# 2009 second warmest year on record



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 22, 2010)

NASA: 2009 tied for 2nd-warmest year, 00s hottest decade too


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2010)

Guess you missed this little news flash, Skippy:

Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations &#8211; Telegraph Blogs



> GISS and NOAA took their temperature data from 6,000 weather stations around the world. By 1990, though, this figure had mysteriously dropped to 1500. *Even more mysteriously this 75 per cent reduction in the number of stations used had a clear bias against those at higher latitudes and elevations.*



Yup....NASA and NOAA have been faking the numbers, too.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 22, 2010)

dude said:


> james delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything.




rotflmao


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2010)

Delingpole had previously bought into the globalclimatecoolerwarmering scam.

You lose, Buckwheat.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jan 22, 2010)

Faking numbers, hiding stations and taking more temp readings from urban areas.  

They have an agenda and they keep getting caught.

Move on... it was hotter during the dark ages....


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 22, 2010)

Dude said:


> Delingpole had previously bought into the globalclimatecoolerwarmering scam.
> 
> You lose, Buckwheat.





So then its pretty obvious his claim of being right all the time can't be true, isn't it?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 22, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Faking numbers, hiding stations and taking more temp readings from urban areas.
> 
> They have an agenda and they keep getting caught.
> 
> Move on... it was hotter during the dark ages....





Its all a big conspiracy! Black helicopters! Black helicopters! Black helicopters! Black helicopters! 


Damned urban temperature stations with their inner city lingo! I can't understand what they are saying.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2010)

Refute the evidence presented.

Oh yeah....You can't.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 22, 2010)

If the only person with the "evidence" is someone who is a proven liar in the first sentence on their page: 

"James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything"

then you don't have anything.


----------



## code1211 (Jan 22, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> NASA: 2009 tied for 2nd-warmest year, 00s hottest decade too




Does it strike you as at all strange that NASA, the agency in charge of Space Flight, and Rockets is using land based temperature measuring stations which they proclaim to be innaccurate since they must adjust the readings for accuracy?

Does it strike you as odd that NASA, the agency in charge of space flight, ignors the opportunity to use perfectly good satellites to collect data?

Does it stike you as odd that NASA, the agency in charge of space flight, is getting funding to study climate?

All of these things strike me as being odd.

All of that aside, though, the current warming trend started before the Industrial Revolution started.  This means the uptick in the warming started BEFORE the uptick in the CO2.  What makes you think that the warming which started without the aid of Anthropogenic CO2 requires Anthropogenic CO2 to continue?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> If the only person with the "evidence" is someone who is a proven liar in the first sentence on their page:
> 
> "James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything"
> 
> then you don't have anything.


The story has several links to factual information.

Your pedantic and limp ad homenim fails yet again.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jan 22, 2010)

Global Cooling is coming. Looks like another bizarre cult is about to be born. What a scam.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2010)

You don't know the half of it....Looks like global communists/eugenicists are already floating trial balloons for the next big doomsday scare.

Time for next eco-scare already?! As Global Warming Movement Collapses, Activists Already 'Test-Marketing' the Next Eco-Fear! 'Laughing Gas' Crisis? Oxygen Crisis? Plastics?


----------



## JimH52 (Jan 22, 2010)

Another scream for help from a refuge from the party of *NO!*


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2010)

The only people screaming are the climate change cargo cultists who are getting red-assed with the facts.


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2010)

and the hits just keep-a-comin' for the climate alarmists!!!


> UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report
> 
> UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report - Times Online


----------



## Ravi (Jan 22, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> dude said:
> 
> 
> > james delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything.
> ...


I've read some of his work. He is basically a koolaide drinker so I pretty much discount whatever he says.

Most of his "facts" turn out to be the opinions of other people that also suffer from confirmation bias.

But you know, if it is posted on a blog, the rightwingnuts take it as gospel.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 22, 2010)

Zander said:


> and the hits just keep-a-comin' for the climate alarmists!!!
> 
> 
> > UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report
> ...



Wow, what an effective conspiracy. They publish their errors online


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > and the hits just keep-a-comin' for the climate alarmists!!!
> ...



It was not a conspiracy, it's was a hoax. The data was faked. There is no AGW, and never was. As hard as they tried, the is no CAUSATION. Sorry, it is going to be hard for the zealots who bought into the religious aspects of AGW to accept that they were fooled. You might consider a AA type 12 step program. Good luck.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 22, 2010)

NASA is faking global warming on purpose? 

I can accept this COULD be because of a government conspiracy to promote cap and tax.

Then again the global warming theory predates this crazy cap and trade idea.

How about we cancel cap and trade and just go to limit, regulate and jail.  That takes away any plausible reason government could want to fake climate data.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2010)

LOL. All you have proven Dooodeee..... is that you will listen to any dingleberry liar to prove your detachment from reality. Yesirreee..... NOAA, NASA, the Royal Society, and every other sane person in the world is working to decieve you. 

Damn, you fellows are hopeless:


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2010)

Zander said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Hey Zander, I have some wonder tin caps to sell you, real cheap. Keep them thar librul braninwaves from infecting your sterile little brain.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Zander said:


> It was not a conspiracy, it's was a hoax. The data was faked.



So its not a conspiracy - but a coincidence - that thousands of scientists, all across the globe, for the past 100 years, have been all lying. They did not collude - its just a coincidence they are all liars. 

Is that your theory?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Toronado3800 said:


> How about we cancel cap and trade and just go to limit, regulate and jail.  That takes away any plausible reason government could want to fake climate data.



????

You think throwing people in jail can fix the problem better than the free market?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. *All you have proven Dooodeee..... is that you will listen to any dingleberry liar to prove your detachment from reality. *Yesirreee..... NOAA, NASA, the Royal Society, and every other sane person in the world is working to decieve you.
> 
> Damn, you fellows are hopeless:


You mean like these dingleberry liars, who have colluded, faked data and conspired to ruin the lives of all who dare to question them?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1758997-post1.html


----------



## Smartt33 (Jan 23, 2010)

Not in Texas.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. *All you have proven Dooodeee..... is that you will listen to any dingleberry liar to prove your detachment from reality. *Yesirreee..... NOAA, NASA, the Royal Society, and every other sane person in the world is working to decieve you.
> ...




Zander says it wasn't a conspiracy, you say it was. 

Which one of you is right?


----------



## Nonelitist (Jan 23, 2010)

Likely the biggest hoax in the history of man.  Global warming isn't happening.  The very scientists that believe in it have said that the facts don't show global warming is happening.

The earth has always... and always will have... periods of warmer climate and periods of cooler climates.  Part of the cycle of the earth.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > Faking numbers, hiding stations and taking more temp readings from urban areas.
> ...



Cities are considered heat sinks correct?  Are these manipulated down to compensate?  You are aware that many of these data sites are within 10 meters of AC condensers or other heat sources right?

Not very scientific I'll admit, but what was the temperatures like where you live?  For us in southern Michigan, it was well below average temperatures all summer long.


----------



## keee keee (Jan 23, 2010)

If this is wrong (Global warming) and we are getting cooler will Al gore change to screaming and preaching about global cooling instead of global warming? Where has this moron knucklehead been hiding recently with all this cold weather, afraid some might question him about the global warming hoax!!!!


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

You gotta realize that the warmerist cult has bought into a science fiction scam that makes Piltdown Man look like Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

Maybe Jones and Mann will call them all to the pavilion for some "refreshments" and this will all be over soon.


----------



## Zander (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> You gotta realize that the warmerist cult has bought into a science fiction scam that makes Piltdown Man look like Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
> 
> Maybe Jones and Mann will call them all to the pavilion for some "refreshments" and this will all be over soon.



How dare you! There has never been fraud in any scientific endeavor. NEVah!!! Not evah!! . Scientists are special people, they don't lie, cheat or steal. They never stifle dissent, falsify information, or simply make shit up! You are clearly mistaken.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 23, 2010)

Direct from the mouth of the guy who was quoted with the 2035 date:

But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. &#8220;It is the lead authors &#8212; blame goes to them,&#8221; he told The Times. &#8220;*There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report*.&#8221; 

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report - Times Online

For the peer review crowd:

But he too admitted that it was &#8220;really odd&#8221; that none of the world&#8217;s leading glaciologists had pointed out the mistakes to him earlier. &#8220;Frankly, it was a stupid error,&#8221; he said. &#8220;But no one brought it to my attention.

No one, including the chairman of the publication, caught ANY of this.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> The very scientists that believe in it have said that the facts don't show global warming is happening.



That's not true. You, or more likely one of the bloggers you worship, quite simply made it up.



> The earth has always... and always will have... periods of warmer climate and periods of cooler climates.


[/quote]

What a groundbreaking discovery. I'm sure not a single climate scientist in the past 100 years has considered this possibility. How did you think of it? You must be a pure genius. I urge you to publish your revolutionary discovery as soon as possible.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Cities are considered heat sinks correct?  Are these manipulated down to compensate?  You are aware that many of these data sites are within 10 meters of AC condensers or other heat sources right?



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article2abstract.pdf



Cities:






Temperature:






Where's the correlation?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

Is that the same NOAA that has drastically reduced their number of measuring and recording stations in colder climates and higher altitudes?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

keee keee said:


> Where has this moron knucklehead been hiding recently with all this cold weather,



I guess you didn't read the thread headline?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Is that the same NOAA that has drastically reduced their number of measuring and recording stations in colder climates and higher altitudes?



No, its the real NOAA.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

Right...The "real" NOAA that has been narrowing its field of raw data.

Thanks for that clarification.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Right...The "real" NOAA that has been narrowing its field of raw data.
> 
> Thanks for that clarification.



You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

Go argue with this guy:

NOAA/NCDC: GHCN &#8211; The Global Analysis  Musings from the Chiefio


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Go argue with this guy:
> 
> NOAA/NCDC: GHCN  The Global Analysis  Musings from the Chiefio





Just as I thought. You get everything you know from bloggers. What a fucking moron.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

A blogger with extensively linked and footnoted (which also contains the computer code) research, you lemming.

But I understand if the information provided blows clean over your head...You warmist cargo cultists aren't the sharpest  tools in the shed to begin with.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> A blogger with extensively linked and footnoted (which also contains the computer code) research, you lemming.
> 
> But I understand if the information provided blows clean over your head...You warmist cargo cultists aren't the sharpest  tools in the shed to begin with.





I don't read blogs. If any of the source he quotes are of value, feel free to note them yourself on this thread.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> dude said:
> 
> 
> > james delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything.
> ...


Yes... let's take obvious sarcasm and humor to be a statement of fact.  How disingenuous can you get?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > A blogger with extensively linked and footnoted (which also contains the computer code) research, you lemming.
> ...


What evidence and source(s) would you accept?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > dude said:
> ...




OK - so he's an entertainer and comedian? Still no reason to take him seriously then.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 23, 2010)

> Wow, what an effective conspiracy. They publish their errors online



Well the pistol IS to their temple now that the public is aware and angry and demanding answers.

But yet, you still believe the lies.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


What he is is the warmist cargo cultists' worst nightmare: A former true believer journalist, who looked at the evidence objectively and with an open mind and concluded that AGW is an elaborate hoax.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 23, 2010)

> NASA is faking global warming on purpose?



Can we say "Conflict of Interests".  They keep the scam going, they keep getting billion dollar research grants, and missions paid for and satellites... They stand to keep the gravy train coming for thousands of employees, and increase their budget.

Obviously some of the bureaucrats don't give a flying fuck if it's true or not.  They have a budget to maintain and paychecks to send out.  And if it helps a political group that will then keep the payola rolling... all the better.

Try this.  Follow the money to and from NASA on the AGW highway.  Guarantee you'll find all sorts of unscrupulous bastards on it.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Right...The "real" NOAA that has been narrowing its field of raw data.
> 
> Thanks for that clarification.



Are you and your blogger friends even aware that station data is all averaged within a 5x5 degree box? The data is weighed by geographical error, not numbers of stations. If you have 1000 stations in a 5x5 box and their average temp is x degrees, and you remove 900 stations, the average temp you get will still be close to x degrees.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Anyone who starts their article off with an assertion they are always right is not taking their "journalism" seriously and neither should you or I.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > NASA is faking global warming on purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> Can we say "Conflict of Interests".  They keep the scam going, they keep getting billion dollar research grants, and missions paid for and satellites... They stand to keep the gravy train coming for thousands of employees, and increase their budget.




So what you're saying, is any scientist that does not work for free, has a conflict of interest and his work cannot be trusted?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Right...The "real" NOAA that has been narrowing its field of raw data.
> ...



Actually Dude and myself do know what we are talking about.  You however, are spouting talking point gibberish.  Prior to you showing up, we had a very interesting chart showing how many stations were within ten meters of heat sources.  Very significant findings.

Your source was a 2003 study by the way.  Not very current.
NOAA News Online (Story 2089)

Let's take a look at some more current findings:

A significant editorial on weather stations and data quality  Watts Up With That?  Note location of weather station in photo.

The study, recently published by the free-market Heartland Institute, inspected 860 of the 1,221 U.S. ground stations that gauge temperature changes. The findings were alarming.

They found *89 percent of stations fail to meet the National Weather Services own siting requirements* that say stations must be located at least 100 feet from artificial heat sources.

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat, Mr. Watts reported.

Many stations also had added more sensitive measuring devices, heat-generating radio transmission devices and even latex paint to replace original whitewash, resulting in greater heat retention and reflection.

At one location, Mr. Watts said when he stood next to the temperature sensor, I could feel warm exhaust air from the nearby cell phone tower equipment sheds blowing past me! I realized this official thermometer was recording the temperature of a hot zone . . . and other biasing influences including buildings, air conditioner vents and masonry.

Care to take a peek at O'Hare's issues?  
Chicago Temperature Station Riddled with Problems - by Anthony Watts - Global Warming Facts

Take a look at Coal Creek's raw data.
weather_stations  Watts Up With That?

Here's a counter to your urban heat island fantasy:
New Study Confirms Dramatic Urban Heat Island Effect

Some nice pics of weather stations here too:
Will Media Ever Investigate Accuracy of Weather Stations? | NewsBusters.org

Anyone notice a trend?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


Reducto ad hominem.....Fail.

Now, in case you missed it,  _*what source(s) and information would you accept?

*_


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> The study, recently published by the free-market Heartland Institute,



I just wanna point out that I'm recovering from a fractured rib. I'd appreciate it very much if you could refrain from saying things, like the above, that make me crack up with uncontrollable laugher, its very painful.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Any peer reviewed scientific literature or preprints thereof.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Could you be a little more vague?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The study, recently published by the free-market Heartland Institute,
> ...


Reducto ad hominem...Irrelevant...Fail.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Should I specify that by "peers" I don't mean economists?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

Why don't you just come out and say that the only thing that would convince you is if the IPCC did a 180°?

It'd save us all a lot of time.


----------



## KissMy (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> You don't know the half of it....Looks like global communists/eugenicists are already floating trial balloons for the next big doomsday scare.
> 
> Time for next eco-scare already?! As Global Warming Movement Collapses, Activists Already 'Test-Marketing' the Next Eco-Fear! 'Laughing Gas' Crisis? Oxygen Crisis? Plastics?



Don't you people know that Dihydrogen Monoxide vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas. Often associated with killer cyclones & hurricanes. Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

Dihydrogen Monoxide is one of the most deadly chemicals on the planet. It is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful. Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities. Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage. Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects. DHMO is a major component of acid rain. Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns. Contributes to soil erosion. Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals. Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions. *We should ban this stuff instead of CO2!*


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know the half of it....Looks like global communists/eugenicists are already floating trial balloons for the next big doomsday scare.
> ...



Did you know that when excess H2o is put in the air it precipitates out in a matter of weeks?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Why don't you just come out and say that the only thing that would convince you is if the IPCC did a 180°?
> 
> It'd save us all a lot of time.



