# Ice, again



## Abraham3 (Feb 1, 2014)

Any comments?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2014)

Serious question Abraham.  Do you deny that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 1, 2014)

I agree that we are late in the term of an ice age, given historical behavior.  Why?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I agree that we are late in the term of an ice age, given historical behavior.  Why?



Late term meaning "exiting"....?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2014)

What;s the matter abraham, can't bring yourself to engage in some straight talk.  Is the earth or is it not exiting an ice age....not to be confused with interglacial periods?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 1, 2014)

I don't believe we know the details of an ice age's progression with enough detail to state that conditions over the last 150 years give us certainty that the ice age is ending.  The Milankovitch cycles aren't going to do anything for a good long while and the long term TSI trend seems to be downward.  And, besides, why would I do anything to cooperate with you?

Why don't you simply get to your point?  Are you having trouble getting there without me?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I don't believe we know the details of an ice age's progression with enough detail to state that conditions over the last 150 years give us certainty that the ice age is ending.  The Milankovitch cycles aren't going to do anything for a good long while and the long term TSI trend seems to be downward.  And, besides, why would I do anything to cooperate with you?
> 
> Why don't you simply get to your point?  Are you having trouble getting there without me?



So what you are saying is that you don't know whether the earth is exiting an ice age or not?  Interesting.  And I have no problem getting to my point.  There is a certain entertainment factor in watching you do your silly dance rather than simply state what you think.

Hell of a thing to be so sure about AGW and unable to state whether or not the earth is exiting an ice age.  Are you saying that climate science remains unsure about something as large and obvious as that?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 1, 2014)

I'm saying that I don't feel like playing childish games with you. You say you've got no problem getting to your point, but you haven't gotten there yet.  Did you perhaps forget what it was?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I'm saying that I don't feel like playing childish games with you. You say you've got no problem getting to your point, but you haven't gotten there yet.  Did you perhaps forget what it was?



So you deny that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age....or you are unsure as to whether the earth is exiting an ice age....or perhaps you are unsure of what an ice age is.

In any event, your waffling over a straight forward question identifies you for what you truly are.  Congratulations.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I'm saying that I don't feel like playing childish games with you. You say you've got no problem getting to your point, but you haven't gotten there yet.  Did you perhaps forget what it was?








Your OP is a childish game.  Your high priests claimed that there would be NO ICE in the Arctic by 2013.  Looks like they were wrong.  The last I heard the Arctic ice was in a "death spiral".

All I see is a lot of hyperbole and so much ice cover at the North Pole that you couldn't do this today....Imagine that, waaaaaay back in 1987 three subs surfaced at the North pole.







This was 1986






Or how about 1962?






Or how about 1959?






This is the USS Honolulu about 300 miles form the North Pole once again back in the 80's....I love the Polar Bears....


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 1, 2014)

Please.  Are you REALLY going to put those photographs forward as possessing any significance regarding Arctic ice extents?

And SSDD, if you've got a point, make it.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Please.  Are you REALLY going to put those photographs forward as possessing any significance regarding Arctic ice extents?
> 
> And SSDD, if you've got a point, make it.







Why yes, yes I am.  I know it is hard for you to think logically but give it a try.  All of those years I posted you could surface a sub AT the North Pole.  How long has it been since you could do that?  Can't do it this year, couldn't do it last year, nor the year before that.  Etc. etc. etc.

What that shows me is the ice extent and volume have been significantly lower in the past than today.  We have loads of newspaper articles from the 1920's that say the exat same thing.  We have a wooden ship that was able to sail further north over 100 years ago than has been possible in the current time.

The amount that you don't know is simply astounding.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 2, 2014)

I would not make assumptions about what other people do and do not know.

 Sturgeon (637) and newer classes can get up through 6 feet of ice.  Los Angeles (688) prior to 751 cannot as their fairwater planes won't rotate to the vertical.  That a photograph has penned on it "North Pole" does not mean the photograph was taken at the North Pole. Subs do not surface where they want to, they surface where they can find polynyas or open leads.  Such captions simply mean "Here is a photograph from our trip to the "North Pole".  What sailor wants to tell his folks or his sweetie "Well, we didn't quite get to the Pole... came short about 15 miles, but here's a picture of me at some other equally featureless expanse of white - aren't I cool?".  Sailor's have commercial-grade poetic licenses.

There are NO comprehensive Arctic ice extent survey data prior to the use of satellites.  The best that could be would be aircraft tracks and why waste fuel surveying a constantly changing landscape that no one plans to visit?  Navy trips to the Poles, particularly those bothering to surface, are just about rare as hens teeth.  It's a nice short cut to Murmansk and the Iceland gap, but its also a good way to lose a boat.  They sent Nautilus up there and THEN found out her hull's brittle fracture temperature was 2F higher than the water she was sittting in.

  As we saw with that stranded ship down south, a photograph of ice one day is completely useless two days later.  The Arctic is a mass of flotsam, driven by the wind.  There is nothing preventing leads and polynyas opening up all the way to the Pole in the dead of the coldest winter.  

Now, I have no problem believing that the Arctic began melting about 1880, when human GHG emissions began driving up global temperatures.  I see no reason why the Arctic shouldn't have warmed more rapidly than the rest of the planet, then, as it does today.  

But the contention that Arctic ice is increasing in the long term is not supported by ANY - I repeat *ANY* satellite  imagery data ever collected.  The PIOMAS data clearly show that without some MAJOR change, the trend for Arctic summer will hit zero in less than 20 years.  Neither the PIOMAS nor all the satellite ice extent data show any significant change at any point in their spans.  If it's actually growing, it's got some hellacious natural variation.  It would kinda makes the 15 year warming hiatus pale, wouldn't it?

But, hey, you've got some old photographs.  Why don't you frame them and hang them on the wall for sentiment's sake?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 2, 2014)

Westwall has no real arguements, so uses idiocy. Varies from taking a sentence totally out of context, to using photos like above. The Arctic is losing ice rapidly. It is having a clear affect on the climate. The jet stream meanders are moving more slowly, and have deeper troughs, north to south. That means in the summer, heat further north, and in the winter, cold further south. 

Having open water for longer in the fall also means a warmer Arctic in the winter, as freezing ice warms the air. And that creates many of the effects we have seen this winter.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETpm9JAdfcs]Climate Change and Extreme Weather: Prof. Jennifer Francis (2013) - YouTube[/ame]

And, yes, Westwall, a real Phd scientist at a real science conferance, not a blog by undegreed idiots.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Please.  Are you REALLY going to put those photographs forward as possessing any significance regarding Arctic ice extents?
> 
> And SSDD, if you've got a point, make it.



Sure, if you can bring yourself to stop waffling for long enough to answer a straight forward question.  Think you can manage it?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 2, 2014)

I'm tired of your bullshit.  You've had two days and a dozen posts to just make your point but have utterly failed to do so. Go fuck yourself.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Serious question Abraham.  Do you deny that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age?





Abraham3 said:


> I agree that we are late in the term of an ice age, given historical behavior.  Why?





SSDD said:


> Late term meaning "exiting"....?





SSDD said:


> What;s the matter abraham, can't bring yourself to engage in some straight talk.  Is the earth or is it not exiting an ice age....not to be confused with interglacial periods?





Abraham3 said:


> I don't believe we know the details of an ice age's progression with enough detail to state that conditions over the last 150 years give us certainty that the ice age is ending.  The Milankovitch cycles aren't going to do anything for a good long while and the long term TSI trend seems to be downward.  And, besides, why would I do anything to cooperate with you?
> 
> Why don't you simply get to your point?  Are you having trouble getting there without me?





SSDD said:


> So what you are saying is that you don't know whether the earth is exiting an ice age or not?  Interesting.  And I have no problem getting to my point.  There is a certain entertainment factor in watching you do your silly dance rather than simply state what you think.
> 
> Hell of a thing to be so sure about AGW and unable to state whether or not the earth is exiting an ice age.  Are you saying that climate science remains unsure about something as large and obvious as that?





Abraham3 said:


> I'm saying that I don't feel like playing childish games with you. You say you've got no problem getting to your point, but you haven't gotten there yet.  Did you perhaps forget what it was?





SSDD said:


> So you deny that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age....or you are unsure as to whether the earth is exiting an ice age....or perhaps you are unsure of what an ice age is.
> 
> In any event, your waffling over a straight forward question identifies you for what you truly are.  Congratulations.





Abraham3 said:


> And SSDD, if you've got a point, make it.





SSDD said:


> Sure, if you can bring yourself to stop waffling for long enough to answer a straight forward question.  Think you can manage it?





Abraham3 said:


> I'm tired of your bullshit.  You've had two days and a dozen posts to just make your point but have utterly failed to do so. Go fuck yourself.



SSDD, put your question up your ass and spin.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 2, 2014)

What's the matter abraham?  You really don't know whether or not the earth is exiting an ice age?

Imagine, spending two days waffling rather than answering such an easy question.  My but you are weak.  Rather look like a shuck and jive idiot than either admit that you deny that the earth is exiting an ice age, or acknowledge that it is.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 2, 2014)

Ice ages on the Earth have occurred about every 30 to 40 thousand years, the last major ice age ended around 10 thousand BC or BE.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 2, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> Ice ages on the Earth have occurred about every 30 to 40 thousand years, the last major ice age ended around 10 thousand BC or BE.



You are confusing ice ages with glaciations.  The ice age that we presently live in began more than a million years ago.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> What's the matter abraham?  You really don't know whether or not the earth is exiting an ice age?
> 
> Imagine, spending two days waffling rather than answering such an easy question.  My but you are weak.  Rather look like a shuck and jive idiot than either admit that you deny that the earth is exiting an ice age, or acknowledge that it is.



Enjoy the spin.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Westwall has no real arguements, so uses idiocy. Varies from taking a sentence totally out of context, to using photos like above. The Arctic is losing ice rapidly. It is having a clear affect on the climate. The jet stream meanders are moving more slowly, and have deeper troughs, north to south. That means in the summer, heat further north, and in the winter, cold further south.
> 
> Having open water for longer in the fall also means a warmer Arctic in the winter, as freezing ice warms the air. And that creates many of the effects we have seen this winter.
> 
> ...



What you fail to understand Old Rocks, is that Westwall is not here to hear any counter evidence. If he watched even the first minute of your video he would realize it's against his views and would thusly tune it out. He would conclude it does not count as evidence therefore.

Little do we all know Westwall sets the standards for what is evidence and what is not among the scientific and academic community. That's what keeps him so busy from making any substantive point. Trust me, he's doing god's work. Mind you, his understanding is that of god's--omniscience and we must listen. Providing alternative ideas is counter to his methods of ignoring them.

BTW, thanks for the vid...


----------



## westwall (Feb 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Westwall has no real arguements, so uses idiocy. Varies from taking a sentence totally out of context, to using photos like above. The Arctic is losing ice rapidly. It is having a clear affect on the climate. The jet stream meanders are moving more slowly, and have deeper troughs, north to south. That means in the summer, heat further north, and in the winter, cold further south.
> 
> Having open water for longer in the fall also means a warmer Arctic in the winter, as freezing ice warms the air. And that creates many of the effects we have seen this winter.
> 
> ...







What, right now, is causing the Jet Stream to move south olfraud?  It is a WELL KNOWN phenomenon.  So tell us what it is.


----------



## westwall (Feb 2, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall has no real arguements, so uses idiocy. Varies from taking a sentence totally out of context, to using photos like above. The Arctic is losing ice rapidly. It is having a clear affect on the climate. The jet stream meanders are moving more slowly, and have deeper troughs, north to south. That means in the summer, heat further north, and in the winter, cold further south.
> ...








I have watched everything these idiots have ever posted.  And it is all correlation equals causation bull crap.  Any scientist KNOWs that correlation DOES NOT equal causation but that's ALL these people trot out.

It's crap.  It has always been crap, and it will always BE, crap.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 2, 2014)

As an idiot I refer you to the scientific community that takes high levels of correlation as substantive reasoning to address our role in eroding ice and other climate features that cause harm to man.

But I'm trying to think differently. A view that understands problems not as mere problems but sees them as the chance to innovate. It's the innovate or perish idea. I'm not saying humans will die (that idea is wildly absurd and I apologize on behalf of the AGW cultists who instilled fear) but when we ignore problems till they blow up in our face, it tends to create great strides in technological innovation--just the sort we need! And I'm all for innovation in solving these problems, whether its as late as possible or a steady approach. Perhaps I should be rooting for Westwall's brand of ignorance so it blows up in our face and we are forced to innovate or suffer.


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> As an idiot I refer you to the scientific community that takes high levels of correlation as substantive reasoning to address our role in eroding ice and other climate features that cause harm to man.
> 
> But I'm trying to think differently. A view that understands problems not as mere problems but sees them as the chance to innovate. It's the innovate or perish idea. I'm not saying humans will die (that idea is wildly absurd and I apologize on behalf of the AGW cultists who instilled fear) but when we ignore problems till they blow up in our face, it tends to create great strides in technological innovation--just the sort we need! And I'm all for innovation in solving these problems, whether its as late as possible or a steady approach. Perhaps I should be rooting for Westwall's brand of ignorance so it blows up in our face and we are forced to innovate or suffer.













Tell me.  What green energy programs have you worked on?  I've actually worked on one.  Dr. Carl Austin was a good friend of mine and recruited me to help him with the Coso Geothermal Plant at China Lake Naval Air Station back in the 1980's.  

Your particular brand of ignorance rewards failure.  Failure that is rewarded leads to continual treading of water, technology wise.  Why strive for something revolutionary when you don't have to.

I want REAL technological innovation.  You want to return to technologies that were rendered obsolete 100 years ago.

You're the Luddite here.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What's the matter abraham?  You really don't know whether or not the earth is exiting an ice age?
> ...



I am enjoying watching you spin rather than acknowledge that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 3, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> What you fail to understand Old Rocks, is that Westwall is not here to hear any counter evidence. If he watched even the first minute of your video he would realize it's against his views and would thusly tune it out. He would conclude it does not count as evidence therefore.



I can't help but notice that you failed to answer the post in which I gave you another source of the historical temp/CO2 numbers which you asked for along with sources....That was the post where you tried to claim that CO2 at 400ppm perhaps killed the corals during the Pleistocene when in fact, the Pleistocene was when the current ice age reached its lowest temperatures and CO2 was in fact falling from over 1000ppm where the corals were doing just fine.  Fact is that it is you and yours who won't see the hard historical facts that put your fearmongering in the trash where it belongs.

By the way, rock's video is trash produced by a climate activist who happens to have a pHd.  Here are some peer reviewed, published papers (as opposed to a talk at a confrence) that find that "extreme" weather is just more envirowacko hand waving.  I find it interesting that rocks would post some hysterical handwaving by an activist saying one thing in a speech when there is so much published material out there saying exactly the opposite.  Maybe rocks is an activist as well.

Late-Holocene land surface change in a coupled social?ecological system, southern Iceland: a cross-scale tephrochronology approach

Revisiting the evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in midlatitudes - Barnes - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Extreme weather : Nature News & Comment

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

500 years of regional forest growth variability and links to climatic extreme events in Europe - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

Changes of regional climate variability in central Europe during the past 250 ye

Reconstructed drought variability in southeastern Sweden since the 1650s - Seftigen - 2012 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n6/full/nclimate1828.html

Paleofloods of the Mediterranean French Alps

A long-term perspective on a modern drought in the American Southeast - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 3, 2014)

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What's the matter abraham?  You really don't know whether or not the earth is exiting an ice age?
> ...


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in *the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?*




Fail.  Humans have been around for over two million years.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human* civilization*?



ESL?

CIVILIZATION: 
1.
an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2.
those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3.
any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization.
4.
the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
5.
cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.


----------



## IanC (Feb 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Any comments?



Abe-  I understand why you have great faith in CAGW....you simply accept climate science papers that agree with your views as the unvarnished truth. To you, there is no need for any skeptical examination of the accuracy of the data, no need to question the legitimacy of the conclusions. it's peer reviewed, right?

I joined this MB before climategate but I only came to this forum afterwards. I was predisposed to disagreeing with CAGW for several reasons. I have lived through enough concensus paradigms to know that they often are mistaken, especially when they create a financial windfall to a bureaucratic cohort. I am also smart, with enough math and science training to notice logical deficits in many of climate science claims.



take your sea ice example....what does it have to do with CO2? are you using sea ice as a proxy for temperature? are you testing your climate model predictions? if so, then they fail miserably at both poles with one having too much and the other too little. sea ice is obviously driven by many natural factors besides just temperature and we have only weak understanding of many of them.

a few years ago I read an article from the early 1920's that described spectacular ice loss and warmed sea surface temperatures for the european arctic region. I then looked up the official history for that area. the warming wasn't there! why would fishermen make up a story about their stock disappearing because of warmer temps? how were coal deposits found unless the ice really did disappear?

I wondered why the large retreat of glaciers before 1900 was simply ignored! what about the supposed 'history' of sea ice in the 20th century? was it consistent or 'homogenized' like the temperature record? I bet most of you know the answer to that!

the Icelandic temp records have been so mangled that periods of ice retreat and advancement dont match up with the temperature! perhaps CO2 affects the freezing point of water, eh?


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human* civilization*?
> ...





You seriously don't know what you are talking about.  Your ignorance is showing more and more every single day.  

'The oldest work of art ever': 42,000-year-old paintings of seals found in Spanish cave | Mail Online


Where there's art, there's civilization.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?
> 
> Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.



Fisrst off, the ice age we are presently exiting has been going on for a hell of a lot longer than 10000 years.  

Second...read em and weep...chemical analysis.... more accurate than the IR analysis being used by modern climate science.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 3, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Funny thing is he claims to be worried about the earth and then only wants to know about CO2 concentrations for 10k years knowing that during that time the earth has been in an ice age and if one looks back to the beginning of the present ice age CO2 levels over 1000ppm are the norm and we know that the earth prior to the ice age wasn't that different from the one we live in now.....except for the ice age part.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 3, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Human ancestors have been around for roughly 2 million years. But Abraham obviously states civilization, which differs from pro-type humans.

Then you have the cajones to correct yourself by saying human civilization goes back to 42,000 years or so. That is distinctly different from 2 million years.

You celebrate your own correction as if you have just corrected Abraham. This is hilarious and it shows to what length you are willing to claim "victory" despite that victory really being your own stupidity being brought to light. I like your style, either way, you can't possibly loose. You win if youre right, you win if youre wrong!


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> we know that the earth prior to the ice age wasn't that different from the one we live in now.....except for the ice age part.



Hmmm, I thought ice ages brought about significant change. TO you the only difference is the ice age, everything remains the same. How is that possible when ice is covering large swaths of land that weren't covered before? Doesn't this significantly impact that region and if large enough, the globe?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 3, 2014)

IanC said:


> Abe-  I understand why you have great faith in CAGW....you simply accept climate science papers that agree with your views as the unvarnished truth. To you, there is no need for any skeptical examination of the accuracy of the data, no need to question the legitimacy of the conclusions. it's peer reviewed, right?
> 
> I joined this MB before climategate but I only came to this forum afterwards. I was predisposed to disagreeing with CAGW for several reasons. I have lived through enough concensus paradigms to know that they often are mistaken, especially when they create a financial windfall to a bureaucratic cohort. I am also smart, with enough math and science training to notice logical deficits in many of climate science claims.
> 
> ...





			
				IanC said:
			
		

> Abe- I understand why you have great faith in CAGW....you simply accept
> climate science papers that agree with your views as the unvarnished
> truth.



Wrong on all counts.  I do not have "faith" in the theory of AGW.  My
opinion, based on the overwhelming consensus of the experts, is that it
is extremely likely to be correct.  I generally reserve the word
"truth" for mathematical axioms or other universally recognized, a
priori statements of principle or rule.  I do not use the term for
theories of natural science.



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> To you, there is no need for any skeptical examination of the accuracy
> of the data, no need to question the legitimacy of the conclusions. it's
> peer reviewed, right?



Why do you waste time trying to tell me what I think?  I
am a steadfast believer in the scientific method.  That does NOT mean
that I think conclusions resulting from its exercise are infalliable
truths NOR that they should consistently be treated as suspect,
unsupported conjecture.  The degree to which I hold any scientific
conclusion likely to be correct is based on the responses and
observations I read, see and hear from the scientific community on the
specific topic.  And while I understand that scientists who feel they
have better explanations for given observations or that find
falsifications of accepted theory, should certainly bring them forward
(and do, as one of the best ways to enhance a career in science) -
_*I*_ am not a scientist.  I have neither the knowledge set
nor the time to do any more research than click a few links and read a
few articles.  I have taken the time to note that a very strong
consensus exists among the world's climate experts regarding AGW and the
threat it presents to us and more so to our descendants.  Based on that
consensus, I accept AGW as, by far, the likeliest description of what
this planet's climate is actually doing.  Based on the threat it levels
against my children and theirs and the rest of humanity for many
generations, I choose to work to ameliorate the threat as I can.  One of
the tasks with which those choices present me is to debate those who
reject AGW in public forums.  Why are you here?  What are you
protecting?  What evil do you seek to stop?  Excessive sensitivity to
environmental degradation?



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> I joined this MB before climategate but I only came to this forum
> afterwards. I was predisposed to disagreeing with CAGW for several
> reasons. I have lived through enough concensus paradigms to know that
> they often are mistaken, especially when they create a financial
> ...



Consensus paradigms are often mistaken?  I disagree.  An examination of
consensus positions on matters of natural science since the time of
Francis Bacon would certainly show an improving batting average. How
much of the currently accepted set of natural and physical science
theories do you believe is in error?  I think the notoriety of failed
theories may be leading you to give them more weight than they actually
possess.  For every theory that fails, hundreds are solid as a rock.  

And if you actually want to suggest that a group as large as the world's
climate scientists are consistently and sufficiently dishonest to lie to
the public through tens of thousands of peer reviewed journals, I think
this conversation can just end.  The suggestion is both ignorant and
offensive.  That you knew someone who might have such a moral lack or
that you might have felt such temptations yourself is NOT evidence that
it is commonplace.

"I am also smart"???  Not smart enough, apparently, to realize the very
disappointing impression such a comment gives.  Your claim of expertise
is patent nonsense. You are not a publishing climate scientist. You are
not doing climate research.  You are not reviewing journal submissions.
You may think you are sufficently knowledgeable to catch "logical
deficits" in research articles, but you do not have the real
qualifications to convince me - or anyone else lacking a denier's
mindset - that you have such abilities.  If you believe you have noticed
logical deficits in AGW, please spell them out for us.  



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> take your sea ice example....what does it have to do with CO2?



It is melting because the world - particularly the Arctic world - is
getting warmer.  That is happening primarily due to the Greenhouse
Effect acting on human GHG emissions.



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> are you using sea ice as a proxy for temperature?



Of course.  Local polar air and sea temperatures.  



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> are you testing your climate model predictions?



Ian, neither of us are climate scientists.  Neither of us have climate
models.  Neither of us have climate model predictions.  What test would
I perform by posting pretty pictures of these data on a public message
board Ian?  I am using these data to support a contention that the Earth
continues to warm; that AGW did not cease in 1998 as many deniers would
like to argue.



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> if so, then they fail miserably at both poles with one having too much
> and the other too little.



Then, gosh, I guess I'm glad I don't have any.

