# Global Warming 'Splained



## boedicca (May 23, 2011)

The Sun is getting hotter at the rate of 1% per 110 million years.

It is now 30% hotter than it was 4.57 billion years ago.

In another billion years (+/-) the sun will get SO HOT that life on earth will be pretty much vaporized (or as good as such as water will be turned into vapor).

So, instead of worrying about what kind of light bulbs and grocery sacks people use, how about we free the private sector to invent migration and homesteading appropriate technology for new planets?

_Apocalypse Not Yet. You notice any new signs of the end of the world today? I have to say I got distracted and missed paying attention at the moment when it was all supposed to end. My neighborhood is quiet and peaceful. But religious belief is not the only source of predictions of the end of the world. A pair of astronomers say in about 1 billion years the output of our Sun will go up enough to evaporate the oceans and rivers into water vapor.

    The story begins some 4.57 billion years ago, when the young sun's nuclear furnace ignited and stabilized. Back then, solar physicists estimate, the sun was 30 percent dimmer than it is today. As it has matured, it has brightened at a pace of about 1 percent every 110 million years.

    Over that period, the two explain, Earth's climate system has adjusted to the increase in the sun's output, keeping the planet's average temperature within a livable range and with plenty of water on hand. Orbiting 93 million miles from the sun, Earth finds itself nicely placed in the sun's habitable zone.

    But over the next billion years, the duo says, the sun's output will rise by another 10 percent.

Let us suppose sentient beings will still inhabit planet Earth hundreds of millions of years from now and beyond. What to do? I see a few choices:

    Migrate to Mars.
    Do climate engineering
    Move Earth to a larger orbit (and thereby lengthen bond maturities too).
    Leave the solar system._

FuturePundit: End Of World In 1 Billion Years?


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2011)

or perhaps the climate system will continue to compensate. it is amazing that people ignore the fact that there was liquid water with much less solar imput but they think a small change in a trace gas will cause doom.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2011)

boedicca said:


> The Sun is getting hotter at the rate of 1% per 110 million years.
> 
> It is now 30% hotter than it was 4.57 billion years ago.
> 
> ...



ever notice that authors have to predict disaster to get noticed?


----------



## edthecynic (May 23, 2011)

*Laura Spinney on signs that the sun is cooling down and what that ...*

Apr 23, 2009 *...*  Laura Spinney: Nasa recorded no sunspots on 266 days in 2008 - a level   of inactivity not seen since 1913 - and 2009 looks set to be even *...*
www.guardian.co.uk/.../apr/.../*sun*-*cooling*-down-space-climate - Cached - Similar

*Cooling Sun brings relief to sweltering Earth | Environment | The ...*

Sep 24, 2006 *...* Help in battle against global warming as scientists claim *...*
www.guardian.co.uk/.../2006/.../spaceexploration.theobserver - Cached - Similar

Show more results from guardian.co.uk


*NASA - Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth's Upper Atmosphere*

Dec 17, 2009 *...* New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic _cooling_ in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the *...*
www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/.../*cooling*thermosphere.html - Cached - Similar

*Quiet Sun May Trigger Global Cooling - Science News | Science ...*

May 5, 2009 *...* Quiet _Sun_ May Trigger Global _Cooling_, Low levels of solar activity tied to prolonged cold snaps centuries ago, and scientists wonder if *...*
Quiet Sun May Trigger Global Cooling - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com - Cached - Similar

*Sun Oddly Quiet -- Hints at Next "Little Ice Age"?*

May 4, 2009 *...* The _sun_ continues to be the most sluggish it's been in decades, prompting concerns about a _cooling_ effect on climate--but don't count on the *...*
news.nationalgeographic.com/.../090504-*sun*-global-*cooling*.html - Cached - Similar


----------



## boedicca (May 23, 2011)

Nobody said the 1% change in temperature over 110 billion years was perfectly linear, bub.

Sunspots and other solar activity do cause fluctuations, but in the long run, we're all going to be VAPORIZED.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2011)

Its absurd to believe that the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky has anything to do with our climate. Scarfetta and West wrote a paper on this and came to that very conclusion using the "because we say so" method of AGW Cult Behavior.


----------



## boedicca (May 23, 2011)

Ra will punish them, fo shizzle.


----------



## edthecynic (May 23, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Nobody said the 1% change in temperature over 110 billion years was perfectly linear, bub.
> 
> Sunspots and other solar activity do cause fluctuations, but *in the long run, we're all going to be VAPORIZED*.


But not because the Sun is getting hotter In 4.7 billion years the hydrogen will run out and the helium will fuse. The Sun will expand as a Red Giant and swallow/vaporize the Earth.


----------



## boedicca (May 23, 2011)

Well then, in the long run, Global Warming really doesn't matter, does it?


----------



## edthecynic (May 23, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Well then, in the long run, Global Warming really doesn't matter, does it?


Not on a cosmic time scale, but on a generational time scale it will matter.


----------



## boedicca (May 23, 2011)

Yes, it will matter.  A bit more warming will do wonders for improving the quality of human life just like it did during the Medieval Warming Period.    The mini Ice Age ended in the mid 1880s, and the warming ever since has been very favorable to agriculture.


----------



## daveman (May 23, 2011)

boedicca said:


> The Sun is getting hotter at the rate of 1% per 110 million years.
> 
> It is now 30% hotter than it was 4.57 billion years ago.


How inefficient.  President Obama should mandate a Compact Fluorescent Star.


----------



## Trakar (May 23, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Yes, it will matter.  A bit more warming will do wonders for improving the quality of human life just like it did during the Medieval Warming Period.    The mini Ice Age ended in the mid 1880s, and the warming ever since has been very favorable to agriculture.



If all AGW was going to do, is bump the global temps up like the regional hemispheric bump Europe and the N. Atlantic region experienced in the MWP, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, we have already more than doubled the warming experienced in the MWP and this is globally not regionally, and it is just the start of the warming not the end of it.






 (http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/trakar-albums-agw-picture3532-temperature-pattern-mwp.html)

vs.






 (http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/trakar-albums-agw-picture3533-temp-pattern-1999-2008-noaa.html)

And this is just the start, even if we could cease all open-cycle combustion of fossil fuels today, it would take a century or more before the planet equilibrates to the additional CO2 we have already added to the atmosphere, and several millenia before temperatures begin to decrease to where they would have been without mankind's atmospheric dumping. So far we seem to be stuck at (or near) the top end of (Business As Usual) which means not just continued emissions, but continued accelerating emission rates. If this continues unabated we could easily see a tripling of preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels within the next 6-10 decades and an initiating of planetary conditions that will, over a few centuries, come more to resemble those of the PETM, rather than anything that has existed on this planet in the history of our species.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The Sun is getting hotter at the rate of 1% per 110 million years.
> ...



I think the UN should draft a resolution!


----------



## Trakar (May 23, 2011)

Ernie S. said:


> Ecclesiastes 10:2 (New American Standard Bible) A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left.



BTW - your adoption of a scriptural motto, suggests that you should seek to understand that which you seem to be taking delight at distorting. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible - Ecclesiastes 10 Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

A wise man's heart is at his right hand,.... This is not designed to express the direct position and situation of the heart of man, wise or foolish, which is the same in both; and which, according to anatomists, is in the middle of the body, inclining to the left side; but the understanding and wisdom of men, as Aben Ezra observes; which, with a wise man, is ready a hand to direct and assist him in any affair; and which under the influence of it, he goes about with great readiness and dexterity, and performs it with great ease and facility, without sinister ends and selfish views; it inclines him to pursue the true way to honour, heaven, and happiness, which lies to the right; to seek things that are above, at the right hand of God; and, in all, his honour and glory; 

but a fool's heart is at his left; he is at a loss for wisdom and understanding to direct him, when he has an affair of any moment upon his hand; which he goes about in an awkward manner, as left handed persons do, and has sinister ends in what he does; and he is to every good work reprobate and unfit, and seeks earth and earthly things, which lie to the left, and in all himself. The Targum is, 

"the heart of a wise man is to get the law, which was given by the right hand of the Lord; and the heart of a fool to get the goods of gold and silver:'' 

so Jarchi, 

"his wisdom is ready to incline him (the wise man) to the right hand way for his good; but the heart of a fool to pervert him from it.'' 

The ancients (o) used to call things wise and prudent the right hand and things foolish the left hand.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2011)

boedicca said:


> The Sun is getting hotter at the rate of 1% per 110 million years.
> 
> It is now 30% hotter than it was 4.57 billion years ago.
> 
> ...



And another amazingly retarded and pointless thread from Bowedbydick. Are you really this clueless and insane, little girl, or are you just putting us on?


----------



## boedicca (May 23, 2011)

Trakar said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it will matter.  A bit more warming will do wonders for improving the quality of human life just like it did during the Medieval Warming Period.    The mini Ice Age ended in the mid 1880s, and the warming ever since has been very favorable to agriculture.
> ...




