting the truth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.



WOW...

Projection and Conjecture in one post... Without facts to support either..  

/thread


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 14, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.





Crick said:


> Who do you believe has been "fudging the data" and what is your evidence?





SassyIrishLass said:


> Google is your friend, try it and enlighten yourself





Crick said:


> No.  I want to know who YOU believe to be fudging data and why.





SassyIrishLass said:


> dailycaller.com
> 
> stevengoddard.wordpress.com
> 
> ...



LOLOLOLOL.....so, your so-called evidence is a bunch of denier cult bullcrap you got off of various rightwingnut sources....two blogs, a denier cult reporter in a Rupert Murdoch rag, a rightwingnut publication and a newspaper owned by the Moonies. LOL.

You are a freaking nitwit who searched out blatent denier cult propaganda written by non-scientists stooging for the fossil fuel industry, and you idiotically imagine that that fraudulent twaddle constitutes actual evidence.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.
> ...



You are who..and pray tell why should I give a damn? Another whack job chimes in


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 14, 2015)

Denier is not a word you find in science, it's the AGWCult secret handshake word


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 14, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.





Crick said:


> Who do you believe has been "fudging the data" and what is your evidence?





SassyIrishLass said:


> Google is your friend, try it and enlighten yourself





Crick said:


> No.  I want to know who YOU believe to be fudging data and why.





SassyIrishLass said:


> dailycaller.com
> 
> stevengoddard.wordpress.com
> 
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL.....so, your so-called evidence is a bunch of denier cult bullcrap you got off of various rightwingnut sources....two blogs, a denier cult reporter in a Rupert Murdoch rag, a rightwingnut publication and a newspaper owned by the Moonies. LOL.
> 
> You are a freaking nitwit who searched out blatent denier cult propaganda written by non-scientists stooging for the fossil fuel industry, and you idiotically imagine that that fraudulent twaddle constitutes actual evidence.





SassyIrishLass said:


> You are who..and pray tell why should I give a damn? Another whack job chimes in



Who am I? I'm the sane rational adult who just pointed out what stupid joke your response was to a demand to see your evidence. You are the freaking "whack job", SillyIdioticLackwit.

The tens of thousands of working climate scientists in over a hundred countries all around the world check each other's work in a continual process called 'science'....something about which you are obviously completely ignorant....and the denier cult myth that all of those scientists are all cooperating in a conspiracy to "_fudge the data_" is so absurd, it is actually quite insane. You have no evidence....just more demented denier cult drivel....and your clinging to your conspiracy theory is really just more evidence to support the OP of this thread. Deniers are pathologically paranoid conspiracy theory crackpots.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.
> ...



lie


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 14, 2015)

Oh dear, I don't fall for the GLObull warming scam and rollingthunder is having a meltdown. LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL.....so, your so-called evidence is a bunch of denier cult bullcrap you got off of various rightwingnut sources....two blogs, a denier cult reporter in a Rupert Murdoch rag, a rightwingnut publication and a newspaper owned by the Moonies. LOL.
> 
> You are a freaking nitwit who searched out blatent denier cult propaganda written by non-scientists stooging for the fossil fuel industry, and you idiotically imagine that that fraudulent twaddle constitutes actual evidence.





SassyIrishLass said:


> lie


Nope! You *really are* a pathologically paranoid conspiracy theory crackpot...with no real evidence from reputable sources to support your insane, ideologically driven delusions about the supposed wholesale corruption of the world scientific community.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOLOL.....so, your so-called evidence is a bunch of denier cult bullcrap you got off of various rightwingnut sources....two blogs, a denier cult reporter in a Rupert Murdoch rag, a rightwingnut publication and a newspaper owned by the Moonies. LOL.
> ...



You're a nut...go bother someone who gives a rat's ass what you're blabbering about


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 14, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


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


You're a deliberately ignorant denier cult retard....and nobody really gives a rat's ass what kind of half-witted twaddle you've fallen for, SillyIdioticLackwit. Your BS got debunked and your ignorance exposed and your delusions mocked. You are too brainwashed and retarded to surrender your delusions, no matter how much actual scientific evidence you're shown. You are a waste of time and a bad joke.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Bleh,,,,run along and stop getting all butt hurt because I refuse to buy into the junk. Freaking asshole


----------



## IsaacNewton (Nov 14, 2015)

The people denying Global Warming are scared and ignorant. And violently so!

Leave them to their delusion.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 14, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


You have no response to the debunking of your precious denier cult myths , so you are running away like the scared chickenshit paranoid retard that you are.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.
> ...



Now this is a pure denial post if there ever was one.

* Adhomenim attacks all over the place..
* Attacks the persons telling the story and never the data..
*Shows pure fear that man is somehow to blame without facts to support his supposition all the while using conjecture and conspiracy theroy to support his own..

It appears to me its the left wing nut bags who are paranoid without cause.. and the above post is proof positive of it!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Failure to address the facts presented and then Adhom attacks.... Nice!!!  

Your bolstering your lack of credibility very nicely, without help from any of us....


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 14, 2015)

well how special. the lies just never end. Seriously. who is running around clucking how we are going to burn up, drown or die of starvation because of that "gloBULL warming"? and who was it   (when they realized warming wasn't happening) the warmers decided they had to lie some more,  so they slinked off in the middle of the night and slyly (I guess they thought they were) and went and  changed THE NAME of gloBULL warming to AKA Climate change. now who is paranoid again.
from what we've been hearing about warmers,  is if they could they would lock up everybody who doesn't bow to their cult. so is it that is paranoid again?  paranoid sickos go around calling people stupid names like deniers because they won't bow to the cult. and it's just goes on and on


----------



## USNavyVet (Nov 14, 2015)

At least we don't see the hockey stick crap anymore. And those emails sure got squelched.  Gotta throw the on AGW.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 14, 2015)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> I don't blame you (much) for running away but you could have given your self-respect a hike by simply admitting the truth.



---------------- Crick -----------------

---------------- Truth ---------------


Parallel lines that never meet


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 14, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I don't blame you (much) for running away but you could have given your self-respect a hike by simply admitting the truth.
> ...



He's either receiving money in grants or he's making money some other way off this  Globull warming


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 14, 2015)

USNavyVet said:


> At least we don't see the hockey stick crap anymore. And those emails sure got squelched.  Gotta throw the on AGW.



Yep!

They are in full delete mode these days. Failed predictions are being deleted all over the place..

*One of the longest running climate prediction blunders has disappeared from the Internet*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.



Parinoid?

Got that backwards, we go out side and live our lives not on writing letters to the editors and now on these boards screaming doom and gloom for the past 40 years.


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2015)

That's  P-A-R-A-N-O-I-D and I couldn't care less where you spend your days.  If your arguments against AGW includes lies and falsification by scientists and politicians, you're a paranoid idiot.


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> > At least we don't see the hockey stick crap anymore. And those emails sure got squelched.  Gotta throw the on AGW.
> ...



AR5 has hockey sticks coming out the kazoo and if you want to talk about failed predictions, let's talk about all of YOURS.  Where is the model that can recreate the last 50 years without inlcuding AGW?  What's been YOUR personal record with el Nino predictions Billy?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL.....so, your so-called evidence is a bunch of denier cult bullcrap you got off of various rightwingnut sources....two blogs, a denier cult reporter in a Rupert Murdoch rag, a rightwingnut publication and a newspaper owned by the Moonies. LOL.
> 
> You are a freaking nitwit who searched out blatent denier cult propaganda written by non-scientists stooging for the fossil fuel industry, and you idiotically imagine that that fraudulent twaddle constitutes actual evidence.





Billy_Bob said:


> Now this is a pure denial post if there ever was one.
> 
> * Adhomenim attacks all over the place..
> * Attacks the persons telling the story and never the data..
> ...



Too bad you're so insane, Booby. I point out the fraudulent nature of the denier cult propaganda that the Lackwit cited to try to criticize the real working climate scientists and their conclusions, and you moronically conclude that that constitutes "_denial_". LOL.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 14, 2015)

USNavyVet said:


> At least we don't see the hockey stick crap anymore.



That's because you only look at denier cult blogs and similar crapholes sponsored by the fossil fuel industry for your information on this subject, nutbagger. You only see lies and pseudo-science.

In the real world...

*Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"



****


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > USNavyVet said:
> ...



My predictions are right on the money when unaltered data is used. But keep the faith man... your lies will be pronounced in Paris and then withdrawn in a few months after the crap is exposed..


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> AR5 has hockey sticks coming out the kazoo and if you want to talk about failed predictions, let's talk about all of YOURS.  Where is the model that can recreate the last 50 years without inlcuding AGW?  What's been YOUR personal record with el Nino predictions Billy?





Billy_Bob said:


> My predictions are right on the money when unaltered data is used. *[...ROTFLMFAO...]* But keep the faith man... your lies will be pronounced in Paris and then withdrawn in a few months after the crap is exposed..



So extremely delusional and out of touch with reality, it borders on pathologically insane....

Keep up the good work, Boober....you're making your deranged little cult of reality denial look _even more_ ridiculous and absurd than they already do....


----------



## Crick (Nov 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> My predictions are right on the money when unaltered data is used.



So, you're claiming that the el Nino is over and done with?  You're claiming that the world's experts are all lying about ocean temperatures and weather patterns?  You're claiming the Grand Conspiracy has taken over ENSO as well?

You are either extraordinarily stupid or extraordinarily insane.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 15, 2015)

The alarmist deniers are all getting wee wee'd up..  

Funny that they make assertions about others and fail to see their own paranoia is so big that they are very afraid!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> The alarmist deniers are all getting wee wee'd up..
> 
> Funny that they make assertions about others and fail to see their own paranoia is so big that they are very afraid!


Even more meaningless than your usual twaddle. FAIL.

Your paranoid conspiracy theory insanity about how all of the world's scientists are faking the data for some incomprehensible reason is just fucking nuts. 

On the other hand...A concern over the dangers posed, to our world and our civilization and the whole human race plus all of the other life on Earth, by human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes, is quite sane and rational and fully supported by the scientific analysis of the situation.


----------



## anotherlife (Nov 15, 2015)

How is it paranoid to be an AGW denier?  For example, during Roman times, the temperatures were much higher than now, yet there was no industrial CO2.  This current CO2 curve and temperature rise may then be just somewhat coincidental, but not necessarily interlinked.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 15, 2015)

anotherlife said:


> How is it paranoid to be an AGW denier?  For example, during Roman times, the temperatures were much higher than now, yet there was no industrial CO2.  This current CO2 curve and temperature rise may then be just somewhat coincidental, but not necessarily interlinked.



Temperatures were not "_much higher during Roman times_". That is a fraudulent denier cult myth that contradicts the actual evidence.

CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and the well established scientific causal connection between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures is very well supported by the evidence, data and the laws of physics.

You denier cult dupes of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign to deceive people about the reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes in an attempt to preserve their profits and stock prices, just absolutely HAVE to ignore the testimony of the world scientific community that strongly affirms the reality of  AGW/CC so you have turned to extremely ridiculous paranoid conspiracy theories to explain why all of the scientists say that your denial of reality is completely insane. That's how you are paranoid, you poor confused retard.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and the well established scientific causal connection between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures is very well supported by the evidence, data and the laws of physics.



Sorry guy, but what is well established for a very long time is that CO2 is not a powerful greenhouse gas.  Way back, Tyndall said about CO2...

_


			
				Tyndall said:
			
		


			“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to."
		
Click to expand...


He went on to report that no matter how much CO2 you put in the air, it didn't have an effect on temperature:



			
				Tyndall said:
			
		


			“Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.”
		
Click to expand...


There is a reason you guys can't post an experiment showing the effect that CO2 has on temperature.....every time one is done, it is found that CO2 doesn't have an effect on temperature.

Then around 1900, a scientist named Ångström did an experiment to test _Arrhenius’ hypothesis that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would raise temperature and published his findings in a paper entitled “On The Importance Of Water Vapor And Carbon Dioxide In The Absorption Of The Atmosphere.”

Ångström filled  a tube with the amount of carbon dioxide that would be present in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and then passed infrared radiation through it. He first doubled and then halved that amount and repeated the test several times , which demonstrated virtually no temperature change between these differing amounts of carbon dioxide.

Those experimental results have then been verified over and over via millions of hours of commercial heat transference applications.  Here are comments made by manufacturers and designers of radiant heating equipment...



> _“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.”_


_




“Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.”

Click to expand...






			“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.”
		
Click to expand...


Experiment and practical observation has shown us over and over that the only thing that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere actually does is increase the emissivity of the atmosphere.  Sorry that you and yours have been so thoroughly duped.

Do you know what the opposite of skeptical is?  Do you?  *The opposite of skeptical is gullible.*_


----------



## Crick (Nov 16, 2015)

The waves of ether?  Let's see... John Tyndall (2 August 1820 – 4 December 1893).  Yeah, that's state of the art.  That precedes Angstrom and Koch.  Let me guess, you went looking for something BESIDES the Grand Conspiracy Theory and this is where you finally found something.  Well... I'm sold.

We've both been accusing each other of gullibility for a long time dude.  What hasn't been shown here is that you who claim to be a skeptic have ever demonstrated skepticism on any topic.  Yes, the opposite of skeptic is gullible.  But denier is not synonymous.  Never was.


----------



## gipper (Nov 16, 2015)

The OP has it exactly backwards.  The left accuses those opposed to them, of the exact thing they are guilty of.  They do this with many issues.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > My predictions are right on the money when unaltered data is used.
> ...



Tell us again how we measured ocean temperatures of the deep Pacific 150 years ago.  Cuz, this is the warmest ocean EVAH!!!!!

IPCC told us AGW was a wealth redistribution scheme and we know people lie for money all the time. Ain't that right, Crick


----------



## jc456 (Nov 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> That's  P-A-R-A-N-O-I-D and I couldn't care less where you spend your days.  If your arguments against AGW includes lies and falsification by scientists and politicians, you're a paranoid idiot.


what is it we're supposed to be P A R A N O I D about? Sorry you lost me.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > USNavyVet said:
> ...


hahahahahahahaahahahaa, again you have it backward jacko.  Where is your proof that the last fifty years were due to AGW?  S0n, I've been asking and asking and you fail everyday to provide one slice of evidence to your delusional sch-peel.  Come now, surely you have some sort of justification for your claim on AGW, why are you so scared to present your data? 

You deny the fact that the world is quite fine without anyone talking about.  talk, talk, talk, but no walk, walk, walk.  Can't walk the walk of your delusional talk


----------



## jc456 (Nov 16, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOLOL.....so, your so-called evidence is a bunch of denier cult bullcrap you got off of various rightwingnut sources....two blogs, a denier cult reporter in a Rupert Murdoch rag, a rightwingnut publication and a newspaper owned by the Moonies. LOL.
> ...


denier is your middle name.  son you look so scared in this thread and afraid, not paranoid, afraid that someone doesn't believe in what you do.  Holy shit, can you come more unglued during a discussion?  Yell a little louder paranoid freak.  You obviously don't respect the opinions of others, it's your way or no way, right?  Yet, your dumbass can't find one piece of evidence to support the delusional mumbo jumbo you unleash in here.  I laugh at you.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 16, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > AR5 has hockey sticks coming out the kazoo and if you want to talk about failed predictions, let's talk about all of YOURS.  Where is the model that can recreate the last 50 years without inlcuding AGW?  What's been YOUR personal record with el Nino predictions Billy?
> ...


so s0n, still don't understand what is bothering you. Holy shit, deny much?  You seem like your manhood has been called on.  What is it bothers you? Why are you angry because someone doesn't see it like you? LOL, dude way to go to nutsville.

Why are you so paranoid?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > My predictions are right on the money when unaltered data is used.
> ...


yes, I believe the el nino is over if there really ever was one.  Snow expected this week in Chicago.  If there was a an el nino, that wouldn't be happening now would it?  The cool air aloft wouldn't be coming south.  Or don't you know how an el nino affects the US?

You sir are one paranoid pup.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> The waves of ether?  Let's see... John Tyndall (2 August 1820 – 4 December 1893).  Yeah, that's state of the art.  That precedes Angstrom and Koch.  Let me guess, you went looking for something BESIDES the Grand Conspiracy Theory and this is where you finally found something.  Well... I'm sold.



You got some experimental results that prove Tyndall, Angstrom, and a million hours of observation of radiant heaters wrong?.....didn't think so....so a logical fallacy is your response?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 16, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Yup crick is like normal spouting "belief" and "faith"..

I noticed how crick refused to comment on this thread where I asked is there any hard data exists on day to day ocean temperature before we started putting bouys in the ocean 2004 to monitor it...

Ocean temperture records | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## mamooth (Nov 16, 2015)

bear513 said:


> I noticed how crick refused to comment on this thread where I asked is there any hard data exists on day to day ocean temperature before we started putting bouys in the ocean 2004 to monitor it...



When you fail that badly, you should be grateful that everyone ignored you. You have such an amusingly inflated opinion of yourself. No, you're not making your opponents run away with your keen intellect. You're being ignored because your nonsense isn't worth bothering with.

If you're wondering where you went wrong ... ships. With thermometers. Logging regular temperature readings since ye olde days. Those logs still exist. Buoys are not necessary to get historical sea surface temperatures.

(And thanks for the fine paranoia example.)


----------



## anotherlife (Nov 16, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > How is it paranoid to be an AGW denier?  For example, during Roman times, the temperatures were much higher than now, yet there was no industrial CO2.  This current CO2 curve and temperature rise may then be just somewhat coincidental, but not necessarily interlinked.
> ...


You should follow the money.  Whoever pays the scientist has the truth.  This is not an experimental science.  Also, your religious belief in AGW is counteracted by the fact, that even those Alpine paths that the warrior Hannibal took with his army against Rome are now still blocked by huge glaciers.  That is a fact.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 16, 2015)

anotherlife said:


> You should follow the money.  Whoever pays the scientist has the truth.



And almost all the money is on the denier side. Scientists take a pay cult to do their work, as they could double their salary lying for the deniers, hence the money issue gives the scientists added credibility.



> This is not an experimental science.



In some ways it is, and in some it isn't. Same as, for example, astronomy.



> Also, your religious belief in AGW is counteracted by the fact, that even those Alpine paths that the warrior Hannibal took with his army against Rome are now still blocked by huge glaciers. That is a fact.



No, that's something you made up. While Hannibal's exact route over the Alps is an unsolved historical question, there are presently many routes across those Alps now that have no glaciers blocking them.


----------



## anotherlife (Nov 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > You should follow the money.  Whoever pays the scientist has the truth.
> ...


Scientists are well known to make up whatever, for banks and governments, especially when it is about issuing new tax backed bonds.  Scientists just don't have the dexterity to cash in on it for themselves.  Astronomy is not as statistical as environmental science.  Whilst they may see some level of correlation between CO2 and temperature, and may run simulations, throwing parameters at things to invent explanations is a game, not science.  You last statement is a good example of a religious deflection on known facts.  But even forgetting that, try to keep any army fightworthy in today's England with only Roman red towels and no shirts and pants.  Obvious, that climate is still colder.  And then, the normal temperature of Earth has always been ~25C, several degrees higher than the current glaciation age.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > You should follow the money.  Whoever pays the scientist has the truth.
> ...



Again no links to back up your claim?
I know you will say $85 million dollars on the last election alone by the AGW cult is peanuts, correct? 

Environmental groups are spending an unprecedented $85 million in the 2014 elections


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.


Sadly, this will only embolden them in their fantasy supported by 4% of scientists.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 16, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.
> ...


Hey  Dot, it would have much more value with experimental evidence, and raw data reports vs, biased manipulated data reports.  It would, but we all know your side has no integrity and fudging things is a norm for you all.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.
> ...



The problem on your side for the argument is that, to date, you don't have one iota of empirical evidence that raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere will result in rising temperatures....everything you claim is evidence comes from models.  What sort of idiot would not be skeptical of such claims when literally trillions of dollars and massive amounts of political control are all that is at stake?  Reductions in CO2 which will bring economies to their knees won't make any measurable difference in temperatures....what other reason could there possibly be for the whole scam other than money and political power?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.



There's no "conspiracy" Bullwinky.. It's right out there in the open. Your HOLY UN climate cops DO have an agenda. All of those COP meetings are beggars and whiners looking for YOUR wallet. 

Poor countries walk out of UN climate talks as compensation row rumbles on

*Poor countries walk out of UN climate talks as compensation row rumbles on
Bloc of 132 countries exit Warsaw conference after rich nations refuse to discuss climate change recompense until after 2015

Representatives of most of the world's poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia, the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015.

Harjeet Singh, ActionAid Internatonal's spokesman on disaster risk, said: "The US, EU, Australia and Norway remain blind to the climate reality that's hitting us all, and poor people and countries much harder. They continue to derail negotiations in Warsaw that can create a new system to deal with new types of loss and damage such as sea-level rise, loss of territory, biodiversity and other non-economic losses more systematically."
*
"Other non-economic losses" eh?  Sounds like "pain and suffering" in a civil trial. THERE is the reason the UN Science reports are written. And THERE is the reason why they suffer from GIGANTIC amounts of bias.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.



So we, the ones who are't worried that we are destroying the earth, are the paranoid ones? That's pretty fucking stupid dude.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Nov 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.
> ...



You are kidding right ?

You make the OP like you have it locked up and others have their heads in the sand and you say this ?


----------



## anotherlife (Nov 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.


No, we just don't want to pay your stupid carbon tax to let you issue your new bonds and cash in on our pockets, AGW crooks.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Nov 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.
> ...



Yeah, but there is no agenda.....

The AGW purists would never lie.....

ROTFLMAO


----------



## Crick (Nov 17, 2015)

anotherlife said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.
> ...



Then you must think it will be cheaper to do nothing - or you don't give a fuck what happens to the world around you.

Don't try to deny it.  The unstated premise to that argument is that global warming isn't going to do us any harm.  And the premise to that argument is that the scientists who say it will are lying.  And we're right back to the Giant Global Conspiracy.


----------



## Muhammed (Nov 17, 2015)

The hockey stick was proven to be bogus a decade ago,and yet these idiots still dry hump it every day until their genitals are full of splinters.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.
> ...



Which data are you claiming hasn't been adjusted?  You are never going to escape the fact that the adjustments big climate is doing on the data shows a warming trend in the US while the CRN network....pristinely placed...double redundant...and requiring no adjustment is showing a cooling trend.  There is no reason to believe that if that network were worldwide the same trend  would not be evident.  If the adjustments are showing the wrong trend in the US, they are probably showing the wrong trend everywhere as they are clearly based on flawed methodology.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> [
> 
> Then you must think it will be cheaper to do nothing - or you don't give a fuck what happens to the world around you.



How much change do you think cutting CO2 emissions drastically will cause?...and can you provide both proof that cutting the CO2 will result in a change and a cost analysis that proves that it is worth the money?  If you can't why on earth should anyone be listening to you?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


you know he can't prove it.  he can't prove that there is any issue at all because of an increase in CO2.  mumbo jumbo posts on an internet message board that has no validity in them at all.  And he's proud of it.

he uses the word AGW denier, yet he denies the earth observed temperatures.  he and his have to make up temperatures.  how fun is that.  he must call Bob and ask, so what do you think the temps outside are today in let's say London; Bob says flip a coin; heads 2 degrees up tails 3 degrees up.  

Then come on a message board and spout hottest summer eva!!!! I laugh at him and his leftist worms.

BTW, even after all that, they don't even have a solution to the make believe they choose to make.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 17, 2015)

anotherlife said:


> Scientists are well known to make up whatever, for banks and governments, especially when it is about issuing new tax backed bonds. Scientists just don't have the dexterity to cash in on it for themselves.



That's grade-A conspiracy nuttery, unsupported by any actual evidence.



> Astronomy is not as statistical as environmental science.



It's quite similar. You can't run lab experiments with stars or dark matter, for example, but you can collect statistics on it, theorize on it, and run models for it. Yet nobody claims astronomy is a socialist plot. Go fig.



> Whilst they may see some level of correlation between CO2 and temperature, and may run simulations, throwing parameters at things to invent explanations is a game, not science.



You're ignoring all the direct evidence for global warming, like stratospheric cooling, increasing backradiation and decreasing OLR in the GHG bands. Those are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming, and they don't use any models. No "natural cycles" theory explains such evidence, hence those "natural cycles" theories are wrong.

You didn't even know that evidence existed, because your cult didn't bother to inform you. There's no conspiracy. You're just poorly informed on the science.



> You last statement is a good example of a religious deflection on known facts.  But even forgetting that, try to keep any army fightworthy in today's England with only Roman red towels and no shirts and pants.  Obvious, that climate is still colder.  And then, the normal temperature of Earth has always been ~25C, several degrees higher than the current glaciation age.



Looks like somebody has been watching "300" too often, and thinks that Roman soldiers were like the Greeks in that movie, dressed only in red capes and speedos. Back in reality, the Romans, not being morons, were quite capable of dressing for colder weather.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists are well known to make up whatever, for banks and governments, especially when it is about issuing new tax backed bonds. Scientists just don't have the dexterity to cash in on it for themselves.
> ...


He's spot on, bTW.  What's funny is you know it.  So do scientist bias temperature sets or not?  Please, let's see your response to that question.

Can you say PARANOID?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Okay, I'll keep saying you're paranoid. You keep raving about a global conspiracy, with no evidence to back it up. You're obviously putting your paranoia on open display.


The facts just aren't on your side for that statement.  Sorry, I know you hate it when I'm right.  You hate it.

The facts are that the definition of Paranoid fits your wardrobe far better than anything on my side.  So, ewwwwwwwwwww  paranoia


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2015)

Stupid, jc, stupid. All flap yap, nothing at all to back it up. This is going to be the hottest year on record. The present El Nino is the strongest on record. And you 'Conservatives' are going into an election year claiming nothing at all is happening. Meanwhile, the weather events are proving what liars you are. How do you think that is going to set with the American Voter?


----------



## Muhammed (Nov 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Okay, I'll keep saying you're paranoid. You keep raving about a global conspiracy, with no evidence to back it up. You're obviously putting your paranoia on open display.


It has already been proven to be a global conspiracy beyond any shadow of doubt.

1) It consists of more than one person. Therefore, by definition it is a conspiracy.

2) This conspiracy consists of people from several countries around the globe.

3) Therefore, by definition, it is a global conspiracy.

Hence it is a global conspiracy, you ignorant twit!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Stupid, jc, stupid. All flap yap, nothing at all to back it up. This is going to be the hottest year on record. The present El Nino is the strongest on record. And you 'Conservatives' are going into an election year claiming nothing at all is happening. Meanwhile, the weather events are proving what liars you are. How do you think that is going to set with the American Voter?


flap yap, you got nothing.  Your claim on Paranoid. What is it I'm paranoid of? Still no one has answered what is it we're supposed to be paranoid about.  Can you supply that answer?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2015)

And you are still this ignorant? Of course, I am the reincarnation of Napoleon. See how that works? You can post anything, since we are not known to each other. Prove that you actually know something by linking us to peer reviewed articles from scientific journals backing your points. Otherwise, we just have to consider you another liar from the quality of your posts.


----------



## Muhammed (Nov 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


I am a real scientist, dumbass.

IQ=158.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Really? Do you know how to back up statements with referances to published literature on the relevant subject? From your posts, that does not seem to be the case. Perhaps you should learn that. Seems that it is taught even at Community College level. Again, unverified claims don't mean a thing.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> And you are still this ignorant? Of course, I am the reincarnation of Napoleon. See how that works? You can post anything, since we are not known to each other. Prove that you actually know something by linking us to peer reviewed articles from scientific journals backing your points. Otherwise, we just have to consider you another liar from the quality of your posts.


do you have any peer reviewed articles? Funny the demand you make and yet you got shit.  Now that post was indeed Paranoia.

Funny stuff rocks.


----------



## Muhammed (Nov 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


If I am extraordinarily much smarter and well educated than those jerks then their opinion don't mean jack shit to anyone except fools like you.


----------



## Muhammed (Nov 17, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


You are anti-science.


----------



## westwall (Nov 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.









Not a "grand" conspiracy.   Just your typical banal one.


----------



## westwall (Nov 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...








Yes.  It will be cheaper, by far, to do nothing.  Your solution is to waste 76 trillion dollars in the hope that you will lower global temps by one degree in 100 years.  You have yet to show that a one degree rise is harmful.  Historical FACT shows it is not but we'll ignore that for the moment, and simply ask how many better uses could that 76 trillion be put to that would actually benefit the planet instead of merely enriching already very rich people.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 17, 2015)

Deniers aren't anything new in the world. There are always those who, for emotional reasons, cling to debunked science. For example, after plate tectonics was proven by a team of Navy scientists around 1968, almost everyone in the field of geology quickly embraced the new theory. Evidence has that effect on actual scientists. However, a few diehard plate tectonics deniers remained diehard deniers for the rest of their lives, blindly rejecting all evidence for plate tectonics just as current deniers blindly reject all evidence for global warming.

And before anyone brings up Wegener, note that Wegener was 100% wrong with his theory of continental drift, being Wegener claimed continents plowed straight through the mantle, something that was absolutely impossible. Replacing one wrong theory with a different wrong theory isn't making any progress in science, so Wegener was correctly rejected.


----------



## westwall (Nov 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Deniers aren't anything new in the world. There are always those who, for emotional reasons, cling to debunked science. For example, after plate tectonics was proven by a team of Navy scientists around 1968, almost everyone in the field of geology quickly embraced the new theory. Evidence has that effect on actual scientists. However, a few diehard plate tectonics deniers remained diehard deniers for the rest of their lives, blindly rejecting all evidence for plate tectonics just as current deniers blindly reject all evidence for global warming.
> 
> And before anyone brings up Wegener, note that Wegener was 100% wrong with his theory of continental drift, being Wegener claimed continents plowed straight through the mantle, something that was absolutely impossible. Replacing one wrong theory with a different wrong theory isn't making any progress in science, so Wegener was correctly rejected.








What's funny is you call us deniers yet can never quite pinpoint what we're supposed to be denying.  Here's a fact for you to mull over, there is not a single carbon control program that mandates a reduction in production.  Not one.  You merely have to pay for the privilege of polluting.

Now if the reality was as dire as the claims don't you think the pushers of this bullshit would actually try and stop the "polluting" rather than merely profiting from it?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 17, 2015)

westwall said:


> What's funny is you call us deniers yet can never quite pinpoint what we're supposed to be denying.  Here's a fact for you to mull over, there is not a single carbon control program that mandates a reduction in production.  Not one.  You merely have to pay for the privilege of polluting.



A sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade program was implemented starting in 1995. SO2 emissions are down 40% since then. Hence, it has been conclusively demonstrated that "paying for the privilege" results in reduced pollution.



> Now if the reality was as dire as the claims don't you think the pushers of this bullshit would actually try and stop the "polluting" rather than merely profiting from it?



The answer is that you're pushing bullshit there by way of two big lies -- that such programs don't work, and that those pushing them are profiting from it.

However, if you're that dead set against capitalism, the socialist Europeans cut their SO2 emissions 70%, using conventional regulation by government decree. Would that socialist solution be more to your liking, given how the evil capitalist influence has been removed from it?


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.



Yes the AGW cult, the true deniers, are absolutely paranoid..


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Then we should fix OUR OWN issues. And not open an entire global can of worms about what we owe Tivalu or Borneo. Wouldn't hurt to keep folks from building right on the beaches or fuck the eco-weirds and continuing developing GM crops that are more enviro tolerant.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is you call us deniers yet can never quite pinpoint what we're supposed to be denying.  Here's a fact for you to mull over, there is not a single carbon control program that mandates a reduction in production.  Not one.  You merely have to pay for the privilege of polluting.
> ...



I was all for that.. Because it was easy to measure "harm" by externalities like a polluting source. CO2 is not pollution and there is no rational way of assigning external damages to it's emissions. 

Certainly exempting cows would be one thing I think is fair. Because they replaced the buffalo that were so thick -- they turned the prairie horizons brown. That's the ridiculous shit you get into when compare CO2 to "a pollutant"..


----------



## anotherlife (Nov 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Even if AGW was true, we could do nothing about it.  History records, that every time people make preventive plans against anything, they blunder.  The more sophisticated the plan, the bigger the blunder.  And the more expensive the plan, the costlier the blunder.  Preventing blunders by at least doing nothing has always been the better thing to do, after hindsight, all through history.  Doing nothing will harm us less than the blunder we would put ourselves under, as usual.


----------



## anotherlife (Nov 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists are well known to make up whatever, for banks and governments, especially when it is about issuing new tax backed bonds. Scientists just don't have the dexterity to cash in on it for themselves.
> ...


HEHE You pick the evidence you like and throw away the one you don't.  HEHE  AGW science is interesting, and human science is interesting too.  Your "evidence" is an interaction between the two.  Every scientist admits that science moves in trends, not just by experimental evidence, even in the field of experimental sciences.  So much more must this be true in such politicized sciences as AGW or feminism, or financial modeling.  Show me a picture of a roman soldier in winter coat.  Okay, you can use photoshop.  HEHE


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is you call us deniers yet can never quite pinpoint what we're supposed to be denying.  Here's a fact for you to mull over, there is not a single carbon control program that mandates a reduction in production.  Not one.  You merely have to pay for the privilege of polluting.
> ...



Retard; 

SO2 was mandated to be reduced and scrubbed from US emissions over 25 years ago.  They are not allowed to put it into the atmosphere moron... You cant buy that privilege in the US...


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



But one thing that helped get us there were the pollution trading credits. Never really fully implemented, but it's a viable concept.. The deal is --- if the program WORKS -- sometime in the future you won't need it anymore.


----------



## Muhammed (Nov 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There are always those who, for emotional reasons, cling to debunked science.


That is obvious psychological projection.


----------



## Muhammed (Nov 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


CO2 is not pollution.

Do you want to make to make plants starve to death and people freeze to death?

How much energy will the sun output in the year 2055? Do you have any proof? Any whatsoever? 


If not, then you have just conceded the debate.


----------



## Crick (Nov 18, 2015)

He conceded nothing but you've conceded that you have so little  grasp of the basics of the natural sciences or logic or the issues actually under discussion here that I bet your denier compatriots rather wish you'd post less.

The CO2 pollution meme as well as mention of plants is pure ignorance.  The Earth's flora did just fine prior to the Industrial Revolution and even the most ambitious of mitigation plans even daydream of getting CO2 to those levels anywhere in the next century or more.


----------



## Crick (Nov 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> What's funny is you call us deniers yet can never quite pinpoint what we're supposed to be denying.  Here's a fact for you to mull over, there is not a single carbon control program that mandates a reduction in production.  Not one.  You merely have to pay for the privilege of polluting.
> 
> Now if the reality was as dire as the claims don't you think the pushers of this bullshit would actually try and stop the "polluting" rather than merely profiting from it?



You deny the conclusions of the IPCC.  Or have you changed your mind?  And to do so, since the physical evidence will not support you, you rely on the paranoid delusion of a massive conspiracy.


----------



## Crick (Nov 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> SO2 was mandated to be reduced and scrubbed from US emissions over 25 years ago.  They are not allowed to put it into the atmosphere moron... You cant buy that privilege in the US...



So you think we should simply cap CO2 emissions?  Good.  I'm with you.  We can cap them down to zero over a few years and get this long-delayed job done and done right.

Wikipedai - Emissions Trading

_In the United States, the "acid rain"-related emission trading system was principally conceived by C. Boyden Gray, a G.H.W. Bush administration attorney. Gray worked with theEnvironmental Defense Fund (EDF), who worked with the EPA to write the bill that became law as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The new emissions cap on NOx and SO2gases took effect in 1995, and according to Smithsonian magazine, those acid rain emissions dropped 3 million tons that year.[45] In 1997, the CoP agreed, in what has been described as a watershed in international environmental treaty making, the Kyoto Protocol where 38 developed countries(Annex 1 countries.) committed themselves to targets and timetables for the reduction of GHGs.[46] These targets for developed countries are often referred to as Assigned Amounts.

One important economic reality recognised by many of the countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol is that, if countries have to solely rely on their own domestic measures, the resulting inflexible limitations on GHG growth could entail very large costs, perhaps running into many trillions of dollars globally.[47] As a result, international mechanisms which would allow developed countries flexibility to meet their targets were included in the Kyoto Protocol. The purpose of these mechanisms is to allow the parties to find the most economic ways to achieve their targets. These international mechanisms are outlined under Kyoto Protocol.[48]_


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SO2 was mandated to be reduced and scrubbed from US emissions over 25 years ago.  They are not allowed to put it into the atmosphere moron... You cant buy that privilege in the US...
> ...



So tell me how do you cap emissions at zero without shutting down the economy


----------



## Kosh (Nov 18, 2015)

CO2 does not control climate and it never has..


----------



## jc456 (Nov 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SO2 was mandated to be reduced and scrubbed from US emissions over 25 years ago.  They are not allowed to put it into the atmosphere moron... You cant buy that privilege in the US...
> ...


this is just truly stupid.  Paranoia, kill all humans and have zero CO2.  Yep you are still advocating the death of human kind.  hahaaha, hey Frank.  Here's another one for you to use.  Cap to zero CO2.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is you call us deniers yet can never quite pinpoint what we're supposed to be denying.  Here's a fact for you to mull over, there is not a single carbon control program that mandates a reduction in production.  Not one.  You merely have to pay for the privilege of polluting.
> ...



The "we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" IPCC


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SO2 was mandated to be reduced and scrubbed from US emissions over 25 years ago.  They are not allowed to put it into the atmosphere moron... You cant buy that privilege in the US...
> ...



How will "Capping CO2" prevent the equatorial rain forest from being the biggest generators of CO2?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 19, 2015)

Crick you going to incinerate the rain forest to stop CO2?


----------



## Muhammed (Nov 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is you call us deniers yet can never quite pinpoint what we're supposed to be denying.  Here's a fact for you to mull over, there is not a single carbon control program that mandates a reduction in production.  Not one.  You merely have to pay for the privilege of polluting.
> ...


You will continue to be very ignorant of the subject at least until you can comprehend the fact that the IPCC is not a scientific body. It is a political organization.


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2015)

The IPCC's assessment reports are accurate assessments of the findings of current climate science regarding global warming and climate change.  Your comments are completely meaningless in that regard.  The reference material with which the hundreds of SCIENTISTS of the IPCC produce its assessment reports are NOT political documents.

Besides which, I would challenge your premise that the UN is a political body.  The US Department of Defense is an agency of the elected government.  Is the DoD a political body? No. Simply because the UN represents the combined will of elected bodies across the planet does not mean that the UN itself is political in nature.  The UN does not run for election. It does not represent any political party. It does not seek power. It is NOT, therefore, a political enitity.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> The IPCC's assessment reports are accurate assessments of the findings of current climate science regarding global warming and climate change.  Your comments are completely meaningless in that regard.  The reference material with which the hundreds of SCIENTISTS of the IPCC use to produce its assessment reports are NOT political documents.


Is redistributing wealth political or scientific?


----------



## Muhammed (Nov 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> The IPCC's assessment reports are accurate assessments of the findings of current climate science regarding global warming and climate change.


Wrong.

You have no fucking clue about science.


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> The IPCC's assessment reports are accurate assessments of the findings of current climate science regarding global warming and climate change.  Your comments are completely meaningless in that regard.  The reference material with which the hundreds of SCIENTISTS of the IPCC produce its assessment reports are NOT political documents.
> 
> Besides which, I would challenge your premise that the UN is a political body.  The US Department of Defense is an agency of the elected government.  Is the DoD a political body? No. Simply because the UN represents the combined will of elected bodies across the planet does not mean that the UN itself is political in nature.  The UN does not run for election. It does not represent any political party. It does not seek power. It is NOT, therefore, a political enitity.




Would you care to challenge me on my facts Frank?


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> You have no fucking clue about science.



*HAHAHAHAHaaaahaahaaahaaaa.....*

And YOU DO ? ! ? ! ? 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAaaaa


----------



## Muhammed (Nov 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > You have no fucking clue about science.
> ...



Correct. So it's remotely possible that you might know one thing about science. But more than likely you just made a lucky guess.


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is you call us deniers yet can never quite pinpoint what we're supposed to be denying.  Here's a fact for you to mull over, there is not a single carbon control program that mandates a reduction in production.  Not one.  You merely have to pay for the privilege of polluting.
> ...


good points.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 19, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Hey.. Hold your fire. I just said that in the post before this one. Maybe you didn't understand the convo. Mammy was talking about cap and trade for CO2 and comparing that to the PREVIOUS  cap and trade that was done for REAL pollutants. Like NOx and SOx and particulates. I was referring to THOSE pollution trading credits. 

Is it that you guys have itchy trigger fingers??  (yup Muhammed -- that's a joke)..


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 19, 2015)

*To be an AGW believer is to be delusional*


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 19, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Crick won't dare do that.  He's scared of finding out something different then the bullshit that he so faithfully believes in.


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2015)

When people tell me to go hit Google, it tells me they haven't got shit and they're just hoping I'll find something.  I want to know who YOU believe has been fudging the data and what YOU believe to the evidence.  If you cannot say, then you haven't got an argument.  You're simply parroting something you've heard with no comprehension on your part.  So why don't you take that sassy Irish ass to YOUR friend Google and find something with which you might enlighten us all (and, obviously, that would be YOU FIRST).


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> When people tell me to go hit Google, it tells me they haven't got shit and they're just hoping I'll find something..



That's like when you claim that the empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming has already been posted or that you have posted it already but when asked point blank, you can never seem to manage to provide it?   Like that bucky?

Duped and a hypocrite..


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2015)

I've provided it to you on multiple occasions.  It goes like this:* www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.*  Familiar?  Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> I've provided it to you on multiple occasions.  It goes like this:* www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.*  Familiar?  Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.


Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent. 

NEXT FAIL!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> I've provided it to you on multiple occasions.  It goes like this:* www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.*  Familiar?  Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.



There are only two possible responses to your claim..either you don't know what empirical evidence is or you are a lying sack.

If you think there is something there that constitutes empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature to increase, then by all means either post it, or tell me where you believe it might be found....because I have looked at all of it and not found anything at all that someone who knows the first thing about the scientific method would construe as empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature to increase....

So can you point to empirical evidence in that steaming pile or not?  Answer: of course you can't.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I've provided it to you on multiple occasions.  It goes like this:* www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.*  Familiar?  Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.
> ...



It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Yup that's their bible
The hockey stick graph is their crucifix
Naomi Klien is their virgin Mary
And Michael Mann is their high priest


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2015)

bear513 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




If you, SID and you Billy Boy, ACTUALLY want to claim that AR5 contains no empirical data, we might be able to find some room for you at the local Utterly Deluded Arch Conservatives Lacking Facts support group.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 21, 2015)

bear513 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Sheesh. Such silly flap yap. 

Go ahead and present some peer reviewed papers that show that GHGs do not absorb outgoing IR and warm the atmosphere. You cannot, because there are none. Go ahead and show us where the cryosphere for this planet is gaining ice. You cannot, because we are losing ice in a big way. Go ahead and show us that the whole of the planets surface is cooling. You cannot, because it has been rapidly warming. And show that we have not changed the CO2 from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm, the CH4 from around 800 ppb to over 1800 ppb. 

You cannot, so all you do is post nonsense about 'religion'. I guess that you think that religion is a bad thing from your posts.


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2015)

A few observations regarding "The Physical Science Basis", Working Group I of Assessment Report 5 *for SSDD and Billy Bob, who both claim AR5 contains no empirical data.*



Billy_Bob said:


> Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.
> NEXT FAIL!





SSDD said:


> It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.



The first section of the document is titled "A.Introduction".  The second is "B. Observed Changes in the Climate System"  Guess what an observed change is gentlemen?  Why, it's EMPIRICAL DATA

A Find executed on either the words "observed" or "observation" max out the Find counter showing "999+ results".

By page 45, out of the 1,552 pages of the document, we find the following graphs of empirical data.  This ignores what empirical data would be found in the text:

Combined land and ocean surface temperature anomaly 1850-2012
Observed change in surface temperature 1901-2012
Extreme weather and climate events
Observed changes in annual precipitation over land
Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover
Arctic summer ice extent
Change in global average upper ocean heat content
Global average sea level change
Atmospheric CO2
Surface ocean CO2 and pH
Changes in atmospheric levels of CO2, O3, CH4, CFCs, HCFCs, N2O and nitrates
Changes in global cloud cover
Temperature data for all continents individually
Ocean heat content for all oceans individually
Cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emission from 1870

So, Billy, SID, your turn.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Too Funny;

You claim to have read AR5 and yet you cant tell what is political clap trap and what is lacking in it... Good little sheep follow the bell...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> A few observations regarding "The Physical Science Basis", Working Group I of Assessment Report 5 *for SSDD and Billy Bob, who both claim AR5 contains no empirical data.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok Moron:
Where is the empirical evidence?  All you got is *MODELING OUTPUT*... which IS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> A few observations regarding "The Physical Science Basis", Working Group I of Assessment Report 5 *for SSDD and Billy Bob, who both claim AR5 contains no empirical data.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Poor little dupe....the fact that the climate changes was never in question..the temperature is always going up or down or hesitating in preparation for going up or down.  Is the fact that the climate changes a sufficient red herring to fool you?

Where in that steaming pile is empirical evidence....not that the climate is changing but that increasing the atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase.  I wouldn't have even asked for the empirical data that increasing atmospheric CO2 would cause increased temperatures if I didn't know that no such data existed....if it did, then my position as a skeptic would be different....since no such data exists, my position as a skeptic continues and your position as a dupe remains unassailed as well.  Congratulations.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 21, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Ok Moron:
> Where is the empirical evidence?  All you got is *MODELING OUTPUT*... which IS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND!




Not only that but the only evidence he has is that the climate is changing....no surprise there...apparently he believes that evidence of a changing climate is empirical evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes temperature to increase.  Either he really doesn't have a clue and is a world class dupe or he is a lying sack deliberately trying to misdirect the original challenge by providing a red herring which doesn't even begin to answer the original challenge.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> A few observations regarding "The Physical Science Basis", Working Group I of Assessment Report 5 *for SSDD and Billy Bob, who both claim AR5 contains no empirical data.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And we know those data sets from the 1850 - 1900 were accurate to the tenth of a degree


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 21, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Crick never read AR5 which would explain why he was totally ignorant of and dismissing of the concept of "excess heat" which was the basis of adding ocean temps to AR5


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A few observations regarding "The Physical Science Basis", Working Group I of Assessment Report 5 *for SSDD and Billy Bob, who both claim AR5 contains no empirical data.*
> ...



I though he claimed they were accurate to 100th of a degree...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 21, 2015)

Crick walk us through the concept of "excess heat" again


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick walk us through the concept of "excess heat" again



No.  Get an education.


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



I'd say "Nice try", but it was, in fact, pathetic.  You claimed AR5 had NO empirical data.  You insulted me for thinking that it did.  In fact, AR5 is FILLED with empirical data.  What does that make you Billy Boy?


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> A few observations regarding "The Physical Science Basis", Working Group I of Assessment Report 5 *for SSDD and Billy Bob, who both claim AR5 contains no empirical data.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> Ok Moron:
> Where is the empirical evidence?  All you got is *MODELING OUTPUT*... which IS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND!



Hmm... what are our options here?

1) Billy Boy doesn't know what "empirical" evidence actually is
2) Billy Boy doesn't know what sort of data GCMs produce
3) Billy Boy hasn't actually read my post or any portion of AR5
4) Billy Boy chooses to lie
5) Billy Boy is stupid beyond belief
6) Some combination of the previous five

What'll it be Billy Boy?  Nothing I listed there came from a model.  Every bit of that is empirical data.  Digging yourself into a deeper hole is not going to help your cause.


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick never read AR5 which would explain why he was totally ignorant of and dismissing of the concept of "excess heat" which was the basis of adding ocean temps to AR5



Ocean temperatures may be found in AR1, AR2, AR3 and AR4 as well Frank.  Please go get an education.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> What'll it be Billy Boy?  Nothing I listed there came from a model.  Every bit of that is empirical data.  Digging yourself into a deeper hole is not going to help your cause.




*DODGE MUCH CRICK??*

You claimed that there was plenty of empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would result in increased warming....you have posted plenty of red herrings....data that shows that the climate is changing....no surprise there....we already knew that the climate changes....The issue is whether man is responsible for the changing climate....Where is all that empirical evidence you claimed existed that prove that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will result in increased warming?

Ready to admit that there isn't any?  Or will you keep on lying with your claims that it exists but you just can't be bothered to provide it?


----------



## Crick (Nov 22, 2015)

You weenies REPEATEDLY said there was NO EMPIRICAL DATA in AR5.  Billy Bitch thinks what I posted was model output and I presume you're stupid enough to have agreed with him.

So, eat my shorts, dickbreath.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 22, 2015)

lol....."empirical" data = .3 degree's!!!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 22, 2015)

Notice how the AGW Faith Based cultists try to marginalize the folks who utilize ACTUAL science to question the AGW Faith?

Blasphemer!  Denier!  Apostate!   

Burn them at the stake!  Ooops.  Hold off on that last one.  Burning the infidels might release too much carbon (a POISON) into the atmosphere.


----------



## Crick (Nov 22, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Notice how the AGW Faith Based cultists try to marginalize the folks who utilize ACTUAL science to question the AGW Faith?
> 
> Blasphemer!  Denier!  Apostate!
> 
> Burn them at the stake!  Ooops.  Hold off on that last one.  Burning the infidels might release too much carbon (a POISON) into the atmosphere.



What actual science would that be?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> You weenies REPEATEDLY said there was NO EMPIRICAL DATA in AR5.  Billy Bitch thinks what I posted was model output and I presume you're stupid enough to have agreed with him.
> 
> So, eat my shorts, dickbreath.



Eat my shorts, dickbreath?  What are you....in the 5th grade.  Is that some futile effort to save face since it is clear that you can't provide the empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature to rise that you claimed existed?  How does it feel to be exposed as the lying sack that you are?  

It is clear that you can't keep up with a conversation and you lie so much, you can't keep track of what you have said.  Here, let me refresh your memory.

You said:



			
				crick said:
			
		

> When people tell me to go hit Google, it tells me they haven't got shit and they're just hoping I'll find something.



To which I responded:



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> That's like when you claim that the empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming has already been posted or that you have posted it already but when asked point blank, you can never seem to manage to provide it? Like that bucky?



To which you replied  (bold mine)



			
				crick said:
			
		

> I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this:* www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.* Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the* empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.*


*
*
So here we are crick ham...me pointing out that you are a lying sack...and that no empirical evidence exists that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise.  You claimed that you had posted the empirical data but, alas all you posted was a poor attempt at diverting attention to something else.  Sucks to be you.   

It is nice of you to concede that you hold your belief that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to increase based on something other than hard empirical evidence...so tell me bucky...is your position based on faith or politics...or just plain old gullible stupid....or perhaps all three?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> What actual science would that be?



Its called the scientific method buckwheat...after billions upon billions have been spent, you have no empirical data to support the hypothesis that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise.....no evidence...failed hypothesis...all you have left is a political movement based on some crackhead sort of faith.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A few observations regarding "The Physical Science Basis", Working Group I of Assessment Report 5 *for SSDD and Billy Bob, who both claim AR5 contains no empirical data.*
> ...



Too funny:

Crick lies out his ass, claims models are empirical evidence and doesn't have a dam clue how the water cycle lays waste to the CO2 increase in our atmosphere..

I am laughing at your pure bull shit partisan crap.. Tell me again how MODEL OUTPUTS are empirical evidence....  Every one of them fail the predictive test phase.. Faith based shit pile!


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2015)

Open up the link I provided and then ANY of the graphs I mentioned and show us that their data are model output.

You stupid asshole.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> Open up the link I provided and then ANY of the graphs I mentioned and show us that their data are model output.
> 
> You stupid asshole.



Still dodging I see.....maybe we should start a thread on the topic...you claiming that empirical evidence exists that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise while remaining completely unable to provide even a shred of such evidence...

Why not simply publicly admit that no such empirical evidence exists and then you can move on having publicly expressed that your position is faith based.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Notice how the AGW Faith Based cultists try to marginalize the folks who utilize ACTUAL science to question the AGW Faith?
> ...



the kind that relies on the scientific method, not "consensus."

Denying your fraudulent claims is not blasphemy no matter how often you cry out "denier."  In actual science it is actually ok to challenge an un-established mere claim.


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Open up the link I provided and then ANY of the graphs I mentioned and show us that their data are model output.
> ...



You claimed - and I quoted you both doing so - that there was NO EMPIRICAL DATA IN AR5. You made no qualification.  I started at the beginning and listed graphs containing empirical data.  Your buddy Billy Bitch went so far as to state that the material I listed was all model output.  Now you've opted to throw in this non-existent claim in a desperate attempt to avoid looking like a complete idiot but it's had the unfortunate effect of showing everyone here on top of being precisely that stupid, you're a completely amoral, unethical LIAR.

God are the two of you *STUPID*.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> You claimed - and I quoted you both doing so - that there was NO EMPIRICAL DATA IN AR5. You made no qualification.



I gave you the quote you lying sack....what's the matter...can't bring yourself to even admit what was asked?  Here, let me refresh your memory since apparently you are so desperate that you are even lying to yourself...

*You said:
*


			
				crick said:
			
		

> When people tell me to go hit Google, it tells me they haven't got shit and they're just hoping I'll find something.



*Clearly you are saying that people who make claims that data exists but don't post it are full of shit.*

*To which I said:*



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> That's like when you claim that the empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming has already been posted or that you have posted it already but when asked point blank, you can never seem to manage to provide it? Like that bucky?



*That is me pointing out that you do the same thing which by your own admission means that you don't have shit....I go on to state precisely the claim you made to which you have never provided the evidence....SPECIFICALLY the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

To which you said"*



			
				crick said:
			
		

> I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this:* www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.* Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the* empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.*


*

That's you telling, yet another bald faced lie.  Again, you make the claim that you have provided empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.    Then when confronted with what you claimed and asked to provide the empirical evidence that you claimed that you had posted, you then, realizing that you have made a claim that you can't possibly back up )because you know as well as I do that no such empirical data exist even though hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted on the AGW hoax) you then change gears, hoping that no one will notice and start providing observed evidence that the climate changes which was never in question.  We all agree that the climate changes....especially when the planet is exiting an ice age...