The Arctic will very likely be ice-free in summer in less than 20
years.  That is a very signficant loss of albedo and it will have
serious impacts on walrus, seal and polar bear populations.  It also
presents a risk to the AMOC which could have global consequences on the
world's sea food supplies.  The sea ice in Antarctica is relatively
irrelevant.  Almost all of it disappears every summer and, optically, it
is thoroughly overwhelmed by the land-based ice there.  That is where
the risk lies.  The sub-MSL base of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
presents the possibility of a horrendous environmental catastrophe.
It's the sort of event whose potential for enormous damage makes it
something to keep in mind even if you think the odds of it occurring are
slim. 



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> sea ice is obviously driven by many natural factors besides just
> temperature and we have only weak understanding of many of them.



That is all perfectly true.  Just don't take it to mean that temperature
is not a MAJOR factor, because it is.  



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> a few years ago I read an article from the early 1920's that
> described spectacular ice loss and warmed sea surface temperatures for
> the european arctic region. I then looked up the official history for
> that area. the warming wasn't there! why would fishermen make up a story
> ...



What are you trying to say?  I have to tell you I am not fond of science
by anecdote and that's exactly what you're feeding us here.



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> I wondered why the large retreat of glaciers before 1900 was simply
> ignored!



Ignored?!?!  What is this Ian?
https://www.google.com/#q=retreat,+glaciers,+1800s.  As
often as deniers claim their arguments are being suppressed, you'd think
they might be more cautious of appearing paranoid or trying too hard to
appear the victim.  I don't say that I see this coming from you in
particular, but the number of times deniers with whom I argue claim that
this story or this fact or this trend is being suppressed by the mass
media or by some cabal of big name scientists is simply ludicrous.
Particularly when in virtually every instance a simple search yields
mass media references to the "suppressed" factoid hand over fist.



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> what about the supposed 'history' of sea ice in the 20th century? was it
> consistent or 'homogenized' like the temperature record? I bet most of
> you know the answer to that!



Once again, I don't know what you're trying to say.  You may be too
involved in the denier internal dialogue.  I'm not privvy to all your
references.



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> the Icelandic temp records have been so mangled that periods of ice
> retreat and advancement dont match up with the temperature! perhaps CO2
> affects the freezing point of water, eh?



Have I been making some point with Icelandic temperatures or melt rates?
Has anyone?  Didn't you just get finished telling us that ice melt is
complex and that we don't yet know all the factors?  And, if you're
going to bring up Iceland with comments like that (Mr Smart and
Full-of-Math-and-Science) you might want to think about geothermal
effects.  Iceland?  MAR?  Ya know?

So, quite the ramble.  But, are we clear?

1) The very strong consensus among climate experts supporting AGW makes
it extremely likely that AGW is a correct theory.
2) Neither you nor I are climate scientists; we have no models; we have
no predictions
3) I believe the world's ice is melting because the Earth is getting
warmer and that it is getting warmer primarily due to the Greenhouse
Effect acting on human GHG emissions.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 3, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



CIVILIZATION:* a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached*.

Cave paintings don't qualify.  Like you.

But, hey, I'm easy.  When was the highest level of CO2 in the past 42,000 years?  Oh, heck, make it 50,000 years.  Eh?

Guess what?  Same hint applies.  It's on your desk calendar.  It's on your watch.  It's on your cell phone.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?
> ...



Let me get this straight.  You're now contending that CO2 levels are not rising; that the Keeling curve from the Mauna Loa Observatory is grossly inaccurate?  Wow.  

Keeling Curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Keeling Curve is a graph which plots the ongoing change in concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere since 1958. It is based on continuous measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii that began under the supervision of Charles David Keeling. Keeling's measurements showed the first significant evidence of rapidly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Many scientists credit Keeling's graph with first bringing the world's attention to the current increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[1]
Charles David Keeling, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, was the first person to make frequent regular measurements of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, taking readings at the South Pole and in Hawaii from 1958 onwards.[2]
Prior to Keeling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was thought to be affected by constant variability. Keeling had perfected the measurement techniques and observed "strong diurnal behavior with steady values of about 310 ppm in the afternoon" at three locations: (Big Sur near Monterey, the rain forests of Olympic Peninsula and high mountain forests in Arizona).[3] By measuring the ratio of two isotopes of carbon, Keeling attributed the diurnal change to respiration from local plants and soils, with afternoon values representative of the "free atmosphere". By 1960, Keeling and his group had determined that the measurement records from California, Antarctica, and Hawaii were long enough to see not just the diurnal and seasonal variations, but also a year-on-year increase that roughly matched the amount of fossil fuels burned per year. In the article that made him famous, Keeling observed, "at the South Pole the observed rate of increase is nearly that to be expected from the combustion of fossil fuel".[4] 

How about some links to your graphs?  You failed to provide any with your initial post.

References:

1)  Briggs, Helen (December 1, 2007). "50 years on: The Keeling Curve legacy". BBC News.
2)  Rose Kahele (October/November 2007). "Behind the Inconvenient Truth". Hana Hou! vol. 10, No. 5.
3) The Early Keeling Curve. Scripps CO2 Program
4) C. D. Keeling, The Concentration and Isotopic Abundances of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere, Tellus, 12, 200-203, 1960


----------



## SSDD (Feb 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



What I am saying, and provided the references is that CO2 levels have been found via chemical testing to have been above 450ppm in the recent past.  If you care to prove those chemical analyses of the atmosphere wrong, then do it.

Look at each graph.....see the names....each represents the author whose finding is shown.  Are you to damned lazy to even read the graphs.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 3, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > we know that the earth prior to the ice age wasn't that different from the one we live in now.....except for the ice age part.
> ...



Tell us what brings on ice ages...and what ends them.  I am sure there is a nobel in it for anyone who can actually achieve that feat.   You pretend to know a great deal but show no evidence of any such knowledge.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wrong on all counts.  I do not have "faith" in the theory of AGW.  My opinion, based on the overwhelming consensus of the experts....



So your opinion is based on a logical fallacy....how surprising is that?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 3, 2014)

You're willfully ignorant.  How surprising is that?


----------



## mamooth (Feb 3, 2014)

This link talks about the historical chemical CO2 testing that SSDD has decided is the new RealTruth.

Beck's historical CO2 measurements

The main points are:

1. Chemical testing has poor accuracy.

2. The siting of samples was terrible, at ground level, where CO2 levels are much higher and vary much more. There's a reason sampling is now done on mountaintops.

3. The wild CO2 swings showed by such measurements are physically impossible. The are no sinks and sources on the planet that could belch or absorb so much CO2 so quickly.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in *the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?*
> ...



Homonids have been around 2 million years, Homo Sap only about 200,000 years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?
> ...



Now that is the most bullshit I have ever seen in one post. Absolutely laughable.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Crap. You are completely full of shit. 

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

An instrument near the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii has recorded a long-awaited climate milestone: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there has exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 55 years of measurementand probably more than 3 million years of Earth history.


The last time the concentration of Earth's main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic. Seas were at least 30 feet higherat a level that today would inundate major cities around the world.


The planet was about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer. But the Earth then was in the final stage of a prolonged greenhouse epoch, and CO2 concentrations were on their way down. This time, 400 ppm is a milepost on a far more rapid uphill climb toward an uncertain climate future


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 3, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Human ancestors have been around for roughly 2 million years.



Just when I think the dumbest thing ever said in this forum has been said, someone manages to up the ante.

Humans first appeared over 2 million years ago.  The fact that you would even question this shows that you're completely ignorant.



> But Abraham obviously states civilization, which differs from pro-type humans.



What the Hell is a pro-type human?



> Then you have the cajones to correct yourself by saying human civilization goes back to 42,000 years or so. That is distinctly different from 2 million years.





No.  I said that humans have been around for about 2 million years.  I said it then, I say it now.  I also said that where there's art, there's culture.  Those two things are not inconsistent with each other.



> You celebrate your own correction as if you have just corrected Abraham. This is hilarious and it shows to what length you are willing to claim "victory" despite that victory really being your own stupidity being brought to light.



There is no correction.  Observe:

Fact:  Humans first appeared on Earth about 2 million years ago.
Fact:  Where there's art, there is culture.
Fact:  The oldest discovered works of human art date back to 42,000 years ago. 



> I like your style, either way, you can't possibly loose. You win if youre right, you win if youre wrong!



Okay, I'm going to put on the serious hat for a moment here.

You know nothing of my "style."  The fact that you went on that little tirade demonstrates that my points were entirely over your head.  The details I presented, which you think you are cleverly rebutting, are intended to be red herrings.  Whether humans have been around for 2 million years or not, what species those humans were, or exactly how long human "civilization" (an extremely subjective and difficult to define concept) has existed are not the issue here.  What I am addressing Abby on is the fact that he is very selectively picking and choosing arbitrary reference frames for his own convenience.  And then coming up with post hoc rationales for why his chosen reference frames have some kind of special relevance.  This fact is illustrated by Abby's demonstrable ignorance on the characteristics he tries to claim lend his reference frames as significant.  His claim that human "civilization" started 10,000 years ago is tenuous at best.  And even if it were true, there is nothing about the "beginning" of "civilization that is remarkable in order to justify using it as a reference point for anything here.  Why not go back an additional 10,000 years?  Another 50,000 years?

All of this betrays the most fundamental flaw in everything Abby says and believes in regards to everything he says in this forum.  That flaw is the fact that Abby's entire perspective is *extremely ego/anthro centric*.  In his view "civilization" refers to *his* version.  Culture refers to *his* standards.  He's not much different than the ancient Romans who referred to all non Romans as barbarians.  When the truth is that all those other peoples had very rich and profound culture and were perfectly civilized.  Their culture and form of civilization was just *different*.  His practice here of defining these things in terms of his own preferences is right in step with his habit of defining the Earth's climate in terms of the climate he experiences now, and with trends that occur proximate to his own life span.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



H. Sapiens are not the only humans to have ever walked the Earth.  Bet that really chaps you to hear someone say, doesn't it?  Here we go.....they're not "real" humans, they're not "modern" humans, blah, blah, blah.

Save it, because I have news for you.  H. Habilus, H. Erectus, N. Neanderthalensis, and all the various sub-species and proposed unique species.....*They were human beings just as much as you and I are, no less human than us, no less people than us*.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 3, 2014)

SWIM

Your ability is stupendous. You did it again, you turned a statement of fact into a victory dance. First you  mis-read Abraham's post confusing humans in civilization for humans in general. 2 million is different from 42,000 years. It's a simple mistake but you go to claim that Abraham is the one at fault. Outstanding show!

Then when an opponent claims humans have been around 2 million years you flip it into your opponent is denying it. I assure you when a sentence has a period at the end, it is not calling the sentence into question. I'm sorry it was confusing but maybe next time tone down the drive to verbally execute someone and we might be able to have some genuine discussion.

And forgive me on the pro-type, I meant proto-type.


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?
> 
> Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.










Who cares.  CO2 lags temperature so it clearly has nothing to do with anything.  The Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8000 years ago was WAY hotter than today and the CO2 levels were low.  

What more evidence do you need to show you that CO2 is meaningless?


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 3, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> SWIM
> 
> Your ability is stupendous. You did it again, you turned a statement of fact into a victory dance. First you  mis-read Abraham's post confusing humans in civilization for humans in general. 2 million is different from 42,000 years. It's a simple mistake but you go to claim that Abraham is the one at fault. Outstanding show!
> 
> ...



*shakes head*

The sad part is that I think you really, truly, believe that you think you actually understood what I said.


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You're willfully ignorant.  How surprising is that?








You present a wiki article and SSDD presents you with peer reviewed studies and you say he's the willfully ignorant one


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









Then show how they're wrong.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 4, 2014)

A-HAH!!!

Global warming is caused by WIND!






From Beck's historical CO2 measurements that Mamooth located.  Thank you Mamooth.  Now, if only we can catch the wind!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?
> ...



His hypothesis is unfalsifiable....there is no evidence that would convince him it is wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> A-HAH!!!
> 
> Global warming is caused by WIND!
> 
> ...



Stupid enough to think that CO2 causes warming....but now you think wind causes warming.  Not surprised.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 4, 2014)

Whooosh!  Right over your head, eh?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 4, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?
> ...



How about some evidence that actually supports your contention?  

You claim to be a reasonably intelligent fellow.  Yet you reject the Greenhouse Effect.

No one in climate science has ever rejected the idea that increasing heat will lead to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  But explain to me how THAT gives any indication at all that CO2, which unquestionably absorbs infrared radiation, cannot increase global temperatures.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What more evidence do you need to show you that CO2 is meaningless?
> ...



God are you stupid.


----------



## IanC (Feb 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> So, quite the ramble.  But, are we clear?
> 
> 1) The very strong consensus among climate experts supporting AGW makes
> it extremely likely that AGW is a correct theory.
> ...




no, I don't think we are clear. that is, perhaps, the biggest stumbling block to discussing this whole issue.

Von Storch's poll on AGW was perhaps the best, and it pointed out the difference between scientists believing in a) global warming, b) mechanism of CO2 to affect radiative transfer, c) magnitude of CO2 effect, d) positive and negative feedbacks to disruptions caused by CO2 and e) wild ass guesses about the benefits or costs of temperature change.

I think everyone should agree that there has been some warming since we came out of the Little Ice Age. but our understanding of the magnitude of that change has been compromised by the steady stream of adjustments and arbitrary corrections implimented over the last few decades. 

I think everyone should agree that there is an existing mechanism by which doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere theoretically should cause a ~1K increase, if all other components in the equilibrium remain unchanged. (as an aside, I am unhappy with this being more or less just assumed as correct. at the very least, I would like to know what the theoretical calculations say is the necessary concentration of CO2 to raise the first 1K so that we have a better understanding of how much of the greenhouse effect is attributible to CO2. 5-26% is a rather large span).

the radiative effect of CO2 is basically a boundary effect (first at the surface, secondarily at the top of clouds). the radiation choked off by extra CO2 goes into conduction, convextion, latent heat and atmospheric/surface heat sinks. some of the radiation will go into heat sinks and raise temps but some just shunts off to other routes, which are more efficient as temps go up. equilibriums change when conditions change. but on the whole natural systems work towards homeostasis via governors and negative feedbacks, not positive feedbacks which overwhelm the balance. the planet didnt burn up during the MWP, RWP or any other time during this interglacial when the temps were warmer than today.

I dont believe in the _anthropogenic_ theory of global warming with CO2 as the control knob because there isnt enough evidence for it even when you ignore the evidence against it! until we get some realistic idea of how much warming is directly attributible to CO2 should we just carry on in the present SOP and blame everything on CO2?

the demonization of CO2 is just a proxy for demonizing humanity. I would rather spent the trillions of dollars cleaning up real pollution and improving the standards for most of the people of the world, rather than spend it on futile and wasteful attempts to curb necessary energy usage.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








Where oh where do I reject the greenhouse effect?  I merely state that the GHG effect of CO2 is subsumed in the much larger GHG effect of water vapor.  As far as the "proof" you desire.  You can start here.


"Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination."  Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present).  One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years.  Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.  Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years."



CO2 Science

CO2 Science


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You claim to be a reasonably intelligent fellow.  *Yet you reject the Greenhouse Effect*.



*Stop repeating this god damned lie!!!*


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You claim to be a reasonably intelligent fellow.  *Yet you reject the Greenhouse Effect*.
> ...







It's all they have.  If they didn't lie, they would have nothing.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 4, 2014)

westwall said:


> Then show how they're wrong.



He just did. For someone who claims to read everything, it's interesting that you don't seem to have read anything here. Not Abe's post, not my link, both of which debunked SSDD's conspiracy theory.

You're also failing on "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" grounds. When someone makes a claim that all CO2 measurements on the planet have been totally wrong for decades running, that's an extraordinary claim. SSDD provided no evidence at all for that claim, other than his unsourced graphs. And instead of being a genuine skeptic and demanding extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claims, you accepted his conspiracy at face value and ignored the previous debunkings of it.

In other words, it was the usual denialist failure at being skeptical. All the actual skeptics are on the other side.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Then show how they're wrong.
> ...








Actually admiral, no he didn't.  He presented yet more "correlation equals causation" horse manure.  Any good scientist, emphasis on "good", knows that that is not the case.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 4, 2014)

This is not a correlation. This is a known causation, directly measurable as the process happens, much like gravity causing an object to fall. CO2 builds up near the ground under an inversion layer at night, then the winds and heating of the day destroy the inversion layer and disperse the extra CO2. A plot of half-hourly measurements shows it more clearly.






At this point, you can say "yep, you're right", or you can stick with SSDD's "Mainstream science is all wrong, and these are the real CO2 measurements!" theory. If that's the case, I'll start asking you to explain the details of it. Such as the physical mechanism that would cause CO2 levels of the whole atmosphere to fluctuate by 100 ppm in less than 1 hour.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> This is not a correlation. This is a known causation, directly measurable as the process happens, much like gravity causing an object to fall. CO2 builds up near the ground under an inversion layer at night, then the winds and heating of the day destroy the inversion layer and disperse the extra CO2. A plot of half-hourly measurements shows it more clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...










And what do you think that shows?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2014)

westwall said:


> And what do you think that shows?



What does it show?  What does it show...the cat knows that it shows a wavy purple line going through a brownish greenish straight line over and over, and it has something to do with CO2 and days...yeah days....that's the ticket...CO2 and days.  Hell all cats know that.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 4, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Where you say "CO2 lags temperature so it clearly has nothing to do with anything."



westwall said:


> I merely state that the GHG effect of CO2 is subsumed in the much larger GHG effect of water vapor.



Not in this instance you didn't.  You said "CO2 lags temperature so it clearly has nothing to do with anything."



westwall said:


> As far as the "proof" you desire.  You can start here.
> "Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination."  Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."
> 
> On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present).  One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years.  Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.  Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years."
> ...



It is difficult not to get exasperated.  
That CO2 comes out of solution when temperatures rise is not contested.  HOWEVER, that that happens has NOTHING to do with the FACT that CO2 absorbs infrared and its presence in the atmosphere will raise the Earth's temperature.  THAT IS THE FUCKING GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Your argument is akin to saying "water boils, therefore it cannot freeze".


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 4, 2014)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > This is not a correlation. This is a known causation, directly measurable as the process happens, much like gravity causing an object to fall. CO2 builds up near the ground under an inversion layer at night, then the winds and heating of the day destroy the inversion layer and disperse the extra CO2. A plot of half-hourly measurements shows it more clearly.
> ...



Good lord, man, open your eyes.  It means those measurements are being overwhelmed by LOCAL effects.  He might as well be standing next to the exhaust pipe of an 18-wheeler that runs half the day.  Just like Mamooth noted.  You'd have to be out of your mind to suggest that the global atmospheric CO2 levels were changing that radically in the course of a single day.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 4, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> I had learned that the most effective way to counteract my parents' crushing demands of me was to reject any effort to be smart.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








And it doesn't.  CO2 is so small a player in the GHG games that it barely registers on our best instruments.  Water vapor is THE dominant GHG and operates in the same wavelengths as CO2 does.  Thus it is impossible for CO2 to have any measureable effect.  That's why even though the CO2 levels have gone up, the temps haven't.

It's not rocket science and I agree arguing the same crap over and over with you guys does get trying.

How about you come up with something that actually is interesting.  Your material is old and tired and way, way, way out of date.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 4, 2014)

It appears you realize that your argument was completely off point, you're just not willing to admit it.

The only thing affecting water vapor levels in the Earth's atmosphere is temperature.  Water vapor cannot create itself. 

The atmosphere cannot hold more water than its temperature will allow.  It will immediately precipitate out.  It could hold a thousand times more CO2 than it currently has.  The lifespan of water in the atmosphere is measured in days.  The lifespan of CO2 is measured in centuries.  A mole of CO2 over the course of its time in the atmosphere will absorb thousands of times as much energy as a mole of water.  The only thing humans are doing that will increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is warming it with greenhouse gases.

You claimed to be a geologist, right?  Who knows this sort of... atmospheric physics better?  A geologist or an atmospheric physicist?  And what do atmospheric physicists say about this?  They say you're full of shit.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The lifespan of CO2 is measured in centuries.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 4, 2014)

westwall said:


> CO2 is so small a player...barely registers on our best instruments.





westwall said:


> it is impossible for CO2 to have any measureable effect.



It is measurable and also impossible to have measurable effects.

Which is it? It might help you to drop your vehement language so you can understand what your are saying for your own sake. Not to mention it makes it hard for profitable discussion when you are mostly focused on assuring us the impossibility and numb-skullery of opposing viewpoints. Drop this and we'd have a discussion centered around presentation of data, links and facts rather than beating a dead horse.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 4, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The lifespan of CO2 is measured in centuries.



The difference between thoroughly digesting everything you post and putting you on an ignore list is


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 4, 2014)




----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is so small a player...barely registers on our best instruments.
> ...



Gnarly, Westwall claims to be a Phd geologist. Yet he posts and talks like a Polysci major. All opinion, and zero scientific evidence. And, as you have probably already noticed, he never misses a chance to denigrate most of the leading scientists of today, particulary those in the field of geology.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> It appears you realize that your argument was completely off point, you're just not willing to admit it.
> 
> The only thing affecting water vapor levels in the Earth's atmosphere is temperature.  Water vapor cannot create itself.
> 
> ...








Tell us how the greenhouse works.  In YOUR words.  And no, the Residence Time of CO2 is 16 years...

http://www.co2web.info/


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



CO2 Science? A fucking rightwingnut blog! 

Anyone that has done the slightest research understands the lag of CO2 and the Milankovic Cycles. Only total frauds like you try this damnable bullshit for the willfully ignorant.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > It appears you realize that your argument was completely off point, you're just not willing to admit it.
> ...



On the contrary, you are the one that claims to be a Phd Geologist. So you tell us why all the rest of the scientists presenting their evidence at the AGU Conventions are wrong. And present real evidence supporting your case. The people at the AGU Conventions are real geologists, presenting real evidence, often from years of research on glaciers and the arctic. All you have shown us is fraudulent flap yap.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








After Abraham has had his say I'll happily demolish you yet again.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...







Then prove it numbnuts.  Those are real peer reviewed studies, unlike the pal reviewed crap you clowns use from a website run by a comic book editor....though I must say, based on the crap they spew they couldn't have picked a better person to run it


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2014)

A23A

A real scientist presenting real evidence.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Gnarly, Westwall claims to be a Phd geologist. Yet he posts and talks like a Polysci major. All opinion, and zero scientific evidence. And, as you have probably already noticed, he never misses a chance to denigrate most of the leading scientists of today, particulary those in the field of geology.



Ya know I was unaware of his credentials. From his posts I induced (and wrongly I admit) that at best this was a college undergrad or more likely egotistical high school graduate with a degree in self-deceit. Learning of this gives us all the more reason to look forward to his data and sources. Yet we mostly see attacks often personal in nature (and therefore highly irrelevant) that is used to claim victory without having supported his claims.