In other words - you don't have any actual published scientific research to back your claims.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

I only have the fudged data from NOAA, NASA, Penn State, CRU, etcetera, along with people who go into explicit detail on how  it has been cooked.

You think that the "peers" are going to just come out and say "OK....ya caught us"?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> You think that the "peers" are going to just come out and say "OK....ya caught us"?



Members of the climate science community have admitted a couple of mistakes recently, so, yes.


Its as if you don't know how science works. If you want to advance your career the best way to do it is prove that something accepted as truth is false. All the worlds most famous scientists throughout history have been people who established new theories, not those who confirm existing theory. If I was a climate scientist and had any inkling that AGW was wrong I'd be chomping at the bit to prove it.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

Yeah....Because they got caught red-handed by the independent journalists and bloggers you poo-poo.

This yo-yo




didn't even know his data was bad, because the "peers" working within the AGW echo chamber back-patting club didn't even check it, because it met with their predetermined conclusions.

The wheels are coming off the hoax, Bubba.


----------



## KissMy (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > You think that the "peers" are going to just come out and say "OK....ya caught us"?
> ...



Most of those famous scientist became poor, broke & unappreciated just like the ones speaking truth to power today. In the future they may be appreciated after the money train has left the station.


----------



## Zander (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you just come out and say that the only thing that would convince you is if the IPCC did a 180°?
> ...


Here are some steps you can take to overcome your addiction to the fake science of AGW They have helped millions of others, they can help you too!!
    *  Step 1 - We admitted we were powerless over the climate - that our lives had become unmanageable and that normal people found us extremely annoying!
    * Step 2 - Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves - the SUN - controls the climate
    * Step 3 - Made a decision to turn the climate over to Nature and the SUN
    * Step 4 - Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves  and stopped worshipping AL Gore
    * Step 5 - Admitted ourselves and to another human being that we were fooled by AGW and that we wanted to believe it, even though it smelled funny from the beginning. 
    * Step 6 - Were entirely ready to have God (or GAIA) remove all these defects of character
    * Step 7 - Humbly asked God (or GAIA) to remove our shortcomings
    * Step 8 - Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all, including people on internet forums and chatrooms
    * Step 9 - Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others
    * Step 10 - Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it
    * Step 11 - Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God (or GAIA), praying only for knowledge of God's (or GAIA's)  will for us and the power to carry that out
    * Step 12 - Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other AGW addicts, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Good Luck!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


Disingenuous to the end.  

For him to admit there is possibly a chance for error has not entered into his faith yet.  No proof is possible.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


And cools the atmosphere.

Damn those laws of physics!


----------



## Ravi (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Go argue with this guy:
> ...




Pretty much.

But the guy does link to other people that have opinions.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> But the guy does link to other people that have opinions.


Didn't even look, did ya?


----------



## Ravi (Jan 23, 2010)

A credible face.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 23, 2010)

I'll score that a "no".

Rube.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



What he meant to say was, he accepts only information reveiwed by other global warming loyalists.  His faith will see him through this rough patch of faked results, skewed data sources, growing Antarctia ice caps, and failed peer reveiwed reports.  Like all good little cultists, he refuses to entertain even the slightest sense of objectivity.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > You think that the "peers" are going to just come out and say "OK....ya caught us"?
> ...



Yep, but you would lack government funding.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Yeah....Because they got caught red-handed by the independent journalists and bloggers you poo-poo.
> 
> This yo-yo
> 
> ...



My favorite part is this guy telling the press, his people shold have told him it was an error.  He's the bigshot scientist, where was his brain?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 23, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah....Because they got caught red-handed by the independent journalists and bloggers you poo-poo.
> ...


In a jar in the lab pickled in formaldehyde.

Oh wait... this was rhetorical?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > How about we cancel cap and trade and just go to limit, regulate and jail.  That takes away any plausible reason government could want to fake climate data.
> ...


Just making them fix their polluting cars to license them has been fairly effective.  In St. Louis if you keep driving a car which doesn't somehow pass our easy emissions standards you'll eventually get caught and fined.  Possibly thrown in jail.  

Same as not letting me burn dirty coal on site to heat my house.  It works.

The Cap and Trade idea is pretty creative.  I understand the theory behind it allowing economically viable pollution to continue but at a cost until new technology can be implemented cheaply and quickly enough to satisfy the share holders.

Would I have voted for it?  Probably not w/o a few of my pet projects tacked on,  I'm a stick in the mud conservative who doesn't like all these new fangled economic ideas.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Is that the same NOAA that has drastically reduced their number of measuring and recording stations in colder climates and higher altitudes?



That's a pretty interesting question.  Let's say we're taking readings for southern Nevada.  Should I put my station on Mt Charleston?  In the valley below?  How about at Red Rock (the excellent park not the casino)?

Suppose there should be a station every xxx square miles located at the average elevation for the plotted area.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 23, 2010)

Dude said:


> Why don't you just come out and say that the only thing that would convince you is if the IPCC did a 180°?
> 
> It'd save us all a lot of time.


Naw... they won't believe that either.  The IPCC is pulling away from a lot of bad science thanks to the revelations of the Himalayan Glaciers either not shrinking OR not been checked, but to have only been assumed to be doing what they desired.

So, what's to do?  Savage the IPCC and claim they're succumbing to lies.

These cargo cultists won't believe even after the plane lands on the ground and men get out.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 23, 2010)

Zander said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


I'm confused or am coming into this in the middle.

Easily enough I ADMIT if the sun goes out it will get enough colder all the greenhouse gasses in the world won't save us.  Also when the sun expands removing all the greenhouse gasses won't help.

Now I'm soo conservative I don't wanna go fooling with these natural levels of greenhouse or other gasses very much.  Why run the risk?  I'm not that lazy.

So I think we agree on turning over the climate issue to nature and the sun, meaning limit our pollution whenever possible and let nature run its course.

I don't think the rest of the points are more than talk radio type time fillers or items lobbed at the other side to make them angrier and more entrenched.


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2010)

According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), last year was tied for the second warmest year on record after 2005, the warmest year on record. If just looking at the southern hemisphere, however, 2009 proved the warmest yet recorded since record-taking began in 1880. Overall 2009 tied a total of five other years&#8212;four from the 2000s&#8212;for the second warmest on record. But, researchers say what is most important was that the past decade, from January 1st 2000 to December 31st 2009, proved the warmest on record. 

"There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," James Hansen, GISS director, said in a press release. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated." 

The year before last, 2008, was the coolest year of the 2000s due to a strong La Nina event that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, however warm temperatures made a comeback last year as the La Nina event fell back. Even an unseasonably cool December in North America did little to stem the overall warming trend in 2009. 

"The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the United States' temperature does not affect the global temperature much," Hansen explained.

NASA: 2009 second warmest year on record


----------



## Oddball (Jan 24, 2010)

Looks like you didn't get the memo, either.

Home

Thermometer Years by Latitude Warm Globe  Musings from the Chiefio


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 24, 2010)

The facts are coming out, and the propaganda is losing to truth.  So of course, deny the truth, OR savage those who present the facts.

The lie must be true, because it creates the world as they intend it to be.


----------



## Zander (Jan 24, 2010)

Toronado3800 said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



YOU are clearly NOT an AGW addict - that is good. You are, at least on this issue, normal.   Some people are not normal when it comes to AGW - they actually believe that we should wipe our asses with 1 square of toilet paper and that this filthy habit will lower the temperature of the planet!!  Those people need help. These 12 steps can help do that.  Worst case, they'll have far cleaner bungholes!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 24, 2010)

Zander said:
			
		

> YOU are clearly NOT an AGW addict - that is good. You are, at least on this issue, normal. Some people are not normal when it comes to AGW - they actually believe that we should wipe our asses with 1 square of toilet paper and that this filthy habit will lower the temperature of the planet!! Those people need help. These 12 steps can help do that. Worst case, they'll have far cleaner bungholes!!



Yep, that's one thing I respect about Tornado.  He works to keep a rational/reasonable base under him.


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2010)

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet we still had the second warmest year on record.

And the ice continues to melt...


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2010)




----------



## Liability (Jan 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> NASA: 2009 tied for 2nd-warmest year, 00s hottest decade too



*Cooking* the data adds to Global Warming.

Those fucking nit-wit AGW Faithers are the root of the problem!


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > NASA: 2009 tied for 2nd-warmest year, 00s hottest decade too
> ...



Your opinions don't mean much to the melting ice cap.

But thanks for playing!


----------



## Liability (Jan 24, 2010)

Chris said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Neither does the cooked data add to or detract from the average global temperature.

Thanks for playing so transparently!  

The fraud you losers have tried to perpetrate got exposed and now you sissies are all wetting your panties.  Boo fuckin' hoo.  

Nobody cares and nobody with a brain is buyin' the shit you're tryin' to peddle.


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice continues to melt.

Why?


----------



## concept (Jan 24, 2010)

Chris said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Where is it melting?


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2010)

concept said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


----------



## concept (Jan 24, 2010)

Sea Ice Extent.

IJIS Web Site


----------



## Liability (Jan 24, 2010)

Chris said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I believe it's possible that something might yet penetrate more deeply into your brain than that silly talking point you endlessly reiterate.

It does seem doubtful, considering that it's you we are talking about.  

But my belief is an article of faith, as is your belief in AGW.

Do you imagine that there are a complex and not yet fully understood set of factors that directly and indirectly affect global climate over time?  I do.  And since the set of factors are NOT all known (at least not fully or all that well), I can pretty much guarantee you that none of your silly predictions ever manage to come true.  

You kids REALLY should stop tying to manipulate and hide the data, though.  It makes you look much worse than any and all of your failed predictions make you look.


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2010)

Concept thanks for directing me to that website....

Total area of sea ice in Arctic Ocean smallest 
since observations started 
- Much faster pace of ice melting than forecasted -

August 16, 2007 (JST)
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC)
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)

Overview
The Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC, led by President Yasuhiro Kato) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA, led by President Keiji Tachikawa) cooperatively analyzed oceanic and atmospheric observation data and sea ice data acquired by satellites, and found that the sea ice area in the Arctic Ocean has been decreasing at a much faster pace than expected compared to the previous worst record in the summer of 2005. After satellite observations started in 1978, the observed area shrunk to its lowest level on August 15, 2007. Ice melting normally continues until mid September, thus further shrinkage of the sea ice area is expected. 


JAXA | Total area of sea ice in Arctic Ocean smallest since observations started - Much faster pace of ice melting than forecasted -


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2010)

ROME, Italy (CNN) -- Melting glaciers in the Alps may prompt Italy and Switzerland to redraw their borders near the Matterhorn, according to parliamentary draft legislation being readied in Rome.

 Franco Narducci of Italy's opposition Democratic Party is preparing a bill to redefine the frontier with neighboring Switzerland, his office said Wednesday.

Narducci is a member of the foreign affairs panel in Italy's lower Chamber of Deputies. Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has authorized the bill.

Switzerland also has cooperated with Italy on the matter.

The Italian Military Geographic Institute says climate change is responsible for the Alpine glaciers melting.

Melting glaciers force Italy, Swiss to redraw border - CNN.com


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice continues to melt.

Why?


----------



## concept (Jan 24, 2010)

Here is a fun example of "fudging" the data...  


> The chart below is from Willis Eschenbach&#8217;s WUWT essay, &#8220;The smoking gun at Darwin Zero,&#8221; and it plots GHCN Raw versus homogeneity-adjusted temperature data at Darwin International Airport in Australia. The &#8220;adjustments&#8221; actually reversed the 20th-century trend from temperatures falling at 0.7°C per century to temperatures rising at 1.2°C per century. Eschenbach isolated a single station and found that it was adjusted to the positive by 6.0°C per century, and with no apparent reason, as all five stations at the airport more or less aligned for each period. His conclusion was that he had uncovered &#8220;indisputable evidence that the &#8216;homogenized&#8217; data has been changed to fit someone&#8217;s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.&#8221;









American Thinker on CRU, GISS, and Climategate  Watts Up With That?


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2010)

concept said:


> Here is a fun example of "fudging" the data...
> 
> 
> > The chart below is from Willis Eschenbachs WUWT essay, The smoking gun at Darwin Zero, and it plots GHCN Raw versus homogeneity-adjusted temperature data at Darwin International Airport in Australia. The adjustments actually reversed the 20th-century trend from temperatures falling at 0.7°C per century to temperatures rising at 1.2°C per century. Eschenbach isolated a single station and found that it was adjusted to the positive by 6.0°C per century, and with no apparent reason, as all five stations at the airport more or less aligned for each period. His conclusion was that he had uncovered indisputable evidence that the homogenized data has been changed to fit someones preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.
> ...




One airport reporting station.

Man, you are really desperate.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice continues to melt.

Why?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 24, 2010)

"There are two kinds of statistics, the kind you look up and the kind you make up" -- I forget who said it


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 24, 2010)

Chris said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a fun example of "fudging" the data...
> ...



My guess would be that the temperature was above freezing, but what the fuck do I know?


----------



## Liability (Jan 24, 2010)

Chris said:


> * * * *
> 
> Man, you are really desperate.
> 
> ...



Endlessly looping and stupidly repeating your false claim doesn't make it any less false.


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



I knew you didn't have an answer.

Because the answer is that we have almost doubled the amount of atmospheric CO2.

We should be experiencing an extremely cold winter, but we aren't.


----------



## Liability (Jan 24, 2010)

Chris said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Pretending to "answer" your own "question" which is based on your endless looping and repetition of your dishonest contention still does nothing to make your lie a truth.

Sorry.

But you -- and all you AGW Faithers -- remain a massive fail.


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice continues to melt.

Why?


----------



## concept (Jan 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



The agw wackjobs like Chrissy and oldrocks just don't or won't get it.


The earth has been cooling and warming since forever. 

They are just desperate now because of their Mecca of AGW has been shown to be nothing more than a Sham Wow infomercial.


----------



## concept (Jan 24, 2010)

Chris said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



 you are wayyyy behind on the talking points. 

The bleating over Co2 has been debunked already. And it's obvious you haven't been paying attention but we have been setting records for cold and snow accumulation.  

Don't you remember the Dopenhagen farce? LMAO!!!!


----------



## Liability (Jan 24, 2010)

Chris said:


> * * * *
> 
> The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years,




Maybe.




Chris said:


> and yet the ice continues to melt.



Stop making shit up.





Chris said:


> Why?



Indeed!  Why *do* you guys insist on making shit up and then mindlessly repeating it?

IF it were actually true that "the" ice continues to "melt" (supposedly despite the "fact" that the sun's activity level is low), the reason for that MIGHT be found in a whole COMPLEX set of inter-related facts (actual facts at that!) some of which are at best only poorly understood and some of which may not even be known to us at present.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 25, 2010)

Chris said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


Maybe you can give us more pictures of melting Himalayan Glaciers.  Oh wait.  They aren't, and even the IPCC agrees they have no fucking clue what's going on.

Green will be dead as disco in 4 years.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 25, 2010)

> We should be experiencing an extremely cold winter, but we aren't.



With the exception of our usual January thaw, we've had longer/more cold snaps from October on forward in the upper midwest.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 25, 2010)

Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 &#8211; not so thick  Watts Up With That?

Huh.  Now according to the straight line data provided by the Warmists, this cannot be possible.  Ice should be hundreds of feet thick. 

I wonder though, since I've been hearing about wind driven ice causing areas of sea to be opened up while other areas gain thicker ice packs, how much of this is being deliberately or ignorantly left out of warmist theory.

Oh... and I love those graphs that Chris provided, clearly showing the decline of temperatures in the last few years, although the 'average' is a straight line ignoring the recent dip trend.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > We should be experiencing an extremely cold winter, but we aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> With the exception of our usual January thaw, we've had longer/more cold snaps from October on forward in the upper midwest.