Unfortunately, you are sorely misinformed.    The itsy bitsy amount of warming we have seen since end of the Little Ice Age is very moderate on a global, millenial scale.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 23, 2011)

Lengthen bond maturities?


----------



## daveman (May 23, 2011)

Ernie S. said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Obama should nationalize the sun.  It's the only thing that will save us!


----------



## boedicca (May 23, 2011)

Or get congress to pass an Individual Mandate for Reduced Kinetic Solar Activity.


----------



## daveman (May 23, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Or get congress to pass an Individual Mandate for Reduced Kinetic Solar Activity.



We're going to need a Star Czar.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Or get congress to pass an Individual Mandate for Reduced Kinetic Solar Activity.
> ...



No, you're going to need a straitjacket. 

And I mean ALL of you certifiable denier cult dingbats.


----------



## daveman (May 23, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Holy shit, you leftists have no damn humor at all, do you?

It must really _suck_ to be you.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Nobody said the 1% change in temperature over 110 billion years was perfectly linear, bub.
> 
> Sunspots and other solar activity do cause fluctuations, but in the long run, we're all going to be VAPORIZED.



And nobody stated that the warming would be perfectly linear, old gal.

However, April makes the 314 straight month that the global average has been above the average for the 20th century. And, in spite of a very strong La Nina, April was the seventh warmest April on record.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2011)

daveman said:


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



No, actually I'm having a good time and I have a fine and subtle sense of humor. If you ever manage to intentionally say something remotely funny, I'll laugh, I'm sure. I admit I already find most of what you say pretty funny but that's not intentional humor on your part, it's just that you say such ridiculous, silly, pointless crap, it's hard not to laugh at you.


----------



## daveman (May 23, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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


Okay, I got just the thing.  Right up your alley.  You'll bust a gut.

Bush is Hitler!!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2011)

daveman said:


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



I said "intentionally funny", not 'pointlessly retarded', daveboy. I'm beginning to suspect that you're not bright enough to tell the difference.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 24, 2011)

Clearly there is a consensus!!!!


----------



## daveman (May 24, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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


Oh, wait, I understand now...you're one of those pretentious windbags who thinks that humor, an entirely subjective idea, can be quantized and judged on an absolute scale.  Further, you think your opinion on the matter is fact.

Now THAT'S funny!


----------



## konradv (May 24, 2011)

boedicca said:


> The Sun is getting hotter at the rate of 1% per 110 million years.
> 
> It is now 30% hotter than it was 4.57 billion years ago.
> 
> ...



This isn't really relevant to AGW, since we're talking about two completely different time scales.  If you want to have an honest debate, let's at least talk about the same thing.  AGW has NOTHING to do with long-term fluctuations on earth or the sun.


----------



## konradv (May 24, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



... i.e. IRRELEVANT to the entire AGW debate!!!


----------



## boedicca (May 24, 2011)

konradv said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The Sun is getting hotter at the rate of 1% per 110 million years.
> ...




The time scale the AGW Mongers focus on is equally irrelevant.  Yes, 110 million years is largely irrelevant to humanity...but 150 years is irrelevant for The Globe.

The time scales that are relevant have been posted repeatedly, and show that the current change is not unusual.


----------



## konradv (May 24, 2011)

boedicca said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Well, there you have it!!!  That's why your arguments are irrelevant.  The point of AGW is that we're concerned about humanity.  The globe, as we're constantly reminded though it's a given, will take care of itself in its own time.  That kind of timescale is irrelevant, however, when what you're concerned about is the effect on man and civilization.


----------



## boedicca (May 24, 2011)

And if you care about humanity, you will acknowledge that 150 years is an irrelevant sample, and Big Government doing things which decrease living standards by making energy more expensive is wrong.


----------



## konradv (May 24, 2011)

boedicca said:


> And if you care about humanity, you will acknowledge that 150 years is an irrelevant sample, and Big Government doing things which decrease living standards by making energy more expensive is wrong.



NO, I will NOT say 150 years is an irrelevant sample, because on the human timescale it's VERY relevant.  As for "Big Government" doing things, how about what it's doing to bring about change to a sustainable, non-polluting energy future?  Perhaps you should read up before posting knee-jerk anti-government rants.

ITER - the way to new energy      OR

Department of Energy - Fusion


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody said the 1% change in temperature over 110 billion years was perfectly linear, bub.
> ...



Have you told Phil Jones about this?

Based on what altered data set?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



You're lost in your own little delusional world of denier cult myths and so nothing you say on this forum makes any sense whatsoever. You are a worthless troll.


----------



## boedicca (May 24, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...





The parking lots in Las Vegas data set.


----------



## boedicca (May 24, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> You are a worthless troll.




You really should seek professional help for your projection issues.

An anonymous message board isn't proper therapy.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2011)

boedicca said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > You are a worthless troll.
> ...



Noticing that you and ol' CrustyFrankfurter are ignorant denier cult trolls is simply being perceptive. You've both been bamboozled by the propaganda and misinformation that the fossil fuel industry has pumped into your heads. You both reject the testimony of the world science community and the mountains of evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming/climate changes and instead hold tight to the myths and lies fed to you by politically and economically motivated ideologues and stooges for the oil corps. You're both anti-science ignoramuses severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Or, in simple language that you can understand, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.


----------



## boedicca (May 24, 2011)

You've got the definition of cult all wrong, bub.

Those of you who worship "faith based science" are The Cult.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 24, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



And the reason you still can't show us one (1) lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature is....


----------



## boedicca (May 24, 2011)

C'mon CF...WHERE'S YOUR FAITH!?!?!?!?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 24, 2011)

boedicca said:


> C'mon CF...WHERE'S YOUR FAITH!?!?!?!?



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0]YouTube - &#x202a;George Michael - Faith (US Version)&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Trakar (May 24, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > ...And this is just the start, even if we could cease all open-cycle combustion of fossil fuels today, it would take a century or more before the planet equilibrates to the additional CO2 we have already added to the atmosphere, and several millenia before temperatures begin to decrease to where they would have been without mankind's atmospheric dumping. So far we seem to be stuck at (or near) the top end of (Business As Usual) which means not just continued emissions, but continued accelerating emission rates. If this continues unabated we could easily see a tripling of preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels within the next 6-10 decades and an initiating of planetary conditions that will, over a few centuries, come more to resemble those of the PETM, rather than anything that has existed on this planet in the history of our species.
> ...



Please support this assertion with appropriate supportive scientific cite or reference.


----------



## boedicca (May 24, 2011)

Trakar said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





Here you go, you said little booby.   The earth is far older than the 150 or so years upon which the AGW focuses.







Filehanerozoic Climate Change.png - Wikimedia Commons


And let's have a look at temps since the last major glacial period.






http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png


----------



## Trakar (May 24, 2011)

Mr. H. said:


> Lengthen bond maturities?



ROFLOL!

Indeed, If I could just figure out how to sell low interest, long-term maturity bonds from my company to people who are unlikely to be able to redeem them in say 30 years (which unfortunately is probably how long I'll have to keep at what I'm doing),...my grandkids would probably really like it.

Of course, if the economy is completely trashed, money on paper isn't going to do me much good.


----------



## Trakar (May 24, 2011)

boedicca said:


> ...The time scale the AGW Mongers focus on is equally irrelevant.  Yes, 110 million years is largely irrelevant to humanity...but 150 years is irrelevant for The Globe.
> 
> The time scales that are relevant have been posted repeatedly, and show that the current change is not unusual.



Cite or reference?

Irrelevent to what?


----------



## Trakar (May 24, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ...Have you told Phil Jones about this?
> 
> Based on what altered data set?



Compelling and verifiable evidences and supports for any relevent altered datasets?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


----------



## boedicca (May 24, 2011)

Your "Relevant Chart" includes bull shit extrapolations regarding future trends which are just as accurate as the ones in 2000 which predicted that the dot com bubble would last forever.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Your "Relevant Chart" includes bull shit extrapolations regarding future trends which are just as accurate as the ones in 2000 which predicted that the dot com bubble would last forever.


Just more retarded nonsense from someone who is totally clueless about the science involved.


----------



## Trakar (May 24, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ...And the reason you still can't show us one (1) lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature is....



Equipment needed:

Two large, thick-wall, insulated pressure vessels with IR transparent sealed ports.
IR generator
dry Nitrogen source
dry CO2 source
precision temp. measurement equipment
vaccuum pump

Purge the two vessels, carefully fill one container with 100% dry Nitrogen and then fill the other with 99.99994% dry Nitrogen and 0.00006% dry CO2. Seal both vessels affix IR source to IR transparent port and power up, await equilibration of systems (shouldn't take more than a few hours--EDIT--depending upon the size of your samples! --end EDIT--), and then measure the ambient air temperature within the container to the nearest ten thousandth of a degree. Carefully repeat entire procedure three times carefully recording all data. At this level the temperature differential will be small, but if laboratory practices are duly rigorous, you should be able to record a significant difference between the to sample atmospheres in accord with mainstream physics findings and understandings.  

