# So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2017)

We hear it all the time...global warming this...global warming that...global warming is leading to a catastrophe....we hear it so much that even skeptics take it as a given that the earth is getting warmer...we dispute the causes, but skeptics tend to accept that it is getting some bit warmer even if it is undefinable because the temperature record has become so corrupted.

But what if the globe isn't getting warmer?  What if you have to look damned hard to find anywhere that is getting warmer?  What if this whole big global warming scam, is even bigger than anyone thought and at best, there may be some local warming.  

There were more than 60 peer reviewed papers published in 2016 that showed that whatever warming we have seen, it is certainly not unprecedented as warmers would have us all believe, or even that noteworthy in the larger scheme of things...

By the end of January, there had already been 17 papers published showing the same thing

Here are 31 papers recently published that demonstrate that not only is climate science far from settled, the claim that the globe is warming isn't settled...these papers cover most of the globe and show that at some time in the past 100 years or so, most places have seen some warming at some time, but hardly anything that could be called global...especially at the present time

Another interesting note is that the papers that go back far enough, show  a pretty distinct fingerprint of the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warming periods once more demonstrating that those warm periods were both warmer than the present and global in nature.

So gnash your teeth on this warmers...and explain how, if the globe is warming, the misnomer "global warming" is justified.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/343/2017/tc-11-343-2017.pdf








http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-26/cp-2017-26.pdf













Two centuries temperature variations over subtropical southeast China inferred from Pinus taiwanensis Hayata tree-ring width







SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research











High sensitivity of North Iceland (Tröllaskagi) debris-free glaciers to climatic change from the ‘Little Ice Age’ to the present (PDF Download Available)







http://www.clim-past.net/13/93/2017/cp-13-93-2017.pdf







http://cms.unige.ch/sciences/terre/news/articles/Guillet_etal_NGEO_2017.pdf







http://www.clim-past.net/13/1/2017/cp-13-1-2017.pdf










https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Siderastrea_siderea_from_the_Florida_Straits







http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379116305479







https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3478-8







http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018216303054







http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379116304802















http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027737911630381X







CONTINUED......


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2017)

CONTINUATION....







SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research








Changes in temperature and water depth of a small mountain lake during the past 3000 years in Central Kamchatka reflected by a chironomid record







http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n3/full/ngeo2891.html








SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research








Temperature variations since 1750 CE inferred from an alpine lake in the southeastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau








https://www.researchgate.net/public...enland_from_the_first_regional_diatom_dataset












Quantitative reconstruction of temperature at a Jōmon site in the Incipient Jōmon Period in northern Japan and its implications for the production of early pottery and stone arrowheads







Climate variability in the past ∼19,000 yr in NE Tibetan Plateau inferred from biomarker and stable isotope records of Lake Donggi Cona







https://www.researchgate.net/public...nce_from_the_mid-_to_outer_Great_Barrier_Reef







Holocene hydrological and sea surface temperature changes in the northern coast of the South China Sea







Oscillations in the Indian summer monsoon during the Holocene inferred from a stable isotope record from pyrogenic carbon from Lake Chenghai, southwest China







https://www.researchgate.net/public...mental_change_for_southern_Pacific_Costa_Rica







Solar and tropical ocean forcing of late-Holocene climate change in coastal East Asia







Just for fun, here are a few more...



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379116306217


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683616683255


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018217300500


https://www.researchgate.net/public...olocene_and_its_sensitivity_to_climate_change


----------



## Fenton Lum (Mar 12, 2017)

I'm not concerned about the planet; it will continue to evolve as it always has.  And if humanity behaves as a pathogen, the antidote will come.  Humankind could become extinct or undergo a catastrophic population bottle neck, who knows, but corporate power and wealth has expended vast resources and effort into muddying up the conversation and science.  The creator does not pay heed to the childish attention span or sense of time humanity is tied to perceptually, and the planet does not need human beings ... for anything.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 12, 2017)

looks like a nice pile of reading material...


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> *So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?*......



*So, if your brain isn't working..why are you even posting?*

Oh, SSoooDDumb, you are the king of crazy, crackpot, totally meaningless questions!

In the *real world* where "_*the globe IS warming*_" and temperatures are rising rapidly.....






(source: NASA)


----------



## Crick (Mar 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> CONTINUATION....



How many of these are proxies?  All of them?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?*......
> ...


Posting up Karl Et Al BS again?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> *So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?*......





RollingThunder said:


> *So, if your brain isn't working..why are you even posting?*
> 
> Oh, SSoooDDumb, you are the king of crazy, crackpot, totally meaningless questions!
> 
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> Posting up Karl Et Al BS again?


Denying sound science for crackpot ideological reasons again? _(rhetorical question....of course you are, boober!)_


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 12, 2017)

I've never seen a dataset showing that the earth isn't warming...

Why do people on the internet that haven't ever touched a ground station or looked through raw data think they know more then every institution on this planet? It is sick.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?*......
> ...





Translation?


The OP is pwning the religion, of which Im a member.......Im angry and miserable because I am losing so Im forced to call him a retard!!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?*......
> ...



NASA...kings of data manipulation...all fake all the time...and the sad thing is that you believe them.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2017)

Matthew said:


> I've never seen a dataset showing that the earth isn't warming...
> 
> Why do people on the internet that haven't ever touched a ground station or looked through raw data think they know more then every institution on this planet? It is sick.


Funny thing...you people claim the globe is warming, but when you actually look at most places on earth..they aren't warming...that should set off warming bells in your mind regarding the global data set.....that is, IF you aren't a brain dead dupe who believes based on nothing more than your political leanings.


----------



## Crick (Mar 12, 2017)

So is that your position now?  There is no warming.

Matthew, it was the obvious conclusion.  Once they believed they'd gotten away with accusing mainstream science of manipulating the data - which in their own echo chamber they certainly had - the only thing was to take the unavoidable next step.  Why should the world's scientists embark on a global conspiracy just to make things a little worse.when the same conspiracy could give them everything.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CONTINUATION....
> ...



Of course not...but then you can't make heads nor tails of a graph can you...look at the time line on the graph...as you can see, many of them are modern in nature...sorry your global warming bullshit is falling apart before your eyes...must be distressing when it is actually your religion.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> So is that your position now?  There is no warming.
> 
> Matthew, it was the obvious conclusion.  Once they believed they'd gotten away with accusing mainstream science of manipulating the data - which in their own echo chamber they certainly had - the only thing was to take the unavoidable next step.  Why should the world's scientists embark on a global conspiracy just to make things a little worse.when the same conspiracy could give them everything.



My position is based on the facts...when the facts change sufficiently to support the claim, my position changes along with them....I accepted that the globe had warmed some amount in the past 100 years, but when one looks at individual locations around the globe and doesn't see warming, while the global data set does...and knowing that large sections of the globe in the global data set are simply made up via infilling, and that the warmest places on earth according to the data set are the very places with the least instrumental coverage, what should a thinking person believe?  Certainly not the same thing glassy eyed chanters believe...that's for sure.

Simply amazing that you can look at paper after paper calling the global data set into question and all you can see is reinforcement of your beliefs...that is the mark of a true zealot...everything reinforces your faith...


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> So is that your position now?  There is no warming.
> 
> Matthew, it was the obvious conclusion.  Once they believed they'd gotten away with accusing mainstream science of manipulating the data - which in their own echo chamber they certainly had - the only thing was to take the unavoidable next step.  Why should the world's scientists embark on a global conspiracy just to make things a little worse.when the same conspiracy could give them everything.





SSDD said:


> My position is based on the facts...



The FACTS?!?!?!!!!  HAHAHAHAAAAaaaa. give me a FUCKING BREAK!



SSDD said:


> when the facts change sufficiently to support the claim, my position changes along with them....



When you stop getting the mileage and trolling response your outrageous bullshit got once upon a time - and opportunity arises - you're going to take that opportunity.  It's not as if you were getting anywhere before. The number of people that realize deniers are ignorant fools has risen and is approaching unanimity in the general population.  Among anyone with an education, that was the state long ago.  You needed something to rouse the troops.  Now you've got it.  Someone compiles a list of all the proxies and all the isolated regions on the planet whose temperatures aren't going through the roof, puts them in a list and CAN YOU SAY HALLELUJAH! 



SSDD said:


> I accepted that the globe had warmed some amount in the past 100 years, but when one looks at individual locations around the globe and doesn't see warming, while the global data set does...and knowing that large sections of the globe in the global data set are simply made up via infilling, and that the warmest places on earth according to the data set are the very places with the least instrumental coverage, what should a thinking person believe?  Certainly not the same thing glassy eyed chanters believe...that's for sure.



You've become "practiced at deception".  You're getting better and better at lying.  Now there's a goal we should all strive for, right Shit?  



SSDD said:


> Simply amazing that you can look at paper after paper calling the global data set into question and all you can see is reinforcement of your beliefs...that is the mark of a true zealot...everything reinforces your faith...



More fantasy.  I think you might be coming to believe the first steps of your fantasy.  You are one lost fucking soul dude.

I have always wondered why the denier-set, after several years of wailing and gnashing their teeth over the malicious manipulation of the data, didn't simply produce a set of "unmanipulated data".  There are only a couple of things that could possibly be stopping you:

1) It's hard work
2) Your results would be trivial - it would take a keen eye to see the difference.
3) No one would accept your work except deniers and they already buy your story as it's the only one in town.
4) Your results would show that the planet was warming at a dangerous and accelerating rate

Can you think of any other possibility?

And then along comes this collections of cool spots and you think all is saved.  I think perhaps denier' biggest failing is to have somehow convince themselves that in the end they will have accomplished anything.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> The FACTS?!?!?!!!!  HAHAHAHAAAAaaaa. give me a FUCKING BREAK!




That's right..the facts.  A concept you would not be aquatinted with being a member in good standing of the glassy eyed chanting cult.



Crick said:


> You've become "practiced at deception".  You're getting better and better at lying.  Now there's a goal we should all strive for, right Shit?



Sorry crick.. that's you projecting...you are one of the biggest liars here and as such, you simply assume that since you are such a big liar, everyone else must be big liars as well.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 13, 2017)

There are people that have nothing better to do than spending all their time trying to get a waitress fired,  fault an establishment for not having transgender toilets and provoking normal people to solicit a response while their thumb is ready on the cellphone to call 911.
"Crick" the "ocean engineer" is one of them. No matter what time you look at the USMB it looks like this:




The only ocean he "engineers" is an ocean of piss & hatred like the page long rant in the windmill thread I posted yesterday. As if I care what a deranged idiot like that has to say about me.
Now that social misfits like him no longer have the ability to use the DOJ to shut down a business like Alaska Airlines as this bitch would have , a forum like the USMB is one of the few outlets they can continue. Just like this bitch on that airliner would like to get anyone else punished. ...
What really gets under their skin is what happened instead, like how the whole plane load of passengers cheered when she got kicked out:
Oh yeah, Life is good, really good after the democrats got hammered !


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2017)

I can't think of any facts with which I've ever been aquatinted. But you are getting better at lying.  You know it, I know it and everyone who read your last piece knows it.


----------



## miketx (Mar 13, 2017)

The global lairs work 24/7 to destroy the world.


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2017)

polarbear said:


> There are people that have nothing better to do than spending all their time trying to get a waitress fired,  fault an establishment for not having transgender toilets and provoking normal people to solicit a response while their thumb is ready on the cellphone to call 911.
> "Crick" the "ocean engineer" is one of them. No matter what time you look at the USMB it looks like this:


Except when those slots would be filled with SSDD posts, with which you apparently have no problem.



polarbear said:


> The only ocean he "engineers" is an ocean of piss & hatred like the page long rant in the windmill thread I posted yesterday. As if I care what a deranged idiot like that has to say about me.



It's a public discussion board.  You don't get to choose who reads your stuff and you don't get to choose who responds.



polarbear said:


> Now that social misfits like him no longer have the ability to use the DOJ to shut down a business like Alaska Airlines as this bitch would have , a forum like the USMB is one of the few outlets they can continue.



Not that I've ever tried to shut down a business, but why would I go to the DOJ to do so?  Wouldn't it make more sense to start with local authorities?  And what do you mean I no longer have the ability to use the DOJ?  What single fucking law has changed?



polarbear said:


> Just like this bitch on that airliner would like to get anyone else punished Crick kept trying to get me banned from the USMB a couple of days ago.



I asked you to leave my wife out of our discussion and you chose to bring her up again.  USMB has rather strict rules about mentioning family members.  I've run afoul of them myself.  But, while we're here, were you not aware that it is against USMB rules for someone to mention their dealings with the moderators and management?  I simply informed them what you had done.  I never said even suggested they should ban you.  And I would have thought someone as rough and tough as you make yourself out to be could deal with something like this without such pathetic whining.



polarbear said:


> What really gets under their skin is what happened instead, like how the whole plane load of passengers cheered when she got kicked out:
> Oh yeah, Life is good, really good after the democrats got hammered !



Let me give a shot at predicting the future:  This thread will be locked as soon as a moderator sees this exchange.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 13, 2017)

"_Let me give a shot at predicting the future: This thread will be locked as soon as a moderator sees this exchange_."
Yeah that would suit you just fine. 
But that won`t solve your problem, because a.) the stuff SSDD posted here won`t disappear from the public domain and b.) the public is no longer interested in doomsday prophets.
The crap you post is not much different from the "Planet X" doomsday predictions or the "Jupiter effect".
When freaks like you or that woman on Alaska Airlines are berating normal people it does not go viral because anybody believes the crap people like you spew, it goes viral because everybody else on that airplane and millions who were not laugh their head off in Schadenfreude, which is arguably the best amusement.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 13, 2017)

Crick is not aware that Schadenfreude requires a sense of humor, which Democrats don`t have.
Only lifeforms  that have evolved into intelligent species have a sense of humor.
We have been censored by politically correct democrats to point out that we are not all es equal as they would like to have it, because they are in total denial of real science such as the role of DNA.
Being a democrat with no sense of humor appears to be such an example of inherent defects in the DNA, which can make some prone to a variety of physical illness or mental defects.
Mental defects like going ballistic after SSDD posted a bunch of info worth saving.
Mental defects like delusions of grandeur, posing as an "engineer" while having done not much else than spending all day every day posting either insults or volumes of verbiage that he figures a real engineer would use.


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2017)

_


			
				Crick said:
			
		


			Let me give a shot at predicting the future: This thread will be locked as soon as a moderator sees this exchange
		
Click to expand...

_


			
				Crick said:
			
		

> ."





polarbear said:


> "
> Yeah that would suit you just fine.



I don't care one way or the other.  It's a stupid thread.



polarbear said:


> "
> But that won`t solve your problem, because



Because I don't have any problems with you, with any other poster or with USMB.




polarbear said:


> "
> a.) the stuff SSDD posted here won`t disappear from the public domain and



To what do you refer?  His sig?  



polarbear said:


> "
> b.) the public is no longer interested in doomsday prophets.



I'm not a prophet and the doomsday isn't mine, it's everyone's.  If the public wasn't concerned with existential threats, we wouldn't be around any more.



polarbear said:


> "
> The crap you post is not much different from the "Planet X" doomsday predictions or the "Jupiter effect".



The crap I post is mainstream science.  I haven't the faintest what Planet X or the Jupiter effect might be, but I doubt the similarity.



polarbear said:


> "
> When freaks like you or that woman on Alaska Airlines are berating normal people it does not go viral because anybody believes the crap people like you spew, it goes viral because everybody else on that airplane and millions who were not laugh their head off in Schadenfreude, which is arguably the best amusement.


[/quote]

Why am I not surprised you would think so.


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Crick is not aware that Schadenfreude requires a sense of humor, which Democrats don`t have.



YO!  Over here dude.  You're talking to yourself.  



polarbear said:


> "
> Only lifeforms  that have evolved into intelligent species have a sense of humor.



There is a correlation between intelligence and humor.  I've never seen a study, but I bet there's a correlation between ignorance and bitterness.  You've seen the comment "not all conservative persons are stupid, but almost every stupid person is conservative".  There are similar correlations for things like racism, misogyny and, I think bitterness.  



polarbear said:


> "
> We have been censored by politically correct democrats to point out that we are not all es equal as they would like to have it, because they are in total denial of real science such as the role of DNA.



No, I'm afraid you're under a serious misunderstanding.  The equality people have in a free society, where EVERYONE's rights are guaranteed by law, is equality under the law.  Under the law.  It's not that everyone is just as smart, not that everyone is just as healthy, not that everyone is just as well off.  It's that we are equal before the law.



polarbear said:


> "
> Being a democrat with no sense of humor appears to be such an example of inherent defects in the DNA, which can make some prone to a variety of physical illness or mental defects.



I've got plenty of defects.  Ask my oncologist and my cardiologist and my urologist (or just my wife).  But a lack of humor isn't one of them.  That I don't spend much of it here you're going to have to chalk up to the possibility that I take the ruination of the world my children and theirs will inherit to be a serious matter.



polarbear said:


> "
> Mental defects like going ballistic after SSDD posted a bunch of info worth saving.



I don't know to what info you refer, but did I prevent someone from saving that wanted to do so?  And do you not think Same Shit might be in some small part responsible for the upset of his conversants?  Do you agree with him regarding radiative heat transfer or quantum mechanics and, more importantly, do you think he has responded in a rational and reasonable manner to the many objections which his contentions have drawn? 



polarbear said:


> "
> Mental defects like delusions of grandeur, posing as an "engineer" while having done not much else than spending all day every day posting either insults or volumes of verbiage that he figures a real engineer would use.



Most engineers suck at English.  If I was making it up, why settle for a bachelors?

I'd like to point out, though, that I have not posted one second of material on this website while at work for the simple reason that I cannot physically get to this site from my work computer (property of the US government).  I would also like to add that so far this year I have turned in three time sheets with over 100 hours on them for ONE WEEK; something you get for going to sea.  My average this year is probably about 60 hours a week.  I don't get comp time and I'm salaried, so I don't garner a lot of benefit from all those hours, but there you go. Welcome to the world of the grownups.





If you don't think I do what I claim to do, you can explain how I got on top of the sail (ie,OUT of the cockpit) on the USS Memphis while she was at sea.  Tourist?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2017)

So we are showing fake pictures of what we do now?...OK....this is how I spend my time...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why am I not surprised you would think so.[/QUOTE]
_*I'm not a prophet and the doomsday isn't mine, it's everyone's. If the public wasn't concerned with existential threats, we wouldn't be around any more*_.

sure it's yours, you mention it right here trying to project it as everyone's.  so typical of the behavior in here from a lefty warmer.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So we are showing fake pictures of what we do now?...OK....this is how I spend my time...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Crick is not aware that Schadenfreude requires a sense of humor, which Democrats don`t have.
> ...


_*No, I'm afraid you're under a serious misunderstanding. The equality people have in a free society, where EVERYONE's rights are guaranteed by law, is equality under the law. Under the law. It's not that everyone is just as smart, not that*_

dude,  there is no way to have everyone equal under the law.  you wouldn't need laws if we were all equal.  that's a lefty's wet dream.  jobs aren't equal and life isn't fair.  Period, end of story.


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2017)

If you're not busy pretending to be out in space.