MORON


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > We should be experiencing an extremely cold winter, but we aren't.
> ...



Look at Antarctica, it's all blue  except for the one red dot no doubt where they have their instruments reading the exhaust port of their shelter and THAT'S how we know Global Warming is fo'shizzle.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 25, 2010)

Chris said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



So, Chris, are you telling us that prior to the creation of the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster, Glaciers never melted on Earth?  We never lost an ice cubes worth of glacier prior to the formation of East Angelia CRU?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > With the exception of our usual January thaw, we've had longer/more cold snaps from October on forward in the upper midwest.
> ...


[/QUOTE]
And an entry from our spot seeing fucktard.  Another link to www.climatebullshit.ass.hole


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 25, 2010)

Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say

Apparently the only glacier melting is the one composed of warmist fraud, deceit and lies.

Oh look!  Another fissure to the truth!


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 25, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


And that's how we know you are too ignorant to know what an ANOMALY is.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 25, 2010)

> And that's how we know you are too ignorant to know what an ANOMALY is.



:::EdtheParrot flies in again::::

BARACK! Anomaly!  BARACK TWeet!

:::craps on the facts::::


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



In this case, an anomaly is what the climate scientists do to raw data.  You presented this doctored up graph before Ed.  Where I live has no dot at all.  If it did, it would be the -4C dot, but for some reason your chart seems to think we were normal this summer.  Lies stacked upon lies.


----------



## concept (Jan 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > And that's how we know you are too ignorant to know what an ANOMALY is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



4 MILLION years of warming and cooling cycles but the last 10 years are not an anomaly? 




Warmerers are a funny bunch.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 25, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


How does your being tooooooooooooo STUPID to see that that is a chart for the WHOLE YEAR of 2009. It only says it at the top of the chart. How could anyone expect a CON$ervative to read that. 
But you got to love CON$ervative "logic" if a CON$ervative is toooooooooooo STUPID to read english, then the graph must be "doctored." 
Stupidity stacked upon stupidity.

Here is the chart for the summer:


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



First, thanks for the chart.  It is still -2C off for my area.  Overall we had a cool spring, summer, fall and prior winter.  The overall chart is still off as well.  Check your area.  What does your research tell you about the chart versus actual results in your area?  If you have time, check out where and what is around many of these data stations.  89% were found to not meet the standards of the agency collecting the information.  It is a sad situation that the information is so unreliable and skewed.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 25, 2010)

2009:

My second lowest heating bill on record.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Stupid chart with rigged data, as debunking information has already been mentioned and  linked to twice in this thread.

Give it up, Mr. Barnum.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 25, 2010)

Liability said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > NASA: 2009 tied for 2nd-warmest year, 00s hottest decade too
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 25, 2010)

concept said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > And that's how we know you are too ignorant to know what an ANOMALY is.
> ...





I don't think you know the proper definition of the term "anomaly" in this context.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 25, 2010)

Look!....Cottingley Fairies!


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 25, 2010)

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


BALONEY

Your "debunkers" don't even know what an ANOMALY is and can't even read the heading at the top of the chart. 
Bloody brilliant.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 25, 2010)

Wanna buy Hitler's dairy?

I'll sell it to ya cheap.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 25, 2010)

Dude said:


> Wanna buy Hitler's dairy?
> 
> I'll sell it to ya cheap.


I wouldn't think of separating you from your bible.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 25, 2010)

Love to sit around and chat, but I heard on the radio that Martians have invaded New Jersey, and I'm heading for the hills.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 25, 2010)

Dude said:


> Love to sit around and chat, but I heard on the radio that Martians have invaded New Jersey, and I'm heading for the hills.



Good, it's about time you did something besides sit around and chat, by my count you've posted on the message board an average of 854 times a month for the past year.
Do you have a life?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 25, 2010)

Didn't know you had such concern for me, Danny.

In case you missed it, I've recently taken in the sights of Santa Barbara and the San Bernardino Valley, from about 2,000 feet in the air.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-outdoors/100950-dudes-totally-awesome-paragliding-thread-2.html

What do you do when you're not sitting around devising your next delusional paranoid strawman thread?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2010)

Liability said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



The sun is at it's lowest level of activity in 80 years.    

*correct*

The ice continues to melt

*correct*

So where is the false claim? Or do I have to present links that prove both statements were correct? I can quite quickly, you know. For it is your own deniers that have been making a big deal out of the solar minimum, only to have it blow back in their faces.

Liberty, do you have any kind of intellect at all? Do you know how to do even the most basic research? To present links from reputable sources to back up your mindless assertations? I think not.


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 25, 2010)

It was in the upper 50's today in Boston.  Why didn't Sinatra or one of her clones make a thread to let us all know about it?


----------



## elvis (Jan 25, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> It was in the upper 50's today in Boston.  Why didn't Sinatra or one of her clones make a thread to let us all know about it?



because he doesn't live in boston?


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 25, 2010)

elvis said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > It was in the upper 50's today in Boston.  Why didn't Sinatra or one of her clones make a thread to let us all know about it?
> ...



lol ...

I'm going with, "because they only like to point out unusually cold days."


----------



## Oddball (Jan 25, 2010)

Maybe she's hiding because the Martians were seen moving north, out of New Jersey.


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 25, 2010)

Dude said:


> Maybe she's hiding because the Martians were seen moving north, out of New Jersey.



Whatever she's doing it isn't talking about temperatures being 15 degrees above the average high in New Jersey the last couple of days.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 26, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Ice continues to form more places than it is melting is a far more accurate statement.  I am doing some studies.  It is finding your supposed scientists to be fakers, liars and generally misleading on almost their entire body of work.  Your sources certainly are not reputable, just supported by government funding.

89% of the data sites don't meet the standards of the group gathering information.  Graphs and charts are manipulated and don't even reflect actual temperature differences experienced in the area.  All you had to do was look at some of the websites I listed a couple of days ago and see how poorly the data sites were.

You are ignorant.  That means willful stupidity in my book.  It is okay to be stupid, some can't help that.  To be stupid because you refuse to learn is entirely different.  I believe you have the capacity and ability to change, I just don't understand why you won't.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2010)

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/65/3/296

Plankton, from the last ice age to the year 3007
E. C. Pielou 
335 Pritchard Road, Comox, BC, Canada V9M 2Y8 

tel: +1 250 3391780; fax: +1 250 3395855; e-mail: pielouec@uniserve.com


Pielou, E. C. 2008. Plankton, from the last ice age to the year 3007. &#8211; ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 296&#8211;301.

Climate forcing of the environment and biota has been happening since time immemorial, human forcing only for the past 200 years or so. This paper considers, first, climatic changes over the past 30 000 years, as indicated by plankton and their effects on plankton. Only fossilizable plankton can be observed: principally foraminifera, radiolaria, and pteropods in the zooplankton, and their food, principally coccolithophores, diatoms, and dinoflagellate cysts, in the phytoplankton. The soft-bodied zooplankton species&#8212;especially copepods&#8212;that lived with them can only be inferred. Large, abrupt climate changes took place, aided by positive feedback. Second, this paper attempts to predict how human forcing in the form of anthropogenic climate change is likely to affect marine ecosystems in the future. Past predictions have underestimated the speed at which warming is actually happening: positive feedback has been unexpectedly strong. Thus, the melting of snow and ice, by reducing the earth's albedo, has increased the amount of solar energy absorbed. Also, warming of the surface (water and land) has caused outgassing of methane from buried clathrates (hydrates), and methane is a strong greenhouse gas


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2010)

*There is not only an increasing amount of peer reviewed literature on adrupt climate change, there is recognition now that we are in the beginning of such a change. And that the acceleration of that change may procede at a catastrophic rate as the Arctic Clathrates outgas.*

Abrupt Climate Change - Questions and Answers

2: What scientific evidence do we have that abrupt climate change has happened before? 

Evidence of abrupt climate change comes from all manners of sources (glacial deposits, tropical and polar ice caps, pollens, lake and marine sediments, tree rings, corals, speleothems, etc). Confidence in identifying such changes rises when more than one data source, and in more than one region, records the event. Many abrupt changes can be readily identified since the peak of the last ice age, but let us consider two examples with very different causes and consequences. 
       1. The Younger Dryas
What is the Younger Dryas? 



Dryas octopetala  
An event that occurred about 12,800 years before present (BP), termed the Younger Dryas (YD), is the canonical example of abrupt climate change. It is best seen in the Greenland ice cores, although it had very marked consequences over Europe, North America, and as far as New Zealand. The YD is an invaluable case study: it occurred recently enough so that records of it are well-preserved, and seems to have left traces all over the world. 
Let us look at the temperature over Greenland for the last 18,000 years:


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2010)

*You see, the changes do not involve just temperature, but the whole of the biotic system on this planet. A system that we depend on for food. 

Liberty, this is how you post science. Not just yap-yap claims with no links or referances.*

Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes -- Fabry et al. 65 (3): 414 -- ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil

Fabry, V. J., Seibel, B. A., Feely, R. A., and Orr, J. C. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. &#8211; ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 414&#8211;432.

Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is altering the seawater chemistry of the world&#8217;s oceans with consequences for marine biota. Elevated partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is causing the calcium carbonate saturation horizon to shoal in many regions, particularly in high latitudes and regions that intersect with pronounced hypoxic zones. The ability of marine animals, most importantly pteropod molluscs, foraminifera, and some benthic invertebrates, to produce calcareous skeletal structures is directly affected by seawater CO2 chemistry. CO2 influences the physiology of marine organisms as well through acid-base imbalance and reduced oxygen transport capacity. The few studies at relevant pCO2 levels impede our ability to predict future impacts on foodweb dynamics and other ecosystem processes. Here we present new observations, review available data, and identify priorities for future research, based on regions, ecosystems, taxa, and physiological processes believed to be most vulnerable to ocean acidification. We conclude that ocean acidification and the synergistic impacts of other anthropogenic stressors provide great potential for widespread changes to marine ecosystems


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 26, 2010)

Vanna, give the Wheel of AGW a spin and see how much Climate Change we'll have in the year 3000


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2010)

No, just sit back and watch what happens in 2010. 

Perhaps you could pray to your people in the Hollow Moon to help us, Frank


----------



## Oddball (Jan 26, 2010)




----------



## rdean (Jan 26, 2010)

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/...rmest-Year-012510.aspx?wnnvz=1743,01284236785

Those darn scientists.  Aways coming up with numbers and data and stuff.   They should stick to something Republicans can believe in - like bombs.  Now bombs are good.  They keep us "safe".


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2010)

Dude said:


>



But what else would we expect for you, Dooodeee.....


----------



## Zander (Jan 26, 2010)

Here's a Globull Warming Poem I wrote. Enjoy!

Oh Gaia, help save our wounded Planet
Oh Gaia, help save our suffering Earth

Oh Science,  we need you to smite the winners!!
Smite the SUV's!! Smite the sinners!!
Oh Science,  we need you to falsify records from past time
manufacture consensus, and hide the decline! 

Oh Gaia, in Gore's name we pray 
Oh Gaia, one square to wipe our ass, per day!

Oh Gaia, we are gullible nitwits. 
In Gore's name we pray.....Oh Gaia


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 26, 2010)

News, and in your case Old Rocks, science flash!

Methane is not CO2.  Shifting ocean currents cause some place to melt and others to be left alone.  There is no evidence (you know, that sciency stuff) to support your claim that this is a man-made process.  As noted, climates change all the time.  During those processes CO2 levels, methane and many other things are modified.  Big deal.  None of your support materials can point to man as the defining cause.  Lots of post material, no correlation.

 PHOENIX -- It's official! July of 2009 was the hottest on record for Phoenix and Yuma when it came to the average temperatures.

The average high temperature ended up at 109.5 degrees ranking second hottest behind July of 1989.

The average low temperature is at 87.1 degrees, ranking it the warmest on record.

If we look at the average temperature, which is the average of the high and low, that number is 98.3, making it the hottest on record.

So why was it so hot? High pressure during the month of July usually likes to sit over the Four Corners area. 

Instead, this ridge of high pressure, on average, has been sitting over northern Mexico and southern New Mexico resulting in a more moist air mass at the mid-levels of the atmosphere. 

This has been keeping overnight lows much warmer. Therefore the air doesn't have to work as hard to get to 110 or higher.

There has been a persistent trough of low pressure from eastern Canada into the eastern U.S resulting in below average temperatures and abundant rainfall back east.

Places like Detroit, Chicago, Indianapolis, and Marquette are having one of the coolest July's on record.

July of 2009 was the hottest on record! - Phoenix Arizona news, breaking news, local news, weather radar, traffic from ABC15 News | ABC15.com

Cause:  Shifted highs and lows across the nation.  Note global warming not a factor.  Also some consideration given to the physical expansion of the Yuma and Phoenix areas as urban heat islands in the last decade.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2010)

Zander, your poetic abilities are just as great as your abilities to back up your nonsense with facts.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2010)

No, CH4 is not CO2. It is,  over the space of a decade, about 70 times more effective than CO2 in trapping heat. Not only that, as the clathrates outgas, they add significantly to the acidity increase in the oceans, leading to an anoxic ocean.

Right now, due to the 250% increase in CH4 and the industrial GHGs, we are past the equivelent of 450 ppm of CO2.

And the Arctic Ocean clathrates have began to outgass. The edomal areas of the permafrost are also contributing CH4 by the millions of tons. 

Note, a prediction of global warming is changed atmospheric circulation. But just because we are now seeing changed atmospheric circulation does not mean global warming has anything to do with is 

OK.........?????????????

Sciency stuff? LOL.   None of the articles that I presented were written by scientists? Your denial has gone beyond ridiculous into the realm of fantasy!


----------



## Zander (Jan 26, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Zander, your poetic abilities are just as great as your abilities to back up your nonsense with facts.


The difference is - I don't pretend that the shit I make up is science. You do. 

Climatology is to Science as Astrology is to Astronomy.  Both are "Faith based".....


----------



## Charles Stucker (Jan 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> NASA: 2009 tied for 2nd-warmest year, 00s hottest decade too



Hide the Decline


----------



## theHawk (Jan 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> NASA: 2009 tied for 2nd-warmest year, 00s hottest decade too



Who cares, for most of the Earth's history it has been several degrees warmer than it is today.




> Earth's Climatic History
> 
> Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct a history of the Earth's past climate. From this data, they have found that *during most of the Earth's history global temperatures were probably 8 to 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today*. In the last billion years of climatic history, warmer conditions were broken by glacial periods starting at 925, 800, 680, 450, 330, and 2 million years before present.
> 
> ...


7(x) Earth's Climatic History


Why should we be in a panic when the earth has naturally experienced much warmer periods in its history?

Why should we be worried the earth is warming since its been doing just that for the last 14,000 years?

Throughout much of earth's history the polar ice caps didn't exist.  Why suddenly are they being made out to be the key to the earth's "survival"?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 26, 2010)

Where global warmer scientists will appear next:

Scientist: Alien life could already be on Earth - Yahoo! News

This will be far more entertaining.  I can see their tin foil hats now.  Running around asking people to blow their nose's into tissues.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 26, 2010)

Hell, _*we*_ could be the alien life, for all we know.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 26, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> No, just sit back and watch what happens in 2010.
> 
> Perhaps you could pray to your people in the Hollow Moon to help us, Frank



Laugh now, you'll see. 

Well, maybe you won't see.

You can take comfort that I believe that the theory that deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 is causing some kind of imaginary and non-existent warming on Earth makes far more sense than any current theory explaining how the Moon got there.

The Moon rang like a bell for over three hours after the Apollo 13 booster landed on it and according to Ken Johnson formerly of NASA who was there at the time, the NASA engineers said the resonance was as if it had dampening struts. 

Also, Carl Sagan had it right, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object"  

Right on, Carl.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Look!....Cottingley Fairies!


