# BREAKING!! Michael Mann.....climate criminal?



## skookerasbil (Feb 23, 2014)

Oh.....this is classic!!!

*Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse*


*"The fact Mann refused to disclose his &#8216;hockey stick&#8217; graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs "in the state pen, not Penn. State."  In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball&#8217;s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann&#8217;s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN&#8217;s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science."*






In other words........Mann is a fraud and climate change is a fraud!!!


Why is this dick hiding the data?




Sure as hell looks like the "evidence" for global warming was intentionally and illegally concocted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse




Even I gotta admit, never expected such a precipitous fall by those perpetuating this hoax. We can now look forward to ClimateGate II.









And really......is anybody surprised by this? These people have been fucking with the data forever.



Loving seeing these nuts getting repeatedly kicked in the nut sack.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 23, 2014)

No doubt great news for Mark Steyn and NRO.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 23, 2014)

The mann is a bully and an idiot....such a combination can't help but fall.  If and when that metadata ever comes out, it will take decades for legitimate climate scientists to recover their reputation.  The damage mann and his team have done to science is incalculable.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 23, 2014)

And think about......what Ive been saying for almost two decades.......how clueless the AGW alarmist zombies look. HOLY FUCK.......you see historic naïve every day in life but this is beyond the pale of laughing hysteria. It was just a matter of time.

To all my compadres on this forum......make sure to keep this thread "pinned" up at the top of the page moving forward. It is critically important for the uninformed who come into this forum to know what the real score is with this climate change BS.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 23, 2014)

They should throw him in jail

Immediately


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> They should throw him in jail
> 
> Immediately




Indeed. All these frauds need to be locked up. They have fleeced the American taxpayer out of tens of billions, not to mention the staggering increased costs of electricity due to people buying into the greatest hoax of all: green energy.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 23, 2014)

Got a lot of "views" of this thread in the past hour.......k00ks who are having their jaws drop to their balls but not wanting to weigh in. This thread cant fall off the page fast enough so they can return to all bomb throwing all the time.


how gay?


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 23, 2014)

My question is......might the climate k00ks now have to move their efforts to Mars???


*

5






4







3







2












1*













Here ya go Matthew!!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K9rVRuehGU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K9rVRuehGU[/ame]


----------



## SSDD (Feb 23, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Got a lot of "views" of this thread in the past hour.......k00ks who are having their jaws drop to their balls but not wanting to weigh in. This thread cant fall off the page fast enough so they can return to all bomb throwing all the time.
> 
> 
> how gay?



None of the climate religion's high priests wants to reveal their metadata.....someone might find something wrong with it and they can't have that.....the science is settled don't you know.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 23, 2014)

So it is a Hitler scale fraud and lie on the public....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 23, 2014)

Matthew said:


> So it is a Hitler scale fraud and lie on the public....



The loss of life and amount of misery caused by enviro wackos makes hitler's doings seem like those of a small time hood in queens.  Hell, they even put stalin to shame.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 23, 2014)

Check it out, some more Mann Derangement Syndrome from the loonies. Conspiracy kookery is literally all they have left.

I would ask the kooks if it bothers them that the whole planet is laughing at them, but there's no need. It clearly does bother them, a lot.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Check it out, some more Mann Derangement Syndrome from the loonies. Conspiracy kookery is literally all they have left.
> 
> I would ask the kooks if it bothers them that the whole planet is laughing at them, but there's no need. It clearly does bother them, a lot.



More irony from a true believer.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Check it out, some more Mann Derangement Syndrome from the loonies. Conspiracy kookery is literally all they have left.



  You're the one who still believes all that shit.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Check it out, some more Mann Derangement Syndrome from the loonies. Conspiracy kookery is literally all they have left.
> 
> I would ask the kooks if it bothers them that the whole planet is laughing at them, but there's no need. It clearly does bother them, a lot.


Whistling past the graveyard.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Check it out, some more Mann Derangement Syndrome from the loonies. Conspiracy kookery is literally all they have left.
> 
> I would ask the kooks if it bothers them that the whole planet is laughing at them, but there's no need. It clearly does bother them, a lot.



You know that you are a laughing stock.....don't you?


----------



## mamooth (Feb 23, 2014)

Let's look at the article writer, one John O'Sullivan, Tim Ball's "legal consultant" in the Mann libel trial. He's not a lawyer. The degree he purchased online (yes, he did do that) doesn't count. He has, though, often misrepresented himself as a lawyer.

I don't know who wrote the motion, but it lies with chutzpah. For example, it accuses Mann of blocking discovery, when Mann has been the one pressing for discovery and Ball has been trying to block it with motion after motion. It also flat out lies about Mann not realeasing the data. It's just one of a long series of crap motions Steyn is throwing out, just to delay things, and will be dismissed like all the others.

But let's get back to John O'Sullivan, the new denialist hero of this thread. Here's another piece of O'Sullivan's work, where he talks about the unfairness of Age of Consent laws and defends a "kiddie-fiddler" (his own words). It's semi-autobiographical. O'Sullivan was acquitted of the molestation charges, but was banned from teaching forever. I'm not going to link or post the passages here, since that would border on violating board rules. Go find them if you've got the stomach. Just search on this.

"VANILLA GIRL: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl"

So, an unapologetic kiddie fiddler is now being quoted as a trusted source by many denialists. I couldn't make up stuff this funny if I wanted to.

(Too their credit, other denialists, such as Watts, are calling BS on the guy and wanting nothing to do with him.)


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Lose in court, smear everyone in sight. How pathetically predictable.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Check it out, some more Mann Derangement Syndrome from the loonies. Conspiracy kookery is literally all they have left.
> 
> I would ask the kooks if it bothers them that the whole planet is laughing at them, but there's no need. It clearly does bother them, a lot.



Fuck off, Warmer


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Let's look at the article writer, one John O'Sullivan, Tim Ball's "legal consultant" in the Mann libel trial. He's not a lawyer. The degree he purchased online (yes, he did do that) doesn't count. He has, though, often misrepresented himself as a lawyer.
> 
> I don't know who wrote the motion, but it lies with chutzpah. For example, it accuses Mann of blocking discovery, when Mann has been the one pressing for discovery and Ball has been trying to block it with motion after motion. It also flat out lies about Mann not realeasing the data. It's just one of a long series of crap motions Steyn is throwing out, just to delay things, and will be dismissed like all the others.
> 
> ...



Mann is a complete fucking fraud

Absolute Complete Bernie Madoff Fraud

Total 100% fabricated the data


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 23, 2014)

Now you lying bunch of assholes can just kiss anyones ass that is nearby. More than a dozen studies have validated Mann's graph. All you idiots have are a bunch of non-degreed idiots willing to repeat any lie that the energy companies throw out there.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Mann et al. 2008 Temperature Reconstructions


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 23, 2014)

I cannot believe the response to this bit of non-news.  I am having a GREAT deal of difficulty verifying ANY of this story, but I'll keep looking.  In the meanwhile, check out this Huffington Post article about Tim Ball associate John Sullivan and head honcho of Principia Scientific. [Sorry, left out the link] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/affidavits-in-michael-man_b_1711581.html  Honesty at any level is not one of the man's strong points.

But this is just some entertaining sidebar till I can find an objective source of info about the current status of the Mann lawsuits.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 23, 2014)

From WUWT

Steve McIntyre had a busy day yesterday. *While yesterday there was an incorrect story called &#8220;Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse&#8220; being pushed by John O&#8217;Sullivan at Principia Scientific International* (aka PSI and The Slayers) claiming Dr. Tim Ball had defeated Mann&#8217;s lawsuit, Ball confirms through communications with McIntyre yesterday that while stalled, Mann&#8217;s lawsuit is still very much on. Also, for those who don&#8217;t know, we&#8217;ve heard that Dr. Mann&#8217;s legal bills are being paid by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, where we&#8217;ve been told there are some deep green pockets contributing, so he isn&#8217;t facing bankruptcy, at least not yet.

Oh my, you folks are PATHETIC.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 23, 2014)

Keep this thread going gentlemen........keep it up top. Look at the responses.........full blown mental. You know when the far left gets direct nut sack kicks we're liars yada......yada......yada. But its all right there. Mann got his bluff called and hes standing there now with his thumb up his ass because he doesn't have dick. Anyway.....anybody with half a brain knows Mann's hockey stick graph has been a relic of a former era for years.

Now I can go back to the *PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING  *thread and continue to blitz these phonies with new volumes of win.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 23, 2014)

Too, even the IPCC thinks Mann is a bullshitter >>>>

The Church of Global Warming?s Changing Catechism | NoFrakkingConsensus



Its 2014.......nobody cares about Michael Mann. He is a relic of a former era........a dinosaur. And for years, he doctored the data.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Keep this thread going gentlemen........keep it up top. Look at the responses.........full blown mental.



Oh yes, do.

The number and rapidity of denier responses to the Skookerasnoc's post reporting that Michael Mann's lawsuit against Tim Ball ha fallen apart and that Mann had gone bankrupt in the attempt were *astounding* (20 denier vs 5 AGW, counting this post).  Why would that be?  Let me think.  

Perhaps from a shortage of good news for folks of your persuasion, particularly on the Mann v Ball v Steyn v National Review front.

And Skookerasnoc, did you not see where my significant post** - the one that said YOUR reference was "incorrect" - came from?  Watts Up With That.  That is your Anti-IPCC.  That is the Meccah of YOUR religion.  Don't be bad-mouthing Anthony Watts.  Mamooth was the first to find that John Sullivan, the owner and likely only ingredient in Principia Scientific - one of your favorite newer websites - was a seriously psychopathic liar* and has gone to trial for child molestation.  He did get off the child molestation charge, but immediately thereafter, penned an erotic novel with the very same story with which his former prosecutor had charged him.

So... yes, you keep referring to Sullivan and Principia.  Show us the depth of your commitment to the truth.



* - Affidavits filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court libel litigation brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against climate science denier Timothy Ball reveal that Ball's collaborator and* self-styled "legal advisor"* has *misrepresented his credentials* and endured some significant legal embarrassments of his own. 

...

The affidavits come from research of science and medical writer Andrew Skolnick, who documents O'Sullivan's misrepresentations, backtracking and questionable behavior.

Tim Ball and John O'Sullivan had a close working relationship, even before Mann sued Ball for libel in March 2011. For example, *they co-authored the climate science denial book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory*, which was published in 2010.

Skolnick's evidence shows that O'Sullivan made a series of false claims, including:

o  that he was an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal courts;
o  that he was employed by a major Victoria, B.C. (Canada) law firm that is representing Ball in the libel action;
o  that he is a widely published writer, with credits in Forbes and the National Review;
o  that he had received his law degree from the University College, Cork, Ireland and/or from the University of Surrey (O'Sullivan's actual legal accreditation, apparently obtained after the Mann-Ball action commenced, comes from an online degree mill, Hill University, which promises delivery in two weeks);
o  that he is a member of the American Bar Association.

One affidavit includes an online comment in which O'Sullivan says,* "For your information, I am a retired academic and I have litigated personally or assisted others in pro se litigation at every level of court there is in New York State as well as Federal level, for over a decade and never lost." *

Although O'Sullivan admits in this particular comment that *he is not, in fact, licensed to practice law, in the U.S. or the U.K.*, he adds, "I'm just some Brit with a brain who can go live with his American wife in her country and kick ass big time around a courtroom."