I like Westwall as I do any human. He has his talents but am confused why such an advanced degree can produce little data with lotsa unfounded claims. Must be a personal issue. We empathize, westie, we are all in this together. I hope someday you can come to empathize with the the reality that excessive environmental degradation is appalling and nefarious at the rate we see.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2014)

westwall said:


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



Now a short time ago, you requested that we keep our correspondence on a more respectful level. Numbnuts, eh? Well, you are a liar. You have zero evidence for any of your stances. You simply denigrate real scientists and pretend to be something you are not. Phd Geologist? Sure, baby, sure.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Gnarly, Westwall claims to be a Phd geologist. Yet he posts and talks like a Polysci major. All opinion, and zero scientific evidence. And, as you have probably already noticed, he never misses a chance to denigrate most of the leading scientists of today, particulary those in the field of geology.
> ...



You are a better person than I. I have 50 years experiance as a Millwright in heavy industry, dealing with idiots whose errors in judgement cost me hours, sometimes days, of hard, dirty, and dangerous work. I see people like Westwall as just another one of these kinds of people. You cannot teach them anything, because they allready know everything. And I am quite willing to use that kind of language on him that can get the attention of the people that I usually deal with. 

The other point is that I have had some university classes in Geology. All the 200 classes, and the highest class I have taken is 470/570 Eng.Geo. So if Westwall wants to talk real evidence, I am quite capable of understanding any point he wishes to make. He has very seldom demonstrated the kind of depth of knowledge that I have known from Phd Geologists teaching the classes that I have taken.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2014)

westwall said:


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



When someone makes a claim like this, you know that he has been losing. The winner, the person that presents real evidence, needs make no claims concerning winning and losing arguements.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 4, 2014)

If Westwall can't see his own patterns, he is in incredible state of denial. I figured that CO2 Science link was awfully fishy. Having once been a firm supporter in the Oregon Petiton, Westwall has since amended his stance. Then we see other sources of info that are foul: rightwing blog. Really and truly it amounts to the backlash of deep pocketed interests to pay for their own studies to show doubt and confusion about climate science. Indeed if you believe what you read on that webpage, you'd be in deep mire of political/financial interests trumping independently verified studies, research, and reasoning--and that's why Westwall relies on it for his information. The pattern is clear: Westwall is refusing to come to grips with his lack of credible science in favor of his financially motivated science.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 4, 2014)

I've gone the route of calling Westwall names in response to his posts but having found this only increases ire, I've taken to the tactic of supporting their interests for the sake of progress. I want them to think I'm on their side so we can finally get somewhere, and in a sense we are on the same side (being human) but you wouldn't think we were from the same planet given his ceaseless refutation of what anyone says (that disagrees in the slightest). I just don't see how living in such overt denial and self-deceit can work, I'd be wanting to murder someone every second. Guess they have better suppression and repression techniques...


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2014)

Sure thing silly people.  You keep on keepin' on.  The world is passing you by and you claim I'm the delusional one  You guys are too much!


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 5, 2014)

Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring.  The burden is to demonstrate that it is occurring, and the magnitude of such.  The burden is on them, because demanding proof of a negative is illogical.

Those who are making such claims continue to fail to meet their burden of proof.  They argue causation from correlation.  They argue ad populum  And then they shift the burden.  And then argue ad ignorantium.  All the meanwhile mixing in the occasional ad nauseum.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2014)

westwall said:


> Sure thing silly people.  You keep on keepin' on.  The world is passing you by and you claim I'm the delusional one  You guys are too much!



rocks and gnarly have themselves a regular little circle jerk cheerleading session going on, don't they.  I would imagine that you could track the course of each thread and find a pretty consistent threshold at which they must take a break from getting their asses kicked and spend some time patting each other on the back......or whatever.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring.  The burden is to demonstrate that it is occurring, and the magnitude of such.  The burden is on them, because demanding proof of a negative is illogical.
> 
> Those who are making such claims continue to fail to meet their burden of proof.  They argue causation from correlation.  They argue ad populum  And then they shift the burden.  And then argue ad ignorantium.  All the meanwhile mixing in the occasional ad nauseum.



Logic and the scientific method aren't really their forte'.  They are a faith based group and behave as such.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 5, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > It appears you realize that your argument was completely off point, you're just not willing to admit it.
> ...




CO2Web.info?  And you call Trenberth's work cartoons.  Give us a fooking break.

"Solomon S, Plattner GK, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P (February 2009). "Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (6): 17049. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.1704S. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812721106. PMC 2632717. PMID 19179281."

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 5, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring.



That might have been true 25 years ago, when such a contention was an extraordinary claim.  But at present, the vast majority of the experts in the field are fully satisfied with the evidence supporting AGW.  The denier position has become the (extreme) minority view and it is your side that now has the burden of making an extraordinary case.  Telling us that all the world's climatologists are ignorant crooks does not qualify.  NOTHING the deniers have presented does.

That's what happens when you pick the wrong side and refuse to face facts.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring.
> ...



It is an even more extraordinary claim today considering the fact that after all these years, and all that money spent, you still lack anything approaching hard evidence to support the claims....models hardly rise to the level of evidence and nature herself bitch slaps your hypothesis daily.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2014)

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.pdf

Abstract.
 We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% greater than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as great as that in the mid-1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of four greater. These
speeds were achieved as the glacier terminus appears to have retreated to the bottom of an over-deepened basin with a depth of 1300m below sea level. The terminus is likely to reach the deepest section of the trough within a few decades, after which it could rapidly retreat to the shallower regions
50 km farther upstream, potentially by the end of this century.

*Well, SSDD, seems that mother nature is bitch slapping you.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 5, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring.  The burden is to demonstrate that it is occurring, and the magnitude of such.  The burden is on them, because demanding proof of a negative is illogical.
> 
> Those who are making such claims continue to fail to meet their burden of proof.  They argue causation from correlation.  They argue ad populum  And then they shift the burden.  And then argue ad ignorantium.  All the meanwhile mixing in the occasional ad nauseum.






well said.........theory dressed up as science isn't science. And they know it too.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2014)

HotWhopper: 2013 the fourth hottest year in the UAH record

2013 was the fourth warmest year in the satellite era, trailing only 1998, 2010 and 2005, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The warmest areas during the year were over the North Pacific and the Antarctic, where temperatures for the year averaged more than 1.4 C (more than 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal. There were small areas of cooler than normal temperatures scattered about the globe, including one area over central Canada where temperatures were 0.6 C (about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the 30-year norm.

*Hmmmmmmmmmm............  Quite a jump for the Antarctic. Still well below freezing, but warming nonetheless. Hey Westwall, just how does that fit into your 'cooling' hypothesis?*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring.  The burden is to demonstrate that it is occurring, and the magnitude of such.  The burden is on them, because demanding proof of a negative is illogical.
> ...



Look up what theory means in scientific terms.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> That might have been true 25 years ago, when such a contention was an extraordinary claim.



No, it's always true.  Period.  That's the rules of logic.  It doesn't change just for your convenience.



> But at present, the vast majority of the experts in the field are fully satisfied with the evidence supporting AGW.



That's the ad populum.



> The denier position has become the (extreme) minority view and it is your side that now has the burden of making an extraordinary case.



Shifting the burden.



> Telling us that all the world's climatologists are ignorant crooks does not qualify.  NOTHING the deniers have presented does.



And the ad ignorantum.

Congratulations, you've just spouted a plethora of fallacy.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.pdf
> 
> Abstract.
> We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% greater than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as great as that in the mid-1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of four greater. These
> ...



Nah, it is you who is to be eternally bitch slapped by nature.  The ice has survived much warmer periods....warmer periods brought on not by CO2 but like this time, natural causes.  So long as you keep playing the part of an extremist wacko, nature is going to keep slapping you down.  If you were able to moderate your tone and say that the ice is melting, but not as much this time as it has in the past when CO2 was at "safe" levels, and melting ice is part and parcel of the earth clawing its way out of an ice age towards its more natural temperature range, you would sound like a rational, thinking human being, and not like a panic stricken old lady.

Holocene Histories of Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> Concentration and West Greenland Air Temperature

http://helheim-glacier.org/xpdf/abstracts-helheim.pdf

Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



Already have and posted the results...AGW barely achieves hypothesis status....I say barely because a hypothesis is a starting point from which experimentation begins.....you guys are a bit short on expriments that prove your hypothesis...by a bit short, I mean you have nothing.


----------



## IanC (Feb 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.pdf
> 
> Abstract.
> We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% greater than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as great as that in the mid-1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of four greater. These
> ...



just out of curiosity....is there a difference between natural temperature rise and CO2 induced temperature rise? if a glacier was retreating due to natural warming (and local conditions, of course), would it be different than now? was glacier retreat in the MWP a harbringer of doom? or a sign of good times for most species of life?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2014)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.pdf
> ...



That warming was different....there was no money to be made by hyping man made climate change back then although those people were as capable of altering the global climate as we are.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 5, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > That might have been true 25 years ago, when such a contention was an extraordinary claim.
> ...



It is NOT a rule of logic.  It was an observation made by Carl Sagan and likely copied from Marcello Truzzi

_In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis&#8212;saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact&#8212;he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

&#8212; Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987_



Abraham3 said:


> But at present, the vast majority of the experts in the field are fully satisfied with the evidence supporting AGW.





SwimExpert said:


> That's the ad populum.



No, it is not.  It is an appeal to authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate) and it is valid when the references actually are experts in the field and when there actually exists a consensus among them.  Both are true and so the argument is valid.

That was a stupid mistake.  I thought this was your field.  No?



Abraham3 said:


> The denier position has become the (extreme) minority view and it is your side that now has the burden of making an extraordinary case.





SwimExpert said:


> Shifting the burden.



Hah!  You don't actually know this stuff, do you.  Shifting the burden, in logic, is another name for appeal to ignorance.  This is not an appeal to ignorance.  The burden has shifted because the consensus of the experts has shifted.  What was once an extraordinary claim is now accepted science.  What might have once been mundane (climate change is due to TSI changes) has now become little held and controversial.



Abraham3 said:


> Telling us that all the world's climatologists are ignorant crooks does not qualify.  NOTHING the deniers have presented does.





SwimExpert said:


> And the ad ignorantum.



Holy cow, you really screwed this up.  I thought perhaps you'd had a class or two in logic but I see that is just not the case (unless you flunked it).  I had ONE class in logic, 32 years ago and I'm doing better than you.  Ad Ignorantum is to claim that something is true because it has not been shown to be false.  The appearance of the word "ignorant" in my statement does not qualify.  



SwimExpert said:


> Congratulations, you've just spouted a plethora of fallacy.




Man... impressive.  Two big words in one sentence.  Wait... wait... let's check this out.  Is there ANYONE here who does not know what the words   P L E T H O R A   or   F A L L A C Y   mean?  No?  What a freaking surprise.

You flubbed every single thing you wrote here: a perfect score.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.pdf
> ...




Holocene Histories of Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> Concentration and West Greenland Air Temperature

As can be seen from the figure above, there is absolutely no rational relationship between the Holocene temperature history derived by Axford et al. and the air's CO2 content. Over the first 1800 years of the record, for example, when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by a sluggardly 10 ppm, Holocene temperatures rose, in the mean, by about 2.3°C. Then, over the following 2,400 years, when the air's CO2 content rose by about 20 ppm, mean summer air temperatures dropped by approximately 2.6°C. And over the next 1900 years, when the air's CO2 content rose by some 10 to 15 ppm, mean air temperature changed not at all. But over the final 300 or so years, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration rose by a whopping 125 ppm, summer air temperatures first declined by about 1.9°C and then rose by about 1.9°C, for essentially no net change. Clearly, the CO2 concentration of Earth's atmosphere would appear to have had no consistent impact on July air temperatures in the vicinity of North Lake, Greenland, over the past seven millennia.

*This is not the article that was published in the Quaternary Science Reviews, but that blogs interpretation of it. And given their asinine interpretation of the graph above this paragraph, they are outright liars, just as you are for trying to pass this off as a real science article.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Really? Yet all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universites state otherwise. So, who to believe, an anamous poster on a message board, or the vast majority of scientists in the world? What a difficult decision!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


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



A thinking person would ask how it is that the political heads of all those societies make such claims with zero actual evidence to support them....a drone just accepts and then repeats a logical fallacy endlessly in an attempt to justify his drone status.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.pdf
> ...




Natural History Museum
University of Copenhagen
Recent years&#8217; rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet has shown that the southern dome is the ice sheet&#8217;s most vulnerable part. The southern ice sheet dome, the area south of c. 67°N, is a highland ice cap with its base c. 500 m a.s.l. It contains c. 15% of the Greenland ice sheet&#8217;s volume, equal to c. 1 m global sea level, and is characterised by very high accumulation and melting. Two of the most active outlets from the ice sheet, Jakobshavn Isbræ and Helheim Gletscher drain the saddle between the northern and southern ice sheet domes.

Can the southern dome&#8217;s response to past warming give us a clue to its fate in the
future? ODP borings on the shelf have shown that the ice dome has existed, on and off, at least since the Miocene. Recent results from the DYE 3 ice core and other sources indicate that the dome
melted away, and gave way to forested mountains for the last time during marine isotope stage 11, c. 400,000 years ago. The southern dome, and of course the northern also, persisted in a reduced form during the warm Eemian interglacial (c. 125,000 years ago), when annual mean temperatures over Greenland were c. 5°C warmer than now for some millenia. During the last ice age the southeast coast of Greenland was one of the areas of major ice sheet growth, reaching the shelf edge at the last glacial maximum, c. 20,000 years ago, as shown by bathymetric studies. During the
Holocene thermal maximum, c. 8,000 years ago, when annual mean temperatures were c. 2°C warmer than now for some thousands of years, modelling and GPS altimetry show that the southern dome was the most sensitive part of the ice sheet, retreating as much as 80 km behind its present front in some areas. After this, during the neoglacial the ice margin readvanced. In spite of the large scale changes in ice cover in this area, the Holocene isostatic history is peculiarly muted and characterised by low uplift. This can be interpreted in several ways, but does show an abnormal ice load history, when compared to other sectors of the ice sheet.

*So, the ice in this dome has melted completely away even when the CO2 level was far lower than it is today. Also when we did not have the massive amounts of soot in the air, falling on the glaciers and changing the albedo of the ice.

As for your comments about extremist whackos, the paragraph was directly from the article. Real scientists stating it like it is, not a dumb ass poster displaying his vast ignorance.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



So, you are accussing millions of scientists of outright fraud. Oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat..............................

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> He has very seldom demonstrated the kind of depth of knowledge that I have known from Phd Geologists teaching the classes that I have taken.



I'm afraid I have to agree with you there.


----------



## westwall (Feb 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


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









The word is ANONYMOUS.  You drinking again?


----------



## westwall (Feb 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > He has very seldom demonstrated the kind of depth of knowledge that I have known from Phd Geologists teaching the classes that I have taken.
> ...







I do love it so when socks talk to each other!


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 5, 2014)

I am impressed with the deniers language skills (esp. Swim) given their utter misgivings with definitions. I am keen on fallacies and for someone to know what a fallacy is in its original Latin should imply some basic cognition associated with the fallacy. NOPE.

We see that is monumnetally lacking among the denial group upon scrutiny (which they fail to do for themselves obviously). Argumentum ad populum as SwimExpert applied it is exemplarly ineptitude. To say the high rate of agreement among experts is appeal to popularity is a fundamental disconnect between brain and consciousness. Yet Swim had such high confidence of his "axioms." This brainlessness is ruefully common among deniers.

Swim (and all your denial buddies) do you not see an overt patterns of shameless ignorance by yourselves? At some point you got to say these deniers have no capacity to see their own horse shit while it makes its presence evident in each post--often reaching a new "high score" of horse shit with each new post!


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> It is NOT a rule of logic.  It was an observation made by Carl Sagan and likely copied from Marcello Truzzi





You really don't know what you're talking about.



> No, it is not.  It is an appeal to authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate)



No.  Your position is constantly that X% of scientists agree, therefore it must be true.  That is ad populum.

Oh, and BTW, it's *ad* auctoritate.  



> and it is valid when the references actually are experts in the field and when there actually exists a consensus among them.  Both are true and so the argument is valid.



Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy in deductive logic.  *ALWAYS*.  It is also fallacy when invoked to ignore evidence that is inconsistent with your position.  You do both.  So really, I could have included that in my list.  But the ad populum sufficiently covered it in my opinion.



> Hah!  You don't actually know this stuff, do you.  Shifting the burden, in logic, is another name for appeal to ignorance.



Your ignorance is showing.  An ad ignorantiam is usually implied within, or follows, a fallacious shifting of the burden.  But this is not always necessary.  

_Jake:  I don't believe God exists.
Sally:  But you don't have any proof.  Don't get me wrong, I don't believe it either, but unless you can prove it we should still go to church and obey the church's teachings, just in case._

Here, Sally has shifted the burden of proof to demand proof of a negative.  She has not actually included an argument claiming the contradiction of the God premise as true.  In fact, she agrees with the premise.  She does not make an ad ignorantiam argument.  She merely shifts the burden of proof.



> This is not an appeal to ignorance.  The burden has shifted because the consensus of the experts has shifted.



False.  You accept the conclusions as true because many people have said they are true.  It remains an ad populum.  If a million experts say a false thing, it is still a false thing.



> Ad Ignorantum is to claim that something is true because it has not been shown to be false.  The appearance of the word "ignorant" in my statement does not qualify.



Sad little man, your argument is that those who disagree with you have not proven AGW does not exist, therefore it must be true.  That is an ad ignorantiam.

You really need to get the fuck over yourself.  You *don't know what you are talking about*.  You are *wrong*.  It's not that you have a difference of opinion.  You are *wrong*.  Irving Copi is turning in his grave every time you try to talk about logic.




> Man... impressive.  Two big words in one sentence.  Wait... wait... let's check this out.  Is there ANYONE here who does not know what the words   P L E T H O R A   or   F A L L A C Y   mean?  No?  What a freaking surprise.



Oh look and ad hominem.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 5, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Appeal to authority is...also [a] fallacy when invoked to ignore evidence that is inconsistent with your position.  You do both.



Right, only AGW theory ignores evidence. Right. Ok. I want to laugh if it weren't for you must have *NO idea* of the body of evidence you are ignoring. Maybe it would help you stop committing this fallacy yourself if you just took a peak at ANY basic climate research done in a peer reviewed context.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 5, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Appeal to authority is...also [a] fallacy when invoked to ignore evidence that is inconsistent with your position.  You do both.
> ...


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 5, 2014)

You have a absolute definitive answer for everything, huh? I guess except when it comes to you having to _do_ anything. I recommend you crawl into cave and remain there since you've obviously attained enlightenment. I couldn't bear the guilt of tarnishing your infantile understanding of yourself or the world around you.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 5, 2014)

More ad hominems.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 5, 2014)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > So, quite the ramble.  But, are we clear?
> ...



Okay, I'm listening



IanC said:


> Von Storch's poll on AGW was perhaps the best, and it pointed out the difference between scientists believing in a) global warming, b) mechanism of CO2 to affect radiative transfer, c) magnitude of CO2 effect, d) positive and negative feedbacks to disruptions caused by CO2 and e) wild ass guesses about the benefits or costs of temperature change.



The results of the five or six or seven polls mentioned, as to the percentage of climate scientists who accept AGW as valid are extremely close and the differences have a strong time correlation indicating that the consensus accepting AGW is large and has simply grown over time.  Do you see anything in Von Storch's work that does not work with such a construction? 



IanC said:


> I think everyone should agree that there has been some warming since we came out of the Little Ice Age. but our understanding of the magnitude of that change has been compromised by the steady stream of adjustments and arbitrary corrections implimented over the last few decades.



Neither you nor anyone else has ever shown objective evidence that such adjustments were not justified by the science or were intended to falsely represent past climates - though precisely those charges have flown like a swarm of locusts.  Your reference to coming out of the LIA rather than the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is less than subtle.  If you do not see a change between the rate of warming of 1650-1850 and the rate of warming of 1850-present, you need to get your eyes checked. 



IanC said:


> I think everyone should agree that there is an existing mechanism by which doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere theoretically should cause a ~1K increase, if all other components in the equilibrium remain unchanged.



Then rejoice, because aside from a few holdouts here (and scattered thinly there), they do.  They call it THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.  However, the amount of warming that will result from a doubling of the CO2 concentration is under discussion but they've got it whittled down to a range of accepted values.



IanC said:


> (as an aside, I am unhappy with this being more or less just assumed as correct. at the very least, I would like to know what the theoretical calculations say is the necessary concentration of CO2 to raise the first 1K so that we have a better understanding of how much of the greenhouse effect is attributible to CO2. 5-26% is a rather large span).



Climate sensitivity has most ASSUREDLY not been "just assumed to be correct".

Go to http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf and scroll wa-a-a-a-ay down to section 10.8.1 and read (or just skim the 6 pages) from there to the end of 10.8.4.  Then feel free to explain to us how mistaken you were about climate sensitivity just being assumed to be correct.



IanC said:


> the radiative effect of CO2 is basically a boundary effect (first at the surface, secondarily at the top of clouds). the radiation choked off by extra CO2 goes into conduction, convextion, latent heat and atmospheric/surface heat sinks. some of the radiation will go into heat sinks and raise temps but some just shunts off to other routes, which are more efficient as temps go up. equilibriums change when conditions change. but on the whole natural systems work towards homeostasis via governors and negative feedbacks, not positive feedbacks which overwhelm the balance. the planet didnt burn up during the MWP, RWP or any other time during this interglacial when the temps were warmer than today.



Maybe I'm just not following this ramble, but it seems to have a few flaws.  

o  The top of the atmosphere is a gradient, not a boundary.  
o  If IR absorption by CO2 is a boundary effect, how does it get to boundary number two?
o  If it's a boundary effect, how does it get to surface heat sinks?
o  Where is IR stored in the atmosphere as latent heat?
o  What are these "other routes" that radiation can take?
o  Why are these other routes more efficient as temperatures increase?
o  If IR is taking all these other routes, how are temperatures increasing?
o  You say equilibriums change when conditions change.  When has the Earth's climate EVER been in equilibrium?
o  Isn't saying "Equilibriums change when conditions change" analogous to saying V=dX.
o  Unless you're bringing up the Gaia Hypothesis, there is no homeostasis in the Earth's climate.  
o  The Earth has spent significant amounts of its history in states that would be VERY harmful to modern civilization.  To constrain the near future to that range is not a comfort.
o  The only times in the Earth's history in which it has experienced a CO2 dump similar to the last 150 years, it had just been struck by a 7-mile wide asteroid or was suffering the creation of the Deccan Traps.



IanC said:


> I dont believe in the _anthropogenic_ theory of global warming with CO2 as the control knob because there isnt enough evidence for it even when you ignore the evidence against it!



The world's climate scientists tell us that you are simply wrong here.  There is an enormous and constantly growing balance of evidence that human activity is the primary cause of the last 150 year's warming.  Read AR5.  Read the work AR5 uses.  Don't cop out.



IanC said:


> until we get some realistic idea of how much warming is directly attributable to CO2 should we just carry on in the present SOP and blame everything on CO2?



We HAVE a very realistic idea of how much warming is attributable to CO2.  Unfortunately, mostly because humans are lazy, stupid bastards, but partially because of folks like you making bullshit arguments like this, we're not going to do a damn thing about it.   



IanC said:


> the demonization of CO2 is just a proxy for demonizing humanity. I would rather spent the trillions of dollars cleaning up real pollution and improving the standards for most of the people of the world, rather than spend it on futile and wasteful attempts to curba necessary energy usage.