Hey!  Quick, catch those Fairies!  They're supposed to be paying off our national debt!  Obama told me so!


----------



## Chris (Jan 26, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> No, CH4 is not CO2. It is,  over the space of a decade, about 70 times more effective than CO2 in trapping heat. Not only that, as the clathrates outgas, they add significantly to the acidity increase in the oceans, leading to an anoxic ocean.
> 
> Right now, due to the 250% increase in CH4 and the industrial GHGs, we are past the equivelent of 450 ppm of CO2.
> 
> ...



Don't bother these guys with the facts.

They really are living in a fantasy world.


----------



## Chris (Jan 26, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



The ice is melting. That is without question.

All the scientists in the world are not involved is a giant conspiracy.


----------



## Liability (Jan 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



It is certainly NOT the case that "all the scientists in the world" agree with your fruadulent contention.

Figures lie.  Liars figure.   AGW Faither "scientists" lie and use cooked figures.

When the temperature in an area climbs above 32 degrees F., ice does melt.  That much is true.

As for anything else claimed by the likes of Chrissy, solid proof is now an absolute requirement.  Citation to the "data" used by a bunch of AGW Faither/"scientists" is suspect in all cases.


----------



## Chris (Jan 27, 2010)

Liability said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have increased the temperature of the earth. 

What part of this is untrue?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 27, 2010)

Chris said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



A simpleton sees people and CO2, so they jump to the conclusion there is a realtionship.  No Chris, the largest ice cap in the world is growing.  72% of the total ice caps on the planet are in growth mode.  89% of data sites in the US don't meet standards set by the agency in charge of gathering the information.  Inconvenient facts I am sure, but facts in the less.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2010)

LOL. What a liar you are, Liberty. Why don't you post some data from scientific sources to back those foolish statements.

I have repeatedly posted the American Institute of Physics site with the history of CO2.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now you are going to tell me that these people are simpletons? And all the scientists in all the scientific societies in the world are simpletons? 

I think the posting of nonsense by you proves who is the simpleton. 

NASA, NOAA, and every other agency that studies the ice caps, of whatever government, has repeatedly stated that the ice caps are losing ice by the giga-ton. But one blowhard comes on here and states otherwise, and we are to believe him?


----------



## Liability (Jan 27, 2010)

Chris said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



The syllogism and some of the premises.

I realize that to you this is no big deal, but your simplistic effort to dumb it down to suit your petty needs is an obvious ploy.

You again cite "data" but in light of the deliberate manipulation of and suppression of data by the AGW Fiather scientists, the data is in doubt.

CO2, by the way, may contribute to warming, but there is no concrete proof that it causes warming.  In fact, it has also been scientifically suggested that when we see increased CO2 in the atmosphere, we are witnessing a RESULT of heating, not a cause of heating.  Thus, we may see heat and CO2 increasing (apparently) in tandem, but there is reason to doubt a causal connection along the simplistiic lines you always claim.  (That's just an article of Faith for your AGW Faithers.)

Interestingly, *if* there _even has been_ a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 (another bit of data which is suspect because of the fact that AGW Faithers have screwed with the data), you have yet to establish that the alleged increase is the result of human activity.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. What a liar you are, Liberty. Why don't you post some data from scientific sources to back those foolish statements.
> 
> I have repeatedly posted the American Institute of Physics site with the history of CO2.
> 
> ...



Got a reading problem?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2010)

Liability said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Are you working at being stupid? The absorbtion spectra of CO2 was defined by Tyndal in 1858. 

No, it has not been scientifically suggested that the CO2 that we are seeing at present in the atmosphere is the result of heating. In fact, it has been scientifically proven that the increase in the CO2 is the result of the burning of fossil fuels. This was done through isotopic studies in the late 1950s. Scripps Institute of Oceanagraphy. 

You are presenting yourself as one truly dumb ass. Where in the hell do you think the CO2 goes when you burn a ton of coal for power? The burning of one ton of coal creates 2 1/2 tons of CO2. It goes out the smoke stack into the atmosphere. We know, from power plant records around the world, how much coal we are burning. So we know how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere from that source. Same for oil and natural gas. We know how much we use, and that the results of that use are vented into the atmosphere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. What a liar you are, Liberty. Why don't you post some data from scientific sources to back those foolish statements.
> ...



Not at all. You are an ignorant blowhard. Now that you are well defined, go ahead and continue to prove the definition.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Your actions point to another conclusion.  I have repeatedly posted evidence of a 72% growth in the ice caps world wide.  I made a statement this morning, "A simpleton sees people and CO2, so they jump to the conclusion there is a realtionship.", and you just went right past it spouting CO2 greenhouse info.  Apparently you feel that attacking me will validate your point of view.  Most here will not consider that credible.  Please continue with your tactics.  They are the same as your global warmer science friends who are losing the battle a little each day.  The data is bogus from it's positioning, environmental influences, and revisions by the collecting body.  Further invalidated by interpretation and differing methodologies in processing information.  Then you refer to charts and graphs made by that information as some sort of climate Bible.


----------



## Liability (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No, olde Fossil.  I have ceded the field of stupidity to idiots like you and Chrissy and the other basically dishonest AGE Faithers.

As for your denial of my claim, where you stupidly and ignorantly claimed "No, it has not been scientifically suggested that the CO2 that we are seeing at present in the atmosphere is the result of heating."  You are wrong.  It most certainly has been so suggested.

Your denial is baseless.  That YOU might be ignorant of this contention si hardly a solid basis to issue your ignorant denial.

That you don't seem to understand that CO2 is RELEASED and is also re-absorbed in a cycle is fascinating.  You apparently don't understand even the basic mechanics of the field you have endlessly pontificated about.  It's almost shocking.  But as things stand, it's just sad and rather predictable.  You AGW Faithers are a bunch of frauds.

Now, to the extent that there has been an incomplete reabsorption of CO2 in the cycle, there surely has been an increase in atmospheric CO2.  You FAITHERS maintain that this increase is (and will be) responsible for Global Warming.  But what guys like you close your eyes and ears to is the FACT that you are unable to tell us whether the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of human activity resulting in increased heating or if other heat sources (and complex interactions) have resulted in increased global warming thereby causing the increase of atmospheric CO2.

You can make claims all day, but you actually don't know.   Morons like you don't even want to permit such questions to be posed.  It's akin to blasphemy.  You AGW Faithers are exactly like the worst of the religions you mock.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 27, 2010)

Liability said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Well, let's assume that warming increases CO2 and cooling decreases CO2 rather than CO2 being the causal agent. Denier whackos claim we have been COOLING for the last 11 years. 
So why has CO2 continued to increase during these last 11 years of global cooling??????????????


----------



## Liability (Jan 27, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> * * * *
> Well, let's assume that warming increases CO2 and cooling decreases CO2 rather than CO2 being the causal agent. Denier whackos claim we have been COOLING for the last 11 years.
> So why has CO2 continued to increase during these last 11 years of global cooling??????????????



Warming does release CO2, so I will "assume" that fact.

Cooling may decrease the release of CO2 and it ight also assist in the process(es) of reabsorption of CO2.  So, I will assume THAT, too.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about when you say silly shit about denier wackos or you suggest that "they" maintain we have been cooling for 11 years.  So I will make no such "assumption."

Now, then, let's see if we can address your final "question."

Nope.  It would require accepting your stupid final "premise."

CO2 has continued to be released, however,  by human-kind during the past 11 years.  However, we do not know all the variables associated with reabosrption of CO2 nor can we make a good guess as to the time-lag associated with increased natural release of CO2 *OR* its reabsorption.

I am sorry to step on the big toe of your Faith.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 27, 2010)

Since resigning in disgrace, Phil Jones now has plenty of time to consult his special adviser about the Great Climatic Googly-moogly:


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 27, 2010)

Liability said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...


As I have said, when CON$ get caught lying they play dumb and just keep on lying.

Deniers have been claiming for years that global warming stopped since 1998.

I simply put you on the horns of a dilemma, do you admit you are lying about CO2 or do you admit the deniers are lying about cooling. 

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 - Telegraph

Prepare for Cooling, not Warming
By Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris  Friday, October 5, 2007
The world is cooling. Global temperatures have declined since 1998 and a growing number of climate experts expect this trend to continue until at least 2030.

Global Climate Chaos: Climate cooling since 1998
"The Earth is not warming. The 28-year period of warming between 1970 and 1998 stopped dead in its tracks, and the climate has been cooling ever since.

Meteorologist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman put it this way: In the face of a rapidly cooling planet, all the proponents of global warming can do is to lamely suggest that global warming has gone on vacation and is taking a 10-year hiatus on account of the absence of sun spots.

No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off
Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998.

Is there global cooling.com - Home
1998 was a warm year but the eleven years since have each been cooler, global temperatures have dropped an average of .6 degrees C in this period (according to UAH)

FNC?s Pinkerton Corrects FNC?s Kennedy on Global Warming: ?Cooling Since 1998' | NewsBusters.org
On Saturdays Fox News Watch on FNC, regular panel member Jim Pinkerton of the conservative New America Foundation corrected fellow panel member Douglas Kennedy  an FNC correspondent and son of former New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy  as Kennedy asserted that "you don't have to be a scientist to know that the world is getting hotter," and that "that's objective reporting to say that the world is getting hotter."

Pinkerton responded: "Actually, its inaccurate reporting to say that. The world has been cooling since 1998."

The World Has Been Cooling Since 1998  AConservativeEdge
Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate. Official government measurements show that the worlds temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998. Thats given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change.

Scientic data collected since 1998 - the Earth is Cooling, not Warming inspite of rising CO2 levels. Go figure.
Carbon Dioxide or Carbon is not the culprit, Global Warming is a misnomer, the Earth has been cooling since 1998 as is the Pacific Ocean and evidence of 24% rise in the extent of summer Polar ice since 1998.


----------



## Chris (Jan 27, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Making up "facts" is what you do best.

I really feel bad for you having to lie like that.


----------



## Chris (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 27, 2010)

Chris said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



The we parts for starters.  Actually gravity retains pretty much everything.  The earth is the same temperature, the atmosphere may or may not be warmer.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Are you working at being stupid? The absorbtion spectra of CO2 was defined by Tyndal in 1858.


_*In a closed controlled environment*_, not a dynamic one.

This very relevant detail has been pointed out to you uncounted times, but since it contravenes your warmist religion it just bounces off your pointy little head.


----------



## Liability (Jan 27, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Maybe it has been getting cooler.  One thing we know for sure:  we can't rely on the AGW Faither tampered-with "data."

That's one of the major problems with your AGW Faithers.  You lie and lie and lie, and then you rely on fraudulent "data" to make it appear that you are being the objective ones.

But your credibility in general is long since gone.

Not yours in particular, edthesickdick.   You never had any to begin with.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 27, 2010)

Just wanted you all to know I haven't changed my opinion that dumping tons of greenhouse gasses into a dynamic environment most likely has the same effect as increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in a controlled environment.

Seems like a wishful thinking jump of logic that it doesn't.

So until I feel a need to warm the planet to stall another ice age or something ridiculous like that I'm for not being lazy and forcing some emissions controls on folks.  Just like big government stepped in and made people in St. Louis stop heating their homes with dirty coal for the best.

When I have new info or see new info I'll comment more.  Sometimes it seems like we'd have one heck of a party if we put a quarter in the beer fund every time we rehashed the same points on this topic lol


----------



## Charles Stucker (Jan 27, 2010)

Toronado3800 said:


> Just wanted you all to know I haven't changed my opinion that dumping tons of greenhouse gasses into a dynamic environment most likely has the same effect as increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in a controlled environment.
> 
> Seems like a wishful thinking jump of logic that it doesn't.
> 
> So until I feel a need to warm the planet to stall another ice age or something ridiculous like that I'm for not being lazy and forcing some emissions controls on folks.


Then why not mandate smaller vehicles?
Why not enforce a 55mph speed limit with vehicles optimised for fuel efficiency at said limit?
Why not tell people that they cannot set their thermostats above 60 when heating or below 80 when cooling? 
Why not ration Gasoline, Electricity, and everything else.
At some point you would effectively start limitting emissions.

The current steps are hapazard and ineffective, but one must expect that because politicians are renowned for their lack of scientific understanding.
Unfortunately for AGW folks the data is moderately inconclusive.

As to why the icecaps might melt - particulate carbon trapped in the icesheets exacerbated by a slight rise in temperatures, raised the surface temperature of the ice. As the ice melted the carbon, accumulated over the century of the early industrial revolution, kept sinking lower and foming a sunlight trap on ethe ice itself. Now witht he ice melted, the caps can form again without so many the carbon particles. Which is exactly what seems to be happening.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Zander, your poetic abilities are just as great as your abilities to back up your nonsense with facts.


Poetry Reading????????






Well, this is at least better than the third worst poetry in the galaxy.  No organs will burst.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2010)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Are you working at being stupid? The absorbtion spectra of CO2 was defined by Tyndal in 1858.
> ...



OK, I apologize. I did not realize the depths of your ignorance. 

The absorbtion spectra of a gas does not change, whether it is in a tube, a box, or the open atmosphere.

I can plainly see that you have not even had high school physics or chemistry.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Would this be the same data where they made the mistake of making it an infinitely deep atmosphere?

Then upon realization, they corrected the error, and warming did not occur?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Why here's an interesting little article for you Old Rocks:

Explanations of the CO2 Absorption Spectrum.

CO2 Absorption Spectrum

*There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming*

Proof one: *Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions*.* This means there is no radiation left at the peak frequencies after 10 meters. If then there is a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to half, or 5m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.

*Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere*, which they claim involves unsaturation on the shoulders of the absorption peaks. (See Disputed Zone.) The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2, while there is less water vapor high in the atmosphere. Supposedly, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no credibility to that claim. *It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through fake rationalizing of complexities*.

*What it means is that climatologists admit there is no mechanism at lower levels of the atmosphere, and their rationalization for higher up is phony*.

It's important to realize that radiation from the sun does not greatly heat the atmosphere, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation. Temperature determines frequency. This means that most of the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.

Heat leaves the planet through long wave infrared radiation.


Absorption Peaks

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.

*Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth*. The width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of shoulders. The total range of infrared radiation is about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns.



A measured absorption spectrum is shown here. See an exactly measured 15 micron peak in Heinz Hug's paper.

Heinz Hug* showed that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it's going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances.

Attempted Fix

This is nothing new. *Climate scientists know that more CO2 does not result in more heat under usual conditions*. So the mythologists among them try to salvage the global warming propaganda by pretending that something esoteric occurs higher in the atmosphere. The difference is that the absorption peaks for CO2 separate from the peaks for water vapor. Then supposedly, radiation which misses CO2 does not get picked up by water vapor and travels into outer space; and more CO2 causes less radiation to get missed on the shoulders of the peaks.

Everything about that rationalization stretches reality to a point of misrepresentation. The increase in CO2 levels could only be relevant for the last cycle of absorption near the outer edges of the atmosphere, where there is not enough influence of the lower atmosphere to be significant. But the rationalizers claim it is significant in the mid levels of atmosphere. Not so. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance of radiation travel before total absorption occurs.

The outer edges of the shoulders of the absorption peaks are said to be unsaturated, because they don't absorb all radiation available to them. The unsaturated area is virtually nonexistent. The image at right shows how the distance of absorption increases as shoulder molecules get thinner. Where the molecules are one tenth the density, the distance is ten times as much, which is 100 meters. Where the density of one hundredth, the distance is 1,000 meters. Where is the unsaturation supposed to be? Fake equations are contrived to show a result in contradiction to the obvious logic.

Thanks for playing though.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Just wanted you all to know I haven't changed my opinion that dumping tons of greenhouse gasses into a dynamic environment most likely has the same effect as increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in a controlled environment.
> ...



