# UH OH Spaghetti Oh!  Hansen says the temps have been flat!



## westwall (Jan 17, 2013)

Yes, the grand old man has finally been forced to admit that the last ten years have been flat, global tempwise, further he also admits that 2012 was the NINTH warmest on record.

Must suck to be a braindead propagandist like oltrakrtrollingblunderfraud and have the leader of the cult come out and say it's all been a lie.

But, being the nice little useful idiots they are,  they'll figure out a way to rationalise it all away.



Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. *2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year*, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate.


So much for the claims of 2012 being the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH!  Fools.




http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf


----------



## daveman (Jan 17, 2013)

The wheels are coming off...


----------



## IanC (Jan 17, 2013)

you know, at one time Hansen was a pretty good scientist. the whole CAGW thing clouded his judgment.


----------



## daveman (Jan 17, 2013)

IanC said:


> you know, at one time Hansen was a pretty good scientist. the whole CAGW thing clouded his judgment.



The rock star treatment went to his head.  That and all the money.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 17, 2013)

That means there's something really fishy going on with the theory. To remain flat for nearly a decade isn't what we expected.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> So much for the claims of 2012 being the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH!  Fools.



LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....oh walleyed, you are soooo funny.....and sooooooooooo retarded.....

2012 is the hottest year on record in the contiguous US of A, moron. Not the world.

*2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says*
The Washington Post
January 08, 2013
(excerpts)
*Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday. The average temperature in 2012 was 55.3 degrees, one degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees higher than the 20th-century average, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. They described the data as part of a longer-term trend of hotter, drier and potentially more extreme weather.*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 17, 2013)

US=7% of the world. It really doesn't matter as it was a weather pattern that made this possible.(Jet stream being further north)...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> in the contiguous US of A[/U], moron. Not the world.



Not even that.  Which altered record are you using?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 18, 2013)

Matthew said:


> US=7% of the world.


Technically, the USA is a bit less than 2% of the total surface area of the planet and since the entire surface area is involved in climate processes, that is probably the better comparison. The US is a little less than 7% of the world's total land surface area but so what? Perhaps you didn't follow what happened on this thread so far. The ol' walleyedretard posted an idiotic OP revealing the fact that he is so clueless about what is happening, he actually imagined that scientists had claimed that 2012 was the hottest year on record 'worldwide' and he had discovered evidence that they really knew that it was only the 9th or 10th hottest year on record. Woo-hoo. Big scandal, I suppose, in his little fantasy world. I then pointed out that, in his usual half-witted way, he had missed the fact that it was only the USA that had just experienced it's hottest year on record, not the world, and that his big 'expose' was just his usual ignorant garbage.






Matthew said:


> It really doesn't matter as it was a weather pattern that made this possible.(Jet stream being further north)...


Oh...really???    LOLOL.

Without even getting into the reasons why the jet stream was supposedly so much further north as to cause that major a heat wave, let me ask you....was the same "_weather pattern_" that you claim was responsible for last summer's (2012) record breaking heat wave in America, also responsible for all of these events too????





_Australian Bureau of Metereology temperature map - with a new colour for 52-54C. Photograph: BOM._ 
*The temperature forecast for next Monday by Australia's Bureau of Meteorology is so unprecedented - over 52°C (125°F) - that it has had to add a new colour to the top of its scale, a suitably incandescent purple. The record for the hottest average day across the nation was set on Monday, at 40.3°C, exceeding a 40-year-old record. "What makes this event quite exceptional is how widespread and intense it's been," said Aaron Coutts-Smith, the weather bureau's climate services manager. "We have been breaking records across all states and territories in Australia over the course of the event so far." Wildfires are raging across New South Wales and Tasmania.*
(Guardian) 


*The Winter 2012 American Heat Wave: "Almost Like Science Fiction" - 03.23.2012
All across the continent, records have been smashed: from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic, a heat wave like nothing we've ever seen before is hitting the U.S. and Canada. This past Wednesday broke records all across the Midwest and Northeast. Some stats:
Chicago has broken high temperature records for nine days in a row--though today is likely to end that streak. The temperature in Chicago this week has been sometimes 30 degrees higher than the average--more similar to June weather than March.
Many Canadian cities including Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Quebec City, St. John, Windsor, Hamilton, and London, all broke high-temperature records on Wednesday. St. John's high of 25.4°C (78°F) was higher than any recorded temperature in April.
The low temperatures in Marquette, MI and Mt. Washington, NH, was higher than the record high temperature in the past.
Lake Michigan has a water temperature closer to average June readings than March, reaching into the mid-50s in the middle of the lake.
New York City has had seven days of record-breaking temperatures, with yesterday's high of 78 breaking a 74-year-old record.
Mike Halpert, deputy director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration&#8217;s Climate Prediction Center, called the record-breaking month "mind-boggling."*
(Popular Science)


*From late July until the second week in August 2010, record heat settled across 772,204 square miles (2 million square kilometers) in Russia and Eastern Europe. In Moscow, the daytime temperatures reached 101 degrees Fahrenheit (38.2 degrees Celsius), in Kiev, nights reached 77 F (25 C), crops were destroyed, fires swept across western Russia, and preliminary estimates now put the Russian death toll at 55,000.* 
(LiveScience)


*The 2006 North American heat wave spread throughout most of the United States and Canada beginning on July 15, 2006, killing at least 225 people. That day the temperature reached 117 °F (47 °C) in Pierre, South Dakota, with many places in South Dakota that hit well into the 120s. A 130 degree temperature (54 °C) was reported at a remote farm in South Dakota.[citation needed] The heat wave went through several distinct periods:
    From July 15 to July 22 very high temperatures spread across most all of the United States and Canada. On Monday, July 17, every state except Alaska, Minnesota, and North Dakota recorded temperatures of 90 °F (32 °C) or greater. North Dakota had recorded a temperature of 104 °F (40 °C) the previous day.[4]
    From July 23 to July 29 the abnormal heat was concentrated in the West coast and South West deserts. 164 fatalities were reported in California during this period.
    From July 29 to August 4 the heat wave moved eastward, causing further fatalities as it progressed.
    From August 4 to August 27, high temperatures persisted in the South and Southeast United States.[5] The heat wave finally ended with the progression of a cold front through the Southern Plains.*
(Wikipedia)


*The 2003 European heat wave was the hottest summer on record in Europe since at least 1540.[1] France was hit especially hard. The heat wave led to health crises in several countries and combined with drought to create a crop shortfall in parts of Southern Europe. Peer reviewed analysis places the European death toll at 70,000.[2]*
(Wikipedia)


*Spring and summer 2000 - About 140 people died during a heat wave and drought throughout the spring and summer of 2000, report officials with the National Climate Data Center. South-central and southeastern states were hit the hardest. Losses in agriculture and related industries topped $4.8 billion. During the heat wave, some areas experienced as many as 20 more days than usual of temperatures above 90 degrees F.*
(CSMonitor)


*Summer 1999 - Some 502 deaths and at least $1.2 billion in damage resulted from the summer drought and heat wave that struck the East Coast in particular, estimate officials from the National Climate Data Center. The aftermath included extensive losses in the agriculture industry, and temperatures exceeded those on the record books. In Texas, 24 consecutive days with temperatures above 100 degrees signaled the fourth longest heat wave of its kind on record to that date.*
(CSMonitor)


*Summer 1998 - At least 200 deaths and as much as $11.3 billion in damages ensued after a severe heat wave struck the nation, particularly the swath from Texas and Oklahoma eastward to North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Cattle died and crops withered, as ranchers and farmers experienced particularly heavy financial losses. The same summer made the record books for severe flooding in China and other parts of the United States; hurricane Bonnie, meanwhile, struck North Carolina and Virginia. The combined worldwide death toll that summer exceeded 3,000.*
(CSMonitor)


*Summer 1988 - During the summer of 1988, a drought and heat wave affecting the central and eastern portions of the US were responsible for 5,000 to 10,000 deaths, officials estimated, factoring in deaths related to heat stress. The blow to agriculture and related industries totaled about $71.2 billion, making the incident one of the most severe on the &#8220;Billion Dollar US Weather Disasters&#8221; list, which includes all types of weather-related events and is compiled by the National Climate Data Center.*
(CSMonitor)


----------



## Oddball (Jan 18, 2013)

> *UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!*



Yeah, Phil Jones said basically the same thing about a year back.

I don't expect either admission to make a dent in the Chicken Little cult.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 18, 2013)

Oddball said:


> > *UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Neither Dr. Jones nor Dr. Hansen think that warming has stopped. Denier cultists always try to twist and misinterpret what the scientists are saying.


----------



## Missourian (Jan 18, 2013)

The scary part is we were 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 this close to making huge policy decisions based on this junk science.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 18, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > > *UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!*
> ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ39Y_bbOsg]'No statistically significant global warming since 1995' admits Professor Phil Jones - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 18, 2013)

Oddball said:


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



LOLOLOL......


*Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
BBC News* 
By Richard Black - Environment correspondent 
10 June 2011
(excerpts)
*Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not [statistically] significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis. By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use", Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.*


----------



## Oddball (Jan 18, 2013)

Still trolling...Still blundering....Still no significant warming, according to  the Pope of the Chicken Little Cult..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 18, 2013)

If AGW were a real science, when the data contradicts the theory, they'd alter or scrap the theory. Because it's a cult, they theaten Jihad on the non-believers


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 18, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If AGW were a real science, when the data contradicts the theory, they'd alter or scrap the theory. Because it's a cult, they theaten Jihad on the non-believers



The usual insane gibberish from ol' CrazyFruitcake.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 18, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the claims of 2012 being the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH!  Fools.
> ...


Once again I am proven right!

If you remember back when the USA temps were lower than the Global temps, the deniers said only the USA temps were accurate because the USA had the most temp stations, and I predicted that as soon as the USA temps were higher than the Global temps the USA temps would no longer be the most accurate.

Deniers are piss easy to predict.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 18, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Still trolling...Still blundering....Still no significant warming, according to  the Pope of the Chicken Little Cult..



Still nothing but retarded drivel from ol' Screwball. As usual.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 18, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Still trolling...Still blundering....Still no significant warming, according to  the Pope of the Chicken Little Cult..



Still the stupid ass. 

Nine out of the ten hottest years on record in this decade. In spite of a couple strong La Nina's and a low Total Solar Irradiance for a few years. And in 2005 and 2010, the super El Nino record year of 1998 was surpasses, without a significant El Nino. The El Nino of 2010 was weak to moderate, and only lasted the first six months, the last months of 2010 were in La Nina. Yet it was hotter than 1998. 

So, let's do a little prognosticating here. I say that the next time that we have a significant El Nino, that the years of 1998, 2005, and 2010 will seem insignificant. Now, you on the other side, who claim that it is cooling, or at least not warming, what do you predict? Got enough balls to come right out and make a prediction?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 18, 2013)

Low Total Solar Irradiance.

No wonder its so cold


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 18, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Still trolling...Still blundering....Still no significant warming, according to  the Pope of the Chicken Little Cult..
> ...


I predict that the trend for the last 100 years will continue. There has been no cooling period for the last 100 years. Each warming period is followed by a flat period and the next warming period begins where the previous flat period left off. So there will be no cooling period in the future and this flat period will continue until the next warming period starts from our flat point now.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm interested in how we're going to warm up 3c in 87 years? We hardly done 2c coming out of the little ice age(1680-2000). That would be quite the event to behold.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 18, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I'm interested in how we're going to warm up 3c in 87 years? We hardly done 2c coming out of the little ice age(1680-2000). That would be quite the event to behold.



So then....the physics of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has totally escaped your comprehension thus far? That's too bad. It is actually quite possible, according to a number of scientific studies, that the world will see a six degree increase in temperatures by the end of the century. This would be utterly catastrophic for the Earth's biosphere (mass extinctions) and would inevitably be accompanied by at least several feet, more likely several yards, of sea level rise. Of course, unless the world begins very soon to drastically reduce human industrial and transportation carbon emissions, the warming and sea level rises will not end in 2100 but rather will continue for many centuries. 

Even at the current CO2 levels of just under 400ppm, even if the levels weren't still rapidly rising, the world would see considerably more warming and sea level rise over the next few centuries. If we let CO2 levels continue to rise at current rates, the damage to our world will be much, much more severe and impossible to reverse.

*Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report*
ScienceDaily
Oct. 9, 2009  
(excerpts)
*You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today  and were sustained at those levels  global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences. "Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history", she said. "A slightly shocking finding", Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different." 

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years  until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new. Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million, Tripati said. That figure had changed very little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend, Tripati said. "During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yes, the grand old man has finally been forced to admit that the last ten years have been flat, global tempwise, further he also admits that 2012 was the NINTH warmest on record.



Who forced him and how did they do it?


----------



## westwall (Jan 18, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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







You're funny, in a retarded sort of way.  You post an article from 2011 and think that trumps one from 2012  Only a true whackaloon such as yourself could even _begin_ to think that.


----------



## westwall (Jan 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


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








Ummmm, this study is from your head priest.  Not from the sceptic side....do get your targets correct.


----------



## westwall (Jan 18, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Still trolling...Still blundering....Still no significant warming, according to  the Pope of the Chicken Little Cult..
> ...







So, Hansen no longer speaks for your cult?


----------



## westwall (Jan 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...








Ummm, what about that cold snap from the 60's through the 70's.  I understand you weren't born then, but you really should do a teensy weensy little tiny bit of research before you go and make a fool of yourself.


----------



## westwall (Jan 18, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the grand old man has finally been forced to admit that the last ten years have been flat, global tempwise, further he also admits that 2012 was the NINTH warmest on record.
> ...








I think he finally figured out that the climatologists have been so blatantly stupid that they are discrediting themselves (just look at the comments whenever the UK papers post an AGW story) and, as he actually was a decent scientist at one time, this may be the beginning of his efforts to rehab his name.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



That was caused by us putting shit into the Atmosphere. The cooling effect of the energy reflecting off of that helped to stop the warming.


----------



## westwall (Jan 18, 2013)

Matthew said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...








Or, it was just another, in a long series of cycles.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 18, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Only a true retard like yourself could even begin to think that this article from 2001 was intended to "_trump_" one(?) from 2012. The article was posted in response to a deceptive quote from Dr. Jones from 2010 that ol' Screwball posted. Try to follow what's happening as best you can, walleyed, as hard as that may be for a clueless retard like you.

BTW, just out of curiosity, just what article from 2012 did you imagine that this article I posted was supposed to "_trump_"?


----------



## westwall (Jan 18, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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







Read the OP idiot.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 18, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Tonight, you must be not only severely retarded, as always, but also extremely drunk or on unfriendly drugs. 

You started this abortion of a thread with an incredibly stupid OP that revealed that you thought that scientists were saying that 2012 was the hottest year on record worldwide and you crowed about finding evidence that they were being deceptive because 2012 is only the 9th or 10th warmest year on record and I then debunked your nonsense by pointing out that scientists were saying that it was the USA that experienced its hottest year on record. In an immediate knee-jerk reaction to this fact, Matthew objected that the US is only "_7% of the world_". Ed then pointed out that "_back when the USA temps were lower than the Global temps, the deniers said only the USA temps were accurate because the USA had the most temp stations, and I predicted that as soon as the USA temps were higher than the Global temps the USA temps would no longer be the most accurate._", which is what Matthew was trying to do.

Your comments are incomprehensible and just show that, once again, you have no idea what is going on, you poor deluded retard. "_Target_"??? LOLOLOL.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 18, 2013)

westwall said:


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



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......ah yes, the mysterious, unknown, un-namable "_cycles_" that the denier cultists blame for everything, even though they can never actually point out what "_cycles_" they're talking about or just why the climate scientists don't know about these phantom "_cycles_", 'cause none of the real climate cycles they do know about are causing the current changes. 

*&#8216;What about mid-century cooling?&#8217;&#8211;No one said CO2 is the only climate influence*
Grist
By Coby Beck
6 Nov 2006
(excerpts)

*Objection: "There was global cooling in the &#8217;40s, &#8217;50s, and &#8217;60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature is not being driven by CO2."

Answer: None of the advocates of the theory of anthropogenic global warming claim that CO2 is the only factor controlling temperature in the ocean-atmosphere climate system. It is a large and complex system, responsive on many different timescales, subject to numerous forcings. AGW only makes the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of the warming trend seen over the last 100 years. This rise has not been smooth and steady &#8212; nor would it be expected to be.





Global Temperature Land-Ocean Index

If you look at the temperature record for the 1990s, you&#8217;ll notice a sharp drop in &#8217;92, &#8217;93, and &#8217;94. This is the effect of massive amounts of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo&#8217;s eruption. That doesn&#8217;t mean CO2 took a holiday and stopped influencing global temperatures; it only means that the CO2 forcing was temporarily overwhelmed by another, opposite forcing. The situation is similar to the cooling seen in the &#8217;40s and &#8217;50s. During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this latter kind of emissions over the &#8217;60s and &#8217;70s, and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over.*


----------



## asterism (Jan 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



"Each warming period is followed by a flat period."

Show me proof of this.


----------



## asterism (Jan 19, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I'm interested in how we're going to warm up 3c in 87 years? We hardly done 2c coming out of the little ice age(1680-2000). That would be quite the event to behold.
> ...



"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today  and were sustained at those levels  global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"

So why aren't the temps as high now as back then?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Jan 19, 2013)

It truly is entertaining to see one of the enviroloon's gods come out and admit they're full o' shit, and then watch the loons scurrying, while frothing at the mouth, in a pathetic attempt to, "SAY IT AIN'T SOOOOO, JOOOOOOOOOOOOOE"

Seriously, these envirodupes are getting to be as ridiculous as the twooferdupes.

But, that's cool....the entertainment value they provide, is worth it's weight in gold.....Particularly the laughs.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


I was born in the 1940s and there was no "cold" snap in the 1960s and 1970s. There was a FLAT period at the elevated levels from the warming that started in the 1910s. But you knew that already from your extensive research.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> So, let's do a little prognosticating here. I say that the next time that we have a significant El Nino, that the years of 1998, 2005, and 2010 will seem insignificant. Now, you on the other side, who claim that it is cooling, or at least not warming, what do you predict? Got enough balls to come right out and make a prediction?


I predict that the trend for the last 100 years will continue. There has been no cooling period for the last 100 years. Each warming period is followed by a flat period and the next warming period begins where the previous flat period left off. So there will be no cooling period in the future and this flat period will continue until the next warming period starts from our flat point now.[/QUOTE]

So there was no little ice age following the medieval warm period?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Who forced him and how did they do it?



The facts....the observable evidence that you warmers so handily ignore.

Hansen finally acknowledging that temps have been flat for quite some time may well be the first real evidence of the rats abandoning the sinking SS AGW.  Now that a couple of the big rats have made moves towards the exit, don't be overly surprised if a real exodus begins.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2013)

Matthew said:


> That was caused by us putting shit into the Atmosphere. The cooling effect of the energy reflecting off of that helped to stop the warming.



Got anything close to hard evidence to support that claim?  Observed evidence, I mean, not to be confused with the fiction that spews from computer models.


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...









That's not what this paper says, and there are many more like it.  They also say the warming of the 1910 to 1940 period was much more pronounced than that of this cycle.

I was born in the 40's.  There is no way you were too.  You argument style is sooooo 1980's.



http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > I predict that the trend for* the last 100 years* will continue. There has been no cooling period for* the last 100 years*. Each warming period is followed by a flat period and the next warming period begins where the previous flat period left off. So there will be no cooling period in the future and this flat period will continue until the next warming period starts from our flat point now.
> ...


There was no "little ice age" in the last 100 years. It is amazing just how ignorant you know-it-alls are!

If warming and cooling are the natural cycles, there probably should have been some kind of little ice age type of cool down at some point over the last 100 years, so why was there none?


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


The "cold snap" of the 1960s and 70s at its coldest point was at least 3 degrees C warmer than 1910, so it was only a "cold snap" relative to the elevated temperatures after 1910.

Annual Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies


----------



## daveman (Jan 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



He's been excommunicated.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 19, 2013)

asterism said:


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



Because humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere so fast that it will take time for the temperatures to catch up. The process is not instantaneous. If current CO2 levels "_were sustained at those levels_" for a century or two, world average temperatures would be that high and sea levels would be vastly increased.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > So, let's do a little prognosticating here. I say that the next time that we have a significant El Nino, that the years of 1998, 2005, and 2010 will seem insignificant. Now, you on the other side, who claim that it is cooling, or at least not warming, what do you predict? Got enough balls to come right out and make a prediction?
> ...



LOLOLOLOL.....still flaunting your utter retardation, I see.....LOLOLOL....

He said: "_I predict that *the trend for the last 100 years* will continue. There has been no cooling period *for the last 100 years*._"

So, tell us all, little retard, did the MWP and the LIA happen in the last hundred years?




SSDD said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > That was caused by us putting shit into the Atmosphere. The cooling effect of the energy reflecting off of that helped to stop the warming.
> ...



I just posted that evidence in post #36, you blind imbecile.


----------



## daveman (Jan 19, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Because humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere so fast that it will take time for the temperatures to catch up. The process is not instantaneous. If current CO2 levels "_were sustained at those levels_" for a century or two, world average temperatures would be that high and sea levels would be vastly increased.


A century or two?

Then you admit the current dire predictions of catastrophe to be experienced in just decades are bullshit.


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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









Funny, that has never been stated by your high priests, ever...in fact they have proclaimed just the opposite...


World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office 

World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office - Telegraph

Dr. Hansen has said in the past that a global tipping point will be reached by 2016 if levels of greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide are not reduced. 

Earth's Climate Approaches Dangerous Tipping Point

Within as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world's animals or it continues to feed the world's people. It cannot do both. 

George Monbiot: Why vegans were right all along | Global development | The Guardian


Etc. etc. etc.  You are a broken record pushing your little drug induced cult.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 19, 2013)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Because humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere so fast that it will take time for the temperatures to catch up. The process is not instantaneous. If current CO2 levels "_were sustained at those levels_" for a century or two, world average temperatures would be that high and sea levels would be vastly increased.
> ...


Yeah, possibly as much as a century or two for the temperatures to rise 8 or 10 degrees and come to an equilibrium with the CO2 levels.







daveman said:


> Then you admit the current dire predictions of catastrophe to be experienced in just decades are bullshit.


Nope. That's not at all what I said, DaveDumb. Things are going to get quite serious for our present human civilization long, long before the temperatures rise 8+ degrees and the oceans rise by a 100 feet.

*"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today  and were sustained at those levels  global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"*


----------



## daveman (Jan 19, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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


Whatever you say, Chicken Little.


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the claims of 2012 being the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH!  Fools.
> ...


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2013)

Hansen and colleagues argue that that the global temperature trend won't stay stopped:

    ... the continuing planetary energy imbalance and the rapid increase of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use assure that global warming will continue on decadal time scales. Moreover, our interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade, suggests that global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably into the next El Nino phase.
Global Warming at a "Standstill" Admits Man-Made Warming Proponent Hansen - Hit & Run : Reason.com


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2013)

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real 



> WASHINGTON &#8212; A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.
> 
> The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.
> 
> ...


----------



## boedicca (Jan 19, 2013)

Frankly, we should all be making burnt offerings to the Climate Change Gods in order to keep up the Global Warming.  Considering how much of the earth's history has been spent as a giant snowball in space, Global Warming has been Very Very Good to Human Beings.


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2013)

NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com



> In one more devastating blow against the global warming or "climate Apocalypse" supporters such as former Vice President Al Gore, NASA stated today that it was wrong when it release a report that 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded in modern history.
> According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.




5 1/2 years ago GISS said 1934 was the warmest ever. warmer than 1998. now through the wonders of 'adjustments' it is 2012. 

I call bullsh*t


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2013)

boedicca said:


> Frankly, we should all be making burnt offerings to the Climate Change Gods in order to keep up the Global Warming.  Considering how much of the earth's history has been spent as a giant snowball in space, Global Warming has been Very Very Good to Human Beings.



thinning the herd helps too


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 19, 2013)

westwall said:


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


LOLOLOLOLOL.....I see you've totally lost the thread again, walleyed.....are you still drunk???.....let me refresh your memory, you poor befuddled retard.....I posted an article referencing a scientific study showing that when CO2 levels were this high in the past, which hasn't happened in the last 15 million years, planetary temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees warmer and sea levels were 75 to 125 feet higher than today. The Ass-ter asked why temperatures aren't that hot now and I gave the answer you are so very idiotically responding to. Just because it would take a while for temperatures to catch up and equilibrate  with the 'forcing' of the extra CO2 mankind has put into the air, assuming current CO2 levels were "_sustained_" at current levels (about 400ppm) for a long period of time, does not mean that, in the real world with rapidly rising CO2 levels that may hit 600ppm or even 900ppm, we aren't facing an immediate crisis that needs an immediate response or that there aren't some pretty severe consequences starting to happen now or that there aren't tipping points/feedback loops in wait that could potentially cause uncontrollable run-away global warming, possibly, for example, through the release of the methane under the permafrost or from the undersea methane clathrates.







westwall said:


> World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office
> 
> World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office - Telegraph
> 
> ...


All quite true, unfortunately. And not at all contradicted by what I said, as you so idiotically imagine.







westwall said:


> You are a broken record pushing your little drug induced cult.


LOLOLOLOL.....yes, I'm sure all of those tens of thousands of scientists all around the world are "on drugs".....LOLOLOL......

Meanwhile, you are a deluded and very ignorant little cretin pushing the myths, misinformation and lies of your stupidity induced, fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of rightwingnut reality denial.