So again crick....lets see the empirical data that you claim that you have posted proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to increase.  I find it hilarious that you have been caught up on the most basic, foundational question possible in the AGW debate...a question so important that a failure to adequately answer it...to which, if there is no actual empirical data to back up the claim, renders the rest of the argument highly questionable.*




Crick said:


> I started at the beginning and listed graphs containing empirical data.



*You stated to me that you had posted "abundant" empirical data that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause warming.  You lied....you never posted any such data because no such data exists.  Again....you are a lying sack...and now you are again trying to offer up your red herring of observed data that the climate changes which does not answer the question of whether or not adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

You know as well as I do that evidence that the climate changes is not evidence that the change is due to more CO2 in the atmosphere....or maybe you don't know that in which case, that would make you quite STUPID wouldn't it?  We already know that you are stupid enough to make a claim, in writing that you could never back up.

So lets go back to your original statement....
*


			
				crick said:
			
		

> When people tell me to go hit Google, it tells me they haven't got shit and they're just hoping I'll find something



When people tell you to go look for the data that they claim exists, but don't post it, you are smart enough to know that they don't have it and are just taking out of their asses....fast forward to now....you are still talking out of your ass and lying in your typical manner because we both know that you don't have shit.  You have probably looked everywhere for it but, alas, it is no where to be found....not one scrap of actual empirical evidence that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.  

Now what strikes me as funny, and puts you squarely in the category clearly labeled *STUPID *is the fact that even when you come face to face with the reality that there isn't a single shred of empirical evidence, anywhere, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, you still believe it because you have been told to believe it.  You aren't skeptical in the least even though you now know that no such foundational empirical data exists....the most basic question possible has not been empirically answered and you still believe.  No skepticism at all...you exemplify the opposite of skepticism...and you know what that is because I already told you....the opposite of skeptical is gullible.  Even when you come face to face with the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, you remain a believer.  PATHETIC.



Crick said:


> Now you've opted to throw in this non-existent claim in a desperate attempt to avoid looking like a complete idiot but it's had the unfortunate effect of showing everyone here on top of being precisely that stupid, you're a completely amoral, unethical LIAR.



*And when confronted with his lies, what does a genuine, dyed in the wool lying sack to....hell, he tells more lies.  Even when your quote in which you said clearly that you have provided empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, you claim that you never said it or that I never asked it.  How does one ever get to be such a liar crick.  I mean, there are liars here on this board, but you are the king of them....you have assumed the crown and are the reigning** KING OF THE LIARS.  **T**ell me your maggoty...er....majesty, how does it feel to be the biggest liar on the board?*

*Here, just to make sure you see your claim, let me post it again.....You said:*



			
				crick said:
			
		

> I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this:* www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.* Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the* empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.*






Crick said:


> God are the two of you *STUPID*.



If I am actually stupid, then how have I manipulated you to to so tidily paint yourself into a corner in which you must tell blatant lies and hurl invective like a gibbering idiot in your efforts to extricate yourself?  If I am as stupid as you claim, but still am able to play you like a guitar, how abysmally stupid does that make you?  Tell us crick...exactly how stupid does that make you?

Now where is that empirical data that show that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming?  You claimed that you have posted it....where is it?  This isn't going away. Try for once in your life to tell the truth...just admit it....there is no such empirical data...you can say it and I can't possibly think less of you for it than I do already....so just admit that there is no such empirical data and that you are a lying sack who just hoped that people would believe your lies.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2015)

Still dodging crick?  I think we need to start a separate thread on this topic and keep bumping it to the top so everyone here can see what a lying sack you are and as a bonus we get to see the other warmer wackos try to defend your obvious lie....they can all jump in and demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that there is, in fact, not a shred of empirical evidence out there that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

What do you think?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Still dodging crick?  I think we need to start a separate thread on this topic and keep bumping it to the top so everyone here can see what a lying sack you are and as a bonus we get to see the other warmer wackos try to defend your obvious lie....they can all jump in and demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that there is, in fact, not a shred of empirical evidence out there that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.
> 
> What do you think?


dude, I've been waiting for two years.  And we all know there isn't any empirical evidence.  It has never been posted, so one can only assume there isn't any.  The theatrics generated by the left that it's been posted before, is a looped response of looped responses.  It is their forte.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2015)

jc, you have never posted anything but nonsense. Right now, the whole of the scientific community is not only convinced of the reality and danger of AGW, they are sounding the tocsins about what we can expect from AGW. And people like you will do all you can to prevent any measures being taken to alleviate the future affects, or prepare for those we cannot prevent. And then cry like babies when you are affected, and state those damned scientists never warned us. You people are pathetic and ignorant stupes.

The evidence for AGW has been presented for the last 50 years. In scientific journals, in the record of ice and weather. That you deny this is simply an indication of just how truly stupid you are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc, you have never posted anything but nonsense. Right now, the whole of the scientific community is not only convinced of the reality and danger of AGW, they are sounding the tocsins about what we can expect from AGW. And people like you will do all you can to prevent any measures being taken to alleviate the future affects, or prepare for those we cannot prevent. And then cry like babies when you are affected, and state those damned scientists never warned us. You people are pathetic and ignorant stupes.
> 
> The evidence for AGW has been presented for the last 50 years. In scientific journals, in the record of ice and weather. That you deny this is simply an indication of just how truly stupid you are.









^Evidence!!!  Real CO2 evidence!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc, you have never posted anything but nonsense. Right now, the whole of the scientific community is not only convinced of the reality and danger of AGW, they are sounding the tocsins about what we can expect from AGW. And people like you will do all you can to prevent any measures being taken to alleviate the future affects, or prepare for those we cannot prevent. And then cry like babies when you are affected, and state those damned scientists never warned us. You people are pathetic and ignorant stupes.
> 
> The evidence for AGW has been presented for the last 50 years. In scientific journals, in the record of ice and weather. That you deny this is simply an indication of just how truly stupid you are.


hey socks, I'll hit the ball back at ya and state exactly the same thing.  You post nothing but nonsense and mumbo jumbo.  any time you wish to post up the evidence that 20 PPM of CO2 is dangerous, just go right ahead.  But you can't, I know you can't so your dangers are only in your own mind.  There is not one scientist that can say what the dangers of CO2 is in the atmosphere.  Provide one name for me.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 24, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Still dodging crick?  I think we need to start a separate thread on this topic and keep bumping it to the top so everyone here can see what a lying sack you are and as a bonus we get to see the other warmer wackos try to defend your obvious lie....they can all jump in and demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that there is, in fact, not a shred of empirical evidence out there that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.
> 
> What do you think?



Crick mastered the squid ink defense. He spews out his usual bullshit, calls you stupid then runs away behind the cloud of obfuscation.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 24, 2015)

After 17 pages of paranoid squealing from the denier cultists, I think everyone agrees that the thread premise is proven conclusively. There's no need for the cultists to provide any more examples of their paranoia.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc, you have never posted anything but nonsense. Right now, the whole of the scientific community is not only convinced of the reality and danger of AGW, they are sounding the tocsins about what we can expect from AGW. And people like you will do all you can to prevent any measures being taken to alleviate the future affects, or prepare for those we cannot prevent. And then cry like babies when you are affected, and state those damned scientists never warned us. You people are pathetic and ignorant steps.



Tell me rocks...how could a rational scientific community be convinced of either the reality or the danger of AGW when no empirical evidence exists that proves the most basic tenet of the AGW hypothesis, i.e. that increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in warming?  What sort of rationality do you call that.  It doesn't smell like science at all but literally reeks of political influence and payola.



Crick said:


> The evidence for AGW has been presented for the last 50 years. In scientific journals, in the record of ice and weather. That you deny this is simply an indication of just how truly stupid you are.



Care to present some of that empirical evidence...the actual empirical evidence as opposed to the tired old dogma that you usually put forward....like crick said, those who don't actually post the evidence they claim they have are blowing smoke hoping to fool someone.  One of us knows that there is no such evidence and the other either knows as well but is so invested in the lie that he can't bring himself to admit the lie...even to himself....or is so hopelessly duped that he actually does believe such empirical evidence exists whether he has seen it or not.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> After 17 pages of paranoid squealing from the denier cultists, I think everyone agrees that the thread premise is proven conclusively. There's no need for the cultists to provide any more examples of their paranoia.


we agree your denial is duly noted.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Still dodging crick?  I think we need to start a separate thread on this topic and keep bumping it to the top so everyone here can see what a lying sack you are and as a bonus we get to see the other warmer wackos try to defend your obvious lie....they can all jump in and demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that there is, in fact, not a shred of empirical evidence out there that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.
> ...



He is quite actively hiding now...dodging at every possible opportunity.  He has been manipulated into a corner from which he sees no way out.  The quotes are there...he said explicitly that he had empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere caused warming....and he knows perfectly well that no such empirical evidence has ever existed.....he is, I guess, just hoping that it goes away but something tells me that it isn't.  He made an explicit claim that he had explicit evidence....not providing it at this point proves beyond doubt that he is a lying sack.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > After 17 pages of paranoid squealing from the denier cultists, I think everyone agrees that the thread premise is proven conclusively. There's no need for the cultists to provide any more examples of their paranoia.
> ...



I guess now they will start working out how to deny that crick claimed that empirical evidence exists that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...even though the quotes are right there for anyone to see.  That's how deniers work....deny even in the face of hard evidence to the contrary.....the lure of all those hundreds of billions of dollars and all that political power is just to much...and sacrificing something like the truth is no big deal since truth never was particularly valuable to liberals anyway.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 24, 2015)




----------



## Crick (Nov 24, 2015)

Stephanie, if I were you and I were interested in protecting my own brand, I would avoid all appearances in threads dealing with the paranoia of AGW deniers.  Y'know?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2015)

What a dodge you are crick....what's the matter.  Can't bring yourself to admit under any conditions that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence showing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming?  Can't bring yourself to admit that your belief in AGW is based on faith....Can't face the fact that in light of there not being any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and you remaining unskeptical of the whole farce in the face of that fact does indeed make you gullible?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> Stephanie, if I were you and I were interested in protecting my own brand, I would avoid all appearances in threads dealing with the paranoia of AGW deniers.  Y'know?


Crick, it is truly you who are paranoid.  It is obvious in every thread you post in jack!,  Just this one post is clearly your desperation, can't compete at any level of discussion, so you use your paranoia in an attempt to distract, but you fail.  you fail cause you're a dumb fk.  you are the fourth string in here.  You trip over yourself and over every other poster in the forum. 

WE all see your paranoia as well, stephanie was flippin spot on.  How much more funny can one event be then having a ship stuck in ice looking for ice.  Dude, it is like the most hilarious story in the world. And not only did it happen once,  nope.........wait for it.......it happened twice!  OMG

We are all still laughing at it, and Stephanie presented it beautifully.  And then the ding, ding, ding moment of crick, yep, the jump all in with your paranoia.  You don't seem to understand that a fact is a fact.  We all know you have problems with facts, you chase them like a greased pig never grasping the concept.  hahahahhahaahahahhahaha


----------



## Crick (Nov 26, 2015)

SSDD said:


> What a dodge you are crick....what's the matter.  Can't bring yourself to admit under any conditions that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence showing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming?  Can't bring yourself to admit that your belief in AGW is based on faith....Can't face the fact that in light of there not being any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and you remaining unskeptical of the whole farce in the face of that fact does indeed make you gullible?



I already told you the empirical evidence is right outside your door. Note the difference between the actual temperature and the SB-predicted temperature.  And then there are the dozens of experiments conducted over the last hundred years or so and every CO2 absorption spectra shows the effect as well as does the correlation between CO2 and temperature  That AR5 doesn't bother to repeat science accepted as fact a century ago would only interest someone as ignorant as you.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What a dodge you are crick....what's the matter.  Can't bring yourself to admit under any conditions that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence showing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming?  Can't bring yourself to admit that your belief in AGW is based on faith....Can't face the fact that in light of there not being any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and you remaining unskeptical of the whole farce in the face of that fact does indeed make you gullible?
> ...


CO2 does what? Post the empirical evidence don't give me a summary, post the evidence let's see it Bubba. You still haven't posted it Frank's asked Frank asked and Frank has asked. I see you still don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What a dodge you are crick....what's the matter.  Can't bring yourself to admit under any conditions that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence showing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming?  Can't bring yourself to admit that your belief in AGW is based on faith....Can't face the fact that in light of there not being any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and you remaining unskeptical of the whole farce in the face of that fact does indeed make you gullible?
> ...


BYW, outside the front door isn't part of the AR5 report. You know that right?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The ipcc models are not empirical evidence of anything.  he is unable to admit that simple point.  Yet the empirical evidence shows no MMGW signal at all.  His religious dogma blinds him to reality.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What a dodge you are crick....what's the matter.  Can't bring yourself to admit under any conditions that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence showing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming?  Can't bring yourself to admit that your belief in AGW is based on faith....Can't face the fact that in light of there not being any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and you remaining unskeptical of the whole farce in the face of that fact does indeed make you gullible?
> ...



^^^^^^^

More squid defense .....


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> I already told you the empirical evidence is right outside your door. Note the difference between the actual temperature and the SB-predicted temperature.  And then there are the dozens of experiments conducted over the last hundred years or so and every CO2 absorption spectra shows the effect as well as does the correlation between CO2 and temperature  That AR5 doesn't bother to repeat science accepted as fact a century ago would only interest someone as ignorant as you.



Sorry guy....like you said, those who claim to have evidence but can't produce it are just talking shit.  There are no experiments that prove that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming otherwise you would be able to provide the peer reviewed empirical evidence.  Clearly you can't.  The most basic tenet of the AGW hypothesis is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming...lets see the empirical evidence that proves that claim.  Either you can produce it or you can't...you make the claim that you could and that you have and yet, you don't seem to be able to provide any at all....that makes you a lying sack.

If the empirical evidence is 100 years old, then lets see that.  Surely there is some evidence from somewhere that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming...lets see it.  Or wouldn't it just be easier to admit to being a lying sack and talking out your ass when you already knew that there was no such empirical evidence in existence?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




He is a lying sack....and you see the empirical proof of it....the more he talks the more undeniable proof he provides.  This object lesson really needs to be made into a separate thread....the dangers of putting your words in writing when you are a lying sack.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BYW, outside the front door isn't part of the AR5 report. You know that right?



No...I don't think he knows that at all.  I think that he believes that just because he says a thing that it must be true....he apparently believes his own lies....pathological liar, I believe, is the term.


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2015)

Problem's here are all SSDD's
1) He doesn't want evidence, there fore he's not going to accept anything that's presented
2) He doesn't seem to understand what the word "empirical" means.
3) He's seems oblivious to what does and does not constitute evidence
4) He's stupid and he lies

The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated by empirical evidence since Tyndall in 1859.  Rejecting it, as SSDD is attempting to do, take a special brand of ignorance.


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2015)

PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake.  A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from.   Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> Problem's here are all SSDD's
> 1) He doesn't want evidence, there fore he's not going to accept anything that's presented
> 2) He doesn't seem to understand what the word "empirical" means.
> 3) He's seems oblivious to what does and does not constitute evidence
> ...




The same Tyndall that uses his proxies upside down?

Too Funny; Your projecting your own failures and shortcomings on someone else, You have provided no empirical evidence of any kind, and you conflate models (which are guesses and not empirical evidence - which have all failed empirical review) while mislabeling them as empirical evidence.

Not only are you confused about what is real and what is fiction, your confused about what is reliable evidence from your models that in-fill and homogenize data sets making them worthless. The mixing of real data with made up data giving you your "hottest ev'a" lie is evidence that you dont have a dam clue and you are incapable of determining what is real and what is fiction.

The only one panicing here is you!  The only one lying here is You!  Continue to run in circles and scream the sky is falling...  Its amusing to watch..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake.  A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from.   Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.



So atmospheric pressure has no effect on temperature on Venus?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake.  A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from.   Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.



"The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide, with traces of nitrogen. Much of the hydrogen in the atmosphere evaporated early in the formation of Venus, leaving a thick atmosphere across the planet. At the surface, the atmosphere presses down as hard as water 3,000 feet beneath Earth's ocean."

How Hot is Venus?

Hope that helps clear up your fundamental misunderstanding


----------



## jc456 (Nov 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake.  A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from.   Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.
> ...


If there are no humans on Venus, where does the co2 come from?


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> The same Tyndall that uses his proxies upside down?



Proxies ? ! ? ! ?  In *1859 *? ? ?  HAHAHAHAHAAAAaaaaa

God are you STUPID

*John Tyndall* (2 August 1820 – 4 December 1893)  John Tyndall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake.  A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from.   Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.
> ...



Frank, don't even bother.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Crick, you're not totally hopeless. Read about atmospheric pressure. Here, I'll post it again, Cricky

"The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide, with traces of nitrogen. Much of the hydrogen in the atmosphere evaporated early in the formation of Venus, leaving a thick atmosphere across the planet. At the surface, the atmosphere presses down as hard as water 3,000 feet beneath Earth's ocean.The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius). Temperature changes slightly traveling through the atmosphere, growing cooler farther away from the surface. Lead would melt on the surface of the planet, where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C)."

How Hot is Venus?

That's not too hard, even you should be able to understand the relationship between pressure and temperature


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The same Tyndall that uses his proxies upside down?
> ...



Proxy reconstructions were done long before you were born. But hey, ignorance is bliss..


----------



## Crick (Nov 28, 2015)

Show us a link of THIS John Tyndall using proxies for paleo climate reconstruction and getting them upside down you STUPID ASS.

Then, one of you ignorant FOOLS can address the PILES of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the greenhouse effect is real.

Billy Boy, have you told your advisor yet that you reject the greenhouse effect?  That should advance your fucking career by leaps and bounds.


PS, the much crowed about upside down proxies were Michael Mann's 2008 use of Tiljander's 2003 varve x-ray density data.  I strongly suggest you read Tiljander

Tiljander 2003... Tyndall 1859... yeah, I can see how YOU could get those mixed up.  And then, of course, only YOU would double down on your stupidity.  You REALLY need to learn how to admit your mistakes.  I think if you did, you'd make less of them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> Show us a link of THIS John Tyndall using proxies for paleo climate reconstruction and getting them upside down you STUPID ASS.
> 
> Then, one of you ignorant FOOLS can address the PILES of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the greenhouse effect is real.
> 
> ...



Speaking of admitting mistakes, tell us about the relationship between pressure and temperature


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> Problem's here are all SSDD's
> 1) He doesn't want evidence, there fore he's not going to accept anything that's presented



To date, you have not presented the first bit of empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in temperatures.



Crick said:


> 2) He doesn't seem to understand what the word "empirical" means.



empirical - derived from or guided by experience or experiment.  Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.



Crick said:


> 3) He's seems oblivious to what does and does not constitute evidence



Evidence derived from models which are not built upon empirical evidence is trash....it assumes the models are correct but as we all know, they are not.



Crick said:


> 4) He's stupid and he lies



Says the biggest lying sack on the board....



Crick said:


> The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated by empirical evidence since Tyndall in 1859.  Rejecting it, as SSDD is attempting to do, take a special brand of ignorance.



Would that be the same Tyndall who characterized CO2 as a "feeble" emitter?  And he did not demonstrate the greenhouse effect...he demonstrated that certain gases absorb and emit radiation...that is not a demonstration of the greenhouse effect.

If evidence that gasses absorb and emit radiation passes as empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in increased temperaruatres, then it is clear that you have no idea what constitutes evidence.

So you admit that there is no empirical evidence that supports the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in increased temperatures.  That is what I said all along.  Why did it take you so long to admit it?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake.  A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from.   Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.



You ignorant twit....which gas in the atmosphere of venus absorbs enough short wave (which is what incoming solar radiation mostly is)to power a greenhouse effect?  CO2 is transparent to short wave .  Nitrogen is transparent to shortwave.  Sulfuric acid increases the planet's albedo by reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space.

So which gas do you claim is absorbing incoming short wave radiation to power a greenhouse effect?  According to climate science, LW is required for a greenhouse effect and since virtually no sunlight reaches the surface, where do you suppose this LW is coming from?


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Speaking of admitting mistakes, tell us about the relationship between pressure and temperature



I think you meant to throw that at SSDD. Though, did you really want to embarrass your own team member?


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> Problem's here are all SSDD's
> 1) He doesn't want evidence, there fore he's not going to accept anything that's presented





SSDD said:


> To date, you have not presented the first bit of empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in temperatures.



Exactly as I predicted.  In fact, I have identified mountains of evidence, but you simply reject it out of hand and claim it does not exist.



Crick said:


> 2) He doesn't seem to understand what the word "empirical" means.





SSDD said:


> empirical - derived from or guided by experience or experiment.  Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.



Let me take a WILD-ASSED-GUESS: you copied that from a dictionary, hyperlink included.  That's not exactly a demonstration that YOU know what the word means, dipwad.



Crick said:


> 3) He's seems oblivious to what does and does not constitute evidence





SSDD said:


> Evidence derived from models which are not built upon empirical evidence is trash....it assumes the models are correct but as we all know, they are not.



Evidence derived from models is evidence you fucking idiot. You don't realize how many MODELS are implicit and explicit in the data you think is purely empirical.  How is the relationship between the proxy you use to measure air temperature (expanding mercury, expanding alcohol, expanding air, bimetallic strips, electrical resistance, etc, etc, etc) and the actual air temperature determined?  BY A FUCKING MODEL YOU NUMBSKULL



Crick said:


> 4) He's stupid and he lies





SSDD said:


> Says the biggest lying sack on the board....



I have been caught here making mistakes and I admit them.  I do not tell lies and thus have not been caught telling any.  Neither of these are claims YOU could make.



Crick said:


> The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated by empirical evidence since Tyndall in 1859.  Rejecting it, as SSDD is attempting to do, take a special brand of ignorance.





SSDD said:


> Would that be the same Tyndall who characterized CO2 as a "feeble" emitter?  And he did not demonstrate the greenhouse effect...he demonstrated that certain gases absorb and emit radiation...that is not a demonstration of the greenhouse effect.



Here's that "special brand of ignorance" of which I spoke



SSDD said:


> If evidence that gasses absorb and emit radiation passes as empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in increased temperaruatres, then it is clear that you have no idea what constitutes evidence.



And even more



SSDD said:


> So you admit that there is no empirical evidence that supports the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in increased temperatures.  That is what I said all along.  Why did it take you so long to admit it?



And here's the lying to which this fellow's so prone.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of admitting mistakes, tell us about the relationship between pressure and temperature
> ...



You're the one who posted there no relationship between pressure and temperature and moreover CO2 makes the atmosphere transparent


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

Okay, Frank, if you insist, I am going to treat you like a four year old with a learning disability

1) I have never posted that there is no relationship between temperature and pressure.  I am quite familiar with the gas laws.  I certainly have objected to SSDD's utterly nonsensical claim that pressure generates heat - that even though a system is radiating heat to its surroundings, its pressure will maintain some elevated temperature.  That claim is complete idiocy and I can't even say that I see SSDD making it anymore.  I guess he left you off the email.
2) The list of "suggestions" from which you've drawn the conclusion that I believe adding CO2 to the atmosphere affects its transparency (and I never mentioned CO2) was a list of irrational ideas which might be "suggested" by increasing global temperatures.  The list was composed to make fun of the suggestion that the Earth's temperature increase "suggests" we are coming out of an ice age regardless of the mountains of evidence suggesting that human activities are the primary cause.

Frank, get an education and use it.  I'm not sure there's anyone on this board that needs it more (and might benefit from it).  SSDD and Westwall are lost causes.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> Okay, Frank, if you insist, I am going to treat you like a four year old with a learning disability
> 
> 1) I have never posted that there is no relationship between temperature and pressure.  I am quite familiar with the gas laws.  I certainly have objected to SSDD's utterly nonsensical claim that pressure generates heat - that even though a system is radiating heat to its surroundings, its pressure will maintain some elevated temperature.  That claim is complete idiocy and I can't even say that I see SSDD making it anymore.  I guess he left you off the email.
> 2) The list of "suggestions" from which you've drawn the conclusion that I believe adding CO2 to the atmosphere affects its transparency was a list of irrational ideas which might be "suggested" by increasing global temperatures.  The list was composed to make fun of the suggestion that the Earth's temperature increase "suggests" we are coming out of an ice age regardless of the mountains of evidence suggesting that human activities are the primary cause.
> ...



" I certainly have objected to SSDD's utterly nonsensical claim that pressure generates heat" --So you're doubling down on your claim that pressure does not generate heat?  Is that what you're saying?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2015)

Here, Cricky.

Hope this helps

"We can determine pressure's effects on temperature using ideal gas laws.

The Ideal Gas Law is P1V1T1 = P2V2T2 ... Initial pressure (P1) multiplied by the initial volume (V1) and divided by the initial temperature (T1) is equal to the final pressure (P2) multiplied by the final volume (V2) and divided by final temperature (T2). If we are only looking at pressure affecting temperature, we can assume volume is constant and we can ignore it (or assume it is 1 and stays 1).
Let's consider this relationship. If our initial pressure is 1 atm and our initial temperature is 270K, what happens to the temperature when we double the pressure?

Our equation would look like this: 1atm270K = 2atmx (where x is equal to our final temperature).

Solving for x, we find our final pressure doubles to 540 K when we double our pressure. If we were to half our initial pressure, we would see our final temperature would also be halved.

How does this relate to atmospheric pressure and temperature? Well, simply put, pressure change directly effects temperature. If you increase atmospheric pressure by 0.25 atm, your temperature will increase proportionally."

How does atmospheric pressure affect temperature? | Socratic


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

I have a far better understanding of the gas laws then you are likely to ever attain, Frank, so don't waste your time with the copied lecture.  As to your last comment, were we to rapidly CHANGE the atmospheric pressure of a planet, it would alter its temperature.  But it would not, as SSDD claims, MAINTAIN it at an elevated temperature.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 29, 2015)

the left is always wanting us to be like another country. especially ones that are Socialist/communist.

so I say we be more like France. 

snip;
*France Uses Emergency Laws to Place Climate Activists Under House Arrest*
952
106
By Daniel Politi






French military stand guard outside the venue that will host the COP 21 UN climate conference, on November 25, 2015, in Le Bourget, north of Paris.
Photo by ALAIN JOCARD/AFP/Getty Images

At least 24 activists who advocate for climate change have been placed under house arrest ahead of the highly anticipated United Nations talks in Paris. France used emergency laws that were implemented after the Paris shootings to arrest the green campaigners, the French government confirmed on Saturday. Earlier, the _Guardian _had reported the news, noting that the warrants delivered to the activists cited state of emergency laws that were imposed after 130 people were killed in terrorist attacks earlier this month.

Author and activist Naomi Klein, said French leaders are carrying out “a gross abuse of power that risks turning the summit into a farce.” Hearing the voice of activists is important at an event where lots of world leaders will be present, she added. “Climate summits are not photo opportunities to boost the popularity of politicians,” she told the _Guardian_. “Given the stakes of the climate crisis, they are by their nature highly contested. That is democracy, messy as it may be. The French government, under cover of anti-terrorism laws, seems to be trying to avoid this, shamefully banning peaceful demonstrations and using emergency powers to pre-emptively detain key activists.”

all of it here:
France uses emergency laws to place climate activists under house arrest.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> Exactly as I predicted.  In fact, I have identified mountains of evidence, but you simply reject it out of hand and claim it does not exist.


You have identified mountains of computer output and mathematical models...not the first bit of empirical evidence.




frigidweirdo said:


> Evidence derived from models is evidence you fucking idiot.



Only if you have empirical evidence proving that the premise upon which the models are based is valid...without empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, the models claiming such are useless....they are putting out information based on unproven assumptions....you f'ing idiot.



frigidweirdo said:


> Here's that "special brand of ignorance" of which I spoke



Says a liar with no empirical evidence with which to back up the claim.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have a far better understanding of the gas laws then you are likely to ever attain, Frank, so don't waste your time with the copied lecture.  As to your last comment, were we to rapidly CHANGE the atmospheric pressure of a planet, it would alter its temperature.  But it would not, as SSDD claims, MAINTAIN it at an elevated temperature.




Hell crick..you can't even read and understand a simple graph....the gas laws are way out of your league.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I have a far better understanding of the gas laws then you are likely to ever attain, Frank, so don't waste your time with the copied lecture.  As to your last comment, were we to rapidly CHANGE the atmospheric pressure of a planet, it would alter its temperature.  But it would not, as SSDD claims, MAINTAIN it at an elevated temperature.
> ...



By the way crick...I am still waiting for you to tell us which of the gasses in the atmosphere of Venus that are invisible to the incoming short wave radiation from the sun are  absorbing that radiation to power the greenhouse effect...any answers?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Silly Billy, you are fucking dumb beyond description. Tyndall was the first to describe the absorption spectra of the atmospheric gases in a paper in 1859. He built his own equipment and performed the experiment in 1858. So claim to be an atmospheric physicist and don't know this? Silly Billy, I bet you don't even have a GED.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I have a far better understanding of the gas laws then you are likely to ever attain, Frank, so don't waste your time with the copied lecture.  As to your last comment, were we to rapidly CHANGE the atmospheric pressure of a planet, it would alter its temperature.  But it would not, as SSDD claims, MAINTAIN it at an elevated temperature.
> ...


So says the stupe that believes in intelligent photons. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> the left is always wanting us to be like another country. especially ones that are Socialist/communist.
> 
> so I say we be more like France.
> 
> ...


Such a lovely little Fascist you are, Staph. Why don't you go roll again.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> The same Tyndall that uses his proxies upside down?





Crick said:


> Proxies ? ! ? ! ?  In *1859 *? ? ?  HAHAHAHAHAAAAaaaaa
> 
> God are you STUPID
> 
> *John Tyndall* (2 August 1820 – 4 December 1893)  John Tyndall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Billy_Bob said:


> Proxy reconstructions were done long before you were born. But hey, ignorance is bliss..





Old Rocks said:


> Silly Billy, you are fucking dumb beyond description. Tyndall was the first to describe the absorption spectra of the atmospheric gases in a paper in 1859. He built his own equipment and performed the experiment in 1858. So claim to be an atmospheric physicist and don't know this? Silly Billy, I bet you don't even have a GED.



Billy did disappear from this thread.  Perhaps it finally sunk in.  Now, any bets on whether or not he ever admits the mistake like a real human being?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Whats the matter crick....aren't you going to tell us which one of the gasses in the atmosphere of venus which are invisible to short wave are absorbing the incoming shortwave to power a greenhouse effect?....shuck and jive...dodge and weave....duck and cover...


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

Last time I checked, the greenhouse effect on Venus was caused - as has been state here repeatedly - by carbon dioxide.  What do YOU think is causing it's high temperature?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> Last time I checked, the greenhouse effect on Venus was caused - as has been state here repeatedly - by carbon dioxide.  What do YOU think is causing it's high temperature?



CO2 only absorbs LW....if no sunlight is reaching the surface....and the gasses in the atmosphere are either invisible to incoming shortwave or reflect shortwave and thus increase the albedo..which gasses are absorbing shortwave and editing long wave?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> Last time I checked, the greenhouse effect on Venus was caused - as has been state here repeatedly - by carbon dioxide.  What do YOU think is causing it's high temperature?



He already said pressure from having an atmosphere 90 denser than Crick, er I mean 90 times denser than Earth


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Last time I checked, the greenhouse effect on Venus was caused - as has been state here repeatedly - by carbon dioxide.  What do YOU think is causing it's high temperature?
> ...


If the atmosphere were 90 times denser than crick, venus would be compressed into a black hole.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2015)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



LOL!!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


It's like he just can't engage his brain....he believes a LW powered greenhouse effect is driving the climate on venus but no sunlight reaches the surface and all the gasses in the atmosphere are invisible to incoming short wave....what does he think is producing the LW?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The same Tyndall that uses his proxies upside down?
> ...


Realizing that you dont have the slighteest clue how anything works or what the hypothosis is about shows me you are not prepared to discus the hypothosis from an inteligint stand point.  It is a waste of my time to continually show you a liar and a fool.   Tell me again what in Venus atmosphere is absorbing the incoming short wave IR to start the "greenhouse effect".  As this never hits the surface of the planet what magical fantasy thing is driving it?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 29, 2015)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He has no concept of what the AGW theroy is let alone how it works.  How do you debate someone who is ignorant of the theory they claim to be supporting?


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

One more time, SSDD, what do you believe is causing Venus' elevated temperatures?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I never cease to find it interesting that you believe that intelligence is required in order for the laws of nature to be obeyed...


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

Here is a discussion from a climate change skeptic on the greenhouse effect on Venus

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



That you think anyone doesn't understand the laws of nature is good evidence that they know it well.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

From that same JoNova article I get the following graphic and caption







The horizontal axis shows wavenumbers, which are the reciprocals of wavelengths.  The vertical axis shows the energy density of the radiation from the Earth observed by Nimbus.  The dotted overlaid traces represent the emission spectrum from black bodies at various temperatures (calculated from Plank’s law which is known with a very high degree of surety).  Without any atmosphere, Earth’s emission pattern as seen from space would look like one of these dotted lines.

Note the big bite out of the spectrum at around 660 wavenumbers and the smaller bite at around 1000 wavenumbers.  The former is at the CO2 absorption line and the latter at the Ozone (O3) absorption line.  Those two bites represent energy that is not being radiated to space that would be if there was no atmosphere.  In short it is the signature of a green house gas reducing Earth’s radiation to space at the green house wavelengths.  I invite those who disagree to give an alternate explanation for what is causing these notches.

So, SSDD, let's hear your alternate explanation for those notches.  Othewise, this is a direct observation of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> One more time, SSDD, what do you believe is causing Venus' elevated temperatures?




I told you....pressure is the reason venus is so hot...if you replaced our entire atmosphere with nitrogen and made it 90 times as dense as the current atmosphere, you would have similar temperatures here....hell, if you replaced the atmosphere on venus with nitrogen you would not change the temperature appreciably...it is not a greenhouse effect at work on venus....a greenhouse effect requires incoming short wave from the sun to be absorbed and emitted as LW....that isn't happening on venus....virtually no sunlight gets to the surface to be absorbed and emitted as LW...there are no gasses in the atmosphere that absorb SW and emit LW....and the temperature on the night time side of the planet is the same as on the day time side even though the night last 1400 hours....it simply is not a greenhouse effect, but the ideal gas laws predict the temperature on venus pretty accurately...there are observed repeatable experiment in the laboratory that prove that heat is generated by columns of air.  When one considers what is required for a a greenhouse effect as described by climate science....and when those things are not available on venus..then one must look for something else and the thing that actually predicts, to a high degree of accuracy is my bet.  Considering that the only element necessary for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science on venus is CO2....how do you think it happens...you said the atmosphere does it but the atmosphere is either invisible to CO2, or in the case of sulfur dioxide....reflective and actually causes an increase in the albedo.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> One more time, SSDD, what do you believe is causing Venus' elevated temperatures?



Dam!  Obviously you dont have a dam clue about the density or the pressures of Venus's atmosphere..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> From that same JoNova article I get the following graphic and caption
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First, those wave numbers are LW...we have already been through that...little to no sunlight reaches the surface of venus to be absorbed and emitted as LW....no gas in the atmosphere absorbs SW and emits LW..... 

Second, Venus is not a blackbody....

And those two notches represent energy being absorbed, and immediately emitted by CO2....the energy is leaving the atmosphere as evidenced by the ever increasing outgoing LW measured at the TOA...and if that energy were being absorbed and kept in the atmosphere, there would inevitably be a hot spot...which isn't there as observed by a million radiosondes, satellites, aircraft, etc...it is only present in failing computer models.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > One more time, SSDD, what do you believe is causing Venus' elevated temperatures?
> ...



It's like he can't think at all...you ever heard the old expression...if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....he only has a greenhouse so everything looks like.......


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> From that same JoNova article I get the following graphic and caption
> 
> 
> 
> ...







IN a word, NO, Crick... You misunderstand Jonova's graph and what it represents.  Those dips are power in bandwidth. They do not represent greenhouse effect, they represent reflection at the TOA. (Top of Atmosphere)


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > One more time, SSDD, what do you believe is causing Venus' elevated temperatures?
> ...



I scuba dive.  When I get a tank filled, despite having been immersed in a tank of water while its filled, the tank comes out hot.  Now, if I believed what you're telling me, I would expect that tank to STAY hot.  But, as I'm sure you and EVERYONE else here knows, it doesn't.  But you think Venus will.  How do you explain that?

The atmosphere of Venus is not, as you stated (perhaps mistakenly) transparent to shortwave radiation.  Venus' atmosphere is neither opaque nor reflective to all the sun's emissions. Venus has an albedo of 0.84 compared to the Earth's 0.367; high, but not 1.0.  Your statement that the Venusian atmosphere will absorb no SW is therefore false.  Sixteen percent of the sun's radiation is absorbed by the planet's surface and it's atmosphere.  That energy is very effectively trapped by the 96% CO2 atmosphere and, over time, has raised the temperature at the surface above the melting point of lead.  The pressure has nothing to do with it.  The density of the atmosphere makes a difference as it simply has a shitload more CO2 for any outgoing LW to get past.  The heat actually generated by the creation of the Venusian atmosphere radiated away billions of years ago. That is the idiotic mistake you make (like many other idiotic mistakes you make) when you claim that pressure will maintain elevated temperature.  The temperature only changes when you change the pressure and, if it ends up warmer than its surroundings, it will cool itself by radiation, conduction and convection to whatever equilibrium temperature its radiative conditions will actually maintain.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> IN a word, NO, Crick... You misunderstand Jonova's graph and what it represents.  Those dips are power in bandwidth. They do not represent greenhouse effect, they represent reflection at the TOA. (Top of Atmosphere)



You apparently did NOT read the caption.  Those notches do NOT represent reflection - the Earth's atmosphere does not reflect radiation at those frequencies.  There it says, quite clearly, "The vertical axis shows the energy density of the *radiation from the Earth* observed by Nimbus" and then "Those two bites represent energy that is *not being radiated to space* that would be if there was no atmosphere. In short *it is the signature of a green house gas reducing Earth’s radiation to space* at the green house wavelengths.

PS, the vertical axis is not "power in bandwidth" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.  It's simply energy density, just as the caption states.

PPS if anyone here was thinking of accepting your claim to have a degree in atmospheric physics, THIS certainly put that nonsense to rest.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

SSDD said:


> It's like he can't think at all...you ever heard the old expression...if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....he only has a greenhouse so everything looks like.......



I have all the "clues" as to the density and pressure of Venus' atmosphere required for this issue.  What I want to know is what YOU believe to be causing it to have the temperature it has.  State it.  Explain it to us as if it were a question on a school exam. Stop trying to dodge the question by insulting me.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> I scuba dive.  When I get a tank filled, despite having been immersed in a tank of water while its filled, the tank comes out hot.  Now, if I believed what you're telling me, I would expect that tank to STAY hot.  But, as I'm sure you and EVERYONE else here knows, it doesn't.  But you think Venus will.  How do you explain that?



Suppose you could maintain that pressure while constantly circulating the air.  If the atmosphere were static, it would be a different story...but atmospheres aren't static...they are constantly moving.  The pressure keeps warming the lower atmosphere but it doesn't stay low...the heat convects upward.  This has all been proven experimentally in the lab crick...it isn't theory.



Crick said:


> The atmosphere of Venus is not, as you stated (perhaps mistakenly) transparent to shortwave radiation.



Of course it is...CO2 doesn't absorb short wave...nitrogen doesn't absorb short wave...that accounts for about 99% of the atmosphere.  Sulfur dioxide doesn't absorb shortwave...it reflects it which makes it a large contributor to the high albedo on venus.  Nearly 70% of all sunlight hitting venus is reflected away back into space.  The elements for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science are simply not there....but the ideal gas laws damned near exactly predict the temperature on venus...which is more likely?

  You believe what you wan't crick...the data gathered from the planet itself say that you are wrong but that never stopped you from believing did it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Crick is denying that Atmospheric pressure on Venus is the cause of its high temperatures.

Crick # 1 Denier


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 29, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > From that same JoNova article I get the following graphic and caption
> ...


So, "little to no" equates to 40% these days?

There is a Greenhouse Effect on Venus « JoNova


> These clouds give Venus an albedo of 0.6 which means 60%of the suns energy is reflected back out to space, 40%is absorbed.  Earth by comparison has an albedo of 0.3 which means 70% is absorbed


----------



## mamooth (Nov 29, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick is denying that Atmospheric pressure on Venus is the cause of its high temperatures.
> 
> Crick # 1 Denier



I imagine he also denies that the pressure in my fire extinguisher constantly generates heat, which is why it's glowing red hot all the time. As does the pressure in my my car tires. That's why everyone's car tires are always spontaneously igniting.

Oh wait. That doesn't happen. Only the the most brain-damaged droolers on the planet claim that pressure generates heat. Because it doesn't. _Increasing_ the pressure generates heat, but that's not happening on Venus or any planet. At any given spot in the atmosphere, the pressure on one day is going to be the same as the pressure on any other, meaning no heat is generated.

SSDD is essentially postulating free energy, which how you know he's babbling pseudoscience crap. The magical air moves because of heat, which changes the pressure, which creates more heat, which moves the air ... an endless cycle of work and motion with no energy input. Perpetual motion, hence it's obvious crap.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

mamooth said:


> I imagine he also denies that the pressure in my fire extinguisher constantly generates heat, which is why it's glowing red hot all the time. As does the pressure in my my car tires. That's why everyone's car tires are always spontaneously igniting.



Even crick admits that pressure causes heat.....that's why they put tanks in a vat of water when they are pressurizing them....tanks are static though and the temperature equalizes because they are static....pressure on a constantly moving and circulating column of air is an entirely different story.  Not theory hairball...observed, repeatable experiment done in the lab.



mamooth said:


> SSDD is essentially postulating free energy, which how you know he's babbling pseudoscience crap. The magical air moves because of heat, which changes the pressure, which creates more heat, which moves the air ... an endless cycle of work and motion with no energy input. Perpetual motion, hence it's obvious crap.



Pressure isn't free hairball....and there is plenty of energy input...sorry this is all so far over your head...your denial is pitiful...

Imagine, denying the ideal gas laws....in favor of a flawed greenhouse hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> These clouds give Venus an albedo of 0.6 which means 60%of the suns energy is reflected back out to space, 40%is absorbed.  Earth by comparison has an albedo of 0.3 which means 70% is absorbed



Absorbed by what?  The gases in the atmosphere that are invisible to shortwave?....the ground which receives almost no sunlight at all?  Absorbed by what....Describe the mechanism by which a greenhouse effect as described by climate science might operate on venus...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> There is a Greenhouse Effect on Venus « JoNova
> 
> 
> > These clouds give Venus an albedo of 0.6 which means 60%of the suns energy is reflected back out to space, 40%is absorbed.  Earth by comparison has an albedo of 0.3 which means 70% is absorbed
> ...


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

The point that has now been made to you repeatedly SID, is that Venus' albedo is not 1.00.  Some of the infalling solar radiation is absorbed.  Deal with it.  Your ideas on how the planet warms are completely wrong.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > These clouds give Venus an albedo of 0.6 which means 60%of the suns energy is reflected back out to space, 40%is absorbed.  Earth by comparison has an albedo of 0.3 which means 70% is absorbed
> ...



Yo, Mr Atmospheric Physicist, how about explaining to us mere mortals what the phrase "invisible to shortwave" is supposed to mean?  The atmosphere of Venus reflects a LOT of SW and absorbs some.  Where does "invisible" fit in there?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick is denying that Atmospheric pressure on Venus is the cause of its high temperatures.
> ...



So according to mammoth Crick theory of Venus, the dense atmosphere generates heat only once and that heat is convected off into space, any subsequent warming is because man-made global warming.

Wow.

Just fucking wow


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick is denying that Atmospheric pressure on Venus is the cause of its high temperatures.
> ...



You're claiming that  32psi is comparable to Venus?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have a far better understanding of the gas laws then you are likely to ever attain, Frank, so don't waste your time with the copied lecture.  As to your last comment, were we to rapidly CHANGE the atmospheric pressure of a planet, it would alter its temperature.  But it would not, as SSDD claims, MAINTAIN it at an elevated temperature.



Crick you idiot...would you agree that the temperature is lower at the top of everest? Would you agree that if you go higher than everest the temperature would decrease?  Would you agree that the air pressure is lower at the top of everest? Would you agree that if you went higher than everest the pressure would be lower?  Would you agree that as you increase your altitude both pressure and temperature decrease?  Do you think that is coincidence?  If you lived on a planet where you could keep on driving downhill to a point where the pressure was 2 atmospheres  that the temperature would be warmer than it was at 1 atmosphere...how about you drive on down to 3 atmospheres...think it would be warmer?  The atmospheric composition is the same, the only thing you are changing is the atmospheric pressure...drive on down to 50 atmospheres...what do you think the temperature would be like down there? 

You seem incapable of using your brain crick...are you really that invested in the hoax?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 30, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You're claiming that 32psi is comparable to Venus



No, I'm claiming you're laughably stupid for saying that constant pressure generates heat. I have no idea why you babbled out that stupidity.

Do you need me to explain that in smaller words? I only ask because your grasp of English seems even shakier than your grasp of physics.



CrusaderFrank said:


> So according to mammoth Crick theory of Venus, the dense atmosphere generates heat only once and that heat is convected off into space, any subsequent warming is because man-made global warming.



When you get humiliated for being so ignorant, the proper response is not to lie about those who corrected you. The proper response would be to apologize for being so ignorant, and then thank those who educated you.

So, I'll give you another chance to do the right thing now. Our tough love may sting, but in the long run it will make you a better person.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 30, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Even crick admits that pressure causes heat.....



Absolutely wrong. Static pressure absolutely positively does not create heat. _Increasing_ pressure creates heat, because work is being done on the gas to compress it. That is, energy is being put into the gas, so it heats up.



> ...pressure on a constantly moving and circulating column of air is an entirely different story.  Not theory hairball...observed, repeatable experiment done in the lab.



That's laughable bullshit.

If it's not, point us to a lab demonstration of this perpetual-motion free-energy atmospheric system you say exists. I seem to remember one kook blogger saying he did it. Why don't you reference him? After all, everyone understands that one kook blogger automatically overturns centuries of physics.



> Pressure isn't free hairball....and there is plenty of energy input...sorry this is all so far over your head...your denial is pitiful...



Tell everyone exactly what the energy input into your atmospheric machine is. Don't just do your normal thing where you wave your hands and invoke "it just happens!" magic. State precisely what that energy input is.



> Imagine, denying the ideal gas laws....in favor of a flawed greenhouse hypothesis.



Amuse us. Tell everyone how PV = nRT shows that static pressure creates heat. Looks like you're up for another Nobel Prize for completely rewriting the laws of physics. Maybe everyone should be grateful that such an unappreciated genius is in our midst.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 30, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You're claiming that 32psi is comparable to Venus
> ...



Explain why Venus atmosphere, 90 times as dense a Earth's, at 1,300, psi does not generate any heat.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 30, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You're claiming that 32psi is comparable to Venus
> ...



Since Venus is under constant, and not _increasing _pressure, it should be close to absolute zero, right?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 30, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Explain why Venus atmosphere, 90 times as dense a Earth's, at 1,300, psi does not generate any heat.



Because static pressure doesn't generate heat. Period. End of story. That's basic physics.

If you disagree, please point us to your source which says that static pressure generates heat. And explain why my fire extinguisher isn't now generating heat.

If 1300 psi did generate heat, as you say it does, we could charge a cylinder to 1300 psi, hook it up to a Sterling heat engine, and get infinite free work out of it. The world could run on such perpetual motion machines. But that doesn't happen, because static pressure does not generate heat.



> Since Venus is under constant, and not _increasing _pressure, it should be close to absolute zero, right



Of course not. I have no idea of how you came up with such nonsense. You'll have to explain the details of your new groundbreaking theory there.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have a far better understanding of the gas laws then you are likely to ever attain, Frank, so don't waste your time with the copied lecture.  As to your last comment, were we to rapidly CHANGE the atmospheric pressure of a planet, it would alter its temperature.  But it would not, as SSDD claims, MAINTAIN it at an elevated temperature.


then where is your empirical evidence at?  you have all of this knowledge yet you never use it.  You act for the most part a dumb fk in here. Just post up there that empirical evidence you claim to have.  no one has seen it yet.


----------



## Crick (Dec 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> I have no idea why you babbled out that stupidity.



Oh, yes we do.  He babbled out that stupidity because his hero SSDD told us that was the case.


----------



## Crick (Dec 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have a far better understanding of the gas laws then you are likely to ever attain, Frank, so don't waste your time with the copied lecture.  As to your last comment, were we to rapidly CHANGE the atmospheric pressure of a planet, it would alter its temperature.  But it would not, as SSDD claims, MAINTAIN it at an elevated temperature.





SSDD said:


> Crick you idiot...would you agree that the temperature is lower at the top of everest? Would you agree that if you go higher than everest the temperature would decrease?  Would you agree that the air pressure is lower at the top of everest? Would you agree that if you went higher than everest the pressure would be lower?  Would you agree that as you increase your altitude both pressure and temperature decrease?  Do you think that is coincidence?  If you lived on a planet where you could keep on driving downhill to a point where the pressure was 2 atmospheres  that the temperature would be warmer than it was at 1 atmosphere...how about you drive on down to 3 atmospheres...think it would be warmer?  The atmospheric composition is the same, the only thing you are changing is the atmospheric pressure...drive on down to 50 atmospheres...what do you think the temperature would be like down there?
> 
> You seem incapable of using your brain crick...are you really that invested in the hoax?



What sort of mental distortions does it take to spout such obvious NONSENSE with such blind confidence?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Absolutely wrong. Static pressure absolutely positively does not create heat. _Increasing_ pressure creates heat, because work is being done on the gas to compress it. That is, energy is being put into the gas, so it heats up.


So idiot child...are you saying that the turbulent atmosphere on venus is static?  Are you saying it is anything like static?



frigidweirdo said:


> That's laughable bullshit.



What it is idiot child, is observable, repeatable evidence done in a lab.



frigidweirdo said:


> If it's not, point us to a lab demonstration of this perpetual-motion free-energy atmospheric system you say exists. I seem to remember one kook blogger saying he did it. Why don't you reference him? After all, everyone understands that one kook blogger automatically overturns centuries of physics.



Sure the scientists name is Gareff


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2015)

SSDD said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick you idiot...would you agree that the temperature is lower at the top of everest? Would you agree that if you go higher than everest the temperature would decrease?  Would you agree that the air pressure is lower at the top of everest? Would you agree that if you went higher than everest the pressure would be lower?  Would you agree that as you increase your altitude both pressure and temperature decrease?  Do you think that is coincidence?  If you lived on a planet where you could keep on driving downhill to a point where the pressure was 2 atmospheres  that the temperature would be warmer than it was at 1 atmosphere...how about you drive on down to 3 atmospheres...think it would be warmer?  The atmospheric composition is the same, the only thing you are changing is the atmospheric pressure...drive on down to 50 atmospheres...what do you think the temperature would be like down there?
> ...



So you think it is coincidence that as you move further down into our atmosphere from high altitudes that the temperature increases?  Is it also coincidence that the idea gas laws predict that will happen?  And you think that if our atmosphere were twice as dense it wouldn't be warmer here?  Is that what you are saying...go ahead and say it crick....I really want to see if you are that stupid...  Say it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > I have no idea why you babbled out that stupidity.
> ...



It's a teaching moment for you Cricky.  Explain to me how the atmospheric pressure on Venus has absolutely no effect on temperature.

Can you do that or will you once again go to the squid ink defense, spew an insult and flee behind the cloud of obfuscation?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Explain why Venus atmosphere, 90 times as dense a Earth's, at 1,300, psi does not generate any heat.
> ...



Venus does not have increasing pressure therefore the heat is caused by what, manmade global warming?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




Put on your goggles...I predict ink.

Does he really think it is coincidence that as you move up in altitude, the temperature decreases and as you move down the temperature increases?  Does he really think that if we lived on a planet that had twice the atmospheric pressure that once he got to 1 atmosphere the temperature would not continue to climb as he descended down to two atmospheres of pressure....that it would increase till it got to 1 atmosphere and then remain constant no matter how much more the pressure increased?

Yea....I predict ink because he could't bear to admit that he was wrong on this and the temperature on venus is a product of pressure..not magic CO2.


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2015)

SSDD is not totally wrong about how pressure affects temperature. there is a balance between stored potential energy (gravity) and kinetic energy (temperature) which is dependent on the available incoming and outgoing energy.

on Earth, the atmosphere at any particular longitude will both warm up AND puff up as it rotates through the Sun's radiance. some of the energy goes into warming, some into potential energy. as that longitude passes out of radiance it will both cool and contract, losing both kinetic (temperature) energy and potential energy. the next day the cycle repeats.

there is a general pattern to atmospheres which allows us to make general estimates if we know the depth, density and energy flux. this general estimate is worthless for Earth where we are looking for changes of tenths of a degree not tens.


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2015)

as to the OP. perhaps there is only a fine line between skepticism and paranoia. we have been lied to, and misdirected, many times by the CAGW side. honest mistakes I can live with, purposeful obfuscation I cannot. I see no reason to gullibly accept the case for CAGW when there are so many holes in it. deferral to authority is a poor option when even laymen can spot the obvious flaws.


----------



## Crick (Dec 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD is not totally wrong about how pressure affects temperature. there is a balance between stored potential energy (gravity) and kinetic energy (temperature) which is dependent on the available incoming and outgoing energy.
> 
> on Earth, the atmosphere at any particular longitude will both warm up AND puff up as it rotates through the Sun's radiance. some of the energy goes into warming, some into potential energy. as that longitude passes out of radiance it will both cool and contract, losing both kinetic (temperature) energy and potential energy. the next day the cycle repeats.
> 
> there is a general pattern to atmospheres which allows us to make general estimates if we know the depth, density and energy flux. this general estimate is worthless for Earth where we are looking for changes of tenths of a degree not tens.



Ian, Ian, Ian... very disappointing.  You know that SSDD is not talking about diurnal cycles.  He's yet to mention sunlight, potential/kinetic energy tradeoffs or anything else you're talking about.  SSDD believes that compressed gases produce thermal energy for all eternity.  If you really want to put yourself down in print here as holding that "not totally wrong", then you're going to have to accept  the rest of us will  be forced to conclude that you put supporting your denier buddies above the truth.