PS: the world is getting warmer.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> How many of these are proxies? All of them?



How would he know?  He didn't read the papers, he just stole the stuff here:

*30 New (2017) Scientific Papers Crush The Hockey Stick Graph And ‘Global’-Scale Warming Claims*
By Kenneth Richard on 9. March 2017​
So, don't be unfair, okay?


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2017)

The emphasis on "not global" in the first paragraph tells me that at best these are regional reports.  And that the authors don't understand the meaning of the term "global" in this context.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So we are showing fake pictures of what we do now?...OK....this is how I spend my time...


Ha, You got that right.
#1 check out how gray is beard is in the SSDD fuck off selfie and compare it with the picture on the Scandinavian ferry Helly Hansen Ferry which runs the Helsingborg and Helsingör route.
So according the the beard-age regression that picture was taken around the same time when he was vacationing in Europe and posed downtown Paris. The picture he is using for his avatar.
#2 He knows that the moderators of the USMB can find out the IP and MAC address of the PC he is posting from. So he goes out of his way that he could not possibly ever post from his official "Ocean engineering" computer.
But that`s okay. This is not:





That`s the Captain Juell of HH registered Scandinavian trademark:
Home - Helly Hansen.com
They sell all kinds of garments including survival suits that are issued to the ships in the Helly Hansen fleet:
http://hhferriesgroup.com/
That you would very likely board when vacationing in Europe.
That picture on the HH ferry was taken, my guess is by his wife and you can almost make out what she looks like by the reflection in his eye glasses:




I let you draw your own conclusions if what "Crick the Ocean Engineer" posted serves as proof that he was on an "official government mission" there or if it serves as proof what a liar he is.
My conclusion is, that these pictures + the rest,the chronology, the beard and the detail in the pictures was the devil that exposed him for what he really is...as fake as the Hockeystick graphs he & his cronies keep posting.
It took me less than 5 minutes to vet this liar and if I were so inclined I could get a lot more on him than just that.
Have a nice day


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 14, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Ha, You got that right.
> #1 check out how gray is beard is in the SSDD fuck off selfie and compare it with the picture on the Scandinavian ferry Helly Hansen Ferry which runs the Helsingborg and Helsingör route.
> So according the the beard-age regression that picture was taken around the same time when he was vacationing in Europe and posed downtown Paris. The picture he is using for his avatar.
> #2 He knows that the moderators of the USMB can find out the IP and MAC address of the PC he is posting from. So he goes out of his way that he could not possibly ever post from his official "Ocean engineering" computer.
> ...



How do you get away with being such an off-topic wacko?


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen a dataset showing that the earth isn't warming...
> ...


Well you SSDD are the first to post such a comprehensive comparative analysis.

From your data SSDD it does appear that some places are getting warmer while others are getting cooler.

These data would suggest randomness, yes, it is possible.

Obama and Gore are convinced it is due to CO2 emissions however.  And they are spreading the word.

Good luck beating them in this cheerleading game.

I do appreciate your plots of data.

They have given me something new to think about.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 14, 2017)

miketx said:


> The global lairs work 24/7 to destroy the world.


Yah but ... you miketx missed the point of the thread ...

There could be liars on both sides.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2017)

Crick said:


> If you're not busy pretending to be out in space.
> 
> PS: the world is getting warmer.



Funny...so everyone who rides on a boat is an ocean engineer these days?  Even the guy who swabs the deck...my how engineering has fallen.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > How many of these are proxies? All of them?
> ...



Typical warmer....throw out a logical fallacy rather than address the fact that when we look at individual locations all around the globe, the warming doesn't seem to be happening...only when we look at the heavily massaged and filled in global record does the warming show up...if you were half as smart as you believe yourself to be, rather than a glassy eyed chanter, such a revelation would set off alarm bells in your mind...so does it?...of course not...it sets off a need to engage in logical fallacy rather than address the post.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 14, 2017)

We learned in college Chemistry that the Earth is a closed system and all it's heat stays here in a kind of equilibrium.

Heat gained from the Sun is lost to outer space on the cool dark side of the Earth.

With BHO gone now, and DJT in command of The White House, together with his buddies McConnell and Ryan for as long as the 3 of them are still on speaking terms, we probably won't hear a lot about global warming anymore for at least 12 years -- assuming Trump and Pence can last that long.

2018 and 2020 will be big years for report cards back to all of them however.  And global warming will be irrelevant at those times.

Jobs will be all that matters.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


We do need a better model.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2017)

Crick said:


> The emphasis on "not global" in the first paragraph tells me that at best these are regional reports.  And that the authors don't understand the meaning of the term "global" in this context.



Global temperature is a fraud...there is no such thing...how valuable do you suppose an average really is when the temperature of the subject deviates nearly 200 degrees on any given day?  The regional temperature data hasn't been as heavily massaged as the global data and when you look at regions...apparently any region, the warming doesn't present itself...this tells thinking people that the global record is a big stinking fraud...it prompts glassy eyed chanting cultists to engage in logical fallacy.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 14, 2017)

Good thread so far.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



Ive been saying that for years...but what we need more, is a depoliticalization (sp?) of climate science.  We need to be able to expose the obvious frauds for what and who they are and stop tying money to promotion of a political message.

As to models, we have better models....there is a model of energy transfer within the atmosphere that accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse model can only predict the temperature here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor...but the model that can actually predict the temperature wherever an atmosphere is found can't be used to demonize capitalism via CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Gore politicized it.

BHO gave it teeth and made it hurt.

Now Trump will de-claw and de-fang it and it will go away, just like Gore did.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 14, 2017)

Crick said:


> The emphasis on "not global" in the first paragraph tells me that at best these are regional reports. And that the authors don't understand the meaning of the term "global" in this context.



I am perfectly certain the authors do understand the term "global" very well, but they can't control what use the "notrickszone" makes of their findings.  When, in fact, it is perfectly well known that there are quite a few influences on local climate counteracting the global warming trend on the local level.  If you go to AR5, Chapter 8, you find a lot on the geographic distribution of radiative forcing, for instance, resulting in pictures like this:






So, while the earth's heat content is rising, there are quite a few regions cooling mostly due to aerosol forcing - maybe experiencing cooling of a magnitude large enough to overwhelm the warming trend - which some of those "studies" may have found.  That is all well known, except for the ignoramuses who think, having found a cooling or not-warming trend, they've obliterated global warming.  That's how goofy they are.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The emphasis on "not global" in the first paragraph tells me that at best these are regional reports. And that the authors don't understand the meaning of the term "global" in this context.
> ...



Or the global average is just a fraud...when one looks at the global picture, the warmest places on earth are inevitably those that require the most infilling of data due to the scarcity of instrumentation...  interesting how you glassy eyed cultists fail to see that...year after year after year...


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2017)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So we are showing fake pictures of what we do now?...OK....this is how I spend my time...
> ...




Pray tell, what is the object in the water over my left shoulder? That would be the rudder.  What is the black, kevlar cylinder I'm leaning against? That would be the Number Two periscope barrel. Why am I wearing a safety harness?  Because I'm outside the cockpit.  And why does the view in the opposite direction look like this? Because I'm standing on top of the sail of a submarine underway.





and then there's this



and this



and this




You can use your magnifier to identify the logo of the USS Memphis (SSN 691)

Or you can waste some time making yourself look even stupider than you already do trying to convince us that I got these shots on a European vacation.

Asshole.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 14, 2017)

*Rapid disintegration of Alpine glaciers observed with satellite data*
*Authors*
First published: 12 November 2004Full publication history

DOI: 10.1029/2004GL020816View/save citation
Cited by: 120 articles
 
 Referenced in *1* policy sources
Referenced in *1* Wikipedia pages
*178* readers on Mendeley
See more details  |  Close this
 ×  " data-badge-popover="bottom" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: 0px 0px; cursor: pointer; color: rgb(47, 123, 174); display: inline-block;">
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



*Abstract*

[1] Analyses of multispectral satellite data indicate accelerated glacier decline around the globe since the 1980s. By using digitized glacier outlines inferred from the 1973 inventory and Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite data from 1985 to 1999, we obtained area changes of about 930 Alpine glaciers. The 18% area reduction as observed for the period 1985 to 1999 (−1.3% a−1) corresponds to a seven times higher loss rate compared to the 1850–1973 decadal mean. Extrapolation of area change rates and cumulative mass balances to all Alpine glaciers yields a corresponding volume loss of about 25 km3 since 1973. Highly individual and non-uniform changes in glacier geometry (disintegration) indicate a massive down-wasting rather than a dynamic response to a changed climate. Our results imply stronger ongoing glacier retreat than assumed so far and a probable further enhancement of glacier disintegration by positive feedbacks.

Rapid disintegration of Alpine glaciers observed with satellite data

*So why are 90+% of the alpine glaciers receding if the world is not warming as a whole? And the recession has accelerated since this was published.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 14, 2017)

*Glacier recession and water resources in Peru's Cordillera Blanca

Authors: Baraer, Michel; Mark, Bryan G.; McKenzie, Jeffrey M.; Condom, Thomas; Bury, Jeffrey; Huh, Kyung-In; Portocarrero, Cesar; Gómez, Jesús; Rathay, Sarah

Source: Journal of Glaciology, Volume 58, Number 207, February 2012, pp. 134-150(17)

Publisher: International Glaciological Society

*

*Abstract:*
The tropical glaciers of the Cordillera Blanca, Peru, are rapidly retreating, resulting in complex impacts on the hydrology of the upper Río Santa watershed. The effect of this retreat on water resources is evaluated by analyzing historical and recent time series of daily discharge at nine measurement points. Using the Mann–Kendall nonparametric statistical test, the significance of trends in three hydrograph parameters was studied. Results are interpreted using synthetic time series generated from a hydrologic model that calculates hydrographs based on glacier retreat sequences. The results suggest that seven of the nine study watersheds have probably crossed a critical transition point, and now exhibit decreasing dry-season discharge. Our results suggest also that once the glaciers completely melt, annual discharge will be lower than present by 2–30% depending on the watershed. The retreat influence on discharge will be more pronounced during the dry season than at other periods of the year. At La Balsa, which measures discharge from the upper Río Santa, the glacier retreat could lead to a decrease in dry-season average discharge of 30%.

*Europe, Asia, North and South America, Greenland, and Anarctica, we are seeing glacier recession and thinning. Now what could possibly cause that? *


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 14, 2017)

*Change and Evolution in the Plant Hardiness Zones of Canada 
Change and Evolution in the Plant Hardiness Zones of Canada | BioScience | Oxford Academic
Published:

03 March 2014
*

*Abstract*
We present 50-year updates for two plant hardiness models (maps), developed originally by Agriculture Canada and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), that are widely used for plant selection decisions in Canada. The updated maps show clear northward shifts in hardiness zones across western Canada. Shifts are less dramatic in southeastern Canada, with modest increases in zone values associated with the Canadian map but modest declines associated with the USDA approach. Species-specific climate envelope models are an alternative to generalized hardiness zones. We generated climate envelopes for 62 northern tree species over the same 50-year interval and found an average northward shift of 57 kilometers. These changes signal an increase in the productivity and diversity of plants that can be grown in Canada. However, late spring frosts and other factors discussed herein may limit the extent to which this potential is realized.

Change and Evolution in the Plant Hardiness Zones of Canada | BioScience | Oxford Academic

*If the globe is not warming why are the agricultural zones moving north?*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 14, 2017)

*Planting your spring garden? Consider climate’s ‘new normal’*
Author: 
Caitlyn Kennedy
March 23, 2015







*plant_zone_newnormals_620.jpg*
Image Credit: 
NOAA Climate.gov
NCDC
Alternate Versions: 
*large 1971-2000 planting zone map*



large 1971-2000 planting zone map
*large 1981-2010 planting zone map*



large 1981-2010 planting zone map
*large zone changes map*



large zone changes map
Rating: 
Give Planting your spring garden? Consider climate’s ‘new normal’ 1/5
Give Planting your spring garden? Consider climate’s ‘new normal’ 2/5
Give Planting your spring garden? Consider climate’s ‘new normal’ 3/5
Give Planting your spring garden? Consider climate’s ‘new normal’ 4/5
Give Planting your spring garden? Consider climate’s ‘new normal’ 5/5
Average: 4.1 (17 votes)
Share This: 
13

Topics: 
Regional Climates
Category: 
Climate Change & Global Warming
Climate Impacts
Department: 
Images & Video
Updated NormalsPrevious NormalsZone Changes
Among the most important factors determining which plants can survive where is how cold the winter is. If you’re planting a garden this spring, this set of maps can help you see how planting zones across the country have shifted ever so subtly over the past few decades in response to warming climate.

*Click titles below maps to switch map view. *The maps at right show average minimum winter temperatures across the contiguous United States divided into 10-degree planting zones for the most recent U.S. Climate Normals (1981-2010), the old Normals (1971-2000), and how the margins of the planting zones shifted between the two time periods as a result of warmer winter minimum temperatures. In these areas, warmer nights are allowing plant species to shift their range northward.
Planting your spring garden? Consider climate’s ‘new normal’ | NOAA Climate.gov

*Nobody more practical or connected to the climate and weather than a farmer or gardener. *


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2017)

Crick said:


> The emphasis on "not global" in the first paragraph tells me that at best these are regional reports.  And that the authors don't understand the meaning of the term "global" in this context.





SSDD said:


> Global temperature is a fraud...there is no such thing.



Don't be a fool.  The entire fucking universe has an average temperature.



SSDD said:


> how valuable do you suppose an average really is when the temperature of the subject deviates nearly 200 degrees on any given day?



You don't put much thought into your comments, do you.  The average remains consistent.  Taken from the outside, the Earth is a very tidy system.  Almost every erg of energy comes from a single source, it all departs to the same sink.  The resulting numbers show clear trends.  Recall for instance, how easy it is to see major volcanic eruptions, whose aerosols cool the planet.  Please explain how you think that would be the case with the worthless fraud you claim it to be.



SSDD said:


> The regional temperature data hasn't been as heavily massaged as the global data and when you look at regions...apparently any region, the warming doesn't present itself...this tells thinking people that the global record is a big stinking fraud...it prompts glassy eyed chanting cultists to engage in logical fallacy.



Now that's bloody fucking convenient.  The regional data hasn't been as massaged?  Seems to me that you idiots have repeatedly told us of regional data being manipulated.  And, you may note, no one on this side of the argument has suggested it had.

How can the pathos of deniers lurching from one excuse to another to another to another in an ever-failing attempt to explain their unsupportable paranoia not be visible to you?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2017)

Crick said:


> Don't be a fool.  The entire fucking universe has an average temperature.



And it is bullshit to claim that it means anything....all fake all the time with you glassy eyed chanters..


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Global temperature is a fraud...there is no such thing...





Crick said:


> Don't be a fool.  The entire fucking universe has an average temperature.





SSDD said:


> And it is bullshit to claim that it means anything....all fake all the time with you glassy eyed chanters..



And your nonsense is science denial at its most retarded.....all denial of reality all the time with you gullible braindead denier cult suckers...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Mar 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> We hear it all the time...
> 
> http://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/343/2017/tc-11-343-2017.pdf
> 
> ...






 
*  Trump's defense secretary James Mattis says climate change is real -- and a national security threat *


----------



## polarbear (Mar 14, 2017)

Crick said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


And a good afternoon to you too.
Maybe you can explain today why the digital fingerprints of the SSN 691 pictures are all .png screenshots and the ones with you on it are .jpeg.
The sailors` wet suits are without a doubt Navy issue and not the same as your`s. My son in law is not in the Navy and he bought the same one you have in a store. If you want a picture of it he says he`ll snap one for me.
Your tag, I can make out your ID and how you brushed over it when you dithered the image and it`s clearly not the kind of ID tag the Navy would get you to wear on any of their premises or vessels.
The other problem is which you could easily clarify without revealing your personal ID, when were you supposedly on an environment assignment on that sub ?
It`s been decommissioned right around the time when the Obama exec order went to the Navy to assist in that kind of research.
That sub sits since then in the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery Maine under the name "ex-Memphis" where they defuel and scrap it.
Here is a seamless log of SSN 691 since it departed port the first time on June 22,1979 & ending 2012 when she was docked to be scrapped.
USS Memphis (SSN 691) history
Ironic is that the USS Memphis gained fame for the rampant cheating in Navy training exams on that vessel.
Seeing examples like that all around us every day it should not surprise you why there are so many skeptics.


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2017)

polarbear said:


> And a good afternoon to you too.
> Maybe you can explain today why the digital fingerprints of the SSN 691 pictures are all .png screenshots and the ones with you on it are .jpeg.



The digital fingerprints?  You mean the file type?  I transferred them from one computer to another via email.  I made them different types for no reason at all.



polarbear said:


> The sailors` wet suits are without a doubt Navy issue and not the same as your`s.



No one in any of those pictures is wearing a wet suit.  They are wearing one piece works suits generically known as "poopy-suits".  I am wearing my own clothing, including the Helly Hansen rain jacket.



polarbear said:


> My son in law is not in the Navy and he bought the same one you have in a store.



Good, that's where I bought mine.  It's just a fucking rain jacket.  It's hanging on a hook ten feet from where I'm sitting. The main point I thought I was getting across was that I was in a place where you don't typically see civilians, dressed as a civilian.



polarbear said:


> If you want a picture of it he says he`ll snap one for me.



If you want to see a picture of something similar (doubt they make that one anymore) just go to Helly Hansen's website and look at their rainwear.



polarbear said:


> Your tag, I can make out your ID and how you brushed over it when you dithered the image and it`s clearly not the kind of ID tag the Navy would get you to wear on any of their premises or vessels.



It's a badge and I did not brush anything.  It is covered with scraps of masking tape that we used to hold network cables up out of the way.  When I take them down, I stick them to my badge because they can be reused from there.



polarbear said:


> The other problem is which you could easily clarify without revealing your personal ID, when were you supposedly on an environment assignment on that sub ?



I rode that sub and many other submarines, ships, helicopters and aircraft to test stuff on board.  I don't know what you mean by an "environment assignment".



polarbear said:


> It`s been decommissioned right around the time when the Obama exec order went to the Navy to assist in that kind of research.
> That sub sits since then in the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery Maine under the name "ex-Memphis" where they defuel and scrap it.



So what?



polarbear said:


> Here is a seamless log of SSN 691 since it departed port the first time on June 22,1979 & ending 2012 when she was docked to be scrapped.
> USS Memphis (SSN 691) history



No thanks



polarbear said:


> Ironic is that the USS Memphis gained fame for the rampant cheating in Navy training exams on that vessel.
> Seeing examples like that all around us every day it should not surprise you why there are so many skeptics.



I guess I'm not surprised you'd take this out on the sailors. 

Point is, I'm a fucking ocean engineer.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > And a good afternoon to you too.
> ...