*No, that is not at all what is happening. Right now, the area of the North Polar Ice Cap is right now 12% lower than it was last year at this time. *

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2010)

Explanations of the CO2 Absorption Spectrum.

Gary Novak. A microbiologist with no experiance or peer reviewed publication in the field of climatology.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2010)

Rather than a man with no credentials in the fields of either physics or climatology, here is an article from the American Institute of physics.

Simple Models of Climate

Now I know that it absolutely is against your religion of denial to actually listen to physicist on physics. Because absorbtion spectra and the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases lies in the realms of physics, not microbiology.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Explanations of the CO2 Absorption Spectrum.
> 
> Gary Novak. A microbiologist with no experiance or peer reviewed publication in the field of climatology.



Finally, someone who is actually qualified!  Of course, you require someone to be in climatology to be an expert on CO2 gas.  Did you give that a lot of thought?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Rather than a man with no credentials in the fields of either physics or climatology, here is an article from the American Institute of physics.
> 
> Simple Models of Climate
> 
> Now I know that it absolutely is against your religion of denial to actually listen to physicist on physics. Because absorbtion spectra and the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases lies in the realms of physics, not microbiology.


STFU and watch yo daddy on the teevee, you heathen!


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Rather than a man with no credentials in the fields of either physics or climatology, here is an article from the American Institute of physics.
> 
> Simple Models of Climate
> 
> Now I know that it absolutely is against your religion of denial to actually listen to physicist on physics. Because absorbtion spectra and the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases lies in the realms of physics, not microbiology.



Interesting how CO2 gas has different properties when your physicist uses it and when the rest of us observe it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Damn. Another grade school dropout!

How about the very finate atmosphere of Venus? I realize that all that CO2 in that atmosphere only affected the temperature a little. After all, we can all live in an environment that lead melts in, right?

Once again. Basic science from the physicists. American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The physicists are the ones that write this article. Their scientific society, and that of all the rest of the scientific societies around the world state unequivecoly that GHGs are the primary driver of the warming that we are seeing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Rather than a man with no credentials in the fields of either physics or climatology, here is an article from the American Institute of physics.
> ...



You are observing it how? Have you done an absorbtion spectra of it? Have you measured a beam of infrared in and out of an atmosphere that contains CO2? 

No, the fact is that you are simply doing yap-yap. You have not even done the most basic research to see what the facts are. And you will not do that research, ever!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2010)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Rather than a man with no credentials in the fields of either physics or climatology, here is an article from the American Institute of physics.
> ...



Doodeee....., you have already shown yourself to be an absolute scientific ignoramous.

So go back to mindlessly repeating the rantings of drugged out radio jocks. It is all one can expect of you.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Absorbtion spectra is associated more with chemistry.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Doodeee....., you have already shown yourself to be an absolute scientific ignoramous.


Rings pretty hollow, coming from Captain Appeal to Authority.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 27, 2010)

Liability said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Well, there you go again, putting your foot in your mouth. First you CON$ claim you have been denied access to the data, so if you have no data, HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY KNOW IT WAS TAMPERED WITH?????????? 
Just like you are either lying about cooling for the last 11 years or you are lying about warming caused CO2 to rise, you are either lying about your access to the data or you are lying about the data being tampered with.
Which lie is it??????????


----------



## concept (Jan 27, 2010)

How childish do you have to be to take the time, each and every time, to type con$ with an $.


----------



## Liability (Jan 27, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You lying Faithers need to buy a clue.

We know it was tampered with, you silly asshat, because you guys fucked up and revealed as much.

I haven't lied at all, as you knew when you lied and falsely made that absurd claim.

You FAITHERS take it as an article of FAITH that MAN-MADE  GLOBAL WARMING exists and was caused by the CO2 humankind pumped into the Earth's atmosphere.  And if the weather has gotten warmer, you idiots proceed to "discover" that it could only be because of that CO2 "we" all pumped into the atmosphere.  

It never dawns on you idiot FAITHERS -- you liars -- that MAYBE you have fucked up and confused cause and effect.

And when the prospect gets raised that your FAITH is not based on good science, you skew the data, suppress the evidence that SHOULD cause you assholes to rethink your stupid positions. and then protest when your behavior is exposed.  

Fuck off, you dishonest scumbag FAITHERS.  IF I want to invest my time in some religion, I'll pick mine.  It certainly won't be the imbecilic crap you guys worship.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 28, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Just wanted you all to know I haven't changed my opinion that dumping tons of greenhouse gasses into a dynamic environment most likely has the same effect as increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in a controlled environment.
> ...



I'd be for mandating more fuel efficient vehicles and the speed limit changes.

Heck, I'll even make you a deal.  I'll put a $1 a gallon tax on gas and offer an equal break corporate and personal income tax just to prove I'm not trying to encourage behavior which is good for the environment and bad for Iran not raise taxes.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 28, 2010)

> You lying Faithers need to buy a clue.
> 
> We know it was tampered with, you silly asshat, because you guys fucked up and revealed as much..................
> 
> ...................Fuck off, you dishonest scumbag FAITHERS.



Liability, I mean no disrespect and don't want to put you in a bad enough mood it carries over to your personal relationships or makes you angry enough to cuss folks out on here.

We merely disagree.  I wouldn't tell some one in a bar to fuck off though, its a bad habit to get in.  Even if I'm feeling like a pretty bad jedi you never know who is going to land a lucky punch.

By all means charge folks who doctored data with mail fraud or whatever can be stuck to them.  I'll lead the charge at the cigarette and oil scientists as you lead the charge at these fellas.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Looks like I struck a nerve!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 28, 2010)

Data?  Why do you need to see the data? It's just numbers and you wouldn't understand them anyway

Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data - Times Online

East Angelia Glee Club Busted

"Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data
Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Jonathan Leake

Professor Phil Jones, the unit's director, stood down while the inquiry took place

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming."


----------



## Oddball (Jan 28, 2010)

> His intervention followed admissions from scientists that the rate of glacial melt in the Himalayas had been grossly exaggerated.


Gee...Makes ya wonder what other doom-and-gloom statistics and scenarios have been trumped up, doesn't it?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 28, 2010)

My, my, here we go again. So every scientific society in the world, every national academy of science, and every major university in the world is doctoring the data. 

The people at East Anglia are guilty of e-mailing bad tempered correspodence, that is what will be found to be the whole of the "problem". 

In the meantime, people are repeating lie after lie about what is really happening on the climate.

And sometimes it gets damned humorous. First, it is warming because of the sun, but we are in a 10 year cooling trend because of the sun, except that it is not really cooling.

The oceans are cooling not warming, and they are warming because of undersea volcanoes.

You people are really pathetic. You are willing to accept anything to bolster your denial of reality.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



My, such an erudite post. It really presents the case for denial of global warming well.

In fact, it is the summation of all the denialist posts. 

Thank You, Liberty for doing it so well.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> My, my, here we go again. So every scientific society in the world, every national academy of science, and every major university in the world is doctoring the data.
> 
> The people at East Anglia are guilty of e-mailing bad tempered correspodence, that is what will be found to be the whole of the "problem".
> 
> ...



Unlike e=mc^2, East Algelia's Glee Clubs Bizzaroland Theories are based upon data that they've refuse to release and have since destroyed. It's more like an economic theory, assume it's warmer..."


----------



## Oddball (Jan 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> My, my, here we go again. So every scientific society in the world, every national academy of science, and every major university in the world is doctoring the data.
> 
> The people at East Anglia are guilty of e-mailing bad tempered correspodence, that is what will be found to be the whole of the "problem".
> 
> ...


As has been explained to you ad nauseum, and has bounced off your fat-assed head, there doesn't need to be a conspiracy when the people at the top are faking the numbers and destroying contravening evidence.

Likewise, how many more apparently honest people are there out there like this poor sap,




who had his data debunked after the "peers" who want to believe their own scare stories verified his erroneous conclusions?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Once again, your research is flawed.  I have no post or comment included in your post.  It is very distasteful to imply such.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Jan 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



So, just to be clear; despite *You* being absolutely convinced man-made global warming is real, *YOU*refuse to do anything which inconveniences *YOU*
Wereas _I_, despite bing sceptical *DO* take a personal responsibility and voluntarily make changes, inconvenient changes, to my lifestyle.
That sounds about par for the course - Hypocrisy from a Warmer.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 28, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You are correct, my apologies. It was Liability, not Liberty.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Thank you.  I'm sure you'll have the opportunity to rebut a comment actually made my me soon.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 28, 2010)

Next he'll demand we all be metallurgists if we want to comment on the behavior or use of a steel I beam.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Lemarkian Genetics anyone?  Anyone?

How about Communist Biology?  Anyone forget about that little chestnut of 'science' from the cold war?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 28, 2010)

NOAA confirms what we knew all along: it's that deadly H2O

"A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth&#8217;s surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s"

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card

This is what kept the Warmers up at night, this is why they tried to hide the decline


----------



## Oddball (Jan 28, 2010)

It's those damned clouds!

We absolutely MUST concoct a tax scheme to wipe out those planet-roasting threats to humanity, before the polar bears are all killed!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> It's those damned clouds!
> 
> We absolutely MUST concoct a tax scheme to wipe out those planet-roasting threats to humanity, before the polar bears are all killed!



Save the planet, stop bathing!!


----------



## Liability (Jan 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well, douchey, since it was me, not Liberty, who made the comments to which you seemingly take exception, perhaps you'd be better off directing your limp notion of sarcasm towards me.

You AGW Faithers have no credibility.  Your suppression of data has that effect on you guys.  

Take it up with East Anglia.

Your inability to defend the suppression and destruction of the (alleged) "data" you guys have such FAITH in is quite telling.

And the tale it tells about you AGW Faithers is very amusing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 28, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Charles Stucker said:
> ...



If I have a vehicle that is driven by electricity, which I produce myself, it has no carbon footprint, no matter what it's size. 

A Tesla roadster, at 120 mph, produces no GHGs.

Windmills, geo-thermal, nuclear, and solar, produce no GHGs as they produce power.

You are putting change that would aid the situation in the most distasteful context, rather than pointing out that what is really needed is power that does not produce greenhouse gases, and creating consumers who are also producers of electricity.

What I find inconveniant is supporting the petro-dictators around the world, while our nation is bled white by this outflow of national treasure. What I find inconveniant is spending trillions to gaurentee that the shipping lanes are open in the mid-East while the people whose profits we are protecting give money to the people that brought down the towers on 9-11.

If we had to pay the true cost of fossil fuel at the pumps and in the electric bill, we would have switched to real alternatives 30 years ago. We are artificially supporting the profits of the very people that seek our demise as a nation.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2010)

Apparently nobody's heard of Lemarkian Genetics here but me.  Hmmmm.


----------



## Liability (Jan 29, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Apparently nobody's heard of Lemarkian Genetics here but me.  Hmmmm.



I had heard of it, but not enough to grasp it (and never bothered to look it up before, either).

Now that I have looked it up, it seems unlikely to me.

If I grasp the theory correctly, it holds that we can acquire certain traits over our individual lifetimes and then directly pass those traits on to our offspring.

If I work out real hard and develop big biceps, my kids have a chance of inheriting that big bicep trait.

By contrast, Darwinianism might say that *to the extent having powerful arms helped individuals within a species survive* -- then only those with big biceps would end up reproducing and eventually the genetic traits associated with the folks who developed bigger biceps would be passed along, pretty much exclusively since the other folks wouldn't have survived long enough to keep passing their non-big bicep genes along.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Jan 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *No, that is not at all what is happening. Right now, the area of the North Polar Ice Cap is right now 12% lower than it was last year at this time. *
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png



You misread that graph, hardly surprising in someone with such a limitted ability to understand science.
The 12.277 is millions of square miles of Ice, not some percent "red"
Looking back exactly one year shows roughly 11.8 (upper estimate, as the chart is extremely steep, the lower estimate might distress you) so in *TRUTH* I am right - the ice does seem to be making a comeback.
Before you blast others understanding of science perhaps you should learn enough to actually understand the science you read.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 29, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *No, that is not at all what is happening. Right now, the area of the North Polar Ice Cap is right now 12% lower than it was last year at this time. *
> ...



Charles,

You can enlarge the graph to get better detail.  It appears to me the ice is less this year.  Approximately 13.7m then to 12.3m now.  That would make Old Rocks just about right.  There is an error on his part.  This graph represents northern hemosphere sea ice and not the northern hemsphere ice caps in total.

Perhaps this information will be more helpful:

http://www.sciencepoles.org/news/news_detail/warm_arctic_cold_northern_hemisphere/

Temperatures in the Arctic have skyrocketed to unusually high levels while much of the Northern Hemisphere has been experiencing frigid temperatures in the past few weeks. *While one may be prone to blame global warming, scientists say this unusual pattern is part of natural variability, caused by a large area of high pressure over the Arctic and a large area of low pressure at the mid-latitudes*.

While these areas of differing air pressure should normally mix in a natural Arctic oscillation, they have remained stationary in what is known as a negative phase of the oscillation (a positive phase would see low pressure over the Arctic and high pressure over the mid latitudes). December 2009 saw the most extreme negative phase seen since modern record-keeping began in 1950.

The negative phase appears to be in the process of weakening as both pressure areas have started to shift.

Average Arctic temperatures have been 5.6°C to 8.4°C above normal, and the extent of *Arctic sea ice at the end of December remained some 920,000 km² below the December average for the period 1979 - 2000, although it was greater than the extent recorded in December 2006*.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 29, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Apparently nobody's heard of Lemarkian Genetics here but me.  Hmmmm.



Hmmm....,  yourself. Has nothing at all to do with the science of global warming.

And every non-communist nation in the world stated that Lamarkian genetics were pure bunkem.

Now what scientific society in any nation is stating that AGW is bunkem. The only people stating that are the ignoramouses on this board, charlatans like Monkten, and whore like Inhofe.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 29, 2010)

Liberty, if you wish to see several graphs on this and the southern hemisphere also, go here;

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 30, 2010)

Liability said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently nobody's heard of Lemarkian Genetics here but me.  Hmmmm.
> ...


Exactly!  It's a false road of science abandoned when it flat out did not match up with reality.  That's why I bring it up.  AGW is a false road of statistical manipulation in science that will ultimately end once exposed to TRUE peer review, not some nudge nudge wink wink bullshit review Ole Crocks believes is true.



> Hmmm...., yourself. Has nothing at all to do with the science of global warming.
> 
> And every non-communist nation in the world stated that Lamarkian genetics were pure bunkem.
> 
> Now what scientific society in any nation is stating that AGW is bunkem. The only people stating that are the ignoramouses on this board, charlatans like Monkten, and whore like Inhofe.



Ole Crocks, your ignorance is not your fault, but your stupidity is.  

Thousands of scientists and a few governments too now say it is too.  But of course, you don't care about anything except what you personally believe because it's not about science, it's about your religion that matters.

If God himself came down to have a beer with you, you'd probably disbelieve Him as well despite personal experience.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 30, 2010)

> My, my, here we go again. So every scientific society in the world, every national academy of science, and every major university in the world is doctoring the data.



Your redacto in absurdum argument has a fail.  Only the hoaxers and ignorant tools (like yourself) still hold to corrupt peer review that has been going on for 13 years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 30, 2010)

NOAA confirms: less H2O is causing the decline the Warmers tried to hide.

I think the science is finally settled


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> NOAA confirms: less H2O is causing the decline the Warmers tried to hide.
> 
> I think the science is finally settled



You are right the science is settled.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

These two factors are pulling the temps in different directions.


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > My, my, here we go again. So every scientific society in the world, every national academy of science, and every major university in the world is doctoring the data.
> 
> 
> 
> Your redacto in absurdum argument has a fail.  Only the hoaxers and ignorant tools (like yourself) still hold to corrupt peer review that has been going on for 13 years.