SSDD, how did my 3,000 psi scuba tank get down to ambient temperature?  Why, without some external input (like sunlight), does it show not the slightest indication of wanting to get any warmer?


----------



## Crick (Dec 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> as to the OP. perhaps there is only a fine line between skepticism and paranoia. we have been lied to, and misdirected, many times by the CAGW side. honest mistakes I can live with, purposeful obfuscation I cannot. I see no reason to gullibly accept the case for CAGW when there are so many holes in it. deferral to authority is a poor option when even laymen can spot the obvious flaws.



If you believe those "holes" exist and are intentional, you're not skeptical, you're paranoid.

Besides, anyone who provides SSDD's psycho-physics the _slightest_ bit of support has completely abandoned the qualifications to make the SLIGHTEST claim of skepticism


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD, how did my 3,000 psi scuba tank get down to ambient temperature?  Why, without some external input (like sunlight), does it show not the slightest indication of wanting to get any warmer?



Your tank is a static column of air idiot child...it reached equilibrium precisely because it isn't going anywhere...


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD is not totally wrong about how pressure affects temperature. there is a balance between stored potential energy (gravity) and kinetic energy (temperature) which is dependent on the available incoming and outgoing energy.
> ...




in the past, I have questioned SSDD's version of temp vs atmosphere. I am more interested in steering people in the right direction, rather than 'winning' an argument. do you disagree that an atmosphere provides a general estimate of temperatures just by being there?


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > as to the OP. perhaps there is only a fine line between skepticism and paranoia. we have been lied to, and misdirected, many times by the CAGW side. honest mistakes I can live with, purposeful obfuscation I cannot. I see no reason to gullibly accept the case for CAGW when there are so many holes in it. deferral to authority is a poor option when even laymen can spot the obvious flaws.
> ...




hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.



that climate sensitivity just keeps going down down down.....won't be long before it is zero or less and then some actual science can begin to find out what factors really matter to the climate....


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2015)

positive (total) feedbacks are unstable, therefore seldom seen in nature. I think there is a distinct possibility that the ~1C/doubling theoretical calculation for CO2 will eventually be found to produce less than 1C.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD is not totally wrong about how pressure affects temperature. there is a balance between stored potential energy (gravity) and kinetic energy (temperature) which is dependent on the available incoming and outgoing energy.
> ...



Your scuba tank did not heat when filled because it was filled from a higher pressure source. In fact -- the contents probably cooled on filling.

The tank would LOSE any heat it gained thru conduction over time. That's got nothing to do with DYNAMIC air systems -- on ANY planet.  The mixing and turbulence in the atmos and the friction gained as the Earth rotates beneath the air masses is a constant source of adiabatic compression and cooling. A high pressure system is an air mass at constant thermal energy that simply gets compressed and therefore has more BTUs/m3. It's the energy in the MOVEMENT of the air masses that pumps temperature up and down.

However -- if you were to increase the density of the atmos uniformly and it came to thermal equilibrium -- then all those dynamic "heating and cooling" actions would be magnified.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Since my position is based on the consensus of mainstream science on the matter, I can not fit the bill of crazy.  SSDD does so in spades, as is obvious to all.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2015)

IanC said:


> positive (total) feedbacks are unstable, therefore seldom seen in nature



What is your basis for claiming feedbacks are unstable?  This unidentified graphic?  

Feedback processes as a group are not inherently stable or unstable.  That that are stable, are almost universally seen to occur. Don't overgeneralize, particularly when you have no basis.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2015)

IanC said:


> positive (total) feedbacks are unstable, therefore seldom seen in nature. I think there is a distinct possibility that the ~1C/doubling theoretical calculation for CO2 will eventually be found to produce less than 1C.


Yeah...zero is less than 1C....prepare yourself.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2015)

IanC said:


> positive (total) feedbacks are unstable, therefore seldom seen in nature



What is your basis for claiming feedbacks are unstable?  This unidentified graphic? 

Feedback processes as a group are not inherently stable or unstable.  That that are stable, are almost universally seen to occur. Don't overgeneralize, particularly when you have no basis.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Explain why Venus atmosphere, 90 times as dense a Earth's, at 1,300, psi does not generate any heat.
> ...



So Venus atmosphere no longer generates heat, what does?  Manmade global Warming?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> positive (total) feedbacks are unstable



1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... = 2

That's how, for example, the water vapor feedback works in climate. Positive and infinite, but bounded.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2015)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > positive (total) feedbacks are unstable
> ...



Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Oohh.. you're getting close.  Increases in GHGs in our atmosphere increase the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere and raise the Earth's temperature. That's what's been happening since the Industrial Revolution began.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.



Would you like lessons in how to construct effective insults?  Yours truly suck.

I bet FCT loves you taking on his argument.  Why don't you explain his math for us?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.
> ...



Yeah sure.. I could work with SSDD on his insults.      Or did you want a comment on how all those "positive feedbacks" will never add up to much in the real world??  And certainly not add to the ORIGINAL hysterical "climate sensitivity" figures that got everyone's nuts in a tizzy...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Did you give up explaining what generates heat on Venus?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Did you give up explaining what generates heat on Venus?



As "the sun" is a complete answer, yes, we did give up trying to explain it more. After all, it can't be dumbed down any further than that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Did you give up explaining what generates heat on Venus?
> ...



*No content flame removed.*


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> [
> 
> Oohh.. you're getting close.  Increases in GHGs in our atmosphere increase the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere and raise the Earth's temperature. That's what's been happening since the Industrial Revolution began.



Sorry crick...no hot spot which would be the inevitable result of heat "trapping" by CO2...get yourself a hypothesis that actually works....


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.
> ...



From someone as lame as you?.....no thanks.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 3, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Did you give up explaining what generates heat on Venus?
> ...



Does this same Sun heat Mercury as well? Without an atmosphere, there is a large difference between day and night temperature on that planet. Are you standing by your "static pressure does not generate heat" theory?

Mercury's surface experiences the greatest temperature variation of the planets in the Solar System, ranging from 100 K (−173 °C; −280 °F) at night to 700 K (*427 °C*; 800 °F) during the day at some equatorial regions.

At the surface, the atmosphere presses down as hard as water 3,000 feet beneath Earth's ocean. The average temperature on Venus is *864 degrees Fahrenheit* (462 degrees Celsius).

Google

Bueller?

Anyone?

Bueller?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*Since my position is based on the consensus of mainstream science on the matter,*

A mole, going blindly through life. Uneducated.  How can you top this post.  Because someone said so I'll believe.Too frkn funny to say the least.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 3, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Does this same Sun heat Mercury as well?



Of course it does.



> Without an atmosphere, there is a large difference between day and night temperature on that planet.



And part of that would be because of the lack of a greenhouse effect. Any atmosphere would moderate temperature some, but a greenhouse effect would moderate it more, as it does on Venus.



> Are you standing by your "static pressure does not generate heat" theory?



Being nothing you've rambled about contradicts it in any way, of course I stand by it, as does every knowledgeable person on the planet. 

Your need to explain this new theory of yours in detail, as I don't think anyone can fathom your thought processes. Being that Mercury's and Venus's behavior is totally consistent with greenhouse theory, why do you think it disproves greenhouse theory?

And if you're so sure the past centuries of physics are so completely wrong, and that only you and a few other unappreciated Einsteins know the RealTruth, you ought to prove your case, write it up, publish, and collect that Nobel Prize that you so clearly deserve.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 3, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Does this same Sun heat Mercury as well?
> ...



So if Venus crushing atmosphere was N2 instead of CO2, we'd have wide, wide differences day and night?

There's so little of these GHG's on Earth, I mean we measure them in PPM, are you saying that 300PPM of CO2 is enough to stabilize temperature on earth but 400PPM causes wild disruptions? 

If we added as 100PPM of CO2 on Mars would that be enough to turn it into a tropical paradise?  Since Martian atmosphere is only 2.5 10e16, a few Chinese coal factories could make it toasty warm in no time!

Oh how about 100PPM on Mercury? would that stabilize the day and night temperature per your "theory"?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 3, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So if Venus crushing atmosphere was N2 instead of CO2, we'd have wide, wide differences day and night?



The differences would definitely be wider, yes. "Wide, wide differences", however, is your strawman, so you're the one obligated to explain it.



> There's so little of these GHG's on Earth, I mean we measure them in PPM, are you saying that 300PPM of CO2 is enough to stabilize temperature on earth but 400PPM causes wild disruptions



No. Again, you're the only one obligated to explain your strawmen.



> If we added as 100PPM of CO2 on Mars would that be enough to turn it into a tropical paradise? Since Martian atmosphere is only 2.5 10e16, a few Chinese coal factories could make it toasty warm in no time!



Your strange theories are getting progressively dumber.



> Oh how about 100PPM on Mercury? would that stabilize the day and night temperature per your "theory"?



It would lessen the difference only very slightly, because Mercury has such a slow rotation. The night on Mercury is months long, and such a thin atmosphere would lose heat quickly. I hope that explains to you why your wacky "stabilize" theory is such nonsense.


----------



## Crick (Dec 4, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.





Crick said:


> Would you like lessons in how to construct effective insults?  Yours truly suck.
> 
> I bet FCT loves you taking on his argument.  Why don't you explain his math for us?





SSDD said:


> From someone as lame as you?.....no thanks.





TRANSLATION:  Uhhh... I can't


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.
> ...



Thanks for proving my point....how much more lame could you get?


----------



## Crick (Dec 5, 2015)

Your fan base is calling SID.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> Your fan base is calling SID.



Nah....just other people who also recognize that you are about as lame as one individual can get...


----------



## Crick (Dec 9, 2015)

Are these the other people who actually believe that the world's climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy of lying to the public because they're getting rich from research grants and all wish to destroy the world's economies?  You see what you all have in common, don't you SID.  You're all paranoid.  At least, it is that which your lack of real arguments has left you.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2015)

Crick said:


> Are these the other people who actually believe that the world's climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy of lying to the public because they're getting rich from research grants and all wish to destroy the world's economies?  You see what you all have in common, don't you SID.  You're all paranoid.  At least, it is that which your lack of real arguments has left you.



Never stop lying do you?  As i have said before....climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade and being politicized when it was still in its infancy....as a result of the error cascade, the science has become corrupted with bad data, and it remains in its infancy as a result of its politicization.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 11, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Are these the other people who actually believe that the world's climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy of lying to the public because they're getting rich from research grants and all wish to destroy the world's economies?  You see what you all have in common, don't you SID.  You're all paranoid.  At least, it is that which your lack of real arguments has left you.
> ...



One of the best post yet on this, I am still curious do they not know this or know it and just want to continue to over do it for publicity and fear mongering?


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

Let's see:
o  All climate scientists are involved in a massive conspiracy to produce false data. ALL OF THEM.
o  Climate science made an enormous mistake when it first began and no one (besides SSDD) has ever discovered it 
o  Despite hundreds and hundreds of people involved in producing temperature records from the various agencies around the world, all of whom are claimed by deniers like SSDD and Bear here, to be involved in this grand falsification, NOT ONE has ever confessed to this activity. NOT FUCKING ONE
o  Not one of the thousands of scientists who make use of those temperature data for their own work has ever complained that their jobs, their living, their life's work was being fucked with.  NOT FUCKING ONE

But the deniers believe it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> Let's see:
> o  All climate scientists are involved in a massive conspiracy to produce false data. ALL OF THEM.
> o  Climate science made an enormous mistake when it first began and no one (besides SSDD) has ever discovered it
> o  Despite hundreds and hundreds of people involved in producing temperature records from the various agencies around the world, all of whom are claimed by deniers like SSDD and Bear here, to be involved in this grand falsification, NOT ONE has ever confessed to this activity. NOT FUCKING ONE
> ...



Wow....3 logical fallacies in one post....how do you manage to dress yourself and eat your oat meal?


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2015)

Oh, don't be shy.  Those are all YOUR claims and YOUR failings.

There is no conspiracy among climate scientists

Climate scientists are not grossly incompetent

No one has confessed to deceptively manipulating temperature data because no one is deceptively manipulating temperature data - or CO2 levels or sea levels or ocean pH values or anything else.

The only reason deniers are making these claims is because they haven't got jack shit in the way or science backing them up.

And, as SSDD has clearly demonstrated with his bizarre ideas about photons, heat transfer and who-knows -what-all, and as Billy Boy has demonstrated in my sig, they have a strong tendency to seriously flawed science and are not great friends with honesty.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> Oh, don't be shy.  Those are all YOUR claims and YOUR failings.



Actually, they aren't, but then lying in an attempt to make a point is your standard MO....



Crick said:


> There is no conspiracy among climate scientists



Feel free to bring a post from me stating that I believe there is....I have said before that climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade...and being politicized in its infancy...there are a few bad actors and the rest just take published work at face value, thus spreading the bad data and making it part of the narrative.



Crick said:


> Climate scientists are not grossly incompetent



Climate science is a soft science and the scientific method is not being practiced...what would you call a universal failure to follow the scientific method?

]QUOTE="Crick, post: 13019638, member: 48966"]No one has confessed to deceptively manipulating temperature data because no one is deceptively manipulating temperature data - or CO2 levels or sea levels or ocean pH values or anything else.[/quote]

Of course they have...I gave you the quote which you tried comically, and unsuccessfully to defend..



Crick said:


> The only reason deniers are making these claims is because they haven't got jack shit in the way or science backing them up.



Still waiting for that empirical evidence that proves the most basic, fundamental, first claim of the AGW hypothesis....talk about not having jack...that's you guys...you can't even back up the most basic claim of your hypothesis with empirical evidence.



Crick said:


> And, as SSDD has clearly demonstrated with his bizarre ideas about photons, heat transfer and who-knows -what-all, and as Billy Boy has demonstrated in my sig, they have a strong tendency to seriously flawed science and are not great friends with honesty.



And yet, the climate is behaving as I predicted...not as you with your failed GCM's epically failed predictions.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.
> ...


We know all about the PAL REVIEW and the blocking of inconvenient data and papers that discredit your silly ass wealth redistribution scheme..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.
> ...



Current CS levels are less than 0.476 deg C per doubling. It has been revised down so many times I have lost count and it now is less than 1 deg C. Far less than the expect LOG function found in controlled lab experiments, indicating that water vapor is indeed a negative forcing not a positive one and why all modeling today fails by a factor of 300%. This number increases every day as the divergence from reality becomes greater and greater as time progresses.






“Being off by a factor of three does not qualify in my book as settled science,” Christy said.

Source


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Dec 13, 2015)

*Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris*

LE BOURGET, France - With the sudden bang of a gavel Saturday night, representatives of 195 nations reached a landmark accord that will, for the first time, commit nearly every country to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave ...


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I agree with much of what you say. unfortunately you say things in a very poor fashion that is unscientific.

climate sensitivity is going down. but to say 'lower than 0.476C/doubling' is nonsense. even if you were quoting a recent paper, they would have given a number and an error range. the way you have presented it makes it sound like it is known to two significant digits and we are fighting over the third.

you did not specify whether you are talking about transient climate response or equilibrium climate sensitivity. itt makes a difference as the transient response is generally lower than at equilibrium.






here is a graph of climate sensitivity estimates from mainstream sources. there are certainly other sources with lower (and higher) figures but they are not given the same credibility without  established peer review and publishing. 


as far as models being off by 300%, that is likewise an awkward statement that implies more certainty than is known (at least you didnt say 308%). did you notice that Christy said, "a factor of three".

dont claim exaggerated precision that can easily be disproved.......the other side already does more than enough of it. and that is why their CO2 theory is falling apart, even laymen can sense when they are being fibbed to.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



When they get to zero they will finally be on the right track and then the real work on what drives the climate can begin....and maybe we can get to work on some of the real environmental problems that we face.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris*
> 
> LE BOURGET, France - With the sudden bang of a gavel Saturday night, representatives of 195 nations reached a landmark accord that will, for the first time, commit nearly every country to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave ...



And I can get you a real good deal on some beach front property in Vail, Colorado.  Here is what your high priest James Hansen had to say on the topic...from the guardian,



			
				hansen said:
			
		

> Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes.
> 
> “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2015)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero....or less.  The sooner that is understood, the sooner the real work on learning about what drives the climate can get started...and perhaps we can get to some of the real environmental problems we face.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2015)

Progressives are groupies, they don't read their own literature instead they rely on the assurance of large numbers: 97%, 190 countries. By themselves the numbers are meaningless and in fact outright fraudulent, but it gives our progressive groupies the assurance that's vital to maintain their stupid and docile nature


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Dec 13, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Progressives are groupies, they don't read their own literature instead they rely on the assurance of large numbers: 97%, 190 countries. By themselves the numbers are meaningless and in fact outright fraudulent, but it gives our progressive groupies the assurance that's vital to maintain their stupid and docile nature


You rely on Lord Monckton and company ..LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Progressives are groupies, they don't read their own literature instead they rely on the assurance of large numbers: 97%, 190 countries. By themselves the numbers are meaningless and in fact outright fraudulent, but it gives our progressive groupies the assurance that's vital to maintain their stupid and docile nature
> ...



Never even heard of him. 

I've been reading your junk science since Scarfetta and West decide that the Sun was only 30% responsible for Earth's global warming. 

You're a classic example of it: 190 countries!!! Consensus!!! all you need are the pom poms


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Dec 13, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Heartland Institute only honest scientist on the planet waaahahahhahahha


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



You have Consensus, the science is settled!


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




you keep saying that, but you refuse to explain yourself. probably because every time you try it turns out horribly wrong, with glaring logical fallacies, and deference to old authorities rather than new ones. you are just as bad as crick and his ilk except that you and your crazy ideas dont take money out of my pocket.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2015)

IanC said:


> you keep saying that, but you refuse to explain yourself. probably because every time you try it turns out horribly wrong, with glaring logical fallacies, and deference to old authorities rather than new ones. you are just as bad as crick and his ilk except that you and your crazy ideas dont take money out of my pocket.



What do I need to explain Ian...reality....observation is my explanation.  You claim that CO2 does a thing...and the more CO2 there is, the more of the thing it will do.  Out here in the real world, CO2 is steadily increasing but it isn't doing the thing you, and your mathematical models predicted....the explanation is that you and your mathematical models are wrong...CO2 doesn't drive temperatures...the climate isn't sensitive to it.  You claim I am wrong at the same time the climate is ignoring your models and doing what I predicted and all those like me who don't think that CO2 can cause warming.

The onus to prove anything isn't on me Ian...that responsibility lies squarely on your shoulders.  As a skeptic, the only thing I need do is to observe that reality doesn't match with you and your mathematical models and ask why?  You have no explanation....you only keep repeating what should be happening but isn't.  Exactly where, in the scientific method does that behavior fit in?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2015)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


3 times...implies 300% or 3.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 13, 2015)

Of course, Christy and Spencer have faked the temperature data, so everything SSDD is spouting here is a fraud.

The weather balloons (radiosondes) measure the same part of the troposphere as the satellites do. The weather balloons give a very different result, and show the same strong warming that the surface measurements show.

Weather balloons measure temperature directly. With a thermometer.

Satellites measure microwaves, then try to convert that to a temperature, correcting for observation angle, sun angle, clouds, dust, humidity, satellite orbital drift, sensor drift ... and then they run it through an atmospheric model as well.

So, there's a choice. Use the directly measured data (weather balloon temperatures), or use the output of a historically unreliable and extremely complex model (satellite temperatures). Deniers exclusively choose the bad models over the good simple measurements, demonstrating another trait that positively classifies them as pseudoscience devotees. Real scientists don't deliberately toss out the best data, while deniers specialize in that.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The weather balloons (radiosondes) measure the same part of the troposphere as the satellites do. The weather balloons give a very different result, and show the same strong warming that the surface measurements show.



My my my but you are quite the lying idiot aren't you?  Have you bothered to look at the radiosonde data next to the satellite data?  Of course you haven't...or perhaps you have and just can't lying about what you saw.  Here, have another look.








mamooth said:


> Weather balloons measure temperature directly. With a thermometer.



Yep...they sure do....and look at how closely the measurements follow the satellites....especially since about 2002....seems that the satellite record is correct while the surface record has been tampered beyond recognition...



mamooth said:


> Satellites measure microwaves, then try to convert that to a temperature, correcting for observation angle, sun angle, clouds, dust, humidity, satellite orbital drift, sensor drift ... and then they run it through an atmospheric model as well.



And again, look at how closely they track the radiosonde (actual measurement) data....especially, as I said since about 2002.  Far more accurate than the surface record.



mamooth said:


> So, there's a choice. Use the directly measured data (weather balloon temperatures), or use the output of a historically unreliable and extremely complex model (satellite temperatures). Deniers exclusively choose the bad models over the good simple measurements, demonstrating another trait that positively classifies them as pseudoscience devotees. Real scientists don't deliberately toss out the best data, while deniers specialize in that.



When the satellite data and radiosonde data are so close, why does one need to choose.  It is the climate models that are the epic failure...


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 13, 2015)

Does anyone get it

What happend between the ice ages?


----------



## Crick (Dec 13, 2015)

Spencer and Christy's graph is crap which is why deniers love it and use it over and over and over again.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Spencer and Christy's graph is crap which is why deniers love it and use it over and over and over again.



You are saying that the radiosonde and satellite data sets are not accurate in that graph?  Or are you saying that you don't like graphs because you just can't make sense of them?  Or do you just not like to see actual observation compared to the GCM's upon which your faith in AGW is based?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 14, 2015)

SSDD said:


> My my my but you are quite the lying idiot aren't you?  Have you bothered to look at the radiosonde data next to the satellite data?



Of course I have. Unlike you, I look at real data instead of fraud blogs. You and Spencer are lying about it. The radiosonde/weather balloon temperatures disagree with the satellite model temperatures, and agree very closely with the surface station data and the climate models.



> Of course you haven't...or perhaps you have and just can't lying about what you saw.  Here, have another look.



That's just mystery dots on a page. No sources, no references to where the balloon data came from. Unlike Spencer, I'll give the exact source of where to get the weather balloon temperature data.

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

The link to the data is right there, the data in text format. Anyone can download it. It's the 85 stations of the global RATPAC network, specifically designed to have global coverage, and to use consistently calibrated instruments. There have been thousands of other balloon launching sites in the past, but they've had major problems concerning no consistency among instruments and calibration. I'm guessing Spencer must have searched among those thousands of sites and cherrypicked madly until he found something to match his other fudging.



> Yep...they sure do....and look at how closely the measurements follow the satellites....especially since about 2002....seems that the satellite record is correct



The balloon temperatures diverge wildly from the satellite model output temperatures. Not a surprise, since the convoluted satellite model has such a history of sucking, while the balloon and surface station temperatures are direct, simple and consistent. Only deniers still cling to those failed satellite models, because all of the good data says deniers are completely wrong.



> while the surface record has been tampered beyond recognition...



The total modifications to the surface record have made the warming look _smaller_. If scientists did no corrections at all, the warming would look bigger. Your conspiracy theory is flatly contradicted by reality.



> And again, look at how closely they track the radiosonde (actual measurement) data....especially, as I said since about 2002.  Far more accurate than the surface record.



Let's look at the actual data, as opposed to Spencer's mystery dots. Tamino here did the plotting for us.

Ted Cruz: Just Plain Wrong











As the graphs show, the satellites started diverging from the balloons around 2000, and the divergence has now grown to the point where the output of the satellite models is ridiculously low. There's clearly a significant drift issue with the satellites.

That can't happen with the surface measurements and balloons, of course, since those come from thousands of independent instruments. If one instrument drifts off, cross-checking with other instruments reveals the problem. As the satellite measurements come from just one or two instruments with nothing good to cross check too, drift is a serious problem. That's why nobody of any intelligence trusts the satellite data over the good data.



> When the satellite data and radiosonde data are so close, why does one need to choose.  It is the climate models that are the epic failure...



In summary, the weather balloon temperature trends and surface temperature trends agree very closely with each other, and with the climate models, demonstrating how good the models have been. The satellite model temperature trend disagrees with everything, demonstrating how bad that model output is.

SSDD, you've got a choice to make now. Previous to this post, you could have used ignorance as your excuse as to why you pushed Spencer's fraud. You can't use that excuse any more. Will you still back the fraud now, thus announcing to everyone that you're actively and deliberately endorsing the fraud?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 14, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris*
> 
> LE BOURGET, France - With the sudden bang of a gavel Saturday night, representatives of 195 nations reached a landmark accord that will, for the first time, commit nearly every country to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave ...


so what is the plan?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2015)

A graph prepared by an un named someone on a warmer blog?  Are you serious hairball?  Let me guess...you are...you will accept anything from anyone so long as it supports your point of view.

And it doesn't go unnoticed that your....whoever....chose two data sets while the one I provided was the average of 4 data sets and two satellite sets...if your...whoever....had shown a graph using all available data....it would look like the one I posted and not like a cherrypicked graph produced for fear mongers.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris*
> ...



the plan....as always is to generate some splashy headlines and then not speak about it when nothing happens.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Dec 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > USNavyVet said:
> ...





Your signature is hilarious!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Spencer and Christy's graph is crap which is why deniers love it and use it over and over and over again.



And by "Crap" you mean it accurately portrays the readings and refuses to make the necessary adjustments to stop being a DENIER!!!. right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My my my but you are quite the lying idiot aren't you?  Have you bothered to look at the radiosonde data next to the satellite data?
> ...



According to NOAA, "The temporal homogeneity of many radiosonde time series is questionable due to historical changes in instruments and measurement practices. This may make them unsuitable for the study of long-term climate variations, such as through trend analysis." 

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean?  In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory.  So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question? If you find a financial report where the auditor is saying some of the number today are different than the were a few years ago, you know you're looking at a fraud

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Spencer and Christy's graph is crap which is why deniers love it and use it over and over and over again.


^ that

CrusaderFrank


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 14, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


It is


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Spencer and Christy's graph is crap which is why deniers love it and use it over and over and over again.
> ...



According to NOAA, "The temporal homogeneity of many radiosonde time series is questionable due to historical changes in instruments and measurement practices. This may make them unsuitable for the study of long-term climate variations, such as through trend analysis." 

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean? In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory. So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question? If you find a financial report where the auditor is saying some of the number today are different than the were a few years ago, you know you're looking at a fraud

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

^ this!


----------



## mamooth (Dec 14, 2015)

SSDD said:


> A graph prepared by an un named someone on a warmer blog?



I gave you the NOAA  source of the raw data for the graph. If I'm lying, you can easily prove it. Just show where that data doesn't match the graph. 

But if you're lying, we know what you'll do. You'll scream insults and run. You can proceed to do that now.



> Are you serious hairball?  Let me guess...you are...you will accept anything from anyone so long as it supports your point of view.



I linked to the actual raw data.

You linked to no data.

You did what a fraud would do. The readers can make their own conclusions.



> And it doesn't go unnoticed that your....whoever....chose two data sets while the one I provided was the average of 4 data sets



That might pass muster with your fellow cultists, but not with the reality-based community. We realists understand that saying you have 4 data sets does not mean you actually have 4 good data sets. It just means you plotted some mystery dots.

If you and Spencer aren't frauds, then you need to prove it by linking to your mystery data sets.



> .if your...whoever....had shown a graph using all available data....



Which is exactly what was done, plotting the global RATPAC data set.

(Given how badly you're getting humiliated here, don't you think it's time to give up?)


----------



## Vigilante (Dec 14, 2015)

SEVEN YEARS AGO TODAY... Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be Ice Free in Five Years - The Gateway Pundit


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 14, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I see what you did there





CrusaderFrank


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> I gave you the NOAA  source of the raw data for the graph. If I'm lying, you can easily prove it. Just show where that data doesn't match the graph.



A single cherry picked data set...my graph uses all 4 available data sets...if yours were not a cherry picked graph, it would be the same as mine.  Of course that would assume that you were even capable of honesty...we all know that you aren't.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 14, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Cricks lies and half truths heralded by a moron as hilarious..   Birds of a feather..


Cricks crap is just that, crap!  Hey Crick where are your predictions and cognitive thought?  Oh thats right.. you two do as you are told..


----------



## Crick (Dec 15, 2015)

Still waiting to see a successfully hindcasting model that does not use AGW.  I've asked that question a half dozen times in the last week and have not received ONE SINGLE FUCKING RESPONSE.

Now why would THAT be?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Still waiting to see a successfully hindcasting model that does not use AGW.  I've asked that question a half dozen times in the last week and have not received ONE SINGLE FUCKING RESPONSE.
> 
> Now why would THAT be?




I gave you one crick...you didn't like it?  Unlike you....I can provide material to support what I think...you believe in the AGW hypothesis but can't even provide empirical evidence to prove the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis.

Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists.. | Page 8 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2015)

Ah, the David Evans/JoNova "Force X Notch Filter" babbling. Those not in the cult just laughed at how sad Evans' science was. Even most other deniers were embarrassed at how bad it was. But SSDD's faith is strong here, and reality won't be able to challenge it.

Evans was astounded that the 11-year solar cycle doesn't show in temperature records, and concluded the climate must have a notch-filter around that 11-year frequency. The cause? A mysterious "Force X". What is Force X?  Evans didn't say. SSDD, can you update us? Did Evans ever reveal what the magical Force X was?

Evans displays the "specialists fallacy". His experience is with Fourier Transforms and filters, so he assumes every phenomenon in the universe is explainable solely in those terms. When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

So, a year ago, upon putting out his "model". Evans declared temperatures would stay level before sharply dropping. In that past year, temperatures shot up. Hence, his model is disproved. So SSDD, got any models that haven't failed hard?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Ah, the David Evans/JoNova "Force X Notch Filter" babbling. Those not in the cult just laughed at how sad Evans' science was. Even most other deniers were embarrassed at how bad it was. But SSDD's faith is strong here, and reality won't be able to challenge it.
> 
> Evans was astounded that the 11-year solar cycle doesn't show in temperature records, and concluded the climate must have a notch-filter around that 11-year frequency. The cause? A mysterious "Force X". What is Force X?  Evans didn't say. SSDD, can you update us? Did Evans ever reveal what the magical Force X was?
> 
> ...



And when you say, "temperatures shot up" you mean AFTER you include the 93% of the "excess heat" that was adsorbed by the oceans, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Ah, the David Evans/JoNova "Force X Notch Filter" babbling. Those not in the cult just laughed at how sad Evans' science was. Even most other deniers were embarrassed at how bad it was. But SSDD's faith is strong here, and reality won't be able to challenge it.
> 
> Evans was astounded that the 11-year solar cycle doesn't show in temperature records, and concluded the climate must have a notch-filter around that 11-year frequency. The cause? A mysterious "Force X". What is Force X?  Evans didn't say. SSDD, can you update us? Did Evans ever reveal what the magical Force X was?
> 
> ...








D'oh!!


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2015)

I'm thinking I should write a Frank-simulator script. It wouldn't be hard. Make some lists of his stock nonsense phrases, then have the script choose from them randomly and piece them together.

Hmm. Maybe that's what Frank is. That is, there is no actual person behind the account, just a script generating semi-random nonsense.

In climate news, NASA GISS shows the November 2015 global average temperature anomaly at +1.05C, the hottest November ever, and just behind the October 2015 anomaly of +1.06C. 2015 will shatter the old record for hottest year, barring a sudden supervolcano or major asteroid impact.

And that's why the "no warming!" cranks look completely insane and pathologically dishonest now. Seriously deniers, just stop faking the data. Nobody is falling for it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> I'm thinking I should write a Frank-simulator script. It wouldn't be hard. Make some lists of his stock nonsense phrases, then have the script choose from them randomly and piece them together.
> 
> Hmm. Maybe that's what Frank is. That is, there is no actual person behind the account, just a script generating semi-random nonsense.
> 
> ...



And when you say, "Warmest EVAH!!!" you mean AFTER you include the 93% of the "excess heat" that was adsorbed by the oceans, right?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> I'm thinking I should write a Frank-simulator script. It wouldn't be hard. Make some lists of his stock nonsense phrases, then have the script choose from them randomly and piece them together.
> 
> Hmm. Maybe that's what Frank is. That is, there is no actual person behind the account, just a script generating semi-random nonsense.
> 
> ...


all ad hominem. no evidence, no raw data sets, all manufactured.  Frank posted up a chart.  What's wrong with the chart, can you answer that?

You discussing NASA GISS after this in 2010?

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special

Excerpt:
"Press Release From: KUSI-TV 
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com."


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2015)

Frank, can you post up the true intentions of the IPCC?

Thanks,


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2015)

Wasn't Mammooth the one telling us that NOAA was right to retroactively adjust the data?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Frank, can you post up the true intentions of the IPCC?
> 
> Thanks,



IPCC told us that they're using AGW as a wealth redistribution scheme

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore - See more at: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, can you post up the true intentions of the IPCC?
> ...


still waiting for the left libturds to explain that quote.  still crickets.


----------



## Crick (Dec 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wasn't Mammooth the one telling us that NOAA was right to retroactively adjust the data?



The corrections and adjustments made to NOAA's temperature data and that of Hadley, GISS, NCDC and every other holder, are making the data more accurate.  Of course they're right.  And, as you've been told repeatedly, the net result of the adjustments being made is REDUCING the amount of warming observed.  

What this has shown as clear as a bell is that you folks are a bunch of idiots and that you don't have an argument to make.  Never did.


----------



## Crick (Dec 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, can you post up the true intentions of the IPCC?
> ...



Frank, what authority does the IPCC have to redistribute anyone's wealth?

Whose wealth do you believe the IPCC has redistributed and how and when did they do it?

If you can't answer these questions and yet you once again pull out this quote from Edenhofer and make these asinine claims, I'll have to take you down ANOTHER notch on the Smarts Curve (and there isn't much room under your current position).


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Did you see what just happened in Paris?

They all agreed the USA should redistribute its wealth


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> I'm thinking I should write a Frank-simulator script. It wouldn't be hard. Make some lists of his stock nonsense phrases, then have the script choose from them randomly and piece them together.
> 
> Hmm. Maybe that's what Frank is. That is, there is no actual person behind the account, just a script generating semi-random nonsense.
> 
> ...



You write code, Admiral?

Amazing


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't Mammooth the one telling us that NOAA was right to retroactively adjust the data?
> ...



LOL@ "more accurate!"

LOL

How the fuck do you retroactively make the readings "more accurate"?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't Mammooth the one telling us that NOAA was right to retroactively adjust the data?
> ...



BULL SHIT!

Arbitrary adjustments and "must meet our expectations" are all bull shit code words for 'we must shove the agenda forward'  No matter how many times we show that the adjustments are bull shit, contrived, and baseless you post up your appeal to authority as proof..

Take your appeals to authority and shove them up your anti-science ass.

The morons are out in force and the idiots are close behind!


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.


Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.
> ...


Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 17, 2015)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Politicians met in Paris dofous...

Again no link to back up your asinine blanket statement?

It took me 3 seconds ...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 17, 2015)

Check this out


JAPANESE SPACE AGENCY AGREES WITH SKEPTICS ON CLIMATE CHANGE - Principia Scientific Intl


Japanese climate satellite data supports climate realist Professor Murry Salby in rejecting global warming theory; humans are not responsible for measured increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) affirm evidence in Report from Japanese Aerospace exploration agency (JAXA).The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has revealed that its climate satellite IBUKI data shows that the growth in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is coming from third world under developed forested equatorial regions of Africa and South America.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Oh look Chinese don't


Climate change concern among Chinese citizens plummets, research finds


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Ok since you are to lazy to get facts and just spout opinions from your butt.


Climate change opinion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


70% of the folks in Afghanistan don't believe in the AGW cult

66% of the folks in Cambodia don't believe in the AGW cult

69% of the folks in Chad don't believe in the AGW cult

51% of the folks in Denmark don't believe in the AGW cult

46% of the folks in Egypt don't believe in the AGW cult

41% of the folks in Germany don't believe in the AGW cult

62% of the folks in Iceland don't believe in the AGW cult

62% of the folks in Iraq don't believe in the AGW cult

53% of the folks in Norway don't believe in the AGW cult

61% of the folks in Saudi Arabia don't believe in the AGW cult

71% of the folks in South Africa don't believe in the AGW cult

82% of the folks in Tanzania don't believe in the AGW cult

52% of the folks in the United Kingdom  don't believe in the AGW cult

51% of the folks in Vietnam don't believe in the AGW cult


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...











Because consensus is the language of politics, not science, and those who are pushing the fraud directly benefit from it.  What you are advocating is the same as a drug maker churning out "studies" that support their product, all the while knowing it is crap, like all those male supplements we get barraged with, but they churn them out because they make money on them.

Color me unsurprised you're not educated enough to understand that.


----------



## Crick (Dec 18, 2015)

Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall?  How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall?  Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?

CON-FUCKING-SENSUS

From Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Theory"

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence.

*Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists (see scientific consensus) as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena.* It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Bullshit they have the biggest problem with it.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


The governments and scientists all know


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Consensus is not a scientific word, like "Denier!" it's a Cult word


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall?  How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall?  Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?
> 
> CON-FUCKING-SENSUS
> 
> ...



Consensus is a Cult word.

Speaking of experiment, you've never once show a single experiment linking trace amount of CO2 with increases in temperature.  Why is that?

Why are there NO experiments that control for trace amounts of CO2?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> The corrections and adjustments made to NOAA's temperature data and that of Hadley, GISS, NCDC and every other holder, are making the data more accurate.  Of course they're right.  And, as you've been told repeatedly, the net result of the adjustments being made is REDUCING the amount of warming observed.



If that is true, then why do the "adjustments" made to the data set for the continental US disagree with the data set for the CRN which is a pristinely placed triple redundant network which requires not adjustment?  If the adjustments were making the data set more accurate, would the adjustments made for the area covered by the CRN not make them agree with the CRN?  And if the adjustments made to the data set in the area covered by the CRN are producing a warming not detected by the CRN which needs no adjustment, is there any rational, scientifically sound reason to believe that the warm bias introduced into the data set for the area covered by the CRN does not extend to the rest of the world as well?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank, what authority does the IPCC have to redistribute anyone's wealth?



You believe the IPCC is somehow a separate entity from the UN?


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall?  How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall?  Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?
> 
> CON-FUCKING-SENSUS
> 
> ...













I don't care you halfwit.  Flat earthers were the accepted "consensus" once upon a time as well.  The number of scientists who have been proven wrong with the their consensus viewpoints would fill an encyclopedia.  Whenever those scientists derive monetary benefit from their agreement with the "consensus" they lose all credibility.  The fact that you ignore that merely shows the world that YOU are a political propagandist.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 18, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Check this outJapanese climate satellite data supports climate realist Professor Murry Salby in rejecting global warming theory;



No. Denier crank Salby just pretended that was the case. Deniers do that, you know, lie their asses off. There was no actual evidence to support your crazy claim anywhere in that article.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, what authority does the IPCC have to redistribute anyone's wealth?
> ...



Crick missed that whole Global Climate Warming Change thingy in Paris where the world agree to take money from the USA, you know, like redistribute wealth


----------



## mamooth (Dec 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> I don't care you halfwit.



Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.



> Flat earthers were the accepted "consensus" once upon a time as well.



That was before the era of the scientific method (the era deniers still live in), hence it's not a valid critique of the scientific method.



> The number of scientists who have been proven wrong with the their consensus viewpoints would fill an encyclopedia.  Whenever those scientists derive monetary benefit from their agreement with the "consensus" they lose all credibility.  The fact that you ignore that merely shows the world that YOU are a political propagandist.



And after that rant, the actual data still contradicts your claims. You can scream and rage all you want, and all the data will still contradict you. Therefore, the world will keep ignoring you. If you want the world to stop ignoring you, your side will have to do some actual science for the first time ever. Make extra sure your science successly explains all of this data:

1. The directly observed fast increase in temperatures
2. The directly observed stratospheric cooling
3. The directly observed increase in backradiation
4. The directly observed decrease in outgoing longwave radiation
5. The directly observed decrease in solar output
6. Orbital forcings that are trying to cool the earth.

(Notice how none of that involves a model.)

Global warming theory is the only theory that successfully accounts for all of the observed data. That's why it's the accepted theory. Your side, you wave your hands around, scream "Natural cycles!", and declare victory, having invoked your religious magic. And then you wonder why nobody else believes it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care you halfwit.
> ...



^ Still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature.  Not a single experiment, not in years


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care you halfwit.
> ...












Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built.  Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water.  The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 18, 2015)

Go check the latest Pew Poll on global warming from January '15.........we have a huge majority of Americans that are paranoid!!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Interesting, so you think China has the biggest problem with climate change... So silly boo boo how did Paris help China's climate change?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built.  Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water.  The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.



So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.

The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.

So, just show the better data.


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built.  Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water.  The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.
> ...












We show data.  You show computer derived fiction.  See the difference?  Nope.  Didn't think you would.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



So you went from only republicans deny man made climate change to you believing the government of North Korea on scientific matters?

What faith you have comrade .


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't Mammooth the one telling us that NOAA was right to retroactively adjust the data?
> ...


huh?  Unnecessary adjustments to data that had been posted in the past is criminal.  Sorry.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.
> ...


can you prove it?  Where is your evidence?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> We show data.



Yes, you show data, but none of the data is related to your claims. You give us red herrings instead of data.



> You show computer derived fiction.  See the difference?  Nope.  Didn't think you would.



I keep pointing out that the directly observed data proves global warming theory, no models required. If you're that ignorant of the basic science, you're not qualified to be in the discussion.

The stratosphere is cooling.

Backradiation is increasing.

OLR in the GHG bands is decreasing.

Those are all smoking guns for warming caused by greenhouse gases.

Now, what data can you present to back up your theory, whatever that may be?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I just want to see your evidence.  Post that or provide a link.  And Paris is over and the entire world did not go, 196 out of 7 billion people went.  How the hell do you get the globe out of those numbers?  Please, you can't make this shit up I swear.


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > We show data.
> ...









And nowhere can you provide empirical data to support a single one of those assertions.  All you can present are computer models which anyone with a brain knows is not data.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall?  How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall?  Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?
> 
> CON-FUCKING-SENSUS
> 
> ...


uh, no, sorry.  widely accepted is a human persons opinion not fact or evidence.  F A I L


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


pollution or climate change?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care you halfwit.
> ...


I can't say it any better than Frank:

*^ Still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years*


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


they know what?  ask them for an experiment to support their claim and you'll get crickets, so again....F A I L


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built.  Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water.  The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.
> ...


so show us the evidence.  If it showed up, then that means it must exist, so post it up here.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 18, 2015)

A few hardcore deniers certainly have worked hard to prove the thread premise to be correct beyond any doubt. To them, everything is part of the conspiracy. Serious paranoia.

Hence, this thread is a wrap.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> A few hardcore deniers certainly have worked hard to prove the thread premise to be correct beyond any doubt. To them, everything is part of the conspiracy. Serious paranoia.
> 
> Hence, this thread is a wrap.


the thread proved you F A I L E D


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


This December, world leaders are gathering in Paris to complete a new global climate agreement – an extraordinary opportunity for the international community to meet the threat of climate change. To achieve a world where everyone lives with dignity and opportunity – a vision leaders embraced in the global goals for sustainable development – we must take strong action on climate change. Everyone has a role to play. As governments convene for the conference, civil society groups, businesses, scientists, innovators and citizens will also gather to share climate solutions and to let leaders know that every sector, every community, and every person must play an active role in addressing climate change. - See more at: Earth To Paris


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.



"Modern" Scientific Method?  What the hell is that?  The old scientific method went something like this:  The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generallyy involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena ,experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.  Climate science certainly isn't following the old scientific method...describe this "modern" scientific method.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ^ Still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature.  Not a single experiment, not in years



You ever hear of the "modern" scientific method?  How does it differ from the old scientific method.  Is the modern method one where you skip empirical evidence and experimentation and ignore everything that contradicts the hypothesis and jump straight to a political consensus?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.



Within the past couple of years the consensus was a that stress caused stomach ulcers....there was no such thing as quasicrystals....salt caused high blood pressure....high colesterol had a direct link to heart disease and now it seems that the old consensus regarding dietary fat is about to fall as well.  Historically, going with the consensus on anything is a losing bet...the consensus is usually a product of groupthink and groupthink is rarely ever right.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built.  Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water.  The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.
> ...



How about the fact that CO2 has been steadily increasing  but the temperature has not climbed in 20 years and the tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science has failed to appear?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > We show data.
> ...



All of those things you claim are proof are nothing more than the output of flawed models...in the real world, there is no actual measurement of back radiation unless one cools the instrument to a temperature colder than the atmosphere....OLR is increasing...it isn't warming...and the tropospheric hot spot has failed to materialize...


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


No doubt human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, given that humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles. More people means more demand for oil, gas, coal and other fuels mined or drilled from below the Earth’s surface that, when burned, spew enough carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere to trap warm air inside like a greenhouse.

Does Population Growth Impact Climate Change?


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




Population growth is a major factor in Climate Change and quite a few other problems. It's not politically correct to work on the problems from that angle though.

CO2 is a necessary constituent of the Greenhouse Effect that keeps our world inhabitable. I'm not sure whether we know what the best levels are, or what the perfect temperature is.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.
> ...


the new method is to throw out the old scientific method and listen to Mantooth. duh


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Yes doubt. I doubt anyone in climate science knows anything about human influence.  Anyone!!! and in case you thought I studdered, ANYONE!  Otherwise there would actually be evidence of such a thing and there isn't any.  ANY.
You merely make some correlation that because 'A' happens 'global warming' happens.  Sorry charlie that isn't so.  Now is there more CO2 because of more humans? sure!  why wouldn't there be I can draw that connection.  Does it mean global warming, no not at all because no one, no one has tied CO2 to warming other than it absorbs IR.  That's it.  Now, you can feel free to prove me wrong, and please try, cause so far in two years that hasn't happened.


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.
> ...









Wow, I didn't even catch that one.  Gives you an idea of how sick I am!  What a crock of shit....


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




Post Normal Science.

Not such a good thing once groupthink and error cascades kick in.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ^ Still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature.  Not a single experiment, not in years
> ...



Sure. Modern science is when you alter the data to fit your failed, flawed theory


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


1 to 2 degrees hotter is not good.  We know that.  

2 degrees will change the world

Now you know.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You don't know shit about being modern or scientific frankypoo.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




More fear mongering and false predictions..... ????

That's all your cult has silly boo boo


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 18, 2015)

.
Grow up people. If the government can't build a website that a 15 year old could build over lunch break at school, what makes you think the government can decipher the climate? The only remaining viable hypothesis is that you are being bullshitted.

.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


and you can back that up?


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




It's a HufPo piece reprinted on Mother Jones. Short on evidence, high on rhetoric. Preaching to the choir I suppose.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Even China and Corporations know man made climate change is real.  They just don't want to have to pay for it.  You may as well not even reply to me because I'm not taking a thing you type seriously.

WORLD CLIMATE SUMMIT 2015


*Speakers: +300 high-level speakers*
*Partners: worked with +100 public and private sector partners*
*Audience: +4,000 business, finance and government delegates*
*Outreach: +15,000 climate stakeholders*
*Media: access to +1,000 journalists database*
*Outcomes: +50 initiatives launched*


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


and what's your point?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Go to France and tell them GW is a hoax.  They'll laugh at you.

Lets see if the GOP nominee will get up on stage and deny global warming.  Bet they won't.  And if they do, they'll lose the general election.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


it isn't an issue.  how many times must a libturd hear that?  Why would any candidate say anything on climate, leaders from 196 couldn't even come to an agreement on it.  So it died on the vine in Paris!!!! get it died on the vine???????


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


In fact, I can't find one Republican who denies man made global warming/climate change.

Climate Change statements | PolitiFact

Ok, I found one.  Rick Santorum, and he's FALSE!  LOL.

Santorum: UN climate head debunked widely cited 97% climate change consensus figure


The claim that 97 percent of scientists believe humans are causing climate change has been debunked by the "head" of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "That number was pulled out of thin air."

— Rick Santorum on Friday, August 28th, 2015 in an interview with Bill Maher

FALSE


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

Another Rick Santorum lie.  No wonder he dropped out of the race.

Santorum cites flawed climate change figure, and misquotes it


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

Republicans just don't realize how dumb they are.

Don Zimmerman says every child learns the sun warms the Earth; carbon dioxide does not


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Oh its an issue.  Its one of the issues you guys don't win the White House.

New Wisconsin utility regulator says volcanos worse than cars for greenhouse gas

Look how many times you guys are wrong about climate change.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

She sounds like you stupid usmb republicans Fox News host: Climate scientists 'fabricated' temperature data

and this was ruled PANTS ON FIRE!


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

China wouldn't be going along if global warming was not real.  Mitch McConnell says U.S.-China climate deal means China won't have to do anything for 16 years

American republicans are mucho stupido.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Are you a fucking caveman or what?  Do you feel dumb being the last person to know?

6 takeaways from the Paris climate agreement

The private sector was more engaged in this process than ever before, with thousands of businesses, investors and trade coalitions involved over the past year. We have climate pledges from 5,000 diverse global companies representing virtually every industrial sector and over 90 countries. They include signatories to the American Business Act on Climate Pledge, the CDP/We Mean Business Coalition, the World Economic Form CEOs group, the B Team and many others. All together, companies pledging climate action represent combined annual revenue over $38 trillion — about half of global GDP — and the majority of the world’s market capitalization. Already, the global market for low-carbon goods and services is estimated at $5.5 trillion per year. The agreement should increase investor confidence and help the low-carbon share of the global economy grow.  

At the U.N. climate talks, Unilever and other big businesses announced plans to stabilize forest cover by 2030 and restore forest cover to 1990 levels by 2050. Hundreds of major companies are committed to eliminating deforestation from their supply chains, including those conducting about 90 percent of the global palm oil trade. Their support helped cement a prominent place for forest conservation in the Paris Agreement.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Yep because you are a liberal sheep...


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> She sounds like you stupid usmb republicans Fox News host: Climate scientists 'fabricated' temperature data
> 
> and this was ruled PANTS ON FIRE!


dude, they admitted they manipulate the data.  No good explanation


sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


oh, so what is the solution that came out of the meetings then?  So no path forward. except to handle some cash.  hmmmmmmm. I can make that type of agreement. And only us tax payers too.  funny shit on something that isn't real.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




How many times we were wrong, lmao were not the ones that have been making the predictions over the past 40 years ya frickin moron.


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...













Actually it is your hero's who have been wrong.  There's still ice at the North pole two years after it was claimed it would be gone.  There's still snow almost a decade after it was claimed there would be no more.  Every thing you are posting has been proven false on many occasions.  Nice to see you are still incapable of arguing from an intellectually honest position.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I am only interested in the evidence. While CO2 may have a small warming influence, there precious little evidence to support the catastrophic claims made in Op-Eds like the one you posted.

Why should I worry about American politicians? Besides, didn't Cruz come out skeptical on CC?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


funny line eh?
*Look how many times you guys are wrong about climate change*
he's just a little ole libturd earning his wings.  He had to post all of that, it's a requirement to get the wings. I believe he forgot a few, so he's failing at the moment.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> She sounds like you stupid usmb republicans Fox News host: Climate scientists 'fabricated' temperature data
> 
> and this was ruled PANTS ON FIRE!




Define fabricated. More than a quarter of US data is estimated. The estimated data has a larger warming trend than actual measured data, although it has also usually be adjusted. Up.


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Having the French laugh at you is not a very strong counterpoint in a debate...just say'n...

.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> There's still ice at the North pole two years after it was claimed it would be gone.



You're lying about that being a prediction of AGW theory.



> There's still snow almost a decade after it was claimed there would be no more.



You're lying about that being a prediction of AGW theory.



> Every thing you are posting has been proven false on many occasions.



Everything that you are posting has been proven false on many occasions.



> Nice to see you are still incapable of arguing from an intellectually honest position.



You can't discuss science, hence you have to create the dishonest strawmen.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Define fabricated. More than a quarter of US data is estimated. The estimated data has a larger warming trend than actual measured data, although it has also usually be adjusted. Up.



The adjustments make the warming look smaller. The fundamentally denier conspiracy theory is pathologically dishonest, along with most of their other crap.

And scientists know that. Hence, they ignore deniers. And you can't do anything about it.

Denialism is now just an emotional support group, people on the internet trying to convince each other that they haven't been acting crazy.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

Define what you mean when you say the adjustments make the warming smaller. 

Absolute temp, or trend?

Define which adjustments. Land or oceans? Since, say 2000, or before?

The Pooh flinging monkey wants to take credit for adjustments made to ocean temps a long time ago. Pre Hockeystick, pre Hansen. And he wants to ignore the ever greater land adjustments since 2000.

The adjustments sort of balance out, but the downward ones are before 1950 and the upwards ones are after. Numerically close to equal but the trend has soared. 

Everyone has seen the comparisons between global temp graphs from the 70s and 80s, and the ones from the 00s and 10s. The overlapping section shows cooling of the pre 1950 numbers and warming after. Which changes the shape of the graphs and increases the upward trend.

And to paraphrase Orwell, some adjustments are more equal than others. The urban heat island effect has no effect on most temp datasets, except for BEST which actually finds it has a cooling effect!!!. Amazing what the clever sillies can come up with when they want to show a counter intuitive result.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Define fabricated. More than a quarter of US data is estimated. The estimated data has a larger warming trend than actual measured data, although it has also usually be adjusted. Up.
> ...



Lmao, again you have that backwards we are just normal people drawn to you bat shit crazy liars who's only goal is not about real science, but fear mongering and social economic justice...


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > There's still ice at the North pole two years after it was claimed it would be gone.
> ...







Ahhhhh, the magic of the internet.  mammy if you weren't so pathetically biased I would almost feel pity for your utter stupidity, but, you're such an obnoxious git I just can't allow myself to let your lying ways go...  in other words....  it is YOU who's the liar!

Hello liar!

Kerry claims the Arctic will be ice-free by summer 2013

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'


----------



## Crick (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall?  How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall?  Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?
> 
> CON-FUCKING-SENSUS





Crick said:


> From Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Theory"
> 
> The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence.





Crick said:


> *Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists (see scientific consensus) as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena.* It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.





CrusaderFrank said:


> Consensus is a Cult word.



You're not addressing my post at all Frank


CrusaderFrank said:


> Speaking of experiment, you've never once show a single experiment linking trace amount of CO2 with increases in temperature.  Why is that?