Alrighty then I can`t  prove that you are not an ocean engineer, whatever that is, because you won`t or can`t say when you were on that sub. All the while you used these pictures as "proof" that you were on that sub out on the ocean as an "ocean engineer"
I`m not as intransigent as you, so I`m fine with letting you be what you say you are.
But I also know who gets to call himself an engineer these days, having dealt with that kind.
They waved their diploma in my face which requires no more than a 75% score on a multiple choice exam that just about anybody passes who can guess within 75% how many candies are in the jar.
I can guess too, and my guess is that an ocean "engineer" is more of a marine biologist than an engineer who has to know the hard sciences to build and design something that actually functions.
The difference is that an engineer can do the math to specify the pump size & motor hp requirement so that you won`t have to wait 2 hours before you can flush the toilet again on the top floor of a high rise. While a "dietary engineer" can only tell you how much fat (cals) you burn taking the stairs to the top floor. So maybe it`s better if you stick with your kind of "engineering" and quit making a fool of yourself trying to lecture us about the math & physics it takes to answer what it takes to get several kilotons of water thousands of meters a.g.l. while you would have a problem doing the math to refill the toilet flush tank on a building`s top floor in a timely manner.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> *So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?*



*So...if the globe very obviously IS warming...why are you denier cult dimwits NOT calling it Global Warming?*

Could it be the severe brainwashing you've experienced?....or your complete ignorance about science?.....or your sheer stupidity?....or your extreme gullibility?....or your crackpot  rightwingnut political and economic ideologies?....or a grand combination of all of those mental afflictions???

Meanwhile, in the real world....




*The global average temperature each month from January 1880 through January 2016, according to data from NASA; The red dot marks the most recent value, January 2016. [update - July and August 2016 were even hotter than January, winding up as the hottest months ever yet recorded.]






(NASA/NOAA)




The first six months of 2016 were the warmest six-month period in NASA's modern temperature record, which dates to 1880.
Credits: NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies
*


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> Point is, I'm a fucking ocean engineer.



And why TF should it matter, provided it's true?  It shouldn't, and it doesn't.  Your word counts as much as everybody else's here, and that is to say, it counts insofar as you provide the better argument, the better sources, or not at all.  Otherwise, you've let yourself be tricked into becoming a forum spectacle, revealing more about yourself than you ever should, which serves no purpose other than to make the trolls' day.

When, in fact, this thread serves no purpose other than to spread the latest denialist scam, which reads: "I've found someone who asserts he found a spot that, at some time or other, wasn't warming, and therefore 'the globe' isn't warming."  That's ridiculous, and obviously so, since climate science has understood decades ago that on a warming planed there might be places that are actually cooling, at least during certain times of the warming process.

It's also kind of disheartening, for as long as we're "debating" either your claimed qualifications (inconsequential as they are), or that risible nonsense of a scam, we're not really debating climate change.  Rather, we're following yet another of the many stupid, time-consuming distractions served up here, which is the be-all, end-all, the entire purpose of SSDD's trollish existence on this forum.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 15, 2017)

*There has been occasional references to tree stumps on Ellsmere Island, and referring to this as proof that there have been other times in recent history that this area has been warm. But that is not the case at all. Those stumps are at least 2 million years old.*

Mummified Forest Found on Treeless Arctic Island

An ancient mummified forest, complete with well-preserved logs, leaves, and seedpods, has been discovered deep in the Canadian Arctic, scientists say.


The dry, frigid site is now surrounded by glaciers and is completely treeless, except for a few bonsai-size dwarf trees. (See Arctic aerial pictures.)

The forest was discovered recently by a research team who'd heard a surprising story from rangers in Quttinirpaaq National Park. The park is located on Ellesmere Island (see map), one of the world's northernmost landmasses.

The rangers had come across wood scattered on the ground from much larger trees than the few dwarfs currently in the area, including logs that were several feet long.

"Walking through the area, they're everywhere," said Joel Barker, an environmental scientist at Ohio State University who's leading a study of the mummified forest. "You'd have trouble not tripping over them."

(See "Tree 'Mummies' Found, Traced Back to Viking Era.")

The park rangers "had no idea what they were," but Barker suspected they must be millions of years old.

When Barker and colleagues found where the scattered logs were coming from—a slope that had been eroded by a river—they dug in and found many more logs, as well as leaves and seedpods.

"When we started pulling leaves out of the soil, that was surreal, to know that it's millions of years old and that you can hold it in your hand," Barker said at an annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco earlier this week.

Ecosystem on the Edge?

The mummified trees were likely preserved so long because they were buried quickly by landslides and thus protected from air and water, which hastens decomposition.

By studying features of the logs, leaves, and seedpods, the team identified some tree species, including pine, birch, and spruce. (See pictures of interesting tree patterns.)

The mummified forest seems to resemble modern forests growing hundreds of miles to the south, suggesting the forest must have grown during a time when the Arctic was much warmer, Barker said.

Based on the tree species, the scientists think the forest lived between ten and two million years ago.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> When, in fact, this thread serves no purpose other than to spread the latest denialist scam, which reads: "I've found someone who asserts he found a spot that, at some time or other, wasn't warming, and therefore 'the globe' isn't warming."  .



Actually, O glassy eyed chanter...those papers were all published in 2017...and show that if one looks at various places across the globe, the claim of global warming simply doesn't stack up...the only place global warming is happening is in the highly manipulated global record...and if you look at the global temperature data, only a true glassy eyed chanter could fail to notice that the warmest places on earth are those with the least instrumental coverage...  pick any year and you will see invariably, the warmest places on earth are where climate pseudoscience does the most infilling...only a dolt could fail to notice this...and only a glassy eyed chanter would accept it as science.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 15, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> When, in fact, this thread serves no purpose other than to spread the latest denialist scam, which reads: "I've found someone who asserts he found a spot that, at some time or other, wasn't warming, and therefore 'the globe' isn't warming."  .





SSDD said:


> Actually, O glassy eyed chanter...those papers were all published in 2017...and show that if one looks at various places across the globe, the claim of global warming simply doesn't stack up...the only place global warming is happening is in the highly manipulated global record...and if you look at the global temperature data, only a true glassy eyed chanter could fail to notice that the warmest places on earth are those with the least instrumental coverage...  pick any year and you will see invariably, the warmest places on earth are where climate pseudoscience does the most infilling...only a dolt could fail to notice this...and only a glassy eyed chanter would accept it as science.


And ol' SSoooDDumb spews more meaningless and very delusional denier cult gobbledegook. _"So sad"_

The strongest El Niño on record and the the poor retard thinks that the Pacicic Ocean couldn't be measured and recorded as hotter than normal. LOLOLOL.


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


I put that in response to a number of deniers here accusing me of lying. I have not waved my engineering degree in your face or anyone else's. I was asked about my education long ago and I answered.

I have waved the fact that I've passed two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer in Same Shit's face, but that's not quite the same thing.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## polarbear (Mar 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Okay, sounds fine to me. Just tell me why would you need to take a couple of semesters in thermodynamics in your line of work?
Was that your idea or was it a grad- prerequisite?
It`s not as if something could blow up and kill people if an ocean engineer does not opt for it.
But in chemical engineering it`s a very real possibility if there is minor miscalculation even at the pilot plant stage and critical when upscaling to full scale.
I`m glad to be retired because I was all too aware that even the slightest thing like an instrument malfunction can spiral out of control quicker than you can say Oh sh..t.
So don`t take it too personal that my focus is on numbers and accuracy. In my line of work there better had not be any +/- "anomalies" or generous averaging to gloss over unknowns.
Alright then I`ll leave it at that, accepting your qualifications and the next time I argue with you, you  know it`s more about the numbers & not necessarily about the theory.
I do it the same way with IanC and all those who you can`t really brand as "deniers" just because they have legitimate issues with the accuracy of the stuff that made it past the peer review which is clearly partisan.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 15, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Okay, sounds fine to me. Just tell me why would you need to take a couple of semesters in thermodynamics in your line of work?
> Was that your idea or was it a grad- prerequisite?
> It`s not as if something could blow up and kill people if an ocean engineer does not opt for it.
> But in chemical engineering it`s a very real possibility if there is minor miscalculation even at the pilot plant stage and critical when upscaling to full scale.
> ...



Such crazy desperate nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the reality of human caused global warming.....and all so pointlesss and kind of demented.....some kind of wacko paranoid theory in your own head about Crick.....and you've continued on and on and on with this BS to the point of laughable absurdity.....VERY TROLLISH BEHAVIOR on your part, poopybrain. I'd suggest that you try to get a life. And pull your head out of that FauxNews-hole too, while you're at it.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Such crazy desperate nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the reality of human caused global warming.....and all so pointlesss and kind of demented.....some kind of wacko paranoid theory in your own head about Crick.....and you've continued on and on and on with this BS to the point of laughable absurdity.....VERY TROLLISH BEHAVIOR on your part, poopybrain. I'd suggest that you try to get a life. And pull your head out of that FauxNews-hole too, while you're at it.



You are going off the deep end there thunder...You talk as if you believe that people actually read more than the first sentence of your drivel...if it isn't cut and paste, it is grade school level name calling and really, who do you think is really interested in that?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 16, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Such crazy desperate nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the reality of human caused global warming.....
> and all so pointlesss and kind of demented.....
> some kind of wacko paranoid theory in your own head about Crick.....
> and you've continued on and on and on with this BS to the point of laughable absurdity.....
> ...





SSDD said:


> You are going off the deep end there thunder...



That's pretty hilarious.....coming from an anti-science, reality-challenged denier cult troll/wacko who went "_off the deep end_" long before he ever started posting deranged bullshit on this forum.

Meanwhile, back on topic, this January was the third hottest January in the global temperature record, with record heat in many parts of the world.

*The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for January 2017 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This was the third highest January temperature in the 1880–2017 record, behind 2016 (highest) and 2007 (second highest). Separately, the global land surface temperature was also third highest for the month of January at 1.54°C (2.77°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F). The first month of the year was characterized by warmer to much-warmer-than-average conditions across much of the world's land surface, with the largest positive temperature departures from average across the eastern half of the contiguous U.S., eastern Asia, and much of Canada where temperature departures were 3.0°C (5.4°F) or greater. Cooler-than-average conditions were observed across New Zealand, the western half of the contiguous U.S., central and western Australia, northern and southern parts of Africa, western and southern Asia, and much of Europe. The most notable below-average temperature departures from average were observed across the northwestern contiguous U.S. and central Europe (-3.0 °C [-5.4°F] or colder). According to NCEI's Regional analysis, three of the six continents had at least a top six warm January, with South America having its second warmest January since continental records began in 1910, behind 2016. Meanwhile, Europe had its coldest January since 2010.*
*(source - NOAA)*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2017)

all fake all the time thunder...too bad you are so intimidated by authority that you can't bring yourself to question it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > When, in fact, this thread serves no purpose other than to spread the latest denialist scam, which reads: "I've found someone who asserts he found a spot that, at some time or other, wasn't warming, and therefore 'the globe' isn't warming."  .
> ...



Hey, how come the bulk of the "Warming" is in the oceans?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



Not so many lines that they have to stay within when they whip out those red crayons....


----------



## Crick (Mar 16, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


Ok

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Crick (Mar 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Such crazy desperate nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the reality of human caused global warming.....and all so pointlesss and kind of demented.....some kind of wacko paranoid theory in your own head about Crick.....and you've continued on and on and on with this BS to the point of laughable absurdity.....VERY TROLLISH BEHAVIOR on your part, poopybrain. I'd suggest that you try to get a life. And pull your head out of that FauxNews-hole too, while you're at it.
> ...


Wow... I hope you weren't thinking anyone was reading past the first line...

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Crick (Mar 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> all fake all the time thunder...too bad you are so intimidated by authority that you can't bring yourself to question it.


All wrong, all without proof, all without evidence, all contrary to all of mainstream science.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2017)

Crick said:


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



Nah...just the idiot skid marks on the board....thanks for verifying your status.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > all fake all the time thunder...too bad you are so intimidated by authority that you can't bring yourself to question it.
> ...




What you don't seem to grasp is that you are describing the state of mainstream climate science...I am still waiting on that first shred of observed, measured, quantified,empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...and neither you, nor all of climate science can deliver.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 17, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


the ocean ate the excess remember?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> What you don't seem to grasp is that you are describing the state of mainstream climate science...



LOLOLOLOLOL.......no, SSoooDDumb, the sane people can grasp that fact quite well......it is you delusional denier cult dumbasses who reject science and deny the science and evidence based conclusions of "_mainstream climate science_" because of your crackpot political and economic ideological obsessions that have nothing to do with science.









SSDD said:


> I am still waiting on that first shred of observed, measured, quantified,empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...and neither you, nor all of climate science can deliver.



You're only "_still waiting_", you poor retarded stooge, because you've closed your eyes to the hundreds of times you've been shown the scientific evidence supporting the reality of AGW.....and you do that because you are a crackpot cultist in a astroturfed cult of reality denial, sponsored by the Koch brothers and EXXON, and the facts and evidence demolish your fraudulent cultic dogmas. Which you're too stupid to realize.
***

Meanwhile, the globe continues to rapidly warm up in response to the 46% increase (to date) in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2,....and scientists and sane people continue to call it 'global warming', as scientists have been doing continuously since 1975.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 18, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What you don't seem to grasp is that you are describing the state of mainstream climate science...
> ...




s0n......the people decide who is the cult and who is not......NOT the scientists!! The EPA is getting its balls kicked in and all climate science research funding is getting its nut sack ripped off. The "sane" people know what that means = the alarmist view is losing.. And losing decisively I might add......no more bs big $$ expenditures on solar power by the taxpayers = more huge winning by people who laugh at the alarmists.

Hey asshole.........post me up one single link showing us where your side is winning?


By the way s0n......were you raised by fairies because you sure as hell post like a woman..........you can even ask the other alarmists in here.( excluding Mamooth.....another feminine-type ). How many times did you get picked last for the team?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 18, 2017)

Coming back to the unpleasant reality that all the conspiracy-addled deniers are trying so hard to avoid ...

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: February 2017 was second-warmest February on record

Golly. Only the second hottest February ever for February 2017 (+1.1C), only falling behind February 2016 (+1.3C).

And that was on the tail end of a weak La Nina in 2017, compared to being part of an El Nino in 2016.

That is, the strong global warming continues. And it will keep continuing for years, and the deniers here will keep looking more ridiculous.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 18, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Coming back to the unpleasant reality that all the conspiracy-addled deniers are trying so hard to avoid ...
> 
> Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: February 2017 was second-warmest February on record
> 
> ...



Only if you look at the heavily manipulated global record which is made up largely of infilling...look at individual regions across the globe and you don't find such warming...that's because the warmest "EVAH" claims are just more fake science produced to make fake news.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Only if you look at the heavily manipulated global record which is made up largely of infilling...



No, "infilling" is a crap buzzword that the most desperate and dishonest cultists toss out to deflect from the fact that all the data says they're lying.

What, you thought it wasn't obvious?

We get it. The point of your lies isn't to convince anyone, because even you know better than that. The point of it is to show how loyal to the cult you are. If you're humiliated for it, so much the better, as that demonstrates how you're willing to suffer for the cult, earning you major cult brownie points. And being that your cult is composed of mentally unstable people and violent people, you do need to keep on the good side of your fellow cultists.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 18, 2017)

Nah...infilling is the means of having the hottest year evah year after year even if it is only by hundredths of a degree...  Its all fake all the time with you glassy eyed chanting cultists..


----------



## mamooth (Mar 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Nah...infilling is the means of having the hottest year evah year after year even if it is only by hundredths of a degree...



Yes, that's your conspiracy. You've never backed it up, and never will.

No, your propaganda images are not actual evidence. You have no actual evidence, and never will, because it's just a loopy conspiracy theory your cult created.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Nah...infilling is the means of having the hottest year evah year after year even if it is only by hundredths of a degree...
> ...



Of course I did...you are just to damned stupid to recognize the truth when you see it...bitterness and lies are all you revere.


----------



## Crick (Mar 20, 2017)

Throwing up a picture of land data only (clearly labeled as such) is probably not the best way to pull off the lie that neither the 3,980 ARGO buoys currently deployed 






nor the several satellites currently gathering data






aren't.

Over and over again you show yourself to be a blatant liar.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What you don't seem to grasp is that you are describing the state of mainstream climate science...
> ...


says the guy who uses words like consensus as science words.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Only if you look at the heavily manipulated global record which is made up largely of infilling...
> ...


no, infilling is exactly what is done and was confirmed by the NOAA:

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
" *Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas):* “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.  In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference."


----------



## Rambunctious (Mar 20, 2017)




----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> What you don't seem to grasp is that you are describing the state of mainstream climate science...





RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOLOL.......no, SSoooDDumb, the sane people can grasp that fact quite well......it is you delusional denier cult dumbasses who reject science and deny the science and evidence based conclusions of "_mainstream climate science_" because of your crackpot political and economic ideological obsessions that have nothing to do with science.











SSDD said:


> I am still waiting on that first shred of observed, measured, quantified,empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...and neither you, nor all of climate science can deliver.





RollingThunder said:


> You're only "_still waiting_", you poor retarded stooge, because you've closed your eyes to the hundreds of times you've been shown the scientific evidence supporting the reality of AGW.....and you do that because you are a crackpot cultist in a astroturfed cult of reality denial, sponsored by the Koch brothers and EXXON, and the facts and evidence demolish your fraudulent cultic dogmas. Which you're too stupid to realize.
> ***
> 
> Meanwhile, the globe continues to rapidly warm up in response to the 46% increase (to date) in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2,....and scientists and sane people continue to call it 'global warming', as scientists have been doing continuously since 1975.





jc456 said:


> says the guy who uses words like consensus as science words.



Well, yeah, dumbass, because 'consensus' is, in fact, a word commonly used in science. It is only your loony cult of reality denial that has demonized the word for you cult members.....simply because the worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming is, almost unanimously, that it is very real and poses enormous dangers to our human civilizations and our planet's ecology and biosphere. Too bad you are too stupid and brainwashed to be able to recognize that fact, SSoooDDumb.

In the real world......

*Scientific consensus*
Wikipedia
*Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]

Politicization of science
Main article: Politicization of science

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

For example, the scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[8][9][10] The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[11] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[12] Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.[2]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is also supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus; it is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science.[13][14] Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[15] The wedge strategy, a plan to promote intelligent design, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[16]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.[2]

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.[2]

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time – and adjusting policy as needed.*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 21, 2017)

Funny thunder..you post that bullshit as if you actually believe it...hell, maybe you do...although if you do, I wouldn't admit it if I were you..


----------



## miketx (Mar 21, 2017)

Crick said:


> I can't think of any facts with which I've ever been aquatinted. But you are getting better at lying.  You know it, I know it and everyone who read your last piece knows it.


Goodness! Another liberal pretending to speak for everyone.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Funny thunder..you post that bullshit as if you actually believe it...hell, maybe you do...although if you do, I wouldn't admit it if I were you..


You continue to moronically deny science like an utter retard, SSoooDDumb, just for the sake of your crackpot far-rightwingnut political and economic ideologies. You are such a deluded ludicrous fool.

And BTW, the "_globe_" _*IS*_ warming.....





*Anomaly of global mean March surface temperature from 1891 through 2016, relative to a 1981-2010 base period average, shown by gray line and dots. The blue line denotes a five-year running mean while the red line indicates the long-term March temperature trend. (Japan Meteorological Agency)*


----------



## miketx (Mar 21, 2017)

Personal attacks when cornered and cartoon drawings are all you can come up with?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 21, 2017)

miketx said:


> Personal attacks when cornered and cartoon drawings are all you can come up with?