There are more simple ways to test and verify the GHG potential of CO2 (or any other GHG) but this methodology fulfills your specifications and will produce verification of the more traditional obtained results. If you have any questions or problems please feel free to ask or share them.


----------



## Trakar (May 24, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > C'mon CF...WHERE'S YOUR FAITH!?!?!?!?
> ...



Do you get teased much for being a George Michael fan?


----------



## Trakar (May 24, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



This appears to be a single site measurement of an isotope of Oxygen, which says virtually nothing directly about Global CO2 levels or Global temperatures. Please cite or reference the paper that it comes from. 



> And let's have a look at temps since the last major glacial period.
> 
> 
> File:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikimedia Commons



And this says nothing about CO2 levels but does indicate that global temperatures are dramatically warmer now than they have been at any time in the last 12,000 years. 

I was asking for support for your assertions, but I do appreciate your efforts and support for what I stated in the first place.


----------



## daveman (May 24, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.


----------



## boedicca (May 24, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Your "Relevant Chart" includes bull shit extrapolations regarding future trends which are just as accurate as the ones in 2000 which predicted that the dot com bubble would last forever.
> ...




More nonsense from TrollingBlunder.

AGW Mongers often quote the change in temps since the mid 1800s, which was the end of the mini Ice Age.  They ignore the long history of climate change over millions of years for a reason:   it shows they are making much ado about nothing.


----------



## daveman (May 24, 2011)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ...And the reason you still can't show us one (1) lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature is....
> ...



Congratulations.  You just proved how CO2 behaves in a small pressure vessel when exposed to a very narrow band of the EM spectrum.

Are you saying the entire planet will behave the same way?  That there aren't hundreds more variables at play in the real world?

Sorry.  Not good enough for me to support crippling the economies of the entire Western world

Do you really want to


----------



## Trakar (May 24, 2011)

daveman said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That's your strawman, I was simply providing what was being requested.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2011)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


LOLOLOL....you are such a delusional nutjob....and soooo clueless....everything I just said to ol' Bowedbydick and CrustyFrankfurter goes for you too, Daveboy.....you poor confused dupe...


----------



## skookerasbil (May 25, 2011)

Chrysler mega-comeback.....................

Payne: SUVs saved Chrysler | themichiganview.com | The Michigan View


How'd they do it????????????????????????????













NOT with sales of gay-ass little SMARTCARS like those driven by Old Rocks and Rolling Thunder!!!







gay


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



As I said before, just more retarded nonsense from someone totally clueless about the science. 

Climate scientists do not "_ignore the long history of climate change_". That is an incredibly stupid claim since it is their job to study just that. They've discovered what the natural forces were that produced the previous climate changes in Earth's past and those factors aren't causing the current abrupt warming. The link between current global warming and rising CO2 levels is very clear.

Once again, as always, your comments only display your complete ignorance of this subject.


----------



## boedicca (May 25, 2011)

TrollingBlunder blathers on.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> TrollingBlunder blathers on.



Bowedbydick retards on...and on....and on..........


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Chrysler mega-comeback.....................
> 
> Payne: SUVs saved Chrysler | themichiganview.com | The Michigan View







Urban Dictionary: small penis car

small penis car 

The bigger the car the smaller the penis.
A small penis car is a big car driven by a man trying to overcompensate for having a small penis.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 25, 2011)

Does that make ol' Kooky a eunuch?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Does that make ol' Kooky a eunuch?


I think it makes him a very retarded eunuch with a sixth grade education.


----------



## code1211 (May 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Nobody said the 1% change in temperature over 110 billion years was perfectly linear, bub.
> 
> Sunspots and other solar activity do cause fluctuations, but in the long run, we're all going to be VAPORIZED.




Just so I know how acute my panic must be, did you say million or billion?


----------



## boedicca (May 25, 2011)

code1211 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody said the 1% change in temperature over 110 billion years was perfectly linear, bub.
> ...





Ooops.  I meant Million.   So, it's time to panic.


----------



## code1211 (May 25, 2011)

Trakar said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it will matter.  A bit more warming will do wonders for improving the quality of human life just like it did during the Medieval Warming Period.    The mini Ice Age ended in the mid 1880s, and the warming ever since has been very favorable to agriculture.
> ...





All of this sounds very scientific and logical.

However, the current warming period that we are enjoying and which followed the Little Ice Age started before the Industrial Revolution.  That is, it started before the vast burning of Fossil Fuels.  It has continued with some ups and downs at a pretty consistant rate in spite of increasing CO2 levels.

The rate of increase in Global temperature from the year 0 to the year 1000 was greater than the increase from the year 1001 to the year 2000.  Climate can and has changed without any input from man's burning of Fossil fuels.

The Scenarios and the resulting predictions put forth by Dr. James Hansen in 1988 were based on the theories that you promote above and were wrong.

If Hansen's predictions had been based on calcualtionns that I could have done on a bar napkin with a ball point point pen a list of the average temperatures since 1880, I would have produced a more accurate prediction.

No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined.


----------



## code1211 (May 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody said the 1% change in temperature over 110 billion years was perfectly linear, bub.
> ...




Has the Global concentration of CO2 diminished sufficiently to account for April not being the warmest one on record?


----------



## code1211 (May 25, 2011)

konradv said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The Sun is getting hotter at the rate of 1% per 110 million years.
> ...




That is simply not true.  The shape of Earth's orbit around the Sun is certainly a long-term fluctuation and has a very measurable effect on the climate.


----------



## code1211 (May 25, 2011)

Trakar said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...




We seem to be about 16 degrees cooler right now than we were about 50 million years ago.

Conservationists of that age would be panicking over how cold the Earth is right now.

Comcast.net - Email currently unavailable


----------



## code1211 (May 25, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Your "Relevant Chart" includes bull shit extrapolations regarding future trends which are just as accurate as the ones in 2000 which predicted that the dot com bubble would last forever.
> ...





To what science are you referring?  Can you please produce an accurate prediction of the current climate from 30 years or more ago and show the reason why the AGW Theory supported that prediction at the time that it was made?


----------



## code1211 (May 25, 2011)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ...And the reason you still can't show us one (1) lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature is....
> ...




Is there an experiment that builds in the varying other components of the Climate system along with the effects of CO2?  I'm guessing that the recent eruption of the volcano in Iceland will produce a drop in temperature readings in that area of the world in the near term and and an increase in the albedo in the months to come as the ash settles.  

Cloud cover as a result of increased water vapor?

Too many variables in the real world for the gas in a bottle you describe.


----------



## code1211 (May 25, 2011)

Trakar said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





You are reading the instrument record of the current times vs the proxy temps of the past.  Comparing a progression of climate measured by one method and then switching at any point to different data collection technique invites error.  The proxy temps of current show that the temperature now is lower than in the past.  

Anecdotal evidence supports this as glaciers that are receeding now are receeding to points that they were at many thousands of years ago.

If the receeding glaciers of today are put forth to prove warming, then the proof that they advanced from points we are now at at a point in the past has to be, by the same logic, that the climate at that time was dropping and has remained low until now.

If that is the case, and it is, then this is far from being an Anthropogenically induced departure from the normal state of things.  If anything, this would show that we are simply riding the global and natural cycle of climate variation.

Ötzi the Iceman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Trakar (May 25, 2011)

code1211 said:


> All of this sounds very scientific and logical.
> 
> However, the current warming period that we are enjoying and which followed the Little Ice Age started before the Industrial Revolution...



In order to keep your statement scientific and logical, either the previous warming had to end to start "the Little Ice Age," or the LIA was a minor regional event within the previously intiated warming.   



code1211 said:


> That is, it started before the vast burning of Fossil Fuels.  It has continued with some ups and downs at a pretty consistant rate in spite of increasing CO2 levels.



Actually there appears to be both a degree of accuracy, and several incorrect statements in these two sentences. But if you can provide some compelling and verifiable evidences (or references) to support your assertions, I would appreciate the opportunity to examine them.  



> The rate of increase in Global temperature from the year 0 to the year 1000 was greater than the increase from the year 1001 to the year 2000.  Climate can and has changed without any input from man's burning of Fossil fuels.



again, a curious mixture of what appears to be accurate (the last sentence) and what seems to be irrelevent and/or inaccurate, but please provide the evidences/references which you feel compellingly supports your assertions.



> The Scenarios and the resulting predictions put forth by Dr. James Hansen in 1988 were based on the theories that you promote above and were wrong.



Please demonstrate and support the errors you perceive or the published peer citations of the papers which refute Dr Hansen's work. 



> If Hansen's predictions had been based on calcualtionns that I could have done on a bar napkin with a ball point point pen a list of the average temperatures since 1880, I would have produced a more accurate prediction.



Please link to your personal journal published research which supports the above assertions


----------



## skookerasbil (May 25, 2011)

A vast majority of real American males do not want to be caught dead driving one of these gay vehicles that Rocks and Thunder tool around in..................


----------



## boedicca (May 25, 2011)

Puh-leeeze, his proper name is TrollingBlunder.