Why aren't you addressing my post Frank?


CrusaderFrank said:


> Why are there NO experiments that control for trace amounts of CO2?



There have been thousands of experiments but no matter what you are shown, you will simply deny the facts. 

Why are you not addressing my posts Frank?  A widely accepted theory is one for which the consensus of expert opinion finds the theory acceptable per the scientific method.  The consensus of the experts tells us which is the dominant theory; which is the theory most likely to be correct.

I bet you're just going to pretend you never read these explanations and in two posts you'll be repeating all your ignorant bullshit once more.  I'll bet money.  God are you stupid.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2015)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Just as well quote from the Weekly Globe as Jo Nova. I think the Globe may be more accurate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Check this out
> 
> 
> JAPANESE SPACE AGENCY AGREES WITH SKEPTICS ON CLIMATE CHANGE - Principia Scientific Intl
> ...


Again a site that makes up lies continually

.JAXA | Measuring Greenhouse Gases from Space










The Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT) is designed to contribute to the prevention of global warming. Greenhouse gases effect, which cause global warming, consist of roughly 60 percent carbon dioxide and 20 percent methane. GOSAT will precisely and frequently observe the concentration distribution and its changes in these two types of greenhouse gases throughout the world. It will be launched in early 2009 with H-IIA launch vehicle.









Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite GOSAT





Over the last few years, global warming has become a serious concern around the world. Discussions on how to reduce the rate of global warming are taking place both domestically and internationally, and include such strategies as reducing the level of carbon dioxide emissions by half over the next 50 years.
To accomplish this goal, we must improve the accuracy of observations and long-term climate-change predictions. Up to now, global warming predictions have been performed by research organizations around the world through supercomputer simulations based on ground observation data. In Japan, the National Institute for Environmental Studies, the Meteorological Research Institute, and the University of Tokyo are participating in such global warming modeling.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizes research results from all over the world and is publicizing a report on climate change predictions for the next 100 years. There are only about 260 ground observation points at present, and they are not evenly distributed, so we can by no means say we are observing the entire globe. Thus, under the present circumstances, global warming predictions vary and may not be accurate.
By comparison, GOSAT will have 56,000 observation points on the Earth, and will be able to acquire data covering the entire globe every three days. We think this will improve the accuracy of global warming predictions


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


What the hell would know of science, you old fraud. You have lied continually here, and all who post know it. 

The whole world is now in agreement that we have to address this problem, and assholes like you are no more than a footnote. Old, and in the way, for you, that is accurate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Data like you predicting a cooling for the past 5 years, and we have had years that at least matched 1998 in 2010 and 2014. And 2015 will blow all these years right out of the water. 

You and those like you have totally lost. It's over, you now have no influence, and those that continue to make your stupid arguements will soon be out of political power.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I can't even discuss it anymore.

And they call it a liberal media? Do you notice the media stays neutral on the issue. You would think there isn't a consensus. That's because 6 mega companies now own 90% of the media.

Anyways, its funny if you talk to foreigners you realize just how stupid white conservative middle class American men and women are. Manipulated by racism, religion and guns.

Also notice if the french criticized Obama conservatives would love the french like they love Putin now?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


I bet you are sick, you senile old fool. The funds for our part in implementing the Treaty were passed in Congress, and the Treaty was effectively the whole world agreeing to address a problem affecting us all. You and yours are now just a footnote in history.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2015)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Like hell, you stupid ass. You asses were claiming right up to 2000 that there was no warming. Then you changed you claim that it was all natural cycles. And when it was shown that you could not show the cycles, you changed it to 'the warming is good for you'. Except many thousands of people in this nation have lost their homes to fires or floods created by the predicted weather extremes this year. Why don't you just give up on your lies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Define what you mean when you say the adjustments make the warming smaller.
> 
> Absolute temp, or trend?
> 
> ...


Amazing how some people will continually lie. Seems to me some people stated they would accept those results, and then reneged when it did not line up with their politics. LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall?  How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall?  Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?
> ...



Crick where's the experiment?


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



In history books for one.

Why are you failing to answer the simple question I've put to you over and over again?

Explain to us the difference you seem to perceive between "consensus" and "widely accepted".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Post the Experiment, you know, the one that controls for trace amounts of CO2 to show their effect on temperature

I'll be waiting just like we all have for the years we've been asking


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



AR5.  There, done.  Just like it was done all the years you've been repeating this already answered meme of yours.

Now what do you believe to be the difference between "consensus" and "widely accepted"?


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall?  How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall?  Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?
> 
> CON-FUCKING-SENSUS





Crick said:


> From Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Theory"
> 
> The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence.
> 
> *Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists (see scientific consensus) as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena.* It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.





CrusaderFrank said:


> Consensus is a Cult word.



This is from 8 pages back Frank.  YOU made this claim about consensus.  Now YOU get to explain how you think "consensus" differs from "widely accepted".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall?  How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall?  Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?
> ...



Consensus is a word used by Cults: Scientology, Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones, AGW, they all speak the same language

Still no lab experiment, Crick


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Based upon your "excess heat" comment, we're all well aware you never even looked at AR5. That you would point to it as an experiment must mean you're not only a pathological liar but a masochist as well


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 19, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




You fucking liar, let's see links...


All your nut case AGW cult failed predictions are well documented


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2015)

You (deniers) are still claiming no warming.  No warming since the el Nino of 98 and anything else is just data manipulation by climate scientists.


----------



## westwall (Dec 19, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...











Unlike you I have never lied in a post here.  You do it incessantly, from your supposed age, to your supposed job, to almost everything you post in the Environmental section.  I actually understand the difference between factual data and opinion.  Something you and ALL the rest of the faithers clearly don't.  Enjoy your pyrrhic victory for that is what it is.  In a couple of more years the fraud is going to collapse under the weight of real evidence that is only now starting to bubble to the surface.


----------



## IanC (Dec 19, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Define what you mean when you say the adjustments make the warming smaller.
> ...



Point out the lies.

When Muller announced he was going to form a new temperature database his description sounded excellent. Open access to the public, ability to recalculate with different combinations of correction factors, etc.  It didn't turn out that way did it? A lot of people were excited by the project and disappointed by the results. Judith Curry even went so far as to be taken off the list of authors. 

Muller publicly stated that roughly 1/3 of long running stations had a cooling trend. Would you care to point out half a dozen stations in BEST that still show cooling? 

I am sheepish that I let Muller trick me. But I am certainly not going to continue to support someone who pulled a classic 'bait and switch'.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> You (deniers) are still claiming no warming.  No warming since the el Nino of 98 and anything else is just data manipulation by climate scientists.




Its the "Natural climate change cult" to you and don't you forget it!!!


----------



## westwall (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> You (deniers) are still claiming no warming.  No warming since the el Nino of 98 and anything else is just data manipulation by climate scientists.












What's funny is the el Nino was THE cause of the warming in 1998.  El Nino is a NATURAL occurrence.  So the warming in 1998 wasn't man made.  The pause is real.  Even the IPCC has had to admit to it.  No one has ever claimed that warming doesn't occur (yet another lie you asshats spew) we fully acknowledge that it began warming in 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age.  What we don't agree with is that man is the sole cause of the warming, which is what you claim.

Were you not a political operative you would agree to that fact.


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2015)

The 1998 el Nino made that a particularly warm year.  No one has ever claimed that AGW wasn't overlain onto natural trends.  But the current natural trend is one of DECREASING temperatures.  Many of your compatriots have claimed that all or most observed warming is due to falsified temperature data.  How many deniers have rejected Karl et al 2015 as pure manipulation?  All of them, including you.


----------



## westwall (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> The 1998 el Nino made that a particularly warm year.  No one has ever claimed that AGW wasn't overlain onto natural trends.  But the current natural trend is one of DECREASING temperatures.  Many of your compatriots have claimed that all or most observed warming is due to falsified temperature data.  How many deniers have rejected Karl et al 2015 as pure manipulation?  All of them, including you.








Actually, yes you have.  The claim is that AGW is THE ONLY cause of warming.  That no matter what given a rise in CO2 the corresponding global temp increase would be, in the words of your hero's, "inexorable".  They were wrong.  They have been wrong for the last 18 years.


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2015)

So you reject Karl et al 2015.  BTW, I think you need to look up the definition of "inexorable". I don't think it means what you think it means.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2015)

Here, Crick. Since you clearly never heard of an experiment either

 A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried. The process of conducting such a test; experimentation. An innovative act or procedure.
*Experiment | Define Experiment at Dictionary.com*


----------



## westwall (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> So you reject Karl et al 2015.











Yes.  I REJECT computer derived fiction.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 19, 2015)

westwall said:


> Ahhhhh, the magic of the internet.



You pointed to a few people who made predictions of an ice-free arctic by now. And then you fraudulently claimed that meant it's the scientific consensus, even though some of those same articles pointed out it's not the consensus. 

Now, what is the consensus? Honest people will check IPCC AR5.

http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session36/p36_doc3_approved_spm.pdf
---
Based on an assessment of the subset of models that most closely reproduce the climatological mean state and 1979-2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice extent, a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in September before mid-century is
likely
---

That is, the consensus is < 1 million km^2 by 2050.

Naturally, you're going to keep ignoring the actual consensus in favor of your imaginary consenus. Good luck with that. Your fellow cultists here will keep giving you accolades for faithfully repeating ThePartyLine, but the rest of the world knows you're lying, and thus will keep on ignoring you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhhhh, the magic of the internet.
> ...



AR5 has none of these:

A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried. The process of conducting such a test; experimentation. An innovative act or procedure.
*Experiment | Define Experiment at Dictionary.com*

Experiments.  Can you say, "Experiment"?


----------



## westwall (Dec 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhhhh, the magic of the internet.
> ...












Ummmmm, AR 5 came out *AFTER* the predictions failed....moron.  So.  Now we know that you are as incompetent at reading a calendar as you are at understanding basic science.  That's quite an accomplishment dude.  Can you at least tell time so you know when it's time to go to bed?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 19, 2015)

IanC said:


> Define what you mean when you say the adjustments make the warming smaller
> 
> Absolute temp, or trend?



Trend.



> Define which adjustments. Land or oceans? Since, say 2000, or before?



Combined.

Scientists don't ever say "Look only at the land temperatures", so addressing only the land temperature adjustments makes zero sense and would obviously be a dishonest deflection. Scientists do say "Look at the combined temperatures", therefore any honest person addresses the combined adjustments. Those adjustments have resulted in showing _less_ warming. Conspiracy theory go boom.



> The Pooh flinging monkey wants to take credit for adjustments made to ocean temps a long time ago. Pre Hockeystick, pre Hansen.



So Ian says adjustments don't count if they're older. That's how he's still clinging to his failed conspiracy theory.

So, according to Ian, the scientists are openly and fraudulently adjusting the land temperatures, but those same scientists, for inexplicable reasons, are refusing to fraudulently adjust the ocean temperatures, even though such adjustments would have a vastly bigger payoff.

Interesting, how the conspiracy can be both diabolically clever and completely inept.



> And he wants to ignore the ever greater land adjustments since 2000.



Goddard/McIntyre/WUWT conspiracy theories are so 2014.



> Everyone has seen the comparisons between global temp graphs from the 70s and 80s, and the ones from the 00s and 10s. The overlapping section shows cooling of the pre 1950 numbers and warming after. Which changes the shape of the graphs and increases the upward trend.



The reverse, actually, provided you include the ocean adjustments that you work so hard to ignore.



> And to paraphrase Orwell, some adjustments are more equal than others. The urban heat island effect has no effect on most temp datasets, except for BEST which actually finds it has a cooling effect!!!. Amazing what the clever sillies can come up with when they want to show a counter intuitive result



Bad science and logic on your part, not to mention conspiracy nuttery. Can you explain the physical mechanism that causes an urban site to heat up faster than a rural site, even though the layout and surrounding area didn't change? That is what you're saying has to happen. You're claiming fraud because you fail at the science. You know, the usual. Intelligent people understand that there's no physical reason for the trend at an urban station to differ from the trend at rural station.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 19, 2015)

westwall said:


> Ummmmm, AR 5 came out *AFTER* the predictions failed....moron.



So after I show AR4 saying the same thing, what excuse are you going to use then?

If you'll just throw out that excuse now, you can save me the trouble of looking it up. If you need a little more time to fabricate something, I understand.


----------



## westwall (Dec 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ummmmm, AR 5 came out *AFTER* the predictions failed....moron.
> ...








Feel free.  Show us the exact line.  Thank you.


----------



## westwall (Dec 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Define what you mean when you say the adjustments make the warming smaller
> ...










"Trend"   A nice word that the faithers abuse endlessly. The trend from 14,000 years ago has been to get warmer.  Your point?  You see admiral, it's not just a word that you can abuse.  We can use it correctly.  Something you don't seem capable of.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2015)

Remember AR5's 93% of excess heat gets eaten by the ocean?

Here's AR1, "Over half of the solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is first absorbed by the ocean, where it is stored and redistributed by ocean currents before escaping to the atmosphere, largely as latent heat of evaporation, but also as long-wave radiation"

93% is over half, right? But to hide the decline the needed 93%


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 19, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Did you see China's having another smog emergency? They can't deny the problem.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



smog is global warming????


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Yup


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Here, Crick. Since you clearly never heard of an experiment either
> 
> A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried. The process of conducting such a test; experimentation. An innovative act or procedure.
> *Experiment | Define Experiment at Dictionary.com*



Why don't you show us an experiment that fails; one that suggests going 280 t0 400 ppm WON'T cause warming.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Here, Crick. Since you clearly never heard of an experiment either
> ...



Squid Ink Crick back to avoiding the truth.

That's not how science works dipshit


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Here, Crick. Since you clearly never heard of an experiment either
> ...



Proves there's no Bigfoot, or Megalodon, or chupacabra


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




He always wants to equate air pollution with climate change


----------



## mamooth (Dec 19, 2015)

westwall said:


> "Trend". A nice word that the faithers abuse endlessly. The trend from 14,000 years ago has been to get warmer.



And the trend for the last 6000 years was cooling, until very recently. That's how we know the current warming is not part of a natural cycle.

So, quite an impressive failure on your part. If the most recent part of a cycle is down, it's dumb to declare the trend is up, yet it's what you just did.



> You see admiral, it's not just a word that you can abuse.  We can use it correctly.



As you just demonstrated, you're unable to do any science correctly. At science, you fail harder than any other person on this board. Given the competition, that's saying something. You're smarter than most of the other finalists, but you focus all of your intelligence on being a failure, so you do it better.



> Something you don't seem capable of.



Take a lesson here. If you're unable to respond to my content but still feel the need to get pissy, just lie down until it passes. That will spare you from further humiliation.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 19, 2015)

westwall said:


> Feel free.  Show us the exact line.  Thank you.



Precipitation Extremes and Droughts - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections
----
The projected reduction is accelerated in the Arctic, where some models project summer sea ice cover to disappear entirely in the high-emission A2 scenario in the latter part of the 21st century.
---

So, the 2007 AR4 predicted even slower melt than the 2013 AR5. AR5 said 2050, AR4 said "latter part of the 21st century."

And that means the consensus as of 2007 was definitely _not_ that all the ice would melt by 2013. 

Do you want me to go back to AR3 now?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 19, 2015)

bear513 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


As you should


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2015)

In creating air pollution, you are creating two components, the gaseous part, and the particulate. The particulate reflects sunlight, and actually cools the atmosphere. However, it settles out rather quickly, a couple of years or so. The gaseous part, CO2, and other gases, stick around from decades to centuries. And they definately warm the atmosphere. Eliminate the worst of the particulate, as we have here in the US, and you still have the gaseous.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 19, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Smog = Smoke + Water Vapor (FOG)...  it is not caused by global warming... I see your in the club with Crick and Old Crock.  How is the "Idiots are Us" club making out these days?  Wait... Failure is easily seen!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 19, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Well at least with old rock he admitted a few months ago his end game was along the lines of Naomi Klein, he is worried about his grandkids and the AGW cult scared him to think the future is doom and gloom...


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2015)

Failure?  After Paris?  Knowing that almost every single climate scientists on the planet accepts AGW?  The only failure we're going to suffer will be the common one - that all will suffer due to the shortsighted greed and ignorance of people exactly like you.


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2015)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The 1998 el Nino made that a particularly warm year.  No one has ever claimed that AGW wasn't overlain onto natural trends.  But the current natural trend is one of DECREASING temperatures.  Many of your compatriots have claimed that all or most observed warming is due to falsified temperature data.  How many deniers have rejected Karl et al 2015 as pure manipulation?  All of them, including you.
> ...



So, are you suggesting you can quote me rejecting natural variability?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 20, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You're so dumb. Smog is caused by companies and that causes agw. Now stfu


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2015)

smog
Photochemical *smog* is produced when sunlight reacts with nitrogen oxides and at least one volatile organic compound (VOC) in the atmosphere. Nitrogen oxides come from *car exhaust, coal power plants, and factory emissions*.

What Causes Smog?
Question: What Causes Smog?

Answer: Smog is produced by a set of complex photochemical reactions involving volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides and sunlight, which form ground-level ozone.

Smog-forming pollutants come from many sources such as* automobile exhaust, power plants*, factories and many consumer products, including paint, hairspray, charcoal starter fluid, chemical solvents, and even plastic popcorn packaging.

*Smog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Smog* is a type of air pollutant. The word "smog" was coined in the early 20th century as a portmanteau of the words smoke and fog to refer to smoky fog.[1] The word was then intended to refer to what was sometimes known as green soup fog, a familiar and serious problem in Mexico from the 19th century to the mid 20th century. This kind of visible air pollution is composed of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, ozone, smoke or particulates among others (less visible pollutants include carbon monoxide, CFCs and radioactive sources). Man-made smog is derived from* coal emissions, vehicular emissions, industrial emissions, forest and agricultural fires* and photochemical reactions of these emissions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> Failure?  After Paris?  Knowing that almost every single climate scientists on the planet accepts AGW?  The only failure we're going to suffer will be the common one - that all will suffer due to the shortsighted greed and ignorance of people exactly like you.



LOL!!  Wow people who want $ from the USA agree in what do you call it today, is it warming or change?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 20, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Failure?  After Paris?  Knowing that almost every single climate scientists on the planet accepts AGW?  The only failure we're going to suffer will be the common one - that all will suffer due to the shortsighted greed and ignorance of people exactly like you.
> ...


Semantics. You guys have been hung up with Gw. Just call it man made climate change. Call it unhealthy pollution.


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2015)

I was showing reason to agree with you.  Smog is produced primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> I was showing reason to agree with you.  Smog is produced primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels.


I ask every Gw denier if its a problem in china they can't see a foot past their noses and they all agree living like that is no good.

Go green.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 20, 2015)

A problem for them, a problem for us. Over a quarter of the mercury pollution in the air in Oregon originates in China.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> AR5. There, done. Just like it was done all the years you've been repeating this already answered meme of yours.



Talking out your ass again crick?  Is that the only place you can talk from?  You said that people who tell you that data is somewhere and then send you out to look for it are just talking out of their asses....you going to cut and paste that experiment from AR5 and bring it here?  We all know that you aren't because we all know that it isn't there.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Here, Crick. Since you clearly never heard of an experiment either
> ...



The climate models are a very expensive experiment that have failed miserably...what they claim is not happening and every day they diverge further from observation even with constant adjustment of the models and the observed data.


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2015)

I have twice now posted graphs of climate models doing a very decent job of hindcasting.  The only significant (apparent) failure in recent years has been that they did not predict a pause taking place.  And now we find that, in fact, they were correct and no pause did take place.

What you are obviously attempting to bluff your way around - particularly since you people love to bad mouth models - is the utter failur of ANY GCM to hindcast the last century without making use of the greenhouse effect and its enhancement due to human GHG emissions and deforestation.

You think climate models are expensive?  Wait till you get the bill for moving New York, Miami and New Orleans to high ground.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have twice now posted graphs of climate models doing a very decent job of hindcasting.  The only significant (apparent) failure in recent years has been that they did not predict a pause taking place.  And now we find that, in fact, they were correct and no pause did take place.



And in typical fashion, you can't get anything from a graph...I am sure that you believe they say what you say they say but really guy...your history with graphs is comical.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I have twice now posted graphs of climate models doing a very decent job of hindcasting.  The only significant (apparent) failure in recent years has been that they did not predict a pause taking place.  And now we find that, in fact, they were correct and no pause did take place.
> ...



You believe Spencer and Christy's graph, it's the only one you've got and it's been roundly and clearly refuted as intentionally deceptive CRAP.  Why don't you use your graphing expertise to explain to us why you reject these data?

































































I could keep going but management is going to start getting unhappy with the bandwidth this is eating. The search page has well over a hundred more of these.

What have YOU got?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have twice now posted graphs of climate models doing a very decent job of hindcasting.  The only significant (apparent) failure in recent years has been that they did not predict a pause taking place.  And now we find that, in fact, they were correct and no pause did take place.
> 
> What you are obviously attempting to bluff your way around - particularly since you people love to bad mouth models - is the utter failur of ANY GCM to hindcast the last century without making use of the greenhouse effect and its enhancement due to human GHG emissions and deforestation.
> 
> You think climate models are expensive?  Wait till you get the bill for moving New York, Miami and New Orleans to high ground.



Yes, once you add in a whole new data set of imaginary "warming" of the deep ocean, the pause magically disappears


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Dec 22, 2015)

Why do the faith based AGW proclaimers insist on *denying* the validity of all the legitimate *criticism* of the AGW Faith's unsupported pet theory?

The AGW Faith Based Proclaimers who are engaged in the ongoing denial must be paranoid -- or just basically not very honest.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...







http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/hawkins1.png

^ Observations have a pause starting 1995

That's YOUR chart of OBSERVATIONS, not models


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

Crusader Frank said:
			
		

> That's YOUR chart of OBSERVATIONS, not models



CMIP = Coupled Model Intercomparison Project

Didn't you notice where the graph reads "42 different CMIP5 models"?


God are you stupid


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crusader Frank said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And did you not read on spencer's graph where it reads 72 CPIP-5 models...clearly your graph is cherry picked...Your graph leaves off almost 60% of the available models in order to give the appearance that models are not doing so bad...typical of warmer data...put together with a preconceived notion of what it should say and any data that disagrees is out the window.




Crick said:


> God are you stupid



God you are gullible...and stupid...and a lying sack...where is that empirical evidence that you claimed proved the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis?


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

The graphs I posted were the result of feeding "GCM, hindcasting, climate models" into Google.

You have all repeatedly claimed that *ALL* GCMs fail.  That I show *any* that succeed refutes you.  And I have shown more total models than you've put up from Spencer.  If you think I haven't quite gotten there, I can just go back to Google and get a hundred more graphs.

If you want someone to take Spencer's shite seriously, why don't you attempt to refute the points made in HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception without falling back on simply insulting its author.  Show us that Spencer did NOT do what she shows us that he did. Show us that it did NOT have the effects on the comparison that she shows us it did.  I'll bet money you can't do it and I'll win.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 22, 2015)

Here is the present problem for the denialists. The whole world has accepted what the scientists are stating. They have become a mere footnote to history. A sad one at that.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Here is the present problem for the denialists. The whole world has accepted what the scientists are stating. They have become a mere footnote to history. A sad one at that.




Another blanket statement with no facts. Future generations is going to laugh at you at how primitive, pompous and arrogant the AGW cult really was.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

One statement covers all your bases: the 194 signatures on COP21.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Here is the present problem for the denialists. The whole world has accepted what the scientists are stating. They have become a mere footnote to history. A sad one at that.




The whole world has accepted it..........but to what end? Its nothing but a scientific billboard for those who pay attention.........which is very few!!

I could say my football team beat an undefeated football team and take lots of bows, but if my teams record is 2-14, nobody cares.

As a climate skeptic in 2015, Im winning huge!! None of the stuff the climate alarmists hope to do is happening..........and for the next 35+ years at least, fossil fuels will dominate the energy landscape ( well.....that's what the Obama EIA says year after year  ). That means the science isn't mattering........and please with the solar growth stuff. Its anemic at best and a tiny little sliver of the energy pie and will be for many decades.

Ive been dabbling in this forum for 6 years now.........nothing has changed for the alarmist folks. Nothing ( show links otherwise ). But in my camp, much to smile about = since 2010, the concerns of the public as it relates to global warming has taken a swan dive to the very bottom of the well, thus, I win.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> The graphs I posted were the result of feeding "GCM, hindcasting, climate models" into Google.
> 
> You have all repeatedly claimed that *ALL* GCMs fail.  That I show *any* that succeed refutes you.  And I have shown more total models than you've put up from Spencer.  If you think I haven't quite gotten there, I can just go back to Google and get a hundred more graphs.
> 
> If you want someone to take Spencer's shite seriously, why don't you attempt to refute the points made in HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception without falling back on simply insulting its author.  Show us that Spencer did NOT do what she shows us that he did. Show us that it did NOT have the effects on the comparison that she shows us it did.  I'll bet money you can't do it and I'll win.




Again goober, your graph leaves out almost 60% of the models..you said yourself that your graph includes 42 models...spencer's includes 72...your graph disregards almost 60% of the models available...again, for what purpose?...cherrypicking of course so that you can claim that they didn't do so bad and just hope that no one noticed that almost 60% of the model data isn't represented there.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

What the fuck are you talking about?  

Maybe you should have looked up CMIP before opening your yap and making yourself look a complete fool once again

*Coupled model intercomparison project*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In climatology, the *Coupled Model Intercomparison Project* (CMIP) is a framework and the analog of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) for global coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models. CMIP began in 1995 under the auspices of the Working Group on Coupled Modeling (WGCM), which is in turn under auspices ofCLIVAR and the Joint Scientific Committee for the World Climate Research Program.

The Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory supports CMIP by helping WGCM to determine the scope of the project, by maintaining the project's data base and by participating in data analysis. CMIP has received model output from the pre-industrial climate simulations ("control runs") and 1% per year increasing-CO2 simulations of about 30 coupled GCMs. More recent phases of the project (20C3M, ...) include more realistic scenarios of climate forcing for both historical, paleoclimate and future scenarios.

*5*
The most recently completed phase of the project (2010-2014) is CMIP5.

CMIP5 included more metadata describing model simulations than previous phases. The METAFOR project created an exhaustive schema describing the scientific, technical, and numerical aspects of CMIP runs which was archived along with the output data.

In 2014 a new estimate for solar irradiation added corrections for scattering and diffraction. These corrected a component of the quasi-annual signal and increased the signal to noise ratio, respectively. The corrections decreased the average TSI value without affecting the trending in the ACRIM Composite TSI. The corrections established an increase of +0.037%/decade from 1980 to 2000 and a decrease thereafter. Significant declines can be seen during the peak of solar cycles 21 and 22. Solar forcing of climate change may thus be a significantly larger factor than represented in CMIP5.[1]

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

I don't care if he used a thousand CMIP5 models.  He shifted them up and he shifted the observations down.  His graphic is 100% SHITE and you are a fool to push it.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> Failure?  After Paris?  Knowing that almost every single climate scientists on the planet accepts AGW?  The only failure we're going to suffer will be the common one - that all will suffer due to the shortsighted greed and ignorance of people exactly like you.







The only major political party on the planet chock full 'o deniers  Republicans

Bet some of them aren't deniers but are doing so to get paid-off by the extraction industry


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 22, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I was showing reason to agree with you.  Smog is produced primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels.
> ...


repub clinger politicians can't act like Repub jesus didn't give the planet to them to plunder. Otherwise they'd lose their Base. Plus they'd lose Big Oil/Coal lobbyist $$$


----------



## IanC (Dec 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> The graphs I posted were the result of feeding "GCM, hindcasting, climate models" into Google.
> 
> You have all repeatedly claimed that *ALL* GCMs fail.  That I show *any* that succeed refutes you.  And I have shown more total models than you've put up from Spencer.  If you think I haven't quite gotten there, I can just go back to Google and get a hundred more graphs.
> 
> If you want someone to take Spencer's shite seriously, why don't you attempt to refute the points made in HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception without falling back on simply insulting its author.  Show us that Spencer did NOT do what she shows us that he did. Show us that it did NOT have the effects on the comparison that she shows us it did.  I'll bet money you can't do it and I'll win.



you and Sou can argue all you want about what is the best way to align the graph start time. but you are only trying to deflect from the point. the models run hot.


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2015)

No, they do not.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?



My bad...I forgot that I was talking about a graph and you can't make heads or tails out of a graph...Here, let me walk you through it.  take a look at the box down in the lower right hand side of the image....see the second line?  Look close.  It says  73 CMP-5 rcp8.5 models and observations.  That means that he is showing the average of 73 sets of data.  Yours, by your own admission is only showing the average of 43 data sets....yours cherrypicked and left out nearly 60% of the available data in an effort to make the models appear to be doing not so bad...


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2015)

You have yet to even make an attempt to answer the charge that Spencer shifted the model outputs up and the observations down.  This line of yours that models were cherry picked is complete nonsense and clearly shows you don't even understand what CMIP is.  Here, taste reality:


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> You have yet to even make an attempt to answer the charge that Spencer shifted the model outputs up and the observations down.  This line of yours that models were cherry picked is complete nonsense and clearly shows you don't even understand what CMIP is.  Here, taste reality:




I am surprised somewhat that you believe that lie...but then again...maybe not.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2015)

Refute her charges.  I'll wait.


----------



## IanC (Dec 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> Refute her charges.  I'll wait.




Are you still going on about Sou's nonsense?

Christy started model runs and satellite temps at 1979. The models' trends were all above observation trends. End of story, the models run hot.






Spencer (foolishly) tried to answer criticisms by plotting the actual runs and observations. The models still run hot. He normalized all the start values to a five year average of the first five years of the reference period 1981-2010. Sou wants to nitpick his choices, surprise surprise.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2015)

Let's try a little more detail in the analysis Ian

*Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception*
Sou | 7:39 AM

*Update*: Today Roy Spencer responded below. I've now written another article explaining his deception a slightly different way.

_*Sou *21 May 2014_



Sheesh! How's this for unadulterated chart fudging. Roy Spencer has put up a chart and proclaimed (archived here):
...the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):
Let's look at how he's conned his denier fans.  Below I've plotted the CMIP5 composite mean against UAH and GISTemp using a 1981-2010 baseline, which is what UAH normally uses, and then I'll discuss what Roy Spencer has effectively done:




Data Sources: NASA, UAH and KNMI Climate Explorer

What he's *effectively *done is shifted the CMIP5 charts up by around 0.3 degrees.  In case you find it hard to credit that even a contrarian scientist would stoop so low, here is Roy Spencer's chart, with my annotations:




Adapted from Source: Roy Spencer
Not only did Roy effectively *shift up* the CMIP5 data, Roy Spencer effectively *shifted down* the UAH data in comparison with HadCRUT4.  This is the chart of UAH and HadCRUT4 using the 1981-2010 30 year baseline - compare that to Roy Spencer's deceptive fudge:




Data sources: UAH and Met Office Hadley Centre

How did he fudge?  What Roy Spencer has done is he's used a five year average - 1979-1983 to plot his data instead of the normal 30 year baseline.  Why did he pick 1979 to 1983 as the baseline?  The answer can only be that he wanted to deceive his readers.  Here is a comparison of UAH and HadCRUT4 using his shonky five year baseline compared to his normal 30-year 1981-2010 baseline.






That's not all that he's done.  If you compare the five year baseline chart I plotted with Roy's chart - his chart shows UAH lower than HadCRUT4 in every year.  That's not what my chart above shows, even using his shonky 5-year baseline.  Roy said he's using "running five year means" - which only shows the elaborate lengths he felt he had to go to in order to deceive people.

Anyway, to further illustrate Roy's shonkiness, here is the longer term CMIP5 and CMIP3 means vs GISTemp using the normal 30 year baseline:




Data Sources: NASA and KNMI Climate Explorer

The divergence only becomes apparent from around 2005.  Going by Roy's past behaviour, I shouldn't be surprised at him fudging the data to this extent, but I am.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 30, 2015)

Thank you. Maybe deniers won't use that intentionally faulty data set anymore


----------



## IanC (Dec 31, 2015)

IPCC AR5, using a low RCP, and only seven years into the projection. the models run hot. period. comparing the actual trends makes it even more obvious.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2015)

IanC said:


> IPCC AR5, using a low RCP, and only seven years into the projection. the models run hot. period. comparing the actual trends makes it even more obvious.



He is so wrapped up in the dogma that I don't know what this will do to him....he seems to place absolute faith in the IPCC, but they admit that the models run hot and he has absolute faith that the models don't run hot...we may see what happens when an immovable object is impacted by an unstoppable force....

My bet is that nothing will happen...he will wipe his mind of the fact that the IPCC says that models run hot and carry on as if he never saw the graph....it is a graph after all and he is crick...and you know crick and graphs...


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2015)

Odd that Ian can express such low opinions of SSDD's ability to reason and his understanding of basic science, yet laugh with him when they think they've been clever. I never realized I could be such a unifying influence.

Tell us Ian, why did the slope of the observations change at the indicated point?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> Odd that Ian can express such low opinions of SSDD's ability to reason and his understanding of basic science, yet laugh with him when they think they've been clever. I never realized I could be such a unifying influence.
> 
> Tell us Ian, why did the slope of the observations change at the indicated point?



You would probably need to ask the guys who wrote the failing models.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2015)

God are you stupid.  Allow me to repeat my query (TO IAN)

Tell us Ian, why did the slope of the observations change at the indicated point?


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> Let's try a little more detail in the analysis Ian
> 
> *Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception*
> Sou | 7:39 AM
> ...


Bullshit!!!!!

I noticed it long before 2005.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2015)

You did?  Did anyone care?


----------



## IanC (Jan 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Odd that Ian can express such low opinions of SSDD's ability to reason and his understanding of basic science, yet laugh with him when they think they've been clever. I never realized I could be such a unifying influence.
> 
> Tell us Ian, why did the slope of the observations change at the indicated point?




now you want to tell me what I can consider funny? 

I already told you that I find both you and SSDD very similar, even if you guys are at the opposite ends of the climate war spectrum. I have laughed with you when you made a funny-cause-its-true barb at SSDD. now I am laughing because he has done the same to you.

you simply ignore evidence that doesnt fit your worldview, even if it comes from your favourite source, the IPCC. the next time you will haughtily demand proof and a link to the source, even though you know it to be legitimate. youre not quite as bad as Old Rocks for 'forgetting' inconvenient evidence but youre close. on another thread you are 'ignoring'  tropo hotspot projections even though they come from the IPCC. you believe every thing youre told by 'climate science consensus'! until a person with the right authority tells you to believe something different.

I actually think SSDD has more character than you. he may be wrong on some things but he isnt about to abdicate his right to make up his own mind. you just trot out the same old verses from your Holy Book, and repeat what you talked about at Bible group. ( no offense directed to Christians). and you 'forget' the crazy verses that dont make sense anymore, insinuate that they were never there, ignore direct references to them.


----------



## IanC (Jan 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Tell us Ian, why did the slope of the observations change at the indicated point?



you keep yammering away at a moot point. he normalized the start points so that we could compare the trends.

this is the best (and earliest, I think) graph.






trend only, 1979 set to zero.

it's trickier if you want to show the variance as well. there are many ways to normalize the start point. if Spencer wanted to use an average of the first five years, I think he should have used the average but  started it at 1981, the middle of the averaging period. there are many ways to do it and they are ALL wrong. its a matter of getting the information out in a recognizable  way. these graphs are meant to show the trend differences between model output and reality. they are not supposed to be global temperature graphs.


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2016)

I'm really disappointed in you Ian. You haven't spent one word attempting to defend what Spencer did with that data or those model results.  Sou's reveal is correct.  Spencer tried to argue with her and failed.  You haven't even tried.  Spencer's graph is complete shite and you soil yourself pushing it.


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> I'm really disappointed in you Ian. You haven't spent one word attempting to defend what Spencer did with that data or those model results.  Sou's reveal is correct.  Spencer tried to argue with her and failed.  You haven't even tried.  Spencer's graph is complete shite and you soil yourself pushing it.




hmmm....I have a suggestion for you crick. every time you feel 'disappointed' with me I think you should go back and re-read my comments because you probably havent understood them.

my position is that the Christy graph showing trend lines only, with every line starting at 1979 is the most informative and easily understood graph. the models run hot.

the problem with comparing things on a graph is how to show what changes are happening. to do that you have to 'normalize' the starting position on the graph so that everything starts at the beginning and the changes are obvious. there is no 'right' way to do it. it is always a trade off to lose some precision but get a more easily understood comparison. still with me?

you (actually Sou, you seldom have original thoughts) decided that she didnt like the way Spencer normalized the starting values (offsets). no matter what values you use, the trend for the models is higher than the trend for the measured temperatures. 

if you offset the models to a lower value, they will take longer to diverge out of the +/- error range. but they are still diverging. even the IPCC graph shows that they are diverging and have just about broken out of the 95% significance level.






and for RCP4.5 to boot.

you say I should be defending Spencer. why? I dont particularly like the way he did his graph. if he used the 5 year average from 79-83 then he should have started plotting from 81 in my mind, but so what? *the models run hot!! *no amount of complaining over offsets is going to change that.


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2016)

crick is going to ignore this thread now. but in a few days or weeks he will trot out Sou's 'destruction' of Spencer.


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2016)

here is a good example of models vs measurements. the model is 'trained' to be reasonably representative of the global warming period, 1980-2000. it sucks at producing the earlier part of last century, and it frantically diverges during the new century.


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2016)

instead of just trend lines, this graph uses 5 year avgs but normalizes the start date at 1979 by the trend line of the different datasets.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall?  How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall?  Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?
> ...


*You're not addressing my post at all Frank*

Just to respond as an outsider here, Sure he did, he called a spade a spade.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall?  How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall?  Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?
> ...



Charts without a temperature axis are NOT experiments measuring for temperature while controlling for trace amounts of CO2


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> instead of just trend lines, this graph uses 5 year avgs but normalizes the start date at 1979 by the trend line of the different datasets.



No opinion on this crick? I posted it for you. To illustrate the idea of normalization of comparison graphs and offsets.

Perhaps you still don't like the idea of using the start date of satellite temps. Perhaps you consider it unfair somehow.


You know, skeptics find the 1979 start date of full satellite coverage of ice extent to be a bit unfair as well. There was enough satellite data to make good estimates years before that.






If we add this extra information on ice extent to the record it certainly changes the shape of the long decline in ice extent. And the correlation values as well.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 6, 2016)

^ 2016. Guam, still upright and above water


----------



## IanC (Jan 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> You have yet to even make an attempt to answer the charge that Spencer shifted the model outputs up and the observations down.  This line of yours that models were cherry picked is complete nonsense and clearly shows you don't even understand what CMIP is.  Here, taste reality:




Why have you abandoned this thread crick?






This graph clearly shows the models higher than the measurements at 1983, and gives the reason why. 

Why do you think Sou's variation is better? How on earth do you come to the conclusion that Spencer was 'deceptive'?

I have already shown you that the start date for comparisons can make a huge difference in the optics. Spencer chose 1979 as a start date because that was the start of his satellite dataset. You don't seem to comprehend graphs or graphing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You have yet to even make an attempt to answer the charge that Spencer shifted the model outputs up and the observations down.  This line of yours that models were cherry picked is complete nonsense and clearly shows you don't even understand what CMIP is.  Here, taste reality:
> ...



Balloons are worse DENIERS!!! than the satellites!!


----------



## IanC (Jan 6, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Yup. Let's not forget that according to CO2 theory that there should be more warming happening at higher levels in the troposphere, not less.


----------



## IanC (Jan 6, 2016)

Hey crick- I had this up on an old page.






With the models offset for BEST fit, the 1983 numbers do have the model mean 0.1C lower than GISS. But the model mean still diverges wildly after 2000. And the pre 1975 figures are not exactly great either.


----------



## Crick (Jan 7, 2016)

There are greater divergences at several other times.  And I wouldn't use Bob Tisdale's data to wipe my ass.


----------



## IanC (Jan 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> There are greater divergences at several other times.  And I wouldn't use Bob Tisdale's data to wipe my ass.




What an odd thing to say. 

Tisdale uses publicly archived datasets. Are you saying that the data available to the public is incorrect or manipulated in some way?


----------



## IanC (Jan 7, 2016)

Crick- for someone who whined for an answer to Sou's hit piece on Spencer, you sure disappeared in a hurry. An unsupported ad hom against Tisdale is the best you can do? Trying to change the subject perhaps? Wanna deconstruct Sou's hit piece on Tisdale as well? I will if you will but I have a feeling you'll just run away again. You don't even understand this stuff anyways, so it's a waste of time pointing out things for you.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 7, 2016)

Ian, the funniest thing about your "It's turtles all the way down!" philosophy is how you pretend it's not your philosophy. That is, every time you're asked to justify your conspiracy, you do so by invoking more conspiracy.

If we point out how the surface data says all your theories are wacky, you declare the surface data is faked.

I could point out how the balloon data agrees with the surface data, and disagrees with your satellite model. And you'd say that's faked, and the real balloon data agrees with you.

I could point out the tropospheric hot spot is there, you'd declare that data is faked.

I could point out how the sea level rise is impossible to explain without the rising temps. And you'd call the sea level data faked.

And so on. You always come back to that same tactic, telling us that any information you don't like is faked. And then you have the gall to project your own staple tactic on to the rational people. You're not worth anyone's time now, except as someone to point at to support the premise of this thread's title. If we were after original paranoid conspiracy nonsense, we could get it straight from WUWT, JoNova or McIntyre.

Now to be fair, paranoid conspiracy theores aren't your only tactic. You also evade and run. For example, when shown Sou's demolition of Spencer, you ran off on a tangent, avoided the topic, and then declared victory.

You can proceed with the name calling now, which is your third staple tactic.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Ian, the funniest thing about your "It's turtles all the way down!" philosophy is how you pretend it's not your philosophy. That is, every time you're asked to justify your conspiracy, you do so by invoking more conspiracy.
> 
> If we point out how the surface data says all your theories are wacky, you declare the surface data is faked.
> 
> ...


so isn't that what you're doing?  I mean dude/dudette, what a hypocrite.  It's hilarious the ignorance the likes of you libturds present in here.  YOu have described yourself to a frken 'T'.

Leading us back to the real point and that is you deny the conspiracy that is real.  Pointed out by very qualified individuals.  And you and yours go out of your way to justify it.  Then post a post like this with absolutely no realization that you're describing your own selves. Thanks for the continued entertainment.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 8, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.. Baseless fact-less bull shit..


----------



## mamooth (Jan 8, 2016)

From Moyhu, this graph shows the adjustments to the surface temps and satellite temps in the last 10 years.






Deniers are having a meltdown over surface adjustments of 0.01C, which is completely insignificant compared to the magnitude of the current warming.

In contrast, the UAH satellite temperature model output has been massively adjusted to show more cooling.

The point is that deniers are dishonest hypocrites on this topic. The satellite model output has been adjusted about ten times as much as the surface temperatures, yet the deniers embrace that massively adjusted data while simultaneously claiming they reject such adjusted data.

And that's reason #207 why the whole planet correctly defines denialism as a liars' cult.


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> From Moyhu, this graph shows the adjustments to the surface temps and satellite temps in the last 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hahahaha. This should be good. 

First thoughts on the graph you posted. Why are different versions of UAH being compared, while the SAME versions of GISS are being compared to themselves? 

I'll go read Stoke's rationalizations now. You can be sure I'll have something to say about it. Hahahaha. 0.01C in adjustments over the last 35 years!!!!! Hahahaha. I guess if you're going to tell a lie you might as well make it a big one!


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2016)

Stoke's article is about satellite readings for the most part. I am not sure which GISS datasets they are comparing.

Here is a maturity graph for GISS 2008 vs the latest available data, Nov2015.






Is it possible that the block of red 1979-2015 is only 0.01C when compared against itself? Perhaps. But it is still 0.10 warmer than the initial values.

Stoke's himself admits the adjustments are much larger if the full range and usual reference period are used.

I take back my accusation against Stokes and replace it with an accusation of misdirection and misleading against the Pooh flinging monkey.


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2016)

Context for my previous post.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 8, 2016)

Mammooths computer as of 5 minutes ago:

Googles Search: AGWCult propaganda to debunk Ian's charts


----------



## mamooth (Jan 8, 2016)

Frank, the grownups are talking. Have someone else get your juicebox.

It was expected, how Ian doesn't want to discuss his pure unsullied faith in the very heavily and very recently adjusted satellite data. But then, nobody likes having their double standards shoved into their faces.

Also interesting how Ian so steadfastly refuses to discuss the validity of the surface station adjustments. He just keeps declaring they must be faked, solely because he doesn't like them.

Ian, you might want to now throw some more graphs up to deflect from the bankruptcy of your position, as is your usual tactic.

It is good, of course, that Ian has narrowed down the conspiracy origin to be after 1995, but before 2005. If we prod him more, maybe we can get an exact date.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Frank, the grownups are talking. Have someone else get your juicebox.
> 
> It was expected, how Ian doesn't want to discuss his pure unsullied faith in the very heavily and very recently adjusted satellite data. But then, nobody likes having their double standards shoved into their faces.
> 
> ...


look who is posting paranoia.  funny dude/dudette.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Frank, the grownups are talking. Have someone else get your juicebox.
> 
> It was expected, how Ian doesn't want to discuss his pure unsullied faith in the very heavily and very recently adjusted satellite data. But then, nobody likes having their double standards shoved into their faces.
> 
> ...



Translation: I posted a graph, therefore I win


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Let's try a little more detail in the analysis Ian
> 
> *Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception*
> Sou | 7:39 AM
> ...



Dr Spencer is correct..  Your SKS clowns are cherry picking start points and altering the graphing which your to stupid to see.   You are so gullible..  You eat everything John Cook posts as truth... a proven liar and deception ass clown..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 9, 2016)

IanC said:


> Stoke's article is about satellite readings for the most part. I am not sure which GISS datasets they are comparing.
> 
> Here is a maturity graph for GISS 2008 vs the latest available data, Nov2015.
> 
> ...



And your supersized by that?


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Let's try a little more detail in the analysis Ian
> ...




Sou declares that Spencer has _responded _,  and she has had to rebut his _deception _yet again. 

what was Spencer's response? a comment on her blog



> Roy SpencerMay 21, 2014 at 12:48 AM
> we aligned all of the observations so that the *5 year average* at the beginning of the record (1979-1983) was the starting point. There is NO deception here, nothing nefarious, as you suggest. You can make your own graphs to suggest we did the same as you, but we didn't.



did Sou explain the normalization of graph comparisons in any meaningful way? No. that is why illiterate regurgitators like crick think Spencer was rebutted, rather than just the victim of a slime attack on his character.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Funny, that is why they call her SLANDERING SOU... because she is ignorant and lies like a rug.. With John Cook at her side flapping his yap in lock step the two of them are just useless fools and liars.. Too bad there are so few real scientists here that recognize this bull shit for what it is..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 10, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Frank, the grownups are talking. Have someone else get your juicebox.
> 
> It was expected, how Ian doesn't want to discuss his pure unsullied faith in the very heavily and very recently adjusted satellite data. But then, nobody likes having their double standards shoved into their faces.
> 
> ...



When looking at NORMALIZED TRENDS you always zero base a point in time and align anomaly trend lines for comparison. Its taught in first year statistical analysis.

Just like slandering Sou you and crick dont know shit from shinola..


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2016)

I didnt realize she was affiliated with Cook by anything other than ideology.

different blogs have different styles. Hotwhopper (Sou) is specifically aimed at vilifying some of the more prominent skeptics. ATTP is similar. Tamino's blog was invented just to dish out insults that would be unseemly for the Hockey Team's scientists to utter.


----------



## Crick (Jan 10, 2016)

Here, a non-Sou analysis of Spencer's bullshit graphic written by an environmental scientists from Wright State University

Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> Here, a non-Sou analysis of Spencer's bullshit graphic written by an environmental scientists from Wright State University
> 
> Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong




explain in your own words what you think has been done wrong. I really dont think you understand what is going on.

I can replicate the UAH/HAD portion of the graph easily.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2016)

screw it. crick wont answer anyways.

here is HADv4 and UAH5.6 plotted up from 1979, five year average to smooth the line, least squares trend line.






offset to start together at 1979 (edit- by trend)






offset again to start at zero in 1983. sorry I cannot screen off pre 1983 lines






a pretty good match to Spencer's plot. obviously nothing nefarious.


----------



## Crick (Jan 10, 2016)

A very thorough and objective (at least far more objective than Spencer's writings) commentary on some of the work of John Spencer

Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong

Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 2

Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 3

and

How to cook a graph in three easy lessons


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> A very thorough and objective (at least far more objective than Spencer's writings) commentary on some of the work of John Spencer
> 
> Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong
> 
> ...




holy fuck!

at least the first time you gave a link to something related to our discussion. now you've veered of into linking up anyone who has disagreed with Spencer on any subject.

where is your personal description of what you think is wrong. just so I know what to focus in on.

and his first name is Roy, btw


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2016)

crick has a big problem with Spencer showing how models obviously diverge from measured reality but he has no problems with M Mann clipping off inconvenient parts of the record in his graphs, while padding the numbers and using creative smoothing to hide his malfeasance. the stench of double standards is overwhelming.


----------



## Crick (Jan 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> A very thorough and objective (at least far more objective than Spencer's writings) commentary on some of the work of John Spencer
> 
> Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong
> 
> ...





IanC said:


> at least the first time you gave a link to something related to our discussion. now you've veered of into linking up anyone who has disagreed with Spencer on any subject.



The first link IS a discussion of our topic: Spencer's claim (and yours) that the CMIP5 models all run hot.  The next two are a critique of Spencer's "book" * The Great Global Warming Blunder:  How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (New York:  Encounter Books, 2010)*.  I inadvertenly left out the link to Part 1 of that critique, here: Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 1 .  The purpose of my linking to these articles is to show, basically, Spencer's incompetent science, unprofessional behavior and dishonesty.



IanC said:


> where is your personal description of what you think is wrong. just so I know what to focus in on.



It has also been my purpose to use the opinions of people a great deal more knowledgeable in this topic than you or I to dispute Spencer's claim.  You keep demanding my personal explanation.  That is not an attempt to discern the truth about Spencer's claim, it is an attempt to attack me.  Sorry, but I'll rely on the opinion of the experts.  If you can provide some reason why you should think I'm a better judge than the others mentioned, I'd love to add it to my resume.  If you really don't know what to focus on, I suggest you reread the critiques of Sou and Milks.  If you insist, I'd be interested in your explanation of Spencer's use of a 5 year baseline vice the standard 30 year baseline and why he selected 5 years not only within the CMIP5 calibration period but the 5 years when UAH was most consistently below HadCRUT4.  And if you believe Spencer got it all right, then you must believe that Sou and Milks are being deceptive.

For instance, what deception do you believe Sou made use of to produce this graphic on her HotWhopper page?






And what deception do you believe Milks made use of to produce this graphic on his Seeing the Environment page?






These clearly do not agree with Spencer's graphic.  So please explain what they've done wrong?



IanC said:


> and his first name is Roy, btw



I've been discussing his poor performance in this and other discussion boards for several years now and it may be clearly seen that I am familiar with his name.


----------



## westwall (Jan 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> Here, a non-Sou analysis of Spencer's bullshit graphic written by an environmental scientists from Wright State University
> 
> Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong











Ummmmm, I think your blogger forgot about Hansens predictions...and a whole bunch of other stuff.  Plus, how do you calibrate anything when the GISS people keep changing everything?  Your blogger is really, really confused it seems.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 10, 2016)

Since so many of the deniers demand only adjusted raw data be average, let's do that. At least let's revisit Zeke H. doing that. Note that Zeke gives the source code and shows where to get the data.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperatures-part-2/






So, simply averaging the raw data shows a global warming of about 1.8C over the past century, about twice of what the "adjusted" temperature data shows.

That is, the adjustments make the warming look _much_ smaller. So why do all deniers pretend the exact opposite? And if they'll lie so brazenly about that, isn't it logical to assume they're lying about everything?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> Hey crick- I had this up on an old page.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Obviously running a model BACKWARDS is a different animal from using it as a predictor. You can start/stop/adjust/initialize/restart any ole time you want with KNOWN DATA.. That's why claims to excellent back-projection of models are ALWAYS highly suspect.. 

And a chart like that -- never tells you WHEN the models were run.. That one obviously wasn't STARTED in 1882..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 10, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Since so many of the deniers demand only adjusted raw data be average, let's do that. At least let's revisit Zeke H. doing that. Note that Zeke gives the source code and shows where to get the data.
> 
> http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperatures-part-2/
> 
> ...



No -- that approach is just silly and stupid.. Because there is no regular spatial sampling to it. And as far as your lying king goes here -- the USHCN speaks for itself..  McIntyre or no McIntyre..


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really disappointed in you Ian. You haven't spent one word attempting to defend what Spencer did with that data or those model results.  Sou's reveal is correct.  Spencer tried to argue with her and failed.  You haven't even tried.  Spencer's graph is complete shite and you soil yourself pushing it.
> ...




crick- did you not read this?

there are many ways to normalize a graph. all of them wrong in some way. Spencer focusses on UAH and  the start of the satellite program. Sou and others want the reference point to be something else, which will change the optics. there is no way to show that the models run hotter than the measured temps. changing how you normalize the graph may postpone the departure of the model trend line from the 5-95% range for a little while but it does not change the fact that climate models run hot.

you again refuse to explain in your own words why you think Spencer is wrong and some others are right. I believe that is because you have so little understanding of this that you are not coming to an information based conclusion, rather you are just picking a preferred outcome and deferring to an authority chosen on the basis of proximity to your version of AGW dogma.


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hey crick- I had this up on an old page.
> ...




hindcasts are obviously tuned to get the best result. I believe Tisdale uses the open access KLMO (or whatever it's called) for the model data, which would give the run dates, and forecast/hindcast deliniation.


----------



## Crick (Jan 11, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Here, a non-Sou analysis of Spencer's bullshit graphic written by an environmental scientists from Wright State University
> ...



Please explain what you think Hansens's predictions have to do with Spencer's lies about the CMIP5 models.


----------



## Crick (Jan 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> crick- did you not read this?
> 
> there are many ways to normalize a graph. all of them wrong in some way. Spencer focusses on UAH and  the start of the satellite program. Sou and others want the reference point to be something else, which will change the optics. there is no way to show that the models run hotter than the measured temps. changing how you normalize the graph may postpone the departure of the model trend line from the 5-95% range for a little while but it does not change the fact that climate models run hot.