Certainly, O'Sullivan was successful in winning an acquittal when he was personally charged in England as a high school teacher accused of sending lewd text messages and assaulting a 16-year-old female. Given the acquittal, it would not generally be appropriate to bring up this sordid and unproven bit of history, except that O'Sullivan himself went on to write an "erotic" "novel" with a startlingly similar storyline: _Vanilla Girl: a Fact-Based Crime Story of a Teacher's Struggle to Control His Erotic Obsession with a Schoolgirl_.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/affidavits-in-michael-man_b_1711581.html

** - 





Abraham3 said:


> From* http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/michael-manns-legal-case-caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/*
> 
> Steve McIntyre had a busy day yesterday. *While yesterday there was an incorrect story called &#8220;[/i]Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse&#8220; being pushed by John O&#8217;Sullivan at Principia Scientific International*_ (aka PSI and The Slayers) claiming Dr. Tim Ball had defeated Mann&#8217;s lawsuit, Ball confirms through communications with McIntyre yesterday that while stalled, Mann&#8217;s lawsuit is still very much on. Also, for those who don&#8217;t know, we&#8217;ve heard that Dr. Mann&#8217;s legal bills are being paid by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, where we&#8217;ve been told there are some deep green pockets contributing, so he isn&#8217;t facing bankruptcy, at least not yet._


_

I love it Skook, bring us more._


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Now you lying bunch of assholes can just kiss anyones ass that is nearby. More than a dozen studies have validated Mann's graph. All you idiots have are a bunch of non-degreed idiots willing to repeat any lie that the energy companies throw out there.
> 
> NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Mann et al. 2008 Temperature Reconstructions



That is the same claim mann made in his complaint to the court....turns out he was less than honest...  His graph has been validated like he was a nobel prize recipient.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Refute Old Rocks reference.

Research on global warming is FILLLED with hockey stick graphs because that IS what global temperature has done.

The claim that the whole thing pivots on the magnitude of the MWP is pure bullshit.  If you want to dispute Mann, find some quality temperature data that doesn't show a precipitous rise in the 20th century.


----------



## Peterf (Feb 24, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Check it out, some more Mann Derangement Syndrome from the loonies. Conspiracy kookery is literally all they have left.
> 
> I would ask the kooks if it bothers them that the whole planet is laughing at them, but there's no need. It clearly does bother them, a lot.



If one has no argument abuse availeth not. 

  Leave it to the cat in the picture to draft your next message;  it might be improvement, it could not be worse.


----------



## Peterf (Feb 24, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Let's look at the article writer, one John O'Sullivan, Tim Ball's "legal consultant" in the Mann libel trial. He's not a lawyer.



And in your distorted world view asserting some one is "not a lawyer" is a smear?  I regard it as quite the reverse.

The US has millions of lawyers surplus to requierments.   If they engaged, instead, in some honest occupation like mending holes in roads your nation would prosper exceedingly.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2014)

On application of the Mann bogus/random data >>>>

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ArtLNXDAMs]Dr. Michael Coffman - hockey stick curve refuted - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2014)




----------



## mamooth (Feb 24, 2014)

Interesting, how none the denialists on this thread are willing to disassociate themselves from O'Sullivan. You'd think there would be some moral depravities that even a denialist couldn't tolerate, but maybe not.

Denialists, do you ever wonder at what is it about your side that consistently attracts the dregs of humanity? We don't. Your broken BS meters are what allowed you to get sucked into the denialist cult. Scammers and criminals also notice how your BS meters are non-functional, hence they rightfully see you as easy marks.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2014)

Hey.....somebody has to be refuting the massive disinformation campaign being waged by the AGW nutters who are hell bent on destroying the capitalistic system. I cant draw out enough dregs of humanity to push back against communist assholes that litter this forum.......and I will continue to dominate this forum as long as I can type.

Thankfully......nobody cares about global warming in 2014 >>>

Public concern for environment lowest in 20 years | Environment | theguardian.com



Evidently......a lot of dregs of humanity!!!


----------



## Kosh (Feb 24, 2014)

All the AGW cultists should be rounded up and put on trial for fraud. And the trillions that have been wasted on this religion will never be recovered.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2014)

Kosh said:


> All the AGW cultists should be rounded up and put on trial for fraud. And the trillions that have been wasted on this religion will never be recovered.





Indeed.


Its always been about THIS >>>


The Green Agenda



America haters = gay


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2014)

Issue: Mann busted for fraud

It's like saying Bernie Madoff is not a fraud because Apple stock really did go up


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2014)

It's like saying Piltdown Man was for real


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2014)

Mann and the entire AGWCult should get their own wing in the Museum of Scientific Frauds


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2014)

"Data? Why would you want to see my data? It's all there under my pinkie, the Tree Rings O' Death!"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2014)

Mann: "Tree rings? No I said Three Rings. The Secret to Global Warming is in the Three Rings"


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Refute Old Rocks reference.
> 
> Research on global warming is FILLLED with hockey stick graphs because that IS what global temperature has done.
> 
> The claim that the whole thing pivots on the magnitude of the MWP is pure bullshit.  If you want to dispute Mann, find some quality temperature data that doesn't show a precipitous rise in the 20th century.



Literally hundreds of papers refute mann's phony claims and shoddy pseudoscience....here is just a sample.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 24, 2014)

*And the usual flap-yap unreferanced and unlinked idiocy goes on.*

Earth's Temp is Rising Fast | Climate Weather | LiveScience

However, a string of subsequent studies by a number of scientific groups from around the world have all yielded essentially the same result. Most recently, a paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience this week &#8212; co-authored by 78 experts from 60 scientific institutions from around the world &#8212; found yet another hockey stick. Their temperature reconstruction shows a slow slide into a future ice age ending abruptly with a sharp rise in temperatures in the 19th and 20th centuries. Recent global surface temperatures are probably the warmest in the past 1,400 years.

The study is the product of an international collaboration by the PAGES (Past Global Changes) scientific network, which supports research aimed at understanding the Earth's past environment in order to make predictions for the future. In 2006, scientists in the PAGES network decided to organize an initiative to reconstruct the climate of the last 2,000 years, which they called The PAGES 2k Network.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 24, 2014)

*The later studies conducted by credible scientists, and published in peer reviewed journals have all supported the Mann Graph. *

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

The problems

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.

Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.

The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 24, 2014)

Things can get confusing because there are two libel cases. Mann vs. Ball in Canada, and Mann vs. NR/CEI/Steyn in the USA. Steyn has made his answer and counterclaim.

http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6109.pdf

This part of Steyn's motion made me laugh.
---
111.
Denies the allegations in Paragraph One-Hundred-And-
Eleven of the Amended Complaint, and feels Plaintiff is
going round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a
wheel, like the circles that you find in the tree-rings of
your mind. 
---

Unfortunately for Steyn, judges tend to view joke motions not in a favorable light. Steyn is representing himself, and he who represents himself has a fool for a client. For example, a lawyer would have told Steyn not to do this:

---
25.
Denies the allegations in Paragraph Twenty-Five of the
Amended Complaint, except admits that there was an
investigation by former FBI Director Freeh concluding that
Penn State and its highest officers had helped cover up the
serial child rape perpetrated by Dr Manns colleague Jerry
Sandusky. 
---

When one of the reasons you're in trouble is for associating Mann with Sandusky, deliberately doing it again in your motion is not such a hot idea.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Refute Old Rocks reference.
> 
> Research on global warming is FILLLED with hockey stick graphs because that IS what global temperature has done.
> 
> The claim that the whole thing pivots on the magnitude of the MWP is pure bullshit.  If you want to dispute Mann, find some quality temperature data that doesn't show a precipitous rise in the 20th century.



References don't get much more higher quality than this one.. 



> New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
> 
> A new 2,000-year-long reconstruction of sea surface temperatures (SST) from the Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) suggests that temperatures in the region may have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today.
> 
> ...



Do ya get it YET??   WE (the ragtag skeptical army) are not the ONLY FOLKS beating up on Hockey Sticks and Mann's selective editing of the world-wide proxy data.. It's there in this paper -- CLEAR AS DAY...


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

So F-ing WHAT?  The MWP was not caused by human GHG emissions.  The MWP's temperature did not rise 1C in 100 years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *And the usual flap-yap unreferanced and unlinked idiocy goes on.*
> 
> Earth's Temp is Rising Fast | Climate Weather | LiveScience
> 
> ...



^ Sounds like Bernie Madoff's accountant


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 24, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Things can get confusing because there are two libel cases. Mann vs. Ball in Canada, and Mann vs. NR/CEI/Steyn in the USA. Steyn has made his answer and counterclaim.
> 
> http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6109.pdf
> 
> ...


This just in: America still has that free speech thingamajig.

Besides that, what makes you think the chances that Mann turns over the metadata for inspection in America, are any better than in Canada?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> So F-ing WHAT?  The MWP was not caused by human GHG emissions.  The MWP's temperature did not rise 1C in 100 years.



Neither have present temperatures....more than half is due to data manipulation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2014)

I think real scientists have finally had enough of the AGWCult and will start to boot them to the curb next to Ghostbusters


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I think real scientists have finally had enough of the AGWCult and will start to boot them to the curb next to Ghostbusters



What real scientists?  Show us ANY evidence that even suggests significant numbers of climate scientists are abandoning AGW.  ANY.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > So F-ing WHAT?  The MWP was not caused by human GHG emissions.  The MWP's temperature did not rise 1C in 100 years.
> ...



Let's see some actual EVIDENCE that GLOBAL temperature records were adjusted without valid cause and only in order to emphasize the warming signal.  You have NOT yet presented any such thing.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 24, 2014)

The pause is the most important thing that could possibly be presented. Everything now needs to be focused on finding out the whys as it could tell us a lot.

It is like presenting the film and dna of a bank robbery suspect in a criminal case* linking 100%* directly back to the robber.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Things can get confusing because there are two libel cases. Mann vs. Ball in Canada, and Mann vs. NR/CEI/Steyn in the USA. Steyn has made his answer and counterclaim.
> 
> http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6109.pdf
> 
> ...



In-F-ing-credible.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I think real scientists have finally had enough of the AGWCult and will start to boot them to the curb next to Ghostbusters
> ...



"Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts Warming Postponed Hundreds Of Years
By P Gosselin on 26. Mai 2013
Now that global temperatures have not risen in 15 years, a number of scientists find themselves having great difficulty coming to terms with that new reality.

- See more at: Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: ?Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts? Warming Postponed ?Hundreds Of Years?

In other words, your theory fails!


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

mamooth said:


> *Your broken BS meters are what allowed you to get sucked into the denialist cult. Scammers and criminals also notice how your BS meters are non-functional, hence they rightfully see you as easy marks.*



I know no one likes to pay much attention to comments critical about themselves, but you guys really should pay some attention to this point.  It's a good'un.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


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



You have yet to show any rational or scientifically sound explanation for lowering pre 1960 temperatures.  Most of the apparent temperature increase is the result of lowering the temperature of the past.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I think real scientists have finally had enough of the AGWCult and will start to boot them to the curb next to Ghostbusters
> ...



Your fundamental error is that you believe the "real" scientists are supporting the AGW hypothesis when in fact, only pseudoscientist support that malarky.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2014)

February 4, 2014 
*Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming *


*The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view." *

Read more: Blog: Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming 
Follow us: [MENTION=20123]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook




Who are the phoney  

 's ???