----------



## Trakar (May 25, 2011)

code1211 said:


> We seem to be about 16 degrees cooler right now than we were about 50 million years ago.
> 
> Conservationists of that age would be panicking over how cold the Earth is right now.



Around 50 million years ago, we were in the midst of a GHG induced planetary thermal maximum extinction event, similar, but generally of a lesser magnitude than the one we are currently inducing upon the planet's climate. Actual measurements indicate that the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) was between 4° and 8°C (7.2° - 14.4° F) it took a few 100K years to return to (pre)historical norms after it peaked.

Here's a bit more information on that event if you'd like to figure out whats in store for the next few 100s of thousands of years on our planet, if we don't get our act together pretty quickly:

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: A Perturbation of Carbon Cycle, Climate, and Biosphere with Implications for the Future - http://973.geobiology.cn/photo/2011050939692101.pdf

After looking at these, it is important to remember that these circumstances were caused by a temp. change of 4-8°C over 10,000 years, we may well see that happen over the next 60-70 years,...and that's just the beginning.


----------



## Trakar (May 25, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Is there an experiment that builds in the varying other components of the Climate system along with the effects of CO2?  I'm guessing that the recent eruption of the volcano in Iceland will produce a drop in temperature readings in that area of the world in the near term and and an increase in the albedo in the months to come as the ash settles.
> 
> Cloud cover as a result of increased water vapor?
> 
> Too many variables in the real world for the gas in a bottle you describe.



There are sophisticated modellings and they are produced and refined on a regular basis each new model and refinement includes the additions of new understandings and new considerations
.
The Iceland volcano did not produce any significant regional or global cooling, due to both the nature of its emissions and the manner of its eruption (Low sulfur, and more of a "belching" than the Strato-volcanic blasts that send much of their gas and dust into the upper stratosphere.


Predicting the Future with Climate Models - Models Predict the Future

Hotter or not? Should we believe model predictions of future climate change? - http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08significance.pdf

Iceland's volcanic eruption will not affect climate patterns - Iceland&#039;s volcanic eruption will not affect climate patterns | Homeland Security News Wire


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> A vast majority of real American males do not want to be caught dead driving one of these gay vehicles that Rocks and Thunder tool around in..................







Urban Dictionary: penis car
penis car 

Any flashy, expensive, and/or fast car that a  man uses to make up for his small cock. Penis cars can also have big  rims, big sound systems, expensive interier, and so on. Ferraris,  Bugattis, Corvettes, Porsches, Dodge Vipers, Lamborghinis and Hummers  are all penis cars. If you have a penis car, you should trade it in for a  mid-size truck, but not a huge on as huge trucks are also penis cars.  owners of penis cars are usually caught wearing tight jeans, white  cowboy hats and American flag button down shirts.


----------



## Trakar (May 25, 2011)

code1211 said:


> You are reading the instrument record of the current times vs the proxy temps of the past.  Comparing a progression of climate measured by one method and then switching at any point to different data collection technique invites error.  The proxy temps of current show that the temperature now is lower than in the past.



It is certainly the case that if one is using one method and then aburptly switches to another method, that extreme care must be employed to insure the integrity of the data and the projections made from such data. This simply isn't an issue with the graph in question which employs a multitude of proxies for pre-instrument data, and in fact does not quit using much of the proxy data during the transition to modern data representations, it merely overlays and highlights the instrument measurements because we are certain of their degree of precision and accuracy. Now it is rare that proxy information is used for the most modern data points (those of the last 50 years or so), primarily because we have much greater coverage and precision with the instrument data. This said, climate science isn't resting on past accomplishments and is continually looking for new pre-instrument proxies and testing and refining the reliability and accuracies of all proxy measurements and benchmarking them against the instrument standards. 
I am certainly no expert on the broad spectrum of proxies, but I am familiar with the overall procedures and processes, so if there is any specific and particular proxy issues that you would care to discuss in more detail I would be happy to share my understandings and provide references for my understandings where possible. 



> Anecdotal evidence supports this as glaciers that are receeding now are receeding to points that they were at many thousands of years ago.
> 
> If the receeding glaciers of today are put forth to prove warming, then the proof that they advanced from points we are now at at a point in the past has to be, by the same logic, that the climate at that time was dropping and has remained low until now.
> 
> ...



The global average records are what they are, but there are issues that many forget about when looking at issues like Otzi. It must be understood that regional warmings and coolings happen despite global trends and events. Issues like the Medieval Optimum and the LIA clearly demonstrate that regional and even hemispheric anomalies occassionaly buck the global trends causing some areas to experience decades or even centuries worth of cooling or warming, while the overall planetary trend is different. 

And of course, regardless of records of the past. We understand and can demonstrate the atmospheric "greenhouse effect," we can measure the precise levels of GHGs in the atmosphere, and we can compellingly demonstrate with multiple lines of evidence precisely where those gases are coming from. So even if we throw out ever bit of mountain range of evidences prior to 1800. We can still compellingly support and demonstrate the scientific basis of AGW, its causes, its ultimate results and the needed actions to remediate the worst of its potential impacts.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


That is because it is very scientific and logical. The reason that you are unable to appreciate that fact is because you're an anti-science, illogical,  bamboozled, confused, ignorant, and apparently rather stupid dupe of the fossil fuel industry and their propaganda campaign to deny anthropogenic global warming/climate changes, prevent any effective governmental action to restrict carbon emissions and thus preserve their trillion dollar a year profit stream that flows from the sales of carbon emitting fossil fuels.






code1211 said:


> However, the current warming period that we are enjoying and which followed the Little Ice Age started before the Industrial Revolution.  That is, it started before the vast burning of Fossil Fuels.  It has continued with some ups and downs at a pretty consistant rate in spite of increasing CO2 levels.


That's a good sample of the kind of misinformation and lies that you've swallowed. Global average temperatures were fairly stable for the last six thousand years and only varied by about a half a degree centigrade up or down over that period. The current abrupt warming began about the time of the Industrial Revolution and the rate of warming has itself increased, almost doubling in the last 50 years.

*Is the climate warming?*
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Climatic Data Center
*Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.*




code1211 said:


> The rate of increase in Global temperature from the year 0 to the year 1000 was greater than the increase from the year 1001 to the year 2000.


Another bit of misinformation that has no support in the scientific literature. 

*Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years*
(excerpts)

*A new peer-reviewed study by climatologists and earth scientists Michael Mann, Zhihua Zhang, Malcolm Hughes, Raymond Bradley, Sonya Miller, Scott Rutherford, and Fenbiao Ni now extends the reconstruction back nearly 2000 years:






Here is link to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. The Supplemental Material is here (warning, big PDF). I have also taken some of the PDF figures and turn them into JPEGs. For the first ever, I believe, the authors did a multi-proxy reconstruction of the Southern Hemisphere for the past 1500 years (see figure at end).

A key advance of the new work is that it derives historical temperature through multiple, overlapping proxy records, including the growth patterns of trees and coral, the contents of ice cores and sediments, and temperature fluctuations in boreholes. Proxies are used because modern scientific instruments were available for only a small and recent part of Earths climatic history.

Ten years ago the estimates for earlier centuries were really primarily reliant on just one sort of information: tree ring measurements, said Mann of Pennsylvania State University.

    To satisfy the critics, we now have enough other sources that we can achieve meaningful reconstructions back a thousand years without tree ring data, and we get more or less the same answerthat global warming is not mainly due to natural variability.​
What are the papers main conclusions?

Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.​
The bottom line from Mann:

"You can go back nearly 2,000 years and the conclusion still holdsthe current warmth is anomalous. The burst of warming over the past one to two decades takes us out of the envelope of natural variability."​*






code1211 said:


> Climate can and has changed without any input from man's burning of Fossil fuels.


That's true but so what? That fact does not mean that the climate isn't changing now because of mankind's burning of fossil fuels. Your argument makes about as much sense as saying that because forest fires happened naturally in the past, then mankind's actions can't possibly be responsible for any now.







code1211 said:


> The Scenarios and the resulting predictions put forth by Dr. James Hansen in 1988 were based on the theories that you promote above and were wrong.


Wow, codlicker, you manage to be wrong about just about everything. But that's what you get for keeping your head shoved so far up Rush Limpdick's ass.

*Climate Models*
(excerpts)

*Climate Models and the Past

        Dr. James E. Hansen used current theories based on greenhouse gases, changes in solar, volcanic, ozone, land use and aerosol concentrations to create temperature reconstruction of the last 130 years.  Hansen's model is shown below as the black line.  The blue line with stars is the actual temperature data we have.  As you can see the model reflects the observed temperature data very well.  This is very strong proof that the models do in fact work.  What is especially striking is the fact that the models "are not statistical, but are physical in nature."  Statistical models use training data to find correlations.  For example a batting average in baseball is based off of ones batting history.  This can be used as a statistical model to predict the future.  A physical model of a player at bat would likely use equations based on the velocity of the baseball, force of the swing, etc and ignore the players batting history.  The climate models used by the IPCC and NASA are not statistical models.  NASA's climate models make their predictions based off of the laws of physics.  Since the models are based off of physics comparing them to the past is almost as good as testing them with predictions of the future.  Another advantage of physical models over statistical models is best described by physicist Ulf Bossel: "the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes."  There may be gaps in our knowledge but once a mechanism is understood the physics used to describe that mechanism is not going to change.