Idiotic anti-science denier cult drivel is all you can come up with? "_Sad_".


----------



## SSDD (Mar 21, 2017)

Sorry thunder...some places are warming slightly...others are cooling...some are static..the "globe" is only warming in computer models and tortured global data sets.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry thunder...some places are warming slightly...others are cooling...some are static..the "globe" is only warming in computer models and tortured global data sets.


That's your denier cult insanity.....like flat-earthers insisting that humans never landed on the moon.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 22, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry thunder...some places are warming slightly...others are cooling...some are static..the "globe" is only warming in computer models and tortured global data sets.
> ...



That's all you have thunder?....made up arguments...when did I ever say humans never landed on the moon?  The fact is that the "globe" isn't warming...when you look at regional records, you see a few places warming...a few cooling, but mostly the temps are static..the only place the whole globe is warming is in computer models and the highly manipulated global record...

Again...

Not warming in Antarctica






Not warming in the North Pacifiic






Not warming in Iceland






Not warming in France






Not warming in Turkey






Not warming in Scotland







Not warming in the North Atlantic






Ocean heat content is decreasing















So tell me thunder...where is it warming?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So tell me thunder...where is it warming?



Everywhere that you didn't cherrypick from.

Do you really think your dishonest cherrypicking fools anyone?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So tell me thunder...where is it warming?
> ...



Really?

It isn't warming in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.






It isn't warming in Tanzania






It isn't warming in Uganda







Doesn't seem to be warming in New Zealand







And it could go on and on....look at regional records and you see some warming, some cooling, and some static...the idea of "global warming" is just fake news.


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2017)

Your first plot isn't even temperature.

God are you stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 25, 2017)

Crick said:


> Your first plot isn't even temperature.
> 
> God are you stupid.





So I grabbed the wrong graph...the rest still prove my point...your discounting of the rest because of one demonstrates your stupidity...not mine...catch any misspellings, or punctuation errors while you were at it?...what a f'ing loser.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So tell me thunder...where is it warming?
> ...


Get a grip on reality. It's not cherry "picking", when there is almost nothing but cherries in the harvest then they weren't "picked". You on the other hand go sour grapes picking in a truckload of cherries or whatever else is the bulk.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 25, 2017)

The reality is that the globe is warming. All the earth observing satellites of the various nations show that. All the weather agencies of the various nations show that. Only a few idiots deny it.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry thunder...some places are warming slightly...others are cooling...some are static..the "globe" is only warming in computer models and tortured global data sets.





RollingThunder said:


> That's your denier cult insanity.....like flat-earthers insisting that humans never landed on the moon.





SSDD said:


> That's all you have thunder?....



Yup! Science, evidence, and the almost unanimous testimony of the world scientific community.

*NASA - Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change*



*Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with the base period 1951-1980. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates.* 




*A line plot of global annual-mean surface air temperature change, with the base period 1951-1980, derived from the meteorological station network. *







SSDD said:


> So tell me thunder...where is it warming?



Where? Most places on the Earth. Like here....


*NOAA: 'Arctic Is Warming at Least Twice as Fast as the Rest of the Planet'*
Dec. 14, 2016
*The Arctic broke multiple climate records and saw its highest temperatures ever recorded this year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) annual Arctic Report Card released Tuesday. 





Map: Temperatures across the Arctic from October 2015-September 2016 compared to the 1981-2010 average. Graph: Yearly temperatures since 1900 compared to the 1981-2010 average for the Arctic (orange line) and the globe (gray).NOAA

The report shows surface air temperature in September at the highest level since 1900 "by far" and the region set new monthly record highs in January, February, October and November. "The Arctic as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet," report author and NOAA climate scientist Jeremy Mathis told NPR.

Report Card Highlights

* The average surface air temperature for the year ending September 2016 is by far the highest since 1900 and new monthly record highs were recorded for January, February, October and November 2016.

* After only modest changes from 2013-2015, minimum sea ice extent at the end of summer 2016 tied with 2007 for the second lowest in the satellite record, which started in 1979.

* Spring snow cover extent in the North American Arctic was the lowest in the satellite record, which started in 1967.

* In 37 years of Greenland ice sheet observations, only one year had earlier onset of spring melting than 2016.

* The Arctic Ocean is especially prone to ocean acidification, due to water temperatures that are colder than those further south. The short Arctic food chain leaves Arctic marine ecosystems vulnerable to ocean acidification events.

* Thawing permafrost releases carbon into the atmosphere, whereas greening tundra absorbs atmospheric carbon. Overall, tundra is presently releasing net carbon into the atmosphere.

* Small Arctic mammals, such as shrews, and their parasites, serve as indicators for present and historical environmental variability. Newly acquired parasites indicate northward sifts of sub-Arctic species and increases in Arctic biodiversity.
*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 25, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> The reality is that the globe is warming. All the earth observing satellites of the various nations show that. All the weather agencies of the various nations show that. Only a few idiots deny it.




Fake science...fake news...its all fake all the time with you rocks.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 25, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Yup! Science, evidence, and the almost unanimous testimony of the world scientific community.



And you try to support your position with failing computer models, cartoons, and a tortured temperature data set...laughing in your face thunder...laughing because you are such a dupe.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 25, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> The reality is that the globe is warming. All the earth observing satellites of the various nations show that. All the weather agencies of the various nations show that. Only a few idiots deny it.





SSDD said:


> Fake science...fake news...its all fake all the time with you rocks.



LOLOLOLOL......good example of denier cult insanity!

These denier cult dumbshits are actually stupid and ignorant enough to believe in a deranged crackpot conspiracy theory that claims that almost all of the scientists in the world are in a huge conspiracy to generate "_fake science_".....and, of course, those retarded fools who fall for that garbage know nothing at all about science but somehow imagine that they know more about everything than all of the PhD scientists. INSANITY!!!


----------



## polarbear (Mar 25, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> The reality is that the globe is warming. All the earth observing satellites of the various nations show that. All the weather agencies of the various nations show that. Only a few idiots deny it.


Why then are satellite temperature readings disqualified as official recording methods?
List of weather records - Wikipedia
_Each of these records is understood to be the record value officially observed, as these records may have been exceeded before modern weather instrumentation was invented, or in remote areas without an official weather station. This list does not include remotely sensed observations such as satellite measurements, since those values are not considered official records.[1]
_
Satellites measure ground temperature that may exceed air temperature by as much as 50 C, that's why !
_
The standard measuring conditions for temperature are in the air, 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) above the ground, and shielded from direct sunlight intensity (hence the term, x degrees "in the shade")._


----------



## polarbear (Mar 25, 2017)

_World Meteorological Organization's World Weather & Climate Extremes Archive
The truth be told, world record extremes are mistakenly created all the time. For example a "fat finger" errors such as hand digitizing a 28.0°C as 82.0 would create a world record observation that every quality control system would say was invalid. Additionally, instrumentation problems can generate a report far in excess of the meteorological conditions. But sometimes a combination of fairly extreme meteorological conditions with minor instrumentation problems, such as calibration errors, can necessitate considerable detective work to determine whether a new world record observation was indeed valid or not. Since weather records are often used as indicators that the Earth's climate is changing and/or becoming more extreme, confirmation of new weather extreme records should be recognized as a high priority in the meteorology community.
_
Dollars to donuts the data which is used to graph these anomalies you like so much do not undergo the same kind of scrutiny.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 25, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> The reality is that the globe is warming. All the earth observing satellites of the various nations show that. All the weather agencies of the various nations show that. Only a few idiots deny it.





polarbear said:


> Why then are satellite temperature readings disqualified as official recording methods?


They aren't "_disqualified_", you poor ignorant nutjob.





*The lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly, via UAH scientist Roy Spencer.*







polarbear said:


> List of weather records - Wikipedia
> _Each of these records is understood to be the record value officially observed, as these records may have been exceeded before modern weather instrumentation was invented, or in remote areas without an official weather station. This list does not include remotely sensed observations such as satellite measurements, since those values are not considered official records.[1]
> _
> Satellites measure ground temperature that may exceed air temperature by as much as 50 C, that's why !
> ...



LOLOLOLOL.....and there goes ol' poop4brains, fumbling with science that he is far too stupid to understand....


----------



## SSDD (Mar 31, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL.....and there goes ol' poop4brains, fumbling with science that he is far too stupid to understand....



Name calling and wiki...that about sums you up thunder...


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2017)

All of us here have repeatedly tried showing you good science.  You refuse to consider it.  You've made up your mind that you're smarter than all the world's scientists and that your unsupportable, irrational, illogical bullshit is the way the world works.  Psychiatrists deal with such problems every day.  You should see one.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 31, 2017)

Crick said:


> All of us here have repeatedly tried showing you good science.  You refuse to consider it.  You've made up your mind that you're smarter than all the world's scientists and that your unsupportable, irrational, illogical bullshit is the way the world works.  Psychiatrists deal with such problems every day.  You should see one.



All you have shown me crick, is that you wouldn't know good science if it bit you on the ass...you have demonstrated beyond any doubt that you are easily fooled by instrumentation...and that climate scientists are routinely fooled by instrumentation...that is not good science by any definition..


----------



## polarbear (Mar 31, 2017)

Crick said:


> All of us here have repeatedly tried showing you good science.  You refuse to consider it.  You've made up your mind that you're smarter than all the world's scientists and that your unsupportable, irrational, illogical bullshit is the way the world works.  Psychiatrists deal with such problems every day.  You should see one.


Not all the world's scientists have an inadequate knowledge & understanding of physics as climatologists.
All it takes to be one is what John Cook, the cartoonist & "skeptical scientist" did and assume the identity of a theoretical physicist to make a case for climate "science". Much like some "nuclear engineer" who keeps posting here


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2017)

Do you believe that matter can control its own IR emissions so as to never radiate towards a warmer target?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 31, 2017)

Crick said:


> All of us here have repeatedly tried showing you good science.  You refuse to consider it.  You've made up your mind that you're smarter than all the world's scientists and that your unsupportable, irrational, illogical bullshit is the way the world works.  Psychiatrists deal with such problems every day.  You should see one.





polarbear said:


> Not all the world's scientists have an inadequate knowledge & understanding of physics as climatologists.


Pretty strange then how virtually all of the world's scientists affirm the conclusions of climate scientists.....the reality here is obviously that you are just an ignorant denier cult liar with way less than zero "_knowledge & understanding of physics_".

In the real world....

*The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:
*

*Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]*
*Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]*
*Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]*
*The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]*
*The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global changedrivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]*
*Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13]which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.*


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2017)

To PolarBear



Crick said:


> Do you believe that matter can control its own IR emissions so as to never radiate towards a warmer target?



Still waiting.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2017)

polarbear said:


> All it takes to be one is what John Cook, the cartoonist & "skeptical scientist" did and assume the identity of a theoretical physicist to make a case for climate "science".



That's some fine Cook Derangement syndrome. John Cook never said he was a theoretical physicist. Why did you tell that lie?

My guess is that you hate how Cook's web page makes it so convenient to debunk denier lies. You can't debate the content, so you're attacking the man.



> Much like some "nuclear engineer" who keeps posting here



Sad that you couldn't even insult me to my face, ya big ol' limp-wrister.

If you start this shit again, I'll immediately drag your fudgepacked ass over to the vets forum, and you can explain to all the vets here why you're spitting on my military service.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2017)

mamooth said:


> If you start this shit again, I'll immediately drag your fudgepacked ass over to the vets forum, and you can explain to all the vets here why you're spitting on my military service.



Big talk from a bitter old liberal whore...

And the only thing john cook provides is comic relief....which you glassy eyed chanters promptly grab up and spread about.  To bad none of you have a sense of humor...he gives you great punch line after great punch line and you inevitably screw them up...bad timing I guess..or maybe it is that you don't realize that you are telling a joke.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 3, 2017)

mamooth said:


> If you start this shit again, I'll immediately drag your fudgepacked ass over to the vets forum, and you can explain to all the vets here why you're spitting on my military service.





SSDD said:


> Big talk from a bitter old liberal whore...


Really retarded talk from a bitter and very ignorant old denier cult troll.








SSDD said:


> And the only thing john cook provides is...


...accurate science and a comprehensive debunking of your fraudulent denier cult myths and lies.

Which is why you hate and fear Mr. Cook and his website, you poor moronic denier cult dingleberry.

*****

And in the real world, it is called 'global warming' because, the Earth is, *in fact*, warming up un-naturally, far beyond the range of natural variation....a fact that virtually the entire world scientific community affirms.....and only ignorant anti-science trolls stooging for the fossil fuel industry deny.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Really retarded talk from a bitter and very ignorant old denier cult troll.





RollingThunder said:


> Again, you couldn't be more wrong thunder...I am the farthest thing from bitter...of course you wouldn't know that since you can't see past your own crippling psychological problems.



I hate and fear no one...hate and fear are liberal characteristics...Which is why you hate and fear Mr. Cook and his website, you poor moronic denier cult dingleberry.[/quote]

I hate and fear no one...again, since that is the state of your life as a result of the terrible abuse you have suffered, you are, I am sure, unable to imagine living without those emotions in the forefront of your mind all the time...aside from those who have been abused, hate and fear are liberal characteristics...



RollingThunder said:


> And in the real world, it is called 'global warming' because, the Earth is, *in fact*, warming up un-naturally, far beyond the range of natural variation....a fact that virtually the entire world scientific community affirms.....and only ignorant anti-science trolls stooging for the fossil fuel industry deny.



Nope...some places are warming...some places are cooling but most places are not doing much of anything...to call anything the climate is doing at present global is disingenuous at best, but mostly it is a bald faced lie.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 3, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Really retarded talk from a bitter and very ignorant old denier cult troll.





RollingThunder said:


> Again, you couldn't be more wrong thunder...I am the farthest thing from bitter...of course you wouldn't know that since you can't see past your own crippling psychological problems.



I hate and fear no one...hate and fear are liberal characteristics...Which is why you hate and fear Mr. Cook and his website, you poor moronic denier cult dingleberry.[/quote]

I hate and fear no one...again, since that is the state of your life as a result of the terrible abuse you have suffered, you are, I am sure, unable to imagine living without those emotions in the forefront of your mind all the time...aside from those who have been abused, hate and fear are liberal characteristics...



RollingThunder said:


> And in the real world, it is called 'global warming' because, the Earth is, *in fact*, warming up un-naturally, far beyond the range of natural variation....a fact that virtually the entire world scientific community affirms.....and only ignorant anti-science trolls stooging for the fossil fuel industry deny.





SSDD said:


> Nope...some places are warming...some places are cooling but most places are not doing much of anything...to call anything the climate is doing at present global is disingenuous at best, but mostly it is a bald faced lie.



LOLOLOLOL.......you are soooo incompetent, SSoooDDumb, you can't even manage to format your posts correctly. What a mess!

 And of course, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are very retarded, very ignorant, and completely full of misinformation and lies.

In the real world....

*July 2016: The World’s Hottest Month on Record*
September 26, 2016




_*In the graphic above, the red line is the 5-year average. The black dots represent each year’s average temperature. The latest black dot represents 2015’s average temperature for the year and 2016 is predicted to be even higher than that.*_
*
This past July has been the hottest month ever recorded. The previous records were July 2015 and July 2011. The combined temperatures world-wide were .84 degrees celsius warmer than the yearly average.

July 2016 was the tenth consecutive month that was 1 degree celsius warmer than average. 2016 ended up being the hottest year on record. Previously, the hottest year on record was 2015 with temperatures being .90 degrees celsius warmer than average.

Galvin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, states that July 2016 should be the end of the 10 month hot streak due to the ending of El Niño. 

“While El Niño provided a boost to global temperatures this year, the bulk of the heat is what has been trapped by accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” said Andrea Thompson, climatologist at Climate Central.

The record heats have not only been dangerous due to the heat-stroke level temperatures. The presumed hottest year yet has also brought flood disasters to the United States, the latest of which is still devastating to parts of Louisiana as well as China.*


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 3, 2017)

Matthew said:


> I've never seen a dataset showing that the earth isn't warming...
> 
> Why do people on the internet that haven't ever touched a ground station or looked through raw data think they know more then every institution on this planet? It is sick.



You would not know a dataset if it jumped out and bit you on your ass.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 3, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > If you start this shit again, I'll immediately drag your fudgepacked ass over to the vets forum, and you can explain to all the vets here why you're spitting on my military service.
> ...



*the Earth is, in fact, warming up un-naturally, far beyond the range of natural variation....a fact that virtually the entire world scientific community affirms*
*

*
WTF*?





 

*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 3, 2017)

bear513 said:


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




You lie again even John Cooks blog won't say something that stupid


Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles




Of course, it*'s always possible that some natural cycle exists, unknown to scientists and their instruments, that is currently causing the planet to warm. *There's always a chance that we could be totally wrong. This omnipresent fact of science is called irreducible uncertainty, because it can never be entirely eliminated. However, it's very unlikely that such a cycle exists.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And the only thing john cook provides is...





RollingThunder said:


> ...accurate science and a comprehensive debunking of your fraudulent denier cult myths and lies. Which is why you hate and fear Mr. Cook and his website, you poor moronic denier cult dingleberry.
> And in the real world, it is called 'global warming' because, the Earth is, *in fact*, warming up un-naturally, far beyond the range of natural variation....a fact that virtually the entire world scientific community affirms.....and only ignorant anti-science trolls stooging for the fossil fuel industry deny.





bear513 said:


> *the Earth is, in fact, warming up un-naturally, far beyond the range of natural variation....a fact that virtually the entire world scientific community affirms
> *
> WTF*? *



This kind of dimwitted twit response to a simple statement of fact actually has a name.....it's called '*Argument From Personal Incredulity*'....and it is a common response one gets from utter retards who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, so they moronically reject as false everything they can't understand. Another varient on the '_too stupid to know how stupid you are_' quirk that afflicts most of the denier cult dingbats.

This logically fallacious '_argument from personal incredulity_', takes the form "_this is ridiculous and beyond what anyone could know (_i.e. -_ I can't understand it), so it must be false_"....and it contains the totally braindead assumption that the speaker is a superhuman genius who should be able to understand everything....unless he is not seeing something (but he's sure he's a genius, so...that's out). So the "superhuman genius" concludes that some assumption ('natural cycles' and the scientists are all crooks) is true, because it makes things easier to understand.

*ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY
TrulyFallacious
Asserting that because one finds something difficult to understand it can’t be true.
This fallacy is based more on lack of understanding than lack of information. Often used as a means to distrust science on the basis of it being highly technical and difficult to put into layman terms, this fallacy is the standby of regressives who wish everything to remain the way things used to be. To avoid changing one’s mind, the person merely avoids advancing their understanding of the topic at hand.
***

Argument from Personal Incredulity - Logical Fallacies
Video*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL.......you are soooo incompetent, SSoooDDumb, you can't even manage to format your posts correctly. What a mess!



Hey, you found a formatting error...find any punctuation or spelling errors?...give yourself a little fist pump down in your parent's basement over that one?..