You don't think switching from oil and coal to wind and sunlight will clean up any real pollution?  Of course it won't.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


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




as I have said before, I think climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade although there is enough evidence of data tampering to support the claim of some fraud.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > He has very seldom demonstrated the kind of depth of knowledge that I have known from Phd Geologists teaching the classes that I have taken.
> ...




As if a custodian and a burger flipper know any PhDs at all.  By the way, I couldn't help but notice the miscapitalization of PhD


----------



## Kosh (Feb 6, 2014)

CO2 Does not drive climate, it never has.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 6, 2014)

Kosh said:


> CO2 Does not drive climate, it never has.



The sky is green and will be cloudless for the next 1000 years.

See how saying something doesn't make it so?

CO2 does drive climate. Before you respond, go here and take your finger and click to watch the vid posted by Old Rocks. It specifically talks about CO2 and its relation to climate. Barring the possibility of you having a PhD in climate science and received multiple awards for your breakthrough climatology research, I think it's safe to say you have got it backwards. Climate and CO2 are inexorably linked.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 6, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> More ad hominems.



You are hiding behind a specious shield of fallacies. They prevent you from making any contribution, plus you don't even correctly use them. 

Ad hominem is a deductive fallacy that draws erroneous conclusions about the truth value of position X based on the perceived shitty character of the person. I was NOT drawing a link between your character and your beliefs so no ad hominem. In fact, my claim had nothing to do with whether your positions are right or not. Taken at face value, I was praising you for your enlightenment and I stand by that claim. I was hoping you could step out of the shadows of your (mangled) logic to enlighten us by explaining your positions instead of telling everyone they do not know how to think. Tell us how to think and walk us through your relevant beliefs.

It's more than clear you aren't noting fallacies for the sake of defending your position, you are throwing fallacies left and right precisely because you can't defend your positions.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 Does not drive climate, it never has.
> ...



If you only had the education to know what a great steaming pile of shit that video is.  If CO2 is the control knob of the climate as claimed, how is it that the temperatures have not risen for nearly 20 years now while the "control knob" has been turned steadily higher....why has no tropospheric hot spot developed as the "control knob" hypothesis has predicted....and why has outgoing LW increased at the ToA as the "control knob" hypothesis demands?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 6, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Appeal to authority is...also [a] fallacy when invoked to ignore evidence that is inconsistent with your position.  You do both.
> ...



What do you consider "evidence"?  

Is "the Pacific Ocean ate all my global warming!" evidence?


----------



## westwall (Feb 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...










"Neither you nor anyone else has ever shown objective evidence that such adjustments were not justified by the science or were intended to falsely represent past climates - though precisely those charges have flown like a swarm of locusts."
Actually, it is the perpetrators who must show a compelling reason TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS.  That's how science works.  If you are going to make the claim you have to justify it. 

AGW proponents do the exact opposite.


----------



## westwall (Feb 6, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 Does not drive climate, it never has.
> ...






If it did the temps would still be rising.  They aren't.  CO2 controls nothing and is instead controlled by global temps.  The evidence for that is now irrefutable.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 6, 2014)

I haven't the slightest doubt they had good reason to make those changes.  Data gets adjusted all the time for a variety of reasons.  Why don't you pick out one dataset adjustment that you find suspicious and we'll look into it?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Who's the custodian and who's the burger flipper?

ps: I couldn't help but notice your ignorant views on numerous basic science topics.


----------



## westwall (Feb 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I haven't the slightest doubt they had good reason to make those changes.  Data gets adjusted all the time for a variety of reasons.  Why don't you pick out one dataset adjustment that you find suspicious and we'll look into it?








Of course you don't.  You're clearly a political propagandist.  Propagandists need no evidence, nor do they follow the scientific method.  They follow directions and you're a good little soldier.

We understand.  We really do.


----------



## westwall (Feb 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








And yet, you're the one who ignores the scientific method at every turn.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 6, 2014)

Then I presume you believe the world's scientists are doing the same.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 6, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Barring the possibility of you having a PhD in climate science and received multiple awards for your breakthrough climatology research, I think it's safe to say you have got it backwards.



Fallacy.  Appeal to authority.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I haven't the slightest doubt they had good reason to make those changes.  Data gets adjusted all the time for a variety of reasons.  Why don't you pick out one dataset adjustment that you find suspicious and we'll look into it?




I would be interested in gearing a rational reason for adjusting temps prior to 1970....got one?


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 6, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> You are hiding behind a specious shield of fallacies.





You can't blame me for your failures in logic.



> They prevent you from making any contribution



To the contrary.  Pointing out your fallacies is a very useful contribution.  Your arguments cannot be accepted if they are fallacious.



> plus you don't even correctly use them.









First of all, fallacies should never be "used."  *They are fallacy*.  Why should you use bad reasoning?

Second, assuming that what you meant to allege is that I am not properly citing them, then.....






Go learn a thing or two on the subject.  Then a couple more things.  Then come back and admit your error.



> Ad hominem is a deductive fallacy








And you say that I have a problem with understanding how to properly identify fallacies?  

Here's a pro tip for you:  Argumentum ad hominem is an _informal_ fallacy.

Here's another pro tip for you:  Informal fallacies are most often non-deductive in nature.

Here's a third pro tip for you:  You don't know much about this stuff.  You learn.  I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.



> It's more than clear you aren't noting fallacies for the sake of defending your position, you are throwing fallacies left and right precisely because you can't defend your positions.



That would be a fallacy.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:
			
		

> It [extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence] is NOT a rule of logic. It was an observation made by Carl Sagan and likely copied from Marcello Truzzi





			
				Swimexpert said:
			
		

> You really don't know what you're talking about.



I told you exactly how much of this I've had: one semester, 32 years ago.  But I can look this shit up with the best of them.  I showed you the quote from Truzzi.  How about YOU show us a quote from any reputable logic textbook or reference source that says that is a rule of logic, cause I say you're full of shit.



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> No, it [my frequent referral to the consensus among climate scientists] is not. It is an appeal to authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate)





			
				Swimexpert said:
			
		

> No. Your position is constantly that X% of scientists agree, therefore it must be true. That is ad populum.



Ad populum is an appeal to the people, ie, the general public.  It's most common appearance uses the phrase "everyone knows...".  My appeal to a consensus among experts is an appeal to (or, more properly, an argument from) authority.  



			
				Swimexpert said:
			
		

> Oh, and BTW, it's ad auctoritate.



No, it is not.  It is Argument FROM Authority not Argument TO Authority.  I took Latin all through junior high numbnuts.  Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.  You're still batting 000.  Let's see how long you can stretch this one.



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> and it is valid when the references actually are experts in the field and when there actually exists a consensus among them. Both are true and so the argument is valid.





			
				Swimexpert said:
			
		

> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy in deductive logic. ALWAYS.



That's absolutely correct Sherlock.  But I'm not making a _deductive argument, Whizzo.  I've said all along that the consensus of the experts makes AGW more LIKELY.  I have repeatedly rejected the use of the term "proof" in this regard.  Argumentum ab auctorite is perfectly valid in inductive reasoning given a true consensus among true experts.  I win, you lose.



			
				Swimexpert said:
			
		


			It is also fallacy when invoked to ignore evidence that is inconsistent with your position.
		
Click to expand...


You are so full of crap its coming out your ears.  It is bad form to ignore any applicable evidence under any circumstance.  There is most assuredly no particular rule admonishing us not to use argument from authority to ignore evidence.



			
				Swimexpert said:
			
		


			You do both. So really, I could have included that in my list. But the ad populum sufficiently covered it in my opinion.
		
Click to expand...


Save that it is not ad populum.  If you're worried about Argumentum ad Populum, you might want to talk to the deniers here as a group.  I couldn't TELL you how many times we've been put on notice about how little the general public cares about AGW or how many of them believe science doesn't support it. You could start with Skookerasnoc for one.  Then there's Crusader Frank and I'm sure you can find a few more.



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		


			The denier position has become the (extreme) minority view and it is your side that now has the burden of making an extraordinary case.
		
Click to expand...




			
				SwimExpert said:
			
		


			Shifting the burden.
		
Click to expand...




			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		


			Hah! You don't actually know this stuff, do you. Shifting the burden, in logic, is another name for appeal to ignorance.
		
Click to expand...




			
				Swimexpert said:
			
		


			Your ignorance is showing. An ad ignorantiam is usually implied within, or follows, a fallacious shifting of the burden. But this is not always necessary.
		
Click to expand...


*Argument from ignorance*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from *Shifting the burden of proof*)

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[2] In debates, *appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof*.
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and *therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent*.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor (prefer the explanation with the least assumptions).
*************************************************************

As you can see, this has nothing to do with the growth of AGW's acceptance.  AGW garnered evidence while non-AGW failed.  You are wrong again.  And once again you might want to talk to your denier buds.  Claims that AGW is false because climate scientists can't precisely evaluate the temperature anomaly 50 years in the future or because they are unable to conduct experiments with the entire planet's climate in a lab - THOSE are Argumentum ad Ignorantium. 



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		


			This is not an appeal to ignorance. The burden has shifted because the consensus of the experts has shifted.
		
Click to expand...




			
				Swimexpert said:
			
		


			False. You accept the conclusions as true because many people have said they are true. It remains an ad populum. If a million experts say a false thing, it is still a false thing.
		
Click to expand...


How did you get back on ad Populum?  Oh... I see.  You looked up "shift the burden of proof" and finally realized you'd fucked up (again).  Well, a little late.  And, you YOURSELF said "No. Your position is constantly that X% of scientists agree, therefore it must be true."  You admit that my authority is not the people it is "SCIENTISTS".  That makes it and Argumentum AB Auctorite and you, once again, wrong.



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		


			Ad Ignorantum is to claim that something is true because it has not been shown to be false. The appearance of the word "ignorant" in my statement does not qualify.
		
Click to expand...




			
				Swimexpert said:
			
		


			Sad little man
		
Click to expand...


"Sad little man"?  Wow... Has this failure of yours, to recognize that a time comes when you need to stop sticking your neck out, been going on for long?  So far you have fucked up EVERY - SINGLE - POINT in this little logic debate and that after having tried your damnedest to give us all the impression that you were some sort of expert at it.



			
				Swimexpert said:
			
		


			your argument is that those who disagree with you have not proven AGW does not exist, therefore it must be true. That is an ad ignorantiam.
		
Click to expand...


God, what an idiot.  Did you actually think that was going to fly?  Skooks would tell you that was wrong.  My position is that because an overwhelming majority of the world's climate experts accept AGW as valid, it is very likely to be correct and that, despite years of opportunities, AGW deniers have failed to prove their case and thus their contentions are extremely UNLIKELY to be correct.



			
				Swimexpert said:
			
		


			You really need to get the fuck over yourself. You don't know what you are talking about. You are wrong. It's not that you have a difference of opinion. You are wrong. Irving Copi is turning in his grave every time you try to talk about logic.
		
Click to expand...


I've argued with some stupid people before but I don't think I've ever seen such an unending string of errors.  Hey, at least you're a record-setter._


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 6, 2014)

Swim, where did you learn logic? Or are you still learning it? Is it a textbook or website?


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 6, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> ......





You've already started back peddling, admitting that you're not really up to speed on the finer points of logical reasoning.  You would have been better off to admitting the fact and brushing yourself up perhaps.  Or maybe it's a lost cause for you at this point.  Your understanding is so rudimentary and unsophisticated I could get better results from a couple weeks of tutorship with a middle school student.

I'm not going to go through and contribute to your babbling, so I'll just hit the main points.

1.  Burden of Proof

I should start off by saying that this is probably a much too complex issue for you to apparently wrap your mind around.  However, this ought to suffice for your silly request.

_The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of  the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition._

The Burden of Proof

A common example of correctly applying the burden of proof regarding a negative claim is the distinction between positive and negative atheism.  Positive atheists fallaciously assert that the non-existence of God is possible.  Meanwhile negative atheists logically assert that absent evidence to demonstrate the existence of God, they will not believe.


Ad Populum

An ad populum argument has NOTHING to do with "the general public" as opposed to a more selective class of individuals.  There is no fundamental difference between "everyone agrees it so it must be true," and "most scientists agree so it must be true."  In either case, you're appealing to popularity to imply truth value.  The fact that you're referring to a group of scientists does not make the ad populum acceptable, nor does it cease to be an ad populum argument.  Appeal to authority and ad populum arguments are *not* mutually exclusive.



One final note:



Abraham3 said:


> It is Argument FROM Authority not Argument TO Authority. I took Latin all through junior high numbnuts



  Man, I even throw you a bone and you can't get it right.    If you're such an intelligent Latin scholar you should have correctly corrected me for referring ot argumentum *ad verecundiam*.  Better luck next time.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Maybe I'm just not following this ramble, but it seems to have a few flaws.
> 
> o  The top of the atmosphere is a gradient, not a boundary.
> o  If IR absorption by CO2 is a boundary effect, how does it get to boundary number two?
> ...



Pee -- Yuuuu.. That's a load.. 

1) Doesn't "ocean engineering" require a thermo class? If it did -- why are you asking
stupid questions like "why are these other routes more efficient as things heat up?" Ever model a thermal system? Remember anything about thermal resistances and why heat takes a particular path? When you insulate one route, reduce the rate of heat loss --- oh never mind.................... 

2) What's this crap about storing IR? Guess there was also no Physics for "ocean engineering".. It is INDEED caused by latent heat energy in the atmos and at the surface. But EM waves are only "stored" (briefly) in lasers, Milliken experiments and theoretical exercises.  

3) IR taking "other routes"? REALLY ???? No "fields and waves" in ocean engineering??? 

4) V = dx .. Say WHAT? No diff. eq. in "ocean engineering"?? 

No thermo, no physics, no diffy Q, no fields and waves.. I'm gonna have to look up the requirements. Must be SOMETHING in there that resembles the engineering school curriculums that I've seen.. 

Can't go on..  Re-Read what Ian wrote. THAT made sense.. 
The only interesting part of all that was your question --- "when has the Earth EVER been in equilibrium".. So when has the HVAC system for your house ever produced "thermal equilibrium? The process of hunting or oscillating around a stable value is still a "stable" system. And in terms of Climate time epochs -- equilibrium could be met over a millenium or more. In fact -- the Ice Ages we're in -- are close to the equilibrium performance of your home HVAC just magnified a bit. 

That begs the question of when has the Earth's climate EVER been dominated by positive feedbacks?? More important that balancing the NET heat flow, is the TYPE of system we have.. Systems can be stable or unstable. Stable systems can be overdamped, underdamped, or oscillatory.  AGW theory REQUIRES that the climate system be an unstable system.. By definition, it will trash itself IF NOT CONSTANTLY near equilibrium.. Now THERE is a hint more important than "is it ever in equilibrium?"  When has the Earth lurched into unstable climate chaos?


----------



## Politico (Feb 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I agree that we are late in the term of an ice age, given historical behavior.  Why?



Because that's what the Earth does.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> You've already started back peddling, admitting that you're not really up to speed on the finer points of logical reasoning.  You would have been better off to admitting the fact and brushing yourself up perhaps.  Or maybe it's a lost cause for you at this point.  Your understanding is so rudimentary and unsophisticated I could get better results from a couple weeks of tutorship with a middle school student.
> 
> I'm not going to go through and contribute to your babbling, so I'll just hit the main points.
> 
> ...


********************************************************************************************
If you think anyone here is stupid enough to believe you were "throwing me a bone" you need to repeat the second grade.

How about you explain for us the difference between Argumentum ad Populum and Argumentum ab Auctorite?  Never mind, we could'nt trust you to get it right anyway.

_ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal* to the people*") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because *many or most people* believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea. _ [_Note that they give ELEVEN synonymous terms, none of which is Argumentum ab Auctorite_]

_ARGUMENTUM AB AUCTORITE
Argument from *authority* (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to *authority*, is an argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] The appeal to authority is a common logical fallacy.[2]
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include[1][3][4] any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence.[5]
The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[6] because *authorities* are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their* field of expertise*.[7] Though *reliable authorities* are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[7]_ [They give two synonyms here, neither of which is Argumentum ad Populum]

I see now where you got the idea about dismissing evidence and I would admit that it seems I could have been wrong on that point save they aren't listing rules, they're listing EXAMPLES of fallacious usage.  We have the same source! WIKIPEDIA!

PS: I told you and everyone else here right up front precisely how much training I'd had as a logician.  There is no backpedaling going on.  And if I were you and had done as poorly as you've done in these arguments, I wouldn't be pointing out how uneducated *I* amon the topic.

PPS: The text you gave up top, explaining why you can't prove a negative, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "Shift the burden of proof", which is how you described my contention that since AGW was now widely accepted science, it was now the denier's responsibility to come up with extraordinary evidence.



Abraham3 said:


> The denier position has become the (extreme) minority view and it is your side that now has the burden of making an extraordinary case.





SwimExpert said:


> Shifting the burden.



  If anyone here is attempting to claim a negative, it would be the deniers:  "AGW is not taking place", "CO2 has no effect on the climate",  etcetera.   So, another fail.  Your attempts to recover here are just digging you in deeper.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Swim, where did you learn logic? Or are you still learning it? Is it a textbook or website?



Does it really matter since he clearly has a much better grasp of the subject than either of you  hysteric hand waving grannies?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 7, 2014)

You think his repeated goofs and failures indicate a better grasp?  Can we take that as indicative of your general ability to judge the evidence before you?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You think his repeated goofs and failures indicate a better grasp?  Can we take that as indicative of your general ability to judge the evidence before you?



I am afraid that it is you guys who keep goofing and failing.  You would think that you would get a clue....but you don't.  Hell of a lot of fun to watch.  Your failures are epic with regard to science so you switch to philosophy where you don't fare any better.  Maybe you should pick easier topics...maybe crystal healing, or dope smoking 101....or maybe the effects of talking to houseplants....scratch that one.  Talking to you two is like talking to houseplants.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Swim, where did you learn logic? Or are you still learning it? Is it a textbook or website?



Many textbooks.  I got rid of most of them as time went on.  But then I lost my favorite one about 5 years ago while moving.  Didn't realize just how attached I had gotten to the thing until I was 2000 miles away, and realized that it was gone, presumably sitting in a cardboard box in front of a public Library's doorstep.  I was really, truly upset.  Felt almost silly about it.  Irreplaceable.

_Oh wait.  This got me all nostalgic so I popped over to Amazon to see what I might be able to find.  Low and behold!  

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/B000UCTBVM]Introduction to Logic: Irving M. Copi: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]_


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You think his repeated goofs and failures indicate a better grasp?  Can we take that as indicative of your general ability to judge the evidence before you?
> ...



The ridiculous part is that he freely admits that he's not exactly up to speed on the finer points of logic.  His understanding is so rudimentary we may as well be back to weighing neutrinos, or determining atomic mass by counting neutrons.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Does it really matter since he clearly has a much better grasp of the subject than either of you  hysteric hand waving grannies?



Jesus Christ! I can't even ask a legitimate question! GO fuck yourself if I can't even try to learn from the same sources. Albeit I doubt I'd be learning anything new since my degree in philosophy was from an accredited university (Ohio Wesleyan) with a specialization in logic and analytical philosophy.

Swim has never sat in on a logic class. Swim has never passed a logic class. The first week of logic 340 involves quick review of fallacies so that you can convert regular sentences into syllogisms, p's and q's, and ., < or >, iff or if etc.. You have no idea what this means. Swim has no idea what this means. It's advanced logic and I assure you Swim is consistently mis-applying each fallacy. It's clearly another case of Dunning and Krueger.

You say "clearly he is right and you are wrong."

That's just you asserting your beliefs. Adding the word "clearly" does not make it defensible. I can say the same "Clearly you have never taken a philosophy course let alone have any grasp in logic or you'd realize your pal is consistently mis-applying fallacies." "Clearly you have never studied logic at any depth and have no clue about what you're really talking about."

Wait, those are facts. You do have no certified understanding what the hell Swim or you are talking about. Yet you strut around like you are flawless. This is textbook case of two people who appraise their own understanding much higher than they actually know.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Swim has never sat in on a logic class. Swim has never passed a logic class. The first week of logic 340 involves quick review of fallacies so that you can convert regular sentences into syllogisms, p's and q's, and ., < or >, iff or if etc.. You have no idea what this means. Swim has no idea what this means. It's advanced logic and I assure you Swim is consistently mis-applying each fallacy. It's clearly another case of Dunning and Krueger.



  You don't know me, nor anything about me.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You think his repeated goofs and failures indicate a better grasp?  Can we take that as indicative of your general ability to judge the evidence before you?



That's a real hoot -- since I was thinking -- How come a guy so fixated on the foundations of logic has such a hard time understanding that you can't claim that 97% of respondents in a class agree with a certain assertion when the VAST MAJORITY percentage of them expressed NO opinion? The logic failure there -- is all I need to know..


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> my degree in philosophy was from an accredited university (Ohio Wesleyan) *with a specialization in logic* and analytical philosophy.





gnarlylove said:


> Ad hominem is a deductive fallacy



These may  as well be contradictions.  

At the very least, a very poor reflection on the quality of instruction at Ohio Wesleyan.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Jesus Christ! I can't even ask a legitimate question! GO fuck yourself if I can't even try to learn from the same sources. Albeit I doubt I'd be learning anything new since my degree in philosophy was from an accredited university (Ohio Wesleyan) with a specialization in logic and analytical philosophy.



Someone graduates at the top...some one graduates at the bottom.  Sorry about that.  If you have a degree in philosophy, it was wasted.



gnarlylove said:


> Swim has never sat in on a logic class. Swim has never passed a logic class. The first week of logic 340 involves quick review of fallacies so that you can convert regular sentences into syllogisms, p's and q's, and ., < or >, iff or if etc.. You have no idea what this means. Swim has no idea what this means. It's advanced logic and I assure you Swim is consistently mis-applying each fallacy. It's clearly another case of Dunning and Krueger.



And yet, you don't seem to be able to string half a dozen words together without constructing a fallacy.....and it seems that those suffering from dunning kruger are the first to claim that others are afflicted.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > Swim has never sat in on a logic class. Swim has never passed a logic class. The first week of logic 340 involves quick review of fallacies so that you can convert regular sentences into syllogisms, p's and q's, and ., < or >, iff or if etc.. You have no idea what this means. Swim has no idea what this means. It's advanced logic and I assure you Swim is consistently mis-applying each fallacy. It's clearly another case of Dunning and Krueger.
> ...



Doesn't know much about climate science either...hell, I bet he has never even stayed at the holiday inn express.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > my degree in philosophy was from an accredited university (Ohio Wesleyan) *with a specialization in logic* and analytical philosophy.
> ...



Never ends with these people, does it?


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus Christ! I can't even ask a legitimate question! GO fuck yourself if I can't even try to learn from the same sources. Albeit I doubt I'd be learning anything new since my degree in philosophy was from an accredited university (Ohio Wesleyan) with a specialization in logic and analytical philosophy.
> ...



Actually, he incorrectly invokes Dunning-Kruger anyway.  They never said, nor did their work imply, that the incompetent tend to believe themselves superior to others.  Just that the incompetent tend to perceive themselves as more competent then they actually are.  They still tend to view themselves as less competent than those who are indeed more competent.  Meanwhile, the most competent tend to view themselves as less competent than they are.  Yet still they tend to perceive themselves as more competent than those who aren't.