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2014)

More on the bogusness of a "consensus" >>>

Global Warming Or Global Fraud



When you desire total control, you have to come up with a whopper!!


----------



## tinydancer (Feb 24, 2014)

Delingpole gets Breitbart Britain, Mann gets fucked over.............yayayayayay!

life is good.


----------



## tinydancer (Feb 24, 2014)

I love delingpole to death. I am so so glad he is out there


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2014)

Over 9,000 US PHd Scientists call BS on "consensus" >>>>

Global Warming Petition Project



Of course, to the k00ks, they are fake scientists!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2014)

*IPCC Researchers *admit global warming fraud >>>>


IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud



conveniently ignored by the AGW nutters.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2014)

The US Congress found Mann's work to be fraudulent >>>>>


M&M Project Page



The AGW k00ks post up their old tired nonsense and don't want people knowing that there is hardly a "consensus".


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2014)




----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

So, have you admitted that your Principia Scientific post contending that Mann's lawsuit had failed and that he had gone bankrupt was nothing more than a collection of lies?

If not, why not?

Are you going to use Principia Scientific as a reference in the future?  Do you have any comment to make about John Sullivan's psychopathic lying and likely paedophilic tendencies?

If not, why not?


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> So F-ing WHAT?  The MWP was not caused by human GHG emissions.  The MWP's temperature did not rise 1C in 100 years.



You have no way of knowing that it didn't... 
Ask Marcott.. 
The Wood Hole folks ain't buying no hockey sticks either...


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> So, have you admitted that your Principia Scientific post contending that Mann's lawsuit had failed and that he had gone bankrupt was nothing more than a collection of lies?
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> ...





Case is still on s0n!! Looks to most that Mann is the fraudster and I just popped up 4 links of pwn on the BS that is the hockey stick.


There is a difference between SSDD, me  and the other truth tellers compared to you and the nutter-ass climate contingent. You'd take a swan dive off a 100 foot cliff if the religion told you to. We don't tend to hysteria or naïve. We think the idea of proof when you're talking science is probably a good idea. Not the religion though........they see a hailstorm on the TV and go diving for cover looking for the latest breaking from the bought science guru's. Because if they didn't get their fix, they'd have to blow their own brains out. Its a permanent tragic cycle for your goofballs.......permanent. You MUST find support to perpetuate the fraud or you go to the box looing and feeling like a cheap rodeo clown.



 By the way >>>  http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 24, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Over 9,000 US PHd Scientists call BS on "consensus" >>>>
> 
> Global Warming Petition Project
> 
> ...



Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

32,000 Sounds Like A Lot
In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 24, 2014)

Quoting "Cook et al, 2013" just gets you laughed at GoldiRocks..


----------



## mamooth (Feb 24, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> I love delingpole to death. I am so so glad he is out there



Given his only talent is snivelling out "libtard!" in tourette-syndrome fashion, I can see why you'd be a big fan.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Quoting "Cook et al, 2013" just gets you laughed at GoldiRocks..



Why?  There work backs up work by Oreskes, Bray, Von Storch, Mumpower, Reagan-Cirincione, Gallup Polling, Harris Interactive, Doran, Zimmerman, Anderegg, Prall, Harold, Schneider, Farnsworrth, Lichter, Lefsrud and Meyer.*

WTF have YOU got? 


* - Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mamooth (Feb 24, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> This just in: America still has that free speech thingamajig.



Despite your best efforts, yes. After all, the denialists here are the ones literally demanding jail for a scientist because he did science that doesn't agree with their political party. Denialists are shockingly similar to the Lysenkoists of the old Soviet Union. Lysenkoism was crap pseudoscience genetics, but it had the official approval of TheParty, so it was either embrace it or go to jail. And just like the Lysenkoists, you denialists fabricate stories about how the offending scientists are actually criminals and EnemiesOfTheState.



> Besides that, what makes you think the chances that Mann turns over the metadata for inspection in America, are any better than in Canada?



He did turn it over, long ago.

We keep trying to tell you that your kiddie-fiddler source simply made up a crazy story. Alas, your cult says you are not allowed to believe that, hence you won't.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 24, 2014)

mamooth said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > This just in: America still has that free speech thingamajig.
> ...


Just as long as you stay away from Marpi Point, O.K.?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> So, have you admitted that your Principia Scientific post contending that Mann's lawsuit had failed and that he had gone bankrupt was nothing more than a collection of lies?
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> ...



Mann's all done. Nothing left but the Orange prison Jumpsuit


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Over 9,000 US PHd Scientists call BS on "consensus" >>>>
> ...



Climate "science", the only science done by "Consensus"


----------



## tinydancer (Feb 24, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> No doubt great news for Mark Steyn and NRO.



OMG I love that avie. First thing that happened I put my hand on my hip!


----------



## tinydancer (Feb 24, 2014)

Steyn by the way is killing Mann. YAY!


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 24, 2014)

The persecution of Michael Mann by you people is... seriously insane.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 24, 2014)

This like another universe as most of society isn't like this.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The persecution of Michael Mann by you people is... seriously insane.



Wrong.  It couldn't be saner.  Mann is one of the chief architects responsible for the campaign to drive our society back into the stone age.  He is currently the world's greatest fraud.  He belongs in prison.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The persecution of Michael Mann by you people is... seriously insane.



mann is  a bully, a fraud, and a shoddy scientist who is responsible for billions of dollars being wasted worldwide....his "persecution" is richly deserved.  Andrew Bold just called mann on his lies regarding his (mann's) claim that Bolt was paid by Murdoch to lie to the public.....mikey apologized in about as ungracious a manner as possible which is not surprising (considering the fact that he is a bully and no sort of man at all), but he admitted his lie and apologized which, in the real world, has cost him even more credibility.  His day in the sun is over....the hockey stick is going to be exposed for the fraud it is and then perhaps climate science can get to the business of trying to actually understand the climate.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 25, 2014)

God are you stupid


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> God are you stupid



But I am mopping the floor with you....if I am stupid, and wiping up with you, how stupid does that make you?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 25, 2014)

Son, you don't even know how to wipe your own ass.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Son, you don't even know how to wipe your own ass.



And yet, I can wipe the floor with you....and if my father were as stupid as you and half as dishonest, I would have changed my name.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 25, 2014)

Go ask someone your mommy says you can trust and have him look over our conversations.  Make certain he's willing to be honest with you.  Keep some hankies handy.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 25, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > No doubt great news for Mark Steyn and NRO.
> ...


What you see is what you get, WOO!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 25, 2014)

*Cooks 97% consensus disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors*

0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%


Cooks ?97% consensus? disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors | Watts Up With That?












Obviously, the 97% figure is a bogus number perpetuated by the religion. But that's why we have a forum like this.......to expose the bogusness of the hoax.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 25, 2014)




----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Check it out, some more Mann Derangement Syndrome from the loonies. Conspiracy kookery is literally all they have left.
> ...


Is he any relation to Dean Warmer?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> *Cooks 97% consensus disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors*
> 
> 0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%
> 
> ...



"Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950."

The AGWCult, of course, are the biggest liars ever


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2014)

AGWCult cooked the books and lies about the "Consensus"


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 25, 2014)

Yeah and this is why thousands of them at the ipccc and most intuitions support global warming.

Nut house.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Yeah and this is why thousands of them at the ipccc and most intuitions support global warming.
> 
> Nut house.



IPCC is using AGW as a cover for Marxist redistribution of wealth

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore,..." -- IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters


----------



## mamooth (Feb 25, 2014)

This secretly-taped video of a denialist political cult meeting illustrates their daily TwoMinutesHate directed at Mann. The rank-and-file denialists all understand how they're being watched and judged by their party leaders, hence none of them will skimp on the hate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk]Orwell 2 Minutes of Hate - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2014)

AGWCult: It doesn't matter if Mann faked the data, we have consensus


----------



## mamooth (Feb 25, 2014)

At least the kooks are consistent. Their masters order them to become ever more hysterical about Mann, and the kooks comply.

And from the grave, Stalin seethes in envy, wishing he could have had a pack of UsefulIdiots as reliable and enthusiastic as the denialists.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2014)

Data, schmatta, all we know for certain is that the USA use of "Fossil fuels" is melting the ice caps and must be stopped


----------



## mamooth (Feb 25, 2014)

Frank has a sad. He was born in the wrong era. If he'd lived in communist East Germany, he could have turned in his neighbors, family, various scientists, and anyone who didn't agree with TheParty.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Frank has a sad. He was born in the wrong era. If he'd lived in communist East Germany, he could have turned in his neighbors, family, various scientists, and anyone who didn't agree with TheParty.



^ Denier!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


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



I have Peer Reviewed this post and find it 100% Awesome


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 25, 2014)

mamooth said:


> This secretly-taped video of a denialist political cult meeting illustrates their daily TwoMinutesHate directed at Mann. The rank-and-file denialists all understand how they're being watched and judged by their party leaders, hence none of them will skimp on the hate.
> 
> Orwell 2 Minutes of Hate - YouTube


Hope you weren't late to today's session!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2014)

How's that AGWCult doing in India and China

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Where do I sign up to be one of these peers who get to do some reviewing?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...



You just did! We have consensus, the science is settled. It's Miller time!

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 25, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Cooks &#8217;97% consensus&#8217; disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors
> 
> &#8220;0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%&#8221;
> 
> ...




I knew someone would bring up Legates.  Well, 0.3%.  The IPCC must have used every single one of them to produce AR5.  How was that done?  Do you think they've got all their names on a list?  I guess I have to give up.  There is no consensus supporting the validity of AGW.  The 99.7% of climate scientists think there's no Greenhouse Effect, think there's no global warming and think the IPCC is just flat out wrong, wrong, wrong.  Right?

Well, no.  That's not what Legate measured, is it.  Why don't you be a good little boy Skookie-lad and tell us EXACTLY what "math errors" Legate found and EXACTLY what Legate actually measured among Cook's set of studies?  WHAT characteristic do the 0.3% have in common?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 26, 2014)

If it was .3% then why is every text book in atmospheric science model the green house effect after a sorry .3% opinion.  If I am full of crap then please post a modern text book showing your thinking...

Weird...The publishers and professors teaching our children must all be crooks and frauds.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 26, 2014)

Not to say that the publishers aren't crooks in other ways  $ $ $


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Cooks 97% consensus disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors
> ...



There was consensus the world was a flat plane held up on the back of a giant turtle and that made more sense that the AGWCult Theory


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 26, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Developed by camp fire bs the natives told their children about  They didn't do studies and research more into it. That's something the greeks started to do and is a major reason why western civilization leads the world.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 26, 2014)

Matthew said:


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



Yeah, keep citing Tyndall. Done at the same time as Phrenology was the rage and accuracy out in the 1,000's column

Tyndall proved Global Warming!!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Take away the turtle, move the earth 4 times further away from the sun, and eliminate day and night and replace it with a weak twilight and you have the sort of earth that you find in modern GCMs.  The reality is that the camp fire sitters in the dim past had a more accurate idea of what the earth is really like than modern GCM modellers...after all, what is a turtle or two among friends?


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

Abraham3 said:
			
		

> Well, no. That's not what Legate measured, is it. Why don't you be a good little boy Skookie-lad and tell us EXACTLY what "math errors" Legate found and EXACTLY what Legate actually measured among Cook's set of studies? WHAT characteristic do the 0.3% have in common?