----------



## daveman (Jan 19, 2013)

Dante said:


> Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Muller was never a skeptic, you moron.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 19, 2013)

IanC said:


> NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Call BS on yourself for posting this retarded drivel and on the lying scumbag who authored that quote you posted. Idiots, both of you. NASA was not "_wrong when it release a report that 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded in modern history_". At the time they reported that, 1998 *was* the hottest year on record for the whole planet (now it's 2010 and 2005 in a tie). It was only in the US that 1936 (by a very tiny margin) was the hottest year on record. A fact that the author of that quote was trying to use deceptively. Now, average temperatures in the US in 2012 have exceeded the records set in 1936. No mystery "_adjustments_", you flaming nitwit, it just got hotter this last year over the lower 48 states than it ever has been before. We had a winter heat wave before the severe summer heat wave. Everybody experienced this reality - stop trying to deny it, you just make yourself look even more like an idiot.

*Unrelenting heat wave bakes half the U.S.; 30 dead*
USAToday
7/7/2012
(excerpts)
*PHILADELPHIA (AP) &#8211; Americans dipped into the water, went to the movies and rode the subway just to be in air conditioning Saturday for relief from unrelenting heat that has killed at least 30 people across half the country. The heat sent temperatures soaring over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in several cities, including a record 105 F in Washington, St. Louis (106 F), and Indianapolis (104 F), buckled highways and derailed a Washington-area train even as another round of summer storms threatened. The heat sent temperatures soaring in more than 20 states to 105 F in Louisville, Kentucky, 101 F in Philadelphia, and 95 F in New York; besides Washington, a record of 104 F was set in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and Baltimore set a record at 102 F. At least 30 deaths were blamed on the heat, including nine in Maryland and 10 in Chicago, mostly among the elderly. Three elderly people found dead in their houses in Ohio had heart disease, but died of high temperatures in homes lacking power because of recent outages, officials said. Heat was also cited as a factor in three deaths in Wisconsin, two in Tennessee and three in Pennsylvania. Officials said the heat caused highways to buckle in Illinois and Wisconsin. In Maryland, investigators said heat likely caused rails to kink and led a green line train to partially derail in Prince George's County, Maryland, on Friday afternoon. No one was injured, and 55 passengers were safely evacuated. "This is becoming a black swan of heat waves, in the sense that it's such a long heat wave, such a severe heat wave and encompassing such a large area," said Chris Vaccaro, spokesman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
*


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yes, the grand old man has finally been forced to admit that the last ten years have been flat, global tempwise, further he also admits that 2012 was the NINTH warmest on record.
> 
> Must suck to be a braindead propagandist like oltrakrtrollingblunderfraud and have the leader of the cult come out and say it's all been a lie.
> 
> ...


"Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998."

What's your rationalization for this claim?

How would you define "climate forcing?"

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2013)

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real
> ...



REALLY? says who, you?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 19, 2013)

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real
> ...


"Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"'The skeptics raised valid points and *everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago*,' Muller said in a telephone interview. 'And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.'

"Muller said that he came into the study 'with a proper skepticism,' something scientists 'should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism' before"

*Do you lack sufficient skepticism of Koch brothers' motives?*

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...





daveman is correct. Muller was never a global warming skeptic.

he did heavily criticize Mann's graph. then he organized a redo of global temps but left the stats to someone else. he also borrowed info from a station quality paper but broke confidence to grandstand to a senate committee. his group's BEST papers have been in peer review for a very, very long time. 

if you want to find his views on global warming and the IPCC just watch his lectures on youtube


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2013)

IanC said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



In his own words without your filter:

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/o...imate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

Dante said:


> Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Muller has never been a sceptic you silly person.  He has a sustainability company for shits sack.  Really, you should at least make an effort to get accurate info about your subjects.


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

Dante said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, we should all be making burnt offerings to the Climate Change Gods in order to keep up the Global Warming.  Considering how much of the earth's history has been spent as a giant snowball in space, Global Warming has been Very Very Good to Human Beings.
> ...







Yes, you libs and oh so caring AGW cultists, allways decend to the Hitlerian ideal of mass murder.


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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







Yeah sure silly person, you see those are just the most recent "tipping points", there have been many others extending far back into the dark ages of AGW "theory".  Hell there was recently a missive warning us that we had only hours to act!  

Only a truely delusional idiot like you and your fellow travellers can think AGW "theory" has legs anymore.  Even the high priest of the movement (bowel movement perhaps?) Hansen is backing off of the hysteria because it ain't working any more fool.


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the grand old man has finally been forced to admit that the last ten years have been flat, global tempwise, further he also admits that 2012 was the NINTH warmest on record.
> ...







Well georgie old boy, when you only use weather stations that are situated at airports and parking lots you can get a nice high temp reading compared to the correctly sited weather stations in the rural areas.  I would think even a brain dead socialist like you could figure that one out....but then I remembered...you're a fucking socialist!  

The only humans stupider than AGW cultists are socialists!  And lo and behold a lot of the AGW cultists ARE socialists (go figure) so you have fundamentally retarded people who think they can get a collectivist government to work, in the face of over a century of failure on multiple continents, and the deaths of hundreds of millions in the quest of that ridiculous fantasy.

And here we have yet again, collectivists seeking yet more carnage (Dantes post the page before) in the misbegotten quest of population and more importantly PEOPLE control.

Fuck you and all your murderous kind you lazy prick.


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...





Muller, you fucking dipshit. Pull your fucking head out of your ass and read his work.  Nowhere does he even remotely come accross as a sceptic.  But that would ruin your meme wouldn't it.

Too bad, that's the reality.


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2013)

Dante said:


> In his own words without your filter:
> 
> CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/o...imate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

Dante said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...






Biodiversity, the new AGW mantra....and that from years ago.  Sceptic????not by a long shot.

"Subsequently, Muller branched out into other areas of science, and in particular the Earth sciences. His work has included attempting to understand the ice ages, dynamics at the core-mantle boundary, patterns of extinction and biodiversity through time, and the processes associated with impact cratering. One of his most well known proposals is the Nemesis hypothesis suggesting the Sun could have an as yet undetected companion dwarf star, whose perturbations of the Oort cloud and subsequent effects on the flux of comets entering the inner Solar System could explain an apparent 26 million year periodicity in extinction events."


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > In his own words without your filter:
> ...







Here you go idiot.  These are all Mullers views of AGW "theory" when he was supposedly a "sceptic".  As can be plainly seen...well, probably not to the brain dead such as yourself,
but to a normal person he very clearly was never a sceptic.

Enjoy the truth silly person...

Author and physicist Richard A. Muller chats with Grist about getting science back in the White Hous | Grist

Physics the Next President Needs to Know | Wired Science | Wired.com

Medieval Global Warming | MIT Technology Review

Bay Area Nobel Prize winner named US Energy Czar | abc7news.com

Global Warming Bombshell | MIT Technology Review


----------



## mamooth (Jan 19, 2013)

Let's check out more of what Hansen said.

"The current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions." -- Hansen

That's what everyone already knew. The persistent La Nina has been depressing surface air temps. That has jack to do with global warming theory or the heat balance of the earth, it just means more heat going into the ocean instead of the air. Eventually the La Nina will flip to El Nino, and air temps will skyrocket.

Now, only a moron would have thought that the La Nina/ El Nino cycle somehow refuted global warming. But look who's posting here, the usual array of hysterical right-wing political cultists. If they didn't do a face plant into a cow patty every time they spoke, they wouldn't be denialists.


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



context.  you leave out the context of his shifting belief based on evidence...unlike you

In his own words without your filter:

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Let's check out more of what Hansen said.
> 
> "The current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions." -- Hansen
> 
> ...



yup.  they take quotes out of context and build castles in the air


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...







Bullcrap.  These views are from as long ago as 2003 and they are all written in the vernacular of the AGW proponent.  I see you are still not bothered by intellectual honesty.

Go figure.


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Let's check out more of what Hansen said.
> 
> "The current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions." -- Hansen
> 
> ...









Welll, well.  Look who discovered natural cycles and normal variability all of a sudden

You nimrods were all about "there is no climate variability and there is only CO2".  We, on the other hand were all about natural cycles.  Now that we have been proven correct you asshats try and jump on the bandwagon and claim that you were saying this all along....you silly liars!

Your propaganda is coming back to bite you in the ass.  I hope you have a thick derrier.


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


go figure? how dumb are you? in 2012 and in 2009

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012 
*
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.* Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...








Ummm, stoooopid...the articles I posted were 2008 and EARLIER.  Wow, you have a problem with even the most basic of stuff don't you.


----------



## Dante (Jan 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Muller becomes a skeptic in 2009. 

are you off your meds?  his own words: _"Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming."_


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 19, 2013)

westwall said:


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


Do you think you could manage to list those supposed previous "_tipping points_", walleyed? The only tipping point so far that we may have already passed, as far as I know, is the one associated with the loss of Arctic sea ice cover and that happens when highly reflective white ice melts and is replaced by dark ocean water that strongly absorbs the sun's energy, thus warming the waters and causing more ice to melt, exposing more ocean surface, and so on and so on.

So Walleyed, what are these "_many others extending far back_" that appear to exist only in your deranged  little brain or perhaps in denier cult mythology?








westwall said:


> Only a truely delusional idiot like you and your fellow travellers can think AGW "theory" has legs anymore.  Even the high priest of the movement (bowel movement perhaps?) Hansen is backing off of the hysteria because it ain't working any more fool.



LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....an amusing mix of retarded denier cult drivel/wishful thinking and your own personal brand of gibbering insanity. LOL. That little denier cult bizarro-world you maintain in your rectum, where anthropogenic global warming isn't happening, glaciers and ice sheets aren't melting, seasons aren't shifting, climate patterns aren't changing and more CO2 is a good thing, that is really the only safe place for you to hang out now, walleyed. If you ever pull your head out, harsh reality might intrude on your delusions, so don't risk it. Keep your head firmly wedged up there, walleyed, and never give up your insanity or your guns. Seriously. You're much too funny to watch the way you are now for anybody to want you to change a thing.





*Stay strong, walleyedretard, 
and never lose that clothes-pin on your nose!*​


----------



## mamooth (Jan 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Welll, well.  Look who discovered natural cycles and normal variability all of a sudden



So now you're choosing to lie about us to cover up yet another of your epic fails. And no one is surprised.



> You nimrods were all about "there is no climate variability and there is only CO2".



No we weren't. Why do you make up this stupid BS? Everyone knows you're lying, you know you'll get called on it and humiliated, so why do you do it?



> We, on the other hand were all about natural cycles.



And you've always been shown to be totally wrong.



> Now that we have been proven correct you asshats try and jump on the bandwagon and claim that you were saying this all along....you silly liars!



A 5-year El Nino wave is not a repeating natural cycle. Dang, you're clueless. And even if there was regular repeating El Nino/La Nina cycle (there's not), it's _still_ getting overwhelmed by the warming. Just like the 11-year temp cycle corresponding to solar cycles (which, contrary to your big honkin' lies, we've always talked about) is getting totally overwhelmed by the AGW forcing. 

But by all means, show everyone you're not as clueless as you appear. Just inform us of the natural cycle driving the warming now, the evidence that it is indeed a repeating natural cycle, and the driving force behind that natural cycle. If you're not just blowing smoke, that should be easy for you.


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Welll, well.  Look who discovered natural cycles and normal variability all of a sudden
> ...








The only clueless ones are all of you.  For thirty years you have been making claims that hve never come true.  Congrats, you idiots have a worse record than known charlatan Sylvia Brown.


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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








No problem little silly person.  Here are just a few for your enlightenment and my entertainement.

Poor clueless retard....are you able to wipe your own ass or do you need help with that too?

Scientists 'expect climate tipping point' by 2200 - Science - News - The Independent

'We have hours' to prevent climate disaster - thestar.com

BBC NEWS | UK | PM warns of climate 'catastrophe'

Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles - Green Living - Environment - The Independent

Five years to save world from climate change, says WWF - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 20, 2013)

westwall said:


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


Oh, you "_Poor clueless retard....are you able to_" pull your head out of "_your own ass or do you need help with that too?_"

Although it shouldn't take me by surprise anymore after all the times I've interacted with you on this forum, it does still startle me sometimes to realize just how extremely clueless and retarded you actually are, walleyed. I sort of assumed, I guess, that everyone who has anything to say about this would have some idea of what the phrase "*tipping point*" means in the field of climate change but, as usual, you're clueless about the actual meaning and apparently have some screwed-up half-witted and very mistaken idea of what it means. Hint: it's not some Green politician in Canada talking about the urgency of taking action. I was pointing out earlier that the calls for urgent action to curb carbon emissions and slow global warming were quite valid, in part because of the very real possibility that rising temperatures could trigger "_*tipping points/feedback loops that could potentially cause uncontrollable run-away global warming, possibly, for example, through the release of the methane under the permafrost or from the undersea methane clathrates.*_" You came back with a garbled, rather incoherent and very delusional claim that "_there have been many others [tipping points] extending far back into the dark ages of AGW "theory_". That didn't make much sense but I invited you to list these supposed "many other" tipping points that you seemed to feel had already been passed. LOLOLOLOL. It's obvious now that you had no idea what the term means. So you come back with, first, an article about how "_Scientists 'expect climate tipping point' by *2200*_". ROTFLMAO...."*2200*"....just exactly what I was saying about the possibility of future tipping points.....how did you think that a tipping point in 2200 is happening "_far back into the dark ages of AGW_"??? All the rest of your articles are just various politician and public figures warning that the world has only a limited time to act to reduce carbon emissions before potentially irreversible changes take place. Those warnings are quite true and, indeed, we may have already passed a tipping point without realizing it. You seem to be confusing the warnings about probable looming tipping points as if the warning were the tipping points. You silly retard. 

The Wiki article below is OK for starters but for a more detailed look at tipping points, this is a good analysis:
*Climate Tipping Points: Current Perspectives and State of Knowledge* 


*Tipping point (climatology)*
From Wikipedia, the *free* encyclopedia
*A climate tipping point is a somewhat ill-defined concept of a point when global climate changes from one stable state to another stable state, in a similar manner to a wine glass tipping over. After the tipping point has been passed, a transition to a new state occurs. The tipping event may be irreversible, comparable to wine spilling from the glass: standing up the glass will not put the wine back.

Global warming proceeds by changing the composition of gases in the Earth's atmosphere by the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. As warming proceeds it brings about changes to the natural environment which may result in other changes. For example, warming may begin to melt the Greenland ice sheet and/or West Antarctic Ice Sheet. At some level of temperature rise, the melt of the entire ice sheet will become inevitable, even though complete melting may not occur for millennia. Thus a tipping point may be passed without any immediately obvious consequences, nor any acceleration of the warming process. Carbon dioxide as of May 2012 makes up 396.18 ppm of Earth's atmosphere[1] and monitoring stations in the Arctic spring 2012 measuring more than 400 ppm of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere.[2] James E. Hansen said that this tipping point had already been reached in April 2008 when the CO2 level was 385 ppm. (Hansen states 350 ppm as the upper limit.) "Further global warming of 1°C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."[3] He has further suggested potential projections of runaway climate change on Earth creating more Venus-like conditions in his book Storms of My Grandchildren.

Scientists and other specialists continue to express concern about global warming and irreversible tipping points. They have used metaphors such as "the door is closing" and warned of global food and water shortages, hundreds of millions of people being displaced by rising sea levels, and storms becoming ever more frequent and severe worldwide.[4] Others have tried systematically to short-list large scale components of the Earth system that may be subject to tipping points, defining tipping points as a variety of phenomena, including the onset of positive feedback, hysteresis effects, and the possible effect of statistical noise at critical points.[5]

Examples

Lenton et al. highlights a number of tipping points, including:[5]

* Boreal forest dieback
    * Amazon rainforest dieback
    * Loss of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice (Polar ice packs) and melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
    * Disruption to Indian and West African monsoon
    * Formation of Atlantic deep water near the Arctic ocean, which is a component process of the thermohaline circulation.
    * Loss of permafrost, leading to potential Arctic methane release[6] and clathrate gun effect​*


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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







And none of it has happened.  Congrats your high priests are batting .000


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


*You are one really scary sissy*.

Have you noticed all the capitalists tripping over tipping points?
Forbes has:

"*There is no debate* over the  generally accepted finding that  over the last 30 years 'the fruits  of economic success have become increasingly unevenly distributed in the U.S.' 

"The latest figures  show that there is 'rising income inequality, very slow economic growth and high unemployment.' *If 1% of Americans now take 25% of the nations income* double the amount of 25 years ago in the mid-1980s then you can understand the rise of Occupy Wall Street and the depressing spectacle of  *45 million people on food stamps a*nd below the poverty  cutoff line ( less than $22,000).

"There are some greedy people who adore the winner take all philosophy of finance, and who dont give much of a damn for poor people. Look at that idiot Herman Cain blasting the poor for not making a fortune from pizza."

It's hardly surprising when punks like you and Cain deny the inherent inequality of capitalism and its global consequences for 90% of humanity. Shit clumps, as they say.

"Capitalism At A Tipping Point" - Forbes


----------



## asterism (Jan 20, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



So there's a direct correlation between CO2 and heat until it isn't?

Where in history has it ever taken that long for temperatures to "catch up?"

That's a new one.


----------



## daveman (Jan 20, 2013)

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


Says reality.  I know you won't be able to recognize that.


----------



## daveman (Jan 20, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


Muller was skeptical about the means, not the conclusion.  He's always been an AGW proponent.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2013)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...










If he became a sceptic in 2009 why was he writing articles as though he were a avowed AGW warmist from the years 2008 and EARLIER?  The first warmist article I posted for you is from 2003 if he was a sceptic in 2009 why would he be writing a warmist article in 2003?

Are you really that stupid?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 20, 2013)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Are you convinced Muller's correct when he claims steadily rising global temperatures are real?

"*There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures*, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. 

"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. 

"Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

"*Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels*.

"'Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world,' he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is."

Does it make sense to you to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels starting today?
Just in case...

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...








Of course not you fucking moron.  Let's look at the insurance industry shall we?  How cool would it be to find some scientific theory that says warming is going to screw everything up.  You look at it with good scientists and they all say it's hogwash but it has political support because as we all know a politician loves nothing if not more power.  So you jump on the bandwagon because it means you get to charge more for your policies with absolutely no risk.

It's the perfect insurance company scam.  They can't be sued for overcharging because all they have to say is "well the government said so".  All costs are going to go up under these schemes and the one constant is that the poor and middle class will get screwed.

If you were really for the poor and downtrodden you would rail against this shit but as you're a good little Stalinist, and people don't matter, you are right in line.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...







Of course they ahve been warming.  They've been doing so for the last 14,000 years.  Rising, falling, and we haven't even come close to the temps during the Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8,000 years ago.

I don't remember there being a shitload of people or SUV's back then so what caused that temperature spike?  CO2 levels were well within the "optimum" as decided by Bill McKibben and Co.  So what gives....what caused that one?


----------



## Dante (Jan 20, 2013)

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



ignore all the replies why don't ya...


----------



## daveman (Jan 20, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Again:  Muller was always an AGW proponent.


----------



## daveman (Jan 20, 2013)

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


Why should I pay attention to bullshit?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 20, 2013)

westwall said:


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



LOLOLOLOLOL.....my gawd, you're sooooo retarded you think warnings about probable future tipping points aren't real if none of them have happened yet. LOLOLOLOL,

Actually the accelerating loss of Arctic sea ice is a tipping point that has either passed or we're passing now. Also the release of methane from under the permafrost and from undersea methane clathrates has already begun so those feedback loops may already be happening.


----------



## IanC (Jan 20, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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




the globe did not pass any tipping points during the any of the warm periods during this interglacial. why do you think this one is different? 

methane is yet another failure of climate models. they have consistently over predicted the amount of methane by close to an order of magnitude compared to reality.

why do you keep listening to the unsubstantiated conclusions of doom? you only acknowledge the scenarios that focus on CO2 in an uncompensated system whereas the earth is full of mechanisms that promote homeostasis.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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







What was that troll?  I can't hear you?  I am so deafened by the massive collapse of AGW "theory" your bullcrap hasn't got enough legs to make it through.

You'll have to try harder!


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2013)

IanC said:


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







Because he's a good little Stalinist and he wants a reason to go out and murder all those pesky people.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2013)

Cant wait for human civilization to be discovered under the polar ice sheets


----------



## mamooth (Jan 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> The only clueless ones are all of you.



You didn't answer my simple question. Did you think I wouldn't notice? Piss and moan all you want, but that deflection won't work. I'm still going to keep coming back to the question.

You've been waving your hands around wildly about how natural cycles are causing the warming, but you never give any specifics. Not going to cut it, given that you're only doing religious chants there, not science.


*What is the specific natural cycle currently driving the warming, what evidence do you have that it is the cause, and what is the cause of that natural cycle?*


Use your own words, not your link-bomb retreat/diversion tactic. And don't use your usual "correlation is causation" thing either. Just buck up, locate your balls and directly answer the simple question. If you can't, everyone will understand why, that reason being that you couldn't locate your balls.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 20, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Cant wait for human civilization to be discovered under the polar ice sheets


I'm pretty sure you're still waiting for your brain to be discovered. Perhaps it's under your mattress.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 20, 2013)

asterism said:


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


No, that's just your total ignorance of science talking. And your stupidity.

*"The process is not instantaneous."*







asterism said:


> Where in history has it ever taken that long for temperatures to "catch up?"


LOL. You don't know any history, let alone any climate science, you retarded denier cult troll.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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







And you ignore all but the last 30 years.  Cherry picking on a grand scale.  No matter, even Obama won't do anything.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The only clueless ones are all of you.
> ...








Nobody knows.  That's the point.  And correlation does NOT EQUAL CAUSATION for the umpteenth time you twit, never has, never will, no matter how hard you all try and make it so.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > *What is the specific natural cycle currently driving the warming, what evidence do you have that it is the cause, and what is the cause of that natural cycle?*
> ...



ROTFLMAO..........LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...stop it, walleyed.....you're killing me.....I'm really afraid that I'm going to laugh myself to death......


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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







By all means please do so...do the Earth a favor...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 20, 2013)

westwall said:


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



You don't even realize how retarded your last post was.......that's hilarious......and, BTW, rather obviously it is your loss that would improve the gene pool.....you poor, poor delusional imbecile......LOLOLOL


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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







  Sure thing doood.  Anyone who's primary response to discussion is insult, is either a loon or a 12 year old.  Thanks for playing!


----------



## asterism (Jan 20, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



So it appears you don't know of any time in history where massive rises in CO2 predated massive rises in temperature by hundreds of years either.

Ok.


----------



## IanC (Jan 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The only clueless ones are all of you.
> ...




if you look at the factors incorporated in the climate models the only solar influence included is TSI, the average solar output over all wavelengths. and it only accounts for a few percent of the total at most. there are many ways that the Sun can influence the climate, both known and unknown, but that is not the area where we are searching.

the correlation between solar activity and climate seems quite strong over the last thousand(s) of years. if you write a computer program that basically ignores the various types of solar influence then all of the correlation that actually belongs to solar factors then gets incorrectly attributed to the factors in the program which leads to incorrect attribution and an inflated certainty.

I also have a big problem with the temperature record. when the adjustments made to the raw data are as large or larger than the trend found how can we make reasonable conclusions? I am not denying that the earth has warmed in the last 150 years, just the amount and the shape of the trends. if the changes in temperature readings over the last dozen years doesnt concern you then you arent paying enough attention.

to quantify these two points in a very rough manner- solar correlation ~0.6 over the last 100 years means roughly 1/3 of climate change is directly solar related. the readings have been manipulated to cool the past and warm the present, roughly doubling the trend and probably adding 1/6 to the present temperature. when you cut the attribution to CO2 and lower the trend, the projected future problems are reduced immensely and look suspiciously like the reality we have had over the last decade and a half.

the main point is.....skeptics dont have to produce a theory for the climate change, just showing the error in AGW theory is sufficient.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 21, 2013)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.

*Because of the rapid industrialization of India and China, aerosol forcing is once again a large part of the equation. As is the particulate carbon, black soot. *


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 21, 2013)

asterism said:


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



Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction event. Permian-Triassic Extinction event.

Methane catastrophe


----------



## depotoo (Jan 21, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the grand old man has finally been forced to admit that the last ten years have been flat, global tempwise, further he also admits that 2012 was the NINTH warmest on record.
> ...



so 150 years of records out of thousands of years makes it so?  Please.  
There are natural cycles.  Greenland was once just that - green land. 

Google Übersetzer


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 21, 2013)

Color me shocked.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 21, 2013)

Wait, what?  The left has been perpetuating a lie?


----------



## depotoo (Jan 21, 2013)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Wait, what?  The left has been perpetuating a lie?


it's amazing the lies that can be perpetuated when big money profit is involved.


----------



## asterism (Jan 21, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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



A good source, but it doesn't answer the question regarding the delayed causal relationship between CO2 and global temperatures.  Specifically, it doesn't show where this has happened before.  It shows that a massive release in Methane caused these warming periods.

Where does it show CO2 caused the warming with a delay of hundreds of years?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 21, 2013)

depotoo said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, what?  The left has been perpetuating a lie?
> ...



"_Big money profit_" - you mean like the hundreds of billions a year that all of the various fossil fuel industry players take in for drilling, mining, refining, transporting, and selling coal, oil products and natural gas? You mean the lies told by the propaganda machine funded by the fossil fuel industry and parroted everywhere by duped and bamboozled denier cult nitwits? Those lies are indeed "_amazing_" in their stupidity and anti-science bias.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 21, 2013)

asterism said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



The better question, Ass-ter, is why would you imagine that surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels? 

Go ahead, try to answer that one. Seriously, I dare you.