 Sorry thunder..."global" warming doesn't exist...some places are warming...some are cooling, and most are standing still..the only way to get a global increase in temperature is by massive infilling of data...that means....just making it up. I know that someone of your limited capacity would never question why the warmest places on earth according to climate science are invariably the places with the least instrumental coverage...but then, that is how you have fallen so hard for the scam...scams are designed to catch the slow and stupid...congratulations.


----------



## Crick (Apr 4, 2017)

No one ever suggested the entire planet would be warming at any given time.  The contrary was clearly stated in the earliest assessment reports and every one since.  Your latest gambit, running around the planet and finding every location that hasn't warmed recently is just cherry picking bullshit.  All those numbers are taken into the global average.  The planet, as a whole, is warming just as NOAA, NCDC, Hadley, Met, BEST and JAXA say it is.

There has been more than enough conversation here over the years that virtually every person here knows this claim is a paragon of cherry-picking.  That makes you dishonest Shit.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2017)

Crick said:


> No one ever suggested the entire planet would be warming at any given time.



Whats the matter crick...don't know what the word global means?

global - adjective
1.pertaining to the whole world; worldwide; universal



Crick said:


> The contrary was clearly stated in the earliest assessment reports and every one since.  Your latest gambit, running around the planet and finding every location that hasn't warmed recently is just cherry picking bullshit.  All those numbers are taken into the global average.  The planet, as a whole, is warming just as NOAA, NCDC, Hadley, Met, BEST and JAXA say it is.



The only place the globe is warming is in computer models and highly manipulated data sets.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry thunder..."global" warming doesn't exist...some places are warming...some are cooling, and most are standing still..the only way to get a global increase in temperature is by massive infilling of data...that means....just making it up.


Repeating over and over your fraudulent denial of reality won't change reality, you poor retard.





SSDD said:


> I know that someone of your limited capacity would never question why the warmest places on earth according to climate science are invariably the places with the least instrumental coverage...


While that may be generally accurate, there is a real reason for it that isn't part of your crackpot conspiracy theory insanity, SSoooDDumb. Moreover, a number of those places, like Death Valley, have had good "_instrumental coverage_" for a long time. As to the reason the hottest places have had minimal "_coverage_", it is pretty obvious.....few people live in those 'hottest places', for the obvious reasons.

*"The places that are recorded as the hottest on Earth are places that generally see scorching temperatures. And these places usually have a few characteristics in common, according to Weather.com. They tend to be in deserts with little soil moisture or vegetation, where there is a lot of direct sunshine unimpeded by clouds during the hot season. This means the sun’s energy goes directly into heating the ground. These places also tend to be at lower elevations."*

So, *scorching temperatures *_and_* deserts with little soil moisture or vegetation *means these areas are virtually uninhabited...which accounts for the fact that there are very few weather stations.....not your insane assumption that "_there must be a conspiracy_".





SSDD said:


> but then, that is how you have fallen so hard for the scam...scams are designed to catch the slow and stupid...congratulations.


This reality denying fossil fuel industry scam (you may be a victim of it or you may be a paid troll pushing it) was indeed "_designed to catch the slow and stupid_", and the ignorant and ideologically insane......'cause see, they caught you and the other "_slow and stupid_" denier cult rightwingnut retards.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> While that may be generally accurate, there is a real reason for it that isn't part of your crackpot conspiracy theory insanity, SSoooDDumb. Moreover, a number of those places, like Death Valley, have had good "_instrumental coverage_" for a long time. As to the reason the hottest places have had minimal "_coverage_", it is pretty obvious.....few people live in those 'hottest places', for the obvious reasons.



So you think it is a good idea to put more instrumentation where more people live?  Let the urban heat island effect weigh more heavily?  Again, you simply do not think.  It is the rural stations that give us the better picture of what the temperatures actually are..and what the trends really look like.  There is a reason that climate science has deleted some 75% of the rural stations have been deleted from the system since the 1970's.

As a result, the urban heat island effect has added about .09C per decade to the land temperatures over the past decade alone.  Here, have a look.














And if follows that pattern across the globe...  Rural areas are not showing the warming that urban areas are showing....as a result, what appears to be warming is nothing more than urban heat restricted to local areas...











Here is the temperature showing only rural stations across the northern hemisphere...as you can see, the bit of warming we have seen is no worse than the warming leading up to the 1950's...what you believe is global warming is nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed to fool idiots.






If you want to know what drives the climate, look at that big fiery ball in the sky...











There is a reason some 600 papers have been published since 2016 calling the mainstream "science" into question...and there is a reason you believe what you do, and as strongly as you do, but it has nothing to do with actual science...it has everything to do with how gullible you are.


----------



## Crick (Apr 7, 2017)

When you start referencing Soon for TSI v temp data, you've thrown away any pretence of objectivity.  That data was bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2017)

Crick said:


> When you start referencing Soon for TSI v temp data, you've thrown away any pretence of objectivity.  That data was bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.




Says the guy who references skeptical science...you are laughable crick...and you are one of the least objective people here...an objective person....when finding themselves unable to provide even the smallest piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting AGW over natural variability, would start to wonder why they hold the position they hold..but do you wonder?...not even a little..you just double down on the cult dogma and claim that you have provided mountains of such evidence, and that mountains of such evidence exists, even though you know I am going to ask to see it and you know just as well that you won't be able to provide it...

So lets do the sensible person asks the monkey a question thing again...This time I ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...

Now, the monkey...being a monkey...will hurl some form of feces in frustration, and not fulfill the request....and why is the monkey frustrated...because the sensible person asked the monkey to fulfill an impossible request since no such evidence exists.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 7, 2017)

Crick said:


> When you start referencing Soon for TSI v temp data, you've thrown away any pretence of objectivity.  That data was bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.





SSDD said:


> Says the guy who references skeptical science...you are laughable crick...and you are one of the least objective people here...an objective person....when finding themselves unable to provide even the smallest piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting AGW over natural variability, would start to wonder why they hold the position they hold..but do you wonder?...not even a little..you just double down on the cult dogma and claim that you have provided mountains of such evidence, and that mountains of such evidence exists, even though you know I am going to ask to see it and you know just as well that you won't be able to provide it...
> 
> So lets do the sensible person asks the monkey a question thing again...This time I ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...
> 
> Now, the monkey...being a monkey...will hurl some form of feces in frustration, and not fulfill the request....and why is the monkey frustrated...because the sensible person asked the monkey to fulfill an impossible request since no such evidence exists.



Once again SSoooDDumb repeats his litany of fraudulent denier cult myths that have no connection to reality, as if constant repetition is going to somehow make them magically become true.

In the real world, there are literally mountains of "_observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting AGW over natural variability_"......enough in fact, to convince the entire world scientific community of the reality of human caused global warming.

For those who aren't brainwashed trolls, here are a few examples of some good, reputable places to find that evidence - there are lots more....

*Climate change: How do we know? - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence - NASA
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced ...
***
How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming? - Union of Concerned Scientists
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: it is a ... So how do scientists know that today's warming is primarily caused by humans putting too much carbon in the ...
***
How do we know humans are causing global warming? - Global warming, explained - Vox
Climate scientists say they are 95 percent certain that human influence has been the dominant cause of global warming since 1950. They're about as sure ... How do we know global warming is real? 3. How do we know ...
***
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming - Skeptical Science
This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. ... Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was −18 °C. In other words, ...
***
Human Caused Global Warming — OSS Foundation
How do we know current global warming is human caused, or man made? Is global warming real, or a hoax? Consider the facts: the climate system is indicated to have left the natural cycle path; multiple lines of ...
***
How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? - Climate Central
Nov 7, 2009 - In other words, climate variations are not at all unusual. So how do we know this one is caused by humans? Several reasons. First, we know that burning coal, oil, and gas releases heat-trapping ...
***
The Reality, Risks and Response to Climate Change - American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) - "What We Know"
Thus, it is important and increasingly urgent for the public to know there is now a high degree of agreement among climate scientists that human-caused climate change is real. Moreover, while the public is becoming ...
***
How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities? - Royal Society
Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change  ...
***
What sparked global warming? People did. - Environmental Defense Fund
3 days ago - But you can also do your part to propel large-scale progress: Tell your leaders where you stand and voice your support ... Scientists are more confident than ever that humans are causing global warming.*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Once again SSoooDDumb repeats his litany of fraudulent denier cult myths that have no connection to reality, as if constant repetition is going to somehow make them magically become true.
> 
> In the real world, there are literally mountains of "_observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting AGW over natural variability_"......enough in fact, to convince the entire world scientific community of the reality of human caused global warming.



So you say...and yet, you don't seem to be able to post any...but lets look at what passes for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in that little mind of yours...


*


RollingThunder said:



Climate change: How do we know? - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence - NASA

Click to expand...




RollingThunder said:



Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced ...

Click to expand...


*
Right there in the second sentence...they say it is "likely" human induced...that is how climate science is done...no actual evidence... just claims. They certainly show evidence of climate change, but don't have the first shred of actual evidence that supports AGW over natural variability. But if you think there is something in that paper that amounts to actual evidence that supports AGW over natural variability, by all means, go cut it out and paste it here.


*


RollingThunder said:



How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming? - Union of Concerned Scientists

Click to expand...




RollingThunder said:



The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: it is a ... So how do scientists know that today's warming is primarily caused by humans putting too much carbon in the ...

Click to expand...


*
From the union of concerned scientists?  Really?  Personally, I would be embarrassed to post anything from that wacko outfit..but apparently it is one of your most trusted sources...Do you know anything about the membership of the union of concerned scientists?...   Here, let me post you a photo of a card holding, voting member in good standing..






In short, anyone willing to pay the dues can be a member of the union of concerned scientists...and in that link, they post evidence of climate change, but not the first actual piece of evidence supporting AGW over natural variability.


*


RollingThunder said:



How do we know humans are causing global warming? - Global warming, explained - Vox

Click to expand...




RollingThunder said:



Climate scientists say they are 95 percent certain that human influence has been the dominant cause of global warming since 1950. They're about as sure ... How do we know global warming is real? 3. How do we know ...

Click to expand...


*
This bunch is 95% certain that we are causing warming, but don't seem to be able to provide any actual evidence in support of the claim...again, if there is anything there that you believe amounts to observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability, by all means, bring it here.

*


RollingThunder said:



Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming - Skeptical Science
This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. ... Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was −18 °C. In other words, 

Click to expand...

*

Skeptical Science?  Im laughing at you...those guys are even worse than the union of concerned scientists...you believe cartoonists do you?...So they make lots of claims, but don't have the first piece of actual evidence to support said claims...again, if you think there is some actual evidence there supporting AGW over natural variability, bring it here.

*


RollingThunder said:



Human Caused Global Warming — OSS Foundation
How do we know current global warming is human caused, or man made? Is global warming real, or a hoax? Consider the facts: the climate system is indicated to have left the natural cycle path; multiple lines of ...
		
Click to expand...

*
Again...evidence that the climate is changing...nothing more than assumptions that we are causing it...not the first shred of observed measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability.

See a trend developing here thunder?...If you believe there is any actual observed, measured quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability in any of those links...or anywhere else for that matter, bring it here...or do you even have any idea of what observed, measured, quantified evidence might look like...you seem to believe that it exists in the links above..but there isn't a shred there..


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 9, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Once again SSoooDDumb repeats his litany of fraudulent denier cult myths that have no connection to reality, as if constant repetition is going to somehow make them magically become true.
> 
> In the real world, there are literally mountains of "_observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting AGW over natural variability_"......enough in fact, to convince the entire world scientific community of the reality of human caused global warming.





SSDD said:


> So you say...and yet, you don't seem to be able to post any...but lets look at what passes for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in that little mind of yours...
> 
> *Climate change: How do we know? - Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence - NASA*



OK, moron, let's look in more detail at some of the scientific evidence that you are too stupid to understand and too brainwashed to accept.
*
Climate change: How do we know? - Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence - NASA*





*This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site).

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.(1)

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.(2) Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.(3)

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.(4)




An indicator of current global sea level as measured by satellites; updated monthly.

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting land ice and the expansion of sea water as it warms.

SATELLITE DATA: 1993-PRESENT - Satellite sea level observations.
Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
RATE OF CHANGE: Plus 3.4 millimeters per year (margin: ±0.4)




How much sea level changed from about 1870 to 2000, derived from coastal tide gauge data. - Credit: CSIRO
***

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.(5) Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. The year 2015 was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average.(6) Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.(7)

Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change



Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with the base period 1951-1980. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. 

This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Sixteen of the seventeen warmest years in the 136-year record have occurred since 2000, with the 17th being 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

***

Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.(8)





* Article: Warming ocean causing most Antarctic ice shelf mass loss
Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves are responsible for most of the continent's ice shelf mass loss, a new study by NASA and university researchers has found.
***

Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.





Image: Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet



 
* Vital Signs: Land Ice
An indicator of the current volume and the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets using data from NASA’s Grace satellite. 



 
* Global Ice Viewer
An interactive exploration of how global warming is affecting sea ice, glaciers and continental ice sheets world wide.
***

Declining Arctic sea ice





Image: Visualization of the 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum

Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.(9)

Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 13.3 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. The 2012 sea ice extent is the lowest in the satellite record. The 2016 ice extent tied with 2007 for the second lowest.

This graph shows the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent in September since 1979, derived from satellite observations.





AVERAGE SEPTEMBER EXTENT RATE OF CHANGE: negative 13.3% per decade - Data source: Satellite observations. Credit: NSIDC/NASA
***

Glacial retreat





Image: The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.(10 )
***

Extreme events





The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.(11)





* Precipitation Measurement Missions - The official website for NASA's fleet of Earth science missions that study rainfall and other types precipitation around the globe.
***

Ocean acidification





Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.(12,)(13) This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.(14,)(15)





* How does climate change affect coral reefs?
Article about how global warming leads to coral bleaching and changes ocean chemistry, leading to acidification. 





* The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem
NOAA page on ocean acidification.
***

Decreased snow cover





Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.(16)*

** National Snow and Ice Data Center
As an information and referral center in support of polar and cryospheric research,NSIDC archives and distributes digital and analog snow, ice, and 





* Earth Observatory: Snow Cover
Time series of global snow cover from NASA's Earth Observatory.
*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 9, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you say...and yet, you don't seem to be able to post any...but lets look at what passes for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in that little mind of yours...
> ...


*
*
First, your posts aren't better, or more informative because you print them in large, bold face with colors...they just make you look like a wild eyed, locust eating prophet coming in from the desert preaching your dogma...

Clearly you think this constitutes evidence that man is causing climate change.....it isn't.  In order to believe that our CO2 is causing the climate to change, you must ASSUME that an increase in CO2 causes warming..  To date, there hasn't been the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting that claim...computer models are not evidence and the only place CO2 causes measured warming is in computer models.

Claims that require you to assume that they are true are not evidence.

*


RollingThunder said:



			The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
		
Click to expand...

*
First, the ice age did not end....we are in an interglacial, but interglacials are merely melt backs happening within an ice age...the earth is still in an ice age as evidenced by the existence of ice at one or both poles....And the article says that the climate change that has happened within the past 7000 years is "ATTRIBUTED" to...do you know what that means?  It is just a claim..not based on any sort of actual proof....
*



RollingThunder said:



			"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
		
Click to expand...

*
Who is arguing that the climate doesn't change?  Certainly not me.  But saying that the climate changes is not any sort of proof as to why the climate is changing...
*


RollingThunder said:



			The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.(1)
		
Click to expand...

*
Again...very likely?  Based on what?  I am looking for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that we are causing the change rather than just seeing natural variability.  Claims are not evidence...but if this sort of thing passes for evidence in your mind, it is easy to see why you come across as a wild eyed locust eating prophet coming in from the desert.

Do you have any idea why the make the claim above and limit the time to the past 1,300 years?...It is because if they go back any further, then they are faced with: first, the Medieval Warm Period which was warmer than the present...second, go back a while further and they run into the Roman Warm Period which was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period...go back a bit further and you run into the Minoan Warm Period, which was warmer than the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period.and go back some more and they run into the Holocene opitimum which was warmer than the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period...and according to gold standard ice core temperature reconstructions, those periods warmed not only to temperatures higher than we have seen, but faster than the fraction of a degree we have seen in the past 100 years.
*


RollingThunder said:



			Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.
		
Click to expand...

*
Once again..evidence of change is not evidence of cause.
*


RollingThunder said:



			The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.(2) Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
		
Click to expand...

*
OK...so lets see some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence of that claim...We hear it all the time, but none of you warmers can seem to come up with any actual evidence of it...believing it to be true is not actual evidence that it is true...The hypothesis says that if additional CO2 could actually trap heat, that there would be a definite tropospheric hot spot as a result...no such hot spot is in evidence...

A couple of wack jobs have tried to claim that it is there but just can't be detected...but if a hot spot were there, the temperature would reflect it.
*


RollingThunder said:



			Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.(3)
		
Click to expand...

*
Actually, the ice core data show that CO2 responds to changes in the climate...not the other way around.  Claims to the contrary are bullshit.
*



RollingThunder said:



			The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
		
Click to expand...

*
Evidence for a changing climate is compelling...there is no actual evidence  that the change we have seen is rapid, or unprecedented is unusual or unprecedented in the least.
*



RollingThunder said:



			Sea level rise
		
Click to expand...




RollingThunder said:



Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.(4)




An indicator of current global sea level as measured by satellites; updated monthly.

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting land ice and the expansion of sea water as it warms.

SATELLITE DATA: 1993-PRESENT - Satellite sea level observations.
Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
RATE OF CHANGE: Plus 3.4 millimeters per year (margin: ±0.4)




How much sea level changed from about 1870 to 2000, derived from coastal tide gauge data. - Credit: CSIRO
***
		
Click to expand...

*
Claims of unusual sea level rise in the past century are bullshit...I am not going to go into the whole thing again here, but if you want to see the evidence supporting my claim of bullshit, go here
*



RollingThunder said:



			Global temperature rise
		
Click to expand...




RollingThunder said:



All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.(5) Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. The year 2015 was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average.(6) Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.(7)

Click to expand...


*
The pause is real and the claims of the hottest year ever are the result of data manipulation...aside from that, evidence of warming is not evidence of what is causing the change...It has certainly warmed since the little ice age...but not to the temperatures that existed in earlier periods...showing me that it is warming is not showing me any sort of evidence of why it is warming....I have asked for observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that the present climate is changing due to us rather than due to natural variability which we have seen has caused the climate in the past to warm more than the present and to warm faster.


*


RollingThunder said:



			Warming oceans
		
Click to expand...




RollingThunder said:



The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.(8)

Click to expand...

*

Evidence that the oceans are warming is evidence that the oceans are warming...that is not evidence of why...I asked for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that we are causing the warming and not natural variability....showing me evidence that the oceans have warmed and then calling it evidence that we caused the change is just more assumption on your part...but again, if this sort of thing passes for evidence of AGW, and not simply evidence of changing climate in your mind, it is easy to see why you have been taken in to the degree that you have...clearly, you have no idea of what actual evidence supporting the claim of manmade climate change over natural variability might look like...of course, I can't really blame you since there is no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting man made climate change over natural variability....



RollingThunder said:


> *Shrinking ice sheets*
> *The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.*


*
*
Again...evidence of changing climate is not evidence of the cause of the change...but here, take a look at the gold standard ice core temperature reconstruction of the past 10,000 years, derived from ice cores taken in Greenland, above the Arctic Circle....what do you suppose the ice looks like now, compared to what it has looked like for most of the past 10,000 years?