The thing that is truly priceless, is that his interpretation of Dunning-Kruger is fallacy.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 7, 2014)

An alternate view of D-Kruger is that there's not really much diff in how the population views their abilities. 
And that test scores don't have an informing effect. But the obvious corrollary to most folks OVERESTIMATING their abilities, is that the important upper quartile are modest and humble compared to the vast masses.. 

Thats' what the chart says anyway.. Your actual life experience may tell you otherwise.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> An alternate view of D-Kruger is that there's not really much diff in how the population views their abilities.
> And that test scores don't have an informing effect



True, as nearly all people seem to put themselves within a 55-70 percentile range.  Though, I'm not sure what you mean in that test scores don't have an informing effect.  IIRC, the research done did not explore whether people's self perception changed after their objective measurements were taken.  I'd have to go back and re-read.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 7, 2014)

It's evident in every post you think you are 100% correct. Not in just this instance, or climate...it's a matter of every single issue you come to, you think you have definitive answers. When you respond, you don't aim to make well reasoned arguments (though you believe they are), you try to vanquish your opponent as if we were in a Roman Colosseum.

In fact, your disapproval, nay, your odium towards any _person_ (not merely their beliefs) is so crass, you insist they don't know english as a first language. That they are just obviously the most pathetic harebrained humans to have ever walked this earth. That chimps have better rationality and conclusions. Of course some of you are slightly less crude but it's still evident your disagreement stems from having zero tolerance for opposition/disagreement. You never question yourselves because it would mean your mental levies of repression would burst in your brain. Instead you ceaselessly repeat your mantra of how ill-informed your opponents are. This is fucking ridiculous. You need to lay off the cocaine or conservative cocktail of prescription drugs cause this is not how debate works. This is not a healthy way to deal with disagreement.

You start by assuming you can never be wrong. Then you gather in group think and confirm the chatter by repeating your slogans (many sent down from HQ--policy think tanks). This reverberation makes your hearts sing because this sort of confirmation of your ideas doesn't happen unless you insulate yourselves from the world.

I can't help notice the link between climate change denial, free-market fetishism, xenophobia and inability to genuinely listen or respectfully disagree aka sympathy. Moreover, they think homeless or entitlement folks have no right to food or shelter if they didn't earn it and this comes from their under-evolved brain that lacks empathy. Thus private gain, self-aggrandizement and capitalism go hand in hand.

The patterns are so evident to anyone outside your group think but it is not to yourselves, of course. All the replies to this post will reflect that. All replies to any thread has and will denote this fact. You are incapable of treating an opposing view as a potentially valid. Few days back there was a wild claim of falsifiability that fits this to a T. I think it was SSDD claiming climate change is false because it's unfalsifiable _and then_ gives us reasons to falsify the damn thing just to shore up his "bag of facts" in case we weren't convinced of his 100% logical argument. The bag is empty and it imploded.

This brief blog makes a similar connection. 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g"]The video is well made and certainly supports this thesis.[/ame]

So go ahead and fling mud at me but the real deal is we can't have meaningful discussion if you think the way you do. This is a complete waste of my time cause I'm not here to engage in group think. It's sad when group think becomes insidious behavior that supports really bad stock pile of beliefs. But hey, whatever keeps the world from changing we must do it. Any lifestyle that respects the environment is of the devil. Any policy that actually treats our fellow men and women as equal by giving them necessary food and love/respect and genuine equal opportunity is also pure evil.

"HEY HEY HO HO, Western Civ's got to STAY! HEY HEY HO HO let's keep the Status Quo!"


----------



## westwall (Feb 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> It's evident in every post you think you are 100% correct. Not in just this instance, or climate...it's a matter of every single issue you come to, you think you have definitive answers. When you respond, you don't aim to make well reasoned arguments (though you believe they are), you try to vanquish your opponent as if we were in a Roman Colosseum.
> 
> In fact, your disapproval, nay, your odium towards any _person_ (not merely their beliefs) is so crass, you insist they don't know english as a first language. That they are just obviously the most pathetic harebrained humans to have ever walked this earth. That chimps have better rationality and conclusions. Of course some of you are slightly less crude but it's still evident your disagreement stems from having zero tolerance for opposition/disagreement. You never question yourselves because it would mean your mental levies of repression would burst in your brain. Instead you ceaselessly repeat your mantra of how ill-informed your opponents are. This is fucking ridiculous. You need to lay off the cocaine or conservative cocktail of prescription drugs cause this is not how debate works. This is not a healthy way to deal with disagreement.
> 
> ...









No we have never claimed that we are 100% correct.  That is simply a lie or you're too stupid to understand what is being said.

We state UNEQUIVOCALLY, that *we don't know what is happening *when it comes to climate (unlike you guys).  What we do stipulate is that everything that you guys point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past to a much greater extent.

We also STIPULATE that you guys violate the scientific method at every turn.  We also STIPULATE that when it comes to math and computer models you guys suck.   Plain and simply you couldn't calculate your way out of a McDonalds.

Those are the *facts*.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2014)

westwall said:


> No we have never claimed that we are 100% correct.  That is simply a lie or you're too stupid to understand what is being said.



He assumes he is 100 percent correct as he participates in a little circle jerk with his stroking buds.  Hilarious.  They invariably accuse others of the very behavior they routinely engage in.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > Swim has never sat in on a logic class. Swim has never passed a logic class. The first week of logic 340 involves quick review of fallacies so that you can convert regular sentences into syllogisms, p's and q's, and ., < or >, iff or if etc.. You have no idea what this means. Swim has no idea what this means. It's advanced logic and I assure you Swim is consistently mis-applying each fallacy. It's clearly another case of Dunning and Krueger.
> ...



You gave us your fucking life story.  

And aside from that, we know you by the mistakes you make.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 7, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You think his repeated goofs and failures indicate a better grasp?  Can we take that as indicative of your general ability to judge the evidence before you?
> ...



That is a hoot, since the qualifications of those in the ~97% group, in all the various surveys and polls in which it appears, are clearly defined.  There is no logic failure.  

And, as you know perfectly well, anyone who can read and who has gone to the trouble of reviewing the recent exchanges between Swimexpert and myself will be fully aware that he fucked up every single chance he got.  And, based on his ridiculous statement about Argument from Authority and evidence, he was getting his shit from Wikipedia, just like me.  He just doesn't seem to have paid as much attention to what he was reading.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > Swim, where did you learn logic? Or are you still learning it? Is it a textbook or website?
> ...



Don't you think that if you had taken more than one class in logic, your favorite textbook would not be "Introduction to..."?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> The ridiculous part is that he freely admits that he's not exactly up to speed on the finer points of logic.  His understanding is so rudimentary we may as well be back to weighing neutrinos, or determining atomic mass by counting neutrons.



I guess we might as well.

You never told us how much logic school work you'd had.  Any particular reason why?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 7, 2014)

westwall said:


> No we have never claimed that we are 100% correct.  That is simply a lie or your too stupid to understand what is being said.
> 
> We state UNEQUIVOCALLY, that *we don't know what is happening *when it comes to climate (unlike you guys).



I'm not sure who your "we" might consist of, but that statement is certainly not true for FlaCalTenn and it is certainly not true regarding contentions expressed around here about climate scientists, both general and particular.



westwall said:


> What we do stipulate is that everything that you guys point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past to a much greater extent.



Some things have happened before.  Somethings have not.  But you fail to provide any relevance.  Humans have never released gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere before.  Humans by the billions have never gathered on the world's coastlines before.  CO2 has never been at its current level at any time in the past 800,000 years.  CO2 levels have not increased at the rate they have over the last 150 years since the KT Boundary incident 65 million years ago.



westwall said:


> We also STIPULATE that you guys violate the scientific method at every turn.  We also STIPULATE that when it comes to math and computer models you guys suck.   Plain and simply you couldn't calculate your way out of a McDonalds.



You STIPULATE these things?  I think a visit to the dictionary is called for cause your English is hurtin'.  You have made charges that peer review has been compromised and that data have been unjustifiably modified, but you've never proven any of that.  On the topic of data adjustments, I asked you to simply identify a set you thought had been adjusted without due cause.  I saw no response.  Climate scientists have made numerous GCMs and run them thousands of times with a multitude of parameters and functions.  It is an ongoing project.  However, the success of those models to predict the climates behavior has been orders of magnitude (literally) than the models produced by people that reject AGW.

Our math skills are essentially irrelevant.  The math skills of the folks writing those models is not.  But I'm quite certain it's way, way, way better than yours.  



westwall said:


> Those are the *facts*.



And you claim to have a PhD?  I said this before and I'll say it again: given almost ALL of the things you say here, that is simply not believable.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 7, 2014)

Stipulation is a new concept to me. I haven't seen it one bit from you. There's a lot of demands but no bargain or compromise going on here. It's been one way street each post: "you fukin' rong *grunt* i rite evrytime! *double grunt*" Whether it has science-y words in it or not, it has this precise pattern every time. No compromise.

Only when I call you out on it do you claim to stipulate. What do you care anyway? When have you been wrong? Never. So what stipulation is going on here? The part where you allow me the chance to admit I'm wrong? Give me a break!

OLDE SSDD sayin' I think I'm right all the time...his vomit of lies shows he has no response except to turn the volume up and tune out criticism. Then repeat what I said about me. Brilliant. You lunatics surprise me everytime _and I know it's coming!!!_


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> OLDE SSDD sayin' I think I'm right all the time...his vomit of lies shows he has no response except to turn the volume up and tune out criticism. Then repeat what I said about me. Brilliant. You lunatics surprise me everytime _and I know it's coming!!!_




Feel free to post any lies I have told to prove that you aren't a liar.  Again typical of you guys to accuse others of the very thing you are doing.   Who did you learn it from. Goebbels?


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> He assumes he is 100 percent correct...


I've admitted my fallibility plenty of times. Let me do it now for old times sake: I am human and I've been wrong on major things before. But then you have the audacity to say:



SSDD said:


> They invariably accuse others of the very behavior they routinely engage in.


You have precisely done this by saying I think I'm always right but you fail to recognize your own tactic. It couldn't be more evident but it zips over your head.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> I can't help notice the link between climate change denial, free-market fetishism, xenophobia and inability to genuinely listen or respectfully disagree aka sympathy. Moreover, they think homeless or entitlement folks have no right to food or shelter if they didn't earn it and this comes from their under-evolved brain that lacks empathy. Thus private gain, self-aggrandizement and capitalism go hand in hand.



Holy shit.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You gave us your fucking life story.





[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWj39zCABUI&feature=youtu.be]My life story - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 7, 2014)

westwall said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > It's evident in every post you think you are 100% correct. Not in just this instance, or climate...it's a matter of every single issue you come to, you think you have definitive answers. When you respond, you don't aim to make well reasoned arguments (though you believe they are), you try to vanquish your opponent as if we were in a Roman Colosseum.
> ...




Well now, Dr. Hansen's peer reviewed articles have contained much math. And I have seen little critisim of his math. As one of the leading atmospheric physicists in the world, Dr. Hansen's publications carry a bit more weight than the rantings of someone on an internet message board.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Don't you think that if you had taken more than one class in logic, your favorite textbook would not be "Introduction to..."?



Don't you think that if my favorite was going to be a book from an Intro class it would be something a little more recent than a 1953 edition?  Especially since there are now some 3 million editions of Copi's book.

The reason it's my favorite is twofold.

1)  It's the book from which I taught myself during the summer between my sophomore and junior years in high school.  Years before I ever took a class on the subject.

2)  Of all logic books I've read, I consider it by far the best.  It does the most, teaches the most, reaches the farthest, offers the fullest preparation, of any single textbook I've ever come across.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 7, 2014)

You've never had a class in logic, have you.

That goes a ways to explaining all your basic errors.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

Nope, never.  Not one.  I'm completely ignorant and clueless.  My other personality has a PhD, however.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Nope, never.  Not one.  I'm completely ignorant and clueless.  My other personality has a PhD, however.



Really


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 7, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Nope, never.  Not one.  I'm completely ignorant and clueless.  My other personality has a PhD, however.



A shame your other personality isn't real.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You most certainly did.



No, no, no.  That was my other other personality, Greg.  We killed him because he narked us out to the cops about the meth lab and we got arrested.  Fortunately Bertha managed to prostitute herself out to the cop to convince him to go back and say he didn't find anything.  But my ass has been hurting all week since.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, never.  Not one.  I'm completely ignorant and clueless.  My other personality has a PhD, however.
> ...



Depends on the day of the week, and whether the weather is above or below average temperature norms.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, never.  Not one.  I'm completely ignorant and clueless.  My other personality has a PhD, however.
> ...



This would have been kinda funny if you had meant it to be funny.  The fact that you're serious makes it fucking hilarious.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 8, 2014)

Once CO2 has absorbed some IR photons, what happens next?  There seems to be a belief around these parts (, Ian,) that the only way the CO2 can get rid of that photon is by a conductive heat transfer.  Would anyone care to try to explain why CO2 can't simply radiate it away?  To a CO2 molecule, what's the difference?


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Once CO2 has absorbed some IR photons, what happens next?  There seems to be a belief around these parts (, Ian,) that the only way the CO2 can get rid of that photon is by a conductive heat transfer.  Would anyone care to try to explain why CO2 can't simply radiate it away?  To a CO2 molecule, what's the difference?



EXCELLENT!

you are now asking yourself some important questions. what do _you_ think happens? 

every photon of of CO2 reactive radiation given off by the surface has been absorbed in the first 10 metres of atmosphere and dispersed in all directions. if absorption/reemission was the only possibility what would happen? 

is this type of radiation 'heat'?


an atmosphere of any composition warms the surface even, as it usually is, cooler than the surface temperature. why?

where does blackbody radiation come from? why can we measure 'temperature' in a gas by either radiation or pressure?

why is conduction so much more efficient in heat transfer than radiation?



and we havent even touched on the complexities of absorption, reflection, and phase change in H2O!


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 9, 2014)

Ian, when CO2 absorbs an IR photon, it's temperature increases.  That increases the likelihood that it will reradiate that photon and it will reradiate it in the same IR spectrum in which it absorbs.  YOUR descriptions heretofore seem to have IGNORED reradiation.  Your statements - that the IR energy is stopped and trapped in the first ten meters -   seem to assume that that energy can only leave that CO2 by conduction.  That is complete nonsense.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2014)

Ian, explain all them complexities to the polar ice. And to the glacial ice. We have put a whole bunch of GHGs into the atmosphere, and it is warming rapidly. At the same time, we have a minor decline in the TSI of the sun. In fact, a decline that has some on this board rattling on about a Maunder Minimum. Yet, with a neutral ENSO, 2013 came in as the fourth warmest year on record. Seems the affects of the absorption bands for the GHGs are working pretty much as predicted.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Ian, explain all them complexities to the polar ice. And to the glacial ice. We have put a whole bunch of GHGs into the atmosphere, and it is warming rapidly. At the same time, we have a minor decline in the TSI of the sun. In fact, a decline that has some on this board rattling on about a Maunder Minimum. Yet, with a neutral ENSO, 2013 came in as the fourth warmest year on record. Seems the affects of the absorption bands for the GHGs are working pretty much as predicted.




It isn't warming at all and hasn't for damned near 20 years.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Ian, when CO2 absorbs an IR photon, it's temperature increases.  That increases the likelihood that it will reradiate that photon and it will reradiate it in the same IR spectrum in which it absorbs.  YOUR descriptions heretofore seem to have IGNORED reradiation.  Your statements - that the IR energy is stopped and trapped in the first ten meters -   seem to assume that that energy can only leave that CO2 by conduction.  That is complete nonsense.



Another basic error.  The CO2 molecule emits the energy at a slightly lower frequency than at which it was absorbed.  You said yourself that the CO2 molecule heats up.  Are you going to say that none of the LW energy is lost in this heating process?  Are you saying that the heating is free with no lost energy thus allowing the energy to be emitted at the same frequency at which it was absorbed?  Do you really think energy can be absorbed, heat up a molecule, and then be emitted at the same frequency with no energy loss?

CO2 absorbs in a couple of very narrow bands....if the energy the molecule absorbs is emitted at a slightly lower frequency...do you really think another CO2 molecule can absorb it?

Of course you think that.  Your belief in the AGW hypothesis is proof positive that you are fully capable of magical thinking.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> It isn't warming at all and hasn't for damned near 20 years.



NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries



			
				NOAA said:
			
		

> Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries...Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes.



Some key points from the WMO press release.
--The decade was the warmest on record for both the northern and southern Hemisphere and for both land and ocean surface temperatures.
--94% of reporting countries to the WMO report had their warmest decade in 2001-2010 and no country reported a nationwide average decadal temperature anomaly cooler than the long term average.






IT isn't hard to spot these trends, even children can. But I've come to realize its even _easier_ for a politically charged adult to deny these trends.

Yet another source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html


----------



## westwall (Feb 9, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't warming at all and hasn't for damned near 20 years.
> ...








We really don't care about the doctored results that your propagandists are putting out.  The people of the world know they are full of crap.  The evidence for that is all around us.
The 1930's CRUSH the 1990's in terms of heat.

Plug any city in, and compare the 1930's with 1998 your supposed warmest year.  I found a couple of cities that had 100 degree days but they are few and far between.  On the other hand it was difficult to find a city without multiple 100 degree days throughout the 1930's. 

Based on that evidence alone (but there is far more to support it) it is clear that the '30s were FAR warmer than the 1990's, save in the data falsified brains of the climate fraudsters who's lifestyles and prestige are dependent on maintaining the fraud.



U.S. Historical Climatology Network


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't warming at all and hasn't for damned near 20 years.
> ...



NOAA?  The known data tampers?  You believe them?  Based on what?   First off, consider the fact that NOAA has warmed more than 790 months since 2008 with nearly 80% of those months being post 1959 while at the same time, they have cooled 754 months since 2008 with more than 95% of those months being prior to 1960.  Care to take a guess at what illusion that sort of pattern will create?

Then there is the fact that the satellite record has shown no warming since 1997.  Interesting that every year for the past 17 years has been cooler than 1998 and yet, this is the warmest decade.  More data tampering?

The claims of warmest this and warmest that are becoming absurd and those who make the claims are appearing less honest all the time.  The warming stopped 17 years ago and the fact that climate science can't say why is ample evidence that they don't know nearly as much about the climate as they claim.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2014)

westwall said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




You have to wonder how many know that they are propagating lies and how many are just under educated, misinformed, misdirected dupes.  You would think that they could look at their maps and wonder why the greatest warming invariably occurs in the areas with the least amount of instrumentation.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 9, 2014)

westwall said:


> We really don't care about the doctored results that your propagandists are putting out.



I'm about an anti-propaganda you can get. I don't read from websites and blogs that are personal opinion of some credible and mostly non-credible folks. I don't try to fudge what I say by changing the data set, like you've clearly done. What city would you have me search? Only in America, right? BINGO!




westwall said:


> The 1930's CRUSH the 1990's in terms of heat.



Maybe it's just me but we weren't even talking about the 90s. But your tactics have been evident all along: say anything you can of fact that appears to contradict climate change by neglecting what your data set refers to thereby not actually contradicting climate change at all but merely detracting from the main fact! It's the game of being right over having truth that we are all too familiar with. I want to respect you all but your beliefs are just rolled up shit.

Maybe it's just me but the US is not the only place on the planet. Your data/America reflects about 2% of the earths surface. Global warming refers to the whole planet.

It's evident what you are doing: narrowing your sample size to avoid the obvious fact: globally the 2000s have been the hottest *decade* on record. This doesn't mean the US is necessarily following this trend, it can be an outlier or simply be neutral. The several links I provided show that global trends absolutely confirm our previous decade was hotter than previous decades.

I'm sure I need to point out we aren't talking individual years, we are talking decade worth of temperature data collected from all around the globe. But even if we were talking individual years, globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2014)

Here gnarley, some evidence of tampering outside the borders of the US....if you want more, I can provide more.  And as you said, the US is a small part of the world.  Look at your own maps and ask yourself why it is that the greatest warming seems to be occuring in  areas with the least instrumental coverage.  Don't you find that odd, or don't you think that much about the topic?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 9, 2014)

So, you think GISS decided to change the temperatures just to enhance the appearance of global warming and had no worry that the thousands of scientists who use their data would notice or care.

I guess that makes sense. 



NOT.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 9, 2014)

SSDD is always right. The world has not been warming the last two decades. No credible science exists that says the Earth is warming. Endless supply of BS.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> So, you think GISS decided to change the temperatures just to enhance the appearance of global warming and had no worry that the thousands of scientists who use their data would notice or care.
> 
> I guess that makes sense.
> 
> ...



Use your brain for just one moment...the vast majority of temperature adjustments to the period prior to 1960 have been down and the vast majority of adjustments after 1959 have been upward.....don't you think that temps after 1959 should be adjusted downward if they are to be adjusted at all due to the increased urban heat island effect due to spreading urban areas?

And the fact that thousands are using it doesn't make it right, or good science.  Can you say error cascade?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> SSDD is always right. The world has not been warming the last two decades. No credible science exists that says the Earth is warming. Endless supply of BS.



Even the IPCC acknowledges that the warming has stopped...only the true zealots are still claiming that temps have been rising.  Interesting that when confronted with evidence of data tampering, you still can't believe that you have been duped.  Is that because you "believe" that you are right?  Is belief enough for you?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > So, you think GISS decided to change the temperatures just to enhance the appearance of global warming and had no worry that the thousands of scientists who use their data would notice or care.
> ...



You didn't address the thousands of climate scientists who use that data day in and day out who have had no complaint with the explanation that GISS and other temperature data sources have provided for the various adjustments they have made.

Why not?  Are we back to "They're all crooks"?  Try using your brain for just one moment.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD is always right. The world has not been warming the last two decades. No credible science exists that says the Earth is warming. Endless supply of BS.
> ...



Why? Because 2012 didn't warm up? You act like climate change *just stopped completely* and the IPCC is agreeing climate change is no more. You are pulling my leg aren't you? Using the IPCC to discredit climate change is like using Origin of Species to discredit Darwin. Sure, it noted a brief (or even longer lasting trend) of little to no warming but the report also acknowledges that basically man is responsible. I  guess that's the part you refuse to accept huh? How convenient. 



> The [IPCC] reports have documented a steadily increasing certainty among climate scientists that global warming is a human-made problem. Yet some public scepticism has persisted, especially in the United States."
> 
> Although climate models have been predicting increasing average global temperatures over the next century or so, the past decade has not shown as much warming as most scientists had expected. The year 2012 was no warmer than 2002. The IPCC draft report acknowledges a "global warming hiatus," according to media reports.
> 
> ...



Part of the big picture is this is still happening as its "cooled":





The Columbia Glacier in Alaska, seen in 2006 (top) and 2012 (bottom).