The real answer, of course, is that you are completely ignorant about physics and you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 21, 2013)

asterism said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



*What you are addressing is the Milankovic Cycles.*

Global Warming Natural Cycle ? OSS Foundation

These cycles increase and decrease the amount of solar forcing imposed within our climate system and that actually causes the temperature to rise and fall with calculable regularity. The more time the earth or land mass spends closer to the sun (at perihelion), the more energy it receives thus warming. The more time it spends farther form the sun (at aphelion) the less energy it receives and the earth cools.
 The 'eccentricity' cycle period is around 100,000 years. This causes the orbit of the earth to elongate or become more elliptical. Imagine that the more elliptic it becomes, the less time during the year it spends near the sun. So the planet receives less solar energy and cools a bit.
 The 'obliquity' cycle tilts the earth every 41,000 years and that causes the land mass of the norther hemisphere to face more towards the sun or less towards the sun.
 The 'precession' cycle occurs about every 26,000 years and influences the wobble of the polar axis. This also influences earths climate by causing winters and summers to be warmer or colder depending on the amount of land surface being more or less exposed to the sun.

These are three main influences considered in the Milankovitch theory that regulate the general amount of energy received in our earth climate system. As we warm and cool, more or less of our natural greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, or stored in the oceans, ice and earth.


----------



## asterism (Jan 21, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



There really is no need to be rude.  I never suggested that the surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels.  That is the implication made by the many reports and graphs that I've seen over the years that purport to prove the direct correlation between CO2 and global surface temperatures.  The notion that there is centuries long lag is new to me so I asked about it.

It appears you cannot find any data to prove your claim so it appears that you are lashing out.  Perhaps you might consider that the answer to ignorance is information, not being childish and snippy.

So educate me.  Give me your description of the physics involved with rising CO2 levels and  how it can take hundreds of years for that rise to affect temperatures on a global scale.


----------



## asterism (Jan 21, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Thank you, that makes sense.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> Nobody knows. That's the point.



We do know. That's the point. You being unable to understand doesn't mean anyone else shares your problem.

You waving your hands around and screaming "natural causes!" (which you can't identify) just makes you look crazy. It doesn't invalidate the science and data, any more than a faith healer screaming "God cured him!" would invalidate medical science.



> And correlation does NOT EQUAL CAUSATION for the umpteenth time you twit, never has, never will



Then your side should probably stop using it as the basis of their arguments. After all, you don't see the AGW side using it.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> if you look at the factors incorporated in the climate models the only solar influence included is TSI, the average solar output over all wavelengths. and it only accounts for a few percent of the total at most. there are many ways that the Sun can influence the climate, both known and unknown, but that is not the area where we are searching.



Invoking of the mysterious "unknown" that you have no evidence for, but are sure has to be there. Pseudoscience.



> the correlation between solar activity and climate seems quite strong over the last thousand(s) of years. if you write a computer program that basically ignores the various types of solar influence then all of the correlation that actually belongs to solar factors then gets incorrectly attributed to the factors in the program which leads to incorrect attribution and an inflated certainty.



Conspiracy theory misrepresentation of climate science. As was all the rest of the post, as was that previous thread that said the all the scientists across the world were deliberately fudging all the data. 

Tell us, did you go to the AGW sites and research the issue of data stations? No? Why not? It's all there, if you have an open mind. 

Hey, if you don't want your conspiracy punctured, I can see why you'd stay away. Actually learning the math and statistics is hard. It's much easier to proclaim that all the scientists are lying, and that a morally upright person like yourself is a hero for revealing the real truth.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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








The PETM was an "extinction event" for a very few benthic forams.  The cause of their death is most likely anoxia (not that facts will ever disturb you) and the rest of the biosphere bloomed.  Mammals that exist today evolved during the PETM and dispersed throughout the planet.  If that's your idea of a "extinction event" let's have another.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody knows. That's the point.
> ...







We do?   So who received their PhD for figuring that one out.  Provide a link and a full CV.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 22, 2013)

asterism said:


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



You're distorting what I said. I never said that it takes hundreds of years for rising CO2 levels to affect global temperatures. Rising CO2 levels are obviously already affecting temperatures. Our debate stemmed from the article I posted regarding a study of conditions on Earth 15 million years ago when CO2 levels were last sustained for centuries at a level as high as they are right now and when the temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees hotter and the sea levels 75 to 125 feet higher than at present. You questioned why current temperatures aren't already 5 to 10 degrees hotter and I told you that it takes some time for the rise in CO2 to bring the temperatures up to an equilibrium with the forcing caused by the extra CO2. You express disbelief but the only grounds for your disbelief is your apparent ignorance of both basic physics and the time lags inherent in changing large natural systems. Mankind has raised CO2 levels far faster than natural processes usually can manage to do and we're still raising them at a high rate of increase. Greenhouse gases like CO2 cause more heat energy to be retained in the atmosphere and on the surface and that heat builds up to the point where it reaches a new equilibrium and the amount of heat energy hitting the Earth balances with the amount of heat energy being radiated away into space, with the Earth's 'thermostat' having been reset in the process to a new higher average temperature. This process takes some time during which average temperatures keep rising.

In short, a rise in CO2 causes an almost immediate slow rise in temperatures but it takes a while for the heat to build up to the new equilibrium of the radiation balance of the atmosphere.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 22, 2013)

westwall said:


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



The poor ol' walleyedretard, like many of the denier cult nutjobs, is obsessed with the phrase "_correlation does not equal causation_" without understanding the meaning or realizing that a necessary word has been left out of that quote. The actual phrase used in science is "*correlation does not necessarily equal causation*". There are actually many examples of things that not only correlate strongly but also have a causal relationship. Correlation between two things does not in any way imply that a causal relationship is impossible or even improbable. Climate scientists do not, of course, think that correlation proves causation but they are aware that some of the factors in the Earth's climate systems that are strongly correlated with other factors are, in fact, being caused by those other factors. Causation is determined by analyzing everything involved and not just by looking at correlations but the correlations often give a hint as to possible causal factors.

*Correlation does not imply causation*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. [1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17]  they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy  it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy  dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]

In conclusion, correlation is an extremely valuable type of scientific evidence in medicine. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causational relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, or a risk factor and a disease. 

*


----------



## IanC (Jan 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > if you look at the factors incorporated in the climate models the only solar influence included is TSI, the average solar output over all wavelengths. and it only accounts for a few percent of the total at most. there are many ways that the Sun can influence the climate, both known and unknown, but that is not the area where we are searching.
> ...




pseudoscience? 

the AGW crowd says that we should flip the null hypothesis on its head and declare that CO2 is the control knob for the climate because they cannot find any better reason for warming in the last 50 years but I am pseudoscientific for not believing that the same natural causes that changed the climate in the last hundred, thousand, million or billion years has stopped functioning at the very moment that we started burning fossil fuels in earnest? that seems like too incredible of a coincidence to believe without extraordinary evidence to back it up, and so far the evidence is much, much weaker than very strong conclusions that we are being asked to accept either on faith or via the precautionary principle.

as far as going to sources for data and methodology, I am pretty sure I have read a lot more updates, and downloaded a lot more data than you have. like you said, it is a lot of work. and getting harder. GISS managed to block its past data histories via the wayback machine in the last year, and the single station graphs are no longer available (not even for the one or two day expiry).

I dont usually accuse climate scientists of lying, although some of them certainly do when they are backed into an inconvenient corner, I believe they simply distort the data and exaggerate their conclusions. temperature records are a great example. the major temperature collectors and collators like GISS and HadCRU spend a lot of time and trouble working on new methodologies for selecting and adjusting data series to put together for such products as global, NH, SH, and tropical temps but spend little time on actually cleaning up the mistakes in the records. I have put numerous examples on this message board so I wont belabour the point but I do find it disingenuous that they love to make adjustments (that always seem to increase temps and trends) but seldom correct their mistakes unless bad publicity forces them to.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 22, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Yup. Pseudoscience plus ignorant opinion, denier cult myths and some pure BS. That describes the entire rest of your idiotic post here that I could see no reason to repeat.


----------



## IanC (Jan 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



hahahaha. are you related to unkotare? your debating style is exactly the same. you just trot out your favourite insults and ignore everything else.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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







So, do you use huge fonts as a substitute for your peanut sized mbwebwe?


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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








I hate to tell you but it's you guys who can't produce a single MEASURABLE laboratory experiment that supports your "theory".

It is you who make claims that AGW will cause snow to both disappear and become more widespread.

It is your side that claims drought will increase AND decrease.

It is your side that claims BOTH sides of every issue.  That makes it un-testable which is the VERY DEFINITION OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

Nice try but boy oh boy do you fail.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2013)

IanC said:


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







Yeah, that's blunders way.  That and his use of large fonts to make up for his incredibly small penis size.


----------



## asterism (Jan 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



But how does that happen, and when has it happened in the past?

I did not intend to distort what you said.  However, ALL of the studies and graphs I've seen over the last 10 years show a near direct correlation of CO2 and temperatures.  I've not seen any that show a large rise in CO2 followed by a slower rise in temperatures.

To be honest, the scenario you pose makes more logical sense to me.  So has it ever happened before?

What "basic physics" am I missing here?  That implies that this AGW stuff is simple.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 22, 2013)

asterism said:


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



Perhaps an analogy would help you to understand this.

If you fill a large pot with water and put it on your gas stove burner, the flame is about 3000 degrees F. The boiling point of water is only 212 degrees. Why doesn't all  the water flash into steam immediately? 3000 degrees is so much hotter than the boiling point. The answer is that it takes time for the heat from the very hot flame to permeate and heat the mass of the water. The water has what is called thermal inertia. The Earth's atmosphere masses about 5 quadrillion tons and it has thermal inertia too. The heat retained by the extra CO2 in the air is also passing into the oceans. The Earth's oceans have a volume of about 310 million cubic miles. That's some enormous thermal inertia there too. Just as it takes some time for a large pot of water to boil, so too does it take some time for the Earth's atmosphere and surface to warm.


----------



## asterism (Jan 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



The analogy makes sense.  So when has it happened before?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> The better question, Ass-ter, is why would you imagine that surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels?
> 
> Go ahead, try to answer that one. Seriously, I dare you.
> 
> The real answer, of course, is that you are completely ignorant about physics and you have no idea what you're talking about.



According to agw hypothesis, the surface is warmed by downdwelling radiation resulting from radiative gasses.  The hypothesis suggests that an increase in CO2 will result in an increase in downdwelling radiation.  Radiation moves at, or near the speed of light.  An increase in CO2 should result in an immediate increase in downdewelling radiation and therfore a nearly instantaneous increase in temperature.  

Funny thing is, though, that downdwelling radiation can't be measured at all unless the instrument has been cooled to a temperature far below the ambient.  Explain that.  And try doing it in your own words since you claimed to be able to discuss the topic.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Perhaps an analogy would help you to understand this.
> 
> If you fill a large pot with water and put it on your gas stove burner, the flame is about 3000 degrees F. The boiling point of water is only 212 degrees. Why doesn't all  the water flash into steam immediately? 3000 degrees is so much hotter than the boiling point. The answer is that it takes time for the heat from the very hot flame to permeate and heat the mass of the water. The water has what is called thermal inertia. The Earth's atmosphere masses about 5 quadrillion tons and it has thermal inertia too. The heat retained by the extra CO2 in the air is also passing into the oceans. The Earth's oceans have a volume of about 310 million cubic miles. That's some enormous thermal inertia there too. Just as it takes some time for a large pot of water to boil, so too does it take some time for the Earth's atmosphere and surface to warm.



Why don't you try an apt analogy.  No matter how long you leave the water on the burner, it will never achieve a temperature of more than 212 degrees.  

By the way, the atmosphere isn't warming, not for the past 15 years anyway in spite of steadily increasing CO2.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The better question, Ass-ter, is why would you imagine that surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels?
> ...



LOLOLOL....it's really funny to watch ignorant retards try to 'reason' out science when their assumptions are based only on their ignorance.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOL....it's really funny to watch ignorant retards try to 'reason' out science when their assumptions are based only on their ignorance.



What is really funny is to see the guy who beleives he is the smartest guy in the room reduced to impotent insults and name calling because he is, in reality, completely unable to discuss the topic or answer any question that is not specifically laid out in the agw talking points script.


----------



## Koios (Jan 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yes, the grand old man has finally been forced to admit that the last ten years have been flat, global tempwise, further he also admits that 2012 was the NINTH warmest on record.
> 
> Must suck to be a braindead propagandist like oltrakrtrollingblunderfraud and have the leader of the cult come out and say it's all been a lie.
> 
> ...



Didja read the PDF?

You do know the difference between 5-year-mean and "the last 10 years being flat," which is simply wrong.  Yeah?

Also Fig 1 in the PDF should be very telling of the trend, showing a rapid warming of the planet, in a remarkable and unique upward trajectory.

And this snippet is pretty telling, too: _"Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998."_ *- Page 1, Para 2, Last Sentence.*


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2013)

Koios said:


> Also Fig 1 in the PDF should be very telling of the trend, showing a rapid warming of the planet, in a remarkable and unique upward trajectory.



Remarkable and unique upward trajectory?  Are you kidding?  You believe that in all of earth's history, the present period is unique with regard to climate.  Here is a 400,000 photo courtesy of the vostok ice cores.  There are multiple periods in just that short bit of geological time that make the present warming (15 years ago anyway) look like the merest blip on the radar.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps an analogy would help you to understand this.
> ...


You don't seem to know what 'analogy' means, SSoooDDumb, so look it up. I mean, what do you imagine that your 'analogy' has to do with AGW? Has anyone ever said that the temperatures on Earth would continue to rise forever? There are no physical barriers stopping the average temperatures from rising to levels that would destroy our civilization and the Earth's ecology.







SSDD said:


> By the way, the atmosphere isn't warming, not for the past 15 years anyway in spite of steadily increasing CO2.


Repeating the myths of your little cult of reality denial won't actually make the temperature records go away.

*Warmest years*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*




NOAA graph of Global Annual Temperature Anomalies 19502012

The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 12 years (20012012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record. Global temperatures are affected by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), with the extremes of El Niño and La Niña leading respectively to unusually warm and cool years. 2010 as an El Niño topped the previous record set in the El Niño year of 1998. While 2012 as an La Niña year was cooler, it was still the 10th warmest year since records began in 1880. Over the more recent record, 2012 was the warmest "La Niña year" in the period from 1950 to 2012.[62]

Although the NCDC temperature record begins in 1880, less certain reconstructions of earlier temperatures suggest these years may be the warmest for several centuries to millennia.

10 warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 19012000 mean) 
Year..........Global........Land........Ocean
2010.........0.6590......1.0748......0.5027
2005.........0.6523......1.0505......0.5007
1998.........0.6325......0.9351......0.5160
2003.........0.6219......0.8859......0.5207
2002.........0.6130......0.9351......0.4902
2006.........0.5978......0.9091......0.4792
2009.........0.5957......0.8621......0.4953
2007.........0.5914......1.0886......0.3900
2004.........0.5779......0.8132......0.4885
2012.........0.5728......0.8968......0.4509

The values in the table above are anomalies from the 19012000 global mean of 13.9°C.[66] For instance, the +0.59°C anomaly in 2007 added to the 19012000 mean of 13.9°C gives a global average temperature of 14.49 °C for 2007.[67]

The coolest year in the record was 1911.[63]

Warmest decades





1880-2011 Global annual and decadal mean surface temperature change. Data Source: NOAA

Numerous cycles have been found to influence annual global mean temperatures. The tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are the most well-known of these cycles.[68] An examination of the average global temperature changes by decades reveals continuing climate change.[69] Following chart is from NASA data of combined land-surface air and sea-surface water temperature anomalies.

Temp. anomaly from 19511980 mean
Years..................°C anomaly..........°F anomaly
18801889..........&#8722;0.274 °C...........&#8722;0.493 °F)
18901899..........&#8722;0.254 °C...........&#8722;0.457 °F)
19001909..........&#8722;0.259 °C...........&#8722;0.466 °F)
19101919..........&#8722;0.276 °C...........&#8722;0.497 °F)
19201929..........&#8722;0.175 °C...........&#8722;0.315 °F)
19301939..........&#8722;0.043 °C...........&#8722;0.0774 °F)
19401949...........-0.035 °C...........&#8722;0.0630 °F)
19501959..........&#8722;0.02 °C............&#8722;0.0360 °F)
19601969..........&#8722;0.014 °C...........&#8722;0.0252 °F)
19701979..........&#8722;0.001 °C...........&#8722;0.00180 °F)
19801989..........+0.176 °C.............+0.317 °F)
19901999..........+0.313 °C.............+0.563 °F)
20002009..........+0.513 °C.............+0.923 °F)*


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2013)

No matter the big bold font, no matter how many pretty colored charts and graphs you post....

Correlation _*still*_ doesn't equal causation.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 22, 2013)

westwall said:


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



LOLOLOL.....they are called 'headlines', moron. All of the newspapers and magazines use them. Do you fantasize that all of the reporters and editors are compensating for tiny dicks? I personally use various forms of emphasis, like 'bold', large fonts and color, to try to get some accurate information through the thick skulls of tiny-brained retards like yourself. That's hard to do when cretins like you are masturbating and fantasizing about the penis size of other debaters.

So, Walleyed, do you use off topic diversions like this one as a substitute for actually acknowledging that your BS just got debunked? Or are you in denial about that too? LOLOLOL.


----------



## Koios (Jan 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Also Fig 1 in the PDF should be very telling of the trend, showing a rapid warming of the planet, in a remarkable and unique upward trajectory.
> ...



Is that Fig 1 from the pdf?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 22, 2013)

Oddball said:


> No matter the big bold font, no matter how many pretty colored charts and graphs you post....
> 
> Correlation _*still*_ doesn't equal causation.



No matter how many ignorant idiotic meaningless posts you make, Screwball, you're still a clueless retard.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > No matter the big bold font, no matter how many pretty colored charts and graphs you post....
> ...


I been wondering the same about you, clueless retard with big bold font and pretty colored charts and graphs.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 22, 2013)

Oddball said:


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



"_....with big bold font and pretty colored charts and graphs_" that you can't understand because you're a clueless retard. Your frustration with your own stupidity is understandable.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2013)

> BBC:  Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> 
> Phil Jones: Yes....


Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2013)

Oddball said:


> > BBC:  Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> >
> > Phil Jones: Yes....
> 
> ...



thunder et al believe if they make the fonts big enough and maybe call enough names, amd say it enough times,  it will be true whether it actually is, or not.  after all, gobells said so, didn't he?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2013)

Koios said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



Don't know what pdf you are talking about.  It is just a graph showing temperature and atmospheric CO2 for the past 400,000 years according to the vostok ice cores.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Ever consider fully reading the conversation, Walleyes? So here it is;

*So it appears you don't know of any time in history where massive rises in CO2 predated massive rises in temperature by hundreds of years either.

Ok.
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction event. Permian-Triassic Extinction event.

Methane catastrophe*

The question concerned a rise in GHGs prior to warming. I gave some known examples. Two of them happened to be major extinction events, also.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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







No, you bold and enlarge...so you clearly are compensating for a tiny appendage.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2013)

Koios said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...








No, that's the complete graph of the Vostock ice core.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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








Yeah, I read real well and I find it amusing that you folks believe that warmth caused the actual extinction events when the most likely cause is cold...and has allways been.  Heat has only been promulgated as a possible cause in the last 15 years as the actual temps flattened out they needed to come up with some new "story".

Funny how whenever there's a volcanic eruption the result is an instantaneous drop in global temperature, but you guys claim the exact opposite occured way back when.  Denial of uniformitarianism is the same as denying science in general.  Thanks for being so obvious.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 23, 2013)

Oddball said:


> > BBC:  Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no *statistically*-significant global warming?
> >
> > Phil Jones: Yes....
> 
> ...


The whole quote:


> BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
> 
> *Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level.** Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.*



LOLOLOLOLOL......still trying to beat a dead horse, eh Screwball? 

Like the true retard that you are, you are oblivious to the debunking of your myths.

I already went through this particular bit of denier cult insanity and debunked it in post #14 of this same thread. Remember...."*Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones*"



RollingThunder said:


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


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 23, 2013)

this thread needs some greenman3610

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag]8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Koios (Jan 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Gotcha.  Question my characterization of a graph that I clearly referenced, by finding some other graph.

That tactic work well for you often?


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> this thread needs some greenman3610
> 
> 8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years' - YouTube








Oh goody an alarmist parsing words and their meaning.  Now that the Met Office has CONFIRMED there has been no warming you can go apologise some more.  The fact remains, THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR 16 YEARS.

No matter how much bullcrap you try and cover it up with, you were, and ARE, WRONG.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...







First off I didn't post the graph so I will accept your Apology for being a smart ass, and secondly I believe he was showing the definitive correlation that CO2 increases FOLLOW warming, by centuries, which places a rather significant nail in the coffin of AGW "theory".


----------



## Koios (Jan 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Hardly.  Note the change following the Industrial Revolution.  Now greenhouse gases are tracking closely to temperature rises, despite cooling effects of polution, which reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface, in combination with greatly reduced solar radiation activity and the HUGE cooling affect of Mt. Pinatubo errupting.  So rather than the smooth warming and cooling cycles that have been the hallmark of the last 5000 years, we're erratic as all get out -- and fluxuations are occuring above the mean, for the most part, or only dipping ever so slightly below the mean, when in fact, substantial cooling as was seen following the Medieval Warming (mini Ice Age) is to be expected given the date-range and other factors.    Remember when not so many decades ago, an ice age was predicted?  Not any more.  That tell ya anything?

And it's these erratic changes, and not steady warming, that most climatologists agree are worsening storm activity.  Just look at the shit we've seen in the last 10 years.  100 year storms, 1000 year storms ... record this, record that.

So with some increased solar activity, the end of the prolonged and cooler than normal El Nino in the Pacific, and no Pinatubos saving our butts (only polution, ironically, helping out), things could go north faster even that current predicitons that suggest by 2030 we could be above the very warm period in 1100 BC, which many believe lead to the Jewish Exodus from Egypt.

And what's the economic impact?  Who knows.  But the little breeze that came across the New Jersey shore a short while ago was what?  $30 Billion?  How many of those are needed before our costs of dealing with the problem that the political right has managed to create a bullshit debate about in the US, exclusively, BUT EVERY OTHER FUCKING NATION ON THE PLANET KNOWS WE'RE AT SIGNIFICANT RISK OF, exceeds the cost of mitigating greenhouse gases?


----------



## Koios (Jan 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And as an aside: If you wanna jump into the fight, quit whining about getting your nose bloodied.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...








What erratic changes?  Take a look through history pal, not one thing happening now is any different from what has happened before.  And no they are not.  If you havn't been keeping up (not surprising) the temps have flatlined for the last 16 years in defiance of the ever increasing rise of CO2.  Tracking?  Hardly.   You would have to be a true imbecile to think that.

As far as economic impact lets take a look at that shall we?  Assuming the worst possible case from your high priests, the water would inundate around 2 trillion dollars worth of real estate.

That's a lot.

However, the AGW cultists want to spend 76 TRILLION dollars to combat that.

Do you see the problem there?

Nope, I didn't think you would.....


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...








Oh, I wasn't whining, I was merely pointing out that you are a mindless smacktard who doesn't pay attention to who he is addressing and blissfully insults people without cause...a typical ignoramous in other words.


----------



## Koios (Jan 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The much higher frequency of sharp ups and downs following the so called "Little Ice Age" (1350 - 1850), and beginning, as it happens, not long after the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Note that changes that occured previously over many centuries (~500 years) are now happening within a single century, or less.  That's the very fucking epitome of eratic.


----------



## Koios (Jan 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yes; a big fucking glaring one.  Unsubstantiated claim by you.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > this thread needs some greenman3610
> ...


I suppose someone has to, since you are so very clueless and careless about the meaning of words. And, of course, he's not just "_parsing words_", he is debunking the retarded drivel you're peddling.






westwall said:


> Now that the Met Office has CONFIRMED there has been no warming....


Well, that never happened except in your denier cult fantasy world. The facts on that have been shown to you many times but you idiotically choose to cling to your myths.






westwall said:


> The fact remains, THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR 16 YEARS.


But it is not a "_fact_" at all. It is a moronic denier cult myth, suitable for fertilizing rosebushes.

*Global Warming Since 1998*
Duke University
by Dr. Bill Chameides - Duke University Professor, Dean of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment, Member of the National Academy of Sciences, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union .  
October 28th, 2008 
(excerpts)
*You don&#8217;t have to search too hard to find a skeptic&#8217;s blog proclaiming that global warming &#8220;stopped&#8221; in 1998. Oh happy day if it were true, but sadly it is not. Why do I say this? I&#8217;ve looked at the data. Take a look at the graphic below, which shows the average global temperatures from 1990 to the present. The green diamonds show the 5-year averages for the periods from 1988&#8211;1992, 1993&#8211;1997, 1998&#8211;2002, and 2003&#8211;2007. Each successive diamond appears at a higher temperature than the one before. In other words, global temperatures have been increasing over the past 15+ years &#8212; global warming has not stopped.





Global temperature trends since 1990. Solid line with small dots indicate the annual averages. The green diamonds indicate the 5-year averages. Data taken from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory: CDIAC Temperature Data Sets

If you look at the temperatures in the graphic year by year, it&#8217;s easy to see why someone might think that the warming has stopped. After all, there was a huge temperature maximum in 1998. Since then, only 2005 [and now 2010] had average temperatures equal to or perhaps slightly greater than those in 1998. Eyeballing temperatures from 1998 onward might lead to the inference that temperatures have not increased at all -&#8211; that global warming has stopped. But wait. If you do the same eyeballing exercise starting in 1999 or 1996 you would conclude that there has been a rapid increase in temperatures. Moreover, if you were back in 1992 or 1993 and had done the same eyeballing exercise back to 1990, you would have concluded that global warming had stopped; and you would have been wrong. So what&#8217;s the problem? It comes from a confusion between inter-annual and short-term temperature changes and the longer-term changes in temperatures that are relevant to the issue of climate change on decadal time scales.