By the way, look at the magnitude, and speed at which past temperature changes happened.....look at the period about 7900 years ago to about 8200 years ago...3.5 degrees of change in about 300 years...and look at the rates of change across the board...many periods showing much more rapid change than we have seen...and the same temperature spikes are seen in the Antarctic ice cores as well.













* 



RollingThunder said:



			Ocean acidification
		
Click to expand...




RollingThunder said:








Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.(12,)(13) This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.(14,)(15)

Click to expand...


*
The present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400ppm...When the present ice age began, the atmospheric CO2 levels were in excess of 1000ppm...most of the species in the oceans evolved during times when the atmospheric CO2 level was far in excess of 1000ppm...the claim that our 0.0004% contribution to the atmospheric CO2 is causing the oceans to acidify is bullshit..

So for all the stuff you posted...and have posted, there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that we are causing the climate to change...you apparently believe that evidence of climate changing is also evidence of what is causing the change...it isn't...your assumption that we are causing it is evidence of your political leanings...or evidence of the fact that you weren't taught critical thinking in school...or evidence that you just need something to believe...but it isn't actual evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So you say...and yet, you don't seem to be able to post any...but lets look at what passes for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in that little mind of yours...
> 
> *Climate change: How do we know? - Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence - NASA*





RollingThunder said:


> OK, moron, let's look in more detail at some of the scientific evidence that you are too stupid to understand and too brainwashed to accept.
> *
> Climate change: How do we know? - Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence - NASA*
> 
> ...






SSDD said:


> Clearly you think this constitutes evidence that man is causing climate change.....it isn't.  In order to believe that our CO2 is causing the climate to change, you must ASSUME that an increase in CO2 causes warming..  To date, there hasn't been the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting that claim...computer models are not evidence and the only place CO2 causes measured warming is in computer models.


Yup! That long list of evidence presented by NASA does, in fact, "_constitute evidence that man is causing climate change_". Unfortunately you are just too retarded and brainwashed to understand that.

The Greenhouse Gas nature of CO2 is so well established scientifically that your denial of its reality constitutes denier cult insanity. You have been shown the laboratory experiments and other evidence supporting the scientific facts about this many times but again, you are just too stupid and brainwashed to acknowledge that reality.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 9, 2017)

[QUOTE="RollingThunder, post: 16991389, member: 22971]
Yup! That long list of evidence presented by NASA does, in fact, "_constitute evidence that man is causing climate change_". Unfortunately you are just too retarded and brainwashed to understand that.[/quote]

No thunder...I know this must be hard for you...but all you provided was evidence that the climate is changing....none of it was evidence of the cause...your sources simply assume that man is causing it...there wasn't the first piece of evidence there establishing cause...there was evidence that the climate is changing and simple statements that we are doing it...

[QUOTE="RollingThunder, post: 16991389, member: 22971The Greenhouse Gas nature of CO2 is so well established scientifically ...... [/quote]

And yet, there isn't the first actual measured, quantified evidence of it..

[QUOTE="RollingThunder, post: 16991389, member: 22971]You have been shown the laboratory experiments and other evidence supporting the scientific facts about this many times but again, you are just too stupid and brainwashed to acknowledge that reality.[/QUOTE]

And those lab experiments showed all sorts of things...from the temperature of compression, to abject scientific incompetence...but none of them showed any evidence that CO2 could cause any sort of warming outside of a tightly sealed environment.

You are a believer...you require no actual evidence...your faith is enough...you will accept anything as evidence due to your faith...I am a bit more pragmatic...if you are going to tell me that CO2 causes warming out in the atmosphere, then I would like to see some evidence of it...you haven't shown any...but don't worry, because none exists...

Prove me wrong...lets see some evidence that CO2 causes warming out in the open atmosphere.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 9, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Yup! That long list of evidence presented by NASA does, in fact, "_constitute evidence that man is causing climate change_". Unfortunately you are just too retarded and brainwashed to understand that.
> 
> The Greenhouse Gas nature of CO2 is so well established scientifically that your denial of its reality constitutes denier cult insanity. You have been shown the laboratory experiments and other evidence supporting the scientific facts about this many times but again, you are just too stupid and brainwashed to acknowledge that reality.





SSDD said:


> No thunder...I know this must be hard for you...but all you provided was evidence that the climate is changing....none of it was evidence of the cause...your sources simply assume that man is causing it...there wasn't the first piece of evidence there establishing cause...there was evidence that the climate is changing and simple statements that we are doing it...
> 
> And yet, there isn't the first actual measured, quantified evidence of it..
> 
> ...



Just more denier cult denial of the scientific facts and the scientific evidence, without any evidence at all to support your denial.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Just more denier cult denial of the scientific facts and the scientific evidence, without any evidence at all to support your denial.



Not to worry thunder...I never expected you to provide evidence that doesn't exist...but it was interesting to see what passes for actual evidence in your mind...You show evidence of climate change and just assume that we are causing it...and you can rest easy knowing that you aren't particularly stupid among believers...that is what all of them tend to provide when asked for evidence that we are causing the global climate to change...they also show evidence that the climate is changing and simply assume that it must be us...

And my evidence is your lack of evidence thunder...I can't prove a negative.  I challenge you to show me just one piece of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that we are causing climate change and what we are seeing is not just natural variability....you show evidence of change, but the change is all within the bounds of natural variability...you show the sort of changes the earth has been undergoing for billions of years and then with no actual evidence at all, you claim that this time it is us.   Do you know what the opposite of skeptical is thunder?.....it is gullible.  It describes you to a T...you believe without the slightest bit of uncertainty...you are not skeptical in the least...you have bought the claims hook line and sinker...you are the very definition of gullible...


----------



## Crick (Apr 10, 2017)

Of course you can prove a negative.  AGW could be falsified a dozen different way.  But it hasn't.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> Of course you can prove a negative.  AGW could be falsified a dozen different way.  But it hasn't.



It already has been...the absence of a tropospheric hot spot is exhibit 1...the hypothesis fails on that alone...each and every failed prediction is just one more exhibit in the case against the AGW hypothesis...just off the top of my head, there is also:


The pause that is approaching 20 years while CO2 continues to increase
50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010.
Constantly moving "tipping points"
2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming
U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world
warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go greenIn the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences
February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution: “Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”
“Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming.
“In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.” -  reported in 2001

Then there is this sort of tripe:


_Australia will be one of the hardest hit by a rise in global temperatures.”We’re one of the driest continents on the earth and the effects on Australia will be more severe than elsewhere._
_”The effects of climate change will impact more severely on the economy of Papua New Guinea than on any other in the Pacific_
_Bangladesh is one of the hardest hit nations by the impacts of climate change_
_Africa will be the hardest hit or most affected region, due to anthropogenic climate change_
_Vietnam is likely to be among the countries hardest hit by climate change is likely to be among the countries hardest hit by climate change_
_Maldives’ economy hardest hit by climate change_
_Climate change is likely to have the strongest impact on Scandinavian countries such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden_
_southern Europe and the Mediterranean, including Malta, are forecast to suffer the most adverse effects of climate change, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece are the countries that would be worst affected by global warming_
_China’s Poor Farmers Hit Hardest by Climate Change_
_And on and on and on...the litany of failed predictions of climate science is seemingly endless...and not to mention the more rain, less rain, more storms, less storms, more snow less snow, more tornadoes less tornadoes, more dought less drought craziness that seems to pop up every day in climate science...

The hypothesis has been falsified so many times it is ridiculous...and frankly, considering its history, anyone who still believes...is ridiculous..._


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> Of course you can prove a negative.  AGW could be falsified a dozen different way.  But it hasn't.





SSDD said:


> It already has been...
> the absence of a tropospheric hot spot is exhibit 1...


And the denier cult troll SSoooDDumb once again moronically repeats some of his thoroughly debunked denier cult dogmas and myths.

In the real world.....

*Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot*
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
*Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques—linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

The results show that the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere except for a very thin layer at around 14-15km above the surface of the Earth where it has warmed slightly less.

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007

Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters 

 



Provided by: University of New South Wales 

*[/quote]






SSDD said:


> The pause that is approaching 20 years while CO2 continues to increase



In the real world....

*Global warming data that riled doubters is confirmed*
By Jim Spencer
January 4, 2017
*WASHINGTON (AP) — A new independent study shows no pause in global warming, confirming a set of temperature readings adjusted by U.S. government scientists that some who reject mainstream climate science have questioned.







The adjustments , made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2015 to take into account changes in how ocean temperatures have been measured over the decades, riled a House committee and others who claimed the changes were made to show rising temperatures. The House Science Committee subpoenaed the agency’s scientists and then complained that NOAA wasn’t answering its requests quickly enough.

The new international study looked at satellite data, readings from buoys and other marine floats for ocean temperatures. Each measurement system independently showed the same 20 years of increase in temperatures that NOAA found: about two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit per decade since 2000, said the study’s lead author, Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley.

“Our research confirms that NOAA scientists were right,” Hausfather said. “They were not in any way cooking the books.”

NOAA adjusted past data to take into account old measurements by ships that often recorded temperatures from their engine rooms, where heat from the engines skewed the data. Buoys and satellite data don’t have such artificial warming, Hausfather said.

In 1990, about 90 percent of the ocean temperature readings were done by ships, now it is about 85 percent by the more accurate buoys, Hausfather said.

Scientists Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who weren’t part the original study or the more recent one that confirmed its conclusions, called both accurate.

“This paper further allays any qualms that there may have been scientific errors or any non-scientific agendas,” Trenberth said in an email.

Officials at the House Science Committee did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Hausfather’s study was published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances .*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2017)

Thunder you poor idiot...climate pseudoscience finally found a way to adjust the already accurate temperature recording of the radiosondes to produce a hot spot..By the way...weren't the people who produced that paper the same wackos that sponsored the ship of fools?...I am sure that they were...and, by their own admission, they had to throw out data, and to do a series of adjustments to station data to find the signal they were looking for

the same way they adjust the ground stations....eliminate those pesky rural stations that don't show any warming...and fill in ridiculous amounts of surface in order to manage to say that this year was the hottest ever by 100th of a degree...

People who believe that sort of crap are idiots...


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Thunder you poor idiot...climate pseudoscience finally found a way to adjust the already accurate temperature recording of the radiosondes to produce a hot spot..the same way they adjust the ground stations....eliminate those pesky rural stations that don't show any warming...and fill in ridiculous amounts of surface in order to manage to say that this year was the hottest ever by 100th of a degree...
> 
> People who believe that sort of crap are idiots...



People who believe in crackpot conspiracy theories that involve the totally insane claim that, for no comprehensible reason, virtually all of the world's scientists....hundreds of thousands of independent scientists all around the world, from many different fields of science, who study any aspect of the Earth's climate systems....are *ALL part of a vast international conspiracy* to supposedly "_dishonestly adjust or alter or fudge_" all of their data in unison to show a supposedly "_non-existent_" rapid and abrupt warming over the last century, without any of them ever refusing to cooperate in the supposed conspiracy, or blowing the whistle on the rest of them and publically denouncing the scheme (the Mafia would be jealous)....and, moreover, somehow those pesky scientists managed to melt all those gigatons of ice all around the world with hairdryers or something........are beyond merely 'idiotic', way off into severe retardation and utter insanity. And that describes denier cult trolls like SSoooDDumb perfectly.

Notice how, when two of his favorite bogus claims in post #144 were immediately debunked by the scientific facts, he doesn't try to defend them with any evidence to support his claims, he just defaults to the crackpot conspiracy theory about all of the scientists fraudulently "_adjusting_" the data.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 11, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> People who believe in crackpot conspiracy theories that involve the totally insane claim that, for no comprehensible reason, virtually all of the world's scientists



First, it isn't all the world's scientists..or virtually all the world's scientists...it is climate scientists...a very small percentage of the world's scientists...and even among them, less than half are on board with the IPCC claims.



RollingThunder said:


> hundreds of thousands of independent scientists all around the world, from many different fields of science, who study any aspect of the Earth's climate systems



There are not hundreds of thousands of scientists who study the earth's climate systems...just more bullshit you regurgitate in an attempt to convince people you aren't a nut.



RollingThunder said:


> ....are *ALL part of a vast international conspiracy* to supposedly "_dishonestly adjust or alter or fudge_" all of their data in unison to show a supposedly "_non-existent_" rapid and abrupt warming over the last century, without any of them ever refusing to cooperate in the supposed conspiracy, or blowing the whistle on the rest of them and publically denouncing the scheme (the Mafia would be jealous)....and, moreover, somehow those pesky scientists managed to melt all those gigatons of ice all around the world with hairdryers or something........are beyond merely 'idiotic', way off into severe retardation and utter insanity. And that describes denier cult trolls like SSoooDDumb perfectly.



You don't think a cut of trillions of dollars will corrupt a relatively small group of people? Who is the denier here thunder?



RollingThunder said:


> Notice how, when two of his favorite bogus claims in post #144 were immediately debunked by the scientific facts, he doesn't try to defend them with any evidence to support his claims, he just defaults to the crackpot conspiracy theory about all of the scientists fraudulently "_adjusting_" the data.



All you managed to show thunder is that climate pseudoscience is willing to torture data in order to make it conform to the narrative.  that isn't science...and care to explain why the satellite data which specifically measures the upper troposphere doesn't detect that hot spot they tortured the data to produce?


----------



## Ima Cat (Apr 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> CONTINUATION....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sure, i believe an anonymous poster's cherry-picked (and fabricated?) charts and not atmospheric physicists and climatologists.  Some of the above charts go back 4000 years, others 200, and they are all local, not global.  And by the way, there were no thermometers 4000 years ago.  

Post a chart of atmospheric CO2 levels going back 600,000 years, where there is actual data from Antarctic ice corps samples, and you'll see an exponential spike in the last 200 years, since the industrial revolution, rising steeper the last 50 years.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 11, 2017)

Ima Cat said:


> Sure, i believe an anonymous poster's cherry-picked (and fabricated?) charts and not atmospheric physicists and climatologists.  Some of the above charts go back 4000 years, others 200, and they are all local, not global.  And by the way, there were no thermometers 4000 years ago.
> 
> Post a chart of atmospheric CO2 levels going back 600,000 years, where there is actual data from Antarctic ice corps samples, and you'll see an exponential spike in the last 200 years, since the industrial revolution, rising steeper the last 50 years.



Why restrict the view to 600,000 years?  That time frame would be entirely within an ice age...a time of cold water and as a result, low atmospheric CO2...  Lets look all the way back as far as possible...because when you look at the real big picture, you can see that the present hysteria is laughable.

The blue line is temperature...the black line is atmospheric CO2.  Note the number of times the earth decended into ice ages with atmospheric CO2 levels above 1000ppm...Note the average temperature of the earth across its existence compared to today..

There is a reason that climate science wants to restrict the view to short periods of geological time...when you extend the view, it is clear to see that the present is a period of unusual cold in terms of earth history...and a period of CO2 starvation in the atmosphere.

You believe what you do as a result of your political leanings...not because of any actual scientific evidence...but if you believe that there is even one single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis over natural variability, by all means, bring it here and show me...I have been asking for such evidence for more than 20 years now and haven't seen the first shred...I predict that you won't be able to produce it either.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 11, 2017)

Ima Cat said:


> Sure, i believe an anonymous poster's cherry-picked (and fabricated?) charts and not atmospheric physicists and climatologists.  Some of the above charts go back 4000 years, others 200, and they are all local, not global.  And by the way, there were no thermometers 4000 years ago.
> 
> Post a chart of atmospheric CO2 levels going back 600,000 years, where there is actual data from Antarctic ice corps samples, and you'll see an exponential spike in the last 200 years, since the industrial revolution, rising steeper the last 50 years.





SSDD said:


> Why restrict the view to 600,000 years?


Actually that number is way too high.....the natural condition of the planet millions of years ago,  or even hundreds of thousands of years ago, has almost no relevance to the current situation where humans have created un-natural, very fast global warming, you poor dumbshit. The human race itself is much younger than that.

Although the human race had hominid precursors going back over two million years, "_the anatomically modern Homo sapiens only evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago_".[6][7] (- Wikipedia)

It is the radical changes.....to the climate patterns that previously were fairly stable over the Holocene period when the human race developed agriculture and civilization and a population of seven and a half billion.....that are happening now that are significant.

Your demented post, SSoooDDumb's, amounts to just more of the usual, very ignorant, very clueless, total bullshit you always post.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Actually that number is way too high.....the natural condition of the planet millions of years ago,  or even hundreds of thousands of years ago, has almost no relevance to the current situation where humans have created un-natural, very fast global warming, you poor dumbshit. The human race itself is much younger than that.



Actually thunder, I have already shown you gold standard temperature reconstructions from both poles that show greater temperature changes than we have seen in shorter periods of time...your claims that the present is outside the realm of natural variability is unsupportable.



RollingThunder said:


> It is the radical changes.....to the climate patterns that previously were fairly stable over the Holocene period when the human race developed agriculture and civilization and a population of seven and a half billion.....that are happening now that are significant.



Which radical changes are you talking about?  What do you think is happening now that is outside natural variability...examples please and do see if you can keep it concise rather than simply posting great steaming piles of bullshit hoping that you can fool someone with quantity instead of quality.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Actually that number is way too high.....the natural condition of the planet millions of years ago,  or even hundreds of thousands of years ago, has almost no relevance to the current situation where humans have created un-natural, very fast global warming, you poor dumbshit. The human race itself is much younger than that.
> 
> Although the human race had hominid precursors going back over two million years, "_the anatomically modern Homo sapiens only evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago_".[6][7] (- Wikipedia)
> 
> ...





SSDD said:


> Actually thunder, I have already shown you gold standard temperature reconstructions from both poles that show greater temperature changes than we have seen in shorter periods of time...



Nope, you haven't done that at all except in your deranged hallucinations, SSoooDDumb.

Which pretty much describes everything you post, you retarded troll.  

In the real world.....

*Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick. 
- (source)*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Actually that number is way too high.....the natural condition of the planet millions of years ago,  or even hundreds of thousands of years ago, has almost no relevance to the current situation where humans have created un-natural, very fast global warming, you poor dumbshit. The human race itself is much younger than that.
> ...


*
*


like it or not thunder...ice core data is the gold standard for temperature reconstructions...This is THE gold standard temperature reconstruction for the northern hemisphere for the past 10,000 years...  Sorry you don't like it...sorry that it puts the lie to your beliefs...but it is what it is.  Now if you would care to show any published papers that explicitly refute the greenland ice core data as the gold standard temperature reconstruction for the northern hemisphere...by all means, bring it here and lets take a look.








RollingThunder said:


> *Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities.*



Once again thunder, you have a problem with separating fantasy from reality.  The graph above represents what science itself calls the gold standard in temperature reconstructions...papers that run afoul of what science itself calls a gold standard reconstruction have serious problems right out of the gate...the graph above shows very clearly that what small bit of temperature change we have seen doesn't even come close to the boundaries of natural variation...what we are seeing is barely a ripple when compared to natural variation...