----------



## IanC (Feb 10, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You didn't address the thousands of climate scientists who use that data day in and day out who have had no complaint with the explanation that GISS and other temperature data sources have provided for the various adjustments they have made.
> 
> Why not?  Are we back to "They're all crooks"?  Try using your brain for just one moment.




who says they have no complaint? how many have you talked to? does it make sense to you that the numbers keep changing? often several times per year?


personally, I dont really care about what methodology they use if only it was stable from year-to-year. or even updated every five years or so with a full description and explanation of the proposed changes and a side-by-side publication of old and new datasets for comparison.

what pisses me off is that every time you look back the numbers have changed, often dramatically, and with no obvious reason. why is the value for 1990 global temp different in 1999, 2000, 2001...2011, 2013, 2014? why is the GISS graph of annual temperatures for Orlando different in 1999, 2000, 2001...2011, 2013, 2014? surely we knew how to read a thermometer in 2008, so why does the actual reading from an actual temperature station get changed at the whim of a new computer program?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


The ones whose funding depends upon continued crisis?  Are those the ones you are talking about?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> =
> 
> Why? Because 2012 didn't warm up? You act like climate change *just stopped completely* and the IPCC is agreeing climate change is no more. You are pulling my leg aren't you? Using the IPCC to discredit climate change is like using Origin of Species to discredit Darwin. Sure, it noted a brief (or even longer lasting trend) of little to no warming but the report also acknowledges that basically man is responsible. I  guess that's the part you refuse to accept huh? How convenient.



No, not because 2012 didn't warm up....because it hasn't warmed up since 1997.  And "or even longer lasting trend"?  Are you kidding?  The warming stopped...the CO2 has continued to rise.  The hypothesis has failed.

And try using your brain for just a minute....the models have deviated even further from observation....no tropospheric hot spot has developed as the hypothesis says it must...global sea ice is at record levels....no hurricaines....fewer wildfires...fewer tornadoes....fewer floods...and on and on in the face of IPCC predictions and yet, they claim to be even more confident that the hypothesis is right?  Do you ever think at all?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 10, 2014)

Direct satellite observations indicate that the Earth is still accumulating energy and the rate at which it is doing so is increasing.  In light of that fact, explain how you're able to conclude AGW stopped or was never taking place.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Direct satellite observations indicate that the Earth is still accumulating energy and the rate at which it is doing so is increasing.  In light of that fact, explain how you're able to conclude AGW stopped or was never taking place.



Satellites say that the OLR is increasing at the ToA.  The fact is abraham that the hypothesis claims that CO2 somehow traps heat and causes warming....clearly, it isn't happening and hasn't happened for a long time....are you now claiming that CO2 is directly warming the deep oceans bypassing the atmosphere altogether?


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> No, not because 2012 didn't warm up....because it hasn't warmed up since 1997.



You act like since 1998 was such a record year (at the time) that it hasn't gotten hotter than that before. Your data is saying directly the opposite of what I've been reading (I don't read blogs, I only read peer reviewed articles, interviews and professional lectures). This isn't a matter of Your sources Versus Mine. It's that you pick and choose what's acceptable and try to cast doubt on the science by the idea of federal funding. This is simply mental FUCKING DEMONSTRATES THE POINT YOU HAVE NO INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY because you accept TONS of BULL SHIT from conservative policy institutes/skeptical science propaganda literally, blogs (paid and unpaid), and conservatively funded studies that attempt to cast doubt and are the only kind in their field because they aren't reviewed by the same peers science considers peers!

Your joke about sea ice is dumb as hell. It's middle of winter in the relevant areas that tend to freeze. What do you know? When summer roles around there will be equal melt like in 2012. I just showed a picture that you apparently do not accept as a real photo. You can't take one winter out and say "this is the shit! See I'm right!" The trend is obvious and you are so deception with language its ruins any commonality. No wonder you are such a dick. You're beliefs are complete lies rolled up in a few specious truths.



SSDD said:


> And try using your brain for just a minute....the models have deviated even further from observation....no tropospheric hot spot has developed as the hypothesis says it must...global sea ice is at record levels....no hurricaines....fewer wildfires...fewer tornadoes....fewer floods...and on and on in the face of IPCC predictions and yet, they claim to be even more confident that the hypothesis is right?  Do you ever think at all?



 You always make these remarks like you are a genius and I'm an idiot. Lay off your infallible hypothesis. You are very fallible. There are plenty of valid explanations for why Tornadoes in AMERICA are at their lowest. *You simply lie flat out* about floods, hurricanes and wildfires. Show me some data first of all about floods.

Secondly, I argued this with westwall and found his claim was almost viable (he only claimed there had been fewer tornadoes and probably fewer hurricanes). He was simply lying about the hurricanes. and I live in an area that gets flooded, you have to be joking or completely dishonest. I vote the latter and its because you are isolating your data to this month or the last 4 months and comparing it to the most flooded month in recent times. And like we haven't heard wildfires regularly each summer.  You are just dying to be right about everything so you strap in as tight as you can and aim verbal shots at anyone. these shots don't need to be true or valid, they just need to sharply contradict the other side. YOU lack honesty and any intellectual integrity.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 10, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> This is simply mental FUCKING DEMONSTRATES THE POINT YOU HAVE NO INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY because you accept TONS of BULL SHIT from conservative policy institutes/skeptical science propaganda literally, blogs (paid and unpaid), and conservatively funded studies that attempt to cast doubt and are the only kind in their field because they aren't reviewed by the same peers science considers peers!



Hey, I think I found your twitter account.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> You act like since 1998 was such a record year (at the time) that it hasn't gotten hotter than that before.



Who spent a couple of days pointing out to you that it has certainly been warmer before?   Answer: Skeptics.  It is the warmist wackos who claim that the temperatures at the end of the 20th century were unprecedented.  I know full well that it has been warmer and that CO2 didn't cause it to be warmer then any more than it caused it to be warmer at the end of the 20th century.  Decide what you are arguing.




gnarlylove said:


> data is saying directly the opposite of what I've been reading (I don't read blogs, I only read peer reviewed articles, interviews and professional lectures).



I don't guess you noticed that almost all the material I post is peer reviewed, published in respectable journals.



gnarlylove said:


> This isn't a matter of Your sources Versus Mine. It's that you pick and choose what's acceptable and try to cast doubt on the science by the idea of federal funding.



And oddly enough, you remain unaware of the incredibly large body of peer reviewed data that finds that the IPCC is dead wrong at every turn.  So who is cherrypicking?




gnarlylove said:


> This is simply mental FUCKING DEMONSTRATES THE POINT YOU HAVE NO INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY because you accept TONS of BULL SHIT from conservative policy institutes/skeptical science propaganda literally, blogs (paid and unpaid), and conservatively funded studies that attempt to cast doubt and are the only kind in their field because they aren't reviewed by the same peers science considers peers!



Again, review the materials I have posted....damned near all of it is peer reviewed and published in respectable journals.  You, on the other hand have presented damned near zero credible evidence from anywhere to support your position.  I am afraid it is you who lacks intellectual integrity.  You as much as admit the fact by claiming that the materials I have posted are from biased sources....take a look at the titles of the journals which I have brought material from.  



gnarlylove said:


> joke about sea ice is dumb as hell. It's middle of winter in the relevant areas that tend to freeze.



Talk about dumb...it is the middle of the summer down in the Antarctic which is responsible for the record sea ice levels.  You really don't have any sort of science background do you?  Were you even aware that when it is winter up here in the northern hemisphere it is sumer down in the southern hemisphere.





gnarlylove said:


> You always make these remarks like you are a genius and I'm an idiot. Lay off your infallible hypothesis. You are very fallible. There are plenty of valid explanations for why Tornadoes in AMERICA are at their lowest. *You simply lie flat out* about floods, hurricanes and wildfires. Show me some data first of all about floods.



I make those remarks because, unlike you, I actually have read the literature....where you simply claim to have read it but clearly don't know jack.  Here, peer reviewed literature published in respectable journals regarding flooding.  My bet is that even when confronted with valid data proving that floods are not getting worse, you will disregard the data and hold to your belief like a true zealot.

Warm summers coincide with less frequent flooding -- ScienceDaily

A 450 year record of spring-summer flood layers in annually laminated sediments from Lake Ammersee (southern Germany) - Czymzik - 2010 - Water Resources Research - Wiley Online Library

Paleofloods of the Mediterranean French Alps

Holocene Floods of China's Jinghe River

CP - Abstract - Orbital changes, variation in solar activity and increased anthropogenic activities: controls on the Holocene flood frequency in the Lake Ledro area, Northern Italy

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Sedimentary records of extraordinary floods at the ending of the mid-Holocene climatic optimum along the Upper Weihe River, China

Feel free to apologize for your mischaracterization of me and the materials I post any time.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And oddly enough, you remain unaware of the incredibly large body of peer reviewed data that finds that the IPCC is dead wrong at every turn.  So who is cherrypicking?



I can show you multiple reviews of the literature that show the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed climate papers supports the IPCC  position.  

How about you show us ONE review of the literature that shows anything different?  Let's see some actual numbers as to how well your "incredibly large body of peer reviewed data" stacks up with the papers that FULLY support the IPCC.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And oddly enough, you remain unaware of the incredibly large body of peer reviewed data that finds that the IPCC is dead wrong at every turn.  So who is cherrypicking?
> ...



All you need do is review the materials I have been posting since I got here.  You are blind to anything that doesn't mesh with your faith.  I suppose you will rationalize the tampering with the TSI record I posted this morning as well.  

The wheels are falling off your crazytrain.  I look forward to the day that the evidence of fraud becomes so overwhelming that the charlatans must finally admit their crime...perhaps that will bring you around and maybe, just maybe you will then be to embarassed over your failure to detect the hoax to show your idiot face around here anymore.


----------



## IanC (Feb 11, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Once CO2 has absorbed some IR photons, what happens next?  There seems to be a belief around these parts (, Ian,) that the only way the CO2 can get rid of that photon is by a conductive heat transfer.  Would anyone care to try to explain why CO2 can't simply radiate it away?  To a CO2 molecule, what's the difference?



I had a long comment that got lost due to shabby wireless service. this will be short.

the initial creation of the CO2 reactive photon from the surface lowers the energy present and transfers momentum. sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules have no lasting energy exchange until the photon escapes (energy lost, momentum roughly equal) or the photon returns to the surface (energy equal, roughly two units of momentum used). 

if the excited CO2 molecule has a collision with another molecule that photon of energy may be used up in creating a photon(s) of blackbody radiation of various wavelengths that may or may not react with CO2 but has certainly transformed the kinetic energy(vibration mode) into radiation energy. the original photon has become thermalized and is now part of the general temperature conditions.


you may say I am splitting hairs but one interaction is governed by the identity of the substance, and the other is governed by the temperature.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 11, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And oddly enough, you remain unaware of the incredibly large body of peer reviewed data that finds that the IPCC is dead wrong at every turn.  So who is cherrypicking?
> ...



For God's sake, this is ridiculous.  The fact of the matter here is that there are different people coming to different results and conclusions.  You have to admit that much, at the very least.

So when you choose to give credence only to those results and conclusions that support your own position, you are in fact cherry picking.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2014)

IanC said:


> the initial creation of the CO2 reactive photon from the surface lowers the energy present and transfers momentum. sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules have no lasting energy exchange until the photon escapes (energy lost, momentum roughly equal) or the photon returns to the surface (energy equal, roughly two units of momentum used).



I have to disagree with you there.  There aren't any sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules.  The photon is emitted from the first CO2 molecule at a slightly lower wavelength than at which the energy was absorbed.  Some energy is lost in heating the molecule and exciting it to a higher valence level, therefore the photon emitted is at a lower wavelength and therefore not absorbed by other CO2 molecules due to their narrow absorption bands.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 11, 2014)

SSDD like I said this isn't about your sources versus mine. You are ignoring the overwhelming majority of scientists for a narrow margin of heavily funded politically backed "science." Swim says we need to admit there's disagreement otherwise the 97% are cherry picking. I'm willing to admit there isn't complete certitude on the science but a solid majority agree in man-made warming.

You're recourse is to continue ignoring this body of data in favor of your "small and increasing" body of data. Yet half your sources get its funding from political institutes. Their agenda is clear: distort and confuse so we can sway public opinion to resist climate legislation. "Once the public is on your side, no amount of science can convince them otherwise!" This is the one thing we can be sure of.

When you said I think I'm 100% right all the time what that really was was a projection of you. You are always right and you'd never apologize for ignoring large sections of scientific literature. You consider yourself a crusader for truth and are eager to accept data that supports your claims (whether made up like R Trotten or from legit sources) and we know what crusades can do. Anyone who thinks they have it 100% right are usually the ones who are asserting themselves strongly to cover up gafts in their logic and understanding. But I do want to apologize for whatever it was though you think needs apologizing. Clearly we couldn't move forward if I didn't say I'm sorry so I'm sorry, SSDD.

I've rarely engaged on any other level than scientific citations and rational discourse. You just ignore those posts in favor of conveniently saying "HA! I've got you! Now apologize when you're ready!"

That isn't science. You are on a clear mission and it involves being right over having credibility. I'm not saying you have no credibility, only that you cite less credible sources or mere abstracts without the full paper more often than not. I've checked.

Look at your first link! It says flooding in the SUMMER. LAST TIME I CHECKED THE SUMMER WAS NOT THE ONLY TIME OF YEAR IT CAN FLOOD!

You are selective in your data set so it construes the facts to fit your desires and motives. The only way you can maintain those beliefs is by ignoring pretty much anything said by climate science in favor of your "small and increasing" sample size of "real science." You have a clear agenda and its evinced in each post. BTW I was talking about Northern H. and Alaskan glaciers, which are at the peak about now. My picture was of the Columbia Glacier.

My agenda is motivated through respect of Earth as our sole provider. I think the Earth is something we must protect in order to continue having life-abundant like we do. I welcome the idea that the Earth is more resilient than anything man can throw at it but lamentably this is only a half-truth. Many are convinced we cannot change our ways so that means ignoring climate change. They only use the politically funded science since 2008 as "supporting" this profit motive.

The evidence is clear we will increasingly struggle as climate change sweeps across the globe and it's linked to our activity. "95% probability" says AR5. I know you don't accept it but for some reason you accept the parts that appear to support your side when in reality they are only casting light on the fact there remains confusion in the science but the conclusions are itself quite clear "95% certainty." That is awfully high given thousands of scientists across the globe say "Yep." They have been funded internationally, not by American institutes and policy think tanks!

Who makes sense to believe? SSDD always makes sense.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Satellites say that the OLR is increasing at the ToA.



Nah. Satellites show an OLR decrease. Try looking at actual papers instead of a blog. Susskind et all, 2012, "Interannual Variability of OLR as Observed by AIRS and CERES".

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120012822_2012011737.pdf






Yes, it will depend who you trust. There's the peer-reviewed science from the best of the best, vs. a blogger somewhere. Dang, that's a tough one.

Oh, OLR trends are also highly affected by the start and end points. OLR is up during El Nino, down during La Nina. So if you cherrypick the end to be an El Nino year, you can create an upward trend.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2014)

Warm summers coincide with less frequent flooding -- ScienceDaily

Date:
September 26, 2013
Source:
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Foerderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung
Summary:
Over the past 2,500 years, flooding in the Alps has been less frequent during warm summers than during cool summers. This research suggests that the frequency of flooding can be expected to wane in the central Alps.

*So, you conflate a general prediction for the Alps into a worldwide prediciton? *


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 11, 2014)

The results


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 11, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> For God's sake, this is ridiculous.  The fact of the matter here is that there are different people coming to different results and conclusions.  You have to admit that much, at the very least.
> 
> So when you choose to give credence only to those results and conclusions that support your own position, you are in fact cherry picking.



Yes, different people are coming to different results and conclusions.  Out of every 100 actively researching climate scientists, 97 have come to the conclusion human activities are the primary cause of global warming.  Two are undecided.  ONE has come to the conclusion that humans activities are NOT the primary cause of global warming.

Yes, I will admit that.  Now if you think taking the position of the 97% is cherry picking data, you will have just committed another absolutely infantile error of logic and reasoning.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 11, 2014)

I wonder what fatal error Swim would point out....my guess is argumentum ad populum...just based on his past accusations--not that this fallacy fits because we know it doesn't. One thing we can be sure of, the skeptic isn't skeptical because of reason and evidence. No matter what's out there they will find a way to rationalize it. Just like I could rationalize doing just about anything (e.g. corporate theft) to support my drug habit. The rationalization isn't essential to the skeptic, it's merely a means to get their fix...the fix of being right. It's a debilitating necessity, really, and we all partake. I'm sure you know it all to well, Abraham, you prob. seen dumb rationalizations on here more than anyone. It's a tragedy and makes for some good laughs and even better replies.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 11, 2014)




----------



## IanC (Feb 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the initial creation of the CO2 reactive photon from the surface lowers the energy present and transfers momentum. sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules have no lasting energy exchange until the photon escapes (energy lost, momentum roughly equal) or the photon returns to the surface (energy equal, roughly two units of momentum used).
> ...



Im sorry that you dont understand the concept of quanta. the absorption bands of a substance are exactly the same as the emission bands. there is no energy loss in changes to quantum states.


----------



## Politico (Feb 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > For God's sake, this is ridiculous.  The fact of the matter here is that there are different people coming to different results and conclusions.  You have to admit that much, at the very least.
> ...



Yeah and most of them intentionally ignore how the Us had 100 foot snowfalls in the late 1800s.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2014)

IanC said:


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



So you are either saying that the molecule doesn't heat up, or that heating it up doesn't cost any energy.  Which one?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 12, 2014)

The average CO2 molecule is struck by a horde of photons between each emission.

And if you want to get back to basics, somewhere I heard that you can neither create nor destroy energy. Maybe that's just an old wive's tale but that would make me wonder how you believe incoming energy flux over billions of year will have no effect.

Recall that without our atmosphere and its greenhouse effects, the Earth would be uninhabitably cold.  How does that warming take place if what you claim is true?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 12, 2014)

And as I recall, you stoutly reject quantum theory Mr Science-Sux-Don't-it-Dear.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The average CO2 molecule is struck by a horde of photons between each emission.
> 
> And if you want to get back to basics, somewhere I heard that you can neither create nor destroy energy. Maybe that's just an old wive's tale but that would make me wonder how you believe incoming energy flux over billions of year will have no effect.
> 
> Recall that without our atmosphere and its greenhouse effects, the Earth would be uninhabitably cold.  How does that warming take place if what you claim is true?



There is no "greenhouse" effect.  There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect and can, via incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on not only earth, but every planet in the solar system...the physics used to describe the greenhouse effect don't even keep up with the temperature here, and don't even come close when applied to the other planets in the solar system which have an atmosphere.

The problem with the atmospheric thermal effect, in so far as climate science goes is that it really doesn't care what the atmosphere is composed of beyond the atomic weight of the various molecules...no gasses to demonize for political gain and profit.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> There is no "greenhouse" effect.



Hmm...



SwimExpert said:


> I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic."  Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.




I think this particular conversation is at an end.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "greenhouse" effect.
> ...



Nice of you to alter my quote....isn't that against the rules?  I said that there is an atmospheric thermal effect that is larger than the so called greenhouse effect.  Stupid and a liar.  Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 12, 2014)

I did not alter your quote.  That is your first sentence.  Look for yourself.



SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The average CO2 molecule is struck by a horde of photons between each emission.
> ...



Asshole.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I did not alter your quote.  That is your first sentence.  Look for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So are you claiming that you represented the thought as I originally stated?  Are your thoughts so small that they always come in one sentence bites?  Never mind, the answer to that is a resounding yes.  The fact remains that you are quite dishonest and blatantly so.


----------



## IanC (Feb 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


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





you are confused about the terms 'heat' and 'energy'. a single molecule does not have a temperature. it is only the interaction of a large cohort of molecules that brings meaning to the words heat and temperature.


----------



## IanC (Feb 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The average CO2 molecule is struck by a horde of photons between each emission.
> 
> And if you want to get back to basics, somewhere I heard that you can neither create nor destroy energy. Maybe that's just an old wive's tale but that would make me wonder how you believe incoming energy flux over billions of year will have no effect.
> 
> Recall that without our atmosphere and its greenhouse effects, the Earth would be uninhabitably cold.  How does that warming take place if what you claim is true?



if the world had an atmosphere without GHGs the surface would still be warmer than if there was no atmosphere at all.

the globe is an open system with energy coming in and then leaving. only the equilibriums at different places along the path change as the constituents change.

(please dont say nothing is in equilibrium. overall the stability of the system is amazing fine tuned)

I would suggest the blog Science of Doom (considered a warmist blog) for more information.


----------



## IanC (Feb 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The average CO2 molecule is struck by a horde of photons between each emission.
> ...



the size and density of our atmosphere is a very large part of the thermal equilibrium. but it isnt changing (much). I still wish you would read the 'pot lid hypothesis' so we could explore the ramifications.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "greenhouse" effect.
> ...



Okay Abby, I have something to tell you.  But first I want to make sure that I have your undivided attention.  You might want to sit down first.  Okay, now I need you to make sure that you listen closely.  Are you listening?  Closely?  Come closer.  You gotta really pay attention here.  Let this one sink in, real deep like.  Like global warming hiding deep, deep inside the oceans.  Are you ready?  I'm going to say this real slow so you don't miss anything.

*FALLACY

OF

EQUIVOCATION.*


----------



## rdean (Feb 12, 2014)

A lot of that ice comes from snow.  Snow comes from humidity.  Humidity comes from warm water.  The warmer the water, the more humidity, the more snow.  See how that works?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...il-the-water-disappears-where-does-it-go.html


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 12, 2014)

We come from the land of the ice and snow....


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I did not alter your quote.  That is your first sentence.  Look for yourself.
> ...



Yes.



SSDD said:


> Are your thoughts so small that they always come in one sentence bites?



Why do you even bother?  I quoted you.  The quote was accurate.  I did not remove any intervening material.  I did not remove any prefatory material.  You are not the first person to have a quote extracted like this: see the sigs of Swimexpert and SSDD for examples.  I haven't seen you complaining about their choices.

And besides, the rest of your statement supports your leading expression.  "... so-called greenhouse effect" and "the physics used to describe the greenhouse effect don't even keep up with the temperature here".  You've rejected the Greenhouse Effect.  Stick to your guns or wimp, your call.



SSDD said:


> The fact remains that you are quite dishonest and blatantly so.



You are the one being dishonest here.  It appears you lost your good judgement and expressed an opinion you didn't really want to express.  Don't be ashamed.  There are a number of people here who reject the Greenhouse Effect.  And certainly no deniers have gotten on your case about it.  Not even Swimexpert, who has said that he thinks the opinion you've expressed proves you lack any sort of an education.  But he will not attack you.  He will attack me.  You've nothing to worry about.  Don't worry, be happy!


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 12, 2014)

IanC said:


> you are confused about the terms 'heat' and 'energy'. a single molecule does not have a temperature. it is only the interaction of a large cohort of molecules that brings meaning to the words heat and temperature.



I am not confused and it is you that is incorrect.  The temperature of ANY quantity of mass is simply a measure of its kinetic energy.  Single molecules and atoms have kinetic energy.  

"_The kinetic theory offers a valuable but limited account of the behavior of the materials of macroscopic systems. It indicates the absolute temperature as proportional to the average kinetic energy of the random microscopic motions of their constituent microscopic particles such as electrons, atoms, and molecules._"

Temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 12, 2014)

IanC said:


> if the world had an atmosphere without GHGs the surface would still be warmer than if there was no atmosphere at all.



So what?