Fig 1. Source: Hansen et al. 2005 doi:10.1126/science.1110252.

Past Attempts of Climate Models to Predict the Future

        On June 23, 1988 James Hansen testified in front of congress on global warming.   Hansen said he could state "with 99% confidence" that a long-term warming trend was underway, and he strongly suspected that the greenhouse effect was to blame. He provided the following graph as part of his Congressional testimony on global warming. (Figure 2)   So fast forwarding 20 years later Hansen releases an updated version of his graph in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences "Global temperature change".  (Figure 3) Again his models are very accurate.   

Hansen's Original 1988 Graph of Predictions




Fig 2. Hansen and Lebedeff, 1988 

Hansen's 2006 Graph Confirming 1988 Predictions




Fig 3. Source: PNAS, Hansen et al. 103 (39): 14288. (2006)

Other Climactic Behaviors and Mechanisms Correctly Predicted & Reconstructed by the Models

Most notable is that the models have not only correctly predicted temperature trends but they've predicted how the earth will change.  The following is a list of successful predictions made by the models:

Models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;

    Models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere.  For a while satellite readings seemed to disagree but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors due to changing orbit (gravity pulling on satellite), sensor issues, etc and on correction, this warming has been observed;
Mears et al, Santer et al and Sherwood et al show that the discrepancy has been mostly resolved, in favor of the models.

    Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed.

    Models have successfully reconstructed ocean heat content. (Fig 6)

    Models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;

    Models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this; (Figure 7)

    Models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;  (Figure 8)

Models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and as you can see from figures 2 & 3, they have had a very good track record.*


***


----------



## skookerasbil (May 26, 2011)

*THIS is a penis car...............a BIG ASS PENIS CAR......................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYIZ9tCTloo&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - &#x202a;2003 Ford Mustang Cobra Burnout&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

a must have once in your life. ( not intended to be driven by limpwristers)*


----------



## edthecynic (May 26, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> *THIS is a penis car...............a BIG ASS PENIS CAR......................
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;2003 Ford Mustang Cobra Burnout&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> a must have once in your life. ( not intended to be driven by limpwristers)*


Only intended to be driven by limppenisers.


----------



## daveman (May 26, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > *THIS is a penis car...............a BIG ASS PENIS CAR......................
> ...



Is this your idea of a manly vehicle?


----------



## edthecynic (May 26, 2011)

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


This is!


----------



## daveman (May 26, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The louder the pipes, the smaller the penis.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 26, 2011)

Find me a little gay SMARTCAR on the road and I'll show you a smug, feminine male driving it who is involved in scores of "causes" in their lives. These are the people who got picked last for the team and nobody gave a shit whether or not they came to the party or not. For them, a meaningful interaction with a woman was them saying, "What size bra do you wear?"........and now, all growed up..........they must make a statement to get attention...."Im part of a 'cause'."

Human behavior is very predictable.........and much more than people realize.


Seriously..........would ANYBODY be shocked to find out this is a pic of Rolling Thunder or Rockls???


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> *THIS is a penis car...............a BIG ASS PENIS CAR......................
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;2003 Ford Mustang Cobra Burnout&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> a must have once in your life. ( not intended to be driven by limpwristers)*



Really? Why? I helped build a 396 Chevelle that would shut down that lead sled. And that was 40 years ago. Now here is a fast car. 

Welcome to Plasma Boy Racing, home of White Zombie, the world's quickest street legal electric door slammer in the 1/4 mile drag.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > *THIS is a penis car...............a BIG ASS PENIS CAR......................
> ...




LMAO.......again.

High 11's???

We build Fox Body Mustangs that run in the 11's for less than $10,000. That Cobra in the video above runs in the 9's with slicks. And that pos electric car has a top speed of 129mph.......not TOOOOOOOOOOO fcuking funny.


396 Chevelle vs TT Cobra Terminator. LMBO.......no 396 Chevelle is running low 10's without a 200 shot of nitrous. But oh.......let me guess...........40 years ago, that 396 was running spray??!!!


Rocks.......you are such a fcukking fraud and you know it.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2011)

10.258 ET    And it is street legal and driven on the street. Next up, 9's. And it will still be driven to the drags, not towed.

http://nedra.com/


----------



## edthecynic (May 26, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Why was my Sportster photo censored?
Is this one acceptable?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 26, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Seriously..........would ANYBODY be shocked to find out this is a pic....



Yeah, seriously kooker......


----------



## Oddball (May 26, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY]YouTube - &#x202a;The 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## boedicca (May 26, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously..........would ANYBODY be shocked to find out this is a pic....
> ...





Wow.  TrollingBlunder posted a pic of himself.


----------



## Trakar (May 26, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> ...
> We build Fox Body Mustangs that run in the 11's for less than $10,000. That Cobra in the video above runs in the 9's with slicks. And that pos electric car has a top speed of 129mph.......not TOOOOOOOOOOO fcuking funny.
> 
> 
> 396 Chevelle vs TT Cobra Terminator. LMBO.......no 396 Chevelle is running low 10's without a 200 shot of nitrous. But oh.......let me guess...........40 years ago, that 396 was running spray??!!!:



Actually, nitrous was fairly common back in the mid-late 70s (which was pretty close to 40 years ago). The injection methods were generally pretty crude, but like manual cutouts that would allow you to temporarily slide your exhaust travellers down, clearing your headers bypassing the mufflers giving you straight pipes,...it worked good enough. Combine this with a good piece of Detroit big block iron like a 440 or 455 both of which had plenty of cylinder thickness to overbore, a good 3/4" racing cam package and if you managed to save up some money a nice low profile, Paxton blower, and a Hurst planetary tranny to send all that power to the wheels and low 10s would never push you over $5K unless you were paying someone to do it for you. Of course, I'm sure inflation pushes that up into the same range you are talking about. I just wish we had modern rubber back then. The difference in tires over the last 40 years is tremendous!! Ah, the days when gas was 37cents a gallon, Camel straights were 40cents a pack and the only reason you wore a raincoat was to keep from having to get married,...but times and considerations change, and we either grow with them or we get left in the past.

None of this means that you can't go fast greenly, the torque and top end in electric motors far outstrips any ICE, the only problem currently is in getting an energy storage system that can compete with the chemical energy storage of gasoline, and its getting there, but its not there yet.


----------



## Trakar (May 26, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Is this one acceptable?



Completely, though personally, if we're looking at the new ones, I'd prefer the Fatboy lo or the Rocker - C, but that's just me, I was always more partial to the soft tails than the sportsters. So what do you get in mileage 40-50mpg? definitely better than most cages.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 26, 2011)

boedicca said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



No, bowedbydick, that one was the kookster. But just so you don't feel left out, I found a good picture of you dressed up for a night on the town.


----------



## code1211 (May 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > You are reading the instrument record of the current times vs the proxy temps of the past.  Comparing a progression of climate measured by one method and then switching at any point to different data collection technique invites error.  The proxy temps of current show that the temperature now is lower than in the past.
> ...





We can indeed.  We can also compellingly demonstrate that predicted outcomes of those Scientific bases deviates from the actual performance of the climate.

One must wonder if the actual performance is wrong or if the predictions are wrong.


----------



## code1211 (May 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > We seem to be about 16 degrees cooler right now than we were about 50 million years ago.
> ...




Actually, the "beginning is the rise of temperature over the last 2000 years which is 0.7 degrees.


----------



## code1211 (May 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > You are reading the instrument record of the current times vs the proxy temps of the past.  Comparing a progression of climate measured by one method and then switching at any point to different data collection technique invites error.  The proxy temps of current show that the temperature now is lower than in the past.
> ...




Otzi's body was found on bare ground where he sat down to die.  The snow fell around him and a glacier formed over him.  It stayed there for 5000 years.

Are charchterizing a 5000 year old persistant glacier as a regional anomoly which acted in varience to the temperature of the globe?


----------



## code1211 (May 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > All of this sounds very scientific and logical.
> ...





RealClimate: Hansen&#8217;s 1988 projections

This is a link to Realclimate which is a proponent of the AGW Theory and tries valiantly to show that Hansen was not wrong.  They fail.

In business, there are methods of reviewing performance against historicals and projections.  Deviation from the prediction must be quantified.  For ease of description, a plan or a budget coul be called a path.  Actual performance vs the path could be described as a drunk stumbling down the path.  The degree of deviation from the path is what triggers corrective action and the degree of the correction needed.

In business it is valuable to understand both what the deviation is and what the causes of the devaiation might be.  Since contol of reaction to deviation is the goal in business, any chart of deviation must organize the data and average it to determine a baseline.  

Organizing the data from greatest to least and identifying the mean allows a manager to create both the upper control and lower control limits.  Any data outliers will be exposed as anomolies and the other bits of data will fit in or expose the areas that need to be addressed.