Would you care to take a shot at answering these queries Mr Frank?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why don't you explain, using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science, why 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 has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium.

and while you are at it,  explain why the surface temperature of Venus does not drop during its 2,000 hour night...also using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science.


----------



## IanC (Feb 27, 2014)

Hahahaha. Did you have a stroke?


----------



## mamooth (Feb 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Why don't you explain, using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science, why 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 has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium.



So what's the source of these kook conspiracy theories of yours?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



The Campfire sitters are the same one who built Stonehenge so they had an understanding of math, science, mechanics and engineering that dwarfs the AGWCults


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you explain, using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science, why 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 has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium.
> ...



Did your worst enemy hack your account to make you look like an idiot?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you explain, using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science, why 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 has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium.
> ...



So what conspiracy do you think is happening here?  Are you disputing the distance Uranus is from the sun?...the composition of its atmosphere?.....or the temperature?

Enlighten me as to which of these well known facts you are disputing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



er, all of them! LOL Amazing what cult membership does to a person


----------



## mamooth (Feb 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Are you disputing the distance Uranus is from the sun?...the composition of its atmosphere?.....or the temperature?



I don't know exactly which "I, a mere layman, have discovered the basic flaws of the greenhouse theory which all of planet earth has previously missed!" guy you're using, which is why I asked, but I'd suggest this William Connolly piece that refutes such nonsense.

The idealised greenhouse effect model and its enemies ? Stoat


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Are you disputing the distance Uranus is from the sun?...the composition of its atmosphere?.....or the temperature?
> ...



That's the problem with running so many sock accounts, you forget what you said. Read through the thread and look at your last "mamooth" post Joe

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## mamooth (Feb 27, 2014)

Call me a sock again, Frank, ever, and I report you. You won't get any other warnings. Board rules are clear on this; all accusations of socking go to mods only.


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 27, 2014)

yeah come on 57Frank. Stop being a stereotypical denier.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 27, 2014)

See I only have this one account so I never had to look up the rules on running a sock account

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

Solar System Exploration: News & Events: News Archive: Greenhouse Effects ... Also on Other Planets

For a really strong greenhouse effect, we should look at Venus. Venus is similar to Earth in terms of size and mass, but its surface temperature is about 460 degrees Celsius. This is hot enough to melt lead! The Venusian atmosphere is mainly made up of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. On Earth, carbon dioxide makes up only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. However, man-made emissions have caused carbon dioxide concentrations here to increase by about 30% since pre-industrial times. Why is there so much carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere? What made Venus evolve so differently from Earth? "Good questions. That is precisely one of the things we want to find out" says Hakan Svedhem, Project Scientist for ESA's mission Venus Express, due for launch in 2005.

Is Venus a mirror that reflects how the Earth will be if global warming continues at its current speed? "Venus will help us understand what happens when the greenhouse effect is really extreme. However, it's not a good example of what will happen to Earth due to human activities. Life on Earth would disappear due to the extreme temperatures much before reaching even half of the concentrations of carbon dioxide on Venus!" says Svedhem.

As a complete contrast to Venus, there is Mars. The Red Planet displays hardly any greenhouse effect. Mars does have some atmospheric carbon dioxide, but almost no atmosphere! The existing atmosphere is so thin that it cannot retain energy from the Sun. There are therefore extreme temperature contrasts between day and night and sun or shade. However, most scientists agree that Mars was much warmer in the past and even had oceans, which means that the atmosphere was also very different. About 3600 million years ago, something happened and the planet evolved towards its current state. What could have triggered such a huge change in climate? "We will answer this question with Mars Express" explains Agustin Chicarro, Project Scientist of ESA's mission to Mars, due for launch in May 2003.

Finally, if we look at Titan, Saturn's largest moon, we see a moderate greenhouse effect mostly due to the large concentrations of methane, another greenhouse gas, in its atmosphere. Astronomers have compared Titan with the early Earth. It would be a suitable place for life if it were not so cold: its surface is extremely cold at about -180 degrees Celsius. Understanding which factors influence Titan's climate would be enormously helpful to us, on Earth. "What we learn on Titan will certainly be useful to understand the other planets", confirms Jean-Pierre Lebreton, Project Scientist of Huygens, ESA's probe to Titan.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

Nov 18: Uranus/Neptune

*Uranus's atmosphere:*

The atmosphere of Uranus is composed of 83% hydrogen, 15% helium, 2% methane and small amounts of acetylene and other hydrocarbons. Methane in the upper atmosphere absorbs red light, giving Uranus its blue-green color. In fact, as we move outward in the Solar System, the inner Jovian worlds (Jupiter and Saturn) are dominated by ammonia for their coloration. But as the temperature drops below 70 K ammonia gas freezes into ice crystals and drops out of the atmosphere. Methane becomes more dominate and, being a blue gas, the outer Jovian worlds (Uranus and Neptune) go from blue-green to deep blue.

The atmosphere is arranged into clouds running at constant latitudes, similar to the orientation of the more vivid latitudinal bands seen on Jupiter and Saturn. Winds at mid-latitudes on Uranus blow in the direction of the planet's rotation. These winds blow at velocities of 90 to 360 miles per hour.

Uranus lacks an internal energy source such as Jupiter and Saturn, and thus its atmosphere energy system is much less active, resulting in fewer features (storms, eddies, etc.). Cloud patterns are only seen at the warmer, lower levels deep below the atmospheric haze. In addition, the tilted axis of Uranus produces uneven warming in the two hemisphere which produce long-term North-South flows across the latitude zones. The combination of these effects means that the atmospheric features are washed out much like Saturn.

*Neptune's atmosphere:*

Neptune is a dynamic planet with several large, dark spots reminiscent of Jupiter's hurricane-like storms. The largest spot, known as the Great Dark Spot, is about the size of the earth and is similar to the Great Red Spot on Jupiter. Other dark spots display cyclone-like structure in their centers.

Just like the storms on Jupiter, the dark spots on Neptune ``tumble'' along the zones absorbing smaller storms to power themselves. The most surprising thing about these storms is that, unlike Jupiter, they are short-lived. Recent HST images do not show the Great Dark Spot.

Long bright clouds, similar to cirrus clouds on Earth, were seen high in Neptune's atmosphere. At low northern latitudes, Voyager captured images of cloud streaks casting their shadows on cloud decks below.

The strongest winds on any planet were measured on Neptune. Most of the winds there blow westward, opposite to the rotation of the planet. Near the Great Dark Spot, winds blow up to 1,200 miles an hour.

Neptune emits 2.7 times more energy than it receives from the Sun. This access energy powers the atmosphere to produce the storms that are not seen on its twin planet Uranus. The source of internal energy should not be leftover energy from formation (i.e. Jupiter) since Neptune is too small. Nor is it due to an unusual chemical change, such as the helium rain for Saturn. Rather, it is due to the fact that methane is highly abundant in Neptune's atmosphere, and methane is an excellent insulator of heat (i.e. the greenhouse effect). Neptune has a sub-zero type greenhouse effect that is trapping formation heat that should have been radiated billions of years ago like Uranus.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 27, 2014)

The idealised greenhouse effect model and its enemies ? Stoat

Another way of thinking about it

which is in fact exactly the same way of thinking about it, even further simplified.

If you dont like the numbers of the maths, dont despair, there is hope for you. Its possible to get a qualitative understanding with no numbers at all.

* Agree that the Earth is heated by the sun,
* and that it emits thermal radiation to balance the heat from the sun.
* In the absence of atmosphere, thats it.
* With an atmosphere (that absorbs some or all LW, but no SW) the LW from the Earth warms up the atmosphere,
* which emits thermal radiation upwards and downwards.
* Therefore, the Earth is warmer in the presence of an atmosphere, because it is heated by two sources: the sun and the atmosphere.

Easy, no?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 27, 2014)

No, not easy. If the great obese junkie says otherwise, he is correct and all them thar pointyheaded scientists don't know nothin'.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Call me a sock again, Frank, ever, and I report you. You won't get any other warnings. Board rules are clear on this; all accusations of socking go to mods only.




Holy Mother of God.......far left people have the backbones of Hershey bars. Buckle up your chinstrap you limpwrister. You wouldn't last 48 hours working with me. I knew there was something about that cat.


What a disgrace. Indeed.....the feminists have deballed the American male.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

So you think it 'manly' to lie and break the rules?  Got it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Solar System Exploration: News & Events: News Archive: Greenhouse Effects ... Also on Other Planets
> 
> For a really strong greenhouse effect, we should look at Venus. Venus is similar to Earth in terms of size and mass, but its surface temperature is about 460 degrees Celsius. This is hot enough to melt lead! The Venusian atmosphere is mainly made up of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. On Earth, carbon dioxide makes up only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. However, man-made emissions have caused carbon dioxide concentrations here to increase by about 30% since pre-industrial times. Why is there so much carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere? What made Venus evolve so differently from Earth? "Good questions. That is precisely one of the things we want to find out" says Hakan Svedhem, Project Scientist for ESA's mission Venus Express, due for launch in 2005.
> 
> ...



Venus is hot because of Global Warming? Seriously?

It's the massive atmosphere that causes the heat, not the "Greenhouse Effect"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> No, not easy. If the great obese junkie says otherwise, he is correct and all them thar pointyheaded scientists don't know nothin'.



Max Planck Institute is an obese junkie?

Try reading something other than Al Gore

Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts Warming Postponed Hundreds Of Years
By P Gosselin on 26. Mai 2013
*Now that global temperatures have not risen in 15 years*, a number of scientists find themselves having great difficulty coming to terms with that new reality.

- See more at: Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: ?Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts? Warming Postponed ?Hundreds Of Years?


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Solar System Exploration: News & Events: News Archive: Greenhouse Effects ... Also on Other Planets
> ...


Maybe being millions of miles closer to that big yellow warm thing in the sky accounts for that too.


----------



## Kosh (Feb 28, 2014)

Then again if the AGW religious scripture of CO2 was really true, Mars would be a ball of fire as it's atmosphere is 96% CO2.


----------



## IanC (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The idealised greenhouse effect model and its enemies ? Stoat
> 
> Another way of thinking about it
> 
> ...



I, for one, have no big problem with Connelly's ultra simplification of the greenhouse effect.

especially if you take LW escape through the atmospheric window into account. it is analogous to albedo for incoming sunlight. it is gone immediately (well at least at the speed of light) and no longer interacts. according to Trenberth it is 40w near surface and another 30w above the clouds. this ~ 15% reduction brings the greenhouse estimate of surface temp to within a couple of degrees of our standard estimate of the earth's surface temperature.


----------



## IanC (Feb 28, 2014)

SSDD said:


> and while you are at it,  explain why the surface temperature of Venus does not drop during its 2,000 hour night...also using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science.




why are none of our inhouse skeptics taking SSDD to task for an incredibly stupid statement? 

perhaps he is reponding to someone else who made the claim but as it stands the statement belongs to him. it is on par with wirebender's claim that a heated plate in a cool vacuum would also warm an unheated plate to the same temperature, back when we were discussing Spencer's thought experiment to show that cooler objects can indeed make warm objects warmer when there is an energy source and a differential pathway to the eventual energy sink.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 28, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > and while you are at it,  explain why the surface temperature of Venus does not drop during its 2,000 hour night...also using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science.
> ...



There are just too many of such stupid statements to keep up.