Yes, all the national science academies in the world are in a conspiracy against you.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2010)

You can have a fail too.

BTW, the London Telegraph has done you a major disservice again.

Poor cargo cultists.


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> You can have a fail too.
> 
> BTW, the London Telegraph has done you a major disservice again.
> 
> Poor cargo cultists.



Your BS is showing.

Again.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2010)

Chris said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > You can have a fail too.
> ...


haven't seen the article or the thread yet have you?


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



I have.

It doesn't matter.

The only think that matters is that we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years, and the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 200 years.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

Lower solar activity means a cooler earth. 

These are the two main things that are influencing our climate right now.

Not the hot air coming from the right.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2010)

> It doesn't matter.



ROFL... Poof goes all your glacier bullshit and "it doesn't matter."

Once again, debunked religion smells like sour grapes.



> CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.



Still pandering that pablum I see.



> Lower solar activity means a cooler earth.



Oh now we're going to listen to that?

Unbelievable.  But then again, in this you have been quite consistent.


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > It doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You respond to the two irrefutable facts I posted with bullshit.

But then....that's all you have.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2010)

> two irrefutable facts I posted



When'd that happen?  Not in any thread I saw.


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > two irrefutable facts I posted
> 
> 
> 
> When'd that happen?  Not in any thread I saw.



Nice try at deflection or dementia.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 200 years.

These are the two things that are driving our climate right now.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2010)

And neither of which are man's fault.  So no need for cap and trade, green energy or policies.  

The end of environmentalism in a nut shell by your own words.


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> And neither of which are man's fault.  So no need for cap and trade, green energy or policies.
> 
> The end of environmentalism in a nut shell by your own words.



We caused the increase in CO2.

And green energy is American made.

Why do you hate America?


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2010)

Man's role in the 40% increase in CO2 is outlined at this link...

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2010)

Real Climate: Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann's pet project.

Ripper source......._*NOT!*_


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2010)

Yes, an advocacy site that profits from continuing the hoax is your source.  Good job!

BTW, I don't hate America.  I hate environazis who want to relegate me to the life of a friggen amazon tribesman worshiping mud and dying of simple aliments because it's 'natural' or starving or freezing to death all for the sake of some endangered weevil living in the weeds.

Why do you hate humanity?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2010)

Dude said:


> Real Climate: Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann's pet project.
> 
> Ripper source......._*NOT!*_


And Dude swoops in for a spike.  LOL


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2010)

Oh and for the record, green energy is worse on your sacred environment than coal or nuclear or oil.  

It produces less energy, requiring more of it.  The energy value is half that of standard gas and less than 40% regular diesel.  It also requires more water and resources in land and biomass than even the most polluting coal strip mine.

It doesn't work in sub zero temperatures.  Windmills in MN can't be run below certain temps regardless of windspeed.  They are too brittle, and Biodiesel gels at 15 degrees.  

Causes quality of life problems that far exceed that of clean coal or nuclear in the forms of noise, animal kill and sight pollution.  Plus the flicker and sound cause previously unknown health issues for those who live near.

If it were not subsidized, there would be no ability for these inefficient, undesirable energy sources to exist for they could not compete in a free market.  This makes them valueless.

So, let's not try to play that bullshit.  Only profiteers are liking this aspect of your argument.  The rest, including T. Boone Pickens, have seen through the lie.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2010)

Lest we forget the eeeeeevvviiiilllll "carbon footprint" involved in manufacturing, transporting, erecting and maintaining those monstrosities.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2010)

oh, now... lest we forget.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 31, 2010)

*My, my, the total fucking idiots are baying at the moon again. *


Wind Energy Costs much does wind energy cost
How much does wind energy cost?

Over the last 20 years, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80%. In the early 1980s, when the first utility-scale turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh with the Production Tax Credit in many parts of the U.S., a price that is competitive with new coal- or gas-fired power plants. 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is working with the wind industry to develop a next generation of wind turbine technology. The products from this program are expected to generate electricity at prices that will be lower still.

More reading:
The Economics of Wind Energy is a fact sheet that discusses this topic in greater depth. 

Tne Economics of Wind Energy, British Wind Energy Association 

*Both wind and geo-thermal have the technology that puts them at a lower real cost than dirty coal. And even nuclear is cheaper than 'clean' coal. In fact, the only 'clean' coal plant operating at present is in China.

In a short time, Solar will be cheapest of all, and scalable for anyone that owns their own home. The home owner will not only be able to power his home, but also his vehicles, whatever their size.

Of course the idea of American Citizens being independent of the petro-dicatators like the Saudis and Chavez will just break the heart of Dooodeee... and the rest of the brain dead here.*


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2010)

Okay.  Put a windfarm together without a backing coal or gas plant.  Oh that's right, the whole system dies then.  Plus it STILL won't run below zero degrees.  Real helpful for us in the northern US.

And to top it off, let's take away their subsidies and treat them like oil.  How long is this going to survive?  20 seconds?  30?



> Tne Economics of Wind Energy, British Wind Energy Association
> 
> Both wind and geo-thermal have the technology that puts them at a lower real cost than dirty coal. And even nuclear is cheaper than 'clean' coal. In fact, the only 'clean' coal plant operating at present is in China.
> 
> ...



This is green fantasy.  In THEORY it may happen.  In reality, not happening any time soon.

BTW, let's get back to some fundamentals on the issue, Crocks.  Why do we need this shitty energy production again?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 31, 2010)

Dude said:


> Guess you missed this little news flash, Skippy:
> 
> Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations  Telegraph Blogs
> 
> ...






*Dude pwns the k00k !!!!!*


----------



## Charles Stucker (Feb 1, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Charles,
> 
> You can enlarge the graph to get better detail.  It appears to me the ice is less this year.  Approximately 13.7m then to 12.3m now.



Then you should check your eyes. 
The graph is clear enough - more ice this year, not less. 
Warmers like Old Rocks just ignore or misrepresent anything which does not support their AGW conjecture.
Are you a Warmer?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 1, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Charles,
> ...



LOL. As suspected, Charles, you are incapable of reading even the simplest graph. 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png


----------



## Charles Stucker (Feb 2, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. As suspected, Charles, you are incapable of reading even the simplest graph.



Yeah right - I see places where the 2009-2010 graph is above the 2006-2007 frame and BTW last year was 2009 so you should compare that ice to 2008-2009, not move things around to try and get the AGW you desire. 
Hokey science at its worst, that is you all over Rocky.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 2, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


And you believe anecdotal evidence from an environmental activist interviewing mountain guides and a student dissertation from a non-climatologist program.  Neither of which were peer reviewed but accepted as truth.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 2, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *My, my, the total fucking idiots are baying at the moon again. *
> 
> 
> Wind Energy Costs much does wind energy cost
> ...


IOW, it's only "competitive" because of huge subsidies.

Also, I still have yet to see a breakdown from you windbags of how long it takes --if ever-- for the dreaded "carbon footprint" to be offset by those eyesores.


----------



## Zander (Feb 2, 2010)

Windmills are essentially bird guillotines!! Have you ever been to the base of one of those monstrosities? I have, there are rotting bird carcasses all over the place. Dead birds cause disease. That disease gets spread to other wildlife.  Don't you care about animals Old Rocks?  


> The Deadly Toll Of Wind Power
> Despite yearlong effort to curb bird deaths by turbines on the Altamont Pass, many still have perished
> January 02, 2008|By Charles Burress, Chronicle Staff Writer
> 
> ...



  Aw, the poor tree huggers can't decide whether to shit or go blind......Globull warming or bird guillotines......


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 2, 2010)

Wind energy?  You mean the inconsistent energy source that emits low frequency noise harmful to animals and man and hurts migratory birds?  Just watch, as soon as we build enough of them, the environmentalists will be protesting their use.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 2, 2010)

Zander said:


> Windmills are essentially bird guillotines!! Have you ever been to the base of one of those monstrosities? I have, there are rotting bird carcasses all over the place. Dead birds cause disease. That disease gets spread to other wildlife.  Don't you care about animals Old Rocks?
> 
> 
> > The Deadly Toll Of Wind Power
> ...



Zander, the bird kill from the modern three vane wind turbine is far less than the guy lines for radio towers. Altomont mills are dinosaurs that will soon be replaced with modern mills.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 2, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Wind energy?  You mean the inconsistent energy source that emits low frequency noise harmful to animals and man and hurts migratory birds?  Just watch, as soon as we build enough of them, the environmentalists will be protesting their use.


*The wind turbines produced enough power to power all of Colorado last year here in the US. And by the end of 2011, we will probably produce at least twice that much from the wind.*

EIA Energy Kids - Wind

Wind Production
In 2008, wind machines in the United States generated a total of 52 billion kilowatthours, about 1.3% of total U.S. electricity generation. Although this is a small fraction of the Nation's total electricity production, it was enough electricity to serve 4.6 million households or to power the entire State of Colorado. 

The amount of electricity generated from wind has been growing rapidly in recent years. Generation from wind in the United States nearly doubled between 2006 and 2008. 

New technologies have decreased the cost of producing electricity from wind, and growth in wind power has been encouraged by tax breaks for renewable energy and green pricing programs. Many utilities around the country offer green pricing options that allow customers the choice to pay more for electricity that comes from renewable sources to support new technologies


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 2, 2010)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *My, my, the total fucking idiots are baying at the moon again. *
> ...



*My, my, why don't we just cut all subsidies to Oil and Coal? And what if we did that for the most expensive large source of power, nuclear? 

I rather like the looks of the big wind turbines we have in Oregon. Not only that, they do not interfere with my breathing, and are not giving the next generation asthma, as are the coal plants.*

Kentucky lawmakers blast budget&#39;s proposed coal subsidy cuts | McClatchy
Kentucky lawmakers blast budget's proposed coal subsidy cuts

By Halimah Abdullah | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON  President Barack Obama's fiscal 2011 budget would cut roughly $2.3 billion in coal subsidies over the next decade, a move Kentucky lawmakers worry will mean heavy job losses in economically poor but coal-rich regions of Appalachia.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 2, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Why don't you live in a cave and cut yourself off from the outside world and electricity altogether? 

I just made up a study that was peer reviewed by Dude and Liability that proves conclusively that Posting on the Internet is mankind leading contribution to Global warming.


----------



## Zander (Feb 2, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Windmills are essentially bird guillotines!! Have you ever been to the base of one of those monstrosities? I have, there are rotting bird carcasses all over the place. Dead birds cause disease. That disease gets spread to other wildlife.  Don't you care about animals Old Rocks?
> ...


 That's not what the San Fran tree huggers say!! 

Why do you hate the earth? Why should any animal die just to power your TV and internet connection? We need to go back to the Stone Age. No tools, no cars, no electricity. We'd all live in caves and carry big sticks.  Fire power would be actual FIRE. Old School. Old Rocks.


----------



## Liability (Feb 2, 2010)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *My, my, the total fucking idiots are baying at the moon again. *
> ...



You know all those windmill turbines off the coast of Hyannisport, Massachusetts?

You don't?

There's -- erah erah -- a reason for that.

Not In My Back -- erah erah -- ya*h*d.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 2, 2010)

Zander said:


> Windmills are essentially bird guillotines!! Have you ever been to the base of one of those monstrosities? I have, there are rotting bird carcasses all over the place. Dead birds cause disease. That disease gets spread to other wildlife.  Don't you care about animals Old Rocks?
> 
> 
> > The Deadly Toll Of Wind Power
> ...


I prefer the phrase...

"Son, you don't know whether you're shot, fucked, powder-burned or snake bit."  

Thank you Noble Willingham.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 2, 2010)

Zander said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...


I've GOT it!  They hate homo sapiens!  They're Neanderthals come to seek revenge!


----------



## Zander (Feb 2, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 Sadly, many of these enviro-wackos actually hate humans. They value plants and animals over and above humans.  Sick....


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 2, 2010)

Ever read Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six"?  Fictional, but captures that basic attitude of the far green fringe.


----------



## Zander (Feb 2, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Ever read Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six"?  Fictional, but captures that basic attitude of the far green fringe.


I didn't read that one, but I know there are plenty of environazi's - Earth First comes to mind... total wack jobs


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 2, 2010)

Earth First, Greenpeace, Earth Liberation Front, PETA.  I'd file them pretty much all in the same insanity catagories really.  

They just seem to vary in the amount of violence they will commit to push their agenda, from the humorous (PETA going nude and their fatal no-kill shelters)  
to the stupid (Greenpeace trying to damage/sink/stop whalers with their own vessels) 
to the downright dangerous (ELF driving nails into trees to maim loggers or setting car dealerships on fire).


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Ah yes, and you fellows believe that asbestos is good for you, that Love Canal was a scam, that acid rain was never a problem, and that the rivers in the US were never polluted.

Just as rational as the Bullshit you idiots are posting.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> In a short time, Solar will be cheapest of all, and scalable for anyone that owns their own home.


And when it truly is cheap and reliable then people will use it.
Until then, we understand your religious fascination with Armageddon.
*You* would probably be happiest if the sun's output doubled and everything on Earth burned to a crisp, because then you would be proven right.
Too bad for the rest of us, but omelets, breaking eggs and all that.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, and you fellows believe that asbestos is good for you, that Love Canal was a scam, that acid rain was never a problem, and that the rivers in the US were never polluted.
> 
> Just as rational as the Bullshit you idiots are posting.



Please cite a post where I stated I believed any of the things you accuse me of.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocksinthehead is the king of logical fallacy. He needed to trot out the strawman for practice.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, and you fellows believe that asbestos is good for you, that Love Canal was a scam, that acid rain was never a problem, and that the rivers in the US were never polluted.
> 
> Just as rational as the Bullshit you idiots are posting.


And where, perchance have I said that?

Aren't your pants hot from all that lying?  Isn't it good enough that you have Mann Jones and Hansen doing enough of it for you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes, and you fellows believe that asbestos is good for you, that Love Canal was a scam, that acid rain was never a problem, and that the rivers in the US were never polluted.
> ...



Please site posts where I believe the things that you acuse me of believing.

Note that most of the statements that I make in posts I back up with articles, often from peer reviewed literature. 

Appeal to authority, damned right. When trying to understand climate, a PHd climatologist is a far better source than a drugged out radio jock.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes, and you fellows believe that asbestos is good for you, that Love Canal was a scam, that acid rain was never a problem, and that the rivers in the US were never polluted.
> ...



You post idiocy concerning PETA and the rest on a thread concerning global warming. 

Prove where Mann, Jones, or Hansen have lied.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 3, 2010)

"Hide the decline"


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Dude said:


> Old Rocksinthehead is the king of logical fallacy. He needed to trot out the strawman for practice.



I see. It is logical fallacy to refer to articles written by Geologists when speaking of glaciers? You prefer people like Monkton for that, in spite of the fact he has no scientific bona fides at all? 

Hansen is perhaps the most respected Climatologist in the world, so people like you are in the attack mode on him. He states where the evidence is pointing, rather than what your ideological preferance states. 

As we move into 2010, starting with an extremely warm January, perhaps you would consider what a record warm 2010 will mean to the idiotic 'cooling trend' garbage you denialists have been spouting.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2010)

> You prefer people like Monkton for that, in spite of the fact he has no scientific bona fides at all?



...Says the man who believes the IPCC reports based on a student dissertation and an eco-activist article based on anecdotal evidence.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2010)

Dude said:


> "Hide the decline"


"Out of context"


----------



## Oddball (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocksinthehead is the king of logical fallacy. He needed to trot out the strawman for practice.
> ...


Judging by the discoveries of last few months, it's pretty safe to say that climatology is no more of a "science" than alchemy.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Climategate Document Database : Alleged CRU Email

All there, indexed and searchable.  Beyond that, be your own research monkey, liar.

Oh, and PETA are fucking psychos deserving derision and contempt.  No lie about that.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 3, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > "Hide the decline"
> ...