So, by taking all temperature data and arranging it from greatest to least will describe the mean.  Adding the avaialble temps and averaging gives a base line within any measured time span.  Multiplying the mean by pi gives the upper and lower control limits.

By doing this, a graph of temperatures will be created that shows a gradual rise and, with some variences, a pretty consistant rate of rise.

This method, which is simple and standard throughout the business world, a world in which accurate measurements are critical to success since the theory means little and the outcome means all, produces time and again an accurate and dependable guide to the amount of and intensity of response to any problem.

It also is a more accurate predictor of temperature than Hansen's models and is what I was referring to as the "back of the napkin" calculation.  Because the temperatures leading up to 1988 from 1880 created an identifiable "path", extending that path into the future is all that was required to accurately predict the temperature in 2010.

It works!

Hansen's method did not.


----------



## daveman (May 26, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> No, bowedbydick, that one was the kookster. But just so you don't feel left out, I found a good picture of you dressed up for a night on the town.



Your masterful use of language and logic have nearly convinced me of the rightness of your views.  I'm considering buying a Prius.


----------



## boedicca (May 26, 2011)

Things are going to get more interesting soon:

_A conservative group granted access to controversial climate change research documents from the University of Virginia on Wednesday says it will post those documents on the Internet, a move that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said wouldn't necessarily lead him to drop legal action seeking similar documents.

"Anything we get we are going to post," said David Schnare, an attorney for the American Tradition Institute, which filed a Freedom of Information Act request in January seeking documents related to former U.Va. professor Michael Mann, whose research on climate change has drawn the ire of global warming skeptics.

A Prince William County judge this week ordered the university to turn over documents the university believes are subject to public disclosure by Aug. 22. A separate order requires the university to allow the group to review documents it believes are exempt from public disclosure by Sept. 21.

The institute secured the release of documents similar to the ones denied to Cuccinelli by the courts last year. Cuccinelli said he needed the documents to determine if Mann defrauded taxpayers by taking state funds for his academic work...._

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Judge orders U.Va. to release climate research documents | David Sherfinski | Virginia | Washington Examiner


----------



## RollingThunder (May 26, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > We understand and can demonstrate the atmospheric "greenhouse effect," we can measure the precise levels of GHGs in the atmosphere, and we can compellingly demonstrate with multiple lines of evidence precisely where those gases are coming from. So even if we throw out ever bit of mountain range of evidences prior to 1800. We can still compellingly support and demonstrate the scientific basis of AGW, its causes, its ultimate results and the needed actions to remediate the worst of its potential impacts.
> ...



That's your denier cult delusion but it has no basis in reality. The predictions of the climate scientists have proved to be pretty accurate. I've already been over this on this thread but I guess your reading comprehension is as retarded as everything else about you. So here it is again, post #84



RollingThunder said:


> *Climate Models*
> (excerpts)
> 
> *Climate Models and the Past
> ...


----------



## daveman (May 26, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Things are going to get more interesting soon:
> 
> _A conservative group granted access to controversial climate change research documents from the University of Virginia on Wednesday says it will post those documents on the Internet, a move that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said wouldn't necessarily lead him to drop legal action seeking similar documents.
> 
> ...


Odd, isn't it, that an endeavor that utterly relies on the open and free exchange of information to be successful (all the more so since the subject in question has such dire import for all of humanity) must be forced by a court to show how it's conducting business?  

Very odd indeed.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 26, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Actually, the "beginning is the rise of temperature over the last 2000 years which is 0.7 degrees.



That's even more retardedly wrong than is usual for you, codlicker.

World average temperatures varied somewhat over the last two thousand years but the long term trend was pretty flat for most of that time until the start of the current rapid increases in the 1800's. The temperature increases have accelerated over the last 40 years and the rate of increase is increasing. Temperatures have risen about 1.4 degrees F over the twentieth century with the majority of that increase happening over the last 40 years.

*According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average.

    According to the Global Historical Climatology Network, 2010 was the wettest year on record, in terms of global average precipitation.

All 12 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1997.*





*Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia* - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 13252-13257, 2008.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 26, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Otzi's body was found on bare ground where he sat down to die.  The snow fell around him and a glacier formed over him.  It stayed there for 5000 years.
> 
> Are charchterizing(sic) a 5000 year old persistant(sic) glacier as a regional anomoly(sic) which acted in varience(sic) to the temperature of the globe?



Just more of your ignorant idiocy, codlicker. The glaciers have been there in about the present form since the end of the last period of glaciation 12,000 years ago. Glaciers do advance and retreat a little over time naturally and there was a time 5 or 6 thousand years ago when it was locally a bit warmer in the Swiss Alps and there was a little bit of glacial retreat, not _disappearance_. A glacier nearby to the pass that 'Otzi' was trying to cross had retreated slightly making the pass passable and then the glacier advanced again. At least that's what the scientists think who studied him.

Of course as the glaciers melt, anything that was originally lost in the snow at the top will wind up on the ground. 'Otzi' could also have died crossing an extension of the glacier, his body was then frozen and buried in the falling snow and his body simple sank down to the ground as the ice melted away. Your denier cult fantasies about the matter are really silly and based only on your own total ignorance of science, history, geology and how the physical world actually works.

*Valais ice monsters surrender human remains*
Aug 4, 2009
(excerpts)

*The steady drip-drip-drip of melting glaciers in the southern canton of Valais is having unexpected, often macabre, results: an increasing emergence of human remains.

At the end of July a mitten, a 40-year-old camera and a human bone were recovered in one location on the spectacular Gorner glacier above Zermatt.

According to Patrick Rovina, a scientific expert with the Valais cantonal police, such discoveries are a growing phenomenon.

"Over recent years with the retreat of the glaciers automatically things inside start appearing," he told swissinfo.ch. "Last year we had five cases with human bones like this one."

Bruno Jelk, head of the rescue services at Air Zermatt, confirmed this trend.

"People tell us they have found bones, old skis, clothes and other objects," he explained, adding that full skeletons have previously been found near the Matterhorn or on the Gorner glacier.

The Gorner glacier shrank by 290 metres between 2007 and 2008, according to scientists at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.*


----------



## code1211 (May 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...




We know that Hansen could not predict the future of what climate will do.  You are now saying that Hansen can predict the past of what climate did do?

This a joke, right?

Does he also have a fool proof system to predict what horses already won the Kentucky Derby?  How about a model that predicts what the Stock Market did in the past.  Can he predict who won the Super Bowls over the last 25 years?

Let's take the points and the Chiefs in Super Bowl IV.  

My God!  We'll all be rich!


----------



## code1211 (May 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the "beginning is the rise of temperature over the last 2000 years which is 0.7 degrees.
> ...






Again comparing instrument record to the proxy record and calling it science.

Interesting spin on propaganda.

If you are looking to cherry pick data, then do so and call it what it is.  If you are looking to consistantly measure a trend using consistanly collected data, then do that.

Mixing the two is just an exercise in salesmanship.


----------



## boedicca (May 27, 2011)

And the moronic TrollingBlunder posted a graph showing changes since the end of the Little Ice Age.  Of course it's gone warmer.  We should all be happy about that, as the warming improved agricultural productivity.


----------



## code1211 (May 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Otzi's body was found on bare ground where he sat down to die.  The snow fell around him and a glacier formed over him.  It stayed there for 5000 years.
> ...





Of course you are right and those who observed the site saying that he was leaning against the rocks where he was found when he died and rigor set in and that his ax was leaning against the rock where he placed it must be wrong.

Do you ever get tired of reaching the wrong conclusion?  Occam's razor tells us that the simplest conclusion is usually the right one.  You are saying that warm pocket came into being and melted a glacier with surgical precision and that ol' Otzi happened upon the briefly exposed ground and died.  

OR

That Otzi died on the top of the glacier and then through millenia of melting and re-freezing dropped through the glacier to come to rest in a posture and in a place that made it appear that he sat down on the bare ground and died.


Several proxies from around the world indicate that the temperature was higher at that time.  Anecdotal evidence suggests the same.  The posture and placement of Otzi says the same.

However, you and your agenda, passionately assert that only you are right despite the clear evidence to the contrary.  You should keep pursuing science.  Someday you might catch it.


File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## edthecynic (May 27, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Again comparing instrument record to the proxy record and calling it science.
> 
> Interesting spin on propaganda.
> 
> ...


Where the proxy data overlaps the direct instrument measurements, the proxy data is quite inaccurate. Proxy data is essentially worthless.


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Just more of your ignorant idiocy, codlicker. The glaciers have been there in about the present form since the end of the last period of glaciation 12,000 years ago. Glaciers do advance and retreat a little over time naturally and there was a time 5 or 6 thousand years ago when it was locally a bit warmer in the Swiss Alps and there was a little bit of glacial retreat, not _disappearance_. A glacier nearby to the pass that 'Otzi' was trying to cross had retreated slightly making the pass passable and then the glacier advanced again. At least that's what the scientists think who studied him.
> 
> Of course as the glaciers melt, anything that was originally lost in the snow at the top will wind up on the ground. 'Otzi' could also have died crossing an extension of the glacier, his body was then frozen and buried in the falling snow and his body simple sank down to the ground as the ice melted away. Your denier cult fantasies about the matter are really silly and based only on your own total ignorance of science, history, geology and how the physical world actually works...