IanC said:


> the globe is an open system with energy coming in and then leaving. only the equilibriums at different places along the path change as the constituents change.



I think you mean to say that the equilibrium states change as energy flux and mass constituents change. 



IanC said:


> (please dont say nothing is in equilibrium. overall the stability of the system is amazing fine tuned)



I don't have to, you already did when you said that *"equilibriums... change".
*


IanC said:


> I would suggest the blog Science of Doom (considered a warmist blog) for more information.



No thanks.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 12, 2014)

IanC said:


> the size and density of our atmosphere is a very large part of the thermal equilibrium. but it isnt changing (much).



Why do you think I should be impressed that adding an atmosphere to a planet has thermal effects?  The point is obvious.  The point is also irrelevant to this discussion.



IanC said:


> I still wish you would read the 'pot lid hypothesis' so we could explore the ramifications.



I am having a look at it.  But for having been out for several years now, I see very little reaction to it.  It will take some time to read.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The quote was accurate.  I did not remove any intervening material.  I did not remove any prefatory material.



You need to learn the difference between a premise and a statement.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The quote was accurate.  I did not remove any intervening material.  I did not remove any prefatory material.
> ...



He has a lot to learn about a lot of things.  Probably not going to happen though...to much koolaid.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 12, 2014)

You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine.  Why don't you find me a rule that says I can quote one but not the other.  Then we can pretend as if your comment actually had some relevance.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 12, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The quote was accurate.  I did not remove any intervening material.  I did not remove any prefatory material.
> ...



A premise is a statement. A premise leads to a conclusion. Premises are often grouped two or more statements from which one may induce or deduce a conclusion. Might want to flip through your old logic books.

Whatever your distinction is, it is not a recognized difference either technically in logic or in general vernacular. You are making up demarcations that simply do not exist. What do you think is this key difference is?


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine.



Ah yes.  Outright abuse and hostility.  The clear sign that a person has completely lost the debate and has absolutely nothing intelligent whatsoever.

Thread over, Abby loses.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 12, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine.
> ...



As evident when flotsam talks of verbal victory he is displaying the under developed brain in grasping how language and context works. People who have _adapted the use_ of language like him only use it as a MEANS to achieve what he cannot otherwise. Often people who cannot achieve in the real world come to petty message boards and claim such unwarranted victories so they can fall asleep at night.

Pardon me but Abraham has demonstrated far greater intelligence on the relevant science than any blog or spittle SSDD has put on display. Not that you'd even know what intelligence and understanding looks like since your under-evolved brain stunts your abilities to understand even basic concepts. We feel for you, we really do. Life is not fair.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 12, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> People who have _adapted the use_ of language like him only use it as a MEANS to achieve what he cannot otherwise.



Of course.  You're absolutely right.  That's why global warming causes extreme cold weather in temperate regions, which causes melting ice caps, which causes expanding ice caps, which causes drought, which causes flooding, which causes increased precipitation, which causes disruptions in migratory bird patterns, which causes premature evaporation, which causes Justin Bieber, which causes mass famine and panic.

Temperature data?  Adapt it as a means to achieve what you can't otherwise.  Logic?  Adapt.  Borg Queen?  Adapt.  Brad Pitt?  Adapt.  Quantum physics?  Adapt.  That one's easy, it's just probability anyway.  Anything can happen!


----------



## IanC (Feb 13, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > you are confused about the terms 'heat' and 'energy'. a single molecule does not have a temperature. it is only the interaction of a large cohort of molecules that brings meaning to the words heat and temperature.
> ...





?????

your wiki quote is fully in accordance to what I said. macroscopic systems! it is the average kinetic energy of many, many particles that defines temperature. a particle with [x] energy can come from just about any background cohort. likewise, a blackbody photon [y] can come from just about any temperature material (the limitiations are on high end radiation not low end). one single particle cannot collide with itself nor be its own reference frame therefore you cannot assign it a 'temperature'.


----------



## IanC (Feb 13, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the size and density of our atmosphere is a very large part of the thermal equilibrium. but it isnt changing (much).
> ...





this comment was specifically directed at SSDD, as he is a proponent of N&Z slayer theory. the potlid hypothesis takes the relevent part, virial theorum, and applies it to the atmosphere. the crazy hungarian also uses the theory that nature tries to minimize energy in the atmosphere by realigning kinetic/potential levels. these are fundemental factors that need to be taken into account but they do not dispense with greenhouse radiation theory.


----------



## IanC (Feb 13, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > if the world had an atmosphere without GHGs the surface would still be warmer than if there was no atmosphere at all.
> ...





I will admit to using imprecise terms. I am not a physics lecturer. it is difficult to organize general physics knowledge into a coherent understanding of a specific situation that involves many aspects. too many people here have one thought, one talking point, and try to shoehorn it into every discussion as the answer.

I suggested the 'Science of Doom' blog because it explores a great number of the questions involved with AGW. it is not only informative but also instructive because he refines his thoughts when legitimate criticisms are brought to his attention. he is a warmer in much the same way as I am a liberal. I like the main idea but I wont accept the stupid parts just for the sake of solidarity.

speaking of blogs....they are a neccessity to keep apprised of current affairs in science. most of us cannot reliably critique papers by ourselves but we often can weigh the effectiveness of pro and con arguments. I would rather hear three sides and be stuck on the fence rather than just decide on one authority (or group of authorities) to believe, and then be loyal no matter where the evidence leads.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 13, 2014)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > "_The kinetic theory offers a valuable but limited account of the behavior of the materials of macroscopic systems. It indicates the absolute temperature as proportional to the average kinetic energy of the random microscopic motions of their constituent microscopic particles such as electrons, atoms, and molecules._"
> ...



The quote is discussing macroscopic systems.  It says the temperature of a macrosocopic system - a body - is proportional to the average kinetic energy of its constituent particles.  It sets no lower limit on the number of constituent particles.  If you want me to believe your contention, show me such a limitation.



IanC said:


> a particle with [x] energy can come from just about any background cohort. likewise, a blackbody photon [y] can come from just about any temperature material (the limitiations are on high end radiation not low end). one single particle cannot collide with itself nor be its own reference frame therefore you cannot assign it a 'temperature'.



You yourself just admitted that a lone particle may have [x] energy.  Collisions are NOT  mentioned in the definition of temperature; neither are the loss or gain of photons, the existence of background cohorts nor any sort of reference frame.  Transmission is not required to hold the characteristic.  All matter has some level of kinetic energy and thus a temperature.  "All matter" includes individual particles.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine.  Why don't you find me a rule that says I can quote one but not the other.  Then we can pretend as if your comment actually had some relevance.



No need to pretend...you already proved that it was relevant to you by leaving out my full thought in an attempt to make some trivial point.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 13, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine.
> ...



Still waiting for that rule that says I can quote one but not  the other.  Having some difficulty finding it?  Oh... wait, you're not even looking?  Then perhaps you should have kept your trap shut.  Don't make arguments you're unwilling or unable to back up.

ps: It's my thread.  You don't get to decide when "it's over".


----------



## IanC (Feb 13, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



are you just jerking me around? I can't tell whether you are serious or not.

kinetic speeds of molecules in a gas are close to normal, eg a bell curve. if two temperature curves overlap at the 2SD mark, and the speed of a molecule falls on that mark as well, is it temp1 or temp2? the kinetic speed of a molecule has no meaning except as a part of the whole. likewise for blackbody radiation. a 15 micron IR photon from the sun is exactly the same as one from the earth.

this is that whole second law of thermodynamics fiasco again, in a different setting. you and SSDD make a fine pair, believing that single particles or photons have a 'temperature'.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 13, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Oooohhhhh!  Such anger, such vitriol.  

Public messageboard, buddy.  Not your thread.  Not your thread at all.  You've most definitely lost the discussion, however.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 13, 2014)

Such nothing.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 13, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine.  Why don't you find me a rule that says I can quote one but not the other.  Then we can pretend as if your comment actually had some relevance.
> ...



Delete your sig and I will admit that my quote did not convey the precise same meaning as your post in its entirety.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 13, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You just admitted it.  

Truth cannot be negotiated or held for ransom.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 14, 2014)

You missed an option that I had in mind since before making that offer.  Explaining why they don't convey the same precise meaning.

I could make you a similar offer.  Delete your sig and I will teach you how sarcasm works - filliing one of the numerous and profound gaps in your knowledge of the world... if you can only hang on to it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 16, 2014)

Not getting any better.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 16, 2014)

Abraham, we both know our debate pals have no concern for reality. All they care about is their massively doped up egos. Their ego refuses to be constrained by reality and their brain rationalizes this into "I have accurate beliefs."

We know what's really going on is their ego wants no responsibility for what happens on earth, so it liberates them to do as they please. Rationalizing the sketpic's claims as justifiable belief is an afterthought--one that kook and many others deem unnecessary. As long as they breathe their egos will be all doped up and their brain will continue to align themselves with literally anyone or anything that supports their "I am not responsible" views. Unfortunately their justifications have to do with blogs that appear scienti-irific but upon any scrutiny one learns they are major outliers dressed up to deceive the eager-to-believe skeptics.

Sadly, some powerful egos have also gotten into this game of irresponsibility. With unidentified donations from affluent egos, they finagle folks who have science degrees with the allure of money to discontinue their legitimate science practices and replace it with one conclusion. That conclusion is to make AGW theory appear easily disputable and thus false. But they don't stop there, they include a tinge of heresy to really appeal to their massive egos--that AGW theory is heresy to the church of Republican Individual Freedom. If we allow nature (i.e. liberals) to impose restrictions on consumption then we are not free. Freedom (from having to do anything) is not freedom, its a lack of responsibility.

I guess I just explained that for my own musement. With absolute certainty it will be attacked from all angles. Indeed, the skeptics' ego always wins!


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 16, 2014)

And ^^^THIS^^^ is why drugs are bad, kids.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 16, 2014)

And ^^^^THIS^^^^ is why you should get a well-rounded education.


----------



## westwall (Feb 17, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> And ^^^^THIS^^^^ is why you should get a well-rounded education.








Yes, you should.  According to your best consensus predictions there would be no Arctic ice LAST year.  That would be an epic fail.  I won't even bother to go into all the times that we have been told that the Arctic is in a "death spiral" and yet, here we are in 2014 and the Arctic is getting thicker and the extent is within the mean.

And all the while the Antarctic is setting new records for ice extent...in summer!


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 17, 2014)

westwall said:


> Yes, you should.  According to your best consensus predictions there would be no Arctic ice LAST year.



You're going to have to identify which specific prediction you're talking about and show us where anyone on the mainstream science side of the argument characterized it as "our best".



westwall said:


> That would be an epic fail.  I won't even bother to go into all the times that we have been told that the Arctic is in a "death spiral" and yet, here we are in 2014 and the Arctic is getting thicker and the extent is within the mean.



*DEATH SPIRAL​*







westwall said:


> And all the while the Antarctic is setting new records for ice extent...in summer!



Surprise us.  Educate yourself.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html


----------



## mamooth (Feb 17, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Abraham, we both know our debate pals have no concern for reality. All they care about is their massively doped up egos. Their ego refuses to be constrained by reality and their brain rationalizes this into "I have accurate beliefs."



It's human nature to not like to be proven wrong. It's a good survival skill to be sure of what you do and act quickly. Reason and doubt can be considered later, when it's safe. We're hardwired to stick to our guns and not change our minds quickly.

A head-on assault on our beliefs challenges us. It's a threat, so people dig in to oppose it. The better the data, the bigger the threat, so it actually backfires and causes a person to dig in deeper with their incorrect beliefs.

And being more educated doesn't help. More education makes people even more inflexible. All that education just helped them rationalize more creatively, in effect digging them in deeper.

And that leaves us in a quandry. We may have to be nice to denialists to have a chance with them. Facts alone don't have a chance. Like you brought up, we've got to sort of massage their egos so as not to appear threatening.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 17, 2014)

westwall said:


> According to your best consensus predictions there would be no Arctic ice LAST year.



Bullshit.

If you're not just making crap up again, you can simply show us this consensus. You can't, however, because there's no such thing. That was another example of that thing you routinely do where you cherrypick a statement from one person and then declare it's the consensus.



> I won't even bother to go into all the times that we have been told that the Arctic is in a "death spiral" and yet, here we are in 2014 and the Arctic is getting thicker and the extent is within the mean.



Watch those goalposts move! We'll never be able to catch them! Here, we see that a new record ice extent low means nothing because it's ... wait for it ... "within the mean".



> And all the while the Antarctic is setting new records for ice extent...in summer!



As the temperature there _warms_. And as was correctly predicted by AGW science 20 years ago. That's been pointed out to you several times. However, your cult's pseudoscience collapses unless you cherrypick very selectively, hence you've become a master of that tactic.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > According to your best consensus predictions there would be no Arctic ice LAST year.
> ...





meh


70% of Americans think the scientists are fucking with the data.


Meanwhile >>>>


Top story on DRUDGE right now !!!!!!!



Sea Ice Update February 17 2014 ? Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Still 25% above normal | sunshine hours



*Oooooooooooooooooops*


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 17, 2014)

Now, now.  You know that only the Arctic counts.  What happens south of the border is completely irrelevant.  Because it doesn't fit the narrative very well....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 17, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


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



That is quite sad. The pause has made a ass of science when it comes to climate.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You just admitted it.  Thanks.  My sig on the other hand expresses the entire thought of the idiot who made the statement.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


?  

Real "class act" isn't he?....and I say that with as much sarcasm as I can muster.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 18, 2014)

The pair of you do have many similarities.  One of which would be the habit of attempting to employ irrelevancies.

_Anyone_ who read my original post regarding Ptolemy would have recognized it's sarcastic tone.  Even Swimexpert could not be so lacking in the basic gifts of intellect to have missed it.  Thus when he states that the statement he extracted from it, "expresses the entire thought of the idiot who made the statement", he is either indicating that the quoted statement by itself is obviously satirical or he is attempting to lie to us.  Given our history and his use of the term "idiot", I'll have to go with the latter.  If you wish to praise him for lying to us, I can only say I am sadly unsurprised.

This exchange certainly backs up everything Secretary Kerry said about climate change deniers, though.


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2014)

Matthew said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



you have it back asswards Matthew. climate science has made an ass out of science. nature has always played by her own (correct) rules. it has only been since climate science has made its strident claims and tried to force any and all data into its preconceived conclusions that science has been falling into disrepute.


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2014)

hey Matthew-- remember those lists that showed how global warming and CO2 was responsible for just about everything bad in the world? from Acne to Zits?

here is one that really bothered me. published in Nature, no less.

Nutrition and Diabetes - A proposed potential role for increasing atmospheric CO2 as a promoter of weight gain and obesity

it blamed the obesity crisis on CO2. it is just the crazy sort of idea that appeals to you, right? me too actually but this one failed the smell test pretty quickly. why dont you go read it, and critique the major flaws for yourself. and then we could discuss it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 18, 2014)

Why?  What does that article have to do with the environment or the reality of AGW?

Besides, I strongly doubt you have ANYTHING with which to challenge the study's results.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 18, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Now, now.  You know that only the Arctic counts.  What happens south of the border is completely irrelevant.  Because it doesn't fit the narrative very well....



The antarctic is _warmer_. That fits our narrative quite well. The increased ice is from increased freshwater. Exactly as AGW theory predicted, so again, it exactly fits our narrative.

You keep running from that fact. Because it doesn't fit your narrative well. You're an intellectual coward, and a hypocrite to boot.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 18, 2014)

IanC said:


> hey Matthew-- remember those lists that showed how global warming and CO2 was responsible for just about everything bad in the world? from Acne to Zits?



I remember denialists often lying-via-cherrypicking about such things. Not their proudest moments. You ought to be running at top speed from such dishonest sleaze tactics, if you don't want to ruin your reputation.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> You just admitted it.  Thanks.  My sig on the other hand expresses the entire thought of the idiot who made the statement.



Actually, it shows you're too 'effin stupid to understand the Second Law.

Tell us again how the entire field of Statistical Mechanics is a fraud. The physics for the past century is wrong, and only you have discovered the RealTruth, being you're so much smarter than those eggheads. When do you plan to tell the world and collect your Nobel Prize? And what's up next, your declaration that relativity is also a fraud?

Actually, this illustrates the raging narcissism so common in the extreme right. They simply can't admit an error, ever. No matter how stupid it makes them look, they just keep doubling down on that original error. It's good to be a liberal, since we're freely allowed to admit errors and learn.


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2014)

Matthew said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...








Not at all.  The climatologists have made complete asses of themselves and brought total discredit on their field.  That has had a damaging effect on science as a whole, but science itself is unchanged.  

It is however populated by humans.  And those humans can be good or bad, competent or incompetent etc.  Climatology has a particularly high concentration of unethical and incompetent people.


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Why?  What does that article have to do with the environment or the reality of AGW?
> 
> Besides, I strongly doubt you have ANYTHING with which to challenge the study's results.








It demonstrates how the "scientists" have had to resort to plucking at heartstrings (because the actual observations have shown them to be catastrophically wrong) and how they have prostituted science for personal gain.


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Now, now.  You know that only the Arctic counts.  What happens south of the border is completely irrelevant.  Because it doesn't fit the narrative very well....
> ...








Except that wasn't your narrative at all.  Link up that study you claim predicted the warming.  Go ahead I dare you!


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hey Matthew-- remember those lists that showed how global warming and CO2 was responsible for just about everything bad in the world? from Acne to Zits?
> ...









Projection is your specialty I see!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You just admitted it.  Thanks.  My sig on the other hand expresses the entire thought of the idiot who made the statement.
> ...



Actually, I never said that but thanks for proving once again that you are a liar.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 18, 2014)

You're sulking as much as Westwall now. That's how I know I've scored.

The field of Statistical Mechanics demonstrates how the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law is statistics. If you say my statement is wrong, you reject Statistical Mechanics. You can't have it both ways. Either my statement is correct, or the whole field of Statistical Mechanics is wrong.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 18, 2014)

I think the more important discussion topic lies with mamooth: are they a he or she? I can't tell from the cat picture....oh wait, this is totally irrelevant discussion. Pardon me mammoth, I must have been possessed by a denialist. Carry on.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 18, 2014)

westwall said:


> Except that wasn't your narrative at all.  Link up that study you claim predicted the warming.  Go ahead I dare you!



Again?

Okay, but this time, please refrain from making up that strange story about models predicting it both ways, given the paper does nothing of the sort. I'm still at a loss as to where you got such nonsense.

manabe 1991

The relevant part is on p795.
---
It is surprising, however, that the sea-ice thickness in the G integration increases significantly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent despite the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is consistent with the slight reduction of sea surface temperature (figure 10a). It will be shown in section 9a that, owing to the intensification of the near-surface halocline caused by the increased supply of water at the oceanic surface, the convective mixing of cold near-surface water with warmer underlying water becomes less frequent, resulting in the increase of sea ice and slight reduction of sea surface temperature.
---


----------



## mamooth (Feb 18, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> I think the more important discussion topic lies with mamooth: are they a he or she? I can't tell from the cat picture....oh wait, this is totally irrelevant discussion. Pardon me mammoth, I must have been possessed by a denialist. Carry on.



No problem. I am a he, by the way. One reason I use the cat is to get people to behave badly. Some of 'em can't resist being bullies if they think they're talking to a woman, while others expect they can get a rise out of me by telling dead cat jokes.

I also just like the photo. The cat himself is a feral cat who came around my house for a couple years (because I fed him). It's unusual for a pure siamese to be feral, but there he was. Given how skittish he was, I was lucky to get such a good photo of him.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The antarctic is _warmer_. That fits our narrative quite well. The increased ice is from increased freshwater. Exactly as AGW theory predicted, so again, it exactly fits our narrative.



And just what exactly is the primary source of fresh water in the Antarctic?


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> You're sulking as much as Westwall now. That's how I know I've scored.
> 
> The field of Statistical Mechanics demonstrates how the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law is statistics. If you say my statement is wrong, you reject Statistical Mechanics. You can't have it both ways. Either my statement is correct, or the whole field of Statistical Mechanics is wrong.








You couldn't "score" standing on the rim of the bucket.  You are one of the most scientifically illiterate drones on this board.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Except that wasn't your narrative at all.  Link up that study you claim predicted the warming.  Go ahead I dare you!
> ...



You are kidding, right?  First off, outdated much.  That is from 1991.  How many global climate models written in 1991 even still exist, and more importantly, how many remain unchanged?

From the first line of that pile of crap:

"This study investigates the response of a CLIMATE MODEL to a gradual increase or decrease of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

We all know how well the climate models from that era have predicted the climate response atmospheric carbon dioxide.  They have FAILED SPECTACULARLY.

Get with the times...no one has faith in models any more and anyone who is presenting them as the basic support for their position is an idiot.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

Of course its a climate model.  How else would you make a climate prediction?  Is that all you've got?

And is this the sort of "spectacular failure" you're talking about?


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Of course its a climate model.  How else would you make a climate prediction?



What makes you think you or anyone else have any business making predictions at all?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Of course its a climate model.  How else would you make a climate prediction?  Is that all you've got?
> 
> And is this the sort of "spectacular failure" you're talking about?



Before I started trying to make predictions, I would make sure I damned well understood what it was I was trying to predict.   No intelligent individual tries to make predictions on a complex system that is decades away from being understood...that sort of behavior is reserved for charlatans, con artists, crooks and frauds.

And more importantly, no intelligent individual believes predictions made by people who clearly are not even close to a complete understanding of the system on which they are trying to make predictions.  That sort of behavior is reserved for imbeciles, mutton heads, fools, and dupes.

By the way...I couldn't help but notice that your idiot chart only shows anomolies...we both know that is because you would be laughed off the board if you ever showed the actual differences between the predictions and reality.  You are a never ending source of laughter.  For a long time, I thought you knew you were pushing a hoax but thought that the ends justified the means....now it seems that you really are that stupid.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 19, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course its a climate model.  How else would you make a climate prediction?
> ...



What a man of ontological considerations.

Reality only happens in the now. So how can we predict what the future holds? No one can see the future, for we are trapped in the now. Boy this cookie is smart. If only he knew what he was talking about. He isn't trying to make a point, instead he is, like always, trying to sabotage any attempt to demonstrate facts with high degrees of confidence.

If one knows sufficient variables that create effects, it is reasonable to assume we can predict trends. Trends are different from exact precision and determinism that exists in the present. That's why each model you see offer a range of potential events. As long as we know the variables, we can know the effects with relatively high confidence.

Of course this knowledge is different from knowledge we glean from the present. Just because predictions are of a different genre of epistemology than facts we know today doesn't make it any less valid. But I know you'll call me names or something inane so score another for the expert who has no concern for genuine understanding of what's going on in the world today or at any time in the future.

Will the sun rise tomorrow?

We cannot know this so we have no business predicting it.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 19, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Reality only happens in the now. So how can we predict what the future holds? No one can see the future, for we are trapped in the now. Boy this cookie is smart. If only he knew what he was talking about. He isn't trying to make a point, instead he is, like always, trying to sabotage any attempt to demonstrate facts with high degrees of confidence.



When are you going to get it through your head that there is nothing wrong with someone presenting alternative perspectives?  Oh, I'm sorry.  I forgot who I was talking to.  You're never going to grasp it, because you expect people to simply accept whatever you put in front of them.