And there are plenty of published works that actually reflect reality rather than opinion.

Here is a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2017:    Collapse of the North American ice saddle 14,500 years ago caused widespread cooling and reduced ocean overturning circulation

*Collapse of the North American ice saddle 14,500 years ago caused widespread cooling and reduced ocean overturning circulation*



> “During the Last Glacial Maximum 26–19 thousand years ago (ka), a vast ice sheet stretched over North America [Clark et al., 2009]. In subsequent millennia, as climate warmed and this ice sheet decayed, large volumes of meltwater flooded to the oceans [Tarasov and Peltier, 2006; Wickert, 2016]. This period, known as the “last deglaciation,” included episodes of abrupt climate change, such as the Bølling warming [~14.7–14.5 ka], when Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4–5°C in just a few decades [Lea et al., 2003; Buizert et al., 2014], coinciding with a 12–22 m sea level rise in less than 340 years [5.3 meters per century] (Meltwater Pulse 1a (MWP1a)) [Deschamps et al., 2012].








Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4 - 5 degrees C in just a few decades...we have seen a fraction of a degree in 150 years and you believe that the temperature change we have seen is unprecedented and outside the boundaries of natural variability?

And during the same period, sea level rose at least 12 meters in 340 years..compare that to the 1.7 mm per year that we have seen throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century.







And here...published in AAAS     http://epic.awi.de/17919/1/Ste2007b.pdf


High-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in Few Years Jørgen Peder Steffensen, et al.
Science 321, 680 (2008);   DOI: 10.1126/science.1157707



> *“A northern shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone could be the trigger of these abrupt shifts of Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes of 2 to 4 kelvin in Greenland moisture source temperature from one year to the next.”   “The d18O warming transition at 14.7 ka [14,700 years ago] was the most rapid and occurred within a remarkable 3 years, whereas the warming transition at 11.7 ka [11,700 years ago] lasted 60 years; both correspond to a warming of more than 10 K.”*









And I could go on and on if you like...how many would you like to see?...papers that actually agree with what the science community calls the gold standard temperature reconstruction showing that the minor temperature variation we have seen is hardly a ripple when compared the range of natural variability vs papers that say what you want to believe but go against what science calls the gold standard of temperature reconstructions and claim that the fraction of a degree of change that we have seen is unprecedented and outside of the range of natural variability.  Which do you believe are more likely to reflect reality?  And do keep in mind that the definition of insanity is an inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy....reality = papers that agree with the gold standard temperature reconstruction....fantasy = papers that go against the gold standard temperature reconstruction.  Which do you believe?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> like it or not thunder...ice core data is the gold standard for temperature reconstructions...



No it isn't, you ignorant retard.

Ice core data gives a picture of conditions on top of polar ice sheets, often at a five or ten thousand feet altitude, and they are not that accurate at revealing conditions at sea level in the mid-latitudes or at the equator.

The best temperature reconstructions use a wide variety of temperature proxies from all over the world.

As Dr. Shaun Marcott said in talking about his 2013 paper in the journal Science, called *"A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years"*......

"*While we do use these ice cores in our study, they are limited to the polar regions and so give only a local or regional picture of temperature changes. Just as it would not be reasonable to use the recent instrumental temperature history from Greenland (for example) as being representative of the planet as a whole, one would similarly not use just a few ice cores from polar locations to reconstruct past temperature change for the entire planet......We therefore cannot rely on any single location as being representative of global temperature change. This is why our study includes data from around the world......To develop a longer record, we used primarily marine and terrestrial fossils, biomolecules, or isotopes that were recovered from ocean and lake sediments and ice cores. All of these proxies have been independently calibrated to provide reliable estimates of temperature."
- (source)*

Given that you obviously, not just know nothing, but think you 'know' a bunch of BS that isn't true, the rest of your garbage pseudo-science post isn't even worth debunking.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> No it isn't, you ignorant retard.



Yes..it is you glassy eyed chanting cultist...

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years | Die kalte Sonne



> Although the GISP2 ice core data is site specific (Greenland), it has been well correlated with global glacial fluctuations and a wide range of other climate proxies and has become the ‘*gold standard*’ among global climate reconstructions.


 
old-ice.shtml



> "The problem with ice core records, it's never enough ice [for research]," he said, though stressed that ice cores remain the "*gold standard" for climate research*. "Ice cores are a crucial part of the Antarctica science program."



and on and on I could go.  Like it or not, ice cores are the gold standard..



RollingThunder said:


> "*While we do use these ice cores in our study, they are limited to the polar regions and so give only a local or regional picture of temperature changes.*


*
*
_When ice cores from both the arctic and the antarctic show the same warming fingerprints, then you can bet the temperature change is global...and both arctic and antarctic ice cores show the same warming trends...and if it was warming several degrees per decade at 10,000 feet, how much warming do you think was happening at sea level?_




RollingThunder said:


> Given that you obviously, not just know nothing, but think you 'know' a bunch of BS that isn't true, the rest of your garbage pseudo-science post isn't even worth debunking.



You only further prove that you will accept anything as science so long as it supports your belief.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 13, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> No it isn't, you ignorant retard.
> 
> Ice core data gives a picture of conditions on top of polar ice sheets, often at a five or ten thousand feet altitude, and they are not that accurate at revealing conditions at sea level in the mid-latitudes or at the equator.
> 
> ...





SSDD said:


> Yes..it is you glassy eyed chanting cultist...
> 
> The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years | Die kalte Sonne



Wow, a lie filled article from several years ago, appearing on an obscure German denier cult blog, written b_y Don J. Easterbrook, _a crackpot retired Professor of Geology and hard-core denier cult nutbagger and science-whore for the fossil fuel industry.

You are SO laughable, SSOoooDDumb, and SO pathetic.

In the real world....here's a good debunking of Easterbrook's lies and science fraud.....

*Cooling-gate! Easterbrook fakes his figures, hides the incline*
May 21, 2010
(excerpts)
*Don Easterbrook, the retired geology professor who predicted that the world was headed for decades of global cooling at the recent Heartland climate sceptic conference, appears to have crudely faked one of the key graphs in his presentation in order to reduce modern temperatures and make historical climate look warmer than justified. Looking through Easterbrook’s slides, it seems he has taken a graph of Holocene temperature variations prepared by Global Warming Art (used at Wikipedia), and altered it to fraudulently bolster his case.

Here’s Easterbrook’s graph (slide 9, ppt file available here):






When I saw that graphic, it struck me as strangely familiar. The typefaces and presentation are reminiscent of graphs prepared by Robert A Rohde for Global Warming Art. So I checked, and this is what I found:







Here’s the source page. Note that the typeface and scaling of the axes are identical, save for the y-axis being swapped over to the left. The thick black curve, the median of the reconstructions Rohde has used, is identical. 

Easterbrook has altered the graph considerably. The dotted line across the graph marks the zero anomaly, which Rohde has set at the mid-20th century average values. To put current temperatures in perspective, he has provided an arrow indicating 2004’s temperature and a box providing an expanded scale for the last 2000 years. Easterbrook has erased that arrow, all the individual reconstructions and the detail box, and drawn a new line at 0.25ºC below zero. This he labels “present day temperature”. Areas above the new line are infilled in red, those below in blue. Easterbrook has quite deliberately altered the graph to reduce “current temperatures” by 0.75ºC and make the curve fit his storyline. The original suggests that current temperatures are comparable to, perhaps higher than the warmest period of the Holocene, the post-glacial climatic optimum 8000 years ago. Easterbrook’s version gives the impression that for most of the last 10,000 years temperature has been warmer than today. It’s interesting to note that Easterbrook has added a pointer to the Younger Dryas, but has managed to misspell it “Dyas”.

(- continued)*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Wow, a lie filled article from several years ago, appearing on an obscure German denier cult blog, written b_y Don J. Easterbrook, _a crackpot retired Professor of Geology and hard-core denier cult nutbagger and science-whore for the fossil fuel industry.



Wow...you really are detached from reality...aren't you?

*Don J. Easterbrook* is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Easterbrook was educated at the University of Washington, where he received the BSc in 1958, the MSc in 1959, and the PhD (Geology) in 1962. His doctoral dissertation was entitled _Pleistocene Geology of the Northern Part of the Puget Lowland, Washington_. Easterbrook has studied global climate change for five decades. He was chairman of the Geology Department at Western Washington University for 12 years. He is an active environmentalist, having initiated undergraduate and graduate programs in environmental geology at Western Washington University.


President of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division of the Geological Society of America
Chairman of the 1977 National Geological Society of America meeting
U.S. representative to the United Nations International Geological Correlation Program
Associate Editor of the Geological Society of America Bulletin for 15 years
Associate Editor of the Geomorphology International Journal
Director of Field Excursions for the 2003 International Quaternary Association Congress
Founder of the Pacific Coast Friends of the Pleistocene
Founding member of American Quaternary Association

National award for ‘Distinguished Service to the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division’, Geological Society of America
Lifetime Achievement Award, Northwest Geological Society

Doesn't sound obscure at all to me...and I don't find any reference to him being an oil company whore anywhere at all...but if taking money from organizations to do research makes one a whore, then all your priests are first order prostitutes to the church of environmentalist cults.

As usual, you have nothing but insult, name calling, logical fallacy and opinion.  Typical thunder.  One can only dream of the day when you learn a new trick.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 14, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Wow, a lie filled article from several years ago, appearing on an obscure German denier cult blog, written b_y Don J. Easterbrook, _a crackpot retired Professor of Geology and hard-core denier cult nutbagger and science-whore for the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> You are SO laughable, SSOoooDDumb, and SO pathetic.
> 
> In the real world....here's a good debunking of Easterbrook's lies and science fraud.....





RollingThunder said:


> *Cooling-gate! Easterbrook fakes his figures, hides the incline*
> May 21, 2010
> (excerpts)
> *Don Easterbrook, the retired geology professor who predicted that the world was headed for decades of global cooling at the recent Heartland climate sceptic conference, appears to have crudely faked one of the key graphs in his presentation in order to reduce modern temperatures and make historical climate look warmer than justified. Looking through Easterbrook’s slides, it seems he has taken a graph of Holocene temperature variations prepared by Global Warming Art (used at Wikipedia), and altered it to fraudulently bolster his case.
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> Given that you obviously, not just know nothing, but think you 'know' a bunch of BS that isn't true, the rest of your garbage pseudo-science post isn't even worth debunking.





SSDD said:


> Wow...you really are detached from reality...aren't you?


Nope! You are! As your every post reveals quite clearly.






SSDD said:


> *Don J. Easterbrook* is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Easterbrook was educated at the University of Washington, where he received the BSc in 1958, the MSc in 1959, and the PhD (Geology) in 1962. His doctoral dissertation was entitled _Pleistocene Geology of the Northern Part of the Puget Lowland, Washington_. Easterbrook has studied global climate change for five decades. He was chairman of the Geology Department at Western Washington University for 12 years.


Easterbrook is a retired geologist with no education or experience in modern climate science. Your quote is from a page on Wikipedia that was heavily edited by some denier cultist a few weeks ago, who inserted some lies that haven't been edited out yet. That denier cult science-whore *did not* "_study global climate change_" for five days, let alone five decades.....the closest he came was studying ancient glaciation around the Hudson Bay, which has virtually nothing to do with the scientific issues involved in modern human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes.

Moreover, he is a fraud and a liar....he distorts other scientists' graphs and data, changes dates on graphs, and makes idiotic predictions that never come true.






SSDD said:


> He is an active environmentalist, having initiated undergraduate and graduate programs in environmental geology at Western Washington University.


Another lie edited into his wiki page. Teaching Environmental Geology has nothing at all to do with being an environmentalist.....*"An environmentalist is a supporter of the goals of the environmental movement, "a political and ethical movement that seeks to improve and protect the quality of the natural environment through changes to environmentally harmful human activities".[1] An environmentalist is engaged in or believes in the philosophy of environmentalism."*

Easterbrook is, if anything, an anti-environmentalist.

*"Environmental geology, like hydrogeology, is an applied science concerned with the practical application of the principles of geology in the solving of environmental problems. It is a multidisciplinary field that is closely related to engineering geology and, to a lesser extent, to environmental geography. Each of these fields involves the study of the interaction of humans with the geologic environment, including the biosphere, the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, and to some extent the atmosphere. In other words, environmental geology is the application of geological information to solve conflicts, minimizing possible adverse environmental degradation or maximizing possible advantageous condition resulting from the use of natural and modified environment."
(source)*



You seen so proud of his former career as a geology professor at Western Washington University. The entire Geology department there signed a letter denouncing Easterbrook and his academic dishonesty in pushing his crappy pseudo-science on the public without submitting it to the normal academic process of peer review.

*The Letter from the WWU Geology Faculty*
*On March 26, 2013, a long-retired faculty member of our department, Don Easterbrook, presented his opinions on human-caused global climate change to the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee at the invitation of the committee chair Sen. Doug Ericksen, R.-Ferndale. We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic. We also decry the injection of such poor quality science into the public discourse regarding important policy decisions for our state's future; the chair of the committee was presented with numerous options and opportunities to invite current experts to present the best-available science on this subject, and chose instead to, apparently, appeal to a narrow partisan element with his choice of speaker.

We concur with the vast consensus of the science community that recent global warming is very real, human greenhouse-gas emissions are the primary cause, and their environmental and economic impacts on our society will likely be severe if we don't make significant efforts to address the problem. Claims to the contrary fly in the face of an overwhelming body of rigorous scientific literature.

We intend no disrespect to Easterbrook personally. We appreciate his previous service to our department and to Western. His present appointment as emeritus professor was made in light of his long-standing history at WWU. But people of the state of Washington need to understand that Easterbrook's ideas on anthropogenic global warming have not passed through rigorous peer review in the scientific literature. Additionally, Easterbrook's claims in this forum and elsewhere require the existence of a broad, decades-long conspiracy amongst literally thousands of scientists to falsify climate data and to prevent publication of opposing research. This opinion demonstrates a profound rejection of the scientific process and the fundamental value of rigorous peer review, and is also simply wrong.

Science thrives on controversies; it rewards innovative, unexpected findings, but only when they are backed by rigorous, painstaking evidence and reasoning. Without such standards, science would be ineffective as a tool to improve our society. It is worth acknowledging that nearly every technological advance in modern society is a direct result of that same scientific method (think the Internet, airplanes, antibiotics, and even your smartphone).

Easterbrook's views, as exemplified by his Senate presentation, are a stark contrast to that standard; they are filled with misrepresentations, misuse of data and repeated mixing of local vs. global records. Nearly every graphic in the hours-long presentation to the Senate was flawed, as was Easterbrook's discussion of them. For example, more than 100 years of research in physics, chemistry, atmospheric science and oceanography has, via experiments, numerous physical observations and theoretic calculations, clearly demonstrate - and have communicated via the scientific literature - that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas; its presence and variations in Earth's atmosphere have significant and measureable impacts on the surface temperature of our planet. Alternatively, you can take Easterbrook's word - not supported by any published science - that the concentration and effects of carbon dioxide are so small as to not matter a bit.

In a specific example, Easterbrook referred to a graph of temperatures from an ice core of the Greenland ice sheet to claim that global temperatures were warmer than present over most of the last 10,000 years. First, this record is of temperature from a single spot on Earth, central Greenland (thus it is not a "global record"). Second, and perhaps more importantly, Easterbrook's definition of "present temperature" in the graph is based on the most recent data point in that record, which is actually 1855, more than 150 years ago when the world was still in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and well before any hint of human-caused climate change.

As the active faculty of the Western Washington University Geology Department that he lists as his affiliation, we conclude that Easterbrook's presentation clearly does not represent the best-available science on this subject, and urge the Senate, our state government, and the citizens of Washington State to rely on rigorous peer-reviewed science rather than conspiracy-based ideas to steer their decisions on matters concerning our environment and economic future.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Western Washington University WWU Geology Department faculty members who authored this column are Douglas H. Clark, who holds a doctorate in geology; Bernard A. Housen, who is the department chair and holds a doctorate in geophysics; Susan Debari, who holds a doctorate in geology; Colin B. Amos, who holds a doctorate in geology; Scott R. Linneman, who holds a doctorate in geology; Robert J. Mitchell, who holds doctorates in engineering and geology; David M. Hirsch, who holds a doctorate in geology; Jaqueline Caplan-Auerbach, who holds a doctorate in geophysics; Pete Stelling, who holds a doctorate in geology; Elizabeth R. Schermer, who holds a doctorate in geology; Christopher Suczek, who holds a doctorate in geology; and Scott Babcock, who holds a doctorate in geology.*










SSDD said:


> Doesn't sound obscure at all to me...


You moronic idiot.....I didn't say he was "_obscure_".....he is a well known crackpot and denier cult douch-bag.....what I said was that the German denier cult blog you cited his article from is an obscure piece of shit blog, not a reputable source of actual science.

What I said:
*"...a lie filled article from several years ago, appearing on an obscure German denier cult blog, written by Don J. Easterbrook, a crackpot retired Professor of Geology and hard-core denier cult nutbagger and science-whore for the fossil fuel industry."*













SSDD said:


> and I don't find any reference to him being an oil company whore anywhere at all...


You couldn't find your own ass if you used both hands, a roadmap and a GPS, SSoooDDumb.

Easterbrook is in the pocket of the Heartland Institute, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and other groups who funnel money from EXXON, the Koch brothers and far rightwing Foundations set up by oil barrons, to science-whores like Easterbrook, to lie about the science.

For more info....

*Don Easterbrook*















SSDD said:


> As usual, you have nothing but insult, name calling, logical fallacy and opinion.


As usual, you have NOTHING AT ALL.

Certainly not any answer to this.....

*Don Easterbrook, a Professor Emeritus at Western Washington University  has been promoting his belief  that natural cycles of the sun and oceans are going to cause global cooling over the next few decades and this will offset the CO2-caused warming headed our way.  In 2001, he announced that global cooling was about to begin and would last for the next 25 years.  Of course, the previous decade was the warmest in over 150 years and 2010 is likely to be the warmest or second warmest year in that period.  Easterbrook wants to persuade us to ignore global warming despite the fact that most of his peers, climate scientists, military and intelligence experts, health officials, and insurance companies expect major societal disruptions due to the current and expected human-caused climate disruption.

It is ok to be wrong.  Science cannot prove an idea is true but only that it is false.  Correcting mistakes is how science moves forward.  But Easterbrook is not just wrong, he is playing fast and loose with the data.  He was caught red-handed using a doctored graph in a 2007 conference  (see Whose lie is it anyway? Easterbrook caught red-handed) and in subsequent articles and talks.  Easterbrook not only edited these graphics to change the information they contained, but did so in order to minimize the evidence of recent global warming. This is, at the very least, academic malpractice.  More recently (12/28/10) he incorrectly labeled a graph of temperatures for the previous 10,000 years to claim that most of these years were warmer than present.  His “current temperature” was really 1855 and not the much warmer present day.  He was notified of his mistake but refuses to issue a retraction (see Easterbrook’s wrong (again)).  A good scientist corrects and learns from mistakes, but this seems foreign to Easterbrook.*
(source)


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 15, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, a lie filled article from several years ago, appearing on an obscure German denier cult blog, written b_y Don J. Easterbrook, _a crackpot retired Professor of Geology and hard-core denier cult nutbagger and science-whore for the fossil fuel industry.
> ...




meh

The only thing that matters is that a *huge majority of Americans* think that scientists still dont know dick about the climate..............