You keep saying that, yet provide no context.

While you're up providing all this context, how 'bout explaining away Phil Jones' comment about "... even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!", insofar as keeping skeptics out.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2010)

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


I gave you the context before in another thread, as you well know. 

You CON$ constantly whine "out of context" without ever giving the context so I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine to see your response.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Yes, but when we use it, it's been valid.  Unlike libs, we understand what non-sequiter means.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


Baloney!


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Been fooling us all then pretty darn well with your lack of understanding.  You must practice, lots.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 3, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


When I point out something is out of context, I give the context...And I'm not a "CON$".

So, either put up or shut up.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2010)

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


And we went through that also in past threads. You play dumb like a typical CON$ervative!!!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 3, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Delingpole had previously bought into the globalclimatecoolerwarmering scam.
> ...



Its called sarcasm


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Escape from a strawman with a strawman.  So often your peers end up getting caught in a lie as well.  Pardon me for having difficulty with the peer review argument.


----------



## Zander (Feb 3, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


I have peer reviewed this post and find it to be 100% accurate!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Zander said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The peer review of fools supporting fools. Are you another aficionado of Hillbilly Heroin?


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> * * * *
> 
> The peer review of fools supporting fools. * * * *




Sounds exactly like you AGW Faithers humping each others' legs and calling it "peer review."


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

OK, Liabilty, post a peer reviewed article that state the ice caps, and 90+% of the glaciers are not melting.

You silly assholes are a hoot, constantly posting peope who haven't the least training in science stating the impossible, and you accept it as gospel.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 3, 2010)

Peer review is a dead letter.

Get a new tune.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Fucking bullshit, Liberty.

We see constant posts here stating that CO2 has nothing to do with warming, in spite of the absorbtion spectra work done by Tyndal in 1858. Work that has never been refuted.

You, and the rest of these fools, will acknowledge that a decrease 100 ppm of CO2, from 280 to 180 ppm, will shift us from an interglacial period to an ice age, yet you refuse to acknowledge that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2, from 280 to 380 wil have any effect on climate. 

You are fools, and deserve contempt as such. You have let ideology trump reality. You are the same kind of peope that gave us the Inquisition.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Liabilty, post a peer reviewed article that state the ice caps, and 90+% of the glaciers are not melting.
> 
> You silly assholes are a hoot, constantly posting peope who haven't the least training in science stating the impossible, and you accept it as gospel.


What kind of dipshittery is this?!?

Prove a negative.

Why not set up a great banquet feast, open the door and sit down and wait for your lobster to crawl in, cook itself and put itself before you with drawn butter.  If it doesn't do so in 15 minutes, you may conclude lobsters don't exist!

Quit being such a tard.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Dude said:


> Peer review is a dead letter.
> 
> Get a new tune.



You are a dead letter, Dooodeee...... You know nothing and do not intend to learn anything. 

Peer review is alive and well. If it is McCarthyized here in the States, it will survive in 
Europe and Asia, and that is where the next advancements will come from.

In the meantime, the US will be driven into third world status by people like yourself.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Liabilty, post a peer reviewed article that state the ice caps, and 90+% of the glaciers are not melting.
> 
> You silly assholes are a hoot, constantly posting peope who haven't the least training in science stating the impossible, and you accept it as gospel.



Wait.  Are you suggesting, Moldy Socks, that if a scientist dares to note in an article that the ice caps are actually thickening -- but his article is denied the "peer review" treatment from the scientific establishment consisting of AGW Faithers and those too timid to speak out contrary to the herd mentality -- then the scientist posting the article is therefore wrong?



*You* silly assholes are indeed a hoot.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2010)

Dude said:


> Peer review is a dead letter.
> 
> Get a new tune.



Dude's observation and conclusion have been peer reviewed and now stand as "officially certified as 100% accurate in every respect."


----------



## Oddball (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Peer review is a dead letter.
> ...



How'd your holy peer review work out for this guy?






Not so hot, I hear.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Liabilty, post a peer reviewed article that state the ice caps, and 90+% of the glaciers are not melting.
> ...



You stupid asshole, Monkton does not have a degree in any science. In fact, most of the critics of AGW are scientific morons that are merely obeying their masters in denigrating real science. 

And people like yourself follow in the baying pack. 

You are harming your children and grandchildren, and you do not give a fuck.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Liabilty, post a peer reviewed article that state the ice caps, and 90+% of the glaciers are not melting.
> ...


They shoot skeptics, don't they?

Ole Twerpemada here would be turning the thumbscrews screaming "RECANT!" if he could.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Liabilty, post a peer reviewed article that state the ice caps, and 90+% of the glaciers are not melting.
> ...



Yes, the ice caps on both poles thicken in the winter. And in the summer, they are both losing ice by the giga-ton.

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

Do you have any other idiocy to contribute?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Links to scientifc sources? This is a debate about a scientific subject.

You have yet to link to a credible scientific source. All you have posted is the talking points of an addict that has a radio program.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


And yet you won't touch the Admission of the IPCC that they got their glacier data from a sophomore student dissertation, and an article in "Nature" from an eco-activist who used anecdotal evidence based on interviewing Sherpas in Nepal on why Ice Climb trips have gone down in the 1990's.

Plus 14 articles from the WWF.

None of which, according to the IPCC were PEER REVIEWED like they would have been in a standard peer reviewed scientific journal, nor could they have withstood even casual scrutiny.

So much 'evidence' and emphasis based on a series of fucking lies, and you piss and moan about other's credibility?

Sanctimonious hypocrite.  You don't even realize what a joke you've become on this board except to those equally as insane as you are.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2010)

> Links to scientifc sources? This is a debate about a scientific subject.



Bullshit.  This is a religious debate that you pasted a thin and now decimated veneer of science over.

If it gets warm, man did it.
If it gets cold, man did it.
If it gets wet, man did it.
If it gets dry, man did it.

THese are the attitudes of a religious zealot.  NOT a scientist.  Under what conditions did MAN NOT DO IT????

If sea monkies fart methane, it's man's fault.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around to hear it, it's man's fault.
What's the sound of one tree sloth clapping?  Man's fault.

Pie Jesu domine.  Donne ejus requiem!


----------



## Oddball (Feb 3, 2010)

....and I will keep them (papers submitted by AGW skeptic Steven McIntyre) out somehow-_*even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!*_ 


D-E-A-D..........L-E-T-T-E-R


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2010)

Moldy Socks:

Why are ice caps thickening?

Or, do you deny the data collected by US Army buoys?

For those keeping some kind of score at home:  Monitoring the Arctic Sea Ice

This site gets us into the weird world of ice thickening.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> Moldy Socks:
> 
> Why are ice caps thickening?
> 
> ...



And you get that out of this????????????????

change


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Moldy Socks:
> ...


Huh, yet another source crocks won't look at honestly or will ignore context.

Do we forget that the 1970's was the coldest decade of the 20th century?  Of course the ice sheet will be bigger than even in an average decade!

Climates fluctuate.  Always have, always will.  Man's still not doing it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Fitz, do you ever bother to do even the slightest research before yapping?

The '70s were hardly the coldest decade of the 20th century.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temp-anom-larg.jpg


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


And out come the bullshit hockey sticks.

LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Wasn't the Mann Hockey Stick graph, you idiot.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 3, 2010)

They've been "peer reviewed" by the likes of Mann and Jones, so what's the difference?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2010)

My bad.  Then they're using the mysteriously declining GSIS weather stations.  Or the NOAA weather stations that have been proven to be artificially warmed by local factors violating their placement integrity and now give bad readings.

Home.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2010)

Paging Neil Cavuto: UAH global satellite data has record WARMEST day for January  Climate Progress


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
- Voltaire
...and so it is with Old Rocks.

None but a fool worries about things he cannot influence.
- Samuel Johnson
...Old Rocks seems prety worried.

and finally...
There is no chance for old fools.
- Cree Indian proverb

Since when has anyone here used Inquisition techniques?  Where are the realities fore told
by your scientists of flooded cities, terrible hurricanes of 2009 and many other predictions that just have not materialized?  It is you that has let himself be given over to a false religion of global warming.  Tyndal's work has been questioned here several times as a static system versus the dynamic one we live in.  You just don't accept it.  You repost continually your little theories and then are surprised when we refute them with the same information again and again.  Quite frankly it is getting exceedingly boring and frustrating to see you stumble around and mislead folks.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Paging Neil Cavuto: UAH global satellite data has record WARMEST day for January  Climate Progress



Now we are supposed to believe your bloggers?


----------



## mal (Feb 4, 2010)

Liability said:


> Moldy Socks:
> 
> Why are ice caps thickening?
> 
> ...







peace...


----------



## mal (Feb 4, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Global Cooling is coming. Looks like another bizarre cult is about to be born. What a scam.



I Suggest we bring back Leaded Gasoline and Muscle Cars, Damn it!



peace...


----------



## Liability (Feb 4, 2010)

Moldy socks:

I note with amusement that you ducked my question.  *DO you or do you not accept that there is evidence of recent arctic ice thickening?*

And, *what of the latest data suggesting that the summer melt-off is the lowest since such measurements started getting made by satellites*?

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.



> * * * * Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal _Geophysical Research Letters_:
> 
> A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 20082009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 19802009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 20082009 melt season.
> 
> ...


 World Climate Report  Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era


----------



## Liability (Feb 4, 2010)

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure5.png

The blue stuff is the SECOND YEAR ice.   Compare the amount of SECOND YEAR ice in the 2009 images (released in October 2009) to the amount shown even one year prior.

The ice looks like. it. might. just. be. THICKENING.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 4, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> My bad.  Then they're using the mysteriously declining GSIS weather stations.  Or the *NOAA weather stations that have been proven to be artificially warmed by local factors violating their placement integrity and now give bad readings.*
> 
> Home.


All that is "proven" is cultists in the religion of denial know absolutely nothing about how ANOMALIES work and why anomalies are used by real scientists rather than temp readings. 

If the station is warmed by local factors then the AVERAGE for that station that the ANOMALY is CALCULATED against will be warmer, giving an anomaly that accurately reflects whether the trend for that station is up or down no matter how inaccurate the temp reading might be either by placement of the station or the inaccuracy of the thermometer relative to other thermometers.

That is why surface anomalies MATCH satellite anomalies and we know satellites are not warmed by local factors.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2010)

The best thing about the Arctic or Greenland deglaciating will be when signs of major human civilizations are uncovered.


----------



## mal (Feb 4, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The best thing about the Arctic or Greenland deglaciating will be when signs of major human civilizations are uncovered.



No!... You are Wrong, you Flatearther!... Heresy!... Recant!... RECANT!



peace...


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Paging Neil Cavuto: UAH global satellite data has record WARMEST day for January  Climate Progress


Experts say 2006 hurricane season could be as deadly as this year's. - Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL) | Encyclopedia.com

Remember THIS prediction?  And the reality?

Mild U.S. Hurricane Season Defied Predictions

And we are to believe you hyperventilating chicken littles on the weather 100 years from now?  

Lunacy.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 4, 2010)

EdtheParrot is back!  With a really big nonsensical graph!  Like size imports truthiness.

>BARACK!< Anomalies! Anomalies!  >Barack oBAMa!<


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The best thing about the Arctic or Greenland deglaciating will be when signs of major human civilizations are uncovered.



Yep, just like those in the hollow moon


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> EdtheParrot is back!  With a really big nonsensical graph!  Like size imports truthiness.
> 
> >BARACK!< Anomalies! Anomalies!  >Barack oBAMa!<



Ah yes, and Fritz is back with mindless derision instead of a real answer to the accurate data that Ed has presented.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > EdtheParrot is back!  With a really big nonsensical graph!  Like size imports truthiness.
> ...


Then I suppose you see the decline in temps that begins in 2001 too?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 4, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


ANOMALY!...ANOMALY!...ANOMALY!...>BARACK!<


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2010)

Liability said:


> Moldy socks:
> 
> I note with amusement that you ducked my question.  *DO you or do you not accept that there is evidence of recent arctic ice thickening?*
> 
> ...



Do you always argue against yourself?

The lowest melt on record. But still a decrease. A decrease that we will not get back. And the sea level rise continues on the upper edge of the probablity cone from the estimate in 2006.

Had you a real case, there would have been in increase in the amount of ice from the low of 2007 to the low of 2008, 2009. Instead, we see continued diminishment of the Antarctic Ice Cap, a diminishment measured in giga-tons of ice, even in the melt seasons of 2008 and 2009.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2010)

Liability said:


> http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure5.png
> 
> The blue stuff is the SECOND YEAR ice.   Compare the amount of SECOND YEAR ice in the 2009 images (released in October 2009) to the amount shown even one year prior.
> 
> The ice looks like. it. might. just. be. THICKENING.



There was more second year ice, but far less multiyear ice in 2009. The overall volume of the ice was less in 2009 than in 2008 or 2007. 



Sea ice age and thickness

The age of the ice is another key descriptor of the state of the sea ice cover, since older ice tends to be thicker and more resilient than younger ice. A simple two-stage approach classifies sea ice into first year and multiyear ice. First-year is ice that has not yet survived a summer melt season, while multi-year ice has survived at least one summer and can be several years old. Satellite derived maps of ice age for March of 2007, 2008, and 2009 are presented in Figure S3. 

Arctic Report Card - Sea Ice Cover - Perovich, et al.

Figure S3. Arctic sea ice distribution in March of 2007, 2008, and 2009. Multiyear ice is in white, mixed ice aqua, first-year ice teal, and ice with melting surface red. Dark blue is for open water and brown for land. From a combination of AVHRR and SSM/I satellite observations and results from drifting ice buoys. (courtesy
of Son Nghiem) 

In the past decade, the extent of multiyear sea ice rapidly reduced at a rate of 1.5 x 106 km2 per decade, triple the reduction rate during the three previous decades (1970-2000). Springtime multiyear ice extent was the lowest in 2008 in the QuikSCAT data record since 2000. QuikSCAT results in March 2009 showed a multiyear ice extent of 3.0 ± 0.2 million km2. This was 0.3 million km2 larger than the multiyear ice extent on the same date in 2008, even though the total sea ice extent was similar in the spring of 2008 and 2009. While the multiyear ice extent was similar in March 2008 and 2009, its distribution was quite different. More specifically, in 2008 there was a significant amount of multiyear ice the Beaufort Sea and in 2009 there was a large amount of multiyear ice the central Arctic Ocean. 

Recent estimates of Arctic Ocean sea ice thickness from satellite altimetry show a remarkable overall thinning of ~0.6 m in ice thickness between 2004 and 2008 (Figure. S4a). In contrast, the average thickness of the thinner first-year ice in mid-winter (~2 m), did not exhibit a downward trend. Seasonal ice is an important component covered more than two-thirds of the Arctic Ocean in 2008. The total multiyear ice volume in the winter experienced a net loss of more than 40% in the four years since 2005 while the first year ice cover gained volume due to increased overall coverage of the Arctic Ocean. The declines in total volume and average thickness (black line in Figure S4a) are explained almost entirely by thinning and loss of multiyear sea ice due to melting and ice export. These changes have resulted in seasonal ice becoming the dominant Arctic sea ice type, both in terms of area coverage and of volume. 

*Right now the artic ice is tracking the lowest year on record for area.*

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Decline in temperatures that began in 2001? Are you out of your mind?

The last decade has been the warmest on record. And 2005 was either just a bit warmer or a bit cooler than 1998. 

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2009

Global Top 10 
Warm Years (Jan-Dec) Anomaly °C Anomaly °F 
2005 0.62 1.11 
1998 0.60 1.08 
2003 0.58 1.04 
2002 0.57 1.03 
2009 0.56 1.01 
2006 0.56 1.01 
2007 0.55 0.99 
2004 0.54 0.97 
2001 0.52 0.94 
2008 0.48 0.86 
1997 0.48 0.86


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2010)

Dude said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Doodee....and Frank, still looking for that hollow moon


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 4, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


NO!