> If one knows sufficient variables that create effects, it is reasonable to assume we can predict trends.



Therein lies the problem.  We don't have sufficient knowledge of those variables and causal relationships.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Therein lies the problem.  We don't have sufficient knowledge of those variables and causal relationships.



Who told you that?


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 19, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> > If one knows sufficient variables that create effects, it is reasonable to assume we can predict trends.
> 
> 
> 
> Therein lies the problem.  *We don't have sufficient knowledge of those variables* and causal relationships.



See, this is much more reasonable. I'm proud of you. That's all I was hoping to get out of ya. Saying we simply have no hope in making predictions is not helpful or true. Correct me if I am wrong but your original claim appeared like an attempt to just shut down debate basically saying "these things are unknowable so let's quit talking about them."

That is just not true. They are knowable withing a certain range. Of course we cannot know with 100% precision because variables are well, variable. Disputing whether we have sufficient knowledge of them makes much more sense than saying predictions are impossible or unrealistic.

Baby steps. We need to take it slow. Anyone think we know those variables and causal relationships sufficiently?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 19, 2014)

We know them well enough to give the resultant predictions some value.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 19, 2014)

I agree that we have adequate knowledge given the fact climate change as exacerbated by man has been around since the 60s (or even earlier). I'd imagine the science has made major strides since that time on understanding it. Sadly, our dissenters are really derogatory denialists and little more. If there only point was the science is confusing for stupid people, I'd agree. If there only point was that the science is incomplete, I'd agree. But beyond those two benign points, we are quite clearly responsible for disrupting the Earth's balance. All reality hangs in the balance and Carbon Dioxide cycles are no different. Introducing additional gigatons each year, year after year, for a century has an effect.

I was taking a walk today and was just in disbelief of the weather change here along the Ohio River. For 2 or 3 weeks it has been bitch ass cold and every square inch was blanketed with snow. Just yesterday it snapped into warm almost summer-like weather and especially today it has been 62 degrees. Yet my old quarry pond is still frozen solid some 6 inches demonstrating how long and cold it was. Tomorrow it's suppose to reach 72. There is flooding in parts of my 45 acres that have never flooded before as it melts.

This got me thinking that clearly the climate is changing at a pace humans can visibly notice, which is atypical for geological time. Then I thought over the course of the next decade we will see an obvious increase assuming current trends. Additionally methane will become a significant source of energy. So as CH4, which I've heard is 105 times more potent GHG than CO2, we will obviously see an even greater impact on climate change. So this visible change will be exacerbated and in a decade (or 2) all the denialist will die off but we will be stuck with all the GHG.

As we both know Abraham, CO2 will remain in out atmostphere for a millennia. This spells bad news. Although we will *begin* addressing climate change when it becomes overt and visible (once it effects white middle class in prices etc.) the CO2 that we expelled over that decade will only accumulate. This means any new CO2 can only intensify it _that much more_.

To make matters worse, our CH4 concentrations will also spike. While CH4 dissipates in about a decade, major consequences in climate change will result with this doubly wammy. Plus we will have come to heavily depend on natural gas (as a "clean energy") rather than a really clean energy. So the infrastructure of a few thousand miles that is currently being built (see Constitution Pipeline among dozens) will ensure we will have a serious problem on our hands.

In summary, over the next decade or two assuming current trends we are practically excluding any chance of avoiding serious problems as a result of climate change. What do you think? Am I seeing this accurately or do you think I'm off base? (I'm asking Abraham only). That is to say, will CH4 play a role and will CO2 continue to intensify?


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 20, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Therein lies the problem.  We don't have sufficient knowledge of those variables and causal relationships.
> ...



Unlike you, I don't need someone to tell me everything in order for me to know them.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...




Really?  So tell me... What is the climate sensitivity to CO2?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 20, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



You're supposed to put some sort of emoticon up there when you tell a joke like that.  If you don't, folks might think you're serious.

Your knowledge of climate science, then, is a priori?  Was that part of your gifttedness?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 21, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> We know them well enough to give the resultant predictions some value.




Not even close.  Example:  what ts the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 and what is the margin of error of the value you give.  Without a damned accurate grasp of that factor you can't possibly begin to make rational predictions based on the greenhouse hypothesis.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > We know them well enough to give the resultant predictions some value.
> ...



And you are totally full of bullshit, SSDD. Written in 1981;

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 22, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



I see. Then I assume God just has his personal line to you to tell you all the facts of the universe. Wheeeeeeeee.....................


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









What areas have been rendered "drought prone" that weren't already?  Every area that is experiencing drought now, has experienced it before.  This is nothing new, and is in fact, less onerous than it has been in the past.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








Yes, just like your high priests are the ooooonly people who can understand the gibberish they vomit out on a regular basis....


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 22, 2014)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



That is not our position at all.  We understand most of what they put out and we expect that you and all the rest can understand it as well.  You simply reject it out of hand because it refutes your biased, prejudicial and evidentially unsupported position.

As to Swimexpert's contention that he has gleaned any significant amount of knowledge in life without the active or passive assistance of others - it is complete egotistical nonsense.  But if you want to support him - heck, if you want to join him in the claim - be our guest.  There's a name for such "knowledge".


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > We know them well enough to give the resultant predictions some value.
> ...



Predictions may be made with precisely the margin of the sum of uncertainties that goes into it.  That's standard practice.  And if you go look at the IPCC's predictions, you will see a wide range identified as being due to our uncertainties in climate sensitivity and in the future of human GHG emissions.  I think a review of the rather sparse literature on your side of the fence will show a much greater likelihood of failing to include error budgets in predictions.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Sorry guy, but the past 17+ years lay waste to that claim of sensitivity.  Care to try again?  What is the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 and what is the margin of error?  If you don't know that, then any prediction based on the AGW hypothesis is, to use your word...bullshit.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



So what you are saying is that you have no idea what the climate sensitivity is so you use coincidental data to support your claim so long as the coincidence is in your favor....when it isn't, as in the past 17+ years of flat temps while CO2 is steadily rising, you ignore it completely and hold faith in the failed hypothesis.  At this point, climate science isn't even moderately sure of what they are unsure about.  The AGW hoax is a scam and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker.....you, abraham, are a laughing stock.

The bottom line is that climate science has no real idea of what the one figure is that would legitimize their claims...they are guessing...they are fabricating... they are full of....to use rock's word, full of bullshit.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> So what you are saying is that you have no idea what the climate sensitivity is so you use coincidental data to support your claim so long as the coincidence is in your favor.



No, that is not what I said.  Should I complain to the moderators that you have mischaracterized my opinion?

I pulled numbers off the top of my very shiny head.  Going to Chapter 12 of AR5 itself we find the following statement:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2°C&#8211;4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value is near 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity greater than about 6°C&#8211;7°C is very unlikely."

I believe the work of the IPCC to be the best climate information available and, as I have stated on several occasions, my opinion is their opinion because of that.



SSDD said:


> ...when it isn't, as in the past 17+ years of flat temps while CO2 is steadily rising, you ignore it completely and hold faith in the failed hypothesis.



I do not ignore it.  Once again you completely mischaracterize my repeatedly expressed opinion and I again ask "should I report you for it"?  What YOU and the rest of your gang have REPEATEDLY declined to do is discuss the 1941-1979 COOLING period: why, in your opinions, it does not bring the current hiatus into the demonstrated range of natural variability, why we should take the current hiatus as signficant when 1941-1979 was not and why you think 17 years of moderated SURFACE warming with no change in the ToA radiative imbalance refutes 170 of rising global heat content.



SSDD said:


> At this point, climate science isn't even moderately sure of what they are unsure about.  The AGW hoax is a scam and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker.....you, abraham, are a laughing stock.



Those would be more of your unending stream of unsubstantiated assertions.  Do you know how much value is inherent in an unsubstantiated assertion?  Guess.  Go on, guess.  Let's hear it.  How much?  C'mon, how much?



SSDD said:


> The bottom line is that climate science has no real idea of what the one figure is that would legitimize their claims...they are guessing...they are fabricating... they are full of....to use rock's word, full of bullshit.



There are quite literally reams of scholarly work behind the IPCC statement above.  It is YOUR statements here that bear the unmistakable taint of anal derivation.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So what you are saying is that you have no idea what the climate sensitivity is so you use coincidental data to support your claim so long as the coincidence is in your favor.
> ...




So once again....what is the climate sensitivity to CO2,and what is the margin of error and of what use is any prediction based on the AGW hypothesis if you aren't damned sure of that number


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Asked and answered repeatedly just in the last 24 hours.  Can you not read?

2C - 4.5C



SSDD said:


> and of what use is any prediction based on the AGW hypothesis if you aren't damned sure of that number



Of what use is ANYTHING you have brought to this forum?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 23, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



A margin of error greater than 100%....Once more, I am laughing out loud in your stupid face.  How can you possibly take such drivel seriously?



SSDD said:


> and of what use is any prediction based on the AGW hypothesis if you aren't damned sure of that number





Abraham3 said:


> what use is ANYTHING you have brought to this forum?



It serves to bring your stupidity and gullibility clearly out into the open.  Your responses are invariably the talking points your priests gave you and you have clearly not given them much thought.  The fact that the margin of error for the claimed sensitivity is greater than 100% and yet you believe it makes that obvious.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 25, 2014)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/s...ruvian-ice-cap-to-higher-temperatures.html?hp
"Now, a group of scientists is presenting new findings suggesting that over the centuries, temperature is the main factor controlling the growth and retreat of the largest glacier emerging from the ice cap. If they are right, then Quelccaya&#8217;s recent melting could indeed be viewed as a symbol of the planetary warming linked to human emissions of greenhouse gases."


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/s...ruvian-ice-cap-to-higher-temperatures.html?hp
> "Now, a group of scientists is presenting new findings suggesting that over the centuries, temperature is the main factor controlling the growth and retreat of the largest glacier emerging from the ice cap. If they are right, then Quelccayas recent melting could indeed be viewed as a symbol of the planetary warming linked to human emissions of greenhouse gases."



Do you acknowledge that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere of planet earth?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

Yes.  Do you have any evidence to support your claims concerning CO2, the Greenhouse Effect and global warming?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What do you believe to be the transient climate sensitivity, why do you believe so and what is your margin of error?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 26, 2014)

1.5c


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> What do you believe to be the transient climate sensitivity, why do you believe so and what is your margin of error?



Transient sensitivity to CO2?  Zero with a zero percent margin of error.  The atmosphere isn't sensitive to CO2 beyond its contribution to atmospheric pressure.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Yes.  Do you have any evidence to support your claims concerning CO2, the Greenhouse Effect and global warming?



Just the laws of physics and observation here, and across the solar system.....if the greenhouse hypothesis doesn't work on other planets with atmospheres, there is all the evidence you need that it is an ad hoc construct for planet earth.  The laws of physics operate the same on every planet and if the greenhouse hypothesis is in accord with the laws of physics, it should predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere....it doesn't, therefore it is flawed.  Again, the temperature at the base of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than the base of the troposphere on earth even though Uranus is 30X further away from the sun than earth and Uranus has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium...the greenhouse hypothesis can't explain that even though it is reality...the greenhouse hypothesis fails because it is fatally flawed.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

That is NOT evidence supporting your contention.  You claimed that CO2 was not warming the Earth.  You have claimed that the Earth is not actually warming.  You need to provide evidence that the temperature of the Earth has remained stable for the last 150 years.

I'll be waiting for you right here.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 26, 2014)

Read this:  The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited

I know you won't but you won't be able to say I didn't try.  It even covers your lapse rate nonsense.


----------



## IanC (Mar 4, 2014)

IanC said:


> hey Matthew-- remember those lists that showed how global warming and CO2 was responsible for just about everything bad in the world? from Acne to Zits?
> 
> here is one that really bothered me. published in Nature, no less.
> 
> ...




I am a little disappointed that you never took up the challenge to read this paper Matthew. it is a classic case of juxtaposing reasonable data but extrapolating linear correlations between extremes, and then making faulty conclusions from imaginary filled-in data points.

the human body has multiple homeostatic systems for transporting O2 and CO2, and controlling pH. designed to work under varying conditions, with buffers and redundacies, so that short, medium and long term insults to stasis are dealt with.

so how did they model CO2 build up in tissues? they studied worms that have passive respiration through holes in their epidermis. how did they model pH increase? they took data from the space program that was 30-100 times ambient air values and drew a straight line back to normal. and then used made-up intermediate data points to _suggest
_a possible outcome, with little of the uncertainty mentioned in the abstract, which then gets noticed by the media and written up as 'CO2 and global warming is making us fat'.

a large part of climate science is taking a huge pile of refutable data and evidence, sifting through for the pieces that support your pre-formed conclusions, and then making garish predictions of doom out of the worst-case-scenarios.



> Rosanne DArrigo astonished the NAS panel with a slide entitled Cherry picking, in which she attempted to defend reconstructions from
> criticism of biased proxy selection. DArrigo observed: you have to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 4, 2014)

The folks that conducted that investigation had multiple lines of evidence, all pointing in the same direction.  And their conclusion was simply that it was a _hypothesis_ worth further investigation.  Do you disagree?

And this has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.


----------



## IanC (Mar 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The folks that conducted that investigation had multiple lines of evidence, all pointing in the same direction.  And their conclusion was simply that it was a _hypothesis_ worth further investigation.  Do you disagree?
> 
> And this has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.





I have a history with Matthew. He has a love for science but he is far too easily swayed by a few press clippings and an enthusiastic abstract. in the past few months he has gone offtrack and joined the majority here who judge the idea by the person speaking it rather than the soundness of what is being said. 

I try to stay out of the actual politics but I am interested in the personalities of climate science. it is the same with this board. I have no problems with people who disagree with me but I find it odious when insults, strawman versions of my comments, and imagined evil intent of my motives are the standard response rather than a clash of ideas.

I am sorry if you think I am off topic. not many threads do keep on target. you were talking about climate sensitivity with SSDD. it is an interesting subject but I have a pretty strong suspicion that you arent the least bit interested in what I have to say about it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/s...ruvian-ice-cap-to-higher-temperatures.html?hp
> ...



Do you acknowledge that H2O has a residence time of less than 10 days in the atmosphere?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What do you believe to be the transient climate sensitivity, why do you believe so and what is your margin of error?
> ...



More unsupported flap-yap from an idiot. 

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Of course we realize that SSDD thinks that he is smarter than all the people in the American Institute of Physics combined, so all he has to do is post his opiinion, and it is a fiat from God.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2014)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hey Matthew-- remember those lists that showed how global warming and CO2 was responsible for just about everything bad in the world? from Acne to Zits?
> ...



While the hypothesis may be interesting, it has nothing at all to do with AGW. 

Ian, bringing up that kind of article does not help to prove or disprove anything. You want real science on this issue, go the the lectures at the AGU Conventions, or articles from GSA's Journal, Geology. Both deal with mostly on the ground issues concerning AGW. Same with the lectures at the Americam Meteorlogical Association.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > gnarlylove said:
> ...



I suppose you believe that CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of a thousand years??


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 4, 2014)

Semantic bullshit - and the point has been explained to you before.  That makes this post a willful lie.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Semantic bullshit - and the point has been explained to you before.  That makes this post a willful lie.



You would have to understand a thing to explain it...you don't.  The claims that you alarmists make regarding the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere are pure propaganda.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

Again, there's an enormous number of folks with PhD's in atmospheric science that would disagree with you.  Why don't you argue with them?  Because that would expose your ignorance or because it would expose your lie?


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 5, 2014)

If the science is settled, why are the climate change truthers ALWAYS changing their predictions?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 5, 2014)

Here's the latest GISTemp data.  Does it look as if the world is freezing?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 5, 2014)

Get a grip man.. That graph may be intimidating to you. But it's a 0.5degC GLOBALLY in your lifetime.
Where I live -- the daily highs and lows are hardly EVER within 4 degF of "average"... 

It's a CONSTRUCT -- Global Average Surface temperature has no real meaning outside of GW press releases. Same with Globally averaged GDPs or Globally averaged BodyMassIndexes.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 6, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Get a grip man.. That graph may be intimidating to you.



That you so consistently feel obliged to indulge in these little passive agressive ad hominems tells us that the intimidation here is you of the data I put down.



flacaltenn said:


> But it's a 0.5degC GLOBALLY in your lifetime.
> Where I live -- the daily highs and lows are hardly EVER within 4 degF of "average"...
> 
> It's a CONSTRUCT -- Global Average Surface temperature has no real meaning outside of GW press releases. Same with Globally averaged GDPs or Globally averaged BodyMassIndexes.



Of course it has real meaning.  EVERY measured temperature is an average.  It is this argument of yours that has no real meaning - except to clearly tell us it's all you've got.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



*A very nice peice of lying by misdirection. Well done, SSDD, Geobbels would be proud of you.*

Dodgy Diagrams #1 - Misrepresenting IPCC Residence Time Estimates

So What is Dodgy About The Diagram?
The IPCC actually gives a residence time of about 4 years in the 2007 AR4 WG1 report (see page 948), which is completely in accordance with the other papers referenced in the diagram.  The confusion arises because there are two definitions of "lifetime" that describe different aspects of the carbon cycle.  These definitions are clearly stated on page 8 of the first (1990) WG1 IPCC report (on page 8):

The turnover [residence] time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years.  This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean.  This short timescale must not be confused with the time it takes for the atmospheric CO2 level to adjust to a new equilibrium if sources or sinks change.  This adjustment time, corresponding to the lifetime in table 1.1 is of the order 50-200 years, determined mainly by the low exchange of of carbon between surface waters and deep the ocean,  The adjustment time is important for the discussion on global warming potential, c.f. Section 2.2.7". [emphasis mine]

 So clearly what has happened is that the author of the diagram has done exactly what the IPCC have warned against, which is to confuse residence (turnover) and adjustment time.  As the IPCC WG1 report makes a point of clarifying this issue, the confusion would have been avoided if time was taken to actually read what was written in the IPCC report


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2014)

Hocus pocus rocks...everything out of your mouth is a lie, fabrication, or misdirection.

Where is the tropospheric hot spot predicted by the greenhouse hypothesis.  Without that, the hypothesis is falsified and at that point, those who still believe are denying science and operating on faith.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 7, 2014)

You posted a fucking lie and Rocks PWNED your ass.  That's what happens when you're stupid.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Again, there's an enormous number of folks with PhD's in atmospheric science that would disagree with you.  Why don't you argue with them?  Because that would expose your ignorance or because it would expose your lie?



Some of us (more than 75%) actually disagree with AGW.

But then again you are always misinformed and try and promote falsehoods.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 7, 2014)

You posted a fucking lie and Rocks PWNED your ass.  That's what happens when you're stupid.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You posted a fucking lie and Rocks PWNED your ass.  That's what happens when you're stupid.



Says the liar!


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> What lie do you believe I have told?



Just about everything you post on this subject including the ones that claim AGW is science.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 7, 2014)

Pretty much every Atmospheric science text book of the past 50 years would have to be rewritten "IF" the green house is a lie.

It would cost many billions of dollars! 


Next everyone would have to learn a new theory!


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Pretty much every Atmospheric text book of the past 50 years would have to be rewritten "IF" the green house is a lie.
> 
> It would cost many billions of dollars!
> 
> ...



AGW is a LIE and not science and thus must be removed from the text books and class rooms as it is a religion. That is if you truly believe in the separation of church and state.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You posted a fucking lie and Rocks PWNED your ass.  That's what happens when you're stupid.




You have a very active, but limited imagination.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 8, 2014)

That hardly addresses the facts of the matter.  Why don't you hit the EDIT button on your LYING graphic up there and delete it?  That's what an HONEST person would do.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 8, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> That hardly addresses the facts of the matter.  Why don't you hit the EDIT button on your LYING graphic up there and delete it?  That's what an HONEST person would do.



Since you claim to be an honest person, why haven't deleted your AGW church propaganda graphs that are known to be lies?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 8, 2014)

And then they'd apologize.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 8, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> And then they'd apologize.



So when are you going to do it?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 8, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What lie do you believe I have told?
> ...



You know, you are the last person here I still keep on my ignore list.  I have to actively choose to read anything you post.  Earlier this morning I found a post of yours in which you - for the first time that I can recall - posted some temperature data and attempted to make a technical point.  I gave you a significant response and said not one harsh word about you there.  

Then I come here and find all of this.  I'm a little touchy about being called a liar.  Particularly when those making the accusations do not even make an _attempt_ to back up the charge. 

I am done with you.  You are THE most worthless poster here.  You make the idiot Skooks look like a college professor.  If the world was right, you'd be fined for littering every time you post something here.  So, I am simply going to stop hitting that "View post" button.  As far as I will be concerned, from this point forward, you do not exist.

So, for anyone else reading this: if, in the future, you're having trouble figuring out who or what some post of mine is referring to, skip past any Kosh posts as if they weren't there.  Because for me, they weren't.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 8, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Really? Lying again?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ing-climate-change-classroom.html#post8739450

I have posted some scientific data many times before, yet you chose to ignore it for your AGW religion. 

Yet you have been asked over many occasions to post datasets with source code that proves your religion and yet have not produced one.

Once you AGW hacks can post at least ONE link that has datasets with source code to prove CO2 drives climate, then we can have a discussion it. Until this is the old childish attempt at the silent treatment.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 10, 2014)

westwall said:


> What, right now, is causing the Jet Stream to move south olfraud?  It is a WELL KNOWN phenomenon.  So tell us what it is.



The warming of the Arctic.


----------



## westwall (Mar 10, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What, right now, is causing the Jet Stream to move south olfraud?  It is a WELL KNOWN phenomenon.  So tell us what it is.
> ...








350 years of solar observations say NOPE!





"350 years of data link low solar activity to cold winters.

 "Richard A. Lovett  
large sunspot group
A quieter sun means colder winters for Europe.
NASA/TRACE

Periods of low sunspot activity are associated with changes in the winds that tear though the upper atmosphere, bringing unusually cold winters to northern Europe, a new study finds. 

The study, published today in Environmental Research Letters1, analysed 350 years of temperature data recorded in central England since 1659, comparing it to astronomical observations of sunspots. The research team, led by Mike Lockwood, a solar-terrestrial physicist at the University of Reading, UK, found that after allowing for global climate change, European winters tended to be 0.5 °C colder than average during low-solar-activity years."

Ebbing sunspot activity makes Europe freeze : Nature News


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 11, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Interesting. When the Maunder Minimum happened, it was colder for the whole year, not just winter. Today, we are getting some cold spells, but not colder overall. In fact, in spite of some very cold winters in various localities, shifting from year to year, we are at the same time getting the warmest years on record. Very differant pattern than that of the Maunder Minimum. 

But you know that already, Westwall. You choose to lie by misdirection, same as Kosh and his two graphs, purported to be of the same thing, but of vastly differant things. That is the pattern of denialists, whether concerning tobacco or climate.


----------



## westwall (Mar 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









I have to hand it to you olfraud, only a devout warmist, such as yourself, could ignore the mountains of evidence that the world is cooling.  









































And on and on.

Keep on keepin' on Mr. ostrich.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 12, 2014)

Have to hand it to you Westwall, only a truly devout denier could ignore 150 years of warming trend in preference for the current hiccough.






That you are allowing your desired outcome to lead you to ignore the actual evidence is blatantly obvious.


----------