*http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/05/many-americans-are-skeptical-about-scientific-research-on-climate-and-gm-foods/*

What that means is........this shit is only relevant in community message boards for people still searching for something meaningful in their lives.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 16, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> The only thing that matters is that a *huge majority of Americans* think that scientists still dont know dick about the climate............



Well _of course_ everybody knows that we _always_ settle important scientific issues with public opinion polls.....LOLOLOLOLOL.....you are *so crazy*, kooksucker.

And a liar too, of course.

In the real world.....

*Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in US*
GALLUP
MARCH 14, 2017
*WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Record percentages of Americans are concerned about global warming, believe it is occurring, consider it a serious threat and say it is caused by human activity. All of these perceptions are up significantly from 2015.







Forty-five percent of Americans now say they worry "a great deal" about global warming, up from 37% a year ago and well above the recent low point of 25% in 2011. The previous high was 41%, recorded in 2007. Another 21% currently say they worry "a fair amount" about global warming, while 18% worry "only a little" and 16% worry "not at all."*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2017)

So in the end thunder...all you have is yet another opinion piece from people carrying basket loads of sour grapes...not surprising considering what passes for evidence of man made climate change in your mind.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So in the end thunder...all you have is yet another opinion piece from people carrying basket loads of sour grapes...not surprising considering what passes for evidence of man made climate change in your mind.


LOLOLOLOL.....still desperately denying any evidence.....like from the Gallup Polls....or from all of the world's scientists.....that destroys your crackpot denier cult dogmas, eh SSoooDDumb?

I know it would make your brain melt if you admitted to yourself that at least 66% of Americans are justifiably worried about human caused global warming while only 34% are too stupid and/or brainwashed by the anti-science fossil fuel industry propaganda to be rightly worried.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So in the end thunder...all you have is yet another opinion piece from people carrying basket loads of sour grapes...not surprising considering what passes for evidence of man made climate change in your mind.
> ...


polls showed trump was going to get his ass handed to him. How did that pan out?  Polls are only for those who seek an opinion piece on their beliefs.  Failing to recognize the facts don't exist.  That there are no facts on human influence on climate.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


> ...That there are no facts on human influence on climate.



An obviously fraudulent denier cult myth that only deluded rightwingnut retards could believe.

In the real world.....

*Scientific opinion on climate change*
*The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15]*


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ...That there are no facts on human influence on climate.
> ...


and like clockwork, an opinion piece.  I rest SSDD's case.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


> ...That there are no facts on human influence on climate.





RollingThunder said:


> An obviously fraudulent denier cult myth that only deluded rightwingnut retards could believe.
> 
> In the real world.....
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> and like clockwork, an opinion piece.  I rest SSDD's case.


LOLOLOLOL.....still desperately denying the evidence from virtually all of the world's scientists that destroys your crackpot denier cult dogmas, eh JustCrazy? You are sooooo pathetic!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ...That there are no facts on human influence on climate.
> ...


here:
Definition of OPINION

* "Definition of opinion *

_1a_ :  a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter _We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium.b_ :  approval, esteem _I have no great opinion of his work._


_2a_ :  belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge _a person of rigid opinionsb_ :  a generally held view _news programs that shape public opinion"_


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


> ...That there are no facts on human influence on climate.





RollingThunder said:


> An obviously fraudulent denier cult myth that only deluded rightwingnut retards could believe.
> 
> In the real world.....
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> and like clockwork, an opinion piece.  I rest SSDD's case.





RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL.....still desperately denying the evidence from virtually all of the world's scientists that destroys your crackpot denier cult dogmas, eh JustCrazy? You are sooooo pathetic!





jc456 said:


> here:
> Definition of OPINION
> 
> * "Definition of opinion *
> ...



Your silly word games, JustCrazy, only demonstrate that you are too stupid to grasp the profound difference between the ordinary 'opinions' of the general population, that are quite often uninformed and based on ignorance, and the conclusions of professional scientists on matters within their area of expertise, which are based on the laws of physics, and lots of research and observational data.

Too bad you are so utterly clueless and retarded.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ...That there are no facts on human influence on climate.
> ...


so, in climate science an opinion is declared fact?  Is that what you're trying to say?  if so, then post up that link that backs your claim.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


> so, in climate science an opinion is declared fact?  Is that what you're trying to say?  if so, then post up that link that backs your claim.



That is precisely what he is trying to say...all they have is opinion...if there were actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that man is altering the global climate with his puny CO2 emissions, you wouldn't be able to escape it anywhere...it would be on billboards on the highway...it would be in every other commercial on TV...it would be front page news in bold print every damned day of the year...you would not be able to escape it...and I certainly wouldn't have had to ask for more than 2 decades without seeing the first piece of such evidence..

So yes...opinion...and weakly supported opinion is all they have...and all they will ever have.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 21, 2017)

"Before the Flood", a two hour show on National Geographic, should be seen by everyone.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 21, 2017)

It's interesting to watch the ignorant lick up the propaganda put forth by the fossil fuel industry.
The same fools believed the tobacco folks who said tobacco was harmless.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> It's interesting to watch the ignorant lick up the propaganda put forth by the fossil fuel industry.
> The same fools believed the tobacco folks who said tobacco was harmless.



What is interesting is to watch people who have been duped by decades of pseudoscience try and convince those who haven't been duped to join them in their failure.

Is there anything in that National Geographic show that could be categorized as observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is causing a change in the global climate with is so called "greenhouse gas" emissions?  That is what I have been looking for for more than 2 decades now and to date, not the first piece of actual evidence supporting AGW over natural variability has ever shown up.  Warmers have presented mountains of evidence that the climate is changing but that was never in question...the climate has always changed...what they haven't ever shown is any sort of real evidence that favors AGW over natural variability.  It has been very interesting to see what passes for actual evidence of AGW in peoples minds though.  It is almost always evidence that the climate is changing with an assumption that we are causing it tacked on as an accessory.

So tell me, what sort of evidence convinced you?  My bet is that it isn't of the observed, measured, quantified sort...which is what science produces....If you have accepted man made climate change based on information other than observed, measured, quantified empirical data which supports AGW over natural variability, I am afraid that it is you who falls in the category of the ignorant licking up propaganda.  It wouldn't take a great deal of actual evidence which supported AGW over natural variability to convince me but in more than two decades, I have not seen even the first piece of such evidence...being a thinking person, how could I be anything other than skeptical.

By the way, do you know what the opposite of skeptical is?  The opposite of skeptical is gullible, which describes people who accept pseudoscientific propaganda rather than demand actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from science....which, after all is what science is supposed to be all about.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Is there anything in that National Geographic show that could be categorized as observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is causing a change in the global climate with is so called "greenhouse gas" emissions?



Absolutely.

The stratospheric cooling.

The increase in backradiation.

The decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands.

All of those are directly measured, and all have no possible natural explanation.



> That is what I have been looking for for more than 2 decades now



You mean "denying for more than 2 decades now". At least you've been a steadfastly obedient political/religious cult fanatic, if nothing else. 20 years ago, you could have gotten away with denying reality like that. Now, with the mountains of data crushing your crap pseudoscience babble, not a chance. You look as ridiculous as a flat earther.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Absolutely.



Sorry hairball...you couldn't be more wrong...



mamooth said:


> The stratospheric cooling.



Simply not so.....Your stratospheric cooling close to two decades ago...this has been pointed out to you multiple times, but you just keep right on chanting don't you?













mamooth said:


> The increase in backradiation.



You  can't even show a single measurement of back radiation...much less one showing increased back radiation.  But feel free to prove me wrong...lets see a single measurement of a discrete radiation band from one of the so called greenhouse gasses made with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.....we both know that no such measurement will be forthcoming.



mamooth said:


> The decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands.[./quote]
> 
> Sorry again hairball...but it just isn't happening.
> 
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Simply not so.....Your stratospheric cooling close to two decades ago...this has been pointed out to you multiple times, but you just keep right on chanting don't you?



Thank you for posting the graphs showing the stratospheric cooling so clearly.

I'll let you know when I need you to prove more of my points.



> You  can't even show a single measurement of back radiation...



A lie that big won't be dignified with a response.



> Sorry again hairball...but it just isn't happening.



Then why did you present some images showing it happening? You don't seem to understand what you present.

Some of those are from Chen 2007. Unlike you, I give sources for images, so nobody has to guess if it's just a faked mystery graph pulled from a denier fraud blog, as you've presented before.

https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?...veAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

Red is modeled, black is measured. It shows the decline in outgoing longwave in the GHG absorption bands.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 21, 2017)

Just saw a spot on TV from southern Louisiana where folks are watching land disappear and trees dying from salt water, but deny it's caused by man.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Thank you for posting the graphs showing the stratospheric cooling so clearly.



Guess you are no better at reading a graph than crick...but thanks for proving it. And aside from the fact that the cooling ended some time ago...there are thought to be multiple causes for the stratospheric cooling that ended so long ago...our CO2 was only one of them...the question of what caused it still remains unanswered



mamooth said:


> A lie that big won't be dignified with a response.



If you weren't such a liar, you would have said that inconvenient truth won't be answered...because we both know (or maybe you are so stupid you don't know) that no such measurements exist...perhaps in that twisted ball of fishing line you call a mind, you actually believe you have seen such measurements...This is just one more instance of you not being able to deliver evidence to support your claims.



mamooth said:


> Then why did you present some images showing it happening? You don't seem to understand what you present.



I didn't...just one more case of you being as bad at reading graphs as crick.  Here, let me help you out...

This is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.




The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. All found on the far left side of the graph. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.









Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2.





mamooth said:


> Red is modeled, black is measured. It shows the decline in outgoing longwave in the GHG absorption bands.



And just in case there was any doubt that you are a complete idiot, you post this...and even go so far as to point out how terribly wrong you are...you point out that the red line is the output of a climate model...and the black line is observation...and then claim that by comparing a model to actual measurement you can tell that OLR has decreased?  MODELS ARE NOT OBSERVATIONS....all you have shown with that graph is that the models were wrong and don't match up to observations...

Again...look up to the graphs I provided...IRIS on the top graph...TES on the bottom...Note I provide separate graphs as opposed to yours which combines them...My graphs provide a better look at what is really being measured...Both graphs show that the model (red line) has overestimated the OLR...but because I provided two graphs, you can print them both...overlay them and compare the actual IRIS observation made in the 1970's to the TES observations in 2006 and see that they are identical...No decrease in OLR in the so called greenhouse bands.

The stupidity just never stops with you does it?  

By the way...I couldn't help but notice that you ran away from the conversation over on the 
*Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation *thread...No surprise...you were proved so wrong there that I can understand your humiliation and reluctance to show up...but keep in mind that all those false statements and contradictions on your part are in one place now and easily brought forward when you make the same false claims again.  That post is never going to stop following you around so long as you don't learn something from it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Just saw a spot on TV from southern Louisiana where folks are watching land disappear and trees dying from salt water, but deny it's caused by man.



Wow...a spot on TV....from people who would probably like some government $.  Tell me, did that spot mention that in southern Louisiana, the land is sinking or did they just let you believe that it was due to rising sea levels caused by climate change?  Did they mention that the rate of sea level rise has slowed since the 20th century?

News | New Study Maps Rate of New Orleans Sinking

Louisiana's coastline is disappearing at the rate of a football field an hour

How fast is New Orleans sinking? Faster and faster, says new study

Louisiana's Bayou Is Sinking: Can $50 Billion Save It?


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Just saw a spot on TV from southern Louisiana where folks are watching land disappear and trees dying from salt water, but deny it's caused by man.
> ...


Their belief that the land is sinking makes them as dumb as you are.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 22, 2017)

Actually, the much of the land on the coast of south east North America is sinking, at a very slow rate. However, the ocean is rising there at a much faster rate. In fact, relative sea level there is rising a about 3 times the rate of the average global sea level. That is why Miami is see so much clear sky flooding.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Actually, the much of the land on the coast of south east North America is sinking, at a very slow rate. However, the ocean is rising there at a much faster rate. In fact, relative sea level there is rising a about 3 times the rate of the average global sea level. That is why Miami is see so much clear sky flooding.



Picking those cherries as fast as you can, aren't you rocks?  Miami doesn't have a sea level problem...it has a total lack of sensible engineering standards and building codes problem.  Sea level in miami isn't rising any faster than anywhere else which by the way has been decelerating since the mid 20th century..

A great deal of Miami was built on land known to be below historical high water levels...and a fair amount of it below normal high tide levels...stupidity that can be laid at the feet of the perpetual democrat government down there.

Damned near all of the underground infrastructure is below mean sea level...again, stupidity on the part of liberals running the show down there...

Tide gauges in the area show a stead rise in the neighborhood of 1.7 to 2.0 mm per year...no real change...the land is sinking at a rate of .6mm per year.  Areas built on sand bars are going to sink and nothing can be done about it...it is stupid building codes that allow it...because people are willing to spend the money...absolutely no long range planning went into building the ocean front in miami...

Here is the satellite measured sea level in miami...as you can see there is no accelerated sea level trend.  At the present rate sea level will be up 1 meter in 2000 years.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



The fact that the land is sinking isn't belief...it is observable, measurable, empirical fact...your BELIEF that the land is not sinking in the face of measured, empirical proof that it is places you in the dumber than dirt category.


----------



## Crick (Apr 28, 2017)

Let's see you data Shit


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2017)

Crick said:


> Let's see you data Shit


I gave you the tide chart...if you want more, look it up yourself skid mark...I can't believe you are so clueless that you were unaware that south florida as well as much of the gulf coast is sinking and has been for a very long time...scratch that..I can believe it...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 28, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just for shits and giggles I brought up the solar measurements for the years in your graphings to see if solar input was changing and earth output was remaining the same.  And the solar input was almost flat for the last 35 years. No change of input can be seen from our energy source, the sun.

The only two items I could find that were changing at all was the earths albedo and cloud cover. As sea ice coverage in the polar regions diminished that hemisphere had a warming trend. Look at the latest papers about the southern hemisphere which has been cooling since 1999 while the arctic has been diminishing and the northern hemisphere was warming. Now once again we see the shift begin in the antarctic as it now begins to diminish from its snow and ice pack resurgence over the last 7 years.


----------



## Crick (Apr 28, 2017)

And why do you trust that data?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 28, 2017)

Crick said:


> And why do you trust that data?


Because I can cross reference the raw data from three independent sources. Which means I can tell if the data has been manipulated. Having access to private sources that have excellent scientific integrity is a plus..


----------



## Crick (Apr 29, 2017)

Hadley, GISS, JAMA, NCDC and BEST exhibit astounding agreement.  Yet you claim they are all lies.


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2017)

Crick said:


> Hadley, GISS, JAMA, NCDC and BEST exhibit astounding agreement.  Yet you claim they are all lies.




It would be surprising if they didn't....they all derive from GHCN V3 which originates the fraudulent adjustments to the raw data.


----------



## Crick (May 6, 2017)

Let's see some evidence that actually supports your accusation.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2017)

Why is it not surprising that you would be unaware of where the data comes from?


----------



## Crick (May 13, 2017)

I'm not surprised you failed to address the request.  Let's see some actual evidence that GHCN V3 is fraudulent. How about some testimony from some of the many scientists who use those data on a professional basis (ie, I don't want top hear the opinions of Christopher Monckton or Anthony Watts).


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> I'm not surprised you failed to address the request.  Let's see some actual evidence that GHCN V3 is fraudulent. How about some testimony from some of the many scientists who use those data on a professional basis (ie, I don't want top hear the opinions of Christopher Monckton or Anthony Watts).




You mean testimony from the pseudoscientists who depend on continued warming and false anxiety to keep their jobs?


----------



## Crick (May 13, 2017)

People with applicable PhDs doing research and getting it publish in peer reviewed journals are not "pseudo scientists".  That would be more like, oh, Christopher Monckton, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, James Taylor, Bjorn Lomborg, Bob Armstrong, Burt Rutan, Sallie Bailunas, Stephen Moore, Tim Ball, Richard Tol, David Legates, John Christy, Judith Curry, Don Easterbrook, Roy Spencer, Willis Eschenbach, William Happer, Roger Pielke Jr, Chris Horner, Nir Shaviv, Craig Idso, Richard Lindzen or Willie Soon.

And the idea that virtually every climate scientist on the face of the planet is falsifying data and lying about their findings is simply and irrefutably delusional.  To make such a claim you either have to be insane or ignorant or both.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> People with applicable PhDs doing research and getting it publish in peer reviewed journals are not "pseudo scientists".



Really?  Franz Gall was a physician, who did research and published in peer reviewed journals...all about phrenology...and was followed by other degreed pseudoscientists who also published in peer reviewed journals.

A fellow named Fredrick Osborne held a PhD who did research and wrote in peer reviewed journals all about eugenics...and he was followed by many more PhD's writing in other peer reviewed journals.

The list of people with applicable PhD's who did research and published pseudoscience in peer reviewed journals is as long as the list of PhD's who do research and publish science...in fact, most of what has become empirically proven science today began as pseudoscience.  That is because it takes a good long time to sort out the belief from the observable, measurable, quantifiable truth.

Hell, the process is ongoing in what we have long thought to be settled science...gut bacteria causing ulcers rather than stress...cholesterol not being the cause of cardiac disease...all of the dietary warnings which turned out to be false..and on and on.

The only people who believe any science is settled are those who believe in pseudoscience..pseudoscience is always settled because it doesn't really require any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data...

The very fact that you believe that people with applicable PhD's who do research and publish in peer reviewed journals are always right and never produce pseudoscience is a clear and bold indication of exactly where your head is with regard to the state and progress of science. In short...you don't have a clue....you pick a topic based on your political leanings and from that point on you simply believe and look for whatever picked cherries support your belief...much as young earthers...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CONTINUATION....
> ...


just like Mann's tree rings, right


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



The gold standard for temperature reconstructions is ice cores and they certainly don't agree with the alarmist picture of history.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



plus they show that CO2 LAGS temperature on both the increase and decrease


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 16, 2019)

Rolling Thunder in reply to SSDD posted a long exposed bogus paper by Pseudoscientist Sherwood, who amazingly conned dumb shit ignorant warmists into believing the Tropospheric Hot spot was found, he posted:

*"Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot*
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
*Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques—linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood....."*

================

Hilarious at how easy it was for this con man to fool a lot of warmists with his bogus claims.

DR. Sherwood claims he found the hotspot was quickly exposed as poor science since he abandoned the Satellite data that DOESN'T show it in favor indirect modeled wind data, he also fudged the Sonde records (A science malpractice move) which has never been duplicated by anyone else. His IMPROPER use of Kridging methods were also exposed. 

It is clear you never read his horrid paper, since the internal claims are obviously made up.

The Satellite data never shows what he claims at all, the very best possible measure of the lower atmosphere calls him a liar:







_Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source:  HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled  altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013. _

LINK


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2019)




----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2019)




----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2019)

Try finding some data that isn't heavily manipulated, homogenized, and infilled...


----------