It looks like every year except 2008 was WARMER than 2001.
Maybe this chart will help.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 4, 2010)

Dude said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Another BRILLIANT rebuttal. 
You CON$ keep outdoing yourselves.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


AAAannd cue the referencing of more bad data.  LOL.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 4, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Well, when you actually stop presenting the exact same charts and bullshit that nobody but insane chicken littles believes, we'll stop making Progressive Parrot noises every time you show up.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2010)

I see. So if reality disagrees with you, call reality bad data. 

Liability kindly provided some nice pictures and graphs that competely refute your claim of bad data.

Face it, all you have is drugged out radio jocks, and paid for whores on your side of this debate. And every year now shows the idiocy that you indulge in by putting ideology ahead of evidence.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. So if reality disagrees with you, call reality bad data.
> 
> Liability kindly provided some nice pictures and graphs that competely refute your claim of bad data.
> 
> Face it, all you have is drugged out radio jocks, and paid for whores on your side of this debate. And every year now shows the idiocy that you indulge in by putting ideology ahead of evidence.


How's that IPCC doing?  Been able to accept their admissions they have been lying for years, yet?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 4, 2010)

Hey!  Let's have fun posting data!














And you expect me to trust the data you're getting?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Face it, all you have is drugged out radio jocks, and paid for whores on your side of this debate. And every year now shows the idiocy that you indulge in by putting ideology ahead of evidence.


Mr. Pot, meet Ms. Kettle.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 4, 2010)

Here is a well maintained and well sited USHCN station:





Here is a not-so-well maintained or well sited USHCN station:


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2010)

Hmmmm......   UAH data is from satellites. And the graphs look about the same.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2010)

And these stations are causing the glacier in Glacier National Park to disappear? They are creating the conditions that have been reducing the total volume of the Arctic Ice Cap far beyond even the most pessimist alarmist prediction?

Yes, just keep babbling on with you dingbat talking points, while the temperatures continue to climb, and the ice continues to disappear.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmmm......   UAH data is from satellites. And the graphs look about the same.


Didn't you know, there are asphalt heat islands around all satellites.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 4, 2010)

You can't teach an Old Crock new tricks, but you can beat it repeatedly with a newspaper.  

You know Crocks, you are finally reaching the point where you have no more entertainment value left in your religion.

I now understand why people ignore crazy end of the world babblers on street corners.  They're just not worth the effort.


----------



## Liability (Feb 4, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The best thing about the Arctic or Greenland deglaciating will be when signs of major human civilizations are uncovered.



The revelation of prior human civilizations will truly rattle the libs, especially the cool things they discovered and preserved before the onset of perfectly natural global cooling.

This little warming treend may not last forever, though.  

I wonder if the interglacial period we've BEEN in is nearing an end?


----------



## mal (Feb 4, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Here is a well maintained and well sited USHCN station:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Make this it's own Thread... 



peace...


----------



## Liability (Feb 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Moldy socks:
> ...



Ice melts in the summer?

Fuck.

Who knew?

But the ice melted LESS.  And the SECOND YEAR ICE (i.e., the ice that made it through an entire prior melting cycle) increased.

So, no.  Nobody (not even you) believes I am arguing "against" myself.  That cheap comment by you was nothing but a deliberate lie.

Tsk tsk.

It's sad when a man of faith, like you, demonstrates so litle faith.  This does tend to explain, however, why you AGW Faithers resort to manipulation and concealment of data.  You remain hostile to the fundamental precepts of good science and hostile to honesty itself.


----------



## Liability (Feb 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. So if reality disagrees with you, call reality bad data.
> 
> Liability kindly provided some nice pictures and graphs that competely refute your claim of bad data.
> 
> Face it, all you have is drugged out radio jocks, and paid for whores on your side of this debate. And every year now shows the idiocy that you indulge in by putting ideology ahead of evidence.



Except, the images I shared do not at all refute the claim of bad data.

It just so happens that the data itself used for those images is superior to the altered and suppressed data favored by the AGW Faither Clergy.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 4, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Here is a well maintained and well sited USHCN station:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you crazy big fitz?

The Man Made Global Warming Religion has nothing to do with truth, stop trying to prove our lord Gore is wrong or you will go to hell where there is no recycling and its really fucking hot.


----------



## Liability (Feb 4, 2010)

> The assumption in all these stories that report on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, and other melting ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, is that global warming is the cause, and that they are representative of a general melt occurring throughout Antarctica. And if this were true, this would be alarming, since 90% of the worlds land based ice is in Antarctica. So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarcticas overall total mass decreasing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The Real Facts on Increasing Antarctic Ice


----------



## k2skier (Feb 4, 2010)

Not accurate liability.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


February 3, 2010
Despite cool temperatures, ice extent remains low

Despite cool temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean in January, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below normal. By the end of January, ice extent dropped below the extent observed in January 2007. Ice extent was unusually low in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, the one major area of the Arctic where temperatures remained warmer than normal. 


Arctic sea ice reflects sunlight, keeping the polar regions cool and moderating global climate. According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season. 

Read timely scientific analysis year-round below. We provide an update during the first week of each month, or more frequently as conditions warrant.

Please credit the National Snow and Ice Data Center for image or content use unless otherwise noted beneath each image.





Liability said:


> > The assumption in all these stories that report on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, and other melting ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, is that global warming is the cause, and that they are representative of a general melt occurring throughout Antarctica. And if this were true, this would be alarming, since 90% of the world&#8217;s land based ice is in Antarctica. So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarctica&#8217;s overall total mass decreasing?
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## Liability (Feb 4, 2010)

k2skier said:


> Not accurate.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
> 
> ...



You must be an initiate into the AGW Faither's Religion.  You will likely be called upon to do penance now.

You just attempted to refute scientifically based assertions regarding *ANTARCTIC* cooling by citing to some material about *ARCTIC* warming.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Feb 4, 2010)

Liability said:


> You just attempted to refute scientifically based assertions regarding *ANTARCTIC* cooling by citing to some material about *ARCTIC* warming.


Perhaps the material came from his Aunt, who lives near the north pole.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 4, 2010)

k2skier said:


> Not accurate liability.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
> 
> ...


Speaking of the instant gratification generation......


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 4, 2010)

Western Washington has experienced the warmest January on record.  The temperature never fell below freezing.  Typically January is the coldest month for our part of the country with temps averaging and varying between 0 deg and 40 deg the whole month.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2010)

The Antarctic Sea Ice has had a slight increase in the last 30 years on the average. At present it is almost exactly at the mean of the last 30 years. Within the normal variation of the yearly sea ice, it has been quite stable within that period, unlike the Arctic, which as declined precipitously.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

The overall global sea ice is in a rapid decline, as can be seen in this graph;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


----------



## Charles Stucker (Feb 5, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> The Antarctic Sea Ice has had a slight increase in the last 30 years on the average. At present it is almost exactly at the mean of the last 30 years. Within the normal variation of the yearly sea ice, it has been quite stable within that period, unlike the Arctic, which as declined precipitously.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
> 
> ...


Dear Mr. Rocks in the Head,

It has been brought to the attention of our department that you are possessed of the belief that the world is warming in preparation to a global catastrophe and that only human action can prevent said catastrophe. If as some have suggested you are too willfully stupid then feel free to disregard this missive as it is solely politeness, and an interest in combating rampant ignorance, which induces us to send you this information.
You are wrong. Though the Earth may be heating in some areas, a claim itself subject to refutation, the possibility of catastrophic climate change is in fact nonexistent. A billion years ago the earth was, on average, far warmer than today; while such tropical temperatures would be considered balmy by some, they would fall far short of any catastrophe. The earliest epochs also saw warmer temperatures, and in those eras none of the carbon trapped by the formation of 'fossil' fuels has been removed from the general environment. That still did not lead to runaway greenhouse effects as one sees on Venus.
So you see, there is nothing to worry about.

Sincerely, 
A group of people, each with more scientific understanding than you can ever hope to equal.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Antarctic Sea Ice has had a slight increase in the last 30 years on the average. At present it is almost exactly at the mean of the last 30 years. Within the normal variation of the yearly sea ice, it has been quite stable within that period, unlike the Arctic, which as declined precipitously.
> ...



*Fellow, your knowledge of science is scant, and your understanding nil.*


----------



## Meister (Feb 5, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Western Washington has experienced the warmest January on record.  The temperature never fell below freezing.  Typically January is the coldest month for our part of the country with temps averaging and varying between 0 deg and 40 deg the whole month.



Well, there you have it....spoken by huggy.  That means global warming for sure.
But,.....back east it is one of the worst winters remembered....go figure.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2010)

Been an interesting year for sure. While the East Coast was freezing in that last storm, temperatures in the Arctic were 10 or more degrees above normal. And in central Greenland, over 20 degrees above normal.

Right now, where I am at, our daffodils are over a foot high, the tulips are 6 to 8 inchs. And we had just two weeks of cold weather so far this year. About 55 degrees, midday today, and predicted to be in the low and mid fifties as far as they can see down the road.

Analomous weather all over.


----------



## Meister (Feb 5, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Been an interesting year for sure. While the East Coast was freezing in that last storm, temperatures in the Arctic were 10 or more degrees above normal. And in central Greenland, over 20 degrees above normal.
> 
> Right now, where I am at, our daffodils are over a foot high, the tulips are 6 to 8 inchs. And we had just two weeks of cold weather so far this year. About 55 degrees, midday today, and predicted to be in the low and mid fifties as far as they can see down the road.
> 
> Analomous weather all over.



And last year, hmmm?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 5, 2010)

Meister said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Western Washington has experienced the warmest January on record.  The temperature never fell below freezing.  Typically January is the coldest month for our part of the country with temps averaging and varying between 0 deg and 40 deg the whole month.
> ...


Not my part of the East. We had about 2 weeks of cold weather from a little before Christmas to a little after New Years. Normally by this time I've used between 120 and 140 gallons of kerosene but I've used only 66.7 gallons so far, the least I've ever used and I've been in this same house over 35 years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 5, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> The Antarctic Sea Ice has had a slight increase in the last 30 years on the average. At present it is almost exactly at the mean of the last 30 years. Within the normal variation of the yearly sea ice, it has been quite stable within that period, unlike the Arctic, which as declined precipitously.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
> 
> ...



Did you mean to post something else for the "Rapid decline chart"?


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Antarctic Sea Ice has had a slight increase in the last 30 years on the average. At present it is almost exactly at the mean of the last 30 years. Within the normal variation of the yearly sea ice, it has been quite stable within that period, unlike the Arctic, which as declined precipitously.
> ...



No.  He considers a graph depicting almost no detectable change over a period of over 30 years to be indicative of a RAPID DECLINE!


----------



## sherp (Feb 5, 2010)

Sadly, most of that "heat" was recorded over the Oceans and not on the land that is covered with ice and snow. In some places, its record ice and snow. Sure hope this is not the begining of a new ice age. In the past when the Climate started to change, the weather changed on a dime.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 6, 2010)

sherp said:


> Sadly, most of that "heat" was recorded over the Oceans and not on the land that is covered with ice and snow. In some places, its record ice and snow. Sure hope this is not the begining of a new ice age. In the past when the Climate started to change, the weather changed on a dime.


Yeah?  Still not man's fault and man can do nothing to stop or change it.

Fundamental flaw to all the warmist theory.  They can't conclusively prove man causes it.

Everyone knows the weather changes.  It's the nature of the beasty.

I think too many have forgotten that this whole argument is not over the fact that the weather change, but in stopping/creating a fascist green state over the entire globe for a non-existent crisis.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Feb 9, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *Fellow, your knowledge of science is scant, and your understanding nil.*


So you&#8217;re a better scientist than I am.
Prove it.
Not with some pretentious claim of a PhD, but with an answer to a real question.
One actually related to abating human CO2 production.

CO2, as you should be aware, is produced when humans combust various carbon compounds to create usable energy. Two methods which might reduce CO2 production are change human behavior, or increase the amount of usable energy from combustion. Dr Mike Stickney of MCI has been working with British Oil on a method of chemical synthesis using a combustion shock tube. British Oil&#8217;s research interest is obtaining a less expensive method of reducing CO emissions, but the data from Stickney&#8217;s research is still of interest to the serious physicist.

The combustion shock tube consists of a long tube filled with combustible gas which when ignited produced a supersonic shock wave which accelerates down the tube. Dr. Stickney used CO and H2O to obtain CO2 and H2. Unlike the  previous research, done back in the mid 20th century, Stickney used a closed tube with a precise mix of gasses to provide complete combustion of the CO. Two items of interest were found; first the chemical potential energy was converted to mechanical energy at rates exceeding 85% efficiency, second the shock wave left a  vacuum in its wake. The high efficiency is of interest to anyone trying to conserve resources or reduce CO2 emissions, but the vacuum is on interest to the physicist. 

Ahh, the vacuum. Think for a moment; the tube is initially filled with gas at equilibrium. A spark is applied at one end. A shock wave forms and accelerates along the tube, leaving nothing behind. Thus if you observed the shock wave at one time, t, and a later time t+x, you would see the shock wave gained both mass and velocity in the interval, with nothing to balance the momentum change. Failure to conserve momentum violates one the fundamental laws of physics. 

To solve the problem, go back to first principles.  The shock wave is not a single object, but a collection of objects, in particular molecules. Examine then a single pair of gas molecules in a chemical reaction. For simplicity, take the endothermic example of H2 and CO2.  For this gedanken experiment isolate two samples of gas, on of H2, the other of CO2, and chill to just above the point where the gas will transition to a different phase. Now accelerate the contained of H2, fast enough to provide the energy required for the reaction, and aim it at the CO2, then consider an isolated collision of H2 and CO2.

H2+CO2+Energy => CO+H2O
For this analysis we will hypothesize  that chemical processes take time; this is a defensible assumption as chemists and chemical engineers regularly chart  the length of time different reactions take under different conditions. No reaction to date has been instantaneous.
During the time that the reaction occurs several things take place; one Oxygen atom breaks its bonds with the Carbon atom, the two Hydrogen atoms break the bond holding them together, the Oxygen atom forms bonds with both Hydrogen atoms, and the whole continues moving through space. Plus kinetic energy is converted to chemical potential energy. Oops, that cannot happen, the molecules are stuck together until the process is finished, but the kinetic energy has to be forced into the new bond arrangement, which would slow the mass and violate conservation of momentum. But it does happen. It happens all the time. 
Since the molecules will both leave the reaction going in the same direction, the puzzle of how the vacuum forms is obvious; all the molecules in the shockwave begin their combustion going the same direction and minimization means they won&#8217;t change direction to go back the other way. Because virtually all of the molecules combust there is almost nothing left behind the shockwave.

Where is the momentum going at the molecular level? Good question; either the curvature of timespace allows the molecules to interact with the mass of the Earth to exchange momentum, a problem which might be solved with general relativity, or string theory has the solution in the manipulation of data which the mass of the molecules represents. 

Your mission, should you choose to accept it Mr. Rocks, is to solve this problem with your vaunted superior science skills; to solve the problem and tell us which physics journal will showcase your solution.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 9, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *Fellow, your knowledge of science is scant, and your understanding nil.*


Ahhh yes, our local science doyen.  You alone decides what is credible science and fits in the consensus.  

The arrogance of the overpaid mill rat is cloying


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 9, 2010)

This thread is total bs.............NASA picks only the temperature readings that conform with what the green k00ks want to see.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Feb 9, 2010)

skookerasbil said:


> This thread is total bs.............NASA picks only the temperature readings that conform with what the green k00ks want to see.



And it wasn't even started by Old Rocks in the Head, which is a sure sign of a warmer nutjob thread.


----------