In the case of Venus, it's a combination of steady 200 mph winds in the upper atmosphere redistributing heat, and a very slow energy exchange between the atmosphere and space. Venus is well insulated by clouds from solar radiation coming in, and by CO2 from longwave going out.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


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



Or it's the crushing weight of the atmosphere of Venus swamps any "Global Warming"


----------



## mamooth (Feb 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Or it's the crushing weight of the atmosphere of Venus swamps any "Global Warming"



Standard cult practice, in any cult, in to declare how the whole world is part of vast conspiracy, and that only the chosen few are wise enough to know the RealTruth. Cultists like Frank don't see themselves as cultists; they see themselves as the elite, possessing special wisdom that the common man lacks.

Of course, everyone else correctly sees them as cultists, a fact that really bothers the cultists.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Or it's the crushing weight of the atmosphere of Venus swamps any "Global Warming"
> ...


That perfectly describes the global warming cult, sport.

Glass houses and all that.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 28, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> That perfectly describes the global warming cult, sport.



Given that the whole world agrees with us, we don't need to declare the world is part of a conspiracy against us, and that only we select few have the knowledge the world lacks. Hence, we on the rational side are clearly not the cult.

You, however, have to constantly invoke the vast global socialist conspiracy, along with a myriad of other conspiracy theories, along with invoking your own secret speshul knowledge. Hence, you denialists are the cult.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > That perfectly describes the global warming cult, sport.
> ...


No, the whole world doesn't agree with you.

The IPCC is the poster child for a closed society of an elite chosen few, presumably wise enough to know the RealTruth.

You really need to be careful with that nasty habit you have, of transferring your foibles onto everyone who has the nerve to disagree with you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

It's not so much that the two of you are in disagreement.  It's that, without rational justification, you choose to disagree with the vast majority of climate scientists about what is happening to our climate.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> It's not so much that the two of you are in disagreement.  It's that, without rational justification, you choose to disagree with the vast majority of climate scientists about what is happening to our climate.




Only the majority that are plugged into the political mess that is the IPCC agree. That is hardly the vast majority of all.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

I don't think you understand how the IPCC works.  They do not commission research. They do not direct research.  They simply assemble and summarize the research that is done.  Scientists are not plugged in to the IPCC.  The IPCC is plugged in to scientists.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I don't think you understand how the IPCC works.  They do not commission research. They do not direct research.  They simply assemble and summarize the research that is done.  Scientists are not plugged in to the IPCC.  The IPCC is plugged in to scientists.


What they do is assemble and summarize the research that draws the conclusions that they want. All else is rejected.

The IPCC is plugged into politics, plain and simple.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

That is not what they do.  If you think it is, then show us the research that comes to opposing conclusions.  If the IPCC's position is false, the majority of research must come to opposing conclusions.  It should be child's play to find such work.  Have at it.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> That is not what they do.  If you think it is, then show us the research that comes to opposing conclusions.  If the IPCC's position is false, the majority of research must also come to opposing conclusions.  It should be child's play to find such work.  Have at it.


It is what they do. The even have included opinion pieces from environmentalist activists as supposedly "peer reviewed".

IPCC has been smoked out as the political hack machine that it is. Time to wake up and smell the latte.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 28, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > That is not what they do.  If you think it is, then show us the research that comes to opposing conclusions.  If the IPCC's position is false, the majority of research must also come to opposing conclusions.  It should be child's play to find such work.  Have at it.
> ...



Really? Care to include some links to credible scientific sources? Otherwise, just ignorant flap-yap.


----------



## Abraham3 (Feb 28, 2014)

All else is rejected by who?  Are you going to invoke the _massive climate science conspiracy_?  Please don't disappoint me.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> All else is rejected by who?  Are you going to invoke the _massive climate science conspiracy_?  Please don't disappoint me.





> http://reviewipcc.interacademycounc...Evaluation of IPCCs Assessment Processes.pdf
> 
> Recommendation
> ? The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping
> ...





> Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk
> 
> 
> The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22).  In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
> ...



Then of course there was the AMS society poll of their members that found that 85% disagreed with the IPCC generalized statements about man's contribution to Global Warming --- but the link to this PUBLISHED SURVEY no longer is in service. 

It's on my list of hardcopy stuff to look-up now next time I'm over in the Vanderbilt library.  Stuff like that tends to get purged rather quickly after the "monitors" get wind of it.


----------



## IanC (Mar 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I don't think you understand how the IPCC works.  They do not commission research. They do not direct research.  They simply assemble and summarize the research that is done.  Scientists are not plugged in to the IPCC.  The IPCC is plugged in to scientists.




there is a reason behind having a cutoff date for research papers that can be included into IPCC reports. even if a paper has passed peer review it may still have serious flaws that have gone undetected. _Gergis et al 2012(?)_ is an example of an accepted paper in electronic preprint that was withdrawn (although PAGES2K was still using their hockeystick graph in AR5 drafts). unaccepted and unpublished papers simply should not be used in IPCC reports. even you agree to that, dont you Abe?



> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had an experience like that. It was so impressed by one edition of the academic journal Climatic Change that it cited 16 of the 21 papers published that month. The journal editors should take a bow. When three-quarters of a single issue of your publication is relied on by a Nobel-winning report, youre doing something right.
> 
> Except for one small problem. The issue in question  May 2007  didnt exist yet when the IPCC wrote its report. Moreover, none of the research papers eventually published in that issue had been finalized prior to the IPCCs cutoff date.
> 
> ...


IPCC Cites an Unpublished Journal 39 Times | NoFrakkingConsensus


hmmm....... seems like the IPCC selects people to write their reports, and those people tend to write papers to support the IPCC position rather than the other way about.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

I have been surprised by the number of people the IPCC uses as reviewers that come to the process with a denier (not a skeptical) viewpoint firmly in place and a lack of qualifications even had their minds been open.  

In a piece of work as large as AR5 or its predecessors, perfection is something you aim for.  I am satisfied that the IPCC's aim is correct and that their process is objective.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Mar 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


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





Abraham3 said:


> All else is rejected by who?  Are you going to invoke the _massive climate science conspiracy_?  Please don't disappoint me.


Looks like a couple other folks chimed in to cover that ground.

Even so, it can hardly be expected that a couple of the true believers like yourselves will accept the truth that the IPCC is a political body.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

Just out of curiosity, WHOSE political body do you think it is?


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Mar 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Just out of curiosity, WHOSE political body do you think it is?


You are serious, right?


----------



## Peterf (Mar 1, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > That is not what they do.  If you think it is, then show us the research that comes to opposing conclusions.  If the IPCC's position is false, the majority of research must also come to opposing conclusions.  It should be child's play to find such work.  Have at it.
> ...



No, hold your noses.   The smell emanating from the steaming, festering heap of warmist propaganda is not that of coffee but something foul.


----------



## IanC (Mar 1, 2014)

Peterf said:


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





I thought the consensus was that civet-poop coffee was the best in the world!


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2014)

Clearly the bitter cold winter has resulted in Americans reassessing the whole global warming issue. Lets face it, when you are standing outside shoveling 40 feet of snow and your balls are turning blue.......and then you hear the president say that the issue of global warming is settled......you start scratching your balls and your head. Accordingly, in the last 6 weeks or so, the far left has gone full blown retard with the bomb throwing on global warming.......if there is an extra cloud in the sky these days its a global warming event. For skeptics, its good news.......and a quick look across the ocean to Europe tells one that the whole global warming alarmism is being ignored by the people. Green energy subsidies are being thrown under the bus as we speak due to staggering costs........people are finally getting that there is a huge cost attached to a theory. And they are using common sense and punting!!!


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

I thought that the distinction between weather and climate was something that the general public had come to understand early on in this debate.

Either I was wrong or those opposing the IPCC have again chosen ignore the facts.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I thought that the distinction between weather and climate was something that the general public had come to understand early on in this debate.
> 
> Either I was wrong or those opposing the IPCC have again chosen ignore the facts.




Yeah..... but over time, people have seen the double talk on this. They see the hard core AGW crowd stripping their teeth and spitting if a weather event is mentioned by a skeptic crowd "its about the climate, not weather!!!".......but turn around the next week and go full blown retard when a typhoon blasts and island in the pacific. In 2014, the bogusness has been exposed. The iPhone zombie OCD's are probably still duped though......and that's a lot of dummies for the AGW k00ks to take advantage of.


----------



## laziale (Mar 1, 2014)

go to hell for criminal people.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

Welcome to the board.

What criminal people?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that the distinction between weather and climate was something that the general public had come to understand early on in this debate.
> ...



What you have heard from us repeatedly is that global warming will bring more intense weather.  What you have heard about this particular winter is that the Rossby waves in the circumpolar vortex (jet stream) have been caused by the warming of the Arctic reducing the delta T between the Equator and the Pole.  If you want to talk about the temperature in Green Bay TODAY, you are talking about the weather and you are NOT talking about the climate.  If you catch any of us doing the same thing, I invite you to correct us on the matter.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Or it's the crushing weight of the atmosphere of Venus swamps any "Global Warming"



Um, no. A denser atmosphere alone would have no effect on temps, if no greenhouse gases were involved.

Oh wait, I take that back. A denser atmosphere, if it had no greenhouse gases, and didn't make the atmosphere deeper, would have a cooling effect, since the denser gas would conduct heat outward faster.

And fer Glub's sake, don't embarrass yourself by citing the Ideal Gas Law, which only applies to a closed system and has jack to do with heat flow.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 1, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that the distinction between weather and climate was something that the general public had come to understand early on in this debate.
> ...



The cat is out of the bag.  Trenberth, the AMeteroSoc and others are teaming up to indoctrinate your local TV waether teams to purposely confound the diffs between climate and weather.  There is NO DOUBT who condones the confusion...


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Trenberth, the AMeteroSoc and others are teaming up to indoctrinate your local TV waether teams to purposely confound the diffs between climate and weather.  There is NO DOUBT who condones the confusion...



Again, EVIDENCE?  LINKS?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Trenberth, the AMeteroSoc and others are teaming up to indoctrinate your local TV waether teams to purposely confound the diffs between climate and weather.



Again, EVIDENCE?  LINKS?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Why don't you explain, using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science, why 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 has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium.



From Wikipedia's article on Uranus:

 It is the coldest planetary atmosphere in the Solar System, with a minimum temperature of 49 K (&#8722;224.2 °C), and has a complex, layered cloud structure, with water thought to make up the lowest clouds, and methane the uppermost layer of clouds.  In contrast, the interior of Uranus is mainly composed of ices and rock.

...

The standard model of Uranus's structure is that it consists of three layers: a rocky (silicate/iron-nickel) core in the center, an icy mantle in the middle and an outer gaseous hydrogen/helium envelope. The core is relatively small, with a mass of only 0.55 Earth masses and a radius less than 20% of Uranus's; the mantle comprises its bulk, with around 13.4 Earth masses, whereas the upper atmosphere is relatively insubstantial, weighing about 0.5 Earth masses and extending for the last 20% of Uranus's radius. Uranus's core density is around 9 g/cm3, with a pressure in the center of 8 million bars (800 GPa) and a temperature of about 5000 K. The ice mantle is not in fact composed of ice in the conventional sense, but of a hot and dense fluid consisting of water, ammonia and other volatiles. This fluid, which has a high electrical conductivity, is sometimes called a water&#8211;ammonia ocean.
According to research conducted at the University of California, Berkeley, the extreme pressure and temperature deep within Uranus may break up the methane molecules, with the carbon atoms condensing into crystals of diamond that rain down through the mantle like hailstones. Very-high-pressure experiments at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory suggest that the base of the mantle may comprise an ocean of liquid diamond, with floating solid 'diamond-bergs'.