Yes I did



IanC said:


> you again refuse to explain in your own words why you think Spencer is wrong and some others are right. I believe that is because you have so little understanding of this that you are not coming to an information based conclusion, rather you are just picking a preferred outcome and deferring to an authority chosen on the basis of proximity to your version of AGW dogma.



Do you think the majority of the actual authorities on this topic agree with Spencer?  Are you unable to understand what Sou and Milks are saying?  You have yet to refute, or even counter, what either have said about Spencer's deception.

I find it interesting that you criticize me for preferring the opinions of experts.  How many times have I stated here, in clear and certain terms, that my opinion IS that the opinion of the majority of the experts is the likeliest to be correct and thus THAT is what I accept.

And, I am still waiting for you to provide some justification for Spencer's use of a 5 year baseline vice the standard 30 and perhaps you can comment on what YOU believe (since you're so fond of our personal opinions) to be the effect of picking a 5 year baseline where RSS is atypically warmer than UAH.

And, perhaps I haven't opened the proper thread, but did you explain what you believe Sou and Milks did to produce the graphics I posed showing completely acceptable agreement between CMIP5 and observed temperatures?  Either Sou and Milks are being deceptive or Spencer is being deceptive.  Sou and Milks have explained what they believe Spencer has done.  Where is the counterpoint?


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Since so many of the deniers demand only adjusted raw data be average, let's do that. At least let's revisit Zeke H. doing that. Note that Zeke gives the source code and shows where to get the data.
> 
> http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperatures-part-2/
> 
> ...





I dont have the time to check out Zeke's post right now but I bet this has to do with trashing Steve Goddard's articles that make a mockery of US temps. US temps are so oversampled that it is hard to get a bad selection. these are world data and there are definite gaps in coverage.

look at Zeke's graph. there are two discontinuites, one at 1950 and the other at 1990. the first is caused by US ships coming into WWII and creating many more data points mostly using engine intakes, and by 1950 leaving the scene and British ships taking over with bucket readings.

the second step jump in the graph is more interesting and much less discussed. in 1990, due to the Cold War in part, the amount of reporting temp stations dropped precipitously. the remaining stations were overpopulated with lower latitude, lower altitude, and urban stations. while attempts were made to adjust weightings, etc, it launched a huge jump in global temp.







I have a funny feeling that there is some interesting artifacts in the records because of this.

anyways, I'll probably get around to Zeke's article and have more to say.


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2016)

Crick said:


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




I dont think most authorities would use the start of satellites as the reference point. the ones that did would have a graph similar to Spencer's


----------



## Crick (Jan 11, 2016)

The ones that did and that used a 5 year baseline.  And what do you believe Sou and Milk did wrong to produce a graph with acceptable CMIP5 performance?  That is, assuming you believe their graphs to be wrong.


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> The ones that did and that used a 5 year baseline.  And what do you believe Sou and Milk did wrong to produce a graph with acceptable CMIP5 performance?  That is, assuming you believe their graphs to be wrong.




more strawman accusations. post up where I said their variations are wrong. I said every graph is wrong, but every graph is trying to make a comparison that is easily understandable at a glance. I really wish you would at least try to understand what I am saying to you. dont you ever learn anything?


----------



## Crick (Jan 11, 2016)

I understand you have to duck and weave more than you ought to.  Spencer and Sou cannot both be right.  Spencer and Mlik cannot both be right.  You have argued here repeatedly that you believe Spencer is right.  Therefore you must believe Sou and Milk are wrong.  I'd just like to know what you think they did wrong.  Feel free to pull in the experts.  Spencer must be able to explain this and he's responded to Sou on more than one occasion.  What has he said?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A very thorough and objective (at least far more objective than Spencer's writings) commentary on some of the work of John Spencer
> ...



I've never heard a coherent explanation as to how you get reading accurate to a tenth of a degree back in 1880


----------



## Crick (Jan 11, 2016)

It was done with thermometers Frank.  And did you have some reason to quote as much material as you did to ask that question?  I don't see that you needed to quote anything.


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> hindcasts are obviously tuned to get the best result.



Wrong.  Models are tuned to give the best hindcasts.  It's how you initially judge how well your model is working.


----------



## IanC (Jan 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hindcasts are obviously tuned to get the best result.
> ...




reduced to being the grammar police?

I bet you were hall monitor in elementary school too.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> It was done with thermometers Frank.  And did you have some reason to quote as much material as you did to ask that question?  I don't see that you needed to quote anything.



We had thermometers accurate to a tenth of a degree in 1880?  Really?

Show us.

BTW, This is a great opportunity for you to repost the chart with no temperature axis, yanno


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2016)

Give some thought as to how someone might CALIBRATE a thermometer Frank.  Think of water and phase changes.  Think about what is happening in this graph.


----------



## IanC (Jan 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Give some thought as to how someone might CALIBRATE a thermometer Frank.  Think of water and phase changes.  Think about what is happening in this graph.




hahahahaha, I would like to see crick calibrate a liquid-in-glass thermometer using the freezing point and the boiling point of water. do you think he could get within 2 degrees for the range?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Give some thought as to how someone might CALIBRATE a thermometer Frank.  Think of water and phase changes.  Think about what is happening in this graph.



Tell us again how we got Deep Ocean temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree back in 1880

I'd be remiss if I didn't congratulate you for finally post a chart with a temperature axis


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Give some thought as to how someone might CALIBRATE a thermometer Frank.  Think of water and phase changes.  Think about what is happening in this graph.






IanC said:


> hahahahaha, I would like to see crick calibrate a liquid-in-glass thermometer using the freezing point and the boiling point of water. do you think he could get within 2 degrees for the range?



Mercury thermometers were invented by Fahrenheit in 1724 and Celsius proposed using the melting and vaporization points of water as the defined ends of a scale in 1742. The clinical mercury thermometer we all used before the rise of digital versions was developed in 1866.  I guarantee you that by 1880 there were thermometers that could reliably measure ambient temperatures to a tenth of a degree.

And this comment surprises me.  Calibrating thermometers with slush and boiling water is standard basic chemistry and physics lab work.  I was under the impression you have a college education in some sort of science Ian.  Is that not true?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Give some thought as to how someone might CALIBRATE a thermometer Frank.  Think of water and phase changes.  Think about what is happening in this graph.
> ...



So that's how they measured the temperature of the deep Pacific ocean, with mercury thermometers.

How'd the do that in 1880 Crick, I mean accurate to a tenth of a degree no less


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2016)

Frank, I'm not here to educate you.  I didn't mind filling you in now and then, but your needs in that regard are endless.  Water can be sampled at depth, including an in situ temperature reading, by a simple device called a Nansen bottle.  See Nansen bottle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Frank, I'm not here to educate you.  I didn't mind filling you in now and then, but your needs in that regard are endless.  Water can be sampled at depth, including an in situ temperature reading, by a simple device called a Nansen bottle.  See Nansen bottle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You have Nansen bottle readings from 1880 and 1890?

Can you show us please?


----------



## IanC (Jan 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Give some thought as to how someone might CALIBRATE a thermometer Frank.  Think of water and phase changes.  Think about what is happening in this graph.
> ...




Again. I would love to see crick take an unmarked liquid in glass tube, calibrate it with the freezing and boiling points, and then see if he could measure 22C and 37C accurately. Better yet, 70F and 98.6F. 

What are the chances he would come within 2 degrees? 

I have a handful of Fisher Scientific LIG thermometers in a drawer here. They show a spread of half a degree higher and lower than the central value.

The bimetal ones are close to twice that, and most have been recalibrated recently.

Last night I compared a LIG against a Fluke digital and the difference was 0.6C. 

I assume the precision is good, and the accuracy OK. 

Perhaps the thermometers in the olden days were high quality and regularly calibrated. Perhaps not.

Perhaps the thermometer enclosures were well maintained, perhaps not. If a Stevenson screen goes ten years without being repainted it reads higher and higher. Once repainted it abruptly drops, which may trigger a point break in the record. All the artificial warming would be incorporated into the trend and the cycle repeats.

UHI is similar. It just keeps adding to the trend. Low trend rural stations are seen as the outliers and are adjusted towards the contaminated higher trend urbanized ones.l


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Clearly your thermometers are DENIERS!! who refuse to accurately measure the devastating effects of AGW and must be adjusted accordingly


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 13, 2016)

So, in 1880- 1930 they accurately measured the excess heat, 93% of which is absorbed by the ocean and then subducted down into the deep, to a tenth of a degree.

2+2=5


----------



## mamooth (Jan 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Tell us again how we got Deep Ocean temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree back in 1880



We didn't, and you're a moron for thinking we did.

The world isn't faking data. You're completely clueless on the topic of statistics. And the whole world knows that, which is why you're laughed at and ignored.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 13, 2016)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us again how we got Deep Ocean temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree back in 1880
> ...


so tooth, I think the issue is then, if there weren't records, how can one go back and make changes to that historical information? I'm just saying.  That was the point of the post.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> so tooth, I think the issue is then, if there weren't records,



There were records. What are you babbling about?



> how can one go back and make changes to that historical information? I'm just saying.  That was the point of the post.



Post #568, I showed you how doing what you want -- that is, simply averaging the raw data -- results in showing _more_ warming.

The adjustments reduce the calculated warming. You claim the adjustments increase the calculated warming. Being that  you're just lying openly, there's no reason to pay attention to your ravings.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 13, 2016)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us again how we got Deep Ocean temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree back in 1880
> ...



Weren't the oceans absorbing 93% of the excess heat just like AR5 said they do today? Did you read AR5?  Can you count to 5?


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You know quite well to phrased that to give the impression that there was no value in hindcast performance and that they were intended as a deception regarding the accuracy of models.  Don't bitch when you get caught trying to be dishonest.


----------



## IanC (Jan 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



How am I being dishonest? I posted a graph showing the training period of one model from roughly 75-00, and how the hindcast before that was bad, and the projection after was worse.

I will admit I should know more about the climate models than I do. 

Do they all use a standardized set of inputs to initialize their runs? That would seem to be the most basic of first steps. Do they? I was under the impression that there is a fair amount of leeway in choosing the initial parameters although they are basically grouped under RCPs for the forecasts. Am I wrong? Link me up to the site that defines the parameters that all the models use.


----------



## IanC (Jan 14, 2016)

Hey crick...

Do you remember the brouhaha from a couple years ago when Tisdale put up this graph in one of his articles on OHC?







And, just  like Sou, Nuttericelli and SkS wrote an article accusing him of cherrypicking?
Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?

And then Tamino jumped on board with a hit piece of his own
Favorite Denier Tricks, or How to Hide the Incline

They both accused Tisdale of wrongdoing. And they posted up Gavin's graph of the GISS climate model to prove their point.





Remember that?

Remember how it ended? Hahahaha


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2016)

I have no recollection of any of that but Tisdale is a lying fool and his work here looks like typical denier attempts to deceive.  Please go on, though.  How did it end?


----------



## IanC (Jan 14, 2016)

Tisdale is a lying fool? And yet you never seem to have examples of him lying or being foolish.

Just like you never seem to have examples of McIntyre being egotistical or wrong. 

Hmmmm....I'm starting to see a pattern.


----------



## IanC (Jan 14, 2016)

Oh my! It seems that Gavin made a mistake. Apparently the oceans aren't the whole world and the graph had to be changed up a bit. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




So I guess in a way Tisdale was wrong too, there is no intersect at ALL after1997. 

But don't let that stop you from claiming the models aren't wildly diverging.


----------



## IanC (Jan 14, 2016)

Don't forget to notice how the corrected version also goes to shit in the hindcast.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 14, 2016)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us again how we got Deep Ocean temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree back in 1880
> ...



So as long as we have statistics, we don't need readings. What was the deep ocean temperatures in 1492?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 15, 2016)

New paper, Wilson 2016, showing yet another hockey stick, based on the best summary of tree ring data yet.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/N-TREND/Wilsonetal2016.pdf

The paranoid part comes when McIntyre has a look at it, and then gives Ian instructions on what to parrot.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> New paper, Wilson 2016, showing yet another hockey stick, based on the best summary of tree ring data yet.
> 
> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/N-TREND/Wilsonetal2016.pdf
> 
> The paranoid part comes when McIntyre has a look at it, and then gives Ian instructions on what to parrot.



The hockey stick, this time it will work!

tree rings lol

seriously??

lol

what a fucking joke!


----------



## IanC (Jan 15, 2016)

Funny 'cause it's true.

Obviously satellites are OK for sea level rise and weighing ice sheets. Just not for calculating temps. Hahahaha.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> New paper, Wilson 2016, showing yet another hockey stick, based on the best summary of tree ring data yet.
> 
> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/N-TREND/Wilsonetal2016.pdf
> 
> The paranoid part comes when McIntyre has a look at it, and then gives Ian instructions on what to parrot.



WOW a whole 54 "not nearly thermometers" purporting to give a global (or NH) temperature to fractions of a degree.. I'm really terrified of the consequences.. 

But AT LEAST ---- they found some kind of better signature for the MWP and LIA than the previous hockey sticks.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 15, 2016)

IanC said:


> Funny 'cause it's true.
> 
> Obviously satellites are OK for sea level rise and weighing ice sheets. Just not for calculating temps. Hahahaha.



Those are only ok because they are allowed to add numbers to them and adjust them to meet expectations...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 15, 2016)

OH! so that's why the AGWCult adjusts temperature, because those reading were PRIOR to the invention of the hockey stick!


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> Tisdale is a lying fool? And yet you never seem to have examples of him lying or being foolish.
> 
> Just like you never seem to have examples of McIntyre being egotistical or wrong.
> 
> Hmmmm....I'm starting to see a pattern.



Yes, you forget my posts in which I demonstrated that Tisdale is an exceptional fool and McIntyre has an ego larger than the national debt.


----------



## westwall (Jan 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Tisdale is a lying fool? And yet you never seem to have examples of him lying or being foolish.
> ...












And yet McIntyre has destroyed more climatology "papers" in less time than any other.  He is incredibly adept at showing just how shitty at math your hero's are.  And they really, really suck...


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > New paper, Wilson 2016, showing yet another hockey stick, based on the best summary of tree ring data yet.
> ...



Frank, your ignorance has become depressingly predictable.  Do any of your educatted


flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > New paper, Wilson 2016, showing yet another hockey stick, based on the best summary of tree ring data yet.
> ...



And it still leaps skyward in the 20th century.


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Tisdale is a lying fool? And yet you never seem to have examples of him lying or being foolish.
> ...





westwall said:


> And yet McIntyre has destroyed more climatology "papers" in less time than any other.  He is incredibly adept at showing just how shitty at math your hero's are.  And they really, really suck...



He has not.  Every paper out there has been impacted by the comments of reviewers and more have been rejected than have been published.  And please tell us what climatology journal sends submissions to McIntyre for review.  The man is a bad joke.[/QUOTE]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Crick? You trailed off in mid enviromarxist ramble.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Tisdale is a lying fool? And yet you never seem to have examples of him lying or being foolish.
> ...




??????

Is this one of those things where you said you posted it in the past and now you refuse to repeat it, describe it, or even point us in the general direction?

I have repeatedly asked you for evidence against McIntyre and all you ever have is ad hominem.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 16, 2016)

Soooooo..

Satellites have excellent correlation to balloon data sets which are used to verify the findings and calculations and are done globally.

US-CRN Matches the near surface temps of both the balloons and satellite measurements,  

The HCN is off by almost 2 deg C in positive trend. The Historical Climate Network was decreased by 2 deg C prior to 1990 in an effort to make the HCN look accurate to the USCRN which showed the many and always upward adjustments fraud and in an effort to make today's warming trend look worse than it really is.. All in effort to keep the lie of AGW alive and well.  But their models far exceed even their massive adjustments upward.

How much longer do we listen to these liars and frauds?


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2016)

Global temperatures for 2015 are at a record high.  The accusation that the dataholders are modifying their records without justification has yet to receive a single iota of supporting evidence.  As the thread title states, to be a denier is to be paranoid.


----------



## westwall (Jan 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Global temperatures for 2015 are at a record high.  The accusation that the dataholders are modifying their records without justification has yet to receive a single iota of supporting evidence.  As the thread title states, to be a denier is to be paranoid.









How about some of that evidence about how McIntyre is such a clown.  You babble about it, but it never materializes.


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Global temperatures for 2015 are at a record high.  The accusation that the dataholders are modifying their records without justification has yet to receive a single iota of supporting evidence.  As the thread title states, to be a denier is to be paranoid.





westwall said:


> How about some of that evidence about how McIntyre is such a clown.  You babble about it, but it never materializes.



How about some evidence - like some actual hard science - that the corrections and adjustments aren't justified - or the confession of someone involved that they are being deceptive to make warming look worse than it is.  Cause, without any of that, all we've got - all we've EVER had here - is denier paranoia.


----------



## westwall (Jan 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Global temperatures for 2015 are at a record high.  The accusation that the dataholders are modifying their records without justification has yet to receive a single iota of supporting evidence.  As the thread title states, to be a denier is to be paranoid.
> ...










That's NOT how science works jackass.  YOU have to justify "altering" (falsifying) 50 year old data to conform to your fraud.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 16, 2016)

No, you have to justify your wild double standards.

That is, why do you love "alterations" to the satellite data?

Why do you adore "alterations" to data in any field outside climate science?

And why do you lie outright and claim the "alterations" to surface data make warming look bigger, when those changes actually make the warming look smaller?

Given how the corrections to the data make the warming look smaller, the fundamental denier conspiracy theory is plainly flagrantly dishonest nonsense, and every real scientist knows it. Given how deniers have been caught trying to pass off a yet another crazy conspiracy theory, why shouldn't they be written off as paranoid cult cranks?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> And it still leaps skyward in the 20th century.




Bit too drama queen -- dontcha think??? Specifically, THIS STUDY used a TOTAL of 54 proxies to cover the ENTIRE N.Hemi. And purports to be accurate to tenths of a degree.. AND THEN -- (because I know you didn't read the study) ---- when they got to the 20th Century, they dropped all but maybe 8 or 10 samples out of the data set. (because there weren't a lot of useful newly dead trees in the study)... So THEIR hockey stick suffers greatly from NON-UNIFORM sampling. And using 8 trees to determine the determine the 20th century temp to tenths of degree was JUST LUCK??   That would be my guess... It's bullshit.


----------



## westwall (Jan 16, 2016)

mamooth said:


> No, you have to justify your wild double standards.
> 
> That is, why do you love "alterations" to the satellite data?
> 
> ...











I have no double standards silly boy.  I have one.  Adhere to the scientific method.  Period.  You people wipe your ass with the principles that far smarter people than us hammered out over centuries.  The only anti science assholes are you and yours.


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2016)

Explain.  How are climate scientists violating the scientific method?


----------



## westwall (Jan 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Explain.  How are climate scientists violating the scientific method?








They are falsifying 50 years old and older records to support their now failed theory.  If they were altering for a real reason some records would go up instead of all of them going cooler.  It is widespread academic fraud.

That is by definition a violation of the scientific method.


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Explain.  How are climate scientists violating the scientific method?





westwall said:


> They are falsifying 50 years old and older records to support their now failed theory.  If they were altering for a real reason some records would go up instead of all of them going cooler.  It is widespread academic fraud.
> 
> That is by definition a violation of the scientific method.



The adjustments are not all going in the same direction.  You have ZERO evidence of fraud and thus have ZERO evidence that climate scientists are violating the scientific method.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Soooooo..
> 
> Satellites have excellent correlation to balloon data sets which are used to verify the findings and calculations and are done globally.
> 
> ...


I stopped many years ago


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Global temperatures for 2015 are at a record high.  The accusation that the dataholders are modifying their records without justification has yet to receive a single iota of supporting evidence.  As the thread title states, to be a denier is to be paranoid.
> ...


So, you can't explain the adjustments. Figures


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Explain.  How are climate scientists violating the scientific method?
> ...


Just explain the need


----------



## IanC (Jan 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> Explain.  How are climate scientists violating the scientific method?




As one of the paper's authors once said. "You have to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie". I believe cherrypicking data and datasets is a violation of scientific principles. Discarding unwanted data is also a violation. Stating your methodology and then doing something else is also a violation.

I could go on if you'd like. Stating conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence provided, also a violation. Etc, etc


----------



## Crick (Jan 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Explain.  How are climate scientists violating the scientific method?
> ...



If you're on a hunt for cherry pickers, we both know you'd be a great deal more successful looking on the denier side of this argument.  You'd also have a great deal more luck looking for misrepresentations of the facts in those fields.  The deceptive model comparison you repeatedly put up here from Spencer and Christy is a good example.  Then we could examine the work of Mark Stern, Richard Llindzen, Tim Ball, Nils-Axel Morner, Don Easterbrook, William Happer, Chris DeFreitas, David Legates, Fred Singer, Craig Idso and Willie Soon.  I think we should have no difficulty whatsoever, finding cherry-picking, ignoring troublesome data, scientific incompetence and simple, outright lying among this group.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> How about some of that evidence about how McIntyre is such a clown.  You babble about it, but it never materializes.



Sure. Here's just one example.

McIntyre loudly and repeatedly claimed that a "fudge factor" was used to fake data. He does it here in a formal report to parliament.

Uncorrected Evidence 32

Obviously, no such thing ever happened. The "fudge factor" was only used for calibration and testing, as had been explained to McIntyre. The code that led to the published results is available, and that code did not use the fudge factor. McIntyre was lying his ass off, he's never corrected the lie, and he's shown no remorse for telling it.

Naturally, I don't expect deniers to be honest and admit DearLeaderMcIntyre lied. Instead, they'll form ranks and lie in unison with him. That's how cults work, all the cultists obediently chanting cult dogma in unison. The cultists can pretend to believe it, but everyone outside the cult knows with 100% certainty that DearLeaderMcIntyre and the cultists are lying about it. And given that they'll proudly lie right to your face about that, it's a safe assumption that they lie about many things.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 18, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about some of that evidence about how McIntyre is such a clown.  You babble about it, but it never materializes.
> ...


dude/ dudette, curious, the code that was used was calibrated using the "fudge factor" correct?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 18, 2016)

Yes, it was "correct", as far as a program that processes data can be called "correct". That is, it did what it was intended to do.

Though "calibrate" may have been the wrong term. "Sanity check" is probably better. You enter some extreme values, and then check the program responds as expected.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 18, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Yes, it was "correct", as far as a program that processes data can be called "correct". That is, it did what it was intended to do.
> 
> Though "calibrate" may have been the wrong term. "Sanity check" is probably better. You enter some extreme values, and then check the program responds as expected.


so in other words the calibration was fudged which in turn made every data output fudged, and McIntyre correct.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> so in other words the calibration was fudged which in turn made every data output fudged, and McIntyre correct.  Thanks for playing.



I notice none of the deniers responded to the content showing McIntyre to be a fraud and liar. They're just mindlessly raging and making crap up, as I predicted. I mean, if they were honest, they wouldn't be deniers.

Now run along, as your services are required. DearLeaderMcIntyre needs a new coat of saliva on his boots.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 19, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so in other words the calibration was fudged which in turn made every data output fudged, and McIntyre correct.  Thanks for playing.
> ...


McIntyre......................W I N N I N G
Skeptics.....................W I N N I N G
Warmer Paranoia....................W I N N I N G


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about some of that evidence about how McIntyre is such a clown.  You babble about it, but it never materializes.
> ...




I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





 

Here Ya GO!


----------



## Crick (Jan 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Another McIntyre devotee.  I'm sorry Ian, but that's rather pathetic of you. You talk as if McIntyre's statements are objective.  The man hasn't given an objective opinion on climate science (for which he has no education and a personal history making him a close friend of fossil fuels) since he got out of training pants.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2016)

Crick said:


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











And you still haven't presented a single paper that shows him to be wrong.  Character assassination is the progressive shtick and the only tactic left to a desperate bunch of criminals.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.



If any deniers want to show that DearLeaderMcIntyre isn't lying, simply show the data trail from the sanity-check vector to actual published work. All the data is there. Go for it. You say fraud exists, so show where it is.

If you can, you'll be the first. But since no denier anywhere has ever shown such a thing, everyone now understands McIntyre was pushing a fraud.

Oh, check out the "Westwall standard". McIntyre claims fraud, and can't back it up in any way ... therefore the burden of prove is on ... everyone else. That's the same standard all deniers use in all their claims, that the burden of proof is always on everyone else to disprove their unsupported conspiracy theories.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.
> ...










It's real simple.   Present a paper that has been discredited by McIntyre that has then been re-submitted because he made an error.


----------



## Crick (Jan 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.





mamooth said:


> If any deniers want to show that DearLeaderMcIntyre isn't lying, simply show the data trail from the sanity-check vector to actual published work. All the data is there. Go for it. You say fraud exists, so show where it is.
> 
> If you can, you'll be the first. But since no denier anywhere has ever shown such a thing, everyone now understands McIntyre was pushing a fraud.
> 
> Oh, check out the "Westwall standard". McIntyre claims fraud, and can't back it up in any way ... therefore the burden of prove is on ... everyone else. That's the same standard all deniers use in all their claims, that the burden of proof is always on everyone else to disprove their unsupported conspiracy theories.





westwall said:


> It's real simple.   Present a paper that has been discredited by McIntyre that has then been re-submitted because he made an error.



It's even simpler.  Show us that his "fudge factor" was ever used in a published paper.  McIntyre made the charge that that is what happened.  You believe him.  You must believe that he identified a fudge factor in published papers.  Which one(s)?  Surely he's identified them for us. How hard could this be to find?


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.
> ...











We challenged you first and to date you have never produced one iota to support your pathetic attacks on McIntyre.  As they say in the fight game, "put up, or shut up".


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2016)

westwall said:


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



Several papers have been withdrawn due to McIntyre's exposing of their bad scientific methods and shoddy math. Fudge factors are a well known and consistently used by all modelers.  Crick doesn't have a leg to stand on and he cant produce anything to back up his character assassinations.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...











Yeah, I know.  That's why poor old cricky here tries like hell to disparage McIntyre.  He scares the piss out of the clowns because he can destroy in a few hours that which they have been fabricating for days or weeks.


----------



## Crick (Jan 20, 2016)

Name some of the papers with the "well known and consistently used" fudge factor.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Name some of the papers with the "well known and consistently used" fudge factor.









Put up or shut up.  You have been challenged first.  Stop dodging and back up your crap, or leave.


----------



## Crick (Jan 21, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Name some of the papers with the "well known and consistently used" fudge factor.
> ...



Leave?  Ha! Looks like I really got your panties twisted.

You're the one making accusations.  You're the one with the obligation to present evidence.  So you're the one who's dodging.  To be blunt, you're the one who's full of shit. You're the one who's lying.

Show us a published paper that uses the fudge factor you claim is well known and consistent and that McIntyre must surely have identified in droves.

Ian?  You're McIntyre's biggest fan here and you actually read papers.  Care to name one?


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...











No, silly little boy.  It is yo who has made the claim.  You claim that McIntyre is a fool, a liar and wrong.  Yet he has had papers removed from consideration.  That is a fact.  You on the other hand have presented no facts to support your OPINION.  So, yet again, put up or shut up.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 21, 2016)

So according to TheWestwallStandard that some deniers are bitterly clinging to, I merely have to say "Westwall tortures puppies", and, given my proven track record of accuracy, everyone must accept that as a proven fact unless it can be disproved. And can anyone disprove it? Didn't think so. Therefore, it's settled.

And that example illustrates why deniers are ignored by the world. Denialism is like the anti-scientific method, with deniers being the perfect illustrations of how scientists should not behave.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> So according to TheWestwallStandard that some deniers are bitterly clinging to, I merely have to say "Westwall tortures puppies", and, given my proven track record of accuracy, everyone must accept that as a proven fact unless it can be disproved. And can anyone disprove it? Didn't think so. Therefore, it's settled.
> 
> And that example illustrates why deniers are ignored by the world. Denialism is like the anti-scientific method, with deniers being the perfect illustrations of how scientists should not behave.













Ummmmm, no.  That's not what I said at all.  Though that is how you wish science could be perverted.  No, the onus is on you.  YOU made the claim, YOU have to back it up.  That's how science works.  Not that you could ever understand that.


----------



## IanC (Jan 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




has crick put up anything to support his hatred of McIntyre yet?

silly question of course. he hasnt in the past and he wont now. McIntyre is a pretty hard target to take down, even the secret SkepticalScience forum admitted to that.


----------



## Crick (Jan 23, 2016)

If you don't see an oversized ego EVERY time you read anything written by Stephen McIntyre, you're working to ignore it.


westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So according to TheWestwallStandard that some deniers are bitterly clinging to, I merely have to say "Westwall tortures puppies", and, given my proven track record of accuracy, everyone must accept that as a proven fact unless it can be disproved. And can anyone disprove it? Didn't think so. Therefore, it's settled.
> ...


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> If you don't see an oversized ego EVERY time you read anything written by Stephen McIntyre, you're working to ignore it.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> ...












  Wow.  Just wow.  Every one of your hero's is an egotistical maniac and you talk about McIntyre.  Want to know the difference between them?  McIntyre is correct...and your hero's aren't.

Egotistical and correct beats the ever loving crap out of egotistical and wrong any day of the week.


----------



## Crick (Jan 23, 2016)

A post of mine in this thread seems to have disappeared.  Let's try again.

Let's review.

McIntyre claims that a "fudge factor" is widely and consistently used in mainstream climate models.  IanC, Westwall, and I suppose, Frank, agree with McIntyre.  That a fudge factor is widely used is the CLAIM currently in question, not whether or not McIntyre is generally a dickhead or I can make a case for disliking the man.  Those are distractions that Ian and Westwall would very much like to pursue because they are apparently unable to actually find an example of a climate model using McIntyre's fudge factor.

There you go boys and girls.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> A post of mine in this thread seems to have disappeared.  Let's try again.
> 
> Let's review.
> 
> ...




First find and quote McIntyre. I know of many instances where he referred to a 'bodge', specifically to Briffa's work with tree rings, but I am unfamiliar with your claim.

Pony up the quote and we can investigate further.


----------



## Crick (Jan 23, 2016)

Really, that's rather surprising.  You heartily recommended the link.  Does this sound familiar?



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.



That link was
Uncorrected Evidence 32

in which McIntyre said: 


> 8. Although there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary adjustment, peer reviewers of Briffa et al (1992) did not object. "Bodging" then seems to entered into the CRU toolkit to get reconstructions to "look" right, as evidenced by the Climategate documents containing annotations that *the method contains "fudge factors" or "very artificial corrections for decline"* (e.g. http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro)


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Really, that's rather surprising.  You heartily recommended the link.  Does this sound familiar?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Briffa's Tornetrask Reconstruction

Here is one of McIntyre's articles on this. It gives his attempt at reconstructing Briffa92, gives examples of papers that used the Tornetrask series, and finishes up with a description from the Journal paper of how the bodge was accomplished.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2016)

New Light on Old Fudge

Two years later, McIntyre posts again using a PhD thesis that updates Tornetrask, and it closely matches what McIntyre said Briffa's series would look like without the bodge.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so in other words the calibration was fudged which in turn made every data output fudged, and McIntyre correct.  Thanks for playing.
> ...



Well gee whiz -- I WOULD have -- but you provided is no where near enough to call McIntryre a fraud or a liar. 

When you multiply an array by 0.75 --- that's not exactly a "calibration". In that calibrations are used to linearize the data -- not just simply SCALE all the points. And if you are scaling ALL the points -- you better explain why you use such a value. 

But that's the world of proxy data. You are ALWAYS moving the offset and scaling to make it LOOK like everyone elses.. Or to fit preconceived notions of "truth".. 

The rest of the arguments to Parliament escaped your scrutiny apparently and you're just beating on this one observation.. I find the whole submission very compelling.. Especially pointing out how the ORIGINAL Briffa was truncated to the 1960s..


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2016)

Tornetrask Digital Version - Hooray!

After he gets digital data, rather than having to estimate from other people's graphs.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> New Light on Old Fudge
> 
> Two years later, McIntyre posts again using a PhD thesis that updates Tornetrask, and it closely matches what McIntyre said Briffa's series would look like without the bodge.



EXACTLY.. What I was saying. Look at all the "new" reconstructions of that data set presented. A LOT of horseplay with the OFFSET values and scaling.. And everyone of them is a "STICK" -- not a hockey stick..


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2016)

The basic idea is this. Briffa didn't like the response from 1850 onward so he simply twisted the end upward on a pivot. He admitted the bodge in 1992, but then failed to mention it in later uses. Plausible deniability.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2016)

I don't think anyone can come away from reading McIntyre's articles and papers without learning something about paleoreconstructions. Personally I don't see a big ego there either. Just knowledge and competence.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 23, 2016)

The CultOfMcIntyre is fascinating, in the way they've created this strange alternate reality around Briffa's work. But notice how it's gotten zero traction outside of the cult? 'Nuff said. There's an explanation for that, of course. Moar conspiracy. Failure to acknowledge the conspiracy is itself part of the conspiracy. It's turtles all the way down.

Ian, flac, I'm sure you've got some more sacred scripture to post for us now. None of means anything, but I get that the proper chants and invocations must be made by the faithful.

Anyways, here's a great takedown of McIntyre's awful conduct, from back in 2009. Sheer boredom prevents me from summarizing it here, and, unlike the deniers, I don't see a point in cutting and pasting things that don't mean anything without context.

Let the backpedalling begin


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2016)

Evasions and Fantasy at Real Climate

New Data from Hantemirov

Yamal and the Decline


----------



## Crick (Jan 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Really, that's rather surprising.  You heartily recommended the link.  Does this sound familiar?
> ...



1992?  To find an example of this near universal  fudgery, we have to go back 24 years?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




I have gym shoes that are older then 24 years sOn. This might explain the AGW cult, all young pups with minds easily molded and indocterated in their ways, with no common sense what so ever.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Are you being deliberately obtuse crick?

You get a history lesson on when and how tree ring series came to be mangled by corrupt methodology, and you complain because it started so long ago? How many reconstructions use Tornetrask? Do you really want a list?


----------



## Crick (Jan 24, 2016)

Just curious why you didn't find one in, say, the last decade.

Look, you and I both know that AGW is real and a threat.  The difference is that you choose to play your game of nit-pickery while I worry about the lives of my children.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Just curious why you didn't find one in, say, the last decade.
> 
> Look, you and I both know that AGW is real and a threat.  The difference is that you choose to play your game of nit-pickery while I worry about the lives of my children.


Can you explain the threat?


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Just curious why you didn't find one in, say, the last decade.
> 
> Look, you and I both know that AGW is real and a threat.  The difference is that you choose to play your game of nit-pickery while I worry about the lives of my children.




Are you fucking kidding me!?!?!?

You whine for days, then finally come up with an actual complaint against McIntyre. I answer your complaint and show that McIntyre was correct and vindicated, then you accuse me of going back decades when it was YOUR fucking question!

I argued the science, and when you lost you change the subject to some unknown phantom menace unsupported by evidence and accuse me of being uncaring to your children. You're a scumbag, and a bad loser.


----------



## Crick (Jan 25, 2016)

McIntyre is a dick.  We both know that as well.  You just like him because he's YOUR dick.  And you do need to pay more attention to the future of all our children.  They're more important than the return on your investments.

1992...  Was I out of primary school back then?  Had they invented the computer?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 25, 2016)

We deny that 58>62


----------



## jc456 (Jan 25, 2016)

I also deny that 3X4 = 11 as was stated by the common core rep in this video from youtube:


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jan 25, 2016)

*Record Warmth `Almost Certainly' Due to Humans, Scientists Say *
January 25, 2016 — 5:00 AM EST

Follow Bloomber

*Odds of heat records occurring naturally may be 1 in 170,000 *

195 governments aim to restrict warming by curbing emissions










The odds are “vanishingly small” that recent years of record warmth aren’t due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, researchers in the U.S. and Germany said, adding to pressure on world governments to cut back on fossil fuel use.

*Thirteen of the 15 warmest years ever recorded were registered through 2014,* the researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, or PIK, said Monday in the journal Nature. The odds of that occurring naturally range from one in 5,000 to one in 170,000, they wrote. *Data showing 2015 is the warmest year ever were published after their study was completed, and would make the odds even slimmer, PIK said in an e-mailed statement.*


----------



## jc456 (Jan 25, 2016)

And as stated in another thread the paranoia is all libturd, since they can declare any number larger than another.  funny shit and not made up.



jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Record Warmth `Almost Certainly' Due to Humans, Scientists Say *
> ...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jan 25, 2016)

*I have a link to Bloomberg news and the Deniers simply have their delusional opinions ...in other words Science and Math is on my side ...stupid is on yours...*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Record Warmth `Almost Certainly' Due to Humans, Scientists Say *
> January 25, 2016 — 5:00 AM EST
> 
> Follow Bloomber
> ...




Warmest year ever?

What a retard


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *I have a link to Bloomberg news and the Deniers simply have their delusional opinions ...in other words Science and Math is on my side ...stupid is on yours...*




They can't even measure snow correctly in the year 2016....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jan 25, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Warmest year ever?
> 
> What a retard




See the post above ...that is your version of "Einstein" lol


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jan 25, 2016)

bear513 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *I have a link to Bloomberg news and the Deniers simply have their delusional opinions ...in other words Science and Math is on my side ...stupid is on yours...*
> ...


Only an Einstein level intellect like you can "measure stuff" let me see some chump douche calling itself "Bear513" or the World Meteorological Organization.....LOL


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 25, 2016)

AL Gore Warming is a farce.  Manipulated satellites and data galore.  Models that have not been proven correct ever.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jan 25, 2016)

saveliberty said:


> AL Gore Warming is a farce.  Manipulated satellites and data galore.  Models that have not been proven correct ever.


*If you say so* it surely cancels out what NOAA ; the world meteorological association;NASA; the Japanese and German Agencies on Climate ...in short the whole ball of wax on Climate science just got wiped out by one poster...snicker lol


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 25, 2016)

Paranoid, you mean being told for decades the coasts will all flood, crops fail, end of life as we know it and it is all our fault?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > AL Gore Warming is a farce.  Manipulated satellites and data galore.  Models that have not been proven correct ever.
> ...



Ty, Buddy, while you're spamming the board with the same article can you please tell us how and when the 58F in 2015 was warmer than the 62F NOAA measured in 1997?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jan 25, 2016)

_In the Miami area, the daily high-water mark has been rising almost an inch a year._​*Miami Underwater*
” in late September, I arranged to meet up with Hal Wanless, the chairman of the University of Miami’s geological-sciences department. Wanless, who is seventy-three, has spent nearly half a century studying how South Florida came into being. From this, he’s concluded that much of the region may have less than half a century more to go.

​


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jan 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


*I am not spamming the board I know exactly why you are labeling the information I posted as spamming .....  so I am out of here LOL*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> _In the Miami area, the daily high-water mark has been rising almost an inch a year._​*Miami Underwater*
> ” in late September, I arranged to meet up with Hal Wanless, the chairman of the University of Miami’s geological-sciences department. Wanless, who is seventy-three, has spent nearly half a century studying how South Florida came into being. From this, he’s concluded that much of the region may have less than half a century more to go.
> 
> ​








^ Guam, one of the "DENIER!!!!! Islands, an island that refuses to sink and/or tip over due to Manmade global climate warming change


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> McIntyre is a dick.  We both know that as well.  You just like him because he's YOUR dick.  And you do need to pay more attention to the future of all our children.  They're more important than the return on your investments.
> 
> 1992...  Was I out of primary school back then?  Had they invented the computer?




You stoop to only ad hominem against McIntyre because that is all you have. Time after time McIntyre finds flaws in climate science that should already have been detected by peer review. It exasperates you and many of the climate scientists that he turns his auditing gaze upon but it is still good for science.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jan 25, 2016)

*The Governor of Guam is also "spamming"....*
 
*Governor Calvo is a leader in the nation to craft adaptation policies on climate change.  In November 2013, he was appointed as the only Republican Governor to serve on President Barack Obama’s Task Force on Climate Preparedness.*
"*Our region is facing drastic climate-based changes, especially coral bleaching, coastal erosion, and rising seas.* These are issues that affect the livelihoods of thousands of Pacific Islanders."

STATE OF THE ISLAND: Green Guam: Today & Tomorrow

Our region, and indeed many other Pacific islands have inherent vulnerabilities and limited resources that will worsen the socioeconomic and environmental impact of climate change to our community.  Scientists have observed a significant sea level rise and consider the impact of climate change on the economies of Micronesian islands to be some of the most detrimental in the world.  Sustainable and earth-friendly development is a challenge for Guam in general—because of our island’s small size, remote location, and fragile ecosystems.  Worse yet, when the impact of climate change is expressed as a percent of gross domestic product, some of the most impacted countries in the world are Pacific island nations in Micronesia.  These nations, such as the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, and Republic of Marshall Islands are Guam’s immediate neighbors.


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Record Warmth `Almost Certainly' Due to Humans, Scientists Say *
> January 25, 2016 — 5:00 AM EST
> 
> Follow Bloomber
> ...




What a load of BS. Statistically that graph isn't even unusual for self correlated data.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jan 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> What a load of BS. Statistically that graph isn't even unusual for self correlated data.



what with spamming constantly that Science is BS ...is that even allowed to spam like that
*This is climate skeptics’ latest argument about melting polar ice — and why it’s wrong*

sharp decline in Arctic sea ice, a modest increase in Antarctic ice, and an overall decline in total sea ice.
And even when it comes to sea ice, the argument falters.
[This is climate skeptics’ top argument about Antarctica — and why it’s wrong]

At Cryosphere Today, researchers have penned a rebuttal to Taylor, stating that contrary to his claim, there is a 5.5 percent downtrend in overall sea ice area over the period in question.
“It is misleading to claim that polar sea ice has not decreased over the historic record,” the site states. “In his last paragraph, Taylor correctly asserts that *receding polar ice caps are an expected result of a warming planet. In fact, the data shows that this is exactly what is happening.*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jan 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> What a load of BS. Statistically that graph isn't even unusual for self correlated data.



*2015 Was the Hottest Year on Record, by a Stunning Margin*
*We actually broke the record for breaking records.*

January 20, 2016
To say that 2015 was hot is an understatement. *The average recorded temperature across the surface of the planet was so far above normal that it set a record for setting records. *

The year was more than a quarter of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than the last global heat record—set all the way back in 2014—according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration figures released on Wednesday. *A quarter of a degree may not sound like much, but on a planetary scale it's a huge leap. Most previous records were measured by hundredths of a degree.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > What a load of BS. Statistically that graph isn't even unusual for self correlated data.
> ...



Odd that this warmest ever year is still 4F lower than 1997


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > What a load of BS. Statistically that graph isn't even unusual for self correlated data.
> ...




Tell me what you think I'm wrong about, preferably with a quote of my words. Then if you want to quote an outside citation, pick out a quote that specifically addresses the issue.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Warmest year ever?
> ...



So Marty Mcfly, Are you going to hop in your delorean and go back 835 and read the temperature for us?

Again only a ignorant retard would post 2015 hottest year evah!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jan 25, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Again only a ignorant retard would post 2015 hottest year evah!


If you look at the bottom right side corner of the chart I posted you will read the word "Bloomberg" it is a publication aimed at the Business Market the "smart money"...it is owned by a Billionaire of the same same that may run for President this year....you on the other hand are an anonymous schlep named "bear513" ...'Nuff said...I posted what Bloomberg posted...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Again only a ignorant retard would post 2015 hottest year evah!
> ...


*I posted what Bloomberg posted... *

Why?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 30, 2016)

The thing about real conspiracies is that they always get busted eventually, provided enough people know about them. Think of Watergate, or the US govt syphilis experiments, or the NSA programs revealed by Snowden as examples. All busted, and there tends to be an inverse relation of time-to-bust and people involved. The more people involved, the quicker it gets busted.

Look at the denier conspiracy to fake all the data. There aren't that many deniers out actively faking the data, but they got busted fairly quickly.  Marc Morano said on camera that yes, he's just doing it because it pays so well. Or Michaels and McKitrick got busted red-handed faking a graph and attributing the faked graph to Mann. And so on.

That is, a conspiracy always ends up busted eventually, provided there are more than a few people in that conspiracy. The more people in it, the less time it will take to get busted.

Now look at the conspiracy the deniers propose, which would have to involve many thousands of people. It's simply not possible that a conspiracy of such a magnitude could be hidden for decades. Hence, it's clear that such a conspiracy can't exist, and that deniers are just paranoid kooks.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2016)

Wow, 71 pages and STILL on topic ! ! !


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The thing about real conspiracies is that they always get busted eventually, provided enough people know about them. Think of Watergate, or the US govt syphilis experiments, or the NSA programs revealed by Snowden as examples. All busted, and there tends to be an inverse relation of time-to-bust and people involved. The more people involved, the quicker it gets busted.
> 
> Look at the denier conspiracy to fake all the data. There aren't that many deniers out actively faking the data, but they got busted fairly quickly.  Marc Morano said on camera that yes, he's just doing it because it pays so well. Or Michaels and McKitrick got busted red-handed faking a graph and attributing the faked graph to Mann. And so on.
> 
> ...


Actually, it would involve millions of trained scientists, as they state that the Scientific Societies are actively in on that conspiracy. But they have the ignorant know nothings to depend on to believe that sort of nonsense. Since they actively resent the fact that those that have taken the time and made the effort to get an education are making far more money than they are, they are quite willing to believe any kind of nonsense the far right wing spews.


----------



## IanC (Feb 3, 2016)

Crick and Old Rocks and mamooth keep saying that a conspiracy has been declared by skeptics. Has it?

Skeptics keep pointing out mistakes that have been made, and climate science refuses to fix or even explain why they made the mistake, usually insinuating that it 'doesn't matter'.

Groupthink, error cascade and willful incompetence does not necessarily add up to conspiracy. 

Pick a field in climate science. I will show you how data has been inappropriately manipulated, methodologies have been incorrectly chosen, or exaggerated conclusions have been made that are not supported by the evidence presented.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> *I posted what Bloomberg posted... *
> 
> Why?


*because you have cornered the market of Right wing screaming Bull shit on Climate and it was time for something connected to actual reality...I don't post "Lord Monckton" LOL*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 3, 2016)

Oh, Bloomberg said so. I'm sold. I don't care about all the altered data, fudged experiments and outright lies.  Bloomberg said so.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 3, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Oh, Bloomberg said so. I'm sold. I don't care about all the altered data, fudged experiments and outright lies.  Bloomberg said so.


*LOL get Heartland Institute on the line NOW...they are real Scientist  wooooooooooooooooo....Bloomberg is a well known News source ....you wing nuts on here are in a word......Caca*


----------



## jc456 (Feb 3, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, Bloomberg said so. I'm sold. I don't care about all the altered data, fudged experiments and outright lies.  Bloomberg said so.
> ...


too rich.  Bloomberg is a well known News source.  And?  So what, WTF do I care?  Are they like the only News source?

And BTW, who is their main audience, left or right wing folk?

BTW, you posting up caca, makes it look like you have a stuttering problem.. cacacacause I said so.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 3, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, Bloomberg said so. I'm sold. I don't care about all the altered data, fudged experiments and outright lies.  Bloomberg said so.
> ...








Bloomberg said so
Said so Bloomberg

Global Warming
Warming global


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 3, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, Bloomberg said so. I'm sold. I don't care about all the altered data, fudged experiments and outright lies.  Bloomberg said so.
> ...



You know, several of your fellow cult member get paid to post the talking points, you should definitely ask about it because I think you're doing this for free and getting hosed


----------



## mamooth (Mar 7, 2016)

The denier cult is almost to this point, a few guys screaming on the street. You can see the same psychological mechanisms at work, in the way remaining hardcore 9/11 Truthers believe they hold the RealTruth, and keep chanting the same debunked nonsense, and that it's everybody else who is too terrified to face TheTruth. But they march on, reveling in their martyrdom. The cult is what now gives meaning to their lives, so they don't know what else to do.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The denier cult is almost to this point, a few guys screaming on the street. You can see the same psychological mechanisms at work, in the way remaining hardcore 9/11 Truthers believe they hold the RealTruth, and keep chanting the same debunked nonsense, and that it's everybody else who is too terrified to face TheTruth. But they march on, reveling in their martyrdom. The cult is what now gives meaning to their lives, so they don't know what else to do.



Yeah, a bunch of camel fuckers living in a cave in Pashtun planned and executed 9/11 without any outside help at all

Sure.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The denier cult is almost to this point, a few guys screaming on the street. You can see the same psychological mechanisms at work, in the way remaining hardcore 9/11 Truthers believe they hold the RealTruth, and keep chanting the same debunked nonsense, and that it's everybody else who is too terrified to face TheTruth. But they march on, reveling in their martyrdom. The cult is what now gives meaning to their lives, so they don't know what else to do.


Same idiots who insisted for decades that lead wasn't poisoning our children.

Similar to what global warming deniers (corporations) are doing, the lead industry paid the government millions of dollars for them to remain ignorant to the problem.  They even passed laws saying we couldn't even have public service announcements warning people about the "potential" harm that may have been caused by lead.

Fuck global warming deniers.  They should move to Venus to see the future of earth if they keep doing what they are doing.

You might be surprised to know that Venus is the hottest planet in the Solar System. With a global temperature of 735 Kelvin (462 degrees C), the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead. And if you could stand on the surface of Venus, you would experience atmospheric pressure 92 times greater than what you’re used to on Earth. Why is Venus so hot? The Venus greenhouse effect shows you what happens when this the process of trapping sunlight goes out of control into a runaway process.

Scientists think that Venus used to be more similar to Earth, with lower temperatures and even liquid water on the surface of the planet. At some point, billions of years ago, the planet started to heat up. At some point, all the water on the surface evaporated into the atmosphere. Water vapor is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and this caused temperatures to rise even more. Then the surface of Venus got so hot that the carbon trapped in rocks sublimated into the atmosphere and mixed with oxygen to form even more carbon dioxide. And so today we have a carbon dioxide atmosphere on Venus which is 92 times more dense than Earth’s atmosphere at the surface.

Could this happen on Earth? Scientists think that if the same process happened on Earth, we would have temperatures with several hundred degrees C, and an atmosphere 100 times as dense as we have right now.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 7, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The thing about real conspiracies is that they always get busted eventually, provided enough people know about them. Think of Watergate, or the US govt syphilis experiments, or the NSA programs revealed by Snowden as examples. All busted, and there tends to be an inverse relation of time-to-bust and people involved. The more people involved, the quicker it gets busted.
> 
> Look at the denier conspiracy to fake all the data. There aren't that many deniers out actively faking the data, but they got busted fairly quickly.  Marc Morano said on camera that yes, he's just doing it because it pays so well. Or Michaels and McKitrick got busted red-handed faking a graph and attributing the faked graph to Mann. And so on.
> 
> ...


That about sums it up. Doesn't help them that one of their proponents (Frank57) has a criminal Repub President in his siggie [32 criminal convictions] and he's a Benghazi alarmist YET he isn't an Iraq alarmist given that Repub-instigated optional disaster cost this nation dearly.

Back to topic- 96% of scientists agree


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2016)

The Warmers can start to convince me by first posting a repeatable lab experiment that shows a us a temperature increase form a 120PPM increase in CO2

Deal?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The denier cult is almost to this point, a few guys screaming on the street. You can see the same psychological mechanisms at work, in the way remaining hardcore 9/11 Truthers believe they hold the RealTruth, and keep chanting the same debunked nonsense, and that it's everybody else who is too terrified to face TheTruth. But they march on, reveling in their martyrdom. The cult is what now gives meaning to their lives, so they don't know what else to do.
> ...


since you went to Flint, is fluoride good or bad for you?

Read up:

*10 Facts About Fluoride You Need to Know*

10 Fluoride Facts You Should Know


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Warmers can start to convince me by first posting a repeatable lab experiment that shows a us a temperature increase form a 120PPM increase in CO2
> 
> Deal?


^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


I remember tasting and smelling the fluoride in my water.  Nasty.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Warmers can start to convince me by first posting a repeatable lab experiment that shows a us a temperature increase form a 120PPM increase in CO2
> ...



Odd that none of the Warmers posted an experiment in reply


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 7, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Warmers can start to convince me by first posting a repeatable lab experiment that shows a us a temperature increase form a 120PPM increase in CO2
> 
> Deal?


what does that have to do w/ Benghazi?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2016)

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Warmers can start to convince me by first posting a repeatable lab experiment that shows a us a temperature increase form a 120PPM increase in CO2
> ...



So, you couldn't find an experiment either

Good to know


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2016)

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Warmers can start to convince me by first posting a repeatable lab experiment that shows a us a temperature increase form a 120PPM increase in CO2
> ...


huh?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2016)

an additional paper on fluoride.

Shocking News About Flouride
*
"The following article exposes the biggest on-going medical experiment ever carried out by the United States Government on an unsuspecting population.*

_*Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb by Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson © July 1997*_

*Some fifty years after the United States began adding fluoride to public water supplies to reduce cavities in children’s teeth, declassified government documents are shedding new light on the roots of that still controversial public health measure, revealing a surprising connection between fluoride and the dawning of the nuclear age."*

And then you wonder why some don't buy into scientists.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


> an additional paper on fluoride.
> 
> Shocking News About Flouride
> *
> ...



JC, since we've been asking, how many experiments controlling for any CO2 much less 120PPM, have the Warmers posted to date?

There's the Mythbusters that had a 7% CO2 atmosphere, any others?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > an additional paper on fluoride.
> ...


I like how when I first addressed this question, I got the answer, 1000 of them. Then they all started pounding out the answer about doing it in school, then they posted up the Bill Nye one, and then several others and in none of them did they ever do a controlled experiment.  So what kind of scientist are these jokers that they don't know how to do them?

Then I got told after disqualifying all of them, and they the warmers, I supposed all agreeing with me, since now they say there is no way to do it outside a live environment. Frank it is hysterical to say the least.  We'll never see one cause they are afraid to post anymore, cause they have zero that validate their claims.  So each and every post is nonsense. mumbo jumbo, some tactic to distract from reality.  hahahahahhahahaahaha it's precious.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2016)

Still no experiment.

Weird, no?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Still no experiment.
> 
> Weird, no?