There are any number of factors that cause global temperatures to rise and fall. Solar activity is one &#8211;- as the sun goes through its 11-year sunspot cycle, solar radiation goes up and down causing global temperatures to fluctuate up and down. El Nino and La Nina oscillations in the South Pacific Ocean also lead to relatively warm years (El Nino) and cool years (La Nina). The years 1998 and 2005 are interesting to compare. Depending upon the method used to analyze the temperature data, scientists have concluded that either both years tied for the warmest temperatures on record or 2005 was slightly warmer (see here or here). That 1998 was unusually warm is not surprising. It was a year with an unusually strong El Nino and with the sun close to its 11-year maximum. By comparison, the sun in 2005 was near the minimum in its cycle, and the year began with a weak El Nino that dissipated by late spring. A reasonable explanation for 2005 being as warm or warmer than 1998 without the benefit of a solar maximum or strong El Nino includes warming from greenhouse gases. Global warming from greenhouse gases does not occur in a vacuum; it occurs simultaneously with other factors that affect global temperatures like solar variations and El Nino/La Nina oscillations. As I discussed in my previous posts in this series, these other factors can cause short-term ups and downs in global temperatures. But the question for global warming is whether they cause a net temperature change. To determine that, we filter out the short-term fluctuations by using longer term averages (such as the 5-year averages shown in the graphic), and when we do, the upward trend in global temperatures comes through loud and clear &#8211;- take a look at the green diamonds.*








westwall said:


> No matter how much bullcrap you try and cover it up with, you were, and ARE, WRONG.


Funny, that's exactly what everyone who knows anything about AGW/CC keeps telling you, you poor deluded imbecile.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...







What higher frequency changes?  There is no evidence that it is any different than what happened prior to the LIA.  In fact, when one goes far enough back in time this time is actually THE most stable that has ever been recorded.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...








Read it for yourself tiny dick.


http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...








Sure thing tiny dick.  Why are we winning then?  If you want to see THE definition of deluded just look in the mirror.


----------



## Koios (Jan 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Searched "76 Trillion"; no luck

Searched "$76 Trillion"; no luck

Searched "$76"; no luck

Searched "Trillion"; BINGO!  $15 - $20 Trillion, worldwide to covert everything from fosil fuels, which of course is silly since we never will.


----------



## Koios (Jan 23, 2013)

westwall said:


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



In the grown up world, we use a thing called a "dictionary" to look up the definitions of words.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2013)

Koios said:


> Searched "76 Trillion"; no luck
> 
> Searched "$76 Trillion"; no luck
> 
> ...



Tell me, when do such estimates ever even come close?


----------



## Koios (Jan 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Searched "76 Trillion"; no luck
> ...



Never, when the range is a delta of $5 Trillion.  LOL!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Why are we winning then?  If you want to see THE definition of deluded just look in the mirror.



Oh walleyedretard, what do you imagine that you're "_winning_"? A contest to find the biggest retards on the planet? Relax....you already won that one a long time ago.

Meanwhile, you are once again reduced to this kind of null response to the debunking of your favorite myths by an eminent scientist. You poor little bamboozled cretin.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > this thread needs some greenman3610
> ...



What you're doing is called cherry picking, you want to look at a little sliver and pretend nothing else exists.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4]The "No Warming in 16 Years" Crock - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2013)

Koios said:


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







Well, by all means when you do please inform us.  Till then you need to sit at the childrens table.


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...








What a boob!  Try reading the dumbass.  Or if you're too lazy to do that (un-surprising given the lameness of your posts) try 1.9 trillion, then when you have found that number you will see it is 1.9 trillion per year for 40 years and that calculates out to.....let me do some figuring........ahhhh!  Here is the total...*76 TRILLION dollars stooopid*.

If you're going to try and debate something at least have enough brains to read the damned thing before you make a complete ass of yourself.  Sheeesh...some peoples children.


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...








You look at that little sliver and think it's somehow meaningful.  It's not the planet is 5 billion years old, I understand you may think it's only 6,000 years old because you're a scientific illiterate, but it really isn't.  And thus your insistence on looking at the last 30 years is simply stupid.

The world operates on cycles far longer than your miniscule life.  You will live your entire life in the time it take the Earth to belch.....once.  Take some science classes so you have a clue of what you are speaking.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Do those cycles explain what we are seeing? No, they're accounted for. Does the fact that carbon dioxide traps heat explain the warming that we have seen? Yes. Also, nu uh, you're stupid.


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...







Actually, yes they do.  There is NOTHING happening today that hasn't happened in the recent, moderate, and distant past.  You anti-science revisionists ignore all that came before and claim that CO2 has some magical ability in defiance of every Law of Physics there is.  And what warming praytell?  There has neen NONE for 16 years or didn't you get the memo?  

You clowns crack me up.  You claim to be all about science and then you attempt to stifle every line of scientific enquiry that challenges your paradigm.

Guess what pal, that ain't science.  That's a fanatical religion and you've been had....and you're so damned stupid you can't figure it out.  What are you going to say in ten years time when no warming occurs and in fact the opposite does?  You still going to blame warming for that?

What ignorant dupes you all are.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Ever consider fully reading the conversation, Walleyes? So here it is;
> 
> *So it appears you don't know of any time in history where massive rises in CO2 predated massive rises in temperature by hundreds of years either.
> 
> ...



Your hypothesis doesn't really bear out in the big picture rocks which falsifies it quite effectively.  Look up falsification, you clearly aren't famiiar with the word.  Here is a history of temperature and atmospheric CO2 on earth.  As you can see higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations existied with no extinction events...higher concentrations preceeded ice ages.....larger CO2 spikes in CO2 concentrations had happened prior to the Permian / Triassic event without extinction events and higher concentrations would occur after with no extinction events.  You claimed Triassic / Jurassic event was in fact, a non event.  CO2 was falling during that period and saw a large spike nearing the end of the Jurassic which preceeded some significant cooling.

The fact is rocks, there is no steadily repeating pattern upon which you can make your claim.  Other factors are at work and CO2 is not in the drivers seat.  It isn't even a backseat driver.  CO2 is tied up in the trunk....a slave to the whims of temperature doing whatever it dictates.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2013)

Koios said:


> Hardly.  Note the change following the Industrial Revolution.



The fact is that if you look at the long term, you will see that the pattern is exactly the opposite of your claim.  Picking one instance in a 400,000 year long history or more importantly a 600 million year history as an example of proof is simply foolish.  Obviously some other factor is at work....not CO2 which flucutates at the whim of temperature, not the other way around.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> What higher frequency changes?  There is no evidence that it is any different than what happened prior to the LIA.  In fact, when one goes far enough back in time this time is actually THE most stable that has ever been recorded.



I guess he just completely disregarded the Vostok graph which, while being the far more important study, doesn't jibe with his religion.  They love to pick those cherries and hold them up as evidence while the vast bulk of evidence around them says that they are dead wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Do those cycles explain what we are seeing? No, they're accounted for. Does the fact that carbon dioxide traps heat explain the warming that we have seen? Yes. Also, nu uh, you're stupid.



Except that CO2 does not trap heat.  I believe that you believe it does so tell me, how do you believe CO2 traps heat.

While you are considering your explanation, take a quick look at this graph amd tell me how you think ice ages could have begun with atmospheric CO2 in the thousands of parts per million as opposed to the few hundred parts per million we see today.


----------



## Koios (Jan 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



When we have one year in a row where $1.9 Trillion is spent, be real sure to let me know. Then we can start talking about the next 39 years. K?


----------



## Koios (Jan 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And as for stupidy, here's how that works:

1. Climate Scientists note a distrurbing change in climate-affecting gases in the upper atmosphere.  So they publish it, and all manner of peer review follows.  Concensus builds, and more and more data comes in supporting it.  So what's it mean?  Create computer models and project out the near term impact.  If bad shit is looming, let policy makers know what's going on.

2. Policy makers meet, in Kyoto for example.  Fearing costs of the possible crisis, some ideas are floated about how we might mitigate it.  Everyone is on board, including Dems and Reps in the US.  Fear of great costs for merely repairing shit and not moving economies forward, has a very strong appeal.

3. Then business interests worry they might have to spend money, on something other than making more money.  OMG!  So a lobbyist with success on other righty causes gathers with many of them, to create a plan: 1. Get any pseudoscientific nonsense to contradict.  Even 1 horseshit claim is enough.  Bingo; we have debate!  Not all scientists agree; yippe for our side!!!  2. Get GOP lemmings formerly worried about MGW to change their tunes and repeat after them: "The issue is too uncertain, since SCIENTISTS ARE DEBATING IT!!! (pure, bullshit, maufactured debate, but no prob.  It's all we need politically.)

4. Abject fucking retards on message boards and elsewhere add MGW Myth! to their quiver of group-think causes, which include but are not limited to: God, Guns, Tax=Stealing, etc, etc.  MGW is now a Liberal Issue!!!  (In the US, but nowhere else on mother earth.)

5. a. Then a really, really retarded ass, drooling, cross-eyed nincumoop says MGWisatas are wanting to spend $76 Trillion!!! to save a few trillion in real estate.  Actually not true.  That's merely a policy suggestion coming from the UN.  Scientist are merely doing their jobs: science, then publishing, for thorough review by peers.  

5. b. And to add to the stupidity, it's not just real estsate, it's also larger and more frequent storms.  Case in point, New Jersey, etc.  No loss of coastline.  Just $30 Billion in costs to clean up.

How fucking stupid can you people get.  Mygod.  Learn what in the fuck is really going on.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Just more of your ignorant, anti-science, denier cult twaddle, walleyed, you poor deluded retard. Go ahead and cling to your moronic myths about no warming. It would be interesting to hear the rationalizations you'll be spewing in ten years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 24, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 24, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


>



Repeatedly posting a picture of your father adds nothing to the debate, CrazyFruitcake.


----------



## asterism (Jan 24, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



What's your role in this?  What do you do for a living?


----------



## Koios (Jan 24, 2013)

asterism said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Killing time (note avie); have a B2B business selling machine control software for a vertical market, which is unique (high margin) allowing me to farm out, profitably, the support aspect.  So, pretty much, makes some coin even when I'm fucking off killing time.

That answer your questions?


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Except that CO2 does not trap heat.  I believe that you believe it does so tell me, how do you believe CO2 traps heat.



Yes it does.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4eOg2LaSY]Carbon Dioxide Trapping of Earth's Heat - A Laboratory Experiment - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Except that CO2 does not trap heat.  I believe that you believe it does so tell me, how do you believe CO2 traps heat.
> ...









  You've clearly never taken a physics class have you!  That is an example of the IDEAL GAS LAWS in action!  Do look them up, you might actually learn something, though I doubt it.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 24, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...



Helpful lifesaving hint: If you ever hear an announcement over the PA system for everyone to gather at the pavilion, don't go.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 25, 2013)

Oddball said:


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



You drank the kool-aid a long time ago, Screwball, or in your case maybe the 'kook-aid'.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Ok, you're half way there. now, that heat which otherwise was going to radiate back out into space, where is it now? Not in space.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

The myth:



> Yes, the grand old man has finally been forced to admit that the last ten years have been flat, global tempwise, further he also admits that 2012 was the NINTH warmest on record.
> 
> Must suck to be a braindead propagandist like oltrakrtrollingblunderfraud and have the leader of the cult come out and say it's all been a lie.
> 
> But, being the nice little useful idiots they are, they'll figure out a way to rationalise it all away.



The reality:

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says

Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday.

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says - Washington Post


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

And globaly...


2012 expected to be ninth warmest year on record

World Meteorological Organisation data shows average global temperature to date is 14.45C, higher than long-term average. So far this year, the current world average global temperature is between one-tenth and a 0.5C higher than the 1961 to 1990 average.

Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001, according to the Met Office. 

2012 expected to be ninth warmest year on record | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Except that CO2 does not trap heat.  I believe that you believe it does so tell me, how do you believe CO2 traps heat.
> ...



Sorry guy, but that is not an experiment showing that CO2 can trap heat.  As was pointed out to you, the experiment is an example of the ideal gas laws at work.  Further, the experiment was rigged as the camera was set to only view a very narrow (even narrower than the CO2 absorption bands) section of the spectrum.

There are no actual experiments that demonstrate that CO2 can "trap" heat because it can not.  There are experiments galore that demonstrate the variousl effects of the ideal gas laws which can easily fool the uneducated, but none that demonstrate a heat "trapping" property of CO2.  You can't demonstrate in reality something that doesn't exist.

But feel free to describe how you believe CO2 can "trap" heat.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Ok, you're half way there. now, that heat which otherwise was going to radiate back out into space, where is it now? Not in space.



Where do you believe it is?  Do you believe the cool atmosphere can radiate heat back to the warmer surface of the earth when the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that this can not happen?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> The reality:
> 
> 2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says
> 
> ...



The actual reality:

According to CRN, the NOAA/NCDC state of the art meticulously placed temperature gathering network that DOES NOT require adjustment, 2012 was not the hottest year on record.  Of course, you won't hear much about that in the mainstream.  Further, you have to understand that NOAA/NASA/GISS, et. al, have been systematically lowering the temperature of the past for quite some time now.  If you like, feel free to show me a record that has not been altered.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD - 

None of the records have been altered. No one has ever suggested that they have been. 

I can present results from a half dozen different sources for you - e.g. the UK Met Service, the Finnish Met Service, the Australian climate unit and so forth and so on.

They ALL conduct independent research, and they all draw very similar conclusions concerning local and global conditions. 

You will ignore all of them. You know it and I know it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> None of the records have been altered. No one has ever suggested that they have been.
> 
> ...



Of course they have.  I am surprised that you don't know this.  Here, have a gander at just a few examples of the blatant data tampering going on within climate science.


































If you would like more, just ask.  The examples are legion.  The actual fact, siagon, is that none of the records in use are any longer trustworthy due to the amount of alteration, tampering, and blatant fabrication that have been done with them.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD - 

Right. That really is just so convincing. 

Not quite as convincing as the evidence that the Holocaust was faked, but still. 

In all seriousness - do you actually believe this stuff yourself?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Right. That really is just so convincing.
> 
> ...



I believe it, because I have gone to the records myself.  There has been no attempt to hide it, or cover it up.  The tampering is blatant.  Feel free to go to the records yourself and prove any of the above examples incorrect.

What is particularly interesting is that you so offhandedly disregard such a serious charge.  Clearly you have never looked and just as obviously, it has never occurred to you to look.  You simply accept what you are told without question even when there isn't the first bit of actual evidence to support any of it.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD - 

So why do you ignore the results of other research which confirms climate change, and the results of which have never been accused of fraud, tampering or anything else?

Why, for instance, do you refuse to use the UK Met Office as a source?

If I list 50 - and yes, I mean FIFTY - major scientific bodies who confirm climate change as a reality, will you explain why you ignore their research?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> So why do you ignore the results of other research which confirms climate change, and the results of which have never been accused of fraud, tampering or anything else?
> 
> ...



I don't deny climate change.  The climate is and has always been changing.  What I am skeptical of is that man is in any way responsible for changes in the global climate.

As to the met office, I guess you missed the fact that they have recently revised down their numbers for projected warming.  

You can list political heads of scientific bodies and academies that support the agw claims...you can't even begin to prove that the majority, or even close to the majority of the membership of those bodies are on the bandwagon.  It would be easy to name 50 poliical front offices that support the hoax....you would find it much more difficult to name even 50 of the tens of thousands of members from each society, who does not depend on grant money who is on the AGW bandwagon.

Finding scientists who don't depend on grant money who are on the AGW bandwagon isn't an easy task.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD - 

I am aware of around 50 scientific bodies which have confirmed mans role in climate change. 

Can you tell us how many scientific bodies suggest that man is not involved in climate change?


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I am aware of around 50 scientific bodies which have confirmed mans role in climate change.
> 
> Can you tell us how many scientific bodies suggest that man is not involved in climate change?




it seems like you only care about consensus and authority.

in that case then point out to me the mainstream sceptics who say that the globe has not warmed, or that mankind's production of CO2, etc has not made at least some impact? my 'authorities' are arguing completely different things than your strawman arguments imply that they are. complaining about the unexplained changes in so many temperature series is not the same as saying there has been no warming. pointing out that there has been little or no warming over the last 16 years is not saying that there was no warming in the '80s and 90's, it is pointing out that CO2 production in the last 16 years does not match the predicted increase in temps. the CAGW predictions are not matching up with reality. obviously there are unknown or misunderstood factors that need more study and the theory of CO2 warming needs, at the very least, some serious updating.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

Ian  C - 

We all care about scientific consensus. 

There isn't a person on this board who wouldn't take the advice of 99 doctors over the advice of 1 doctor. To do is simply logical and sensible. 

The fact that 50+ major scientific bodies confirm that human acitivity play a major role in climate change - while 1 scientific body has suggested some doubt tells us everything we need to know. It is exactly the same process as we came to know that smoking causes cancer and that Aids is linked to HIV. Exactly the same process. 

There is no question that some early climate change scenarios were too alarmist - just as many others were not alarmist enough. That is how science works.

There is also no question that some years have been cooler than expected. Others have been warmer than expected. (Australia, for instance, recently recorded its hottest day EVER). This does not disprove climate change science, it only shows that climate is not 100% predictable.


----------



## westwall (Jan 25, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...








Seriously dude....take a science class.  The people who put this little "experiment" together havn't a clue how to put one together and they certainly have never taken a high school physics class where these type of experiments are used all the time...well they were back in my day...clearly you youngsters are terribly defficient in scientific acumen.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I am aware of around 50 scientific bodies which have confirmed mans role in climate change.
> 
> Can you tell us how many scientific bodies suggest that man is not involved in climate change?



You don't seem to be able to differentiate between the political head of a scientific body which makes statements which the membership do not get to vote on and the actual scientific body itself.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian  C -
> 
> We all care about scientific consensus.
> 
> There isn't a person on this board who wouldn't take the advice of 99 doctors over the advice of 1 doctor. To do is simply logical and sensible.



 Consensus is politics, not science.  Not very long ago, if you suggested the existence of quasicrystals, the consensus would laugh at you and call you an idiot and if in fact you tried to be so bold as to prove thier existence, they would drum you out of your scientific association which was chemistry by the way....a real science as opposed to climate science....., ruin your chances at getting funding for your research and in short, ruin your career for decades.

Ruin your career...that is till you prove the existence of quasi crystals.  Ask Dr. Shechtman about the validity of the consensus.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> Seriously dude....take a science class.  The people who put this little "experiment" together havn't a clue how to put one together and they certainly have never taken a high school physics class where these type of experiments are used all the time...well they were back in my day...clearly you youngsters are terribly defficient in scientific acumen.



There is a reason that the SAT and various college entrance exams keep getting dumbed down.


----------



## westwall (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Right. That really is just so convincing.
> 
> ...








  And you claim to be a journalist.....for who PRAVDA?


----------



## westwall (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> So why do you ignore the results of other research which confirms climate change, and the results of which have never been accused of fraud, tampering or anything else?
> 
> ...








What climate change?   The global temps have been flat for the last 16 years or do you not remain current on the state of research?  Piss poor performance for one who claims to be a journalist.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> The global temps have been flat for the last 16 years or do you not remain current on the state of research?



Really, Westwall - how can you not know this stuff?!  

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says

Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday.

The average temperature in 2012 was 55.3 degrees, one degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees higher than the 20th-century average, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. They described the data as part of a longer-term trend of hotter, drier and potentially more extreme weather.

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says - Washington Post


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> And you claim to be a journalist.....for who PRAVDA?



Even Pravda has stepped down from the AGW bandwagon.

Global warming, the tool of the West - English pravda.ru


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Really, Westwall - how can you not know this stuff?!
> 
> 2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says



NOAA says?   Here is some NOAA for you:

























Feel free to believe that scientists in Finland are immune to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money and do not tamper with their records, but it is proven that NOAA is not immune and actively tampers with the temperature record.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Feel free to believe that scientists in Finland are immune to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money and do not tamper with their records, but it is proven that NOAA is not immune and actively tampers with the temperature record.



1) Um...WHAT grant money to what Finnish agency? 

2) Can you show evidence of whatever money you mean being linked to the results of research?

3) How has that funding changed since the units you refer to confirmed human acitivity as a factor in climate change?

Let me predict - you will not answer any of those questions.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free to believe that scientists in Finland are immune to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money and do not tamper with their records, but it is proven that NOAA is not immune and actively tampers with the temperature record.
> ...



You may not want to believe it but Finland is bought and paid for:  And this is just one example of the sort of thing going on in the climate change community.

Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan - WSJ.com


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And you claim to be a journalist.....for who PRAVDA?
> ...



Actually no, genius - what you posted is from a blog. Which is why it says so at the bottom of the article.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Just answer the questions.

Tiny car factories in small towns are not the issue here. It's about science...remember?


----------



## TheOldSchool (Jan 25, 2013)

2012 is the 9th warmest year on record.  All 9 have come since 1998.  That has to mean something.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> 2012 is the 9th warmest year on record.  All 9 have come since 1998.  That has to mean something.



You would think so, wouldn't you?

I'm constantly amazed at the bizarre conspiracy theories people concoct to explain what others seems fairly straightforward.

But no - apparently all over the world PhD-level scientists are working together to fake the data. Yawn.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Just answer the questions.
> 
> Tiny car factories in small towns are not the issue here. It's about science...remember?



You don't seem to want to talk about science.  I have asked you repeatedly where Finland gets their temperature data from outside the borders of that Country and you don't seem to want to answer.

And tiny car factories in small towns who get loans due to the influence of the high priests of climate change is at issue.  Money corrupts in Finland as surely as it does in Chicago or Washington DC.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > 2012 is the 9th warmest year on record.  All 9 have come since 1998.  That has to mean something.
> ...



You might, if it weren't for the blatant altering of past, and present temperature records....cooling the past...warming the present....presto chango...crisis.


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free to believe that scientists in Finland are immune to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money and do not tamper with their records, but it is proven that NOAA is not immune and actively tampers with the temperature record.
> ...



Indeed, Saigon.

The base facts MGW Denialists overlook are:

A. I am not a climate scientist
B. Niether is anyone else on this godforsaken site

To the Denialists, here's how it works:

Not one fucking snippet anyone here grabs onto proves a fucking thing.  It's merely a snippet, which folks who in fact know something about the very complex factors affecting the Earth's climate, have considered along with EVERY OTHER KNOWN FACT, in the gestalt.

And thus a theory develops, which is also submitted for review by every other person who merits, nay demands, being included in reviewing it -- ALL OF IT, and not the cherry-picked then distorted horseshit offered up by Denialists with alphabet soup behind their names in unrelated fields of study, if that.  Here's where they fall in the heirarchy ...

1. Climate scientists (overwhelming majority) who study and are apprised of all data, and are saying MGW is real, and a real threat.

2. Climate scientists (minority) who accept that MGW is real, albeit have differing opinions on it's potential impact, or how much is us v. natural forces.

*>>> 3. Geologists, mostly, who either work for the fosil fuels industry or have "research" funded by the fosil fuels industry, who grab snippets, distort them, and then create pseudo-scientific bullshit that righty retards gobble up by fucking default.*

In short, the bottom-feeders.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> But no - apparently all over the world PhD-level scientists are working together to fake the data. Yawn.



The data comes from just a few sources....sources that are known to have been altered.

Refer to error cascade....everyone doesn't have to be in on the fraud....they just have to accept the data they are using as true when in fact it isn't.

Again, show me some proof that Trenberth's energy budget is spot on since the entire AGW hypothesis is built upon that bit of "science".


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> 1. Climate scientists (overwhelming majority) who study and are apprised of all data, and are saying MGW is real, and a real threat.
> 
> 2. Climate scientists (minority) who accept that MGW is real, albeit have differing opinions on it's potential impact, or how much is us v. natural forces.
> 
> ...



Climate science is a soft science and as such, few are trained beyond the basics in physics, thermodynamics, etc.  Very few hard scientists, trained in physics, thermodynamics, etc., are on the AGW bandwagon.


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Climate scientists (overwhelming majority) who study and are apprised of all data, and are saying MGW is real, and a real threat.
> ...



No; it's not.  Phsychologists/therapists practice what are called "soft science."


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> *Climate science is a soft science* and as such, few are trained beyond the basics in physics, thermodynamics, etc.  Very few hard scientists, trained in physics, thermodynamics, etc., are on the AGW bandwagon.



No; it's not.  Phsychologists/therapists practice what are called "soft science."[/QUOTE]


Half way there....climate science is a soft science just like psychology.  

A soft science is a specialized field or disciplinesthat make interpretations on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria. 

A hard science on the other hand is  any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, in which aspects of the universe are investigated by means of experimentation.

Now, which actual experiments support the basic hypothesis of AGW?   Have you ever looked at the course requirements to get a degree in climate science?  The average meteorologist is far better educated than a climate scientist and few meteorologists are on the AGW bandwagon.


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > *Climate science is a soft science* and as such, few are trained beyond the basics in physics, thermodynamics, etc.  Very few hard scientists, trained in physics, thermodynamics, etc., are on the AGW bandwagon.
> ...





> *Half way there....climate science is a soft science just like psychology.*
> 
> A soft science is a specialized field or disciplinesthat make interpretations on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria.
> 
> ...