...

*Troposphere*
The troposphere is the lowest and densest part of the atmosphere and is characterized by a decrease in temperature with altitude. The temperature falls from* about 320 K at the base of the nominal troposphere* at &#8722;300 km to 53 K at 50 km. The temperatures in the coldest upper region of the troposphere (the tropopause) actually vary in the range between 49 and 57 K depending on planetary latitude. *The tropopause region is responsible for the vast majority of Uranus's thermal far infrared emissions*, thus determining its effective temperature of 59.1 ± 0.3 K.
The troposphere is believed to possess a *highly complex cloud structure; water clouds are hypothesised to lie in the pressure range of 50 to 100 bar (5 to 10 MPa), ammonium hydrosulfide clouds in the range of 20 to 40 bar (2 to 4 MPa), ammonia or hydrogen sulfide clouds at between 3 and 10 bar (0.3 to 1 MPa) and finally directly detected thin methane clouds at 1 to 2 bar (0.1 to 0.2 MPa).* The troposphere is a very dynamic part of the atmosphere, exhibiting strong winds, bright clouds and seasonal changes.

Now what was your question?


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


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




s0n.....you're confused.


I posted up a thread on Green Bay having the coldest winder EVER. And who was one of the first to respond?

You!!!!


What a dickhead.......if weather is irrelevant in your mind, why bother chiming in on the weather??


And by the way......the more intense weather thing is so bogus and phoney its beyond stoopid. Indeed.....intense weather has had ups and downs forever as is clearly displayed by clicking on this link >>>

*HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY OF EXTREME WEATEHR*>>>>>>>> http://worldtimeline.info/weather/


absolutely decimates the whole "extreme weather" ruse that is perpetuated by the climate nuts.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

Winter (not "winder") is not weather, it's a season.  That _just_ long enough to begin having some significance.

Now you've got to think about the rest of the planet.  You've seen the pictures of the jet stream.  For every area unseasonable chilled by the jet stream dipping south, an equivalent area is unseasonably warmed by the jet stream bending north.

That's not that complicated an idea.  I'm sure if you concentrate just a little you'll be able to grasp it.


----------



## natstew (Mar 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> They should throw him in jail
> 
> Immediately



And Algore right with him.  They can be butt buddies!


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> They should throw him in jail
> 
> Immediately



I think the world would be better served if they threw you in jail Frank, followed by natstew, who seems to want to volunteer to be your butt buddie.  But we can't always get what we need.

How many times have you heard mainstream climate science supporters (like Mamooth, Old Rock, I and others) state that Lord Monckton or Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts or Roger Pielke Sr or Roy Spencer be thrown in jail?  Ever?  Likely not.  Yet yours must be the tenth or twentieth time I've heard deniers say that Michael Mann deserves to go to prison.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Mar 1, 2014)

This thread needs some music. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4]Censoring The Decrease in Global Temperatures - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

You Tube, the finest in objective scientific resources.

Tell us, Helen, if you had Michael Mann on the gallows trapdoor with a noose around his neck, would you pull the lever to send him hurtling down, watch him choke and turn purple and shit himself?  Would you enjoy that?  Would you feel you'd done the world a great service?  Do any of you out there think you'd change any climate scientists' minds by getting rid of Michael Mann?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you explain, using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science, why 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 has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium.
> ...



The defeat just never ends for you, does it?  My question was, using the greenhouse effect as described by climate science, explain why the BASE OF THE TROPOSPHERE on uranus is 33K warmer than the base of the troposphere on earth in spite of the fact that it is 30X further away from the sun and has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium.  Clearly, in your zeal to try and prove me wrong, you never bothered to look at the temperature profile of Uranus.  Here, from wiki since you seem to trust that site...  Note that the profile on wiki puts the temperature even more than 33K warmer than the base of the troposphere on earth.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Mar 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> You Tube, the finest in objective scientific resources.
> 
> Tell us, Helen, if you had Michael Mann on the gallows trapdoor with a noose around his neck, would you pull the lever to send him hurtling down, watch him choke and turn purple and shit himself?  Would you enjoy that?  Would you feel you'd done the world a great service?  Do any of you out there think you'd change any climate scientists' minds by getting rid of Michael Mann?


No.

I just want to watch him continue to get humiliated as all his lies crumble to dust.

That and I want to have him turn over all his faked data, during the discovery phase of the Steyn legal fiasco.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 1, 2014)

But Steyn is fighting discovery, while Mann is pushing for it. How does that fit into your conspiracy theory? Mann is the guy who clearly has nothing to hide, while your denialist heroes want to keep their doings hidden.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You Tube, the finest in objective scientific resources.
> ...



Aside from the excellent point Mamooth makes, when you say "continue to get humiliated", it includes the contention that he has already been humiliated and continues to do so.  Would you care to identify the matter over which Mann has been humilated heretofore?  And you speak about his lies crumbling to dust.  What lies would that be?


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Mar 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> But Steyn is fighting discovery, while Mann is pushing for it. How does that fit into your conspiracy theory? Mann is the guy who clearly has nothing to hide, while your denialist heroes want to keep their doings hidden.


Steyn is fighting every aspect of the whole frivolous lawsuit, as anyone would.

If Mann has nothing to hide, then why did he refuse to turn over the metadata in Canada last week?

Oh, and "denialist" still isn't a word, sport.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

In English, language is defined by use.  We use denialist, it's a word.

That's a quick turnaround.  From Steyn wants to embarrass Mann with discovery to Steyn is fighting discovery because its frivolous.  Hmm...


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Mar 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> In English, language is defined by use.  We use denialist, it's a word.
> 
> That's a quick turnaround.  From Steyn wants to embarrass Mann with discovery to Steyn is fighting discovery because its frivolous.  Hmm...


No, it's not. We really don't need any more evidence that you warmers just make crap up as you go along.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> But Steyn is fighting discovery, while Mann is pushing for it. How does that fit into your conspiracy theory? Mann is the guy who clearly has nothing to hide, while your denialist heroes want to keep their doings hidden.




Ummm......but he cant produce the data.



*f A I L*


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

So... you believe Steyn, NR and CEI have concluded thheir case?  That might be true.  Ever since they lost their attempt to have the complaint dismissed on the anti-SLAPP statute, their enthusiasm has seemed a little wan.  When warned by Mann that he would sue if they did not retract Steyn and Simbergs's statements and apologize, National Review sneered and invited Mann to sue them, saying then that they'd use discovery to uncover Mann's manipulated data.  But now... not so much.  Perhaps that's because they've realized that they don't actually have any evidence that Mann manipulated his data in any unjustified or deceptive manner and that the counter discovery will allow Mann to establish actual hostility and knowledge that the accusations were false and defamatory.  

This paragraph from "The Volokh Conspiracy", Mann v. Steyn -- Mann Wins Round One | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy, a generally conservative blog aimed at legal analysis.

In her two orders (NRO/Steyn, CEI/Simberg), Judge Combs-Greene characterizes the this as a &#8220;close case.&#8221;  She recognizes Mann qualifies as a &#8220;public figure,&#8221; at least in the context of climate policy debates.  This requires that Mann show that the allegedly defamatory comments were made with actual malice &#8212; i.e. actual knowledge that the allegdly defamatory claims were false or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claims made.  Despite this high burden, Judge Combs-Greene ruled against the defendants on their motion to dismiss. In her view, both sets of defendants made statements that alleged or implied facts that could be defamatory or otherwise actionable, e.g. that Mann engaged in fraud or other disreputable conduct. She further concluded that, despite the &#8220;slight&#8221; evidence of actual malice &#8220;at this stage&#8221; of the litigation, &#8220;[t]here is however sufficient evidence to demonstrate some malice or the knowledge that the statements were false or made with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false.&#8221;  As discovery could produce sufficient evidence to support a claim of actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth, Judge Combs-Greene concluded the cases should not be dismissed.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > But Steyn is fighting discovery, while Mann is pushing for it. How does that fit into your conspiracy theory? Mann is the guy who clearly has nothing to hide, while your denialist heroes want to keep their doings hidden.
> ...



Do us all a favor: have one more beer and go to bed.  Okay?


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Mar 1, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> So... you believe Steyn, NR and CEI have concluded thheir case?  That might be true.  Ever since they lost their attempt to have the complaint dismissed on the anti-SLAPP statute, their enthusiasm has seemed a little wan.  When warned by Mann that he would sue if they did not retract Steyn and Simbergs's statements and apologize, National Review sneered and invited Mann to sue them, saying then that they'd use discovery to uncover Mann's manipulated data.  But now... not so much.  Perhaps that's because the counter discovery will allow Mann to establish actual hostility and actual knowledge that the accusations were false and defamatory.
> 
> This paragraph from "The Volokh Conspiracy", Mann v. Steyn -- Mann Wins Round One | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy, a generally conservative blog aimed at legal analysis.
> 
> *In her two orders (NRO/Steyn, CEI/Simberg), Judge Combs-Greene characterizes the this as a close case.*  She recognizes Mann qualifies as a public figure, at least in the context of climate policy debates.  This requires that Mann show that the allegedly defamatory comments were made with actual malice  i.e. actual knowledge that the allegdly defamatory claims were false or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claims made.  Despite this high burden, Judge Combs-Greene ruled against the defendants on their motion to dismiss. In her view, both sets of defendants made statements that alleged or implied facts that could be defamatory or otherwise actionable, e.g. that Mann engaged in fraud or other disreputable conduct. She further concluded that, despite the slight evidence of actual malice at this stage of the litigation, [t]here is however sufficient evidence to demonstrate some malice or the knowledge that the statements were false or made with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false.  As discovery could produce sufficient evidence to support a claim of actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth, Judge Combs-Greene concluded the cases should not be dismissed.


IOW, the judge *just barely* ruled that the case *might* have some validity, so she punted. 

In any case, the defense usually makes motions against any and all procedures in frivolous lawsuits like this, so claiming that Steyn has something to hide is silly.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2014)

80% of Manns climate surface stations were defective and gave BS readings that he used!!! No wonder the dickhead doesn't want to bring his data to court.


http://www.surfacestations.org/


The guy is a fraud.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2014)

faiLscIeNcE


Michael Mann did "hide the decline" but it's no big deal - Minnesotans For Global Warming


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2014)

All these fuckers fuck with the data!!!


Now ask yourself........why would real scientists do that?


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2014)

I'll tell you why.......because its the agenda. "Climate change" is a tool of the modern day statist >>>


&#8220;The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations 
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.&#8221;

*- Prof. Chris Folland,*
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research


"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."

*- Christine Stewart,*
former Canadian Minister of the Environment




The Green Agenda


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > So... you believe Steyn, NR and CEI have concluded thheir case?  That might be true.  Ever since they lost their attempt to have the complaint dismissed on the anti-SLAPP statute, their enthusiasm has seemed a little wan.  When warned by Mann that he would sue if they did not retract Steyn and Simbergs's statements and apologize, National Review sneered and invited Mann to sue them, saying then that they'd use discovery to uncover Mann's manipulated data.  But now... not so much.  Perhaps that's because the counter discovery will allow Mann to establish actual hostility and actual knowledge that the accusations were false and defamatory.
> ...