Yes,
well maybe they can post up more links that go to abstract experiments that one has to purchase to read.  So why can't they buy them all and then post the one that addresses the requested one for 120 PPM supporting graphs and evidence?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Still no experiment.
> ...



Experiment?

Why, yes, we have it right here!


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2016)

What do you think is making those two big gaps Frank?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> What do you think is making those two big gaps Frank?



Odd, no temperature axis.  Did you mean to post that?


----------



## IanC (Mar 8, 2016)

CF- I am not sure if you are being serious about reading the graph, or just complaining about there not being a specific experiment showing the effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing from 280- 400 ppm. specifying the actual range is important because 120 ppm has variable influence depending on the starting point. 280-400 is roughly half of a logrithmic double, theoretically ~0.5C. 400-520 is about 1/3 of a logrithmic double, 0.3C.

on this chart the dashed lines represent the theoretical emissions of a blackbody at different temperatures defined in Kelvin degrees. K= (C+273). eg 273K=0C.

the jagged line is the actual measured emissions. there is a chunk missing between 17-13 microns that is due to CO2 absorbing IR. the little that is emitted matches the Planck curve for a blackbody at about 213K, or minus 60C. if we check to see what level of the atmosphere is -60C we find that it matches fairly well with the theoretical concentration of CO2 where 15micron IR is likely to simply escape to space rather than be absorbed.

the range on the graph between 13-8 microns is called the atmospheric window because the IR freely escapes to space at the same temperature as the surface (the small piece missing at 9.6 microns is not considered important, I hope this was not the second of crick's 'gaps').

the other bite out of the emissions graph is 7 microns and below. H2O is mainly responsible for this area.


IF we had an emissions graph from when CO2 was 280 ppm we could compare it to today's emissions graph at 400 ppm, and CF's question would be answered. maybe.

every instrument that gets sent into space has its own strengths and weaknesses, and gives different results compared to the instrument it replaces and the one that replaces it. but as long as there is an overlap period between the two types of instrument usually a fairly good estimation can be calculated.

we probably have values of about 350ppm, when satellites first started measuring. perhaps even from the 50's when jets started going well into the stratosphere. what would the difference in the CO2 bite look like? it would be slightly less deep, corresponding to a slightly warmer temp when 15 micron IR escapes. it would be slightly less wide for reasons I wont go into right now.

the CO2 effect is saturated at near surface levels. it makes very little difference whether all the surface 15 micron IR is absorbed by the first 10.0 meters of atmosphere or the first 9.9 meters. the majority of surface energy is already being transported by water phase change and the convection it produces. most of the energy that does escape by radiation from the surface leaves through the atmospheric window (centered on 10microns), and very little of the remaining 25W is through the CO2 dominated 15 micron range.

the Greenhouse effect is real but dominated by water.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> What do you think is making those two big gaps Frank?



Epic failure crick....we all know that CO2 absorbs and emits in a narrow frequency of IR....now you need to prove that absorption and emission equals warming.....how much is required to cause warming...and how much warming it causes....

And while you are at it...tell us what the optimum temperature is for life on planet earth so that we know whether we are heading in the right, or wrong direction....and while you are at it, why not go ahead and admit that science, here in the 21st century can not even tease out a hint of a human fingerprint in the chaos of climate natural variability.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The denier cult is almost to this point, a few guys screaming on the street. You can see the same psychological mechanisms at work, in the way remaining hardcore 9/11 Truthers believe they hold the RealTruth, and keep chanting the same debunked nonsense, and that it's everybody else who is too terrified to face TheTruth. But they march on, reveling in their martyrdom. The cult is what now gives meaning to their lives, so they don't know what else to do.
> 
> * * * *



^ Manboob proclaiming the FAITH!

Mock dem infidels baby!

Praise your make-believe notion of "science" while devoutly ignoring the tenets of actual science!

Recite the Consensus Creed, say "Praise Gaia"and genuflect at the alter of "models."

In AGW we BELIEVE!  Well, climate CHANGE, anyway. 
     Amen and pass the socialism.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> CF- I am not sure if you are being serious about reading the graph, or just complaining about there not being a specific experiment showing the effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing from 280- 400 ppm. specifying the actual range is important because 120 ppm has variable influence depending on the starting point. 280-400 is roughly half of a logrithmic double, theoretically ~0.5C. 400-520 is about 1/3 of a logrithmic double, 0.3C.
> 
> on this chart the dashed lines represent the theoretical emissions of a blackbody at different temperatures defined in Kelvin degrees. K= (C+273). eg 273K=0C.
> 
> ...



Right. And that's still not a lab experiment measuring temperature by making incremental adjustments to an atmospheric trace element.

EnviroMarxists treat the lab like Dracula meeting the rising sun


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> CF- I am not sure if you are being serious about reading the graph, or just complaining about there not being a specific experiment showing the effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing from 280- 400 ppm. specifying the actual range is important because 120 ppm has variable influence depending on the starting point. 280-400 is roughly half of a logrithmic double, theoretically ~0.5C. 400-520 is about 1/3 of a logrithmic double, 0.3C.
> 
> on this chart the dashed lines represent the theoretical emissions of a blackbody at different temperatures defined in Kelvin degrees. K= (C+273). eg 273K=0C.
> 
> ...



Crick infers that becasue there are areas of missing up-welling LWIR it must cause warming. He makes an assumption that science does not prove. As we continue to learn about our planet were finding out that CO2, while potentially capable, does not react as they had hoped in our atmosphere.  I believe the current level of feedback observed is less than 50% of the potential.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 8, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CF- I am not sure if you are being serious about reading the graph, or just complaining about there not being a specific experiment showing the effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing from 280- 400 ppm. specifying the actual range is important because 120 ppm has variable influence depending on the starting point. 280-400 is roughly half of a logrithmic double, theoretically ~0.5C. 400-520 is about 1/3 of a logrithmic double, 0.3C.
> ...



All we know for certain is that we have to surrender our economy to the Anti-Science EnviroMarxists


----------



## mamooth (Mar 9, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yeah, a bunch of camel fuckers living in a cave in Pashtun planned and executed 9/11 without any outside help at all
> 
> Sure.



That's yet another data point displaying that how those who fall for one conspiracy theory, like denialism, tend to fall for bunches of conspiracy theories. A person who thinks irrationally can't confine their irrational thinking to just one area.

Look at Skook talking about chemtrails.

Elektra babbling about windmills leaking vast quantities of oil.

jc declaring the earth is shifting on its axis.

Flac's TWA flight 800 conspiracies.

And so on.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 9, 2016)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, a bunch of camel fuckers living in a cave in Pashtun planned and executed 9/11 without any outside help at all
> ...



I missed the part where you posted the experiment controlling for varying amount of CO2


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2016)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, a bunch of camel fuckers living in a cave in Pashtun planned and executed 9/11 without any outside help at all
> ...


crap, Frank beat me to it.  So nice diatribe, now where is the evidence that supports what you say?  You post quite a bit in here and nothing that ever directly validates what you say.  And the earth axis is shifting, one merely has to do research.  Try it, you may educate yourself.  BTW, the Poles will never have the same ice melt or ice increases at the same time, they both will always be opposite.  Do you know why?  if you say the axis of the earth, well you'd be right.  wow.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 9, 2016)

The earth's axis is shifting alright, by centimeters. Yet you claimed the axial change was the cause of the polar melt. That's kookery.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 10, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The earth's axis is shifting alright, by centimeters. Yet you claimed the axial change was the cause of the polar melt. That's kookery.


I have more links that will back my story up then you have to back yours.  Are you ready, I'll start with one:

Here from nasa:

NASA -  Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

"Scientists have long known that the magnetic pole moves. James Ross located the pole for the first time in 1831 after an exhausting arctic journey during which his ship got stuck in the ice for four years. No one returned until the next century. In 1904, Roald Amundsen found the pole again and discovered that it had moved--at least 50 km since the days of Ross.

The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades."

now your turn, post up the experiment about what adding 120 PPM of CO2 does


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The earth's axis is shifting alright, by centimeters. Yet you claimed the axial change was the cause of the polar melt. That's kookery.



Incremental change adds up over time.

Did you know that, manboob?

And if the change in the axis does not explain everything, cool.  Nobody ever said it did.  There are assloads of factors that all have some degree of responsibility for consequences.

What CrusaderFrank and others have consistently asked for you AGW Faithers to provide is *some* scientific evidence supporting your premise (and conclusion) that a minor increase in an already trace atmospheric element has the capacity to alter the climate of the planet.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 12, 2016)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Incremental change adds up over time
> 
> Did you know that, manboob?



Do you know how stupid you look now?

Incremental changes in centimeters over a hundred years would add up to ... a few meters.

So, according to your moron theory, an axis shift of a few meters has drastically changed the climate of the entire globe. Failing that hard can mean only one thing, that you're a denier cultist.



> And if the change in the axis does not explain everything, cool.  Nobody ever said it did.  There are assloads of factors that all have some degree of responsibility for consequences.
> 
> What CrusaderFrank and others have consistently asked for you AGW Faithers to provide is *some* scientific evidence supporting your premise (and conclusion) that a minor increase in an already trace atmospheric element has the capacity to alter the climate of the planet.



And we've done so, many times. Thus, all you're doing now is putting your cult's dishonesty on open display.

And jc? The magnetic pole and rotation pole are very different things, meaning you failed hard as well.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Incremental change adds up over time
> ...


You read my link? It's all about axis and magnetic poles. Please do us a favor and educate yourself


----------



## mamooth (Mar 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> You read my link? It's all about axis and magnetic poles. Please do us a favor and educate yourself



Your link was about the magnetic pole moving, which has absolutely nothing to do with the earth's axis moving.

jc, your side wishes you'd shut up, because you always embarrass them so badly. They can't say that, because cult rules prevent them from criticizing a fellow cultist, so I'm saying it for them.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > You read my link? It's all about axis and magnetic poles. Please do us a favor and educate yourself
> ...


Again, look up magnetic waves, just saying. I'm still waiting on your evidence. Now in year three.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 12, 2016)

You babbling about mythical magnetic waves is some fine reinforcement of my point that deniers tend to be conspiracy nutters on a wide range of topics.

And you lying about not getting evidence is some fine reinforcement of my point that you're a pathologically dishonest cultist. Remember, the Baby Jesus hates liars, and will send you to Hell for it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> You babbling about mythical magnetic waves is some fine reinforcement of my point that deniers tend to be conspiracy nutters on a wide range of topics.
> 
> And you lying about not getting evidence is some fine reinforcement of my point that you're a pathologically dishonest cultist. Remember, the Baby Jesus hates liars, and will send you to Hell for it.



Snagletooth  goes totally mental case!!!  Brings out the denigration of Jesus to top of its liar rant!..  There is a reason real scientists ignore little liars like you..


----------



## mamooth (Mar 12, 2016)

That's right, Billy was the other big believer in magical magnetic waves and all that other woo.

Billy, go put on a magnetic bracelet. The healing power of magnetism will surely make you feel better.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 13, 2016)

mamooth said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Incremental change adds up over time
> ...



But I didn't contend that the change in the axis accounted for any alleged global warmering, you tool.  So in the end as always, it remains you who looks foolish.  That's largely because you are a fool.

And you ignored the balance of what I said, you imbecile.  A typical of you tactic when you lack the ability to make valid intelligent arguments.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 13, 2016)

Question:  Will the *AGW Faith Based Ministries* EVER attempt to offer any experimental evidence for their rather silly contention that an incremental increase in a trace atmospheric "greenhouse gas" has the actual ability to cause global warming?

Or, will we confront another Ice Age before they admit that they are unable and unwilling to even try?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 13, 2016)

IlarMeilyr said:


> But I didn't contend that the change in the axis accounted for any alleged global warmering, you tool.  So in the end as always, it remains you who looks foolish.  That's largely because you are a fool.



We get it. You jumped in to back up jc's stupidity, got slammed for it, and now you're pretending you didn't do it. Very convincing.



> And you ignored the balance of what I said, you imbecile.  A typical of you tactic when you lack the ability to make valid intelligent arguments.



If you werent' such a slow learner, and therefore a denier, you'd have learned that crying at me just encourages me.

Now, Mr. "There's no evidence", how about you explani for us the directly measured decrease in outgoing longwarve radiation, the increase in backradiation, and the stratospheric warming? Those are all smoking guns for greenhouse gas caused warming, and no "natural cycles" theory can explain them.

You can't answer, of course, as you're way out of your league here. You know jack about the science, and you're just motivated by butthurt now to rage at people.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > But I didn't contend that the change in the axis accounted for any alleged global warmering, you tool.  So in the end as always, it remains you who looks foolish.  That's largely because you are a fool.
> ...


no one is measuring back radiation.  Nice try.  And you're right, the LWIR is down, meaning so are temperatures.  Like when the truth actually comes out.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> no one is measuring back radiation.



That's a particularly stupid, crazy and dishonest thing to say, being anybody can measure it by pointing a FLIR unit or IR spectrometer at the sky.

Just like denier Roy Spencer does here. Are you claiming Dr. Spencer is a liar and fraud?

Imaging the Greenhouse Effect with a FLIR i7 Thermal Imager «  Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > no one is measuring back radiation.
> ...



Fooling yourself with instrumentation is one of the stupidest things warmer wackos do....You don't think the flir measures outgoing radiation?....and the IR spectrometer is nothing more than a mathematical model...it is most definitely not measuring downward radiation....the only devices that actually measure downwelling radiation at ambient temperature are devices that are cooled to a temperature far lower than the atmosphere...but go ahead and fool yourself all you like hairball...you have been doing it so long now, I doubt that you know any other way to be.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > no one is measuring back radiation.
> ...


ahhhhhh, your magical back radiation that is more powerful than the sun.  That has yet to be proven as warmth in the atmosphere.  And again, less LWIR less temperatures.  So, to finagle the populace, the folks at NASA and NOAA have to manipulate the data to make the results line up with talking points.  I know all of this already.  But even if there was back radiation, the back radiation would be a result of LWIR that you agree is less. so again, even using your stupid logical fallacy, you can't justify warming up.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Fooling yourself with instrumentation is one of the stupidest things warmer wackos do....You don't think the flir measures outgoing radiation?



If you point it at the sky, it's obviously measuring downcoming radiation.

If there's no backradiation, the FLIR should see something near absolute zero when pointed at open sky.

It doesn't see that. It sees temperatures of around -10F or so. Backradiation.

And the i7 unit used by Spencer is not cooled. The whole thing operates at room temperature, and has no trouble measuring those cooler photons.

In summary, you're a delusional crank.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> ahhhhhh, your magical back radiation that is more powerful than the sun.



jc, you didn't answer. Is Dr. Spencer a fraud for pointing out how he measured backradiation?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Fooling yourself with instrumentation is one of the stupidest things warmer wackos do....You don't think the flir measures outgoing radiation?
> ...


wow, you are a true believer.  Magic instrument that can measure radiation in a direction.  Well I call bullshit.  I know you'll come back at me, so save your post.  I get it, you believe in anything except Wobble.  Which is actually measured by sunlight, stars and many other markers.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ahhhhhh, your magical back radiation that is more powerful than the sun.
> ...


yes.  I'm sorry I must have missed that question.  It is really simple, the physics won't allow it.  He's been told that.  but hey, you go with him on his journey.  Not me.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2016)

Given that the atmospheric model Spencer uses to generate the UAH satellite temperatures includes backradiation effects, that would indicate UAH must be fraudulent as well, by your standards. Yet you still regard UAH as gospel. Interesting.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Fooling yourself with instrumentation is one of the stupidest things warmer wackos do....You don't think the flir measures outgoing radiation?
> ...



 NO...it is calculating a difference in temperature between the thermopile inside itself and whatever it is pointed out...it doesn't distinguish the direction any particular radiation is moving...it is only looking at temperature differences.



mamooth said:


> If there's no backradiation, the FLIR should see something near absolute zero when pointed at open sky.



So your claim is that the entire air column, all the way to space is at  zero degrees?                                          



mamooth said:


> It doesn't see that. It sees temperatures of around -10F or so. Back radiation.



So your claim is that back radiation at a temperature of -10F is warming the earth?



mamooth said:


> And the i7 unit used by Spencer is not cooled. The whole thing operates at room temperature, and has no trouble measuring those cooler photons.



Which means that it is not measuring back radiation....it is based on a mathematical model measuring temperature difference between its thermopile and whatever it is pointed at....



mamooth said:


> In summary, you're a delusional crank.



In summary, you are being fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> NO...it is calculating a difference in temperature between the thermopile inside itself and whatever it is pointed out...it doesn't distinguish the direction any particular radiation is moving...it is only looking at temperature differences.



And since the IR radiation from what it's not pointed at doesn't penetrate the casing, it's only seeing radiation from what it's pointed at. Which would be the sky.



> So your claim is that the entire air column, all the way to space is at  zero degrees?



You're the one saying the air column can't radiate to the warmer FLIR detector. Hence, by your theory, it should see nothing.                                   



> So your claim is that back radiation at a temperature of -10F is warming the earth?



That's the reality, as demonstrated by the fact we can direclty measure it doing so.



mamooth said:


> Which means that it is not measuring back radiation....it is based on a mathematical model measuring temperature difference between its thermopile and whatever it is pointed at....



So tell us, how does it know the temperature of what it's pointed at?

Oh, that's right, it's emitting IR photons.

That is, backradiation.

You really haven't thought this through at all. Yes, it is that obvious.


----------



## elektra (Mar 16, 2016)

mamooth said:


> If you point it at the sky, it's obviously measuring downcoming radiation.
> 
> If there's no backradiation, the FLIR should see something near absolute zero when pointed at open sky.
> 
> ...


Dr. Roy Spencer? You know Dr. Spencer says man has no effect on the climate.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 17, 2016)

elektra said:


> Dr. Roy Spencer? You know Dr. Spencer says man has no effect on the climate.


Yes, Spencer thinks man has little effect on the climate, but he is no fool about science. Spencer said in his blog,

_… the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction. In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesn’t stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave...._

So using the argument, that Spencer downplays the effect of man, does not mean he downplays valid concepts of atmospheric physics.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > NO...it is calculating a difference in temperature between the thermopile inside itself and whatever it is pointed out...it doesn't distinguish the direction any particular radiation is moving...it is only looking at temperature differences.
> ...





mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Fooling yourself with instrumentation is one of the stupidest things warmer wackos do....You don't think the flir measures outgoing radiation?
> ...


If there is back radiation, how do you know it is from CO2?


----------



## elektra (Mar 17, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Roy Spencer? You know Dr. Spencer says man has no effect on the climate.
> ...


So? And more importantly, why did you not link? Without a link it looks like you cherry picked the blog, to deceive. But maybe not, there is a lot of information out there.

Science does not understand the physics of heat transfer, they have hypothesis and some theory, but our knowledge of heat transfer is in its infancy. Dr. Spencer thinks, it is possible, everything said about co2 is wrong. 

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies «  Roy Spencer, PhD


> While it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more “should” cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But I’m still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 17, 2016)

Link ...   In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect «  Roy Spencer, PhD

April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The quote is about a third of the way down under the subheading, 
IT VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
However it would be constructive to read the whole article.


----------



## elektra (Mar 17, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Link ...   In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect «  Roy Spencer, PhD
> 
> April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
> The quote is about a third of the way down under the subheading,
> ...


thanks


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 17, 2016)

In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect «  Roy Spencer, PhD

THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT WORKS…FOR NOW
The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.

So, until someone comes along with another quantitative model that uses different physics to get as good a simulation of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, I consider objections to the existence of the ‘greenhouse effect’ to be little more than hand waving.

*It looks like Dr. Spencer is preparing to quietly admit that he has been wrong concerning the anthropogenic GHGs.*


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.



The thread title is crap.

This OP is simply nothing but hot air.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 17, 2016)

39 pages and 800 posts (almost).

Has anyone changed their minds ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 17, 2016)

UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for Feb. 2016: +0.83 deg. C (new record) «  Roy Spencer, PhD

Even his graphs show a major warming for February.


----------



## elektra (Mar 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect «  Roy Spencer, PhD
> 
> THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT WORKS…FOR NOW
> The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.
> ...


You don't realize that the greenhouse effect is not AGW?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 17, 2016)

I see. At 280 ppm of CO2, and about 800 ppb of CH4, we have a greenhouse effect. But when we raise the CO2 to over 400 ppm, and CH4 to over 1800 ppb, that does not cause an increase in the Greenhouse effect? An increase correctly called AGW.


----------



## elektra (Mar 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. At 280 ppm of CO2, and about 800 ppb of CH4, we have a greenhouse effect. But when we raise the CO2 to over 400 ppm, and CH4 to over 1800 ppb, that does not cause an increase in the Greenhouse effect? An increase correctly called AGW.


Now prove it with an experiment.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 18, 2016)

Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical Variation
_The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams. 
The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams. _​
A way to calculate calculate the importance of the effect of CO2 is to look at the ratio of H2O vapor to CO2.
12.9/3.0 = 4.3.
The volume of CO2 is about a quarter of the volume of water vapor.

In this light an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a much larger effect than any“gut feel” that the concentration of CO2 is so small. An increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not trivial in comparison to H20 vapor.

Bottom line:  If you want to argue against AGW you have to use arguments other than your feeling that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical Variation
> _The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams.
> The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams. _​
> A way to calculate calculate the importance of the effect of CO2 is to look at the ratio of H2O vapor to CO2.
> ...



And you can demonstrate this in a lab?  It's simple enough to control the amount of the gases in a lab setting, what do the experiments show


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. At 280 ppm of CO2, and about 800 ppb of CH4, we have a greenhouse effect. But when we raise the CO2 to over 400 ppm, and CH4 to over 1800 ppb, that does not cause an increase in the Greenhouse effect? An increase correctly called AGW.



and you can show us what happens in the lab when you increase the ghgs by that amount, right?


----------



## chikenwing (Mar 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.


Now this is a hoot,thread after thread, started by hysterical the sky is falling and we are doomed climate alarmist, calling others paranoid.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 18, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> And you can demonstrate this in a lab? It's simple enough to control the amount of the gases in a lab setting, what do the experiments show


You can't measure the global H2O content in just a lab.  It varies all over the map.  Water vapor is almost zero in a dessert or arctic region, and up to 7% in moist areas.   CO2 content of course is much more uniform.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 18, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> and you can show us what happens in the lab when you increase the ghgs by that amount, right?



Well, yes. Many experiments have been done to quantify the absorption spectrum of CO2 and other atmospheric gases. If you head over to the HITRAN database and go to the documentation, it lists 77 sources just for CO2, and around a thousand sources for all atmospheric gases.

HITRAN

And that's why you look so utterly delusional for claiming no experiments have been done.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > And you can demonstrate this in a lab? It's simple enough to control the amount of the gases in a lab setting, what do the experiments show
> ...


how can that be?  you can't measure CO2 in a lab?  Is that what you're saying?  Who cares what the atmosphere consists of, the claim is specifically CO2. So, show us how CO2 reacts the way you state?  That really doesn't seem that hard or is it?  If it is, how can you make that statement.  so CO2 is what, 0.04 % of the atmosphere?  And when you double the amount it is what 0.06%?  Come on man, you have to do better than that to make such a claim.  I'm just saying.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 18, 2016)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > and you can show us what happens in the lab when you increase the ghgs by that amount, right?
> ...


now post up how warm it is. and it's supposed outbound radiation.


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical Variation
> _The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams.
> The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams. _​
> A way to calculate calculate the importance of the effect of CO2 is to look at the ratio of H2O vapor to CO2.
> ...










How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure.  UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocen to warm it.  The oceans govern the heat of the planet.  Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure.



This nonsense again? Guess I'll just have to debunk same as I did before.

Another Climate Alarmist Lets It Slip: Why They Want To Scare You

This is the temperature profile of most spots in the ocean. Note the vertical scale is sort of logarithmic.






The bulk of solar energy penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as they get shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans, from combined conduction and evaporation, depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.



> UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocean to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet.  Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.



Yes, we get it. You think conservation of energy is a suggestion, not a law, and you can ignore it whenever convenient for you. In your world, the backradiation strikes the ocean ... and then the energy just disappears into some magical mystery dimension. You ought to write a paper on the physics behind that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.




We know the view of the cult.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> how can that be? you can't measure CO2 in a lab? Is that what you're saying? Who cares what the atmosphere consists of, the claim is specifically CO2. So, show us how CO2 reacts the way you state? That really doesn't seem that hard or is it? If it is, how can you make that statement. so CO2 is what, 0.04 % of the atmosphere? And when you double the amount it is what 0.06%? Come on man, you have to do better than that to make such a claim. I'm just saying.


You lost track of my point. Look back at post #781. 
_The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams. 
The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams. _​
You will see that the amount of CO2 is about 1 quarter the amount of H2O vapor in the atmosphere right now. If you double it, as you say, the CO2 would then be half the mass of H2O. That is not trivial. You have to understand that H2O is also a trace element in the atmosphere when you compare it to the trace element CO2.

You said "double" and also said .04% to .06%. That isn't doubling.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure. UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocen to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet. Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.


Mamooth got it right above. Here is my similar explanation. 

The theory does not fail. Yes, the short wave radiation from the sun warms the ocean and the long wave IR cannot penetrate it. (The long wave IR can't penetrate much of anything else on the earth.)

But remember that, night and day, the surface of the ocean and earth is loosing around 400 Watts per square meter of thermal IR radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann law). That radiation is leaving from within the top few microns of the surface.

The greenhouse gasses, (including water vapor for the most part), are continually backscattering a large percentage of that loss as IR right back to that same thin top surface. Otherwise the surface of the ocean would quickly freeze everywhere.

The net result is that the thin surface is not loosing as much heat through IR as it would otherwise. That is why the ocean can retain the short wave radiation heat that the sun provides.

Try to remember that scientists do not (or should not) claim that IR backscatter actually warms anything. What backscatter does is to prevent a lot of heat from escaping from the already warm earth. (Warmed by short wave radiation.)


----------



## jc456 (Mar 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > how can that be? you can't measure CO2 in a lab? Is that what you're saying? Who cares what the atmosphere consists of, the claim is specifically CO2. So, show us how CO2 reacts the way you state? That really doesn't seem that hard or is it? If it is, how can you make that statement. so CO2 is what, 0.04 % of the atmosphere? And when you double the amount it is what 0.06%? Come on man, you have to do better than that to make such a claim. I'm just saying.
> ...


H2O is approximately .25% of the atmosphere give or take areas of the globe, it varies.  CO2 again is .04% and doubling would be~ .06 from pre industrial time.  Pardon, i didn't qualify that.  So even leaving water at the .25% of the atmospheric make up, hmmm, I'm sorry, I don't see any impact to the atmosphere that would be doom and gloom.  And it will take an experiment to move me from that point.  CO2 is logarithmic.  And has never actually been proven to have back radiation as most want to state.  All I ask is for evidence of it.  Yes, physics says it ought to, but I need to see the evidence.  And, I'm not the only one.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure. UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocen to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet. Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.
> ...


I see this kind of picture how the atmospheric gases are mixed and just laugh that doubling CO2 can be so dangerous.  I'm just saying.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 18, 2016)

chikenwing said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy.  Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument.  It's not even sane.  Open your eyes and look where you're going.
> ...


The global warming nut jobs are paranoid weirdos.

The science is settled, carbon dioxide is the "green" gas. It is fertilizer. It feeds plants.

Biology 101


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > And you can demonstrate this in a lab? It's simple enough to control the amount of the gases in a lab setting, what do the experiments show
> ...


If you're saying that there are too many variables to control an experiment, then the notion that man-made whatever you call it is driving the climate is nothing more than your gut feel, right


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure.
> ...









No, you clearly DON'T get it.  Heat rises.  Please show us the physics defying science that supports the silly concept that somehow heat is carried into the deep ocean where it somehow magically resides in defiance of every physical law we know of.


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure. UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocen to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet. Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.
> ...










Yes, it does fail.  IR can not penetrate deep enough into the oceans to warm anything.  Heat rises, a physical law that warmists seem to wish to ignore.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 18, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If you're saying that there are too many variables to control an experiment, then the notion that man-made whatever you call it is driving the climate is nothing more than your gut feel, right


No. I have never claimed that man is driving the climate. I was pointing out where some of you guys had the science wrong.  If you think I said anything from gut feel, let me know what it is you think.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> No, you clearly DON'T get it.  Heat rises.  Please show us the physics defying science that supports the silly concept that somehow heat is carried into the deep ocean where it somehow magically resides in defiance of every physical law we know of.



I just explained that all in detail.

And in response, you're ignoring the explanation and babbling "but heat rises!", something that has nothing to do with the situation.

Maybe if you ignore gravity, that will go away too. Keep trying. Just understand that the world is ignoring you.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> Yes, it does fail. IR can not penetrate deep enough into the oceans to warm anything. Heat rises, a physical law that warmists seem to wish to ignore.


No warmist  believes that heat does not rise, nor do they ignore that. Where are you getting that?

This is a fact of simple science: Day and night, the earth is pouring out around 400 watts per square centimeter largely from the top few microns - ocean or land. Do you disagree with that?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




When ai first read about this I laughed my ass off. Who would believe something so gullible?????


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it does fail. IR can not penetrate deep enough into the oceans to warm anything. Heat rises, a physical law that warmists seem to wish to ignore.
> ...


You better tell that to trenberth and his assertion that the so called missing heat was carried deep under water.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The fact that the earth is pouring out around 400 watts per square centimeter of thermal radiation is a simple matter of the Stefan-Boltzman law established 150 years ago. That was long before Trenberth was born. Do you disagree with the 400 W figure?


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...










No, I don't.  Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If you're saying that there are too many variables to control an experiment, then the notion that man-made whatever you call it is driving the climate is nothing more than your gut feel, right
> ...



Science? Do you even know what the word means?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If you're saying that there are too many variables to control an experiment, then the notion that man-made whatever you call it is driving the climate is nothing more than your gut feel, right
> ...


Well let me just say, if everything worked the way that it looks like on paper, we would never ever have to test anything. It's why we do though, because not everything does work like it looks like on paper.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 18, 2016)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > and you can show us what happens in the lab when you increase the ghgs by that amount, right?
> ...



Hitran hit n run...not an experiment controlling for CO2


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> No, I don't. Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.


Your number 187 W corresponds to a bitter cold -35 deg C and your 426 number corresponds to a room temperature 70 deg. Where did you get that?  That is a rather weird representation of the range of the earth temperatures. Yes, the earth can get as cold as -35 at the poles, but it can easily get to 120 deg F which is a whopping 610 W/sq meter. What was your source that had such a low-ball on both the upper limit and the lower limit?

The usual temperature used for earth radiation is the average global temperature, around 15 deg C. That leads to 391 W/Sq meter.

From NASA ...  Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles
_Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.
_​The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter.

I am not arguing AGW one way or another here. It is very simple, basic, well understood physics. The question you must answer to yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave visible and UV from the sun.


----------



## elektra (Mar 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, I don't. Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.
> ...


The Earth can easily reach 120 deg F? Actually, it can't, easily reach 120 deg F,  you could say it can easily reach 63 deg F, but 120 def F. is not so easily reached.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Well the earth obviously can be any temperature at anytime if one is a warmer


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Don't complain to me. Complain to westwall. Look at the context. He quoted radiation intensities corresponding to temperatures ranging from -35 C to room temperature. He low-balled the earth's coldest range. Why didn't he also high-ball the upper range, 120 degrees. But neither is very meaningful when it's the average radiation output of the earth that is the topic. Look at the context and whine to westwall.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Well the earth obviously can be any temperature at anytime if one is a warmer


You should whine to westwall. He is the one who brought up the huge range. 
You, elektra and westwall are distracted from the basic question:

The question you must answer for yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave (visible and UV) from the sun.

That has nothing to do with AGW. It is a basic science question that you don't understand. But you keep diverting it to AGW which is irrelevant.


----------



## Crick (Mar 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I'd guess as much of the earth as reaches -35F reaches 120F


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Well the earth obviously can be any temperature at anytime if one is a warmer
> ...










Wrong.  The basic question is what actually warms the planet.  That is a well known fact.  The oceans warm the planet.  What warms the oceans?  That too is well known.  That is UV radiation that penetrates deeply into the ocean and warms the top 500 meters.  That top 500 meters of ocean water is what regulates the global temperature.  

Long Wave IR, the supposed mechanism of global warming can't penetrate a single millimeter into the oceans.  Thus, all the rest of what you are posting is simply worthless.

That is the fact of global warming and the lack of mans influence upon it.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Well the earth obviously can be any temperature at anytime if one is a warmer
> ...


Why, he's not manufacturing data sets and claiming warmest evah!  Hahahahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Mar 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Well the earth obviously can be any temperature at anytime if one is a warmer
> ...


I do? I'm one of many calling bullshit. So you have me confused with someone else.


----------



## elektra (Mar 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Okay.


----------



## elektra (Mar 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


You would be guessing wrong.


----------



## Crick (Mar 19, 2016)

I think I'd be guessing right.


Kalahari Desert 
Karoo Desert 
Namib Desert 
Moçâmedes Desert 
Danakil Desert
Guban Desert 
Grand Bara Desert 
Ogaden Desert 
Chalbi Desert 
Nyiri Desert 
Lompoul Desert 
Sahara Desert 

Arabian Desert
Dasht-e-Margo
Dasht-e Kavir
Dasht-e Lut 
Gobi 
Indus Valley Desert
Judaean Desert 
Kara Kum
Kharan desert 
Kyzyl Kum 
Lop Desert
Ordos 
Taklamakan
Thal Desert
Thar Desert 
Maranjab Desert
Negev

Carcross Desert
Chihuahua Desert
Great Basin Desert
Mojave Desert
Pumice Desert
Sonoran Desert

Atacama Desert
La Guajira Desert
Monte Desert 
Patagonian Desert
Sechura Desert 
Jalapão 

Central Desert
Gibson Desert
Great Sandy Desert
Great Victoria Desert


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...












You would be very, very wrong.  I see you're not well versed in geography either.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> I think I'd be guessing right.
> 
> 
> Kalahari Desert
> ...




















Is greater in area than almost ALL of the deserts you posted up combined.  And doesn't include the Arctic, nor Siberia, which is likewise huge, which is classified as "continental subarctic" where the average temp in winter is  -25 C.  So yes, you are incredibly, catastrophically wrong.


----------



## Crick (Mar 19, 2016)

Do you agree with your partner here that 120F is an exceedingly difficult temperature to find on this planet?  That was the original contention I was addressing. 

The whole matter is just a fucking distraction from the current local question: can any denier explain the energy balance at ToA?

Or we could actually go back to the real thread topic and ask if anyone has come up with a real confession of someone involved in falsifying temperature data.  Any takers?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 19, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



HITRAN is nothing more than a complex modeling program which needs exact measurements and understanding of the complex system to work.  WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE SYSTEM ENOUGH TO MODEL THEM CORRECTLY. This is why every single model they use today cant predict shit! In just 36 hours every single model fails and most fail before they hit 12 hours.

The alarmist drone morons in this thread couldn't tie their dam shoes whit this record.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Do you agree with your partner here that 120F is an exceedingly difficult temperature to find on this planet?  That was the original contention I was addressing.
> 
> The whole matter is just a fucking distraction from the current local question: can any denier explain the energy balance at ToA?
> 
> Or we could actually go back to the real thread topic and ask if anyone has actually come up with a real confession of someone involved in falsifying temperature data.  Any takers?











No, it's you who are trying to distract from the simple fact that long wave IR can't do what you are claiming..  Period.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



They're consistently at 120F???


----------



## Crick (Mar 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Yo, Mr atmospheric physicist.  HITRAN is not a fucking model.  It's a goddamn database.  Do you not know the difference?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


HITRAN is a computer PROGRAM you fucking moron.. That program requires a massive database of real data which is managed by inputs done by its staff which determine its outputs...  

WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICAL EARTH SYSTEMS WELL ENOUGH TO MANAGE THE DATA... thus their predictive outputs FAIL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 19, 2016)

Here Crick... from one of your own trusted sites..WIKI


> *HITRAN* - HITRAN (an acronym for *Hi*gh Resolution *Tran*smission) is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in gaseous media including the atmosphere, laboratory cells, etc. The original version was compiled by the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (1960s). HITRAN is maintained and developed at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge MA, USA.
> 
> HITRAN is the worldwide standard for calculating or simulating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance from the microwave through ultraviolet region of the spectrum.[_citation needed_] The current version contains 47 molecular species along with their most significant isotopologues. These data are archived as a multitude of high-resolution line transitions, each containing many spectral parameters required for high-resolution simulations. In addition there are about 50 molecular species collected as cross-section data. These latter include anthropogenic constituents in the atmosphere such as the chlorofluorocarbons.



You fucking moron!

The Stupid, It Burns!!!


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 19, 2016)

westwall said:


> No, it's you who are trying to distract from the simple fact that long wave IR can't do what you are claiming.. Period.



These are facts that are *NOT* disputed by the scientific community, whether they are *warmers *or *deniers*.

1. The earth is *absorbing *around *163* W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is *radiating *thermal IR energy at *391* W/sq meter

You guys have several choices:
1. I don't agree with those scientific facts.
2. I don't care what the facts are. I believe my gut.
3. Make a digression or some other distraction.
4. Make a lot of personal insults.
5. Come up with a reasonable answer.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 19, 2016)

Got to love the left who are loosing this battle..  The science disproves the AGW meme yet they continue, unabated to pronounce their propaganda..  Now includes threats to jail us.....  and even threats to kill us.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's you who are trying to distract from the simple fact that long wave IR can't do what you are claiming.. Period.
> ...



You mechanism is wrong for thermal balance, thus your numbers mean nothing.  Until you get the mechanism right the rest is pure useless running in circles, chicken little sort of thing.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's you who are trying to distract from the simple fact that long wave IR can't do what you are claiming.. Period.
> ...





Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Well the earth obviously can be any temperature at anytime if one is a warmer
> ...



Thought I just drop into this funfest without reading 20 pages.., Lemme know if I'm off-base and I'll go "study" the rest.. 

If the balance eq's were so simple, there wouldn't be a GreenHouse effect would there? The amount of IR induced heat energy in the skin of the ocean or the DIRECT surface of the Earth is trivial., It's gone 6 hours after sun-down each day. The energy "storage" is in the DEEP heatsink of the oceans and in the GreenHouse belt around the planet. 

Now what was this argument about?            Probably should go read to see what this fuss is really about..
Sorry for the interruption...


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > how can that be? you can't measure CO2 in a lab? Is that what you're saying? Who cares what the atmosphere consists of, the claim is specifically CO2. So, show us how CO2 reacts the way you state? That really doesn't seem that hard or is it? If it is, how can you make that statement. so CO2 is what, 0.04 % of the atmosphere? And when you double the amount it is what 0.06%? Come on man, you have to do better than that to make such a claim. I'm just saying.
> ...



I've heard this premise from you before -- and I'm skeptical that it gives CO2 any abnormal powers because of it's WEIGHT.  What really matters is heat Capacity --- independent of mass.

I was trying to find the numbers --- but ran across this SPECTACULAR fractured science GW propaganda from NASA/NOAA on the web that might give you a chuckle.. And thought you might need the laugh to remind yourself that chemical properties aren't always about mass..




Poor children of America. No chance to ever learn ACTUAL science from bozos with authoritarian sounding job titles.. .


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...











Wow.  That is really, really bad.  I mean really bad.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 19, 2016)

What is more paranoid than a freakazoid brainwashed fool who thinks the Earth is going to drown, starve and burn him?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure. UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocen to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet. Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.
> ...



Sure --- perfectly reasoned.. Except for a couple things. 

1) None of that SUPPORTS the GW assertion that the Oceans are eating 90% of global warming. They MAY BE eating 90% of the direct insolation -- but that's another matter. And the fact that skeptics are pointing out there is no valid mechanism to magically pick-up and deposit down-dwelling IR (or actually --  reduced losses from skin) is NOT an attempt to refute the energy balance -- but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus" or the other braindead propaganda being promulgated as "climate science"... 

2) Increased heating of that very thin skin is gonna be offset to a VERY LARGE effect by evaporation and convection. Which has a COOLING effect on that thin layer.. So it is unlikely that a DIRECT and measurable increase at 700m depth has ANYTHING to do with short balances of IR at the skin.. 

OTHERWISE -- you and Mammy are good to go..


----------



## mamooth (Mar 19, 2016)

westwall said:


> Long Wave IR, the supposed mechanism of global warming can't penetrate a single millimeter into the oceans.  Thus, all the rest of what you are posting is simply worthless.



According to Westwall here, sunlight can't warm a rock. After all, the sunlight can't even penetrate a single millimeter into the rock, therefore it is impossible for sunlight to warm a rock.

My point would be that Westwall's physics is hilariously stupid.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Here Crick... from one of your own trusted sites..WIKI
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And that link confirmed that HITRAN is a database. Just what do you think an archive of measured spectral parameters is? Everyone else knows. It's a database. The HITRAN database is then used in models. You know, like the gravitational constant G. It's used in models, but G is a measured constant, not a model itself, just like the HITRAN database entries.

So, is the problem that you have trouble reading basic English, or are you just lying by claiming HITRAN is a model?

And before you double down on "stupid" again, do note that none of the other deniers are jumping on this crazy train of yours. There's a reason for that.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 19, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> I've heard this premise from you before -- and I'm skeptical that it gives CO2 any abnormal powers because of it's WEIGHT.  What really matters is heat Capacity --- independent of mass.



No, the heat capacity of CO2 means almost nothing. Do try to read about the actual physics



> Poor children of America. No chance to ever learn ACTUAL science from bozos with authoritarian sounding job titles.. .



That video was actual science, at a grade-school level. What exactly about it sent you off on your rant about phantom authoritarians?

Now, I'd point out it's a combination of heat conduction and heat capacity that saved the water balloon, but for grade-schoolers, such a nitpick is not a big deal.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 19, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Here Crick... from one of your own trusted sites..WIKI
> ...



Ok retard....

"HITRAN is the worldwide standard for calculating or simulating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance from the microwave through ultraviolet region of the spectrum."

Its a PROGRAM YOU MORON!  The program requires a database to run... Its like talking to a rock! (my apologies for insulting the rock.  It has more intelligence than these idiots.)


----------



## mamooth (Mar 19, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> And the fact that skeptics are pointing out there is no valid mechanism to magically pick-up and deposit down-dwelling IR (or actually --  reduced losses from skin)



You can keep saying there's no mechanism, but all scientists, having directly measured the mechanism, know you're babbling nonsense.



> is NOT an attempt to refute the energy balance --



It's more an attempt to deny conservation of energy holds.

Now, you can get around that by claiming the backradiation instantly boils the ocean skin. Except it doesn't. We know that because we don't see steam constantly rising from the ocean surface.



> but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus" or the other braindead propaganda being promulgated as "climate science"...



And the conspiracy babbling. No point in going on.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Its a PROGRAM YOU MORON!  The program requires a database to run... Its like talking to a rock! (my apologies for insulting the rock.  It has more intelligence than these idiots.)



Sigh. Straight from HITRAN:

HITRANonline
---
HITRAN is an acronym for _hi_gh-resolution _tran_smission molecular absorption database
---

See the word "database" there? That means it's a database.

Billy, just admit you were wrong. Or at a minimum, just drop the topic. You're wrong, everyone  knows it, and you're making everyone cringe in sympathetic embarrassment for how stupid you look now.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Long Wave IR, the supposed mechanism of global warming can't penetrate a single millimeter into the oceans.  Thus, all the rest of what you are posting is simply worthless.
> ...












Where did I say that?  Hmm?  The point is the oceans are the heat engines of the planet.  That is a fact.  Go to the desert and you'll see what I mean.  Yes, the sun warms the rocks up real good.  And then at night they get real cold real fast.  The desert at night is not a very nice place to be.  Did you have some real world experience instead of computer derived fiction for your world view you would KNOW that.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 19, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And the fact that skeptics are pointing out there is no valid mechanism to magically pick-up and deposit down-dwelling IR (or actually --  reduced losses from skin)
> ...



Show us the mechanism...

Quantify the result and show how it happens..

You cant becasue you and they DON'T FUCKING KNOW if it is happening or not!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 19, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Its a PROGRAM YOU MORON!  The program requires a database to run... Its like talking to a rock! (my apologies for insulting the rock.  It has more intelligence than these idiots.)
> ...


You really are that fucking stupid...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


So your reply is #1: you disagree with the scientific facts that came from a NASA site.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 19, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Thought I just drop into this funfest without reading 20 pages.., Lemme know if I'm off-base and I'll go "study" the rest..
> 
> If the balance eq's were so simple, there wouldn't be a GreenHouse effect would there? The amount of IR induced heat energy in the skin of the ocean or the DIRECT surface of the Earth is trivial., It's gone 6 hours after sun-down each day. The energy "storage" is in the DEEP heatsink of the oceans and in the GreenHouse belt around the planet.
> 
> Now what was this argument about?


I completely agree with you, and yes you are off base. My point was never about IR induced heating. It will never happen. My post was about the large mismatch between what the earth is absorbing from the sun, around 163 W/sq m, and what it is radiating as IR, around 391 W/sq m. These numbers come from NASA and are accepted by all scientists, warmers, or deniers. How do you account for that mismatch where the earth is radiating more energy than it is receiving from the sun? Both warmer and denier scientists know. I'm just wondering if the people here know.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 19, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You missed the point again. I have heard time and again that since CO2 is a trace element - only 0.04% of the atmosphere, you are a stupid cult member if you believe it can affect the climate. My point was that water in the atmosphere is also a trace element which traps the heat of the earth and is widely known to affect the climate. CO2 is roughly 1/4 times the atmospheric mass as H2O.  I was not talking about the specific heat or atmospheric energy storage. I was saying that the two trace elements share the same mechanism as green house gases. And both are trace elements.

You misunderstood and thought that I was talking about *climate change* when I was only talking about *climate*.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 19, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard this premise from you before -- and I'm skeptical that it gives CO2 any abnormal powers because of it's WEIGHT.  What really matters is heat Capacity --- independent of mass.
> ...



If you have to ask how funny that GW propaganda was in terms of actual truth-telling, the joke is already on you.
Just because you put on googles doesn't mean you're "doing science".. 

Other than the fact these 2 "highly-skilled" grown govt clowns are pitching a GW fairytale that has virtually NOTHING to do with their silly fractured science experiment --- and the purpose of the tax dollars spent on this was to INDOCTRINATE them and not EDUCATE them -- I don't have a problem with them prostituting their professions "for the cause"... Idiots have to eat to --- I guess.. Burn all the rubber you want. 

I could make that water balloon burst before the water even got hot...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 19, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Sure --- perfectly reasoned.. Except for a couple things.
> 
> 1) None of that SUPPORTS the GW assertion that the Oceans are eating 90% of global warming. They MAY BE eating 90% of the direct insolation -- but that's another matter. And the fact that skeptics are pointing out there is no valid mechanism to magically pick-up and deposit down-dwelling IR (or actually -- reduced losses from skin) is NOT an attempt to refute the energy balance -- but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus" or the other braindead propaganda being promulgated as "climate science"...
> 
> ...



Sure -- perfectly reasoned. Except for a couple things.
1) I was not asserting anything about AGW nor global warming. Nor a hiatus. You are trying to read that into my mind.

2) There is absolutely zero heating of the very thin skin. The thin skin is radiating more IR energy out than it absorbs from IR back radiation. BACK RADIATION DOES NOT HEAT ANYTHING. Back radiation slows a heat loss; it does not supply heat. All scientists, warmers or deniers agree on that. The back radiation returns a significant portion of the 391 W/sq meter that the water radiates. What energy it does not return goes out as evaporation and convection.

You got the evaporation and convection right, but you didn't address the IR radiation aspect of the science. The skin is in tight thermal contact with the ocean and will never increase in temperature beyond the top water temperature.

The nature of my post was to address those who deny back radiation has a blanketing effect. I'm not sure what you believe.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Thought I just drop into this funfest without reading 20 pages.., Lemme know if I'm off-base and I'll go "study" the rest..
> ...




Ahhh.. COULD BE simple to explain..  That 391 is the flux skyward. And there is something like 333 coming back the other direction towards the ground. (I have no reason to question these figures).. For radiative transfers you just subtract. So the NET FLUX skyward is actually only 58W/m2..  That loss presumably INCLUDES some kind of averaging for diurnal states.

So the other "losses" are the convection loss (mostly daytime) and evap heat loss which is another 100W/m2.
So you ROUGHLY have a balance (if the day/night/seasonal stuff works out).. Roughly 160 W/m2 in BOTH directions.

Unless you are Dr Trenberth who pushed this chart to absurdity (and to my considerable amusement) by finding EXACTLY the 1.6W/m2 "GW imbalance" he sought to find with these "envelope calculations"..   

 

AND more hysterically funny -- he made that Global Warming APPEAR ---- without apparently any energy being sucked off and STORED in the ocean or or the land,.  (Granted you could treat all that in as it were in equilibrium -- if it wasn't for the fact that we are panicked about fractions of degree here and there).. And then 8 years later or so started the whine about the missing "GW" appearing in the deep oceans...

If it wasn't in his chart THEN --- was he wrong THEN or is he stupid now for pointing that out.....

'


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 19, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Unless you are Dr Trenberth who pushed this chart to absurdity (and to my considerable amusement) by finding EXACTLY the 1.6W/m2 "GW imbalance" he sought to find with these "envelope calculations"..
> 
> AND more hysterically funny -- he made that Global Warming APPEAR ---- without apparently any energy being sucked off and STORED in the ocean or or the land,. (Granted you could treat all that in as it were in equilibrium -- if it wasn't for the fact that we are panicked about fractions of degree here and there).. And then 8 years later or so started the whine about the missing "GW" appearing in the deep oceans...
> 
> If it wasn't in his chart THEN --- was he wrong THEN or is he stupid now for pointing that out.....


I think Trenberth's diagram has some value and a certain amount of validity, but he sure would have saved himself from a lot of mockery if he simply stated that all the values are estimates, or maybe he could have used +/- error designations. He could have stated that it was averages over a full year - land and sea, if that's what he did.  He should have also stated that the residual of around 1 W/m2 was thrown in because he believes there is an imbalance of that magnitude which causes global warming. Then both warmers and deniers would be happy about adjusting the numbers to their own satisfaction - even changing the 1 W/m2 to a negative number if someone thought there was global cooling.

But on the whole it gives an idea of magnitudes of the various energy flows, which is instructive if it's not taken too literally.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sure --- perfectly reasoned.. Except for a couple things.
> ...




This will teach me not to come to class 20 pages late and put my hand up !!!! 

You MIGHT have been asking how the Earth manages to pluck up a 390W/m2 BlackBody radiation when only RECEIVES a dose of 160W/m2 for each day !!!!! 

That's a horse of a different color. And to think I lectured you on Trenberth balance. I'm ashamed of myself.. 
If THAT'S the question -- my best answer is the Earth itself is relatively "hot property" because of the storage. 
The ground at 10 feet below the surface will hold at roughly the annual average temp. The oceans do the same kind of deal. So it's the diff between energy fluxes and POWER (or storage if you like).. 

We live above a molten core. There are other "blackbody factors" other than the atmos exchanges..


----------



## Crick (Mar 20, 2016)

So what do you believe has caused the rapid rise in warming rate since the middle of the 20th century?  When I first came here you said it was from TSI.  I haven't seen you mention that idea in quite some time.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Long Wave IR, the supposed mechanism of global warming can't penetrate a single millimeter into the oceans.  Thus, all the rest of what you are posting is simply worthless.
> ...


What ? You do know what lwir is right? I mean you act like you have for a long time in here? WTF?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> So what do you believe has caused the rapid rise in warming rate since the middle of the 20th century?  When I first came here you said it was from TSI.  I haven't seen you mention that idea in quite some time.


What warming?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Here Crick... from one of your own trusted sites..WIKI
> ...


I'm sure every model has a fkn database right? How else would they plot their expectations? Nice FAIL!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 20, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



But, but, but it cant be... AGW say its not so... it is always man made.. It must be...    /Sarc

The real problem is they (we) do not know what all the missing mechanisms are. Evidenced by the failure of all modeling, to date, to predict the future with any accuracy, outside of 12 hours.

IT's like shooting a gun, if your aiming at a target 30 feet away and you miss the center by 6 inches, when you move that target out to 300 yards you will miss it by 18 feet.  And these fools wonder why we dont believe their long term models preaching doom and gloom.  They dont have the information on how to aim the gun!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Snagletooth cant figure it out... The description, even on wiki, shows it to be a program needing variables and data input (a data base) to operate.  Its that basic, fundamental understanding of how it works, that outs it (note I said 'it') as a paid shill for the communist movement.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> So what do you believe has caused the rapid rise in warming rate since the middle of the 20th century?  When I first came here you said it was from TSI.  I haven't seen you mention that idea in quite some time.



First we must get beyond the adjustments, infilling, UHI contamination and homogenization of the rabid left to find that the rise was nothing.  Then we can talk about what the facts really are.

Until you come to terms that 95% of what you claim as rise is pure bull shit there will be no discussion on how to combat anything as we do not chase ghosts..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 20, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Again you misrepresent what I said.. I never disputed the facts you presented, I merely stated that they mean jack shit, as they can not quantify the correct mechanism, as to why they do not represent the atmospheric process.

You trying to place words in my mouth is pure fantasy left wing bull shit propagandist to the max.


----------



## Crick (Mar 20, 2016)

I'd say you were dancing as fast as you can Billy.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Again you misrepresent what I said.. I never disputed the facts you presented, I merely stated that they mean jack shit, as they can not quantify the correct mechanism, as to why they do not represent the atmospheric process.
> 
> You trying to place words in my mouth is pure fantasy left wing bull shit propagandist to the max.


OK. So you don't dispute the facts but you never answered the question:
1. The earth is *absorbing *around *163* W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is *radiating *thermal IR energy at *391* W/sq meter.

Those numbers aren't meant to quantify anything else. Now tell me exactly how you explain the discrepancy between incoming SW energy and outgoing LW radiant energy. This is not a trick question. There is a very short easy answer. I'm curious if you understand it.

Insults are not necessary in your explanation.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> I'd say you were dancing as fast as you can Billy.