Nope, not even close.  In fact, you might benefit from some years of soft science couch-time.

Some things that most kindergarders should now ...

1. Climate is real and really measurable.  The data is comprised of hard facts, and exact progressions are recorded.

2. Emotions are real but only subjectively measured.  And emotional progress is in-exact and unmeasurable.  Ergo, soft "facts."


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> Nope, not even close.  In fact, you might benefit from some years of soft science couch-time.



Keep trying, you will get it.  Hell, just look at the arguments you guys, and climate science itself make.  The very foundations of your arguments are the basis of soft science like consensus, and popular support as opposed to hard sciences which base their arguments on repeatable experimentation.



Koios said:


> 1. Climate is real and really measurable.  The data is comprised of hard facts, and exact progressions are recorded.



Aspects of the climate are measurable but at present, climate science really doesn't really have a handle on what it should be measuring and there is quite a bit of disagreement within the field as to what the measurements mean and little, if any hard proof to support their various positions.

As evidence that climate science is at present a soft science, tell me what, according to climate science, would falsify the AGW hypothesis? 

 Face it, climate science is soft.  Someday it may grow to be a hard science, but at present, it is much to political to be called science.


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, not even close.  In fact, you might benefit from some years of soft science couch-time.
> ...



A bit of homework:

Google (verb) "soft sciences" and then see if climatology is on the list.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Keep trying, you will get it.  Hell, just look at the arguments you guys, and climate science itself make.  The very foundations of your arguments are the basis of soft science like consensus, and popular support as opposed to hard sciences which base their arguments on repeatable experimentation.


Your own words demonstrate clearly that you have no idea what the basis of climate science actually is; you just have some braindead denier cult myths. Once again you reveal yourself to be a completely clueless retard.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w9SGw75pVas]What We Know about Climate Change - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free to believe that scientists in Finland are immune to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money and do not tamper with their records, but it is proven that NOAA is not immune and actively tampers with the temperature record.
> ...









  What are you a trakar sock?  You souind just like that clown.


----------



## westwall (Jan 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







Yes, it IS about science, and you have none on your side.  If your "theory" is so rock solid present one measurable experiment that supports it.  Just one.


----------



## westwall (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...








Typical AGW cultist tin foil hat conspiricy BS.  I am an environmental geologist and have cleaned up more toxic waste sites than you could ever hope to read about in your short little life.  I have actually DONE something to clean up the crap, all you want to do is steal money from poor people and give it to rich people.

Talk about bottom feeders, look in the mirror pal, you whore yourself out to the highest bidder in a vain hope to sweep up the scraps from their table.


----------



## westwall (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...








Bullshit.  Show me one hard number that climatologists present.  Everything they publish is couched in terms like "suggest", "may", "could", etc.  Here's your one and only wake up call idiot...THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A SOFT SCIENCE!


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Settle down.  Glad to hear you're a geologist doing work in your area of expertise.  All good.  Geologists doing bullshit science whilst in climatologist drag, not good.  They not you are the bottom-feeders, taking bux to serve a master intent on distorting science.

I'm a marketing guy, who when not fucking off here, markets and do not try to pass myself off as a brain surgeon, and publish bullshit on brain science.  Nor would I be intimidated if Newton and Einstein came to me and wished to question my assertions about markets and brand strategies.  I'd wipe up the floor with them, depite their IQs collectively being multiples of mine.

See where I'm going?

Meanwhile, I am not all about poor people. Some I wish to be spent on cleaning up shit and not creating more poor, such as my brother who was an engineer cleaning up Hanford, until budget cuts sent him to Saudi Arabia looking for work, since praise babyjesus and the Teas, we're spending less to clean up nuke waste in E WA.


----------



## westwall (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...








Yes, climate is "real".  It is certainly "measurable" in the long term (hundreds of years) but as they can't predict what will happen 10 years from now (they have been catastrophically wrong in the prediction of what would happen during this last 15 year period) nor can they predict what effect CO2 will have on the atmosphere, as yet again the CO2 level has risen far higher than even Hansens worst case scenario, so once again youare left with that old adage, "well,it isn't an exact science" which is the very definition of what an exact science actually does.

They tell you exactly what will happen when you mix A with B.


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Of course. Climatologists, doing real hard fact science, would be the first to tell you that climate is too fucking dynamic, bordering on pure chaos, and that even though they do real science and are real scientists, their projections are merely that, and based on scientifically-based assumptions.

But to suggest, as one did, that it's soft science, merely exposes that poster's abject ignorance of what science is and is not.


----------



## westwall (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...








Then use your brain and actually research what the goals are.  If pollution control was actually a goal don't you think that there would actually be some legislation written that actually reduces the pollution?

There isn't.  All the legislation that is written merely deals with taxing and redistribution of those tax monies to private companies who "regulate" the carbon trade.  Goldman Sachs figures very prominantly in the schemes and I suggest you look up the Rolling Stone article fo a few years ago that dealt with the company and how they are deeply involved in virtually every scam that has ever harmed the people of this country.

And once again, look up every IPCC regulation that they wish to hammer the first world with, there is not one that contains any mechanism whatsoever to reduce pollution, not one.  Instead they with to categorise CO2 which is the essential gas of life as a pollutant so that they can continue to pollute totheir hearts content while taxing us for the very air we breathe.

A little hard science factoid for you, if they were able to get the atmospheric CO2 level down to 200 do you know what the result would be?  Death.  No plants can grow at that low a concentration level.  All paleo records we have tell us that when the CO2 levels have been high the world has done exceptionally well.  The same goes for warmth.  When it has been warm the world has done well.  The Roman civilisation blossomed when it was at least 3 degrees warmer than today as an example. 

This is KNOWN, but not reported by the climatologists because it ruins their paradigm and that would ruin their scam.

Just read some history, learn something about what has actually happened before and you will be astounded at how badly you have been misled.


----------



## westwall (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...









No, their assumptions are based on very poorly written computer models that ignore water vapor or worse, assume it is a positive forcer when it has been shown to be a NEGATIVE forcer.   There is nothing exact about the way they do their science.


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I've already learned something: Nevada needs smarter geologists.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> A bit of homework:
> 
> Google (verb) "soft sciences" and then see if climatology is on the list.



Does the list include ALL of the soft sciences?

The fact is that climate science is a soft science.  The data are not only stylized and interpreted, but climate science isn't sure what it needs to measure and isn't sure how to interpret what it has measured, and again, there is vast disagreement within climate science as to what the meaning is of what has been measured.

Add the fact that there isn't a single controlled experiment in support of the claims.  What you are left with is a bunch of people standing around interpreting stylized data.  

Here is a prime example of the softness of climate science.  There is a hypothesis and an understanding of atmospheric physics that climate science adheres to.  One would suppose that the same set of physics is at work everywhere within our solar system, so if the parameters of the various planets with atmospheres were plugged into the climate models a correct hypothesis should yield a predicted planetary temperature close to the actual observed temperature of the planet.

If you plug the parameters of the various planets into climate models, you don't get anything close to an accurate prediction of the observed temperatures which should tell you that the physics in the models is wrong.  There are hypotheses that accurately predict the temperatures of the various planets, but the don't even take CO2 into account.

The hypothesis is flawed and yet it is clung to like a religious icon.  Soft science, not driven by empirical observation.


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You're not qualified to make that analysis of them; and they were models created by people eminently qualified to do so.  That should tell you something.

Something else telling, if indeed you are a geologist: you know that outside of academia, the bulk of employment opps for geologists is the fosil fuels industry, which in turn funds many of the studies in academia.  They're the main employer of geologists.  So it's pretty fucking telling when MGW-denialist scientists and nearly exclusively geologists. Yeah?


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > A bit of homework:
> ...



I haven't the foggiest. It was homework I assigned to you and not myself.

But I already know that Climatogology is not a soft science.  So if it's on a list, anywhere, the list was compiled by some right wing blogger that's a fucking retard.

That help?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> You're not qualified to make that analysis of them; and they were models created by people eminently qualified to do so.  That should tell you something.



No they aren't.  They are created by computer scientists with a very poor understanding of themodynamics.

I asked you what would falsify the AGW hypothesis.  Is there a reason you didn't answer?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> I haven't the foggiest. It was homework I assigned to you and not myself.
> 
> But I already know that Climatogology is not a soft science.  So if it's on a list, anywhere, the list was compiled by some right wing blogger that's a fucking retard.
> 
> That help?



Meteorology is a hard science, not climatolgy.  The fact that you believe it is, speaks volumes.  Take a look sometime at the course requirements for a degree in climatology, then look at the requirements for a degree in chemistry, physics, geology, astrophysics, etc, and then see if you still believe it is a hard science.  If you do after having looked at the requirements for the degree, then you simply aren't very bright.


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > You're not qualified to make that analysis of them; and they were models created by people eminently qualified to do so.  That should tell you something.
> ...



Yeah they are.  In fact, find a list of the 100 most respected / published / acclaimed climatologists on the planet.  Then see if even one is among the MGW-denier list.

Should tell you something.


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't the foggiest. It was homework I assigned to you and not myself.
> ...



You're exactly wrong.  Want to be a metorologist, and certified?  Here's a bonus: do you look nice on TV?  Next, take a multiple guess test, and see how easy it is to pass, pay the fee and be a REAL meterologist!!!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> Yeah they are.  In fact, find a list of the 100 most respected / published / acclaimed climatologists on the planet.  Then see if even one is among the MGW-denier list.
> 
> Should tell you something.





What an honor that must be...to be on the list of 100 of the most respected pseudoscientists on the planet.  

And no, the models are written by computer science geeks with very poor understanding of thermodynamics....which they probably got from climate scientists with equally poor understanding of thermodynamics.


All those models that you guys respect so much represent the earth as a flat disk, that does not rotate and is bathed in a weak twilight 24 hours a day in whcih energy within the system moves entirely via radiation.....tell me how you believe such a representation of earth could possibly produce output that accurately represents reality.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2013)

Koios said:


> You're exactly wrong.  Want to be a metorologist, and certified?  Here's a bonus: do you look nice on TV?  Next, take a multiple guess test, and see how easy it is to pass, pay the fee and be a REAL meterologist!!!



Guess you have never looked up the course requirements for eithen climatologist or meteorologist.  A meteorologist is far better educated than a climatologist.  Hell, you only need one semester of calculus to be a climatologist...if you want to be a meteorologist, you need 3 semesters.  The same holds true in physics, and chemistry.


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah they are.  In fact, find a list of the 100 most respected / published / acclaimed climatologists on the planet.  Then see if even one is among the MGW-denier list.
> ...



I think you've just characterized the MGW-denialist scientists to a fucking tee.

But note I said, "respected / published / acclaimed."  That's a bit more credible measure of one's scientific credibility.


----------



## Koios (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > You're exactly wrong.  Want to be a metorologist, and certified?  Here's a bonus: do you look nice on TV?  Next, take a multiple guess test, and see how easy it is to pass, pay the fee and be a REAL meterologist!!!
> ...



Really?  What is the educational background of the meterologist on your favorite local news channel?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > You're exactly wrong.  Want to be a metorologist, and certified?  Here's a bonus: do you look nice on TV?  Next, take a multiple guess test, and see how easy it is to pass, pay the fee and be a REAL meterologist!!!
> ...



Parroting the lies of your cult only strengthens the impression that you are a clueless retard.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 25, 2013)

SSDD - 

So just to point out the obvious - you did not answer my questions. 

So you have presented absoliutely no reason whatsoever why climate change conducted by Finnish scientists should be ignored, and have no evidence that funding in Finland is in any way connected to the results of that research. (It isn't, btw.)

If you are actually genuinely interested in this topic, this is the point where you realise that your global conspiracy theory doesn't add up.


----------



## westwall (Jan 26, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...







Actually, yes I am....and have done so on many occasions.  As far as your comments regarding who geologists work for......

"The largest number of geologists are employed in the fossil fuels industry. State and Federal governments hire many geologists performing duties in research, regulatory functions and teaching. After gaining experience and a good reputation, many geologists go into private practice as consultants. Dwindling energy, mineral and water resources, increased environmental concerns present challenging careers for geologists. At the present, employment opportunities are the best in the environmental and geotechnical areas."

This is from a University website.  I work mainly with government geologists and with academia.  When I first got started, the company I would eventully do the majority of my environmental work with (Dames & Moore), wanted me to work in the oil world for a time to learn the ropes from the other side so I worked for BP for two years getting the experience my future bosses wanted me to have so I know that world too.  

My point is all of this is that the oil companies are winding down their use of geologists.  They will keep a few of the dinosaurs around but there is very little need for new ones.  That's why the environmental field is the new happy hunting ground for geologists and why many have jumped on the AGW bandwagon.

I am all in favor of getting us off of oil, but the AGW movement gets more money from Big Oil than the sceptics do.  Do your own research and you'll see I am telling the truth.  Or don't and remain ignorant...I frankly don't care.


----------



## westwall (Jan 26, 2013)

Koios said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...







My favorite meteorologist has a degree in geology and chemistry plus he was a Rhodes Scolar quarter finalist.  He doesn't have a meteorology degree however.  He did serve as a consulting meteorologist to the Nevada Dept. of Transportation so they didn't seem to think that was a detriment.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> So just to point out the obvious - you did not answer my questions.
> 
> ...



It is you who hasn't ansered the questions.  I asked you what source they use in Finland for temperature data outside the borders of Finland.  They don't have a worldwide surface stations network so they must get the data from outside thier borders from somewhere.....who do the get it from.

And you don't have the first clue as to whether or not money has corrupted the climate service in your country...faith does not make it true.  Imagine, Finland's scientists don't get grant money for research.


----------



## asterism (Jan 26, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah they are.  In fact, find a list of the 100 most respected / published / acclaimed climatologists on the planet.  Then see if even one is among the MGW-denier list.
> ...



Which models are those?  Be specific please.


----------



## asterism (Jan 26, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



Which models are those?  Please list the qualifications of those who created them.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2013)

asterism said:


> Which models are those?  Be specific please.



All.  Trenberth's energy budget is the energy budget upon which the entire AGW bandwagon is based.  There are models out there that don't operate on that budget and which do a pretty good job at predicting temperature, but the don't take CO2 into consideration so according to the present paradigm, they can't be right even though they do a better job than any of the models being used by the consensus.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2013)

asterism said:


> Which models are those?  Please list the qualifications of those who created them.



Considering the rate of failure, the qualifications of those who create them is really a moot point isn't it?  Clearly either their qualifications, or the knowledge base required to model something as complex as our climate aren't enough.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds more evidence of the 'poor performance' of climate models
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper shows climate models underestimate cooling effect from clouds by a factor of 4
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds why weather & climate models are so often wrong
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Study Finds "Huge Discrepancy" Between Hard Data and Warming Models
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate models are unable to reproduce ENSO and other teleconnections
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate models exaggerate projected warming
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Settled science: New paper finds where winds come from
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Top 10 Reasons Why Climate Model Predictions are False
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Models lead to overly confident climate predictions
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The 76 trillion dollar computer game
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Antarctic sea ice reaches record high while IPCC models predicted the opposite
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate computer models exaggerate global warming and don't reproduce Pacific Ocean oscillations


----------



## asterism (Jan 26, 2013)

SSDD said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Which models are those?  Be specific please.
> ...



I ask because that one wasn't written by anyone remotely qualified.  No training in statistics, no training in software development, no training in data integrity and extremely piss poor coding in general.



SSDD said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Which models are those?  Please list the qualifications of those who created them.
> ...



The qualifications do matter because a PhD in Physics (or Geology, Analytical Chemisty, etc.) doesn't qualify anyone to write software.

Did you read the Climategate stuff?  The HARRY_READ_ME file was hilarious.  The poor intern tasked with writing the model was absolutely clueless.


----------



## Koios (Jan 26, 2013)

asterism said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The exact same ones that some righty retard said were flawed. Check with him/her.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2013)

asterism said:


> I ask because that one wasn't written by anyone remotely qualified.  No training in statistics, no training in software development, no training in data integrity and extremely piss poor coding in general.



Trenberth's energy budget isn't a software model genius...it represents the physics upon which the models climate science is presently using are based.



asterism said:


> Did you read the Climategate stuff?  The HARRY_READ_ME file was hilarious.  The poor intern tasked with writing the model was absolutely clueless.



Not with any particular interest.  Note all of the above papers documenting the abject failure of the current crop of computer models are peer reviewed and published in prominent journals.


----------



## asterism (Jan 26, 2013)

Koios said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



You claimed that the creators were "eminently qualified," so list these qualifications.

Or do you think no expertise in software development is required to write a computer model?


----------



## asterism (Jan 26, 2013)

SSDD said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > I ask because that one wasn't written by anyone remotely qualified.  No training in statistics, no training in software development, no training in data integrity and extremely piss poor coding in general.
> ...



True.

However you are incorrect, Trenberth's Energy Budget most certainly was made using computer models.  Software written by people with no formal education nor training in software development.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



I didn't answer your question because you can obviously answer this yourself - 

- as long as countries like Finland continue to do independent research into their own climate there can be no conspiracy. 

With a hundred or so research units spread around the world, each producing their own local data (and then sharing it), any rogue or manipulated data would quickly show up as being so when set into a global context. Can you imagine Norway, Finland & Denmark claiming the temperatures has risen 2C and Sweden saying theirs had fallen 2C - it would be fairly clear something was badly wrong with Swedish research, or that somehing very odd had happened. 

University research in Finland is not, ever, funded according to its results. Such an accusation has never been made, and there is not evidence at all to suggest such a thing has ocurred. In fact, given the Finnish system, it basically couldn't occur. 

Conspiracies without proof = fantasies.

Fantasies = a reason to ignore science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2013)

AGW =/= Science


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2013)

asterism said:


> True.
> 
> However you are incorrect, Trenberth's Energy Budget most certainly was made using computer models.  Software written by people with no formal education nor training in software development.



Trenberth et.al, provided the numbers and described the terribly flawed physics in this paper. It remains the basis for the AGW hypothesis.


Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E., 1997 

Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 197-208.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I didn't answer your question because you can obviously answer this yourself -
> 
> - as long as countries like Finland continue to do independent research into their own climate there can be no conspiracy.



So your claim is that Finland uses no data from GISS, NOAA, NCDC, USHCN, NASA, WMO, Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), NIWA, CRU, GHCN, or KNMI?  There are others who are known to have massaged their data, but suffice to say that if Finland is using data from any of these sources, they are pepretuating the error cascade.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 27, 2013)

SSDD - 

I am trying to be patient here, I really am. 

Research conducted IN FINLAND, is conducted by FINNISH researchers. It is then shared internationally. There is no reason for Finland to use American data to analyze Finnish results. 

The same statement can be made about several dozen other, largely developed, countries. 

Because research is conducted independently by different universities and research units, any global conspiracy is impossible.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> Research conducted IN FINLAND, is conducted by FINNISH researchers. It is then shared internationally. There is no reason for Finland to use American data to analyze Finnish results.



You aren't being patient, you are trying to dodge the fact that the entire scientific community is using massaged data...including the community in Finland.

So Finnish climate scientists are studying the global climate using only data collected within the borders of Finland?  No data from anywhere else.    Interesting.  

How does that work, exactly, trying to extrapolate the global climate from data collected from an area that amounts to less than 0.07%  of the earth?

The fact is that you are full of crap if you believe that your precious Finnish scientists are not using data from agencies outside of Finland.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 27, 2013)

SSDD - 

Again, I really am trying to be patient with you, I really am. 

Try reading my statement again, thinking about it a bit more seriously, and get back to me if you have a genuine question.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Try reading my statement again, thinking about it a bit more seriously, and get back to me if you have a genuine question.



I have and it is patently rediculous to suggest that Finland's climate scientists are only working with data they gathered in Finland.  To suggest that they aren't working with global data is beyond silly and since they are unable to collect global data on their own since they have no global collection network, they must be getting their global data from somewhere else,  ie someone who is known to be massaging their data.

If they are genuinely only working with data from within Finland, then the don't even merit talking to as they have no idea what the global climate is like.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 27, 2013)

SSDD - 

You've completely misunderstood my statement, whether by accident or design I have no idea.

Either way, I'm not very interested in playing games. I've never understood posters who operate from the standpoint of "I bet you can't make me understand this."  If you want to believe Finnish scientists base their analysis of the Finnish climate based on American data - go right ahead.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2013)

Saigon;
Either way said:
			
		

> Are you saying that Finnish climate scientists have no interest in the global climate and only concern themselves with the climate within the borders of Finland?


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...





SSDD said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, you're half way there. now, that heat which otherwise was going to radiate back out into space, where is it now? Not in space.
> ...



You're literally too stupid to argue with. Have you never felt a warm breeze on a summer night, or it being hot in the shade? Air is everywhere above the ground, there isnt an option to "go around".

and if it was narrower than the absorption bands, then why did it work? Because it was long enough, halfwit.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> You're literally too stupid to argue with. Have you never felt a warm breeze on a summer night, or it being hot in the shade? Air is everywhere above the ground, there isnt an option to "go around".



Why sure I have felt a warm breeze on a summer night...it is caused by the warm surface of the earth radiating heat, not by the cold sky radiating heat.  And who said anything about "going around"



ReallyMeow said:


> and if it was narrower than the absorption bands, then why did it work? Because it was long enough, halfwit.



I said that the camera was set to a very narrow absorption band, not narrower than the absorption bands.  Read....and if proving that CO2 could trap heat were that easy, don't you think some of the big guys would do that sort of experiment and put the issue to rest?  They don't because they would be laughed out of science for trying to fool anyone with that sort of bunk.. Those experiments are for fooling the poorly educated...no one else.  Sorry you have to find out that you are poorly educated like that.

If you believe that experiment demonstrated some kind of "heat trapping" property of CO2, then I am afraid that it is you who finds himself a few IQ points short my friend.


----------



## Koios (Jan 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



And he's on your local TV news' weather segment?


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > You're literally too stupid to argue with. Have you never felt a warm breeze on a summer night, or it being hot in the shade? Air is everywhere above the ground, there isnt an option to "go around".
> ...


No dummy, the air is warm because THE AIR IS WARM. FFS. Its not radiating to you from the ground across a vacuum.



> And who said anything about "going around"


You did.


> *Further, the experiment was rigged as the camera was set to only view a very narrow (even narrower than the CO2 absorption bands) section of the spectrum.*


The band is the band, just because you're only looking at the band, or even a teensy sliver of the band doesnt change the fact that the experiment successfully displayed that heat is being blocked by co2 at that band- you're going to tell me its actually absorbing MORE? SUPER! That just makes me more right.


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...







Yes, he's the chief meteorologist for the station.


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...










Ummmm you're only partially correct there nimrod.  The air is warm because the ground radiates heat that then warms the air.  Take away the heat from the ground and the air cools off PDQ.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > You're literally too stupid to argue with. Have you never felt a warm breeze on a summer night, or it being hot in the shade? Air is everywhere above the ground, there isnt an option to "go around".
> ...


There is no end to suckers that get taken in by these CO2 "lab experiment" videos that show how CO2 "traps heat". And when You point out that the video did not show that then the insults start flying...
Here we have yet another video where a tube is saturated with CO2 and by the time any effect has been "shown" the tube was saturated with CO2. Let`s not forget that the candle light was transmitted to the infrared cam just as good as to the video camera he used to film his video before he turned on the valve of the CO2 high pressure cylinder.
And by his own admission the air was then what he said it was, 385 ppm CO2. It`s a great video if You wanted to show how much down-coming IR  from the sun would be blocked out by the lethal CO2 concentration in this plexiglass tube....and that`s all this experiment did show, that so much of the incoming IR would be absorbed in the first km at the upper atmosphere that we could expect global cooling because there is no way the earth with it`s albedo could make up this amount of energy by zero albedo "black-body" conversion of shorter wavelength light which passed through.
And again the same fraud with the absorbed light being converted to "trapped heat"...while in reality the IR which is "absorbed" has only been diffused in all possible directions after light absorbed by the O=C=O scissoring and stretching vibrational bands  has been re-emitted by the Carbon dioxide molecules. It`s not "trapped" energy else the CO2 would not be able to absorb any more light of this wavelength. But it does continue to do so, because it  instantaneously re-emits the previously IR in *all possible directions* . The IR detector at the other end of the path can only register incident light. So at a 50% absorption 1/2 of the light at a specific wavelength has changed direction...*in no way does that mean, that 50 % of this "absorbed light" has been "trapped" as heat ! *

To convert all the energy which was absorbed as IR to heat all other energy flow avenues  have to be denied. Such as diffused re-radiation escaping in all possible directions, as well as gas expansion and heat convection. The latter being *by far the largest *heat loss component.
There is a good reason why the only "experiments" are only "thought experiments" like Spencer`s outlandish "Yes Virginia" and videos heating up  > 90% CO2 in a closed bottle.
And as far as the CO2 changed the candle image as seen by an infrared cam,...that`s nothing. You should see how much more drastic the effects are when You increase the moisture of the air in that tube instead of increasing the CO2 to lethal concentrations.
The other thing that stands out in this particular video is the usual X-Y graph theatricals, which exaggerate the Y-scale (the CO2) to achieve the desired drama effect...but at the same time it then reveals that during the summer the CO2 ppm are as low as the winter CO2 ppm`s 20 years earlier.
So how much "back radiation" heat can be trapped during the winter when most of the northern hemisphere has an albedo of better than 0.8...and in the summer when the albedo is lower so is the CO2...at levels it was during a winter 20 years ago...no wonder these "climate models" still get it so wrong.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 27, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yes, when it radiates from the ground some of it is absorbed by the air instead of flying off into space, so when we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere more of this heat is being absorbed instead of flying off into space. You've failed to contradict me: co2 traps heat.



polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...