Actually, this makes some sense, as glaciers move and if Otzi had been at the base of a glacier as it formed, or run over by a formed glacier there really wouldn't have been much to find, at least not a well preserved and virtually pristine corpse. I routinely retrieve "glacier gold" and one of the hallmarks of this type of gold it that it is flattened and crushed from being in amongst the gravel that is scraped up and carried along at the base of thick glacier ices. Even if we are just talking an ice cap feature rather than the slow moving rivers of ice that are glaciers, the weight of even a few tens of feet of ice would have crushed his frozen body flat. Ice weighs about 57 lbs/cubic foot. A column of ice 2 foot wide, 6 foot long, and 30 foot tall would be about 10 tons, more than enough to crush all the boney structures with voids and snap levered joints (skull, rib cage and all the small feature processes) and smash the frozen flesh, and yet none of this is indicated in the "Otzi" body.


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Again comparing instrument record to the proxy record and calling it science.
> ...



The thing about most proxy data is that it is imprecise exactly because it is an indirect measurement. Take tree-ring data, yes, warmer years tend to produce more growth (wider rings) than colder years, but there are also other factors that increase growth, such as more water, more CO2, etc.,. SOmetimes these factors work in conjunction to amplify each other, sometimes these factors are at odds with each other (ie a warm but dry season). That is why, the best pre-instrument assessments use lots of different types of proxies and then look for averages across the range.


----------



## Metzor (May 27, 2011)

boedicca said:


> And the moronic TrollingBlunder posted a graph showing changes since the end of the Little Ice Age.  Of course it's gone warmer.  We should all be happy about that, as the warming improved agricultural productivity.


I see that you're still kickin' liberal ass. I'm gonna start posting more here.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2011)

Metzor said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > And the moronic TrollingBlunder posted a graph showing changes since the end of the Little Ice Age.  Of course it's gone warmer.  We should all be happy about that, as the warming improved agricultural productivity.
> ...


Neither of you morons know your ass from a hole in the ground. Intellectually, both of you put together have about as much chance of kicking anyone's ass as a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest with lumberjacks.


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Just more of your ignorant idiocy, codlicker. The glaciers have been there in about the present form since the end of the last period of glaciation 12,000 years ago. Glaciers do advance and retreat a little over time naturally and there was a time 5 or 6 thousand years ago when it was locally a bit warmer in the Swiss Alps and there was a little bit of glacial retreat, not _disappearance_. A glacier nearby to the pass that 'Otzi' was trying to cross had retreated slightly making the pass passable and then the glacier advanced again. At least that's what the scientists think who studied him.
> ...




Which is why the experts think that he was encased in snow and then frozen under the ice as the snow turned to ice around him.  He seems to have made it to a bit of an alcove before finally succumbing.

If he had died atop the glacier and then descended by the melting and refreezing, wouldn't that expose him more to the crushing and grinding effects that you describe than simply being frozen in place within an alcove.

What are the chances that he and his ax wold have descended to the same alcove in the rock through the ice?


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


Which gives you an average of impreciseness. 

But deniers use them as precise measurements to compare to direct instrument measurements and claim that temps were warmer in the past if the proxy data imprecisely says so.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2011)

Actually, by the average of the proxies, the MWP was not warming than at present. Only in a few places, the rest of the world was quite a bit cooler, by about 0.5 C.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2011)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > No, bowedbydick, that one was the kookster. But just so you don't feel left out, I found a good picture of you dressed up for a night on the town.
> ...


Which color do you think I should get, RT?  White, so it's cooler in the summer; or black, so it's warmer in the winter?


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



In general, the disingenuous use of proxy data involves the use of a single proxy from select isolated areas that fit a predetermined range of data, while excluding the data from other proxies at the same locations and data from their selected proxy at other locations that contradict or do not support their pre-selected result range.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

code1211 said:


> ...We know that Hansen could not predict the future of what climate will do.  You are now saying that Hansen can predict the past of what climate did do?...



Please provide the verifiable and objectively compelling evidences you are aware of that you feel support these assertions.


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > ...We know that Hansen could not predict the future of what climate will do.  You are now saying that Hansen can predict the past of what climate did do?...
> ...




The support was in the presentations above of the 1988 scenarios and resulting projections.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

code1211 said:


> ...Which is why the experts think that he was encased in snow and then frozen under the ice as the snow turned to ice around him.  He seems to have made it to a bit of an alcove before finally succumbing.
> 
> If he had died atop the glacier and then descended by the melting and refreezing, wouldn't that expose him more to the crushing and grinding effects that you describe than simply being frozen in place within an alcove.
> 
> What are the chances that he and his ax wold have descended to the same alcove in the rock through the ice?



Can you link or reference the information you are relying upon?

As I understand the process that is being referred to, the body would have been in the upper layers of ice and then as the ice and snow melted, the body was lowered into the underlying rocky surface features. If this is what happened, it would be reasonable that any objects that fell to the snow around him as he died would have roughly followed him as he descended. If, as you are suggesting, he found an exposed alcove of rock which later froze over, that would have protected him from the weight and movement of ice around him. However, if we are talking about a glacier, the mechanics are much more complicated as there is the compression melt at the bases of glaciers which is what lubricates and actually allows glaciers to move. So positing glaciers into the equation complicates him being at or near solid ground beneath the bulk of ice and snow for the last 5000 or so years. I would really have to spend some time with the involved topology and observations of the area over the last couple of centuries to make a more informed assessment of the situation. We know that he was attacked twice before he died, once about a day before he died, and then again within hours of his death. So it makes sense that he was rushing into an area that he perceived would be inaccessible or difficult for those hunting him to follow.

While all of this is interesting to contemplate I'm not really sure how this relates to AGW. AGW does not say that the only reason climate can or does change, regionally or globally is because of the actions of Man. All that AGW says is that we have identified human activities that are currently the primary forcing factors in the current episode of global climate change.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Here is a link to Hansen et al (1988) paper, if you would care to point out the projections from the paper that you feel are grossly incorrect or improper, we can evaluate and assess the issue in more detail.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


You imagine that you "_know_" that but that is just another one of your many delusions. The material I just showed you demonstrates that Dr. Hansen was pretty accurate in his predictions. 




code1211 said:


> You are now saying that Hansen can predict the past of what climate did do?


No, dumbass, I just showed you that the climate models are very good at hindcasting, in this case where the climate info from the beginning of the twentieth century was fed into the computer climate model and the model tried to 'predict' what would happen over the course of the century and this result was compared to what actually happened. It is a demonstration of the validity of the model's basic assumptions about the physics involved and an affirmation that the models are very probably pretty accurate in their forecasts of future climate trends.






code1211 said:


> This a joke, right?


Well, in reality, all of your posts are "_a joke_", but I sometimes do you the courtesy of responding to them anyway.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


No, that's not my contention. Were you unable to comprehend the first paragraph in my response? Did you miss the citation to the scientists who studied him? Here it is again then.
"*The glaciers have been there in about the present form since the end of the last period of glaciation 12,000 years ago. Glaciers do advance and retreat a little over time naturally and there was a time 5 or 6 thousand years ago when it was locally a bit warmer in the Swiss Alps and there was a little bit of glacial retreat, not disappearance. A glacier nearby to the pass that 'Otzi' was trying to cross had retreated slightly making the pass passable and then the glacier advanced again. At least that's what the scientists think who studied him."*

It is your idiotic contention that the glaciers were gone 5000 years ago and "_a glacier formed over him_" that is wrong.

Excerpts from the article I cited:

"The unremarkable journey through the Schnidejoch pass, a lofty trail 2,756 metres (9,000 feet) above sea level, has been a boon to scientists. But it would never have emerged if climate change were not melting the *nearby* glacier.

"We know that people were only able to walk on this site when it was relatively warm," said Martin Grosjean, executive director of a national network called Swiss Climate Research. "When it was too cold, *the glacier advanced* and it was not a passable route."

Those scientists think that a nearby glacier has retreated during a relatively warm spell and then it advanced again. It is a known fact that glaciers advance and retreat and that they have always done so in response to relatively minor temperature changes but the current situation is that the great majority of glaciers worldwide are retreating, shrinking and melting away completely, which hasn't happened for at least tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. Certainly not since the end of the last glaciation.

It is also a known fact, as the other article I cited showed, that things lost in the ice and snow eventually wind up resting on the ground when the ice melts. You denier cultists imagine that whenever some artifacts turn up where the ice has melted, then it must mean that the stuff was on the ground recently and the ice formed over the top of it even more recently but that is just nonsense based on your ignorance and some denier cult propaganda that you've swallowed uncritically. 






code1211 said:


> Do you ever get tired of reaching the wrong conclusion?