Except his dance is science based and not fantasy as is yours.  So your position is of paranoia!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Again you misrepresent what I said.. I never disputed the facts you presented, I merely stated that they mean jack shit, as they can not quantify the correct mechanism, as to why they do not represent the atmospheric process.
> ...


Your answer was already posted be westwall. Did you read it or avoid it?

What is your reason?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Your answer was already posted be westwall. Did you read it or avoid it?


Westwall posted some irrelevant numbers out of the blue and never came back. Methinks westwall is avoiding the question. If you think differently, please point out his answer.



jc456 said:


> What is your reason?


It is a question for you too. I'm curious if you understand the radiant energy flow.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> So what do you believe has caused the rapid rise in warming rate since the middle of the 20th century?  When I first came here you said it was from TSI.  I haven't seen you mention that idea in quite some time.



I've NEVER tried to account for every 1/100th of degree rise that you are constantly panicking about.
My position has ALWAYS been

1a) That 1/2 or more of warming we've seen is MORE likely due to other causes than CO2 -- OR is natural variation.
1b) That the EMPIRICAL DATA supports CO2 as GH contributor ONLY to the extent of the basic physics estimates of about 1degC/doubling. No Magic Multipliers on "Climate Sensitivity", no accelerations, No boiling oceans, no IMMINENT Global crisis... 

2) The fantastical parts of GW Theory calling for runaway devastation to the Climate and carnage is pure bunk.

3) Climate science is relatively immature and has wasted it;'s time on this CO2 issue when it should have been learning how the Earth distributes, stores, and sheds heat and how the carbon cycles and water
cycles can be better monitored for changes.

4) That there exists a huge socio-political circus around what SHOULD be a CONTINUING scientific debate. That circus TAINTS the entire cult of Climate Science. And the massive propaganda campaign has more PERVERTED any real science getting done -- than advanced it.

As for solar science -- we've only got about 30 years of ACCURATE RELIABLE measurements to go on. There's been WAAAAY too much deceptive advertising on proxy studies of ALL types. Solar is one of those. But if you're looking at the FRAGILITY of our climate system --- I'd start with the sun..  Because the entire GHouse effect is FINELY tuned to some very NARROW lines of frequency (color) emission from that uncontrolled nuclear furnace in the sky,. And it's COLOR and intensity WILL AND HAVE changed over time. When you're looking for 1% differences in W/m2 -- you have to look HARDER than the TrenBerth diagram and CO2 back rad..


----------



## mamooth (Mar 20, 2016)

Solar energy varies by about 6% each year, as the earth goes from the nearest to farthest point in its elliptical orbit. And that changes climate ... not at all.

Yet, according to the flac theory, much tinier changes in solar energy received are what is driving massive climate changes.

Now, most people can correctly point out that the oceans store heat, which makes the earth's climate like a low-pass filter, so that the regular yearly cyclic variation is averaged out. But flac can't, because he's declared it's impossible for the oceans to store heat.

So, since flac is unable to explain why the earth acts like a low-pass filter, he's invoking a magical theory about the color of sunlight. There's no evidence to back up that strange claim, but that's not necessary for flac's "Have you conclusively proven it's not the case? No? Then it must be true!" brand of science.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 20, 2016)

Westwall said:
			
		

> Where did I say that?  Hmm?  The point is the oceans are the heat engines of the planet.  That is a fact.  Go to the desert and you'll see what I mean.  Yes, the sun warms the rocks up real good.  And then at night they get real cold real fast.  The desert at night is not a very nice place to be.  Did you have some real world experience instead of computer derived fiction for your world view you would KNOW that.



You said longwave IR can't warm the oceans because it doesn't penetrate deeply.

You say sunlight can warm a rock, even though it doesn't penetrate deeply.

Can you explain to us why penetration distance matters for one case, but not for the other?


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...













Thermal.............  Think about it for a skosh.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 21, 2016)

Hey, BillyBob, westwall, JC

You never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,

_1. The earth is *absorbing *around *163*W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is *radiating *thermal IR energy at *391*W/sq meter_​
It's radiating much more than than it's absorbing. How can that happen?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Solar energy varies by about 6% each year, as the earth goes from the nearest to farthest point in its elliptical orbit. And that changes climate ... not at all.
> 
> Yet, according to the flac theory, much tinier changes in solar energy received are what is driving massive climate changes.
> 
> ...



you're irrelevant squidward.. Totally useless to the cause and the discussion. There are CONSTANT  LONG TERM solar variations. NOT just yearly or 12 year solar cycles. There was a ramp up after the Maunder Minimum that went out 160 or 200 years.. Flattened out about the 1970s. ABOUT to probably go way negative AGAIN..

To deny that -- puts you in the robes of your church, and reciting dogma.. Since they IGNORE and redefine the Total Solar Irradiance to hide that fact in their holy books. But it's undeniable science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Solar energy varies by about 6% each year, as the earth goes from the nearest to farthest point in its elliptical orbit. And that changes climate ... not at all.
> 
> Yet, according to the flac theory, much tinier changes in solar energy received are what is driving massive climate changes.
> 
> ...



The AGW Cult knows that the Sun has no effect on Global Warming


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 21, 2016)

I think we're discovering where "the paranoids" live...  This thread MIGHT be right on topic..,


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Hey, BillyBob, westwall, JC
> 
> You never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,
> 
> ...












The figures you present are not known to be true at all.  They are estimates based on incomplete data sets.  If they were factual, I can guarantee you the planet would be roasting by now.  The fact that it isn't would give a thinking person pause.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Hey, BillyBob, westwall, JC
> 
> You never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,
> 
> ...


do you have actual statistics for those numbers?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Long Wave IR, the supposed mechanism of global warming can't penetrate a single millimeter into the oceans.  Thus, all the rest of what you are posting is simply worthless.
> ...


Ever touch a slab of steel that has been sitting in the sun on a 100 degree day? How many mm does the sun penetrate the steel? And where is that cooling you have been predicting all these years, Mr. Westwall?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You should know that the AGW Cult is on record saying that 93% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans and warms them down to 700 meters.

Idiotic, right?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


are you saying steel doesn't absorb heat?  holy fkn crap.  Dude, how do you supposed steel is formed? oh my word, now that is beyond stupid.  Didn't think that was at all possible and there you step out.  wow.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 21, 2016)

The subject was absortion of heat from sunlight that does not penetrate deeply into the material.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 21, 2016)

i know, and you made it seem like sun doesn't penetrate steel.  I'm just saying.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 21, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> you're irrelevant squidward.. Totally useless to the cause and the discussion.



Stings when I rip apart your pseudoscience, eh?



> There are CONSTANT  LONG TERM solar variations. NOT just yearly or 12 year solar cycles. There was a ramp up after the Maunder Minimum that went out 160 or 200 years.. Flattened out about the 1970s. ABOUT to probably go way negative AGAIN..



The acceleration in warming sent that theory of yours into the trash bin for good, being that it's exactly the opposite of what your theory predicts. 



> To deny that -- puts you in the robes of your church, and reciting dogma.. Since they IGNORE and redefine the Total Solar Irradiance to hide that fact in their holy books. But it's undeniable science.



You shouldn't have kept so loudly declaring how the oceans can't affect temperatures by storing and releasing heat. You could have used that fact to explain the constant failure of your cult's cooling prophecies, but now even that option is out, and you're left with nothing.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Hit and run...      If it's polished steel -- the heat is not far IR global warming..


mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > you're irrelevant squidward.. Totally useless to the cause and the discussion.
> ...



You have no idea what I've said. Your ass gets kicked so bad --- I'm surprised you know how to find your way back here everyday..

Never said ANYTHING even remotedly as stupud as "the ocean don't store and release heat"..  If that's your level of participation here  --- please bite me and bug off.. 

I'm nNOT the one on the defensive here. Also not the paranoid one of us two..


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 21, 2016)

westwall said:


> The figures you present are not known to be true at all. They are estimates based on incomplete data sets. If they were factual, I can guarantee you the planet would be roasting by now. The fact that it isn't would give a thinking person pause.


Roasting? Don't you mean freezing?


jc456 said:


> do you have actual statistics for those numbers?


Evasive answers.

The figures come from NASA and many other reputable scientific institutions.
The errors are much smaller than those I included below.

_1. The earth is *absorbing *around *163+/-3 *W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is *radiating *thermal IR energy at *391+/- 10 *W/sq meter
_​Both numbers have been known long before satellites. They come from well known simple measurements and computations well before AGW became an issue. They are believed by all scientists - skeptics or warmers. If you want to argue global warming you have got to know these things.
​


----------



## jc456 (Mar 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The figures you present are not known to be true at all. They are estimates based on incomplete data sets. If they were factual, I can guarantee you the planet would be roasting by now. The fact that it isn't would give a thinking person pause.
> ...


now that's special.  So you have no data to support the claim.  observed data that is.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> now that's special. So you have no data to support the claim. observed data that is.


Evasive answer. I just gave you the data!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > now that's special. So you have no data to support the claim. observed data that is.
> ...


sorry, but your link never made it to the page.  Try again.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 21, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> You have no idea what I've said. Your ass gets kicked so bad --- I'm surprised you know how to find your way back here everyday..



No, the problem seems to be that you have no idea what you've said. Maybe you meant something sensible, but what you wrote ... wasn't.



> Never said ANYTHING even remotedly as stupud as "the ocean don't store and release heat"..  If that's your level of participation here  --- please bite me and bug off..



This bit of babble is yours.



> 1) None of that SUPPORTS the GW assertion that the Oceans are eating 90% of global warming. They MAY BE eating 90% of the direct insolation -- but that's another matter. And the fact that skeptics are pointing out there is no valid mechanism to magically pick-up and deposit down-dwelling IR (or actually -- reduced losses from skin) is NOT an attempt to refute the energy balance -- but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus" or the other braindead propaganda being promulgated as "climate science"...



I can see why you're running from it now. If I had posted something that senseless, I'd also disavow it after sobering up.



> I'm NOT the one on the defensive here. Also not the paranoid one of us two..



Do let us know when you make up your mind. Can heat going in and out of the oceans affect short term climate or not?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I already gave it to you. Here it is again.


Wuwei said:


> From NASA ... Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles
> _Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.
> The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter._



As far as the earth surface emissions I will use the figure of a famous AGW denier, Alan Watts"
The Important Difference between Climatology and Climate Science
"surface T [temperature] emissions are about 391 W/m^2 average".

If you want to dig deeper, the average temperature of the earth is 15 C. The radiation from a body at that temperature is easily calculated from the Stefan Boltzman law. Here is a simple SB calculator.
Wolfram|Alpha: Computational Knowledge Engine

Look halfway down at the radiant exitance. It's 390.9 watts per sq meter, just like Watts and  I said.

So the earth is receiving 391 W and emitting 390.9 W.  There is an easy answer for this discrepancy. Can you figure it out? If you guys are into AGW you really got to know these things.


----------



## Crick (Mar 22, 2016)

Rounding?

; - )


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Rounding?
> 
> ; - )


Shhh. Don't give them bad hints. They may take you seriously.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 22, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


From your source, this doesn't happen.  And I've I continuously stated, you have no evidence to show it does.  This is the argument.

"Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it _*spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed.*_ The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect."

Just show the experiment that validates that statement.  It is what I have been asking for as well as warming increase due to adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the 280 that was in the atmosphere pre industrial age.  Post it up.  Let's see the magic.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> "Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it _*spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed.*_ The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect."


Yeaaa! you got it right!


jc456 said:


> From your source, this doesn't happen. And I've I continuously stated, you have no evidence to show it does.


Exactly what doesn't happen? Measurements (direct evidence) that the sun don't shine *163 W*? Or is it that the measurements (direct evidence) by Stefan and Boltzmann is a damn lie perpetrated by thousands, maybe millions of scientists for over 150 years? Their direct experimental evidence shows that the earth, or anything else at 15 deg C emits *391 W*. 

Which of these measurements with direct experimental evidence do you think doesn't happen?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 22, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > "Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it _*spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed.*_ The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect."
> ...


dude, I highlighted it, that the supposed back radiation is absorbed.  No evidence of it at all.  And why I argue my point.  I know I got it right.  I understand.  I also don't believe in the back radiation theory.  Sorry, no evidence to support it. I welcome any you have.

BTW, if an embalance is bad and you say that there is one today, why aren't we seeing the doom and gloom now?  I really can't figure you fools out.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I also don't believe in the back radiation theory.


All scientists believe back radiation is happening. Even the skeptics Spencer and Watts believe it. If you don't, how do you explain the mismatch in radiation between the earth and sun.


jc456 said:


> BTW, if an embalance is bad and you say that there is one today, why aren't we seeing the doom and gloom now? I really can't figure you fools out.


There is only an apparent radiation imbalance in the conundrum I presented. If you don't believe that back radiation is the answer, what do you think answers the mismatch? All scientists know there is no huge gloom and doom due to radiation imbalance, mostly because of H2O back radiation.

I have to give you credit for sticking this out. BillBob, westwall, and Frank hightailed it. SSDD hightailed it earlier too.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 22, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't believe in the back radiation theory.
> ...


Honestly, I don't trust any numbers today.  The science has been watered down so much today, I trust noone.  I definitely don't trust NASA.  They are untrust worthy.  the more I watch how they have manipulated things since they existed, I don't trust them.

Simply put, the sun rays get absorbed and then the longwave IR gets radiated upward.  In the arctic and the antarctic, that doesn't happen.  So we lose energy right there since only reflected short wave IR is headed back to space.Short wave IR CO2 does not absorb.  So, I've asked and Frank has asked where is the warmth in the world going if it is supposed to be warmer?  And the ocean didn't eat it.  Nope it never was there and why there has been a pause for almost nineteen years now.

Anyone can post up warmest evah numbers, but then the numbers are watered down.  So, I'll stick with satellite records.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 22, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The figures you present are not known to be true at all. They are estimates based on incomplete data sets. If they were factual, I can guarantee you the planet would be roasting by now. The fact that it isn't would give a thinking person pause.
> ...


If we used your numbers, we should be an ice box.. were not.  Just a cursory look into them gives thinking persons reason to doubt them.  they simply dont add up.


----------



## Crick (Mar 22, 2016)

I posted this for Crusader Frank, but it will do for you as well jc.

Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases. The study is at
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

All emphases below are mine.

_The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. *With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons.* The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2.* In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.* 
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming._

The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).






As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You have no idea what I've said. Your ass gets kicked so bad --- I'm surprised you know how to find your way back here everyday..
> ...



Did you just make up the term "short term climate" to mean WEATHER? Well yes the stored heat in the oceans affects weather AND climate, the stored heat in the blackbody of the land -- pretty much ONLY climate.  Didn't you know that? 

The issue I was addressing in my quote you pulled is part of the thrice failed fallacy of the oceans eating RECENT global warming..  Thrice failed because ---- 

1) the data being proffered as "proof" shows the oceans have been "eating warming" at the SAME RATE since about 1960... They did not suddenly start to eat MORE during the Pause or the Hiatus the clowns were desperately trying to explain.

2) Even NOAA chastizes this statement on the basis of no acknowledged mechanism to get that warmth to depth SO FAST when IR surface heating is so INEFFICIENT at the task.. 

3) The rise of heat in a massive storage pond like the oceans is BETTER explained by longer term EARLIER stimuli like the run-up in solar insolation since 1700 and increased fresh water runoff over a couple centuries. You do not raise the deeper layers of that mass on a dime and a day. 

Questions?? You following along here?? Or are you just stalking me???


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> I posted this for Crusader Frank, but it will do for you as well jc.
> 
> Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases. The study is at
> P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)
> ...


LOL....

1.  All matter emits black-body radiation. Your chart shows but 7..

2,  Because all matter emits black-body radiation, you can not quantify what is actually retarded by so called GHG's. 

What kills me is the alarmists are using 'new' names for well established process that even today we can not fully give attribution.

Without the ability to quantify precise origins you can not determine what is actually being retarded or emitted by what.

This is called cherry picking by the alarmists...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Honestly, I don't trust any numbers today. The science has been watered down so much today, I trust noone. I definitely don't trust NASA. They are untrust worthy. the more I watch how they have manipulated things since they existed, I don't trust them.
> 
> Simply put, the sun rays get absorbed and then the longwave IR gets radiated upward. In the arctic and the antarctic, that doesn't happen. So we lose energy right there since only reflected short wave IR is headed back to space.Short wave IR CO2 does not absorb. So, I've asked and Frank has asked where is the warmth in the world going if it is supposed to be warmer? And the ocean didn't eat it. Nope it never was there and why there has been a pause for almost nineteen years now.
> 
> Anyone can post up warmest evah numbers, but then the numbers are watered down. So, I'll stick with satellite records.


You do not realize that the two numbers I posted have been in the scientific literature for many decades to over 1 hundred years and have been verified and refined countless times by countless scientists and institutions.

If you don't want to accept them you have satisfied my curiosity on how deniers think. Not only do you guys deny global warming, but you deny solid science. I knew these people existed, mostly those who are creationists or young earthers - sort of like science Luddites. It was quite interesting to me to see the nature of your thought process and just how deeply anti-science you are.

Your "Simply put" assessment is quite wrong, and I see that you just can't help dragging the subject back to global warming. I have told you several times that the two numbers I posted and the conclusion has nothing directly to do with global warming. They also underlie global cooling, but you can't seem to help your self from thinking I am a die-hard advocate of AGW. I am not. I am a die-hard advocate of accurate scientific thinking.

Thanks again for satisfying my curiosity.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> If we used your numbers, we should be an ice box.. were not. Just a cursory look into them gives thinking persons reason to doubt them. they simply dont add up.


They are not my numbers. As I told JC above, you do not realize that the two numbers I posted have been in the scientific literature for many decades to over 1 hundred years and have been verified and refined countless times by countless scientists and institutions.

I would think that a cursory look at the numbers I posted would give a thinking person an incentive to dig deeper and want to check them out. And then investigate to find an explanation of why they don't add up. But I see that you are not interested as is a lot of the frequent posters on this board.

You have satisfied my curiosity on how you think too.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I don't trust any numbers today. The science has been watered down so much today, I trust noone. I definitely don't trust NASA. They are untrust worthy. the more I watch how they have manipulated things since they existed, I don't trust them.
> ...


See, this is just a perfect example of the manipulation.  Now you post these figures have been around for over a hundred years, well if so, how is it the warming is different today then 100 years ago as the warmest evah?  See, that just doesn't add up bubba. that would mean the data published showing warming is wrong.   We do know that the earth is in a cooling phase and not a warming phase.  It's what the argument is. BTW, the climate in Chicago is no different today then it was in the 70's.  Why?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> See, this is just a perfect example of the manipulation. Now you post these figures have been around for over a hundred years, well if so, how is it the warming is different today then 100 years ago as the warmest evah? See, that just doesn't add up bubba. that would mean the data published showing warming is wrong. We do know that the earth is in a cooling phase and not a warming phase. It's what the argument is. BTW, the climate in Chicago is no different today then it was in the 70's. Why?


Why??  I already said why several times. I have already said that the figures accepted by all scientists provide a background for understanding both global warming and global cooling. There is no point in me repeating the same thing if you don't understand it. There is no point in repeating it if you have such a deep distrust and deny the science behind it - science that Spencer and Watts accept. There is no point in repeating it if you continue to be paranoid and think I'm trying to fool you into accepting AGW. 

What you are proving is that you are a victim of the title of Crick's opening post, "_To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid_"


----------



## IanC (Mar 23, 2016)

I totally agree with W's question.

Until those who deny backradiation can come up with an explanation using physics to account for surface temperature being all out of proportion to solar input, then the discussion is useless. And make no mistake, the difference is huge, it is not some small quibble over measuring surface temps or solar input. It is 15C difference, more than enough to turn the Earth into a frozen ice cube.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 23, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Thrice failed because ----
> 
> 1) the data being proffered as "proof" shows the oceans have been "eating warming" at the SAME RATE since about 1960... They did not suddenly start to eat MORE during the Pause or the Hiatus the clowns were desperately trying to explain.



Contrary to that claim, the science actually says that the heat going into the oceans increased during the slight slowdown in surface warming.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Balmaseda et al (2013)
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters -  Wiley Online Library








> 2) Even NOAA chastizes this statement on the basis of no acknowledged mechanism to get that warmth to depth SO FAST when IR surface heating is so INEFFICIENT at the task.



That's rather vague. Exactly what NOAA statement are you talking about?



> 3) The rise of heat in a massive storage pond like the oceans is BETTER explained by longer term EARLIER stimuli like the run-up in solar insolation since 1700 and increased fresh water runoff over a couple centuries. You do not raise the deeper layers of that mass on a dime and a day.



The recent acceleration in measured sea level rise contradicts that theory. And "dime and a day" is your strawman.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Thrice failed because ----
> ...




Like I said --- you don't understand A WORD I say.. Because you're not not capable or not paying attention.,.,

I SAID the oceans are gobbling heat at pretty much the same RATE... Your chart is in ENERGY units. Not Power. So if the rise rate of STORAGE is pretty constant (given the fact you chose "SIMULATED" version , not the NOAA actual data version) That would imply a CONSTANT forcing function..  [[[ that's why the authors imbedded that little orange cheatsheet in the lower right corner -- so folks who KNOW what they're REALLY looking for -- would have a visual reference to a set of CONSTANT forcing numbers in W/m2]]]

Drip water into the tub at a constant RATE -- and the STORAGE increases linearly.. Storage ( in some fashion) will apply an INTEGRAL to the forcing function..  In other words to see the effect of the GW forcing function -- you have to IGNORE the linear rise in that chart and look at the higher derivatives of that curve.

UNFORTUNATELY -- the Balsameda-Trenberth SIMULATED re-analysis has a bunch of phony simulation artifacts in it that the NOAA charts do not. This makes it difficult to see when and if the FORCING RATE actually changed. But I'm not wasting time with THAT discussion again either.

Suffice it to say that in the NOAA REAL data -- The only IMPORTANT change in the slope of that graph is the SLOWDOWN on the rate of eating heat that you see at the VERY END of the Trenberth version.. From 2004 and on out --- whilst the PAUSE --- was still raging..

They ASSUME folks are that stupid when the activists make those sweeping claims that they've identified "where the missing heat went"... And of course -- with fan boys like you --- they would be right.

Wake me up when the FULL version of that fantastical paper gets written.. I've noticed that "excuse" has pretty much fallen short of it's immediate propaganda value and has apparently been ditched.

I didn't really even read the rest of your post. Not much sense -- is there???


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2016)

You're missing a point.  The forcing function pushing energy into the oceans has not risen dramatically over that time period - though it HAS risen - it is where that energy is being stored.  The increase in deeper waters is at a much higher rate than that in shallow waters.  That can be explained by changes in circulation driven by changes in wind patterns.  No magic required.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> So what do you believe has caused the rapid rise in warming rate since the middle of the 20th century?  When I first came here you said it was from TSI.  I haven't seen you mention that idea in quite some time.




The rapid rise in the warming rate is the result of data manipulation....nothing more....nothing less.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 24, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Solar energy varies by about 6% each year, as the earth goes from the nearest to farthest point in its elliptical orbit. And that changes climate ... not at all.
> ...



And they (climate science) haven't even begun to consider the huge variables in specific wavelengths coming in from the sun and what effects those individual wavelength fluctuations may have on short and long term climate....they look at incoming radiation from the sun in the same way as they look at the average global temperature....both are meaningless to anyone except those pandering to politicians for grant $$


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2016)

Magnitude of long term solar variations





1360 to 1362.  Enormous.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 24, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I posted this for Crusader Frank, but it will do for you as well jc.
> ...


Damn, Silly Billy, that is a graph of absorption spectra, not emission. I think what is 'retarded' here is you. LOL


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Like I said --- you don't understand A WORD I say.. Because you're not not capable or not paying attention.



Don't blame others for your inability to write coherently.



> I SAID the oceans are gobbling heat at pretty much the same RATE... Your chart is in ENERGY units. Not Power. So if the rise rate of STORAGE is pretty constant (given the fact you chose "SIMULATED" version , not the NOAA actual data version) That would imply a CONSTANT forcing function..  [[[ that's why the authors imbedded that little orange cheatsheet in the lower right corner -- so folks who KNOW what they're REALLY looking for -- would have a visual reference to a set of CONSTANT forcing numbers in W/m2]]]
> 
> Drip water into the tub at a constant RATE -- and the STORAGE increases linearly.. Storage ( in some fashion) will apply an INTEGRAL to the forcing function..  In other words to see the effect of the GW forcing function -- you have to IGNORE the linear rise in that chart and look at the higher derivatives of that curve.



Excellent, Captain Obvious. You've managed to figure out that the slope of the power curve gives rate. I probably should have taken care to explain that more carefully. I had assumed that people were smart, and would instantly look at the slope to see how the rate of ocean energy absorption was up during the slight slowdown. But it probably didn't matter. When you want an excuse to evade, nothing is going to stop you.



> UNFORTUNATELY -- the Balsameda-Trenberth SIMULATED re-analysis has a bunch of phony simulation artifacts in it that the NOAA charts do not. This makes it difficult to see when and if the FORCING RATE actually changed. But I'm not wasting time with THAT discussion again either.



Of course you won't. It's science that contradicts your claims, hence it's given you'll auto-declare it's fraudulent.



> Suffice it to say that in the NOAA REAL data -- The only IMPORTANT change in the slope of that graph is the SLOWDOWN on the rate of eating heat that you see at the VERY END of the Trenberth version.. From 2004 and on out --- whilst the PAUSE --- was still raging..



Let's see what NOAA actually says.

Ocean warming doubles in recent decades
---
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists, working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades.
---

So, your theory goes boom, again. A systems response to a sort-of step function requires that most of the heat uptake happen shortly after the beginning of the step function, and then that the rate of uptake decays away as the new equilibrium is approached. That's absolutely not happening. The rate of heat uptake is increasing. Hence, your theory fails. Nice try, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you.



> They ASSUME folks are that stupid when the activists make those sweeping claims that they've identified "where the missing heat went"... And of course -- with fan boys like you --- they would be right.
> 
> Wake me up when the FULL version of that fantastical paper gets written.. I've noticed that "excuse" has pretty much fallen short of it's immediate propaganda value and has apparently been ditched.
> 
> I didn't really even read the rest of your post. Not much sense -- is there???



Not for you, being any actual science would confuse you mightily.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



The AGWCult has already determined the Sun has no input or influence on our climate


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> You're missing a point.  The forcing function pushing energy into the oceans has not risen dramatically over that time period - though it HAS risen - it is where that energy is being stored.  The increase in deeper waters is at a much higher rate than that in shallow waters.  That can be explained by changes in circulation driven by changes in wind patterns.  No magic required.



Hilarious!

Atmospheric CO2 is driving heat down deep into the oceans.  You should be a sit com


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Magnitude of long term solar variations
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Enormous is relative when you're looking to explain only about 3.2W/m2 of "global warning"..    Aint it??


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 24, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said --- you don't understand A WORD I say.. Because you're not not capable or not paying attention.
> ...




Well there ya go.. You still don't understand the storage (energy) relationship or you wouldn't haven';t have posted that propaganda piece for the masses from NOAA....

Because EVEN IF the forcing function (from GW or elsewhere) had NEVER CHANGED or varied slightly around a central rate  ----  "working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades."   ---- doesn't say SHIT about how the forcing function VARIED...

The Balsmeda-Trenberth "re-analysis" threw all kinds of preconceived artifacts into that curve that can not and SHOULD NOT be seen in the rawer data.

For instance -- I've gotten 4 papers SINCE this fairytale asserting you never SEE VOLCANIC signatures at 700meters under the sea.. But BTK told the simulator to toss those in. They also told the simulator to key on CO2 levels as a proxy for surface temperatures. ALL of those "increased rates" that they discovered "are preconceived and CREATED" to show rate adjustments in storage that are just not there --- And NOT SUPPOSED to be there.

THATs the reason -- there hasn't been a DOZEN follow-up papers on this stinky herring..,


Is it getting warmer or not? If it IS -- the forcing function should make that STORAGE go very non-linear..  (After VERY long expected delays for mixing and storage to depth.)

It could "double since 1865" *without ANY changes to the forcing function,.*. Depending on where you normalize the data and take the doubling..  They INDUCED higher rates to make that claim. . 

When you look at less "simulated", clearer  NOAA data --- that rise since 1865 and it's recent flattening is FAR MORE compatible with the expected delayed reaction to the solar insolation change since mid 18th century,....


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 24, 2016)

And no -- I'm not bluffing about the "induced" transient rates that you see in BTK..

Here is the 700m depth chart from NOAA with ACTUAL data...







*Where are MASSIVE "rate changes" over the last 2 decades SquidWard????

Lemme be BLATANT HERE.. . Here is the comparison to BTK.. .






THe ONLY REASON there are accelerated rates in the BTK "re-analyzed" data is because they TOLD the simulator that VOLCANIC effects were over-emphasized.. The simulator dutifully DEPRESSED the heat content for those events -- and then had to OVERCOMPENSATE with higher recovery rates to get back to the ACTUAL data.. 

It's fraud..  There I said it... That's where the "massive rate changes" came from.. It was so amusing to BTK that they decided to propagandize the finding with a "mini-paper" and MASSIVE PR press releases.....
*
We've been here before Squidward.. And you lost your superheroes then too.. I'm not paranoid -- I'm MAD.... 
*


*


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing a point.  The forcing function pushing energy into the oceans has not risen dramatically over that time period - though it HAS risen - it is where that energy is being stored.  The increase in deeper waters is at a much higher rate than that in shallow waters.  That can be explained by changes in circulation driven by changes in wind patterns.  No magic required.
> ...



There is an emerging consensus in the scientific community, based on highly accurate models which experimental evidence will one day validate, that increasing atmospheric CO2 has no choice other than to force heat down into the depths of the ocean (which should be provable, but for now just take it on faith). 

It does so by some mechanism which has yet to be identified.  But faith, afterall, is evidence of things not seen, and -- MODELS!


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So what do you believe has caused the rapid rise in warming rate since the middle of the 20th century?  When I first came here you said it was from TSI.  I haven't seen you mention that idea in quite some time.
> ...



It definitely is for OHeatContent. There's no real increase in the rise rate during the period where we have acceptable GLOBAL data. 

There's not even changes in the atmos/surface RATES worth attributing to the GW theory that predicts ACCELERATED warming.. Whether the data is manipulated or not..


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Well there ya go.. You still don't understand the storage (energy) relationship or you wouldn't haven';t have posted that propaganda piece for the masses from NOAA....



The usual. It disagrees with you, therefore it's a fraud. This grows old.



> Because EVEN IF the forcing function (from GW or elsewhere) had NEVER CHANGED or varied slightly around a central rate  ----  "working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades."   ---- doesn't say SHIT about how the forcing function VARIED...



"Forcing function" seems to be your current favorite technobabble term. You invoke it constantly, but you never state what it actually is. You really need to plot this forcing function of yours for us.



> The Balsmeda-Trenberth "re-analysis" threw all kinds of preconceived artifacts into that curve that can not and SHOULD NOT be seen in the rawer data.
> 
> For instance -- I've gotten 4 papers SINCE this fairytale asserting you never SEE VOLCANIC signatures at 700meters under the sea.. But BTK told the simulator to toss those in. They also told the simulator to key on CO2 levels as a proxy for surface temperatures. ALL of those "increased rates" that they discovered "are preconceived and CREATED" to show rate adjustments in storage that are just not there --- And NOT SUPPOSED to be there.
> 
> THATs the reason -- there hasn't been a DOZEN follow-up papers on this stinky herring..,



What else did the voices/WUWT tell you?



> Is it getting warmer or not? If it IS -- the forcing function should make that STORAGE go very non-linear..  (After VERY long expected delays for mixing and storage to depth.)



Because heat can magically hide. Oh wait, it can't.



> It could "double since 1865" *without ANY changes to the forcing function,.*. Depending on where you normalize the data and take the doubling..  They INDUCED higher rates to make that claim.
> 
> When you look at less "simulated", clearer  NOAA data --- that rise since 1865 and it's recent flattening is FAR MORE compatible with the expected delayed reaction to the solar insolation change since mid 18th century,....



If the forcing was the same, the heat increase would have to steadily decrease, as the oceans warmed and started radiating away more heat. At least in the real world, where heat can't magically hide for a century and then pop up and say "Hello!", that's how it works. Your theory invokes magic, hence why it's ignored.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> And no -- I'm not bluffing about the "induced" transient rates that you see in BTK..
> 
> Here is the 700m depth chart from NOAA with ACTUAL data...
> 
> ...



The trend line is clearly steeper during the warming slowdown.

You're just not very good at this at all, as demonstrated by you missing something that simple.

*



			It's fraud..  There I said it...
		
Click to expand...

*
You being incompetent does not lead to a conclusion of fraud on the part of others.

Alas, Dunning-Kruger. You won't be able to understand you're incompetent. So you're in deep with the "the whole planet is wrong, but I, a mere amatuer, know the real truth, because I read a conspiracy blog. And if anyone doesn't believe that, it proves they're part of the conspiracy as well."

Good luck with that. What makes you think it will work any better in the future?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 24, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Well there ya go.. You still don't understand the storage (energy) relationship or you wouldn't haven';t have posted that propaganda piece for the masses from NOAA....
> ...



You might actually be GETTING something out this hobby of yours. 

The "forcing function" is the POWER being applied,. Power X time = energy... That';s how "excess heat" in W/m2  goes into storage as JOULES. So if the GW W/m2 were the forcing function for this storage, and it was INCREASING --- the storage curve would have higher order terms in addition to just a linear rise. 

*After all -- the screaming is all about the projected downward POWER from CO2 isn't it? And isn't it supposed to be INCREASING?? *

Storage at 700m actually DOES "pop-up and SAY HELLO".. That's what AMO/PDO/ENSO is all about -- isn't it?  Trenberth described ENSO as "the ocean's thermal safety valve"..


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 24, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And no -- I'm not bluffing about the "induced" transient rates that you see in BTK..
> ...



No it doesn't Squiddly.. The storage damn near STOPPED from 2005 to about 2011.. Who can't read a graph?

And who expects that heat at 700m would NOT have a DELAY in it wrt the forcing function of at least several years???     

The only real rate increase in that graph is from about 2011 to 2015 - where the rate returns to essentially what it was in the 1990s.. And that's partly because of NOAAs change in RECORDING sea water temperatures. 

My God -- you are a paranoid denier -- aint'cha?  With your Dunning-Kruger skit and ad homs. Have some CONFIDENCE in your position nidget...


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2016)

> You might actually be GETTING something out this hobby of yours.
> 
> The "forcing function" is the POWER being applied,. Power X time = energy... That';s how "excess heat" in W/m2  goes into storage as JOULES. So if the GW W/m2 were the forcing function for this storage, and it was INCREASING --- the storage curve would have higher order terms in addition to just a linear rise.
> 
> ...



Okay, I give up. It's getting too strange for me to translate.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 24, 2016)

mamooth said:


> > You might actually be GETTING something out this hobby of yours.
> >
> > The "forcing function" is the POWER being applied,. Power X time = energy... That';s how "excess heat" in W/m2  goes into storage as JOULES. So if the GW W/m2 were the forcing function for this storage, and it was INCREASING --- the storage curve would have higher order terms in addition to just a linear rise.
> >
> ...



Whatzdaprob Squiddly.. Don't know that heat "just Pops up and says Hello" during ocean cycles? Or you can't tell me if the principle GW forcing function is getting larger??


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 24, 2016)

Hint ---- do a search on Global Warming Forcing Function... See what pops up... That's how adults discuss Global Warming..


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> And no -- I'm not bluffing about the "induced" transient rates that you see in BTK..
> 
> Here is the 700m depth chart from NOAA with ACTUAL data...
> 
> ...



Abut 1986-7, right where BTK turns as well.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 24, 2016)

So a tiny poof of CO2 in the atmosphere is driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean.

You can say that with a straight face and not crack up over how obviously stupid and false it is?


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2016)

Who do you believe has said such a thing?

I think those of us on the mainstream science side can say that the world is getting warmer and it is doing so in response primarily to human GHG emissions.  Some combination of natural cycles and changes in the Earth's climate have caused a large amount of warm surface water to be subducted deeper than  is typical.

That's what I can say.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Who do you believe has said such a thing?
> 
> I think those of us on the mainstream science side can say that the world is getting warmer and it is doing so in response primarily to human GHG emissions.  Some combination of natural cycles and changes in the Earth's climate have caused a large amount of warm surface water to be subducted deeper than  is typical.
> 
> That's what I can say.



LOL @ "mainstream science"

Science has skepticism and lab work, you have neither


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And no -- I'm not bluffing about the "induced" transient rates that you see in BTK..
> ...



And just how does that fit  the outrageous claim that the OCEANS are responsible for the pause from 2000 to 2014??? That they suddenly started to consume energy at a higher rate therefore REMOVING it from the atmos exchange??? 

If they started eating heat in 1985 -- there was a 15 year delayed effect on the surface temps but they STOPPED eating heat during the middle of the "pause" in 2005? Spare me the fairytale explanations for why that happened. 

If this effect at 700m is from GW and it's been getting HOTTER at the surface --- that curve should look more like a parabola than a line..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Tell me moron, if matter receives the wave length what does the molecule emit?  What other items NOT LISTED emit within the same range? 

You see morons like you and crick dont understand the spectral emissions and what they can and can not cause.

Silly old crock... it went right over your dam head..


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me moron, if matter receives the wave length what does the molecule emit? What other items NOT LISTED emit within the same range?
> 
> You see morons like you and crick dont understand the spectral emissions and what they can and can not cause.
> 
> Silly old crock... it went right over your dam head


BillyBob, you can't explain your point if it is mostly empty bluster. If you don't think all the GHGs were listed, just say what you think they are. You are referring to "the wave length" and "the molecule". The word "the" is a definite article and refers to something specific. Please say what specific wave length and molecule you are referring to.

"Retarded" is not used in radiation physics. If you are inventing new terms define them. Rather than simply calling someone a "moron" about spectral emissions, just state what you think spectral emissions "can and can not cause". When you type vague sentences with mostly bluster, people will assume you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So a tiny poof of CO2 in the atmosphere is driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean.
> 
> You can say that with a straight face and not crack up over how obviously stupid and false it is?


I agree if someone is saying that, it is stupid and false. But I haven't seen any serious person say that CO2 is driving heat deep into the ocean. At least I hope the more scientifically minded aren't. 

Every scientist, denier or warmer, believes it is mostly visible wave lengths, UV, etc that penetrate and provide heat deep in the ocean. What the GHGs do is to cut down the amount of heat escaping via IR radiation from the ocean surface to space.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 25, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> And just how does that fit  the outrageous claim that the OCEANS are responsible for the pause from 2000 to 2014??? That they suddenly started to consume energy at a higher rate therefore REMOVING it from the atmos exchange??



People who understand the science will point out that the oceans don't "consume energy at a higher rate". That's entirely your strawman, so nobody else cares about it.

The oceans are absorbing nearly the same amount of energy each year. There is a slowly increasing trend there from increasing backradiation, but that trend isn't significant over a few years. What can change a lot from year to year is how much heat the oceans release back into the atmosphere. The oceans always heat the atmosphere, and small differences in how much heat is transferred have significant effects on air temperature trends.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 25, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So a tiny poof of CO2 in the atmosphere is driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean.
> ...



Stupid and false is what this "excuse" for the surface temperature hiatus was all about. Knowing that the IPCC was gonna acknowledge and address "the pause" in their upcoming report -- BTK (trenberth ocean heating paper) RUSHED a "mini paper" (actually a letter form submission) to the publisher with their fractured "re-analysis" of deep heating ocean.. Phony artifacts and all to make the claim that they "found" ACCELERATIONS in the rates of ocean heating just prior to the "pause". Like in the previous couple decades. Those accelerations are not IN the NOAA "rawer" version of deep ocean heating.  This EXCUSE got VERY WIDE coverage in the media -- thanks to the activist team of authors and their syncophants. Like ----- 

The relentless increase of ocean heat

[[Judith Curry summarizes the TORRENT of propaganda about the Oceans "eating the global warming heat" during the "non-existent pause" by quoting Joe Romm quoting the nutcase Dana Nuticelli from skepshitscience... ]]

Let me extract the key points and figures. Back in July, scientist Dana Nuccitelli summarized a new study, “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content“:

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

****************************************
*
Go back a page and look at the NOAA version of ocean heating to 700m.. There WAS a positive and fairly CONSTANT run-up in ocean heating prior to "the pause".. I acknowledge that delays are expected in a system so vast -- so it's PLAUSIBLE that the oceans ate some heat. AND MAYBE had a delayed effect on surface temperatures. Even WITHOUT the mania of Trenberths' self-injected re-analysis biases and artifacts which were intended to give the impression that these effects were exactly CONCURRENT with the pause. 

But here's the importance of this battle over the excuse.. 

1) We have no credible sufficient data to see if that run-up from the 1970s was UNIQUE in any way or what the immediate prior rates were to the detail needed to find a "global warming" signature at 700m.. 

2) If it WAS a very delayed effect on absorbing and storing heat -- the likely mechanism was that the ocean appetite got stimulated not by GH radiative imbalance -- but with a combo of that with direct solar insolation which was the actual "meal" consumed.. 

If the 2nd point is true -- then there might exist a HUGE NEGATIVE feedback on greenhouse warming that would wreck havoc with the folklore of accelerated, irreversible, run away GW.. That thing we were told is CERTAIN if certain trigger temps are met. 

All I know -- is that the public was fed a huge dose of propaganda and BS from the SAME HANDFUL of activist scientists hiding out in lab coats with high credentials..


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 25, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And just how does that fit  the outrageous claim that the OCEANS are responsible for the pause from 2000 to 2014??? That they suddenly started to consume energy at a higher rate therefore REMOVING it from the atmos exchange??
> ...



You don't even know what you posted a day ago ---- do you? What did your heroes at NOAA assert that you posted a couple pages back?? You're a waste of time -- actually...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 25, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And just how does that fit  the outrageous claim that the OCEANS are responsible for the pause from 2000 to 2014??? That they suddenly started to consume energy at a higher rate therefore REMOVING it from the atmos exchange??
> ...



You keep using the word "Science" yet you never produce any lab work, as if we're supposed to accept your "theory" on faith


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"Labwork" at this level UncleFrank -- would look a lot like the effort put into the Cern Hadron accelerator. It's NOT reproducible in the lab without having a world size lab.   You're just gonna have to be content with speculations and extrapolations of known physical and chemical properties..   That's the bottom line..

Or until I get funding to make my "GW warmer" chiller tank and get Mammy, Crick and OldyRocks to volunteer..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 25, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I think they said you need a lab the size of the solar system. There are far too many variables in the process, so it's impossible to replicate the _exact _conditions under which a puff of CO2 will FORCE heat deep deep into the ocean


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You are reading way more into my simple post than I intended. I was not concerned with "missing heat", the "pause", or any controversial subject. I am a stickler for understanding the correct mechanism for *climate*. *Period*. *Not climate change*.

A lot of the kids on this forum have the impression that scientists think back radiation HEATS the ocean. It does not do that. The ocean is already hot from LW radiation. As I said in my post, back radiation prevents the ocean from loosing so much heat at the very top skin, as it would if there were no GHGs.

I was referring to Frank's phrasing of CO2 "_driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean_". It would be more correct to say that GHG's prevent "_gobs of heat from radiating out of the ocean._" I guess the point is too subtle for most.

Furthermore his "tiny poof" of CO2 has 1/4 of the mass of H2O vapor. They are both tiny poofs if that is the way people want to think. The amount of CO2 is not trivial compared to H2O.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2016)

Frank, you never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,

_1. The earth is *absorbing *around *163*W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is *radiating *thermal IR energy at *391*W/sq meter_

It's radiating much more than than it's absorbing. How can that happen?
Both numbers have been measured empirically countless times by countless scientists and institutions.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 25, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I was making certain that you knew that MORE THAN KIDS are making that claim... That is was a planned excuse from TOP Govt scientists that planted that claim on the front page of newspapers and science journals.  

That heat storage is real.. And we have some measurements. WHERE it came from is vitally important to the whole premise of GW theory. And to allow Trenberth to claim it as a GW consequence is not right. When in reality --- it probably is a NEGATIVE feedback on the whole "run-away heating" claim from OTHER mechanisms. And the activist jerk with the credentials and the lab coat FAILED to account for it in his own epic "power diagram".  How could "climate science" miss and ignore a Power component in the GHouse accounting that large and significant for so long and then falsely claim it as a CONSEQUENCE of down-dwelling IR??? 

90% of the "excess heat" into the oceans?? What took the jerks so long to figure that out???


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 25, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Frank, you never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,
> 
> _1. The earth is *absorbing *around *163*W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
> 2. The earth is *radiating *thermal IR energy at *391*W/sq meter_
> ...



We're in the same boat, for the past decade I've been asking for an experiment controlling for a poof of CO2 and all I get back is evasion and squid ink


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> I was making certain that you knew that MORE THAN KIDS are making that claim... That is was a planned excuse from TOP Govt scientists that planted that claim on the front page of newspapers and science journals.
> 
> That heat storage is real.. And we have some measurements. WHERE it came from is vitally important to the whole premise of GW theory. And to allow Trenberth to claim it as a GW consequence is not right. When in reality --- it probably is a NEGATIVE feedback on the whole "run-away heating" claim from OTHER mechanisms. And the activist jerk with the credentials and the lab coat FAILED to account for it in his own epic "power diagram". How could "climate science" miss and ignore a Power component in the GHouse accounting that large and significant for so long and then falsely claim it as a CONSEQUENCE of down-dwelling IR???
> 
> 90% of the "excess heat" into the oceans?? What took the jerks so long to figure that out???


It's hard for me to believe that those scientists missed understanding that the ocean is an important part of the global energy budget. Also what is fundamentally important are the deep ocean and high air currents, major mechanisms for distributing heat. I generally don't keep up with what the IPCC is doing. I see too much fundamental misunderstandings at a general level, let alone all the gotcha charts and graphs that people dig up to plaster each others faces with.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, you never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,
> ...


It seems to me that you are the one trying to evade a fundamental fact of climate. If you don't understand the IR radiation properties you don't understand anything about climate.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 25, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I was making certain that you knew that MORE THAN KIDS are making that claim... That is was a planned excuse from TOP Govt scientists that planted that claim on the front page of newspapers and science journals.
> ...




It's only been since 2013 or so that I've seen headline papers in the field ADMITTING that there are significant delays in the climate system that would better explain the contributions of solar insolation deltas to equilibrium and the movement of heat from equator to pole. And virtually ignoring the storage in the system.  Prior to that time, every factor that could not IMMEDIATELY affect the thermal equilibrium of the system was systematically rejected. IPCC is still doing that by comparing the immediate solar values to current temperature anomalies. It's a wonder to me that ANY simulations would perform reasonably with those kind of rudimentary expectations..* If it wasn't a direct correlation to the CO2 curve or "look like" the temp anomaly chart  -- it was ridiculed and dismissed*. Been the M.O. of the IPCC since their inception..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 25, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me moron, if matter receives the wave length what does the molecule emit? What other items NOT LISTED emit within the same range?
> ...


Matter (molecules) emit what they receive at roughly the same wave length.  OTHER items emit at this same wavelength which are NOT GHG's.  You cant define what the GHG's actually do until you define what the other sources of the wave length are and how much they emit.

This is the reason that all current CO2 forcing estimates are wrong. In the past they have over and over again reduced the "forcing" effect of CO2.  Now they are seeing the net forcing as negative (in other words even the base line warming shown in the lab is to high)

Currently we are seeing only about 0.6 deg C rise per doubling... 1/2 of what is expected.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, you never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,
> ...



I think those numbers are good UncleFrank.  The poster is asking what number is missing that keeps you from turning into an instant popsicle?  The sun warms that much. The Earth is bleeding off more than twice that amount. ..  Why are we still here?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 25, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Frank, you never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,
> 
> _1. The earth is *absorbing *around *163*W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
> 2. The earth is *radiating *thermal IR energy at *391*W/sq meter_
> ...


You can not have  A negative imbalance and not be cooling. So what have they missed?   And these are supposed to be professionals...  so they just make up things?  Where is their extra energy coming from?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 25, 2016)

The Earth's energy balance

6, 1 December 2015, Pages 195–203




Invited critical review

*The Earth's energy balance*

Graeme L. Stephensa, b, , 
Tristan L'Ecuyerc

Check access


Purchase $35.95






doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2015.06.024
Get rights and content


*Abstract*
This paper reviews the status of our understanding of the Earth's annual, global mean energy balance, the hemispheric energy balances and the symmetry observed about the equator, and explores the influence of latitudinal changes of energy both on the annual mean and seasonal transports of energy from low latitudes to higher latitudes. Based on the best available information we show that our planet continues to be out of balance with additional heat being added to it at the rate of 0.6 ± 0.4 Wm− 2. This heat appears to be taken up primarily by the oceans of the SH and perhaps mostly equatorward of 37 S. The nature of the adjustments applied to our best estimates of individual, annual mean fluxes of energy to produce a balance are described and the results of applying a more formal constraint for these adjustments are discussed. The energy balances of the Southern and Northern Hemispheres are then shown to be practically identical which in turn suggests the transport of energy across the equator in the net is close to zero. In fact the hemispheres are not identically symmetrical with the SH being slightly out of balance absorbing the additional heat and transporting a small amount of net heat across the equator to the balanced NH. The symmetry in absorbed solar and the near symmetry in OLR are remarkable in their own right and are a result of the effects of clouds both on solar reflection and OLR that act to offset land–ocean interhemispheric differences. We then demonstrate important interhemispheric seasonal influences on the heat transported to the winter pole that conspire to make these seasonal transports lopsided. This asymmetry is a direct result of the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit that induces larger energy losses from the southern winter hemisphere. This in turn produces a latitudinal asymmetry in the location of on the tropical trough zone, a region from which energy is always moved to the winter pole, requiring it be located deeper into the NH.

*Looks as if the scientists are not ignoring it at all.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 25, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You are on the right course here. But the 1st doubling since the Industrial Age isn't even done yet. Probably WILL be just over 1degC.. Which BTW  -- as you say -- the empirical accurate modern measurements of temp confirm.

Even if it EXCEEDED that amount because of additive natural variations over that time frame ---- the basic physics/chemical calculations of 1degC/doubling that we started with ----  are not the CRISIS that has been declared by the GW circus..

But we pretty much know the spectral (frequency) emission/absorption properties of all the atmos constituents. What we DON'T KNOW accurately is the spectral variance of that big nuclear furnace in the sky. Can only ACCURATELY see that from space. And we've only been measuring that for about 30 years. Those matter bands of frequencies are narrowly tuned in a LOT of cases and a shift in the solar frequency distribution could easily cause a W/m2 or two of difference thru the atmos..


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> It's only been since 2013 or so that I've seen headline papers in the field ADMITTING that there are significant delays in the climate system that would better explain the contributions of solar insolation deltas to equilibrium and the movement of heat from equator to pole. And virtually ignoring the storage in the system. Prior to that time, every factor that could not IMMEDIATELY affect the thermal equilibrium of the system was systematically rejected. IPCC is still doing that by comparing the immediate solar values to current temperature anomalies. It's a wonder to me that ANY simulations would perform reasonably with those kind of rudimentary expectations..* If it wasn't a direct correlation to the CO2 curve or "look like" the temp anomaly chart -- it was ridiculed and dismissed*. Been the M.O. of the IPCC since their inception..


One of the most obvious phase shifts between forcing and effect is the seasons. Although the winter solstice is around Dec 22 the increasingly longer days of sunshine following that should make the earth start to get warmer. But no, the cold part of winter is in Jan and Feb.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 25, 2016)

*http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html*

*An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations*

Graeme L. Stephens,
Juilin Li,
Martin Wild,
Carol Anne Clayson,
Norman Loeb,
Seiji Kato,
Tristan L'Ecuyer,
Paul W. Stackhouse Jr,
Matthew Lebsock
& Timothy Andrews

Affiliations
Corresponding author
Nature Geoscience

5,

691–696

(2012)

doi:10.1038/ngeo1580
Received

08 November 2011 
Accepted

13 August 2012 
Published online

23 September 2012
Citation

Reprints

Rights & permissions

Article metrics
*Abstract*

Abstract• 
References• 
Author information• 
Supplementary information

Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance. At the top of the atmosphere, this balance is monitored globally by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from Earth. By contrast, observations at the surface are limited mostly to land areas. As a result, the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth's surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain. This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth's climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In light of compilations of up-to-date surface and satellite data, the surface energy balance needs to be revised. Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm−2, than earlier model-based estimates. Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface.

*Yes, we have much yet to learn. However, many here would shut down any research on the subject, simply because they know the results would show that we are increasing the heat on this planet.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The Earth's energy balance
> 
> 6, 1 December 2015, Pages 195–203
> 
> ...



Ooowwwweee.. A NEW Energy Diagram. It's about time !!! Think THESE folks show the amount going into ocean storage???


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Matter (molecules) emit what they receive at roughly the same wave length. OTHER items emit at this same wavelength which are NOT GHG's. You cant define what the GHG's actually do until you define what the other sources of the wave length are and how much they emit.


The spectra of all gases are well known. Otherwise the IR from the earth is a broad band given by the black body curve. Practically everything on earth has an emissivity above 0.95 so that emission is very close to the textbook BB curve.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 25, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


So, we are nowhere near doubling, yet we have already hit 0.9 degrees above the pre-industrial average. How do you square that with only 1 degree for a doubling?

2015 is warmest year on record, NOAA and NASA say - CNN.com

While it wasn't necessarily a surprise that 2015 finished in first place, its margin of victory was startling -- it lapped the field, with the average temperature across the entire planet 1.62˚F (0.90˚C) above the 20th century average, more than 20% higher than the previous highest departure from average.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Now even El Niño is man made... How disingenuous can you be? Lying about this is not going to help you or your cause..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html*
> 
> *An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations*
> 
> ...



You guys are the retards that think the science is settled..


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> You can not have A negative imbalance and not be cooling.


Right.


Billy_Bob said:


> So what have they missed?


No, the question is what you missed.


Billy_Bob said:


> And these are supposed to be professionals... so they just make up things? Where is their extra energy coming from?


The professionals did not miss anything. Technically it is a sort of virtual extra energy. All scientists believe the GHG's backscatter prevents that large earth radiation from being large. In short you have to believe in back radiation in order to understand the apparent energy imbalance. You have previously stated that you don't believe in back radiation, if you still disbelieve, you will have to be the one to "just make up things".