The threat to use discovery against Mann came from the editor of  National Review.  I suspect his lawyer had other ideas.

Keep in mind that the comments above re the decision on anti-SLAPP came from a blogger that favors Steyn and the National Review.  Also keep in mind that the judge has not seen what discovery will reveal on either side.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 1, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> If Mann has nothing to hide, then why did he refuse to turn over the metadata in Canada last week?



Still parroting the strange fables of kiddie-fiddler O'Sullivan, I see.

Go on, stick with him to the end. After all, he is party-approved, so you don't have much choice.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Mar 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > If Mann has nothing to hide, then why did he refuse to turn over the metadata in Canada last week?
> ...


So, you have some evidence that the piece in the OP is false?

The case wasn't thrown out because Mann refused to supply the required data?

The whole legal case in Canada has been a hoax?

mmmmmmkay.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

The case was not thrown out.  It is still underway.  Check WUWT if you don't want to believe Mamooth.  The problem is that John O'Sullivan, the man who IS Principia Scientific website, is an honest to god pathological liar and simply LIED about this point.  I am not just badmouthing the man (well, I suppose I am) and I am not making this up.  The man has serious psychological issues.  He tells whoppers left and right and has been caught - in COURT - on several of them.  The information has been posted here.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2014)

Just a point to make here........intended for those taking a gander into this forum and who are non-AGW religious members........

The people in here who promote the established narrative on global warming indict ANYBODY who disagrees with them. ANYBODY. It matters not what they provide in terms of research, data or information. If it does not conform to the religion, it is fake 100% of the time. If they could shut out or otherwise ban me, SSDD, FlaCalTenn, Crusader Frank, Henry, Polar Bear, Helena, Westwall et. al.........they would in a microsecond.


Sound familiar?


These people are fascists........make no mistake.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 1, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...



*Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan*

Affidavits filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court libel litigation brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against climate science denier Timothy Ball reveal that Ball's collaborator and self-styled "legal advisor" has misrepresented his credentials and endured some significant legal embarrassments of his own. 

The affidavits also reveal that Tim Ball was "aware of the charges against John O'Sullivan almost from the start" and has tried to distance himself from his erstwhile advisor and writing partner.

The affidavits [1, 2] come from research of science and medical writer Andrew Skolnick, who documents O'Sullivan's misrepresentations, backtracking and questionable behavior.

Tim Ball and John O'Sullivan had a close working relationship, even before Mann sued Ball for libel in March 2011. For example, they co-authored the climate science denial book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, which was published in 2010.

Skolnick's evidence shows that O'Sullivan made a series of* false claims*, including:

o  that he was an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal courts;
o  that he was employed by a major Victoria, B.C. (Canada) law firm that is representing Ball in the libel action;
o  that he is a widely published writer, with credits in Forbes and the National Review;
o  that he had received his law degree from the University College, Cork, Ireland and/or from the University of Surrey (O'Sullivan's actual legal accreditation, apparently obtained after the Mann-Ball action commenced, comes from an online degree mill, Hill University, which promises delivery in two weeks);
o  that he is a member of the American Bar Association.

One affidavit includes an online comment in which O'Sullivan says, "For your information, I am a retired academic and I have litigated personally or assisted others in pro se litigation at every level of court there is in New York State as well as Federal level, for over a decade and never lost." 

Although O'Sullivan admits in this particular comment that he is not, in fact, licensed to practice law, in the U.S. or the U.K., he adds, "I'm just some Brit with a brain who can go live with his American wife in her country and kick ass big time around a courtroom."

Certainly, O'Sullivan was successful in winning an acquittal when he was personally charged in England as a high school teacher accused of sending lewd text messages and assaulting a 16-year-old female. Given the acquittal, it would not generally be appropriate to bring up this sordid and unproven bit of history, except that O'Sullivan himself went on to write an "erotic" "novel" with a startlingly similar storyline: Vanilla Girl: a Fact-Based Crime Story of a Teacher's Struggle to Control His Erotic Obsession with a Schoolgirl.

Although eager to present himself as a science researcher of accomplishment - certainly Tim Ball's equal - Skolnick's research found that O'Sullivan is highly prone to error, whether intentional or not.

For example, O'Sullivan provided bogus contact information when registering as a member* with the New York County Lawyers' Association, an organization that apparently does not vet its members' qualifications (and does not, in any case, bestow the right to practice law). While O'Sullivan claimed to be with a firm named "Principia Scientific International," he provided the address of a construction company called Second Nature Construction; the phone number and fax number didn't belong to O'Sullivan or anyone connected to "Principia," either.

Principia certainly exists in some form. According to its website, O'Sullivan is its CEO, and Tim Ball is Chairman. Other members include climate deniers Paul Driessen, Paul Reiter and more. Principia notes that it operates as a "private association rather than a charitable foundation. This is because PSI chooses to operate with the relative freedom of any start up association that has yet to determine whether it may fulfil its long term purpose as either a business with the private profit motive or a charity."

This information emerged, and became relevant to this most recent libel action against Tim Ball, in part because Ball himself, in his Response to Civil Claim, stated that his communications with O'Sullivan were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Mann then filed a reply, pointing out the facts documented in Skolnick's affidavits. As Mann's lawsuit proceeds, the court will inevitably rule on Ball's claim for "solicitor-client" privilege.

In the meantime, Ball has not submitted any affidavit from O'Sullivan attesting to his qualifications as Ball's legal advisor. If he did, O'Sullivan would be subject to cross-examination by Michael Mann's lawyer.


* The original post mistakenly said O'Sullivan was registering as an 'associate' member; in fact he registered as a member and was granted membership, despite not having a valid law degree or Bar certification in New York. We regret the error.

Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan | DeSmogBlog


----------



## Kosh (Mar 1, 2014)

The AGW cultists have stolen trillions of dollars for their war on Climate and millions have died for their farce. When will they be held accountable?


----------



## IanC (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...







typical deflection. what the f*** does a member of Ball's ragtag defence team have to do with Michael Mann and whether or not he should produce discovery evidence?

one thing we know for sure....Mann lied to the NAS panel. he denied calculating r2 scores for MBH98,99. r2 scores are the near universal method for checking correlation and significance but Mann used the obscure RE scores instead because they looked better. the SI for MBH98,99 included a graph which gave r2 significance spread and the partial release of the Mann's computer code included a subroutine for calculating r2 scores. 

(an interesting sidebar- Wahl and Ammand claimed to have replicated MBH98,99 and when they were compelled to give r2 stats, one of the centuries (15th, 16th?) was so low that they had to go out to five decimal places just so they wouldnt be forced to say it was zero correlation)

that one public lie to a commission formed to get to the truth is more than enough to forever taint Mann. but please....ask me for some more examples! Mann does deserve to be in the State Pen, and the fact that he has not been ostracized by legitimate climate scientists is a black eye to science in general.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

It actually has almost nothing to do with it - though O'Sullivan is a good friend of Tim Ball and claims to be some sort of legal counsel to the man.  

The point is that the story which leads this thread and was published on Principia Scientific which claimed that Mann's case against Ball had been thrown out and that Mann was facing bankruptcy came solely from the pathological liar and possibly child molesting former school teacher John O'Sullivan and contains not one shred of truth.  Scan through this thread Ian.  Your side hoots and hollers and celebrates the disinformation for post after post after post until it finally gets exposed for the flagrant lie that it is by none other than Anthony Watts of WUWT.  After a few days go by, however, Skooks decides to bring it back.  Helen of Handbag apparently hadn't seen the first exposure and was buying into it.  I was obliged to reprint the story about the simply amazing fellow that more than one of you have chosen to rely on for global warming information.

As far as the court cases Mann is involved in: I'll let the courts decide and I'll try to use better sources than the steaming pile of cow manure located under the name Principia Scientific, product of Mr John O'Sullivan, liar.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 2, 2014)

So where's Mann's data?


----------



## IanC (Mar 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Or it's the crushing weight of the atmosphere of Venus swamps any "Global Warming"
> ...





any type of atmosphere will make a planet's surface warmer. the denser the atmosphere, the great is its capacity as a heat sink, and the warmer the surface will be. adding GHGs only improves its ability to trap heat.

or perhaps you were thinking of the elusive polished chrome planet powered by internal nuclear reactions! hahahaha.  (emissivity of chrome is very low, it cannot shed heat easily by radiation, conduction is no problem)


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

The greater the mass of an atmosphere, the greater its heat capacity.  By itself, however, heat capacity has no effect on temperature whatsoever.  I could take Mercury and Jupiter into interstellar space, light years from the nearest star, and once they had reached equilibrium with their surroundings, their temperatures would be VERY close (~2.7K).  And since we should be assuming that any planet we're examining is in a state of equilibrium, the heat capacity becomes irrelevant; it would only affect warming or cooling.

Mamooth is correct.  The rate of thermal conduction through an atmosphere is directly proportional to its density.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Mar 2, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So where's Mann's data?






​


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

Mann has already published all the data required for an open examination of his work.  Ball, Steyn and the National Review are all going on the same fishing expedition that Cuccinellie tried (and blitheringly failed)

Recall you comment yesterday, based on the Volokh Conspiracy article I quoted, that the judge had "punted"; that Mann BARELY had a case.  Read this additional quotation from her honor concerning Mann's libel suit against Steyn and the National Review. 

"... The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. As the Court stated in its previous Order, the NR Defendants&#8217; reference to Plaintiff &#8220;as the man behind the fraudulent climate change &#8216;hockey stick&#8217; graph&#8221; was essentially an allegation of fraud by Plaintiff. ...

The Court clearly recognizes that some members involved in the climate-change discussions and debates employ harsh words. The NR Defendants are reputed to use this manner of speech; however there is a line between rhetorical hyperbole and defamation. In this case, the evidence before the Court demonstrates that something more than mere rhetorical hyperbole is, at least at this stage present. Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of words such as &#8220;whitewashed,&#8221; &#8220;intellectually bogus,&#8221; &#8220;ringmaster of the tree-ring circus&#8221; and &#8220;cover-up&#8221; amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. ...

*The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that &#8220;actual malice&#8221; is present in the NR Defendants&#8217; conduct. ...*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The greater the mass of an atmosphere, the greater its heat capacity.  By itself, however, heat capacity has no effect on temperature whatsoever.  I could take Mercury and Jupiter into interstellar space, light years from the nearest star, and once they had reached equilibrium with their surroundings, their temperatures would be VERY close (~2.7K).  And since we should be assuming that any planet we're examining is in a state of equilibrium, the heat capacity becomes irrelevant; it would only affect warming or cooling.
> 
> Mamooth is correct.  The rate of thermal conduction through an atmosphere is directly proportional to its density.




Mamooth and you couldn't be more wrong.  Explain using the greenhouse hypothesis why the dark side of Venus doesn't cool during the 2000 hour night.  

Mass and pressure are responsible for temperature   Refer to the ideal gas laws. 

By the way. Why is the base of the troposphere on Uranus warmer than that of earth


----------



## mamooth (Mar 2, 2014)

IanC said:


> any type of atmosphere will make a planet's surface warmer. the denser the atmosphere, the great is its capacity as a heat sink, and the warmer the surface will be.



The big rock in my yard is also a big heat sink, but it's not making my yard any warmer. A large heat sink will smooth out temperature variations, but it will have no effect on average temperatures.