So your argument is that because the earth isnt completely encapsulated in impregnable smog, global warming isnt real? idiot. The experiment only needs to show THAT this property exists.




polarbear said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Why would I need to compare it to water vapor? Oh dur hur hur, an elephant is bigger than a lion, qed lions dont exist? I keep thinking Im going to get to the bottom of this pit of stupid, but it just keeps going deeper.


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...








Wrong.  Water vapor traps heat.  CO2 is a miniscule percentage of the atmosphere and it's IR "trapping" to use your term, frequency is the same as water vapor.  Thus it CAN'T have any measurable effect because the water vapor allready acts as a GHG in that spectrum and as it constitutes well over 90% of the atmospheric GHG's there is simply no physical way for CO2 to have an effect....none.

But that would be science and you clearly don't do science.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 28, 2013)

Quite right, water vapor a positive driver, if it gets hotter, there will be more of it and it more effectively traps heat, this exacerbates the heat trapping produced by that little trace of co2. Well, as if 30 billion tons is trivial.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 28, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Quite right, water vapor a positive driver, if it gets hotter, there will be more of it and it more effectively traps heat, this exacerbates the heat trapping produced by that little trace of co2. Well, as if 30 billion tons is trivial.



No, water vapor is an overall negative driver.  Water has the unique ability to absorb and hold heat without getting warmer.  For example, a pot of water on your stove boiling away will never get above 212 degrees even though the heat pouring into it from the eye is far above 212.  Turn the eye off and it will take a very long time for that water to release the heat it has absorbed.


You guys just don't think through the pap you are fed and as a result, you end up believing idiotic claims of people like the guy with the CO2 video.

Use your brain for just a second here...Picture the globe and a line of lattitude on that globe.  Start at the coast and work your way towards the desert along that line.  During the day, the coast will be much cooler than the desert because of the high water vapor content in the atmosphere....the desert will be a lot warmer because of a decided lack of water vapor. 

Think about places that have near constant drought...the drought is due to heat and the heat is due to a lack of water vapor.  There are no droughts where the atmospheric water vapor levels are normally high.  If your logic held, then as you travel along that line of longitude from the coast to the desert, as the atmospheric water vapor content decreased, the air would lose that positve forcing you claim and the desert would be cold due to a lack of water vapor in the air.  That is not the case.

Feel free to refer to your history books but you won't find any instance, anywhere of a heat wave or drought being brought on by to much humidity.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 28, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Yes, when it radiates from the ground some of it is absorbed by the air instead of flying off into space, so when we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere more of this heat is being absorbed instead of flying off into space. You've failed to contradict me: co2 traps heat.



CO2 absorbs and raidates.  It does not retain any of the energy it absorbed.  Its emission spectra tell us this for a fact.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 28, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> No dummy, the air is warm because THE AIR IS WARM. FFS. Its not radiating to you from the ground across a vacuum.{/quote]
> 
> Ever hear of convection and conduction?  That is the means by which over 90% of the energy the earth absorbs moves from the surface to the higher atmosphere.  Radiation acounts for a minimum of heat transfer in the lower atmosphere.  The breeze is warm because energy is convecting and conducting upwards from the surface.
> 
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Jan 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Use your brain for just a second here...



A bit of advice, you're simply not bright enough to pull off the condescending act.



> Start at the coast and work your way towards the desert along that line. During the day, the coast will be much cooler than the desert because of the high water vapor content in the atmosphere....the desert will be a lot warmer because of a decided lack of water vapor.



And when night falls, the desert turns frigid quickly. Because ... wait for it ... there's no water vapor serving as a greenhouse gas blanket.

Now, you told us a lack of water vapor means higher temps, but at night, regions lacking water vapor have low temps. Your theory has a few problems. You might want to work on that.

It's not water vapor in the atmosphere ever keeping temps down. What does that is the water in the soil and plants, absorbing heat as it vaporizes. You got that wrong too. Deserts are hotter because of a lack of soil moisture, not a lack of humidity. The coastal areas are cooler because the adjacent ocean is cooler, not because of humidity from the ocean.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 28, 2013)

mamooth said:


> A bit of advice, you're simply not bright enough to pull off the condescending act.



Says the one person on the board who is less able to actually discuss the topic less than rolling thunder.  



mamooth said:


> And when night falls, the desert turns frigid quickly. Because ... wait for it ... there's no water vapor serving as a greenhouse gas blanket.



Water vapor does not serve as a blanket.  A blanket works because it inhibits covection and conduction.  Water vapor slows the cooling process because it actually has the capacity to absorb and retain heat radiating from the surface, unlike CO2 which radiates and emits.  Both the coastal region and the desert have the same amount of CO2 in the air but the CO2 makes no difference whatsoever, it is the water vapor.

What you warmists don't seem to grasp is that the atmosphere, water vapor in particular keeps us from burining to a cinder during the day and slows the cooling at night.  Exactly the opposite of the claims the AGW hypothesis makes.



mamooth said:


> Now, you told us a lack of water vapor means higher temps, but at night, regions lacking water vapor have low temps. Your theory has a few problems. You might want to work on that.



Go back and read what I said.  Funny that you would suggest that anyone isn't "bright enough" for anything.



mamooth said:


> It's not water vapor in the atmosphere ever keeping temps down.



Of course it is.  That is why deserts burn during the day while coastal regions don't.  Humidity the the factor that explains the difference between the daytime temperatures.



mamooth said:


> What does that is the water in the soil and plants, absorbing heat as it vaporizes. You got that wrong too. Deserts are hotter because of a lack of soil moisture, not a lack of humidity.



Typical...confusing cause with effect.  The soil in deserts isn't dry because of to much moisture in the air, the soil in deserts is dry because there isn't enough.


----------



## Koios (Jan 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



What station?


----------



## Koios (Jan 28, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



In Seattle, probably the best known / most loved was Harry Woppler, whose son Andy is now on KIRO TV doing the weather.

Here's Harry's background from his obit:

_"Born on Dec. 21, 1936, in Park Ridge, Ill., Mr. Wappler earned an undergraduate degree in speech in 1958 at Northwestern University, followed in 1960 by a graduate degree in theology from Yale Divinity School.

Mr. Wappler became an ordained Episcopal minister and served in parishes in Jacksonville, Fla., and Wilmette, Ill., said his son. Then he switched careers and worked in public relations for Commonwealth Edison in Chicago."_ -- Obituaries | Longtime weatherman Harry Wappler dies at 73 | Seattle Times Newspaper


----------



## polarbear (Jan 28, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Yes, when it radiates from the ground some of it is absorbed by the air  instead of flying off into space, so when we add more carbon dioxide to  the atmosphere more of this heat is being absorbed instead of flying off  into space. You've failed to contradict me: co2 traps heat.
> 
> Why would I need to compare it to water vapor? Oh dur hur hur, an  elephant is bigger than a lion, qed lions dont exist? I keep thinking Im  going to get to the bottom of this pit of stupid, but it just keeps  going deeper.



You fail to understand that CO2 does not "trap heat"..!!!
It *absorbs* Infrared *light* that has a wavelength of  15 [FONT=Arial, Geneva]µm and when the specific molecular bond oscillator is maxed out it *immediately re-emits *it in all directions, in a *360 deg steradian angle*. 





It is You who is in a "pit of stupid" as You put it..because You also completely fail to understand what Lambert-Beer`s law means.





I`ll explain it to You once more, but I`m sure Your little brain won`t be able to absorb it.

If 50 % of the incident light does not reach the detector at the path exit all that has happened is that the other 50 % has gone off at a steradian angle other than the steradian view of the detector . 
"oh dur hur hur..."  another typical facebook culture dummy response...and has not even the vaguest idea what the difference between energy and temperature is.
Before You get heat from any light source You have to *convert *the energy transmitted by the light source to heat...and re-directing light does not convert a photon to heat...as in raising the temperature of a mass.
Else Your sun glasses would melt,...they "absorb" a lot more energy than CO2 could at a 100% concentration.
Your skin gets hot because it does not re-emit the IR light *at the same wavelength* it absorbed . The heat energy that warmed Your skin is sourced from  the  difference between (h*c/ &#955;1) - [FONT=Arial, Geneva](h*c/ &#955;2)[/FONT][/FONT]...where [FONT=Arial, Geneva][FONT=Arial, Geneva]&#955;2 is what`s "flying off into space" as You put it.
"Flying" photons...You sure do have a strange view of photons...Are there photons that don`t fly and fall back down in Your phantasy world too ?
[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Geneva] What the fuck does the huge absorption region of water vapor compared to CO2  have to do with Your "elephants and lions...therefore lions don`t exist"....ridiculous pseudo-logic ???
No wonder You cant` get out of "this pit of stupid" if the only thing that comes to your little mind is "elephants and lions" when someone points out the absorption bandwidth of water vapor which spans almost the entire IR band.
All right then, I`ll try and explain it on Your level, down there in this [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva]"bottom of this pit of stupid"
The much bigger elephant can shade the sunlight out that would reach the lion, and there is dick all left for the lion to get a sun-burn, but the much smaller lion can`t shade the elephant.   
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]





ReallyMeow said:


> Quite right, water vapor a positive driver, if  it gets hotter, there will be more of it and it more effectively traps  heat, this exacerbates the heat trapping produced by that little trace  of co2. Well, as if 30 billion tons is trivial.



So why don`t You try it out...place a thermometer on a sunny day with 50 % overcast directly into the sun light and observe if the temperature goes up or down when a cloud passes overhead.
30 billion tons of CO2 *is trivial *when compared to the   5000 times more H2O vapor shading "elephants"  [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva]than the  CO2 "lions"  at any given time in our atmosphere. 
the "30 billion tons of CO2" You quote, Is that 30 billion long or short tons ?
Photo synthesis of the earth`s vegetation consumes 150 000 000 to 175 000 000 000 (short) tons of CO2 to produce Your "elephant food" and to sustain the rest of the food chain, like Your "lions" that would not exist if there were no CO2...."oh dur hur hur"



[/FONT]


----------



## IanC (Jan 28, 2013)

if you compare two temperature stations in Hawaii, each at the same elevation and distance to the ocean but one with a higher humidity than the other, which will have a higher daytime temp? the drier one.

water in its various forms has an overall moderating effect on temperatures. while water vapour does trap heat close to the surface it also reduces the density of air which then rises taking heat with it. clouds can have either a positive or negative effect on the energy budget depending on the type and the altitude. the uncertainty involved in just clouds is more than enough to totally swamp the effect of CO2.


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Quite right, water vapor a positive driver, if it gets hotter, there will be more of it and it more effectively traps heat, this exacerbates the heat trapping produced by that little trace of co2. Well, as if 30 billion tons is trivial.







Except, that as more research is done, water vapor appears to be a strongly NEGATIVE forcer...


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...






Channel two in Reno, his name is Mike Alger if you really want to know, just ask, it's no secret!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> if you compare two temperature stations in Hawaii, each at the same elevation and distance to the ocean but one with a higher humidity than the other, which will have a higher daytime temp? the drier one.
> 
> water in its various forms has an overall moderating effect on temperatures. while water vapour does trap heat close to the surface it also reduces the density of air which then rises taking heat with it. clouds can have either a positive or negative effect on the energy budget depending on the type and the altitude. the uncertainty involved in just clouds is more than enough to totally swamp the effect of CO2.


You`ll have a hard time finding many stations at the same elevation
X% RH at sea level is not the same as X% RH at a higher elevation.
All stations report Relative Humidity and not Absolute Humidity and hardly any tell You their elevation...unless You listen to aviation MetS. or look it up Yourself.
Clouds reflect more down-coming light (energy) up as "blocking" the far lesser energy carried by up-going reflected or re-emitted light.
Any time a cloud moves overhead a thermometer records a lower temp than what it was at that location in direct sunlight....
Regardless of height water vapor weighs only 18 grams per mol- volume while all the other components like O2 = 32 grams, N2= 28 are more than 2 X as heavy.
This is why the rising convective air currents are so violent. It is not uncommon to get  "sledge hammer" updrafts that can cause 3000 feet per minute vertical speed changes even with heavy air craft. That`s a lot of energy, just the mechanical component, not even counting the latent heat which is being conveyed to altitudes in excess of 40 000 feet in just a few minutes.


----------



## Koios (Jan 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Gotha.  Sounds like a pretty good guy, having an undergrad degree in some technical, if unrealted subjects, from lil old Whitman in Southeast WA.  Plus even came sorta close to a Rhodes Scolarship which is pretty good.

But you'll note that his Meteorology "Credentials" are of the sort that I mentioned when we veered onto this tanget, a coupla days back.  It's a multiple choice test, along with an annual fee, so nice looking and chipper folks can be real live METEOROLOGISTS!!! with realtive ease, whether having some chemisty, communcations, theology or whatever background.  The top qualification is looking good on TV.

And to suggest those folks are somehow better qualified than Climatologists at NOAA, etc, etc, is patently absurd.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 28, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Quite right, water vapor a positive driver, if it gets hotter, there will be more of it and it more effectively traps heat, this exacerbates the heat trapping produced by that little trace of co2. Well, as if 30 billion tons is trivial.


"positive driver" ...all You do is echo typical sensational  buzzwords this crap science invented to impress gullible people like You who don`t have a clue. 
If I`m wrong and You do, then define "positive driver".
So how, as You say, is water a 'positive driver" and "does  more effectively trap even more heat"..???
When water evaporates it consumes no less than 40.7 kJ per mol.
Huge industrial cooling systems take advantage of that to cool water by letting a small portion of it evaporate and then recycle the so cooled remaining water.
And the wild blue yonder You call "the environment" works exactly the same way...although I suspect You don`t get out of Your city apartment often enough to experience what normal people call environment. Else You would know that  it`s cooler during a hot summer day above a large body of water than it is over a dry desert. Furthermore the moist air is so much lighter than dry air that it rapidly rises, expands and cools...by 6.4 deg C per each 1000 meters altitude....till it`s at an altitude where it`s cool enough to hit the dew point, forms clouds, condenses and falls back to the ground either as water drops, *cooler *than the body of water from where it evaporated, as ice from a towering cumulus with updrafts violent enough to rip jetliners to pieces and produce hail storms, or as snow in the colder regions such as the one where I live.
We only get snow here if we get a mass of warm moist air from the U.S. 
Greenland and Ellesmere Island glaciers also grow only when warm & moist air from the south invades these latitudes and all the ice in the antarctic came from regions that were warm enough to evaporate large amounts of water.
So how exactly is water a "positive driver"...of temperature...???
That kind of "positive driver",..crap comes from the same batch of crack heads that could not wait for Marihuana to be legalized...
They also hug trees to enjoy "positive energy" or experience "negative energy" hauntings and other hallucinations when their dope high wears off, which essentially disqualifies them for any regular job except "climatology" which is Government funded and paid for with the taxes that people with real jobs are paying. If water is a "positive driver" then we are sure as hell headed for doomsday and You better start shopping like the National Geographic`s dooms day "preppers"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Because 7/10 th of the earth`s surface is water and I sure as shit won`t park my Ford F150 and be fool enough to buy a Chevy Volt *because of Your* psychotic CO2 anxieties.


----------



## asterism (Jan 28, 2013)

polarbear said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > Quite right, water vapor a positive driver, if it gets hotter, there will be more of it and it more effectively traps heat, this exacerbates the heat trapping produced by that little trace of co2. Well, as if 30 billion tons is trivial.
> ...



Not to mention that the Volt uses the same amount of energy and thus has the same carbon footprint as any other vehicle.


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...







Yeah, that's true.  However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist.  I actually took meteorology classes when I was getting my undergrad so am familiar with the science and it is quite exact, and difficult.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > No, water vapor is an overall negative driver. Water has the unique ability to absorb and hold heat without getting warmer..
> ...


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Jan 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Shit, IFR and advanced glider pilots have a firmer grasp of atmospheric science than do climatologists.


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2013)

Oddball said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...







You know, i was thinking about what you wrote and i think you're correct.  The ground school is pretty extensive and touches a great deal on physics and fluid dynamics etc.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 28, 2013)

> However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist.



You have to laugh, don't you?


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 28, 2013)

I smell vapid assertions, maybe you guys want to try the type of science that actually works?


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to laugh, don't you?







Not at all, the undergrad requirements for meteorology are quite extensive.  Most climatologists are geography undergrads which is quite easy.  I mean really, really easy.


----------



## westwall (Jan 28, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> I smell vapid assertions, maybe you guys want to try the type of science that actually works?








Yes, most other sciences actually have MEASURABLE tests and experiments.  Climatology is the only science I can think of that relies almost entirely on computer models and actually views climate models as "data".

Simply extraordinary in their delusion....


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist.
> ...



cool story bro


----------



## Saigon (Jan 28, 2013)

Westwall - 

As one would have thought you may be aware - a great many climatologits have a PhD, in many cases coming from a Masters in Physics. Anyone working with climate in this part of the world needs a Masters as an absolute minimum. 

Many Meteorologists have only a Bachelors. 

It's also worth keeping in mind that many people working on climate-relate research have PhD's in Physics, not Climatology as such. 


So now as part of your ongoing campaign against science, you are actually saying the best qualifications someone has, the better source he is....why am I surprised?


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> As one would have thought you may be aware - a great many climatologits have a PhD, in many cases coming from a Masters in Physics. Anyone working with climate in this part of the world needs a Masters as an absolute minimum.
> 
> ...









Unlike you I am a scientist, I earned my PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born.  I can teach any graduate level climatology class with my eyes closed, no climatologist can teach even most of the 2nd year geology UNDERGRAD classes, they are too far beyond their ability to understand.

My campaign is against BAD science as exhibited by "scientists" who have turned climatology from a soft science into a pseudo-science.  There are well over 50 peer reviewed papers where climatologists have taken both sides of a prediction.  That makes it untestable, that makes it the equivalent of astrology.

Do you realise that the noted charlatan Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than your precious climatologists?  Did you know that?  That's pathetic.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 29, 2013)

Westwall - 

If your campaign is against bad science, it is surprising that not a single scientific organisation of any merit agrees with you. 

It's rather odd, isn't it, that for you all science that disagrees with your positions is somehow "bad".


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2013)

Wow, idiot, just wow. Please dont test these insane hypothesis against reality, you will scald yourself right into the ER.[/quote]

Your lack of knowledge is really showing there.  Try the experiment yourself.  Grab yourself a pot of water, put it on they eye of your stove and turn it up to high.  The water will reach 212 F and that's it.  Hell you can put an oxyaceletine torch under it and 212 F is al you will get.



ReallyMeow said:


> You do realize there are places that are cold, and dont have much moisture at the same time? You only have a meager understanding of the world, like a child with a picture book. The climate doesnt carry any humidity to the region, so the region has no water. Think about it, theres places where its hot and humid. Also, have you ever heard people say "its the humidity" or "at least its a dry heat"?



You, like most liberals are confusing feeling with reality.  How the heat feels is irrelevant to how warm it actually is.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to laugh, don't you?



At climatologists and their claims to have a grasp on the way energy moves through the earth system, yes.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 29, 2013)

SSDD - 

We are so lucky we have you here, given you know so much more about science the US Physics Society. 

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth&#8217;s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth&#8217;s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Climate Change

Perhaps you should call them and ask them to come to one of your lectures so that they can get up to speed?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> If your campaign is against bad science, it is surprising that not a single scientific organisation of any merit agrees with you.
> 
> It's rather odd, isn't it, that for you all science that disagrees with your positions is somehow "bad".



Again, an inablity to differentiate between the political head of a scientific organization responsible for funding and the actual body of a scientific organization.

By the way, I could't help but notice that you ignored the statement by one of your Finnish professors....a particularly distinguieshed one at that who confirmed what westwall and I have been telling you about massaged data being the norm in climate science.  When you get information that runs afoul of your faith, do you plug your ears, shut your eyes and scream no no no at the top of your lungs?


----------



## Saigon (Jan 29, 2013)

SSDD - 

I know I have said this before, but the whole thing about funding is such a laughable myth....why are you still going on about it?

As I explained before, funding is not tied to any particular piece of research - at least not in Europe. Universities are funding by the Ministry of Education. It is not even tagged to faculties, let alone to particular pieces of research. Most units decide for themselves what they want to research, and how, based on the number of students, and on what other universities are doing. 

It's always good to try and post things that have some kind of basis in reality, surely?


btw. I haven't seen anything from a Finnish professor - i'll go back and look for it. (OK, I can't see it anywhere - post it again and I'll take a look at it.)


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> We are so lucky we have you here, given you know so much more about science the US Physics Society.
> 
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Jan 29, 2013)

SSDD - 

As I said, I suggest you call them and explain where they are going wrong. 

I don't think it would be at all arrogant of you to suggest that you know far, far more about physics than any silly American Physics Society.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I know I have said this before, but the whole thing about funding is such a laughable myth....why are you still going on about it?



Not a myth siagon and I believe deep down you know it but to acknowledge that the data has been tampered with is to acknowledge that there is no basis for your confidence and that takes a level of maturity that perhaps you don't posess.  Here...this thread is for you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/275442-siagon-this-ones-for-you.html#post6732454



Saigon said:


> I explained before, funding is not tied to any particular piece of research - at least not in Europe.



So scientists don't get grants to finance a particular bit of research?  The government pays for all research?  That is perhaps worse than the grant system as all science becomes governemnt science.  




Saigon said:


> btw. I haven't seen anything from a Finnish professor - i'll go back and look for it.



Of course not.  Don't bother looking.. here is a link.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/275442-siagon-this-ones-for-you.html#post6732454


----------



## Saigon (Jan 29, 2013)

SSDD -



> So scientists don't get grants to finance a particular bit of research? The government pays for all research?



It depends on the university, but yes, that's basically how European systems work. 

Hence, the idea that scientists would produce particular results in order to win funding is just laughable. It doesn't make any logical sense. 

Some research projects (nano-technology, pharmacology) are joint-funded by European agencies, the government and private companies because they focus on product development, but those are largely run through one university unit. It's a bit complicated to explain this, but it doesn't involve any climate work anyway. They have a website in English if you're interested. 

So at least we've managed to put that myth to bed, anyway.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 29, 2013)

I have had a look at that professor's statement.....



> A University of Oslo professor



Um...what country is Oslo in, again?

I won't say a word!! 

(Speaking of Norway  - I hope you also read Katzndogz post from yesterday, in which Norwgian experts reviewed temperature rise predictions downwards from 3C by 2050, to 1.9C by 2050. It was great to see definitive proof that scientists will lower temperature secnarios downwards if the science supports it, and again drives another nail into the coffin of the global scientific conspiracy to make temperature rises seem higher than they actually are.)


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I have had a look at that professor's statement.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He is from Finland...but split all the hairs you like.



Saigon said:


> (Speaking of Norway  - I hope you also read Katzndogz post from yesterday, in which Norwgian experts reviewed temperature rise predictions downwards from 3C by 2050, to 1.9C by 2050. It was great to see definitive proof that scientists will lower temperature secnarios downwards if the science supports it, and again drives another nail into the coffin of the global scientific conspiracy to make temperature rises seem higher than they actually are.)



On que from CRU.  Interesting, don't you think that they are acknowledging that their models have been off by at least 60%...what you are seeing is the big rats on the sinking ship AGW positioning themselves for an exit...not evidence that all is well in climate science land.

See you guys next week.  I am travelling on business for the rest of this week and doubt that I will have much time for reading or posting.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 29, 2013)

SSDD - 



> don't you think that they are acknowledging that their models have been off by at least 60%



No, I don't. 

The Norwegian study Katz is championing is comparing their model with that used by the IIPC, with the Norwegian prediction of 1.9C being significantly lower than 3.0C figure the IIPC used. How you get 60% out of that I have no idea. 

Either way, the Norwegians are very clear that human acitivity is the key factor here, and I posted the section of text from Katz's link that says so.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 29, 2013)

> He is from Finland...but split all the hairs you like.



Is he?

It isn't a Finnish name, but of course names can be deceiving. But do provide proof, or it might look as if this is as unrealistic as your idea that research is funded according to the results!


----------



## freedombecki (Jan 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Which models are those? Please list the qualifications of those who created them.
> ...


 That is quite a lot of research that goes against the global warming schtick masquerading as scientific fact.


----------



## Koios (Jan 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Absurd. They're both science disciplines, and the extent to which one is more qualified than another is purely experience / accomplishments based. 

But okay, how many truly distinguished PhD Meterologists doing climate research are on the denialist list? 

Do tell.


----------



## Koios (Jan 29, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Not really.  Aside from the usual cherry-picked bullshit that Denialists grab onto, while ignoring the bulk of the data that lead to the overwhelming worldwide concensus, they've added some bullshit about Prediction Models varying from HARD DATA!!!!

Ahhh!!!  Run for your lives, kids!!!  Predictions are varying from what in fact happens.  Say it ain't so!!! (tip: predictions are merely that; and if any think the models are flawed, create a new model or offer ideas on correcting the current models ... go hog fucking wild ... not that I expect righty retard bloggers to grasp in any way how to create or correct computer models on climate.)


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> If your campaign is against bad science, it is surprising that not a single scientific organisation of any merit agrees with you.
> 
> It's rather odd, isn't it, that for you all science that disagrees with your positions is somehow "bad".








Ahhhh yes, the ever popular appeal to authority.  Just think, not even 100 years ago those very same organisations said that Wegener was a crackpot.  They were wrong about him too.

So you see dear child, authority doesn't equal accuracy.


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> We are so lucky we have you here, given you know so much more about science the US Physics Society.
> 
> ...







No, the propaganda is incontrovertible...the science however is failing every time it is tested.  The scientific method requires a scientist to make a hypothesis, formulate a experiment and test the theory.