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Simple -- the observed variance is not ALL from CO2 doubling..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 25, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You can not have A negative imbalance and not be cooling.
> ...


All matter radiates IR in all directions..  I have never stated that it does not. The calculations which are being used to identify man's contribution are what is in question. We cant even quantify the amount or source of it and the downward spiral of "forcing" numbers show that we do not. 

There are also other factors which emit IR as lower wave lengths after cooling of the molecule occurs (emission wave length is dependent on the temperature of the molecule).

Take water vapor for instance, the biggest GHG on the planet, emits in 6 different wave length bands.  Part of the spectral imbalance is due to cooling and a differing wave length being created. This is where they miss the boat so to speak.


----------



## Crick (Mar 26, 2016)

Evans et al 2006 quantifies backradiation by direct measurement and identifies its sources


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 26, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> All matter radiates IR in all directions.. I have never stated that it does not. The calculations which are being used to identify man's contribution are what is in question. We cant even quantify the amount or source of it and the downward spiral of "forcing" numbers show that we do not.


Yes, IR in all directions. You are one step ahead of SSDD and others who don't believe that. As far as quantification, Crick in his previous post has a better handle on that than I do.


Billy_Bob said:


> There are also other factors which emit IR as lower wave lengths after cooling of the molecule occurs (emission wave length is dependent on the temperature of the molecule).
> 
> Take water vapor for instance, the biggest GHG on the planet, emits in 6 different wave length bands. Part of the spectral imbalance is due to cooling and a differing wave length being created. This is where they miss the boat so to speak.


Some of what you say is well known, but you have to be more clear on what you think misses the boat.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 26, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> What did your heroes at NOAA assert that you posted a couple pages back??



That the oceans started absorbing more net heat recently. Why do you think that's supposed to contradict anything I said?



> You're a waste of time -- actually...



Against all hope, I'll keep trying to get you to talk about all the science that you keep dodging.

Your theory relies on magic. Heat goes into the oceans, and then hides magically for decades or centuries. Science takes a dim view of such "and then a miracle happens" theories. Science also notes the rate of sea level rise contradicts your theory, being sea level rise is coupled closely to heat storage, and the acceleration is sea level rise is recent, and correlates not at all with solar changes.

You then invoke different magic with your reasoning that it's about the spectrum. Alas, real science also takes a dim view of "If you can't absolutely prove it's not my magic, my magic must be right!" arguments. And it also takes a dim view towards those who throw a lot of crap at the wall in the hopes something sticks.

Climate science has no such problems, no need to invoke any magic. The energy balance over time matches the heat storage well. You claim otherwise,  but your graph reading skills are subpar.

Now, let's review your most fundamental science failure.



> - but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus"



The scientists do not claim or imply such a crazy thing. If you disagree, please link to somebody saying that. You won't be able to, because it's a strawman you invented. Based on your failure to understand the basics, you misrepresented what scientists actually said.

Being that I live to serve, I'll help you out with how the science actually works.

The oceans absorb almost all the IR that falls on them, and most of the sunlight. That never changes, and aside from you, nobody ever said it did.

That incoming energy heats the upper oceans, then the oceans heat the atmosphere. That also never changes.

The backradiation slowly changes the forcing function, increasing slightly over time, due to greenhouse gases.

However, that's just the input. Output also determines how much heat is stored or lost by the ocean. If it's a La Nina year, cooler waters are at the surface, less heat is transferred to the atmosphere, so more heat stays in the oceans, and the oceans store more heat. El Nino years, the opposite happens. The effect from ENSO fluctuations year to year is usually much bigger than the effect from the backradiation increase. However, ENSO is like noise, while the backradiation is a steady rise, so over the long term it dominates.

What is notably lacking from any actual science is any claim that the oceans' "appetite for IR" is changing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 26, 2016)

If Bernie Madoff had AR5 as his accountant, he'd still be in fund management


...returns have been stunted ever since a few years back when the oceans started absorbing a greater share of your investment.... "


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 26, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The oceans absorb almost all the IR that falls on them, and most of the sunlight. That never changes, and aside from you, nobody ever said it did.
> 
> That incoming energy heats the upper oceans, then the oceans heat the atmosphere. That also never changes.
> 
> ...


That makes sense. It seems that thermal input to the oceans is somewhat constant (other than increasing GHG's), while the thermal output is not. Is there good succinct reference to that. I don't want to wade through AR5.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 26, 2016)

Well, chapter 3 of AR5 is only, like, 60 pages.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Something more concise? Hmm. Maybe this Skeptical Science piece, which links to all kinds of places.

2015: Still No Let Up in Ocean Warming


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Who do you believe has said such a thing?
> 
> I think those of us on the mainstream science side can say that the world is getting warmer and it is doing so in response primarily to human GHG emissions.  Some combination of natural cycles and changes in the Earth's climate have caused a large amount of warm surface water to be subducted deeper than  is typical.
> 
> That's what I can say.


and yet:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/26/polar...ek-report.html

"'Polar Vortex' set to menace US in a week: Report
Javier E. David | @TeflonGeek
Saturday, 26 Mar 2016 | 5:03 PM ET"

Mother nature says otherwise:

" Accuweather.com reported on Saturday that the dreaded "Polar Vortex" — a formation of arctic air that has menaced swaths of the country for the better part of the last few winters — is set to return in early April. According to the forecast, the temperature shift may bring "record cold to parts of the Midwest and East."

As Spring begins its first full month, temperatures will average 15-30 degrees Fahrenheit below normal, Accuweather said. Some of the coldest air will target the North Central States, with New York City seeing 40-degree temperatures. A separate forecast this week from Weather 2000 also predicted a return of a "Vernal Vortex" that would likely mean colder air through early April."


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I'll say it again, if the Sun is in a cooling phase, then Shortwave IR is down, and if Shortwave IR is down, than LWIR has to be down, and even if one believes in back radiation, that would mean that magic back radiation is down.  so where the fk is the heat at that they miraculously state is making warmer evah records?  I'm just saying, the science ain't in fact working to fit their outcome.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You can not have A negative imbalance and not be cooling.
> ...


sorry, still don't believe in back radiation, there is no evidence to support it.


IanC said:


> I totally agree with W's question.
> 
> Until those who deny backradiation can come up with an explanation using physics to account for surface temperature being all out of proportion to solar input, then the discussion is useless. And make no mistake, the difference is huge, it is not some small quibble over measuring surface temps or solar input. It is 15C difference, more than enough to turn the Earth into a frozen ice cube.


Ian, sorry for the delay getting to your post. Do you believe that back radiation is absorbed by the surface?

And do you believe back radiation is heat?


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> [
> sorry, still don't believe in back radiation, there is no evidence to support it.
> 
> Ian, sorry for the delay getting to your post. Do you believe that back radiation is absorbed by the surface?
> ...



What happens when you step outside and the summer sun shines on you?

And if you'd like a little more technical evidence of a DIRECT FUCKING MEASUREMENT OF BACKRADIATION:

P1.7  Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change

P1.7

*Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate*

*W.F.J. Evans*, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

This is the fourth time - at least - that Evans 2006 has been posted.  Where do you get the fucking cojones to claim there's no evidence to support back radiation?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


I asked Ian if he believes back radiation not short wave UV from the sun. Funny, I thought you were climate smart, guess not


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


By the way, heat comes from the sun rays and heat from the surface from long wave IR.  That is heat BTW. Guess why?


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Frank, JC, why do you think this post is funny?  It makes you look like fools.


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And Ian does believe back radiation takes place and significantly warms the surface of the planet.  He thinks you're a numbskull on this very topic. What did YOU think Ian believes?


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I cannot imagine a more fruitless five seconds than hearing your understanding of heat.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Because you think it says the last 2PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere are causing earthquakes and heating the oceans 700m down, that's what's funny


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2016)

Do show us where it says the last 2 ppm of CO2 are causing earthquakes. Show us where that article says anything about 2 ppm of anything.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 29, 2016)

How does CO2 work? Does the heat rise on an exponential basis? Did the first 50PPM added from 1850-1940 do nothing, but the last 70PPM cause the "forcing" (LOL)


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2016)

I am absolutely certain that you do not know what the word "exponential" means.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> I am absolutely certain that you do not know what the word "exponential" means.


well I guess you don't with that confession.


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2016)

You either.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> You either.


hahahahaahhhahahaha i either what.  You confessed and I wasn't asked.


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2016)

It was an unprompted observation.  Given your remarkable science-know-how and prodigious general knowledge, I should think you must receive this sort of thing frequently.


I'd still like to see an excerpt from Post #979 that suggests the last 2 ppm CO2 are responsible for earthquakes.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> It was an unprompted observation.  Given your remarkable science-know-how and prodigious general knowledge, I should think you must receive this sort of thing frequently.
> 
> 
> I'd still like to see an excerpt from Post #979 that suggests the last 2 ppm CO2 are responsible for earthquakes.


well again, do you believe in the IPCC 15 year pause or not?  You still haven't answered the question.


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2016)

I'm afraid I did.  Terribly sorry if you missed it.  Have you seen the IPCC's conclusion in AR5?  I'm pretty sure you told me you'd read the whole thing.  All I'd care would be if you'd skimmed the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) or WGI itself.  How did their conclusions change from stating that they believed the pause was taking place?

I assume you're aware that the people who made AR5 and who will be making AR6 and the Earth's climate scientists on whose work those documents are based have yet to find a problem with Karl et al 2015.  Certainly current warming doesn't support any such idea as "the pause".


----------



## jc456 (Mar 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> I'm afraid I did.  Terribly sorry if you missed it.  Have you seen the IPCC's conclusion in AR5?  I'm pretty sure you told me you'd read the whole thing.  All I'd care would be if you'd skimmed the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) or WGI itself.  How did their conclusions change from stating that they believed the pause was taking place?
> 
> I assume you're aware that the people who made AR5 and who will be making AR6 and the Earth's climate scientists on whose work those documents are based have yet to find a problem with Karl et al 2015.  Certainly current warming doesn't support any such idea as "the pause".


which post number was that, I couldn't find it in a search in this thread.


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2016)

Which post number was what?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 29, 2016)

Here is a very detailed and comprehensive analysis of the source of the crackpot paranoid conspiracy theory ideation that runs through the denier cultists like shit through a sewer. This material is very well worth reading for an understanding of the corrupt basis for the whole astroturfed denier cult movement.

*The “Climate change deceit” conspiracy theory and global warming*
(excerpts...and some merging for brevity)
*During the last forty years, the fossil fuel multibillionaires; the carbon barons – big oil CEOs, the Middle East petro tyrants and extreme islamists, Russian super-rich oligarchs and Chinese Communist Party oil princelings living high on the fossil fuel paradigm - have shown that they will do anything to postpone the inevitable paradigm shift from the fossil fuel paradigm to the paradigm of an ecologically sustainable future. They invest massively in propaganda to delay political action and mislead the public.*

*United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – one of the founders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) together with World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) coordinate the writing of extensive reports on the changing climate every 6th – 7th year. The report is compiled by almost 2000 of the most respected climate researchers in the world, who all publish frequently in peer reviewed scientific journals. These reports are aggressively attacked by especially the American fossil fuel industry through their enormous propaganda apparatus with unlimited petro-dollar funding.

A bit more than a decade and some years ago, fancy, two page full color advertisements in the biggest international magazines claimed that everything that the IPCC said was false. Somebody in UNEP calculated the costs of all these ads to be about the same as the entire 1999 UNEP annual budget of 95 million dollars.

Somebody called ’Global Climate Coalition’ was behind the ads. Some research on this organisation revealed that it was a PR group financed by ‘Western Fuels Association’ and more or less all oil and coal companies in Europe and the USA and US car manufacturers like General Motors among others.  That year, in 1999, BP, Shell and GM left the organisation because they had lost faith in its integrity. The CEOs of BP as well as Shell said they believed the IPCC made accurate reports, and would start investing in developing non-fossil energy sources instead. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition

“The deceit behind the attempts to discredit evidence of climate change reveals matters of importance. This deceit has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change. The danger is that delay will cause tipping points to be passed, such that large climate impacts become inevitable, including the loss of all Arctic sea ice, destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet with disastrous sea level rise later this century, and extermination of a large fraction of animal and plant species.

Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important. The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns.

'Global warming stopped in 1998,' has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the “El Niño of the century” coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend. NASA – GISS 2007 report Data.GISS:  GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)"
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20070816_realdeal.pdf
- Dr James Hansen, director, NASA Goddard Institute


*


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I totally agree with W's question.
> ...



I have gone into great depth answering this question on numerous occasions. Do you hope that my answer will change?

Of course radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. Where else would it go?

Heat is a property of macroscopic quantities. Warmer matter produces more radiation than cooler matter, hence the overall net transfer of energy is always warmer to cooler.

On the microscopic level, radiation just is. One molecule doesn't have a 'temperature'. Only large groups of molecules have an average kinetic energy which considered it's temperature. 

Molecules in close proximity collide with each other, producing blackbody radiation proportional to its temperature.

The blackbody radiation from the surface either escapes to space, or is absorbed by the atmosphere, which warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere produces blackbody radiation which either escapes to space, is reabsorbed by the atmosphere, or reaches the surface where it is absorbed.

The equilibrium temperature of the surface is defined by energy input minus energy output. Radiation is part of that equation. While the atmosphere is cooler than the surface, it is much warmer than empty space, therefore it 'gives back' some of the radiation it receives, which keeps the surface warmer than if there were no atmosphere.

Reality is obviously more complex. There are massive heatsinks that are filled with unimaginable energy, eg liquid flowing oceans and gaseous flowing atmosphere.

I don't expect you will understand all this this time because you have failed in the past. But I wish you would try.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



 So where is the tropospheric hot spot which would be the inevitable result of a greenhouse effect that you believe exists if more CO2 were added to the system?

I don't expect you to ever answer the question...or understand the ramifications of the fact that the hot spot isn't, never has, nor will it ever be there....I expect you to go on with your delusion till you die...believing regardless of what the evidence before your eyes, and the result of every observation ever made is screaming to you.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


thanks for responding.

First, the atmosphere is cooler than the surface, it has been and always will be based on sunlight and the fact the surface absorbs the sun's energy.  the earth then radiates what it absorbs back up to the atmosphere, LWIR and that has heat. i.e., When I heat a frying pan on the stove top and turn off the heat source, the pan will radiate heat for some time.  It will begin near a constant it was at with the flame and then slowly cool off.  The air above the pan does not re-radiate back to the pan to keep it hot, nor does the air make it hot once it cools off.  BTW, I know you know I will never believe that occurs.  The reason, there just isn't evidence of it occurring, cooler air cannot warm anything warmer than itself.  Feel free to post up an experiment that shows me wrong.

As for your back radiation, if there was indeed back radiation, you claim it comes from CO2.  Are you sure?  Do you have that evidence as well?  Come on, you've been following my posts over the years now, you know I have my expectations and to today, there has not been one iota of evidence ever presented that shows the magic power of CO2 gas. I truly wish to see it, cause it sounds way too magical for me.

I have observed clouds at night keep the ground below warmer than if the clouds weren't there in the winter.  I've experienced it, I've felt the difference.  When the ground is cooler than the cloud the cloud radiates to the surface, it's always been in winter months again when the surface air is cooler than the clouds.

I believe in the bright yellow ball in the sky and its power to heat.  I also observe the surface of the earth as it heats up from that source.  I also can see the heat radiating upward off of surfaces such as asphalt and cars.  yep, I can see it radiate and it is always moving ground up never air down. I also know that the surface can be hotter than the rays hitting my own skin, so indeed the surface material gets very hot, enough to fry an egg.

You have asked me before why I don't believe in back radiation, and my answer is that I don't see it, nor has anyone ever proved it. you've also asked me if I think molecules radiate and I've said yes.  Warm to cool is the direction only.  I can't help that I believe that, the fact is there isn't evidence and for two years now, no one has presented it.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


seems like it is you and me again bubba.  I'm with you though.  They can make all the statements they want, but as you so eloquently explained, the earth is showing their beliefs wrong.  And I am happy to change my beliefs based on some evidence, to which there has been zero of in here. Thanks for remaining consistent.


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2016)

Show us a link that says the hotspot is an absolute requirement of greenhouse warming?

I will show you links that say stratospheric cooling is the absolute requirement of greenhouse warming and it is present almost everywhere..

Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling | Weather Underground

Vertical Human Fingerprint Found in Stratospheric Cooling, Tropospheric Warming - Yale Climate Connections

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/278.htm


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> Show us a link that says the hotspot is an absolute requirement of greenhouse warming?
> 
> I will show you links that say stratospheric cooling is the absolute requirement of greenhouse warming and it is present almost everywhere..
> 
> ...


Crick,  post an abstract from just one of these that makes your point.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 30, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Here is a very detailed and comprehensive analysis of the source of the crackpot paranoid conspiracy theory ideation that runs through the denier cultists like shit through a sewer. This material is very well worth reading for an understanding of the corrupt basis for the whole astroturfed denier cult movement.
> 
> *The “Climate change deceit” conspiracy theory and global warming*
> (excerpts...and some merging for brevity)
> ...



You just posted a series of charts showing that "Global Warming" stopped in 1998


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




As always, you fail to understand the simplest concepts. Please don't ask me to explain in the future.

I will point out one strawman in your post. You say that I claim that backradiation comes from CO2, no quote of my actual words of course.

I claim that backradiation is predominantly produced by blackbody radiation from molecular collisions. Which is proportional to temperature.

How does extra CO2 increase atmospheric temperature? All the energy in certain bands of surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by about 10 metres. Adding more CO2 reduces the 10 metre extinction height. By simple math that anyone can comprehend, the same energy added to a smaller volume of gas will cause an increase in temperature. QED.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


and yet the math can't be converted into an experiment. 

And I'll agree, you never claimed CO2, yet that is the crux of the communication in the environmental forum.

Therefore, I thought you were referring to CO2 molecules.  So not sure what other molecules you'd be speaking about since that is the argument gas.


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I am not responsible for other people's opinions. I feel just as obligated to point out the flaws greenhouse gas deniers as I do in greenhouse gas distorters.

More, perhaps, because it fucks up the Skeptical case by giving the warmers something to scoff at. You don't counter a lie with another lie. The truth should suffice.


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Are you denying that there have not been experiments to quantify how much CO2 is needed to absorb a known amount of CO2 specific IR? You're grasping at straws.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


yeah, I get that.  I've always appreciated your approach.  You have class in your style.

I only disagree that there is back radiation and that CO2 is a dangerous gas.  I need validation to change my mind.  So far that hasn't occurred.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I'm sure someone has done tests with CO2.  Not stating that at all.  I am denying that someone has measured the temperature of the gas and that increasing the gas will cause a temperature increase.  Every CO2 experiment that has been posted in this forum has failed in that aspect.  EVERYONE.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> Show us a link that says the hotspot is an absolute requirement of greenhouse warming?



This might be a good place for you to start:

Predicted changes 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25, based on Santer et al. 2000
Same document, recorded change/decade, Hadley Centre weather balloons 1979-1999, p. 116 , g. 5.7E, from Thorne et al., 2005.

The hot spot was predicted by the hypothesis to be the human fingerprint...the signature of anthropogenically caused global warming....never happened.  In real science when a prediction made by a hypothesis never comes to pass, what do you do with the hypothesis?....What did climate science do with the hypothesis....this should tell you that climate science isn't actually science at all.

This is how it goes with climate pseudoscience....they make predictions..the predictions fail to happen...they pretend that they never made the predictions even though the internet proves them to be liars every time....

Causes leave signatures....where is the signature of human caused global warming?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 30, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




What cracks me up is that the warmer wackos have been claiming that every year since 1998 is the hottest year evah....and they claim that each year is warmer by a hundredth of a degree....and in the same sentence they seem to be claiming that this hundredth of a degree represents "rapid" temperature increase....what is the margin of error for those claims of the hottest year evah by a hundredth of a degree?


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2016)

Orders of magnitude less than the margin of error in data from the LIA, MWP and the Roman Period.

From a Bob Tisdale paper; Bob has provided the names of three papers supporting Karl et al 2015 that each have lots of interesting information about the upgrade from ERSST v3b to v4.

http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds277.0/docs/ERSST.V4.P1.JCLI-D-14-00006.1.pdf

http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds277.0/docs/ERSST.V4.P2.JCLI-D-14-00007.1.pdf

Further Exploring and Quantifying Uncertainties for Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) Version 4 (v4)

This last is a preliminary online release.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2016)

Karl et al 2015 = the observations are wrong LOL

..and you post that as "Science"


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2016)

Frank, if you ever again feel inclined to explain what you think I've done and why you think I've done it, take off you left shoe and shove it in your mouth then take off your right shoe and use it to destroy your keyboard.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2016)

AGW is the biggest, boldest, most brazen scam in human history. They alter data they don't like and do so claiming it's science.

Hopefully, Trump zeroes out all Federal funding and fires the entire climate change divisions at every Federal agency


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2016)

And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Orders of magnitude less than the margin of error in data from the LIA, MWP and the Roman Period.
> 
> From a Bob Tisdale paper; Bob has provided the names of three papers supporting Karl et al 2015 that each have lots of interesting information about the upgrade from ERSST v3b to v4.
> 
> ...



Dodge much?  Oh wait a minute...I am talking to crick...all dodge all the time.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?




In every post you make in which you claim to be presenting proof of something...anything.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Dodge much?  Oh wait a minute...I am talking to crick...all dodge all the time.



You didn't really think your cherrypicking of old studies fooled anyone, or was worth addressing, did you? After all, satellites and balloons both agree that the tropospheric hotspot is there, which leaves you flailing and raging and desperately searching for more old cherrypicks.


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2016)

Do not validate his bullshit.  The hotspot is NOT a requirement of GHG warming.  Stratospheric cooling is.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Dodge much?  Oh wait a minute...I am talking to crick...all dodge all the time.
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Do not validate his bullshit.  The hotspot is NOT a requirement of GHG warming.  Stratospheric cooling is.



The hotspot is a requirement for any warming. Solar-caused, GHG-caused, magic-caused, it should be there for any warming from any cause. It's a fingerprint of any warming. Stratospheric cooling is the fingerprint unique to GHG warming.

Thus, SSDD kind of destroys his own natural-causes theories by claiming it's not there.

'Course, it is there, so it's all moot.

See? RSS satellite model data, which every denier spent years swearing was the most perfect data ever created by humans.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Do not validate his bullshit.  The hotspot is NOT a requirement of GHG warming.  Stratospheric cooling is.
> ...


Well merely post the hotspot


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2016)

I just did. RSS measures the troposphere. It's getting hotter. Hence, the hotspot.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2016)

mamooth said:


> I just did. RSS measures the troposphere. It's getting hotter. Hence, the hotspot.


It's hotter than what?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2016)

jc, nobody likes a sea lion. "Sealioning" refers to a person with zero understanding of the basics who keeps demanding that every single detail be explained to them, and then has a hissy fit when people don't bother. You've got the internet at your finger tips. Start finding things yourself.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2016)

Making jokes that they have no evidence


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2016)

AGWCult: Global cooling to global warming to "Climate change"; no theories, no lab work; first they tell you they need a hot spot, then when there's no hot spot, it's a cold spot; hide the decline; there's a Pause, then there's no Pause; and all they while they scream at the top of their lungs -- "The science is settled"


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc, nobody likes a sea lion. "Sealioning" refers to a person with zero understanding of the basics who keeps demanding that every single detail be explained to them, and then has a hissy fit when people don't bother. You've got the internet at your finger tips. Start finding things yourself.


Now I see, you don't have information, you're just a spectator . I haven't waivered one bit. I have been consistent on my position and you can't seem to do the same. You sir/ma'am are the one that said there's a hotspot just show it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 31, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> AGWCult: Global cooling to global warming to "Climate change"; no theories, no lab work; first they tell you they need a hot spot, then when there's no hot spot, it's a cold spot; hide the decline; there's a Pause, then there's no Pause; and all they while they scream at the top of their lungs -- "The science is settled"




No kidding it always feels like talking to 3rd graders who think science knows everything their is a need to know.


God Damn only 150 years ago we were still riding around on horse back reading books by the candle light for entertainment .



.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2016)

bear513 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > AGWCult: Global cooling to global warming to "Climate change"; no theories, no lab work; first they tell you they need a hot spot, then when there's no hot spot, it's a cold spot; hide the decline; there's a Pause, then there's no Pause; and all they while they scream at the top of their lungs -- "The science is settled"
> ...


Have you ever noticed they are afraid to show temperatures.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 31, 2016)

jc456 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




I know because they would be laughed at. 




.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2016)

And, once more, a few cult losers have become dead set on proving the thread premise, which is that most deniers are bitter paranoid cranks.

Oh well. At least the thread is on topic again.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2016)

mamooth said:


> And, once more, a few cult losers have become dead set on proving the thread premise, which is that most deniers are bitter paranoid cranks.
> 
> Oh well. At least the thread is on topic again.


Paranoid? Where? It seems sir/ma'am it is you paranoid as stated before. Your inability to scramble is your problem not mine. When your only retort is to call me something is my evidence it is indeed you who is!

Also, you fear warm air and panic daily. You should look up the definition of the paranoid you live with.

Five feet of ice melts and you scream flood and deaths, extreme weather and death. Me I sun bath and swim, you should look up the definition.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 31, 2016)

mamooth said:


> And, once more, a few cult losers have become dead set on proving the thread premise, which is that most deniers are bitter paranoid cranks.
> 
> Oh well. At least the thread is on topic again.




Paranoid ????

We are not the ones driving around in death traps like this.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 31, 2016)

Remind me again who made this documentary *cough* 

Movie?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2016)

They don't care how many times they get caught either. They continue to tell the lie


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Paranoid ????
> 
> We are not the ones driving around in death traps like this.
> 
> ...



Do you know what the term paranoid means?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Dodge much?  Oh wait a minute...I am talking to crick...all dodge all the time.
> ...



Idiot hairball....it is only in the older studies that the hot spot is predicted...when it became clear that the hypothesis was wrong and the hot spot was never going to appear, in the interest of preserving the pseudoscience, the prediction was dropped....such is the nature of climate pseudoscience.    Prediction after prediction....failure after failure...and then to preserve the pseudoscience, claim the predictions were never made...and aside from that...are you claiming that referencing the IPCC's own Synthesis and Assessment Report now constitutes cherrypicking?    I am laughing in your stupid face old woman....


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Do not validate his bullshit.  The hotspot is NOT a requirement of GHG warming.  Stratospheric cooling is.




Of course not...now that it is clear that it is never going to appear....that is the nature of pseudoscience....make grand predictions...watch them not come to pass then claim that they were never made....problem is that the internet doesn't forget....take this little gem for example...








Note the blatant changes that have been made in the interest of "improving the accuracy" of the predictions made based on the now failed hypothesis...






Tell me crick...where do you see any rapid warming that is not the result of adjustments?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2016)

mamooth said:


> I just did. RSS measures the troposphere. It's getting hotter. Hence, the hotspot.



Except not really hairball....but you believe on if it gets you through your miserable bitter life.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Paranoid ????
> ...




Yes

And do you know a picture says a thousand words?

.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2016)

*Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found*
*Posted on 11 June 2015 by Guest Author*

This is a re-post from The Conversation by Steve Sherwood_, UNSW Australia_

Before climate sceptics got excited about the “hiatus” or slowdown in global surface warming during the past 15 years or so, they were fond of discussing the “missing tropospheric hotspot” – the alleged lack of anticipated temperature increase in the tropical upper troposphere (roughly 5-15 km altitude).

Both the “hiatus” and the “missing hot spot” have been interesting research problems, because models seemed like they might be missing something important.

There have been significant advances on both problems in the past year. And the new results do not offer much hope that scientists are fundamentally mistaken about global warming.

The “hiatus” has been addressed by a veritable avalanche of recent studies, as reported in articles on The Conversation (such as here and here). These studies collectively show that the warming slowdown has been the temporary result of a regularly recurring change in ocean circulation – essentially, a bump in the road towards a warmer planet. The phenomenon has no evident link to global warming or the physical principles that connect it to greenhouse gases.

*Hitting the spot*
But what about the “missing hot spot”? In this case, part of the atmosphere has reportedly warmed little, in spite of predictions that it should warm significantly faster than the surface.* This would seem highly relevant to the question of whether humans are causingclimate change, although in fact, the warming maximum should happen equally whether warming is natural or human-induced [(tropospheric hotspot is evidence of warming, not GHG warming specifically.  Cooling in stratosphere is unique to an increase in GHG warming)].* Still, the seeming lack of such warming is an important puzzle for atmospheric scientists.

I wrote here in 2011 that recent (at the time) satellite studies were coming closer to showing the expected warming, but were still not all the way there. Some analyses of the data seemed to show it but were not completely convincing. *Now, three newer papers make it look very much like the tropical atmosphere has indeed been warming as expected all along*.

First, a 2013 paper [Revisiting the controversial issue of tropical tropospheric temperature trends - Mitchell - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters -  Wiley Online Library], featuring a new analysis of radiosonde (weather balloon) data showed increased warming in the upper troposphere. This analysis, which used weather forecasts to help identify artificial changes in the balloon data (such as those due to undocumented changes to instruments), also came up with a reassuringly realistic pattern of warming compared with earlier efforts.

My colleague Nidhi Nishant and I have now analysed the radiosonde data yet again [http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...A692634BE990441DB03C931CAD67795.ip-10-40-2-73], and we found a tropical warming profile even closer to that expected. The fastest warming was at an altitude of about 12 km, and averaged 0.25C per decade – much faster than at the surface (0.14C per decade).

This means that the troposphere is warming around 70-80% faster than the surface. So, far from being absent, this tropospheric warming is at least as strong as predicted by the average climate model, which predicted that the troposphere would heat 64% faster than the surface.

Moreover, our data show that the tropical troposphere has warmed at a more or less constant rate since widespread balloon launches began in 1958, which is a bit puzzling given the ocean-surface hiatus since 2000 or so.

*More evidence*
This result comes hot on the heels of a new University of Washington study [http://www.atmos.uw.edu/~qfu/Publications/jtech.pochedley.2015.pdf] which overcomes one of the key obstacles to obtaining an accurate satellite-based record of atmospheric warming. The problem is that temperatures vary during the day, and when a new satellite is launched (which happens every few years), it observes the Earth at an earlier time of day than the old one (since after launch, each satellite orbit begins to decay toward later times of day).

This means that over time, if you don’t know the daily cycle of temperature very accurately over the whole planet, you are going to get an errors in the long-term warming trend when you piece the different satellite records together. The University of Washington group has come up with a way of estimating this temperature cycle from the satellite data themselves while at the same time accounting for other effects such as calibration changes.

The result is that they now find mid-to-upper tropospheric warming that is just as strong as predicted by models, in line with both of the new radiosonde studies. The tropospherewas warming all along – it’s just that the warming is very hard to see when other things are happening to the instruments over time.

One remaining puzzle is that the radiosonde data do not show a “hiatus” in atmospheric warming, but the satellite data do. Another is that the surface warming rate over oceans has been somewhat weaker than predicted by most climate models, even going back well before the “hiatus.”

This could be due to the models being too sensitive, but would be more easily explained by the existence of some influence on climate that has up until now been partly offsetting the greenhouse effect, and has not been properly accounted for. Thus climate scientists still have important puzzles to solve — but it looks like the “missing hot spot” has finally been found.

Steve Sherwood is Director, Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW Australia.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article[Climate meme debunked as the 'tropospheric hot spot' is found].
***************************************************************************************


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> *Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found*
> *Posted on 11 June 2015 by Guest Author*
> 
> This is a re-post from The Conversation by Steve Sherwood_, UNSW Australia_
> ...



Didn't you just tell us you never predicted a hot spot?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Do not validate his bullshit.  The hotspot is NOT a requirement of GHG warming.  Stratospheric cooling is.


 See?

Then 2 pages later he posts "evidence" of a hot spot.

Insanity.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2016)

The tropospheric hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate (Bengtsson 2009, Trenberth 2006, Ramaswamy 2006). As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it's more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. For example, it cools at around 4°C per kilometre at the equator but a much larger 8 to 9°C per kilometre at the subtropics.

When the surface warms, there's more evaporation and more moisture in the air. This decreases the lapse rate - there's less cooling aloft. This means warming aloft is greater than warming at the surface. This amplified trend is the hot spot. *It's all to do with changes in the lapse rate, regardless of what's causing the warming*. If the warming was caused by a brightening sun or reduced sulphate pollution, you'd still see a hot spot.

There's no tropospheric hot spot


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 1, 2016)

Oh.....and it is hysterical that these people *still* use the "denier" term as if it had any significance at all. Its about 5 years since this was taken up as a strategy of the AGW religion. Brand all non-true believers as "deniers".

So lets see how well that campaign has gone  >>>






....not so good!!!


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> *Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found*
> *Posted on 11 June 2015 by Guest Author*
> 
> This is a re-post from The Conversation by Steve Sherwood_, UNSW Australia_
> ...





CrusaderFrank said:


> Didn't you just tell us you never predicted a hot spot?



I never said any such thing, but you HAVE nailed it right on the head.  NO ONE {INCLUDING ME) EVER SAID A TROPOSPHERIC HOTSPOT WAS A MANDATORY SIGN OF GREENHOUSE WARMING. It is a sign of ALL forms of warming.  If you want a sign of Greenhouse warming, you look for stratospheric cooling.  And guess what?

Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling | Weather Underground

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/278.htm

Why does the stratosphere cool when the troposphere warms?

Vertical Human Fingerprint Found in Stratospheric Cooling, Tropospheric Warming - Yale Climate Connections































And so forth


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found*
> ...



If you ever bothered reading the articles you link to, you'd know the AGWCult predicted a Hot Spot,'

"I wrote here in 2011 that recent (at the time) satellite studies were coming closer to showing the expected warming, but were still not all the way there. Some analyses of the data seemed to show it but were not completely convincing. Now, three newer papers make it look very much like the tropical atmosphere has indeed been warming as expected all along.

First, a 2013 paper, featuring a new analysis of radiosonde (weather balloon) data showed increased warming in the upper troposphere. This analysis, which used weather forecasts to help identify artificial changes in the balloon data (such as those due to undocumented changes to instruments), also came up with a reassuringly realistic pattern of warming compared with earlier efforts.

My colleague Nidhi Nishant and I have now analysed the radiosonde data yet again, and we found a tropical warming profile even closer to that expected. The fastest warming was at an altitude of about 12 km, and averaged 0.25C per decade – much faster than at the surface (0.14C per decade)."

So, according to Crickology, the AGWCult both predicted and didn't predict a Hot Spot

DoubleThink: the core of AGWCult "science"


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found*
> ...


so dude, I know that reading is difficult, but did you really mean to post this graph as evidence that there is a hot spot?  Notice the tick marks on either side of the graph for the warming graph.  It starts on the left at zero and ends on right at................................. zero.  So, WTF?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> As the planet flashes warning signs, U.S. and China pledge hasty signing of climate accord
> 
> For 15 years scientists have been screaming warnings to the entire human race. Now it's too late. But we have to make the effort anyway don't we.
> 
> Human life on Earth is going to drastically change soon. And every person that knew this was coming wishes it weren't true.



Here everyone, Tooth, Crick and whomever else is here from the warming party, this is what paranoid looks like.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> *Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found*
> *Posted on 11 June 2015 by Guest Author*
> 
> This is a re-post from The Conversation by Steve Sherwood_, UNSW Australia_
> ...




You are kidding...right?  Tell me that you are not that gullible....never mind, of course you are that gullible and more.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If you ever bothered reading the articles you link to, you'd know the AGWCult predicted a Hot Spot,'



Your ignorance in almost everything, Frank, is why I maintain on the ignore list.  I've simply been hitting (you and jc456) more frequently from a lack of actionable traffic from your side of the argument.

No climate scientist, nor the IPCC, has ever stated that a tropospheric hotspot was a mandatory symptom of greenhouse warming.  If you disagree, I'd be glad to read a quote.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If you ever bothered reading the articles you link to, you'd know the AGWCult predicted a Hot Spot,'
> ...


so Crick, here is a link to skeptical science.  your place right?

Hotspot Found Again: Warming of the Tropical Troposphere Confirms Climate Model Prediction

Well there are quite a few statements in there about hot spot and greenhouse warming.  So which one are you most interested in?  here try this one out first:

*"Why should there be a 'hotspot' in the atmosphere above the tropics?  *
Because most of Earth's incoming energy from the sun is received in the tropics, strong evaporation there removes a lot of heat from the ocean surface. This heat is hidden (latent) as it is used to convert water from a liquid to a gaseous form. Readers are probably familiar with this process as it is the same one in which we are cooled when sweat evaporates off our bodies during strenuous exercise. Our skin cools as heat is used up in the act of evaporating away the sweat. "

Or,

*"A temperature signal from the data*
Sherwood & Nishant managed to extract useful information from the weather balloon data by using a combination of statistical methods that account and corrects for bias. In their words:

"The methodology statistically corrects for incomplete sampling and step changes in bias arising from changed instrumentation or observing practises. It does this by, in effect, performing a multiple regression of the available data onto a structural model that allows simultaneously for natural and artificial changes.This preserves trends and slow variations at individual stations in an unbiased way given the structural model...."

In effect the analysis enabled Sherwood & Nishant to identify spurious trends introduced by changes in instruments and collection procedures. _*The authors also carried out a number of other steps to improve their results, such as rejecting stations found to be unreliable from the dataset*_, and the inclusion of wind vector data, but I won't bore you with the details. Perhaps the most surprising results were that the tropical troposphere was still warming robustly from 2000-2012 despite a standstill in ocean surface temperatures in the tropics (see bottom panel of Figure 2 below), and that stratospheric cooling (a signature of the increased greenhouse effect) in the tropics and northern hemisphere leveled off during 2000-2012"

This one cracks me up cause they admit they are not using all of the data cause the stations don't line up with their expectations.  It's fking hilarious ster.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If you ever bothered reading the articles you link to, you'd know the AGWCult predicted a Hot Spot,'
> ...



Crick, let's start with the unread article you linked to,

"But what about the “missing hot spot”? In this case, part of the atmosphere has reportedly warmed little, *in spite of predictions that it should warm significantly faster than the surface."

Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found*


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If you ever bothered reading the articles you link to, you'd know the AGWCult predicted a Hot Spot,'
> ...





CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick, let's start with the unread article you linked to,
> 
> "But what about the “missing hot spot”? In this case, part of the atmosphere has reportedly warmed little, *in spite of predictions that it should warm significantly faster than the surface."
> 
> Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found*



It is expected because it is warming.  I've said this half a dozen times now.  Show us a quote that makes it a necessary feature *OF GREENHOUSE WARMING*.

Since you won't find that, you have two options.  Admit I was right or alter your argument to "the hotspot could not be found because the Earth is not warming" to which I would point out, again, that it has now been found by a number of people, though I will not deny the difficulty in finding it - thought at least partially due to the tools available - indicates scientists missing something in the physics of the atmosphere.  The _stratospheric cooling_, on the other hand, which *IS A NECESSARY FEATURE OF GREENHOUSE WARMING* has been clearly visible for years.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Except not really hairball....but you believe on if it gets you through your miserable bitter life.



RSS shows a very clear tropospheric warming trend, which even your graphs show that.

And the balloon measurements has been posted.

Face it, your conspiracy about the lack of a hotspot is crap. Sulking at us won't change that.

Might I suggest you deniers find a new cult? The one you're in is almost dead. It won't die fast, of course. After all, there are still a few JFK assassination conspiracy theorists. The denier cult has almost dropped to that level of insignificance.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2016)

Have you noticed the recent rise in chemtrail advocates among the deniers?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Crick you're pathological, an enviromarxist jihadist. You're just plain lying now


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick you're pathological, an enviromarxist jihadist. You're just plain lying now



What lie would that be Frank?


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 2, 2016)

Look, it's the Global Warming denier cult and their allies. Birds of a feather comes to mind. 

God hates climate scientists: Ars meets the Westboro Baptist Church


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Well, no, it is not. Much of it is from the additional water vapor in the atmosphere. And CO2 has not doubled yet, that won't happen until it is at 560 ppm, it is presently about 400 ppm. And, of course, an El Nino creates a warmer year, which with the additional GHG's, creates a year much warmer than any in recorded history. And then, we also have the increased level of CH4, from about 750 ppb to 1800 ppb, and rising rapidly as the permafrost and clathrates outgass. Going to be very interesting in the coming decades.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick you're pathological, an enviromarxist jihadist. You're just plain lying now
> ...



That your AGW Theory never supposed an atmospheric Hot Spot.  You even posted an article claiming they found the Hot Spot.

Do you not read the article you link?

You're either lying or totally ignorant, your call


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2016)

I know what I said concerning AGW and a tropspheric hotspot and I know what the article I posted said as well.  I can't tell if I failed to repeat it as many times as necessary or perhaps didn't use a large enough crayon that YOU could be expected to know what I said and what that article said, but I'm going to assume that, as has nearly always been the case, the problem is on your end.  Therefore, you have called me a liar without cause, making you a grade AAA asshole that owes me an apology.  And owes yourself a fucking education.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> I know what I said concerning AGW and a tropspheric hotspot and I know what the article I posted said as well.  I can't tell if I failed to repeat it as many times as necessary or perhaps didn't use a large enough crayon that YOU could be expected to know what I said and what that article said, but I'm going to assume that, as has nearly always been the case, the problem is on your end.  Therefore, you have called me a liar without cause, making you a grade AAA asshole that owes me an apology.  And owes yourself a fucking education.



Crick, you actually said AGW postulated a "Cool spot" then posted an article confirming a hot spot.  

When you're telling the truth you never have to keep track of what you said


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?



The temperature records, for one.  They have been "homogenized" until they are unrecognizable.  All the various scams committed by the AGW cult of been reported in this forum ad nauseum.  Pretending you aren't aware of them only shows how dishonest you are.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Do not validate his bullshit.  The hotspot is NOT a requirement of GHG warming.  Stratospheric cooling is.
> ...



The above data shows no warming since 1998.  You dishonestly included a line which shows the average since 1978.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?


Here's some:


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I know what I said concerning AGW and a tropspheric hotspot and I know what the article I posted said as well.  I can't tell if I failed to repeat it as many times as necessary or perhaps didn't use a large enough crayon that YOU could be expected to know what I said and what that article said, but I'm going to assume that, as has nearly always been the case, the problem is on your end.  Therefore, you have called me a liar without cause, making you a grade AAA asshole that owes me an apology.  And owes yourself a fucking education.
> ...



How come you can never seem to comprehend what anyone else ever says.

TROPOSPHERIC HOTSPOT: Indicates the planet is warming
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING: Inidcates planet is being warmed by the greenhouse effect.

Maybe you should print that up and tape it to the wall above your monitor.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



So, now you're saying there IS a hot spot?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2016)

Crick, get out a pad and write down your last 8 posts, see if you can make any sense out of your Hot Spot/No Hot Spot Controversy that's raging in your mind

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 2, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?
> ...



Anybody can post graphs. Graphs are never evidence unless you quote your source. Blogs are not sources. What is your scientific source.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 2, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



NASA is the source of both graphs.


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick, get out a pad and write down your last 8 posts, see if you can make any sense out of your Hot Spot/No Hot Spot Controversy that's raging in your mind
> 
> First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is
> First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is



Fuck you Frank.  You are just too stupid to deal with.  I might as well be talking to my dog.


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?
> ...



What _about_ the temperature records Paddie?  What do you mean "homogenized"?  Does homogenizing them make the past colder and the present warmer?  Does homogenizing them allow thousands of scientists to all do their independent, physics-based research without running into conflicts or non-sequiturs or discontinuities?  Let's look up  the word, maybe that'll help. 

HOMOGENIZE:
verb (used with object), homogenized, homogenizing.
1.
to form by blending unlike elements; make homogeneous.
2.
to prepare an emulsion, as by reducing the size of the fat globules in(milk or cream) in order to distribute them equally throughout.
3.
to make uniform or similar, as in composition or function:
to homogenize school systems.
4.
Metallurgy. to subject (metal) to high temperature to ensure uniformdiffusion of components.

Hmm... so why, exactly, would the thousands of conspiring climate scientists in your grand fucking conspiracy want to do that?  What does that accomplish for them?

You haven't told us jack shit.  You want us to believe the INSANE story that thousands of scientists have been twisting these numbers around but the ONLY evidence you have is that YOU FUCKING THINK THEY HAVE. 

Get the fuck away from me you ignorant trollop.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick, get out a pad and write down your last 8 posts, see if you can make any sense out of your Hot Spot/No Hot Spot Controversy that's raging in your mind
> ...



Does AGWCult theory suppose an atmospheric hot spot.

Yes or no


----------



## mamooth (Apr 2, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> The above data shows no warming since 1998.  You dishonestly included a line which shows the average since 1978.



So what you're saying is your stupid cult theory fails unless you flagrantly and dishonestly cherrypick, like you just demanded. 

The rational and honest people see what sort of scam you're trying to pull. Doing so might earn you brownie points with your fellow cultists, but it's not fooling anyone else.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The above data shows no warming since 1998.  You dishonestly included a line which shows the average since 1978.
> ...



No.  If you're going to show what the trend is since 1998, you don't include data from 1978.  That's basic math, not "cherry picking."


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The above data shows no warming since 1998.  You dishonestly included a line which shows the average since 1978.
> ...



Tell 'em about the shifting baseline!


----------



## mamooth (Apr 2, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> No.  If you're going to show what the trend is since 1998, you don't include data from 1978.  That's basic math, not "cherry picking."



That's nice. But nobody else has any interest in showing the "trend since 1998", so nobody cares. All the honest people want to show the long-term trend, not something cherrypicked to start at a year convenient to you.

Oh, if you extended that graph to right now, it would be warmer than 1998. So that's another way that your cherrypick fails.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2016)

The observations, which showed a 2 decade Pause, we're clearly a DENIER!!! funded by the Koch Brother and DESERVED to get adjusted by Karl et al


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > No.  If you're going to show what the trend is since 1998, you don't include data from 1978.  That's basic math, not "cherry picking."
> ...



Anyone whose interested in the truth would want to know that the trend since 1998 is cooling, not warming.  That blows all your hocus-pocus theories out of the water.

It isn't warmer right now than 1998.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> I know what I said concerning AGW and a tropspheric hotspot and I know what the article I posted said as well.  I can't tell if I failed to repeat it as many times as necessary or perhaps didn't use a large enough crayon that YOU could be expected to know what I said and what that article said, but I'm going to assume that, as has nearly always been the case, the problem is on your end.  Therefore, you have called me a liar without cause, making you a grade AAA asshole that owes me an apology.  And owes yourself a fucking education.


Well if you deny that you wrote both, then indeed you are a liar. It's amazing what you are trying to do. Typical libturd behavior though. Congrats liar


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


And their own IPCC group admitted it. That trumps any further discussion about CO2. Period


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick, get out a pad and write down your last 8 posts, see if you can make any sense out of your Hot Spot/No Hot Spot Controversy that's raging in your mind
> ...


Your dog would call you a liar. See it's posted dude, why not just accept your flip.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The above data shows no warming since 1998.  You dishonestly included a line which shows the average since 1978.
> ...


Hahahaha, see the IPCC agrees with us. So?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 2, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> It isn't warmer right now than 1998.



Bri, if you're that staggeringly ignorant of the basic science, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Even hardcore deniers Spencer and Christy say you're wrong.

February Hottest Month Ever in the Satellite Temperature Record: Global Temperature Trend Update
---
When compared to seasonal norms, the month of February was the hottest month ever in the satellite temperature record. University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report satellite temperature data each month as measured against the 30-year average of 1981 through 2010.
---


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't warmer right now than 1998.
> ...



"By a statistically significant amount, February 2016 was the warmest month in the satellite temperature record.... Interestingly, however, that record might have as much to do with an extraordinarily warm month in the Arctic as it does with warming caused by the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event."


----------



## mamooth (Apr 2, 2016)

And 1998 was also a strong El Nino. So Frank says we count the 1998 El Nino year, but don't count the 2016 El Nino year.

Frank, try to be a little less blatant with your dishonest hypocrisy, eh?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> And 1998 was also a strong El Nino. So Frank says we count the 1998 El Nino year, but don't count the 2016 El Nino year.
> 
> Frank, try to be a little less blatant with your dishonest hypocrisy, eh?



I didn't "say" it, that was from the unread article you linked to


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 3, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


That isn't a link. That could have still come from a butchered blog. I would like to see the source of the graphs. If you don't have a linked source, the graphs mean nothing.


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2016)

They are also just US temps.  US temps have not mirrored global trends particularly well.  I found this from Karl et al 2015 to be good deal more informative.

Look at the lower curve, teal-colored line.  "WITHOUT CORRECTIONS".






Globally, temperature adjustments have REDUCED 20th century warming.

Given Karl's employer, I would assume these data come from the GISS dataset.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 3, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Both graphs have been plastered all over the internet for years.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 3, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Both graphs have been plastered all over the internet for years.


Can't you do better than that. Lots of crap has been plastered all over the internet for years. Fake moon landing. 9/11 was a US designed operation. The earth is flat. 
As it is you are just re-posting fabricated graphs until you can come up with a legitimate link to a source.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 3, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Both graphs have been plastered all over the internet for years.
> ...



Try not to prove that you're an idiot.  The fact that NASA is the source has been plastered right along with them.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 3, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


What you are saying is that whoever faked the graph also faked NASA as the source. Try and find the source if you want to disprove that.

Furthermore your graphs do not have NASA written on them.


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2016)

The two GISS graphs are legitimate. They were put together in a comparator by a blog.


----------



## Crick (Apr 4, 2016)

And what do you believe they show?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> The two GISS graphs are legitimate. They were put together in a comparator by a blog.


So now I'm supposed to take your word for it that they are legitimate? There is no further text in explaining what they are.  Are they regional? Global?  You are skirting the question just as bripat was doing?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The two GISS graphs are legitimate. They were put together in a comparator by a blog.
> ...


well it is an internet board and you certainly are welcome to leave the thread anytime.  See generally, someone posts something and one disagrees, one then provides data that will disagree.  What it is you disagree with may be more prudent than throwing a tantrum.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


So you have no idea where the graphs came from either. Well that makes three of you.


----------



## IanC (Apr 4, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The two GISS graphs are legitimate. They were put together in a comparator by a blog.
> ...




In previous posts you suggested the graphs were fake. I know they are not. 

You can either find the obvious legitimate sources, or continue to delude yourself that it some sort of hoax.

I don't particularly care either way.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You nailed it JC... The fact that all matter radiates regardless of temperature can not go opposite the laws of thermal convection/conduction. The higher temperature object will alwasy radiate to the cooler and earths air is generally cooler than the surface.

The reason we do not see a mid-tropospheric hot spot is due to water vapor and the cooler atmosphere.  Water in the air is slightly warmer than the surrounding components until it releases its heat to space and return to earth as a droplet. 

The AGW theory states that CO2 will retard heat loss of the atmosphere and trap it in the mid troposphere and this must occur above the tropics.  The problem is that air mass is very wet, thus the heat is never trapped, it is absorbed by water, it rises and convection releases the LWIR to space. CO2 can not trap water vapor and can not stop convection. Thus the theroy fails.

While so called "back radiation" is just a rewording of known molecular radiation properties for the AGW nutter crowd other items in the atmosphere radiate at the same wave lengths. No one really knows how much is actually attributed to CO2 as they still can not quantify the convection route of escape.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Do not validate his bullshit.  The hotspot is NOT a requirement of GHG warming.  Stratospheric cooling is.
> ...



And Dr Carl Mears in now under fire for not calibrating his sensors correctly and his shoddy math... His corrections are now being shunned by most every credible scientific body on earth..


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


It looks like one of the temperature history graphs was from *only the US*, and the other may be *global*. I sort of remember the nature of the graphs, but I wouldn't swear by it. If that's the case then, even if the graphs are not fake, the juxtaposition of the two is purposely misleading; a hoax; a fraudulent portrayal. If you want to defend what I think is a hoax, be my guest. Otherwise, you guys can continue to delude yourself and attempt to delude others.


----------



## Crick (Apr 4, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> And Dr Carl Mears in now under fire for not calibrating his sensors correctly and his shoddy math... His corrections are now being shunned by most every credible scientific body on earth..



Link please.  And why the fuck do we have to ask, so often, from you?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Why does it matter if they're accurate, can you challenge them or not?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Billy, still no explanation!


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Why does it matter if they're accurate


The voice of an  extremist radical denier


jc456 said:


> can you challenge them or not?


I already did.


----------



## IanC (Apr 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> And what do you believe they show?









What do I believe they show? They are examples of the continuing data manipulation to support the global warming Scare. Not only are the numbers constantly changed to add to the trend, but the actual shape of the individual warming and cooling periods within the range are being rearranged to make it appear that only warming is happening.


----------



## IanC (Apr 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




So you found the original source. Now you are implying that the second graph is actually a global graph? How dishonest is that? Are you really that stupid or confused, or are you just lying to support the Noble Cause?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 9, 2016)

IanC said:


> So you found the original source. Now you are implying that the second graph is actually a global graph? How dishonest is that? Are you really that stupid or confused, or are you just lying to support the Noble Cause?


C'mon cut the crap. I'm tired of that kind of indignant bluster.
First, I did not find or even look for the original source.
Second, I clearly said,
_"I *sort of remember* the nature of the graphs, *but I wouldn't swear by it*.* If that's the case* then,..."_​With that much caveat how can you construe it as a lie??? It seems that you are the one who is supporting your noble cause.

Rather than breaking into a tirade why don't you just tell me: Are the graphs only US temperatures? Are they global? What do you think is the significance of the difference?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So you found the original source. Now you are implying that the second graph is actually a global graph? How dishonest is that? Are you really that stupid or confused, or are you just lying to support the Noble Cause?
> ...




The first chart clearly states that it is global...as does the third...if you toss out the second, Ian has still made his point..The data has clearly been adjusted and I doubt that you could prove that science was unable to accurately read a thermometer in either 1950 or 1970....there is no rational, scientifically valid reason for altering the temperatures and certainly no valid argument claiming that the adjustments to data taken nearly 70  and 50 years ago respectively has been made more accurate by the adjustments.


----------