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Mamooth and you couldn't be more wrong. Explain using the greenhouse hypothesis why the dark side of Venus doesn't cool during the 2000 hour night.



Like I said before, 200 mph winds and an extremely slow rate of energy exchange between Venus and space.



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Mass and pressure are responsible for temperature Refer to the ideal gas laws



Again, PV=nRT only applies to closed systems, and in any case has jack to do with planetary heat exchange. Yes, a gas heats if you compress it. However, that atmosphere was compressed billions of years ago. There's no new compression happening now, hence no heating from compression.



> By the way. Why is the base of the troposphere on Uranus warmer than that of earth



Because it's 200 miles down in a very dense atmosphere which has a large methane percentage. Why on earth would you think that a good illustration of the greenhouse effect disproves the greenhouse effect?


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The greater the mass of an atmosphere, the greater its heat capacity.  By itself, however, heat capacity has no effect on temperature whatsoever.  I could take Mercury and Jupiter into interstellar space, light years from the nearest star, and once they had reached equilibrium with their surroundings, their temperatures would be VERY close (~2.7K).  And since we should be assuming that any planet we're examining is in a state of equilibrium, the heat capacity becomes irrelevant; it would only affect warming or cooling.
> ...






The fascists have all this gobblygook science semantic play......its part of the agenda. Confuse the shit out of people so you sound like you know what you are talking about.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 2, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Mamooth is correct.  The rate of thermal conduction through an atmosphere is directly proportional to its density.





SSDD said:


> Mamooth and you couldn't be more wrong.



Tell us why the vacuum in a thermos bottle makes such good insulation.



SSDD said:


> Explain using the greenhouse hypothesis why the dark side of Venus doesn't cool during the 2000 hour night.



You want to critique the Greenhouse EFFECT by pointing out that Venus retains its heat?  Brilliant.  



SSDD said:


> Mass and pressure are responsible for temperature   Refer to the ideal gas laws.



Keep in mind that between the two of us, I'm apparently the only one that ever took Thermodynamics or Heat Transfer.



SSDD said:


> By the way. Why is the base of the troposphere on Uranus warmer than that of earth



I already answered this, but I could understand it if you didn't catch it.  Your contention that Uranus troposphere is nothing but helum and hydrogen is wrong.  Her troposphere has methane and water clouds.  It's also 300 km thick.  Uranus' core is 5000K.  Despite all that, Uranus is the coldest planet with an atmosphere in the solar system.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > any type of atmosphere will make a planet's surface warmer. the denser the atmosphere, the great is its capacity as a heat sink, and the warmer the surface will be.
> ...



Methane is what?....100 times the so called greenhouse gas that CO2 is...the amount of sunlight reaching Uranus is 400 times less than is reaching the earth and the amount that is not reflected and actually reaches down to the layers of methane is even less than that....the physics used to describe the so called greenhouse effect do not explain why the base of the troposphere on one of the coldest planets in the solar system is warmer than the base of the troposphere on earth.

The ideal gas laws, however, do explain it.

The greenhouse hypothesis is an ad hoc construct that only works here on earth as if the physics of energy exchange are somehow different here than everywhere else.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 2, 2014)

SSDD......I laugh my balls off when you go into schoolage mode.......meanwhile, these people are taking bows posting up gobblygook and talking about the college courses they took. Ive always contended these science dweebs in here are social invalids.......the last picked for the team back in the day.....jumping out of their shorts to get their hand up first in class. HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> The greater the mass of an atmosphere, the greater its heat capacity.  By itself, however, heat capacity has no effect on temperature whatsoever.  I could take Mercury and Jupiter into interstellar space, light years from the nearest star, and once they had reached equilibrium with their surroundings, their temperatures would be VERY close (~2.7K).  And since we should be assuming that any planet we're examining is in a state of equilibrium, the heat capacity becomes irrelevant; it would only affect warming or cooling.
> 
> Mamooth is correct.  The rate of thermal conduction through an atmosphere is directly proportional to its density.



???????

I thought we were talking about warming and cooling. anyways, if the Earth was put out in empty space the radioactivity of the core would still warm it above the temperature of its surroundings. the atmosphere would raise the surface temp because the atmosphere temperature would be intermediate between surface temp and space temp.


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > any type of atmosphere will make a planet's surface warmer. the denser the atmosphere, the great is its capacity as a heat sink, and the warmer the surface will be.
> ...



your rock example needs a little work. lay out an electric blanket in a cool room and put a rock (pillow, newspaper, 2x4, etc) on top of it. check back in a few hours and measure the temp of the exposed blanket and then the covered portion of the blanket. do you doubt that the covered area will be warmer?

so it was _you_ mamooth, that said Venus surface temp was the same day or night. sorry SSDD.

everything is trying to get rid of its energy as fast as possible, an endless game of hot potato. input and output equals net change. daylight adds energy, nightime removes it. I am assuming that mamooth is stating that wind powered mixing and greenhouse gas reduction of radiation combines to make an insulating effect that smoothes the temperature gradient down to nothing by the time it reaches the surface. this cannot happen because the solar powered winds lose strength and heat as they move away from the energy source. the only exception I can think of is that the insulating effect may cause a time lag of roughly 1/2 of a Venusian day, in which case the average over time could be the same but there would still be a temperature differential. an exception that proves the rule.


I agree that original heat of compression is a non-factor for systems that have come to equilibrium, but it is a symptom. daytime warming of the atmosphere 'puffs' it out by a few kilometres I believe. it is another heat sink by storing or releasing potential energy.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 3, 2014)

Wow.  A denier corrects SSDD.  The world is changing - and in a good way for once.

That you people spend as much time as you do arguing against the Greenhouse Effect ought to tell you something.  It would be something that sounds very much like "I don't actually have a case".


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2014)

IanC said:


> so it was _you_ mamooth, that said Venus surface temp was the same day or night. sorry SSDD.



No, it was me that said that the temperature on venus was the same day or night.  I said it because in fact, it is the same day or night.  One more example of why I say that the greenhouse hypothesis is no more than an ad hoc construct that only works here on earth because it was fabricated to do so while taking as few physical laws into consideration as possible.

Here have a look:

Temperature of Venus

Clip: "The temperature on Venus does not vary like it does on our home world. It is 460 degrees day or night, at the poles or at the equator. "

How Hot is Venus? | Space.com

Clip:  Temperatures on Venus remain consistent over time. For one thing, the planet takes 243 Earth days to spin once on its axis (and it spins backwards, at that; on Venus, the sun rises in the west and sets in the east). The nights on Venus are as warm as the days.

There is no greenhouse effect at work on Venus...pressure rules there as it does here...and mamooths claim that the ideal gas laws are only at work in a closed system is the statement of someone who doesn't have a clue.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wow.  A denier corrects SSDD.  The world is changing - and in a good way for once.
> 
> That you people spend as much time as you do arguing against the Greenhouse Effect ought to tell you something.  It would be something that sounds very much like "I don't actually have a case".



Unlike you cultist believers, we actually think for ourselves....no lock step here.  Ian's correction was wrong however...the day time and night time temperatures on venus are the same.  There is no greenhouse effect runaway or otherwise at work on venus...pressure is king there as it is here...the ideal gas laws, plus incoming solar accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...unlike the greenhouse hypothesis which only works on earth because it is an ad hoc construct that is supposed to do nothing but explain earth acknowledging as few physical laws as possible.

Temperature of Venus

Clip: "The temperature on Venus does not vary like it does on our home world. It is 460 degrees day or night, at the poles or at the equator. "

How Hot is Venus? | Space.com

Clip: Temperatures on Venus remain consistent over time. For one thing, the planet takes 243 Earth days to spin once on its axis (and it spins backwards, at that; on Venus, the sun rises in the west and sets in the east). The nights on Venus are as warm as the days.

Ian believes in the greenhouse hypothesis....he just doesn't think that CO2 is as magical as you do.   He is mistaken....just not as badly mistaken as you.


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wow.  A denier corrects SSDD.  The world is changing - and in a good way for once.
> 
> That you people spend as much time as you do arguing against the Greenhouse Effect ought to tell you something.  It would be something that sounds very much like "I don't actually have a case".





which denier corrected SSDD?

do you have some kind of definition for the label 'denier'? can you name a few prominent deniers? I only ask because I think your strawman conception of skeptics is massively distorted by your vision of the climate debate as an 'us-vs-them' scenario.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 3, 2014)

NASA scientist predicts Ice Age a few decades away >>>


U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/science-is-settled-nasas-forecast-for-the-year-2020/



Mann is a dick.




Nothing is settled.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 3, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Wow.  A denier corrects SSDD.  The world is changing - and in a good way for once.
> 
> That you people spend as much time as you do arguing against the Greenhouse Effect ought to tell you something.  It would be something that sounds very much like "I don't actually have a case".



incorrect! Discussion of science is something "deniers" are capable of presenting unlike the AGW cultists like yourself.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 3, 2014)

IanC said:


> your rock example needs a little work. lay out an electric blanket in a cool room and put a rock (pillow, newspaper, 2x4, etc) on top of it. check back in a few hours and measure the temp of the exposed blanket and then the covered portion of the blanket. do you doubt that the covered area will be warmer?



That depends entirely on the heat conductivity of the object. If the object conducts heat away better than the atmosphere, then the heat sink will reduce the temperature. That's the whole principle behind putting a heat sink on a computer CPU



> I am assuming that mamooth is stating that wind powered mixing and greenhouse gas reduction of radiation combines to make an insulating effect that smoothes the temperature gradient down to nothing by the time it reaches the surface.



Yes. 



> this cannot happen because the solar powered winds lose strength and heat as they move away from the energy source.



No. Those 200 mph winds have more than enough energy to circle the dark side and get back to the light side for a recharge. And conservation of mass says that, in a wind band that circles the planet, all the winds have to move at about the same speed.

And to clarify, the clouds tops on Venus do get cooler on the dark side, but that temp difference doesn't make it down to the surface.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And the laws of physics are the same on Venus as on earth.  Are you suggesting that if we looked at the ToA on Venus that little energy would be escaping....



I don't say it. The data says it.

http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v176/176GM08/176GM08.pdf
---
The effective globally averaged effective temperature as measured by pioneer Venus is ~230 K which corresponds to an outgoing thermal flux of ~160 W/m^2. 
---

That would be less than half of the Earth value, despite Venus being much closer to the sun. Combine that with the constant 200 mph winds and the very thick atmosphere being a good heat sink, and you get very little change between night and day temps. 200 mph winds means an atmospheric exchange from hot to cold side every 2 days, so that's essentially the length of the atmospheric night, not enough time for any significant cooling.



> Methane is what?....100 times the so called greenhouse gas that CO2 is...the amount of sunlight reaching Uranus is 400 times less than is reaching the earth and the amount that is not reflected and actually reaches down to the layers of methane is even less than that....the physics used to describe the so called greenhouse effect do not explain why the base of the troposphere on one of the coldest planets in the solar system is warmer than the base of the troposphere on earth.



It doesn't matter if little heat goes down. The heat that does go down has nowhere to dissipate to, so it builds up. And the greenhouse effect holds it in.



> The ideal gas laws, however, do explain it.



Given no compression is happening, the Ideal Gas Law doesn't apply in any way. You're essentially claiming that my fire extinguisher, because it's a compressed gas, must be constantly generating heat.


----------