If the test results, and observations in the real world, don't match the expected outcome the THEORY IS WRONG.

There has been no prediction made by the AGW cult that has ever come true.  Not one.  That is a level of fail not equalled by even the worst known charlatans.

You should be proud.  You are the bvest at failing there has ever been.


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...







Untrue, as I stated earlier.  I can teach ANY graduate level climatology class.  No climatologist can teach even some of the second year classes in geology.  The science is far, far over their heads.


----------



## Koios (Jan 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Fine.  No scientists on the fucking planet are more learned or distinguished than Meteorologists.  Creme de la creme.  Einstein, Newton, meet your superiors: METEOROLOGISTS!!!

That said, how many of the more learned among them are on the abject retard list? (aka MGW Denialist list)

Do tell.


----------



## freedombecki (Jan 29, 2013)

Koios said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 Sorry, sir, I read the #@*&!# emails and I know what those two Brits said to obfuscate known data to "show" that their research was valid when it wasn't so they could get money grants from people who don't have the starch to check up on the sobs.

You can't fool me. Those two had no business walking around with PhDs in basketweaving, much less in environmental science when they're so eager to collect fame and fortune and so eager to shove aside truth and integrity.

Science means digging for the truth and letting the evidence show it. They hid evidence to bend the truth to make themselves look like shooting stars rather than black holes enlarging themselves on worlds of loss.

The horn you're blowing has no reed and no mouthpiece. Got it?


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...








Ahhhh, poor baby having a tantrum?  Here's the deal silly person.  74of 79 climatologists agreed with the meme that man is responsible for the warming.  That equals that 97% mantra you clowns spout.

The rest of the scientific community is slowly but ever so slowly calling them on their bullshit.  They have been entrenched for 30 years now, it takes time to reverse institutional corruption, but it is happening and as more evidence of their shenanigans is released that slowly moving tide will turn into an absolute torrent....better get ready to hang on 'cause when the dam bursts it's going to get ugly early for your high priests.


----------



## Koios (Jan 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Nah; just suffering sever and as yet unquenched curiosity.  

So I'll ask a third time: how many top-tier Metorologists are among the MGW Denialists?

Do tell.  I'm on fucking pins and needles.


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...








I have no idea.  Appeals to Authority are the last refuge of incompetant fools so I don't bother playing that game, nor do I engage in popularity contests.  If you wish to engage in that sort of behavior I suggest you play with saigon, oltrakartrollingblunderfraud, and those of similar simple mindedness.


----------



## Koios (Jan 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



That's a lot of words to say: I got nothing. 

Yeah?


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...







You indeed have nothing.  Thank you for finally realising the obvious.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 29, 2013)

Westwall - 

Saying that more than 50 major scientific bodies confirm that human acitivity plays a role in climate change is not an "appeal to authority". 

It's a fact. 

Saying that not a single major scientific body suggests that human acitivity does not play a role in climate is also a fact. 

You are entirely free to ignore scientific opinion, and I totally agree that scientific opinion is not in itself a guarantee - but this idea you seem to have that your ignoring of scientific opinion somehow demonstrates how genuine your case is, is simply inexplicable. 

Holding beliefs that have no scientific backing is not a virtue. Stop presenting it as one.


----------



## asterism (Jan 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Saying that more than 50 major scientific bodies confirm that human acitivity plays a role in climate change is not an "appeal to authority".
> 
> ...



The two are not mutually exclusive.  One can post a fact "Krugman is a Nobel Laureate in Economics and he agrees with more progressive taxation," while also using it as an appeal to authority in a way to say that since he's more qualified than your opponent, your opponent is wrong.


----------



## Saigon (Jan 29, 2013)

Asterism - 

I agree with you. 

In agreeing with the position of groups like the American Physical Society I think we need to be careful to keep in mind that there is not cast iron guarantee that they are right, and that their positition alone does not make anyone else wrong. 

However, given in this case we have 50+ major international scientific bodies on one side, and 0 on the other side of the debate; it is not appealing to authority to point out that scientific opinion is not evenly shared. 

In any situation where one is backing what is very clearly a minority opinion - I think it is also best to admit that it is a minority opinion.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> Untrue, as I stated earlier.  I can teach ANY graduate level climatology class.  No climatologist can teach even some of the second year classes in geology.  The science is far, far over their heads.



You sound like a creationist that teaches biology. Oh I teach it, I just have no clue how it works and Im too busy being irrational and indignant to be bothered to learn. You know the science or you dont.


----------



## Koios (Jan 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Nah; I have an overwhelming concensus of the world's experts on climate science telling us things that the world community accepts as the pretty fucking reliable insights, with exception of right-wing retards in the US, for the most part.

Then in an apparent attempt by you to remove all doubt of your retardation, you claim climatologists are dweebs and the real brains are meteorologists. So after a bit of rolling on the floor laughing my fucking ass off, I came back and said/queried, in essence, "Okie doke.  Meteorologists are the cat's fucking pajamas among scientists; that said, which ones are MGW Denialists?"

And indeed, which is ironic since you brought them up, you've come up with shit.  Nada.  Zippity do dah.

Are you getting it, Professor?


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Untrue, as I stated earlier.  I can teach ANY graduate level climatology class.  No climatologist can teach even some of the second year classes in geology.  The science is far, far over their heads.
> ...








Yeah, it's funny how a person such as yourself, will accuse someone of behavior that you yourself are exibiting.  A scientist, a true scientist never says that the science is settled.  There's no such thing.  There is allways somenew fact that comes along and blows the existing paradigm out of the water.

I started as a devout warmer, then one of my students began asking me questions i couldn't answer so I suggested we work on those questions together and the more we dug the less sure i became until finally I could no longer support the theory.

You see, it is only religious fanatics, such as yourselves, that claim there is only ONE WAY TO GOD.  Your God is AGW cultism.  So, you see dear people, the creationists are YOU.  It is you who can only acknowlege ONE WAY.  That is the epitome of religious fanaticism....

And allways remember the Catholic Church's official opinion is the same as your own, so you have a melding of your new religion with the old.  Congrats, you have become that which you most denigrate.


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...






Yep, I get that you and your cohorts are so angry that even though the scientific community has been corrupted you STILL can't get your wealth redistribution scams passed and it's pissing you off.  

You also are beginning to realise that your window of opportunity is closing rapidly as ever more examples of the scientific fraud are exposed you lose ever more people from your cause and THAT pisses you off.

In general you're one pissed off group and you yell and scream and whine and snivel and cuss people out to vent your rage.

That about cover it propagandist?


----------



## Koios (Jan 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



"Cohorts" would speak to a coordinated effort by a group endeavoring to deceive in support of a cause / payments, such as Oil & Gas, which is actively funding bullshit science.  Thus you've just described Denialists to a fucking tee.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 30, 2013)

The hell you say?!?...Business owners banding together to keep hoaxers and looters from sacking their businesses?!?

Oh, the humanity!


----------



## Koios (Jan 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> The hell you say?!?...Business owners banding together to keep hoaxers and looters from sacking their businesses?!?
> 
> Oh, the humanity!



No.  Funding an effort by a consultant /strategist with experience on many right-wing issues, who brought together Republicans for a strategy session and then got them in line, saying exactly what they were told to say: "There's still debate, and thus taking steps at this time would be premature." (in essence).  So all changed their tune, (formerly even Republicans expressed concern) and thus the right-wing, as it's famous for doing, spoke as if being controlled by a single mind (it was, in fact).

And to get there was a breeze: any or even just one contrary opinion by a "scientist" in any field. (Bingo!  Debate, even if manufactured bullshit, which it was and is.) So, and because so many get jobs in the Oil & Gas Industry, geologists came out of the woodwork with all manner of bullshit theories, supported only by their "evidence," while ignoring the overwhelming bulk of actual evidence that the Global Warming/Climate Change theory is based upon and supported by an overwhelming concensus of those studying it, and qualified to study it.

And it's easy to see: just look at the folks with alphabet soup after their names among the Denialist lists.  Almost all are ... you guessed it ... geologists, either working for Oil & Gas or in academia being heavily-funded by Oil and Gas.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 30, 2013)




----------



## Koios (Jan 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


>



Reference: International Conference on Climate Change | Heartland Institute.

They cut their teeth on the doubt-creation tactic with tobacco, by challenging concensus within the health community about smoking back in the day, using bullshit counter "studies."

Old game, new problem, no shortage of gullible fucks such as you gobbling it up.

Pretty comical even.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 30, 2013)

The UN and EPA "studies" have already been *ahem* smoked out as frauds...The wankers at the UN even admitted that they fudged the formula until they got the results they wanted....Not surprisingly, you didn't get the memo.

Equally unsurprising is that you buy into the same fraudsters' misanthropic fairy tale of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.

You're getting a real twofer today...Getting your ass handed to you in both science and economics...A shame that you're to much of a blissfully ignoirant and arrogant ass to admit it, or even recognize it in the privacy of your own pointy little head.


----------



## Koios (Jan 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> The UN and EPA "studies" have already been *ahem* smoked out as frauds...The wankers at the UN even admitted that they fudged the formula until they got the results they wanted....Not surprisingly, you didn't get the memo.
> 
> Equally unsurprising is that you buy into the same fraudsters' misanthropic fairy tale of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.
> 
> You're getting a real twofer today...Getting your ass handed to you in both science and economics...A shame that you're to much of a blissfully ignoirant and arrogant ass to admit it, or even recognize it in the privacy of your own pointy little head.



Precisely.  You're a shining example of the exact morons Heartland was and is counting on.  Well done, you gullible fucking imbecile.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 30, 2013)

Heartland didn't admit to making up the data, shit-for-brains....The UN did.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Oh boy, your anecdotal story sure does carry alot of weight, maybe you should share this "unanswerable" question so I can answer it.


----------



## Koios (Jan 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Heartland didn't admit to making up the data, shit-for-brains....The UN did.



the UN is a diplomatic mission and not a collection of climate scientists.  Heartland is a political organization and molds opinion on behalf its contributors.

Check ...

International Academy of Science
National Academy of Sciences
European Academy of Sciences
NOAA
Royal Academy of Science

Etc, etc.

See what folks who know shit are saying.  Then heed their wisdom, since it's patently obvious you are so lacking of it.


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2013)

Koios said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...







Really?  How about the GOVERNMENT/GREEN INDUSTRY nexus where taxpyer monies are given to supposed green companies to trot out a new form of energy that is less efficient, more polluting than that which it is endeavoring to replace, and more costly to the very taxpayers who payed for it.  Don't forget that the "scientists" and politicians pushing this shit down our throats are heavily invested in teh green companies, oh no we can't ever mention that. 

Fuck you you duplicitous, taxpayer robbing, environment destroying, asshole.  

Carney: Green stimulus profiteer comes under IRS scrutiny | WashingtonExaminer.com

1.Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
 2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
 3.Solyndra ($535 million)*
 4.Beacon Power ($43 million)*
 5.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
 6.SunPower ($1.2 billion)
 7.First Solar ($1.46 billion)
 8.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
 9.EnerDels subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
 10.Amonix ($5.9 million)
 11.Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
 12.Abound Solar ($400 million)*
 13.A123 Systems ($279 million)*
 14.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
 15.Johnson Controls ($299 million)
 16.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
 17.ECOtality ($126.2 million)
 18.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
 19.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
 20.Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
 21.Olsens Crop Service and Olsens Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
 22.Range Fuels ($80 million)*
 23.Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
 24.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
 25.Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
 26.GreenVolts ($500,000)
 27.Vestas ($50 million)
 28.LG Chems subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
 29.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
 30.Navistar ($39 million)
 31.Satcon ($3 million)*
 32.Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
 33.Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)


These are the companies that FAILED and all that taxpayer money went poof into the CEO's, investors and, of course, politicians pockets.

At least the oil companies provide a PRODUCT asshole.


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...







Given the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, how do you get more energy out of a system then you put into it without doing work.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 30, 2013)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Heartland didn't admit to making up the data, shit-for-brains....The UN did.
> ...


Try to concentrate, tovarich...

_*THE UN ADMITTED THAT THEIR "RESEARCH", VIS-A-VIS "SECOND-HAND" CIGARETTE SMOKE, WAS FRAUDULENT.*_


That has _*NOTHING, ZIP, ZERO, BUPKIS, NADA, SKIFF, ZILCH*_ to do with Heartland Institute.


----------



## Koios (Jan 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Try to separate those in industry who might wish to capitalize on opportunities arising from the threat, and scientists sounding the alarm. 

K?


----------



## polarbear (Jan 30, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> You do realize there are places that are cold, and dont have much moisture at the same time? You only have a meager understanding of the world, like a child with a picture book. The climate doesnt carry any humidity to the region, so the region has no water. Think about it, theres places where its hot and humid. Also, have you ever heard people say "its the humidity" or "at least its a dry heat"?
> 
> 
> Therefore, less of it is going into space then? TA DAA
> ...



It could`nt bee funnier, ...!
You don`t even know how a cooling tower works and want to lecture an engineer on thermodynamics...the entire global warming fraud perpetrated by "climatologists" is violating almost every aspect of all thermodynamic law.
It`s not part of their curriculum and obviously it wasn`t in Your`s either.
So how much "more time" does it take for 1 liter of water to cool  after 18 ml`s have evaporated and thus *already* consumed over 40 kJ heat  ?
Thermodynamics isn`t as confused as You, or Obama ..Like when You blow money,... for Your lipstick and perfume and charge the $ 40 for it on Your credit card, it may take "more time" before Your bank realizes how stupidly You just blew $40 and adjusts Your balance from $ 1000 to 960...but in thermodynamics the 40 kJ`s are gone and the heat energy has been withdrawn the instant the 18 mls H2O have evaporated.
"they must replenish this or it will all evaporate eventually. "
"they" replenish it because they let some of it *evaporate in purpose*..You fool..!! Nothing would evaporate if "they" would not spray it down a cooling tower against  counter-current air which must have a lower partial H2O water vapor pressure component than it would have if it were at 100% RH at that temperature.


> "*they must replenish this or it will all evaporate eventually. So where is the disconnect?* "


If "they" would use a different heat exchanger instead of evaporative cooling *nothing at all would have to be replenished*..!!!
That tells me You don`t even have the vaguest idea what`s under the hood of Your car...for example the radiator.
It`s a sealed liquid to air heat exchanger and the only time it has to be replenished is if it sprang a leak.
You ask


> *So where is the disconnect?*


I have no idea how people like You can be so disconnected from reality



> You mean to tell me that co2 has a temperature of zero degrees kelvin?


How does it follow that CO2 is at 0° K if it re-emits the same amount of energy as it received ?
By the way "heat energy" is not the same as  "heat" ,..as in "hot",... as in T° anything..!!..Fahrenheit, Celsius or Kelvin,..."TA DAA"..but reading what You wrote so far I doubt that`ll sink in. You are totally  disconnected  from reality 


> Therefore, less of it is going into space then? TA DAA


Here is a typical Infrared (top) view:






That`s satellite  infrared view of a typical system where lots of water vapor has been carried to high altitude.
So where is all that (IR) heat going then..., if not radiating out to space, from where the satellite viewed it ?

So far You haven`t answered any question posed to You in this thread.
I know Your kind,..stupid beyond believe and arrogant to boot....it may work amongst Your own kind to appear as "smart" by "smartly" avoiding any questions, because they aren`t able to  and instead either paraphrasing totally out of context or counter by trying to obligate an opponent to answer yet another idiotic question :


> explain deserts next to the ocean.


So far all of us have answered each and every idiotic question You intersperse in Your gibberish,...
And if we don`t then You figure we don`t know..? just like You don`t know..!!..or what..?
If You don`t know why deserts can be right next to an ocean then You have no business belittling anyone else in this thread.
I`ll give You a hint...
"Orographic lift"...Look it up...That`s why many of the driest deserts are just inland behind high coastal mountain ranges while the sea-facing side of the same ranges have record precipitation...and it`s got sweet fuck all to do with "climate" or  "climate  change"..these coastal mountains did not sprout up because I burned fossil fuel..cut back on Your dope and if it`s a legal one like Prozac take another look just how *disconnected You are* :


> *The climate doesnt carry any humidity* to the region, so the region has no water


Could be You watch way too much TV, like these dumb sit-coms where all the men are Homer/ Bart  Simpson idiots and all the problems are solved by the brainier Marge/ Lisa Simpsons.
That may explain why a person who makes such stupid statements as You do, deluded by Hollywood feminism crap and  having such a high opinion of Yourself.
I got 3 boys, aged 4, 6 and 7...each one could totally destroy Your over-bloated ego  in a game of chess in less than 3 minutes..wanna bet..?


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Gee I dont know maybe all that energy comes from somewhere, like the giant nuclear reaction in the sky?


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...








What causes the so called AGW then?


----------



## ReallyMeow (Jan 31, 2013)

Really? this is the question you cant answer on your own? its 2013, google it.

The sun produces energy, the earth and the atmosphere is warmed by it, that heat eventually escapes. The properties of the atmosphere effect how quickly this happens.


----------



## IanC (Jan 31, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...





did you see the latest smear on Heartland from down under?



> Jessica Wright of the Sydney Morning Herald blatantly tries to smear The Heartland Institute with outright falsehoods:
> 
> A sister pro-tobacco lobbying organisation and corporate member of ALEC, the Heartland Institute, paid for Senator Bernardis accommodation and travel to the US on four separate occasions in 2010 and 2011. The institute recently ran a two-day conference in the US entitled Can Tobacco Make You Healthier?
> 
> ...



via JoNova


----------



## polarbear (Jan 31, 2013)

IanC said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...




Actually I wanted to comment on Your signature statement:


> The more I study the history of intellectuals, the more they seem  like a wrecking crew, dismantling civilization bit by bit &#8212; replacing  what works with what sounds good. - Thomas Sowell
> 
> ​


Not all intellectuals...so don`t loose faith.
While I was still a (chem eng.) student in Germany I was reading all these stories how a law graduate from Canada`s finest U, Mc Gill in Montreal paddled a canoe from Florida to Cuba to protest the blockade, and when he returned with is canoe, having navigated some of the most dangerous waters he was promptly deported back to Canada  and was slapped with a lifetime ban entering the US...which backfired soon after because Pierre Elliot Trudeau became the most remarkable Prime Minister Canada ever had..shaping it the way it still is today. Being a student I was of course a "Liberal" as almost all academic students around the world are...and decided to leave Germany to live in a country that elects a daredevil like Pierre Trudeau as it`s leader. Hey I even got to meet him in person because my uncle was a Chem Prof @ Mc Gill in Montreal who was friends with the now late Pierre...well...as I got older and had to leave the academic world and earn a living in the real world I became more and more conservative...especially so when I realized how destructive the leftist ideology is to people who have to earn an honest living...
So I was happy when there was a huge backlash after Canada signed the Kyoto accord under a Liberal Government and flushed all that crap down the toilet. I was not so happy when Pierre`s son Justin Trudeau made it to the top of Canada`s Liberal Party and became hugely popular after he creamed a conservative Senator who had a Black Belt and challenged Justin to a boxing match...while all the claim to fame Justin had to physical activity was ballet dancing. However he creamed Senator Patrick Brazeau..
I began to worry what`s going to happen to Canada`s energy policy after the next election which Justin Trudeau is almost certain to win as overwhelmingly as that boxing match...until today when I got invited to meet Justin in person when he visited Long Plain First Nations where I live.
I did not have my camera running when he answered my question how he stands on our oil sands and resource development in general,..but his answer is tonight on every TV station in this country because our AGW green freaks thought he would be anti-oil as the Liberals were up till now..
and as every mainstream media had claimed Justin would be as anti Oil as Obama..
Anyway I found out today that everything the main stream media had claimed about Trudeau was a total lie...which just goes to show, that You can`t believe everything the media says and that there is no substitute for finding out yourself. Justin has nothing at all in common with the fictitious main stream media "Justin" they wanted to create in the public eye...and hey at Long Plain First Nations we might all vote for him in the next election after today`s visit.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8nUNVu_0Pk&feature=youtu.be"]Justin Trudeau visits Long Plain First Nations.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

He is a chip of the old block and an intellectual through and through just like his dad and I feel a whole lot better after I heard from his mouth , although only in a private conversation that he does not subscribe to the AGW farce either nor will that climate change crap determine future Liberal Party energy policy in Canada as it was and the Liberals lost by a land slide.

Fuck, I got to do something about my missing front teeth my 3 year old great grandson Amadeus knocked out when he grabbed the pipe I was smoking...
I never realized how ugly that looks till I`ve seen it tonight on every TV news station ...because I rarely look in the mirror when I wash up in the morning:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN3xq_ZdULk&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=2"]-31 C So What?.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

I look worse than the Senator Justin Trudeau knocked out in that boxing match...Thank God we have something better than "Obama care" in Canada and I can have the dentist in Portage or Winnipeg take care of that gaping hole.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Really? this is the question you cant answer on your own? its 2013, google it.
> 
> The sun produces energy, the earth and the atmosphere is warmed by it, that heat eventually escapes. The properties of the atmosphere effect how quickly this happens.









Ahhhhh, you're almost getting to the core of the problem.  The planet gets its heat from the Sun, let's call it ENERGY.  That ENERGY is responsible for the global temperature.  Are we in agreement on that?


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...







I love it, a eagle feather with a USB attached to it!  Classy my friend, classy!


----------



## mamooth (Feb 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Water vapor slows the cooling process because it actually has the capacity to absorb and retain heat radiating from the surface, unlike CO2 which radiates and emits.



I laughed out loud when I read that, being it was so crazy.

Could you tell us what fairy magic causes water vapor to be the only gas in all of creation that doesn't re-radiate heat?



> Both the coastal region and the desert have the same amount of CO2 in the air but the CO2 makes no difference whatsoever, it is the water vapor.



No, it's the cold ocean next door. Go to the Arabian Sea, where the ocean is hot, and the adjacent shoreline is also roasting hot. The water vapor doesn't cool for squat. Go to the arctic, and the coastline is no colder, as the water vapor doesn't cool for squat.



> What you warmists don't seem to grasp is that the atmosphere, water vapor in particular keeps us from burining to a cinder during the day and slows the cooling at night.  Exactly the opposite of the claims the AGW hypothesis makes.



What you dion't seem to grasp is you're peddling fantasy physics, where water vapor is a magical fairy gas that can magically absorbs heat but doesn't re-radiate it, making it unique among all gases in creation.



> Typical...confusing cause with effect.  The soil in deserts isn't dry because of to much moisture in the air, the soil in deserts is dry because there isn't enough.



And yet, on a low humidity day in the non-deserts, temps still don't reach levels found in a desert at the same lat. Which thus disproves your crank theory that it's only about humidity.

Seriously, your theory is nonsense. Stop digging yourself deeper into that hole already.


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2013)

mamooth-   do you really not understand how the water cycle works????

in the simplest terms; liquid water loses H2O molecules when they have enough kinetic energy (heat) to break free and phase change into vapour. this lowers the average kinetic energy (temperature) of the remaining water. once in the air, the water vapour lowers the density because it is lighter than the primary constituents N2 and O2. the lower density air rises by convection, taking the original energy from the liquid water with it. air temperature has a gradient, decreasing as it gets higher. when conditions of pressure and temperature are favourable the water vapour condenses into liquid water droplets and releases the phase change energy, most of it towards space.

this is how a large portion of surface heat bypasses the bottleneck of IR radiation absorption by GHGs. 

the theoretical surface temperature increases due to CO2 and water vapour are based on what would happen if you changed one parameter of the system while keeping the others unchanged. in the real world changing one parameter changes all of them. equilibriums change towards the lowest energy system possible. that is why I believe that climate sensitivity will continue to be lowered until it shows that feedbacks are negative, not positive. positive feedbacks are rare and unstable, negative feedbacks common and found everywhere in nature.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> I love it, a eagle feather with a USB attached to it!  Classy my friend, classy!



Thanks...on that USB were a shitload of my pictures of the not so molten Greenland, the Nares , the Lincoln Sea, Ellesmere Island...You know these from my postings here ..Polarbears that aren`t drowning or starving  etc etc..and today somebody gave me their I-pod video where Justin Trudeau answered my question about our oil- gas- and other resource development plans should he be Canada`s next PM....: (which according to the latest polls is getting more and more likely)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3P6VR2Wud0&feature=youtu.be"]Justin Trudeau on Ethical Oil - YouTube[/ame]

Today his answer and/or quotes are headline news,...because the consensus media had it that (Liberal) Trudeau is anti- oil and deliberately refrained from asking this question.
They also got away so far with the lie that Canada`s native population is anti- oil & gas..
It took a lot of courage for Justin to say what he said in a room full of Indians on an Indian Reserve with only Indians as security detail..
Too bad Renee shut off her I-pod just a few seconds too soon because the entire room erupted with thundering applause.
After all even Indians want to drive cars without getting ripped off at the pump and "CO2 taxes".
Now the consensus media has to invent a batch of new lies...and today our oil exploration stocks are sharply up, after Justin made that statement yesterday. Canada, as far as energy policy is concerned is in a wi- win- situation no matter if Stephen Harper or the son of the legendary Pierre Elliot Trudeau wins the next election. The extreme left...the NDP is throwing fits today in Ottawa how Justin answered my question,...because they spread rumors that they might merge with the Liberals and take down our Conservatives and then shut off all Oil exploration...
My "Thank You" to Justin was to interrupt him with "that`s a lot more reasonable what   Thomas Mulcair was saying"...(about oil exploration) ..and Justin immediately caught that ball and scored a game winning touch down against the left extremist NDP leader "angry Tom" Mulcair who hates everything industrial, his power base  are public sector Unions in Quebec which has a huge number of Parliament seats...and only a few anti- conservatives farther West could have put this Neo-Communist pig Mulcair into our Prime Minister`s office....and with that answer + the applause Justin got in Long Plain First Nations Mulcair`s far left is all alone way off side in left field. It is spectacular, today we have headlines like "Trudeau-mania has gripped Canada" and even the (Canadian) Oil & Gas exploration stocks are up because of Trudeau`s Answer...The Manitoba Papers make me out like that "Jo the plumber" in the U.S. which was a "game decider"...and I had no idea that dumb little question I asked would have such earth shattering ramifications.
Amazing...I should have bought some of these stocks, but had no idea how brutally honest Justin would answer that question...that took a lot of courage. Justin is no ducking coward in the boxing rink,...and he has just as much courage in the political arena, not side stepping "political suicide" questions...I had a totally wrong (media fed) impression of him till he could see for myself. They all said Justin is not his dad...true, but he is a man in his own rights and has what it takes to lead a Nation.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> mamooth-do you really not understand how the water cycle works????



I understand you threw out some vague handwaving. Where are your hard numbers? You know, like the actual scientists use. Hence why they have credibility.

Here, let me show you how to use actual numbers to prove a point. 

SSDD's crazy theory is that water vapor itself absorbs heat. Not that water absorbs heat when it turns to vapor, but that the water vapor, after it gets in the air, actually absorbs and holds huge amounts of energy from the sun, preventing that energy from raising temperature as much.

Let's quickly run the numbers and see how that works out.

Water vapor has a little less than twice the mass heat capacity of dry air.

Air at room temp and 60% humidity consists of about 1% water vapor by mass. 

So, roughly calculating the total heat capacity of the moist air, where K is the heat capacity of dry air ...

0.99 * 1K + 0.01 * 2K = 1.01K.

That is, moist air has a heat capacity 1% higher than dry air. That's totally insignificant in terms of absorbing solar heat to prevent a temperature rise, hence SSDD's crazy theory is disproved in yet another way.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 2, 2013)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth-do you really not understand how the water cycle works????
> ...



Hope You don`t mind if I comment on this
Perhaps when SSDD  said that water vapor absorbs heat he meant heat energy as in absorbing IR...and it does that in a significant manner and over a very wide spectral region.
If someone says CO2 absorbs "heat" few fault him, because the problem is that this English word "heat" is too ambiguous. You for example just used "heat" as in specific heat, more exactly the "heat capacity" @ 60% RH.
Yes 1% more does not sound like a whole lot, but there is more to it than meets the eye on the first glance because we are talking about the atmosphere and not a closed system. You realize of course that once the extra 1% heat capacity has been used that parcel of air is no longer at 60% RH, but has become already more hygroscopic. Now it will want to draw more water into the vapor state till the partial pressure of the water component is the same as the vapor pressure of water at that temperature...which will in turn cool the source which supplied the water..
It`s not always a ground based water source, but more often than not  already airborne water mist, as in clouds or fog...I`m sure You heard the expression how the sun "burns off" the fog.
In aviation You come across that all the time. Quite often before noon it`s not just the fog but the cloud base is below 500 feet a.g.l. which are IFR conditions. Then the sun "burns" that off...meaning the water mist which was in the liquid state has gone to the vapor state,...and that consumes heat energy...and a lot of it ! Namely 2.26 kJoules per gram H2O...and since You chose 60% RH which is ~ 1% absolute we are talking about 10 times that amount per cubic meter air.
So I would not necessarily dismiss SSDD`s statement as "crazy".


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2013)

Koios said:


> "Cohorts" would speak to a coordinated effort by a group endeavoring to deceive in support of a cause / payments, such as Oil & Gas, which is actively funding bullshit science.  Thus you've just described Denialists to a fucking tee.



Maybe you missed the memo....big oil/gas is putting more money into alarmism these days because there is a ton of money to be made via tax credits, higher energy costs, etc.  Big oil is financing your side these days.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > "Cohorts" would speak to a coordinated effort by a group endeavoring to deceive in support of a cause / payments, such as Oil & Gas, which is actively funding bullshit science.  Thus you've just described Denialists to a fucking tee.
> ...



Can we see a link for that?

I am aware one or two oil companies (Chevron?) have a renewables division, but I've heard little about oil funding climate research beyond the obvious denialism from some years ago. 

I do think these days probably all oil companies do accept climate science, because essentially every organisation on earth does.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...






And you claim to be a journalist.  What a farce....

Big Oil Making Big Investments in Renewable Energy | HeatingOil.com

Big Oil Goes Green - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article35434.html

These are just a FEW of the articles and business reports out there that show the BILLIONS and BILLIONS ofdollars that Big Oil is investing into the renewables markets.

Big Oil invests far more money into "green energy" than it does fighting it because as all "evil corporations" do, they get to make more money, cheaper, than if they had to do it the old fasioned way.

They're not stupid you know....


----------



## Saigon (Feb 4, 2013)

Westwall - 

I'm not sure heatingoil.com and marketoracle.com are exactly the best sources on earth, but still....!!!

It's good to see companies getting into new technologies. I'd say it's a smart move for any company with an eye on life after the internal combustion engine.

It also seems that these companies have also got up to speed on climate science, as per the statements below. That can't have been easy for them to shift from denial into reality, but it looks like they are making sound choices.

Shell Oil:

Population growth and economic development are driving energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. We believe the best way Shell can help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.

http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html


----------



## Saigon (Feb 4, 2013)

Chevron on climate change:

At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)&#8212;mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane&#8212;in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

Climate Change | Global Issues | Chevron


----------



## Saigon (Feb 4, 2013)

BP on climate change:

Addressing the global challenge of climate change will require the efforts of governments, industry and individuals

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is happening and is caused mainly by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Results from models assessed by the IPCC suggest that to stand a reasonable chance of limiting warming to no more than 2&#730;C, global emissions should peak before 2020 and be cut by between 50-85% by 2050

Climate change | BP

Isn't it amazing - oil companies have swallowed the bitter pill and accepted the science on climate change - but somehow Westwall can't do the same thing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2013)

Given the changes that we see in the Arctic, I do not think that there is a reasonable chance of limiting the temperature change to 2 C. As for the petroleum corperations investing in renewables, I am sure that many in the top management realize that their business is energy, and it doesn't matter whether that energy is fossil fuels or renewables, as long as there is a profit to be made.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2013)

Saigon said:


> It also seems that these companies have also got up to speed on climate science, as per the statements below. That can't have been easy for them to shift from denial into reality, but it looks like they are making sound choices.



It was a snap....billions and billions and billions in government money being handed out to whoever tows the line.

I can't believe that you are really as naive as you seem.  As soon as the climate change hoax finishes dying, the oil companies will be right back to whatever business plan makes them money.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > It also seems that these companies have also got up to speed on climate science, as per the statements below. That can't have been easy for them to shift from denial into reality, but it looks like they are making sound choices.
> ...








He's not naive, he's an elitist.  They think they can kill and imprison any who get in their way.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Given the changes that we see in the Arctic, I do not think that there is a reasonable chance of limiting the temperature change to 2 C. As for the petroleum corperations investing in renewables, I am sure that many in the top management realize that their business is energy, and it doesn't matter whether that energy is fossil fuels or renewables, as long as there is a profit to be made.








Yeah...what changes...be specific.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 4, 2013)

If there's NO warming in the next 5 years I'm just going to say it. It's over.

You can only push uphill so much.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > It also seems that these companies have also got up to speed on climate science, as per the statements below. That can't have been easy for them to shift from denial into reality, but it looks like they are making sound choices.
> ...



Wonderful posting, SSDD - I really did laugh out loud at that. That really is funny! 

Good to know oil companies don't pay for their own research!!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 4, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Why do you trust the UN?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 4, 2013)

Matthew - 

This is not difficult stuff. Find any scientific body or profession you trust, any research unit or university - and ask them. 

They will all tell you the same thing.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Matthew -
> 
> This is not difficult stuff. Find any scientific body or profession you trust, any research unit or university - and ask them.
> 
> They will all tell you the same thing.







Yep, follow the money, honey.


----------



## IanC (Feb 4, 2013)

Matthew said:


> If there's NO warming in the next 5 years I'm just going to say it. It's over.
> 
> You can only push uphill so much.




I dont really see a need for another five years to understand that CO2 theory is wrong but at least you are open to evidence.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 5, 2013)

This really may be one of the funniest threads ever. It really is just hilarious to learn that oil companies decided to lie and pretend that climate change was real, thus destroying their own industry and market, because they wanted to get government research money. 

And this the same companies who initially denied climate change, of course. 

Who would have though that those evil oil companies would actually lie and undermine themselves, all as part of an evil plot to get research grants??!!!

I have to take my hat off to you, SSDD, Wailingwall and Ian, for coming up with a conspiracy theory even funnier than Frank's claim that the German conservative government was supporting a Marxist plot for world domination by phasing out nuclear reactors.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Wonderful posting, SSDD - I really did laugh out loud at that. That really is funny!
> 
> Good to know oil companies don't pay for their own research!!



Are you really so naive that you believe that energy companies haven't jumped on the AGW bandwagon because it is profitable?  Here is a clue....follow the money trail...it is so big that even a lefty like you should be able to follow it with no problem.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Matthew -
> 
> This is not difficult stuff. Find any scientific body or profession you trust, any research unit or university - and ask them.
> 
> They will all tell you the same thing.



And on what basis do you place your trust in them?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> This really may be one of the funniest threads ever. It really is just hilarious to learn that oil companies decided to lie and pretend that climate change was real, thus destroying their own industry and market, because they wanted to get government research money.



Why are you unable to be honest about this topic?  There is no pretending that climate change is real...The climate is changing and has always been changing.  The lie is that man is responsible.



Saigon said:


> And this the same companies who initially denied climate change, of course.



Follow the money.



Saigon said:


> Who would have though that those evil oil companies would actually lie and undermine themselves, all as part of an evil plot to get research grants??!!!



They aren't undermining themselves.  You must be a journalist because you appear to know exactly squat about anything.  They are making billions in tax credits and incentives by jumping on the bandwagon not to mention higher energy costs passed along to consumers....noticed the prices at the pump and your home energy bill lately?  There is more energy available than ever, the difference is the effect of the AGW hoax.



Saigon said:


> I have to take my hat off to you, SSDD, Wailingwall and Ian, for coming up with a conspiracy theory even funnier than Frank's claim that the German conservative government was supporting a Marxist plot for world domination by phasing out nuclear reactors.



It isn't a conspiracy as it is no secret to anyone who actually takes a minute and a half to look.  It is simply a shift in a business plan that will pay higher dividends to the shareholders.  Are you realy this clueless?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 5, 2013)

SSDD - 

For any kind of meaningful debate to take place - even on discussion forums - there needs to be some basic standard of honesty, intellectual merit and subject knowledge in place. 

Suggesting that oil companies willingly attacked their own products in order to make financial gains proves to be that you are well below any such standard. Defend it all you like, but the very idea is simply childish. If there is any possible response other than laughter, I can't think of it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> For any kind of meaningful debate to take place - even on discussion forums to take place - there needs to be some basic standard of honesty, intellectual merit and subject knowledge in place.
> 
> Suggesting that oil companies willingly attacked their own products in order to make financial gains proves to be that you are well below any such standard. Defend it all you like, but the very idea is simply childish.



Do you deny that energy companies are getting billions in tax credits, and incentives for investment in renuables while at the same time raising prices when there is no shortage of energy available?  You really are clueless.  There is no attack on their product...we are still using it the same as always except paying more for it even though there is no shortage....and at the same time, they are raking in incredible amounts of money in tax breaks and incentives.  Do you have the first bit of knowledge regarding economics or are you stuck on marx?

For any sort of meaningful debate to happen, one of us needs to get a clue......so get one.  Try following the money.  As I said, the trail is so big that even a lefty like you can't miss it if you will pull your head out long enough to look.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> This really may be one of the funniest threads ever. It really is just hilarious to learn that oil companies decided to lie and pretend that climate change was real, thus destroying their own industry and market, because they wanted to get government research money.
> 
> And this the same companies who initially denied climate change, of course.
> 
> ...



Every day I  read news left & right leaning online-papers and some that are  actually neutral from Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North & South  America in 4 different languages and if You do that then You get a  pretty good idea of the overall picture. Are You ?
I think not !  Because if You would, then You would not be writing that crap You just  did.... Let`s start with Your comments about the "German conservative  Government supporting Marxist plots". You have no idea whatsoever who  Angela Merkel *REALLY* is,...1.) because You were born only yesterday  
2.) because of the "news" that You get in the socialist information vacuum You call Finland,... you`ll never find out !
3.) and because you are too arrogant to realize how little you do know.
Instead  of wondering if there is any truth to Merkel`s highly questionable  background or why the Saudis are pouring money into Enviro-wacko.orgs  You respond like a preconditioned chimp...with the old "LOL,  hahaha...conspiracy theory" cliché, typical to You and the other shallow  & stupid facebook & twitter degenerates who can`t function  beyond a 140 ASCII limit.
So I`m pretty certain that what I`m telling You now will by far exceed Your attention span and comprehension limit.
Angela  Merkel was the top graduate of the Soviet Academy for propaganda &  Agitation while the DDR was a Soviet satellite State.
When "the wall"  came down she and all the other East German Stasi collaborators  instantly became BRD citizens with voting rights and infected every  political party. Just so You know,..shortly after "Joschka Fischer" became the  new German Minister for foreign Affairs. "Joschka"  was a former "Red Army  Fraction" (R.A.F. & Baader Meinhof group )member who was actively  engaged in Terrorism, assassinations, hijackings and was implicated in  the murder of soldiers at a US Army base in the former "West" Germany  from where he stole weapons which were later used in hijackings, and  other terrorist acts. Fischer planned the attack and drove the car.  
When  the DDR collapsed the "Stasi" shredded it`s archive which was later  pains takenly re-assembled by thousands of West German "Verfassungs  Schutz" and BGS (federal Sate security) Police. This is where  the info about Fischer, Merkel and many other "new"  BRD citizens was found. 
BBC News - Stasi files: The world's biggest jigsaw puzzle
Unfortunately  these instant citizens managed to usurp to high rank political positions  faster than rats can invade an open to all soup kitchen  and most of the staff in these  archives which then became the "BStU" was under control under ex-  communist DDR "Stasi" State Security Police...which managed to  "sanitize" the files of Fischer, Angela Merkel and many others...
The  head of the BGS was fired because of "discrimination" when he tried to  fire these Stasi bastards...reason...With all these instant citizens from the communist DDR that swelled the public sector unions that it became political suicide if you spoke like that...and because of these organized union bastards the Stasi could  not formally be  declared as a criminal organization like the Nazis or the SS,.. *even though  they were responsible for  many acts of terrorism*, murder,  assassinations,...by the way "Carlos The Jackal" was one of the  Stasi-Operatives...
Thus Fischer etc. went on to enter the political scene unhindered....with much help from the left wing media...(just like Obama..!!)... 
Matter of fact he`s got a lot of things in common with Frau Merkel. She had her records concerning her schooling  & communist past  destroyed by the Stasi...and Obama who attended Islamist schools had his records _*PERMANENTLY *_sealed...You could get a jail sentence trying to access Obama`s school & University Student records...!!!..
Fischer  was the founder of the "Green Party"...*the same world wide environment  movement as You know it today* and who`s propaganda is Your gospel.  When the "Green Party" was too slow gaining political  decision making power Fischer switched over to the SPD which was then  the ruling Party and instantly became foreign Minister, while the  communist implant, "conservative" Angela  Merkel joined the CDU...and became the Minister for environment. In that  capacity she inexplicably relaxed the strict Nuclear Energy rules we  had and promptly a whole rash of contamination accidents occurred for  which she refused all responsibility, blaming it on the Nuclear Industry  which she later crippled totally when she became Chancellor Angela  Merkel...Germany`s "Climate Chancellor" who forced Germany into Wind  & Solar and ordered the shut down of our entire Nuclear power  Industry...here is a DW clip ( in English) from 1998...skip forward to 7:10 when she  was the Minister for Environment  ...because the stuff before that is way over Your little head anyway..
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2H38UpdQhM"]How Climate Science destroyed Germany.wmv - YouTube[/ame]
...and  she was also implicated  for having facilitated Nuclear weapons  technology from Berlin`s  Max Planck Institute to Pakistan....
Her first act was to form a coalition with Fischer`s creation "The Green Party".
*I really don`t care *what simpletons like You want to call it,.."plot",..."conspiracy _*theory*_",  or whatever to continue to live the lifes typical for those who can`t  handle the truth which is by far too complicated for Your little nanny  state "education" minds and prefer to suck up the pre-digested Pablem  Your consensus media is spoon feeding You....*I don`t care what You believe, because*,  thank God in Canada the not so stupid Department of Revenue is  prosecuting these enviro orgs for tax fraud...and this is how it has  come to light how the Saudis have been pumping money into .orgs who want  to stifle North American Oil and Gas resource developments..no, it`s  not "politically motivated prosecution"...or a Government "Conspiracy"  against enviro- Groups in Canada...that is the *5. th time* that happened under _*5 different Governments*_ that this illegal lobby-, charity tax exemption fraud by these foreign funded "Green.orgs" was exposed and prosecuted... 
The  saudis don`t just sponsor Jihad Islamic schools in Canada and the  U.S.,...they have been deeply involved pumping money into everything  that hinders domestic oil production...if You are too dumb to figure out  why they might want to do that then You should not plaster Your crap  comments all over this thread and ridicule others "Wailingwall " who are better  informed than You`ll ever be.
I have been a member of the BGS, as a Chem. Eng because I loved "spectacular chemical reactions"  and know most of the above *first hand *from my ex-colleagues who have been leaking it to wiki-leaks as well...it`s published right here

Stasi-in-bstu.pdf - WikiLeaks
*Summary* 



> Report on the employment of former Ministry of State Security (MfS;  &#8220;Stasi&#8220 members by Federal Commissioner for Stasi Files (BstU) (May  2007) This report gives the results of an investigation into the employment of  former Stasi members with the Federal Commissioner for Stasi files  (BStU) that was commissioned by the German government&#8217;s Commission for  Culture and Media (BKM), the federal regulatory authority in charge of  overseeing the BStU.


...but I won`t translate it for You,...so unless You can understand German , You`ll stay as dumb as You are till You learn to be less arrogant and quit ridiculing what others in this forum, who are way better informed that You`ll ever be are telling You.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 5, 2013)

Polar Bear - 

With all due respect, it's probably best that you focus on posting comments that are at least vaguely coherent. 

While it is kind of you to post a kind of potted history of Germany, for those of us who actually know the country quite well, it isn't particularly enlightening.



> I read news left & right leaning online-papers and some that are actually neutral from Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North & South America in 4 different languages



If only English were one of them!


----------



## polarbear (Feb 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Polar Bear -
> 
> With all due respect, it's probably best that you focus on posting comments that are at least vaguely coherent.
> 
> ...


No it`s best I don`t waste my time with little dick heads like You..I assumed You`ld try thinking with the other head, not the little pro- gay one in your pants...!!
I did say from the start that Your attention span does not extend beyound 140 twitter ASCII`s . 3 sentences later You can`t remember what was said in the first sentence...thus anything beyond is "incoherent" to a dummy like You...if that short & simple 1/4 of a screen page account of who is who and who the "Green movement" is "incoherent" to You...then stay away from talking about something far more complicated, like physics...
Like the crap You wrote last year about renewable energy" and when I told You how "power on demand" works and then the engineering term "power factor" was as "incoherent" to You...because dummies like You  can connect at a maximum only 140 twitter dots..!!


----------



## westwall (Feb 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> This really may be one of the funniest threads ever. It really is just hilarious to learn that oil companies decided to lie and pretend that climate change was real, thus destroying their own industry and market, because they wanted to get government research money.
> 
> And this the same companies who initially denied climate change, of course.
> 
> ...








Really?  How exactly will the regs "destroy" their industry?   No regulations promulgated by the politicians has any impact on the oil companies.   They have a HUGE effect on the poor and middle class to whom the regulatory fees will be passed along to, but the oil companies?  Once again you demonstrate a complete lack of common sense, critical thinking and simple ability to do basic research.


----------



## westwall (Feb 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> For any kind of meaningful debate to take place - even on discussion forums - there needs to be some basic standard of honesty, intellectual merit and subject knowledge in place.
> 
> Suggesting that oil companies willingly attacked their own products in order to make financial gains proves to be that you are well below any such standard. Defend it all you like, but the very idea is simply childish. If there is any possible response other than laughter, I can't think of it.







I agree, you have exhibited a total lack of intellectual honesty since you began posting, so bugger off troll.


----------



## westwall (Feb 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Polar Bear -
> 
> With all due respect, it's probably best that you focus on posting comments that are at least vaguely coherent.
> 
> ...







You have no respect for anyone.  You are a troll, so please...just go away.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 5, 2013)

Wailing Wall & SSDD - 



> Really? How exactly will the regs "destroy" their industry



I am genuinely surprised you both have to ask, but since you do - 

At once stage Shell owned the single largest CO2 emissions site on earth. Shell, BP and Chevron are each amongst the companies in the world most directly responsible for emitting CO2. Releasing CO2 is what they do, it's the nature of their business. It's much like the tobacco industry and cancer in that there is simply no way they can simply avoid producing what they produce. Where there is oil, there is CO2. 

When climate change first hit the headlines they denied it, and carried on business as usual.

It was only after 20 years and a lot of vicious internal fighting that first one and then the other conceded that the science was so insurmountable that they could no longer deny it. One thing we can be sure of - if it was in any way possile to deny clmate, they would absolutely continue to do. By admitting that CO2 is responsible, they open themselves up to law suits, to protests, and to threats from new and cleaner fuels and engine technologies. Do you think an oil company would really be happy about the release of the Toyota Prius?

Since then they have spent millions improving their refineries, and millions more researching alternative fuels to petrol. They may one day recoup some of their losses by selling these products - or maybe not. (I think biogas produed from algae is a reach, myself.) They are businesses, and have to make money, after all. 

Climate change presents an enormous challenge to oil companies, and I take my hat off to them that they have had the courage and honesty to (eventually) accept scientific reality. 

Guys - this is purely and imply about intellectual merit and honesty. If I were you I'd think quite carefully about the amount of science it must have taken for oil companies to accept that they are partially responsible for climate change - they were probably the last major organisations on earth who would deny it.


----------



## westwall (Feb 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Wailing Wall & SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...








  You are one delusional individual you know that!  Let's see, would I, as a wealthy oil company, be willing to invest a few million dollars to make billions?  Hmmmmm, let me think about this....hmmmmm......YES!  I would do that.  Wouldn't you?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2013)

westwall said:


> You are one delusional individual you know that!  Let's see, would I, as a wealthy oil company, be willing to invest a few million dollars to make billions?  Hmmmmm, let me think about this....hmmmmm......YES!  I would do that.  Wouldn't you?





He is the poster child for the major failings of a socialist education....no economic theory at all and no critical thinking skills.  Unfortunately the US educational system has been swinging in that direction for far to long as well.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 6, 2013)

SSDD, Wailing Wall - 

Feel free to address the points raised.



> a socialist education.



I'd very much like to see this explained, as well!


----------



## Oddball (Feb 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> *For any kind of meaningful debate to take place - even on discussion forums - there needs to be some basic standard of honesty, intellectual merit and subject knowledge in place. *
> 
> Suggesting that oil companies willingly attacked their own products in order to make financial gains proves to be that you are well below any such standard. Defend it all you like, but the very idea is simply childish. If there is any possible response other than laughter, I can't think of it.


When you're ready to supply any of that, get back to us.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 6, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



That's pretty funny coming from a deranged screwball who has never posted anything but retarded drivel and meaningless nonsense.

Get back to us when you manage to grow a brain.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Wailing Wall & SSDD -
> ...



Not just delusional but also psychotically hostile like all these Leninist Marxist dimwits, towards the very system that allows him to exist and supplies the technology without which he`d be sucking reindeer udders for his daily sustenance in Finland. Do the fishing fleets in Finland  use row & sailboats or are they Diesel powered ?
And the other crap about the Oil industry...it`s pretty clear he does not read any papers:
Wertvollstes Unternehmen der Welt: Ölriese Exxon macht 45 Milliarden Dollar Gewinn - Seite 13


> *Wertvollstes Unternehmen der Welt: Ölriese Exxon macht 45 Milliarden Dollar Gewinn*
> 
> Es ist der zweithöchste Gewinn in der Geschichte des Kapitalismus.


"Milliarden" are "short" billions,...and Exxon just made a $ 45 billion profit,...the second highest profit ever made in the history of capitalism.

Much to the chagrin of these anti- industrial anti- free enterprise left threaded wingnuts who demand their imaginary & outrageous entitlements and label all profit as "dirty" or "dishonest"...while the very same profits prop up the finance system their lives depend on. 
Every health-, unemployment-, disability-,old age-, flood-, fire- , house- and auto insurance is depending on such corporations to make such profits and invest in corporations like Exxon etc., else they would all go bankrupt or all the benefits these socialist "occupy wall street" dickheads could collect would be the payments they made...It would be funny to watch...and like in Greece, it won`t matter how the Unions scream and how many cars the street mobs are burning...all You would get is what You paid in..hey *I would be all for that*, because after childhood I never did need a nanny state to look after me...and even though I`m 68 now I still don`t..!!

As far as the cost of refining is concerned, that has *ALWAYS *been passed on *IN ADVANCE* to the consumer who demanded lead- and sulfur free fuel.
That`s the way *ANY *business works, except maybe in a Reindeer milk & cheese factory in Finland run by hippies.


----------