I'll let you know if it ever happens. But I can see how that would be a major source of fatigue for you.




code1211 said:


> You are saying that warm pocket came into being and melted a glacier with surgical precision and that ol' Otzi happened upon the briefly exposed ground and died.


Nope, wrong again, codlicker. "_Surgical precision_"....LOLOLOL. Those scientists are saying that they think a nearby glacier had melted back slightly, exposing a route through a pass and then the climate cooled again and snow covered the area again and built back up that small portion of the glacier that had melted back previously. You try to take that and exaggerate it into a claim that "the glaciers had melted 5000 years ago so it must have been warmer then than now" but that is just your denier cult agenda talking, not the science. The glacier was there all along; this is just about some minor variations at one of the edges of the glacier.


----------



## code1211 (May 29, 2011)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Which is why the experts think that he was encased in snow and then frozen under the ice as the snow turned to ice around him.  He seems to have made it to a bit of an alcove before finally succumbing.
> ...




It is interesting and just an example of how, if one is aware of other facts outside of the narrowly focused considerations of the AGW proponents, that the real world can intrude into the musings and provide an entirely different perspective.

Regarding the importance of this:  It has been this warm before during the Halocyne and that level of temperature was achieved with no forcing of the factors cited by the AGW proponents.  During the Halocine we seem to be vacilating in a 2 degree temperature range and are currently right in the middle of that range.

The range of varience in this period, when moving to the cooler has caused catastrophe and when moving to the warmer has allowed our race to prosper.

The unique nature of the find of Otzi reveals that he was not miraculously avoiding the grinding effects of a glacier.  He was coincidentally killed by a foe and found some shelter only to be frozen in his place at the time of his death.  It is celebrated so widely because it is so unique.

It's quite likely that this little drama played out on a near daily basis at the time that Otzi lived, in this one case, the scene was literally frozen in time.


Oetzi the Iceman, tzi the Iceman: His Findspot
In this protected area beneath the glacier, the ice of the glacier moved above the iceman, allowing him to stay securely in place. The glacier began to melt in the 1800s and has continued melting today. Today a monument at the site of the find has been erected.


The Scene of the Find | Ötzi - South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology
 The mummy lay on a large light-coloured granite slab at the western end of the rock formation. This formation protected the find from the enormous forces of the ice,


----------



## code1211 (May 29, 2011)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...




This paper, the one in your link, shows the predictins based on the scenarios.  Without the actual performance of the climate over the years that the prediction covers, the departure from the actual is not exposed.

There are various politically influenced presentations on this topic.  Realclimate is generally recognized as leaning toward the proponent end of the scale of the AGW debate.

In the link below, there is a graph that shows the predictions and the resulting scenarios.  The rise of CO2 for both scenario A and B are virtually identical.  CO2 is the gas that AGW proponents most stridently campaign to limit.  The predictions were made in 1988.

Scenario A rose at twice the rate of actual using the Realclimate data, scenario B is just a tad high and scenario C is right on the money.  The problem is that the CO2 performance is equal to that of Scenario A.

If the graph had been extended, it would show that while the predictions continue to rise, the actual flattens for some years.

Since this is the science upon which the AGW crowd hangs their collective hat, it must be dead on certain.  It is not.  

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif


----------



## code1211 (May 29, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




My, my, my!  We are upset, aren't we?

Regardless of the performance of the climate, it's amusing that I can make your blood's temperature rise to the point of boiling.


----------



## Trakar (May 29, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



That is correct, and you said that Hansen's predictions in this paper were grossly in error. I'm asking you to specifically point out which predictions in this paper you feel to be in error that we may move forward and compare the specific predictions against the temp. record of the last two decades and see how far off Hansen was, in accordance with your assertions. 



> http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg



I've already discussed my issues regarding blog-science, and this goes double for unattributed graphs and assorted "pretty pictures" without accompanying source reference data and preparation methodologies.


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif[/QUOTE]

This seems to be an acceptable piece of evidence, at least in that it is easy to locate and retrieve the information required to verify and duplicate its findings. You do realize that this is a graphical representation of "temperature anomalies" not of absolute temperature differences,...don't you? This is measuring how much above the historic average the temperature was for each month of the covered period. A rough plotting indicates that the rate of anomaly increase is accelerating. This demonstrates the exponential (an accelerating rate of increase - nonlinear) nature of the climate warming we have been experiencing over the last few decades.


----------



## code1211 (May 29, 2011)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



This seems to be an acceptable piece of evidence, at least in that it is easy to locate and retrieve the information required to verify and duplicate its findings. You do realize that this is a graphical representation of "temperature anomalies" not of absolute temperature differences,...don't you? This is measuring how much above the historic average the temperature was for each month of the covered period. A rough plotting indicates that the rate of anomaly increase is accelerating. This demonstrates the exponential (an accelerating rate of increase - nonlinear) nature of the climate warming we have been experiencing over the last few decades.[/QUOTE]



I'm sorry.  Some links source back to the original artical and others don't.  This one did not.  Here is a link to the original article from which it was taken:

RealClimate: Hansen&#8217;s 1988 projections


This pretty picture is a full color version of the black and white one in the paper that you presented without the actual climate perfromance.  The Realclimate article explains pretty specifically that Hansen's projections were right.  This conclusion seems to be in varience to the evidence that they present and certainly in varience to the additional five years of GISS data in the Graph above.

Every erroneous projection is very probably a learning experience like Edison failing to make the light bulb 2000 times before he found a method that worked.

My point is that the science tells us that one thing will happen and another is happening.  In this thread, a displayed model has been created that correctly mimics actual climate history.  One must wonder how many unsuccessful models were tried and revised to finally arrive at this one.  

Revising the inputs to mimic a known outcome is far different than creating a model that actually predicts the future.

To me, it's the difference between the trip that Lewis and Clark took compared to me booking a flight to Seattle...  With or without a big bag of Jawea.


----------



## Metzor (May 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Metzor said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


I know this much, Jackhole. Liberals have been claiming that the planet is doomed for the last hundred years. At this point you have about as much credibility as guys who predict that the end is near or that they saw Sasquatch. Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? Should I consider your ass kicked now or do you want more?


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Another reason it is better to reference published papers and data rather than the second/third-hand blogosphere reconstructions, "translations" and considerations of those papers and data in unaccountable blog postings.



> RealClimate: Hansens 1988 projections
> 
> 
> This pretty picture is a full color version of the black and white one in the paper that you presented without the actual climate perfromance.  The Realclimate article explains pretty specifically that Hansen's projections were right.  This conclusion seems to be in varience to the evidence that they present and certainly in varience to the additional five years of GISS data in the Graph above.
> ...



Reading the blog article and looking at the graphs as they present them, I don't see where the confusing you are discerning comes from, whereas if we were discussing your impressions and the sources of those we could discuss them and either resolve our differences of understanding, or at the least, clearly demonstrate precisely where our understandings differ with regards to specific pieces of information and understanding. This becomes greatly complicated when we start including blog references.

If you are willing to outline, specifically, in Hansen's 1988 paper, which predictions you feel that Hansen was eggregiously in error about. Then we can define exactly what was stated and use the historic record to look at the actual climate data since 1988 and see for ourselves what this tells us.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2011)

Metzor said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Metzor said:
> ...



At the least, you are freely admitting that your opinion concerning climate change issues is based entirely upon politics and your political beliefs and considerations of some of the issue's political implications. 

I can respect that for what it is.

It speaks not to the science, nor even, to a broader understanding of the full potential of physical, as well as socio-economic potentials, but it doesn't pretend to, nor does it seek to deny nor distort other aspects of the issue,...at least not in this post to which I am responding.


----------



## Metzor (May 31, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Metzor said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


It speaks specifically to the history of the issue. Environmentalists have predicted that all kinds of disastrous effects would take place since the early 1900's. None have ever been correct. I refuse to let a few charts and graphs erase 100 years of lies.


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2011)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...




In the links below are the predictions of the Hansen and the actual performance of the climate.

The three scenarios start at about the same point.  1984 is the starting point for the CO2 Readings.  The presentation was made in 1988.  At that point the actual temperature was already lagging the projections by a tad with 1988 being a valley between peaks of 1987 and 1989.

There were three Scenarios and the one that most closely matches the CO2 scenario is B.  If Scenario B is the one we use, then we can look for an increase of .6 degrees between 1988 and today.  What actually happened is an increase of .3 degrees.  His prediction missed actual by 100%.

Simply figuring the relatively steady increase of the temperature over the previous 125 or so years equlas about .19 degrees.  If he had simply averaged the increase to date and projected that, he would have missed by less, about 36% of actual.

Science, if it is based on something reliable, should do better than blind guessing which is pretty much what I just did.

The warming we are currently enjoying started before the Industrial Revolution and has continued through peaks and valleys through today.  To say that Anthropogenic CO2 caused the warming to end the LIA is to say that the future caused the past.   


http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jpg
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2011)

Metzor said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > At the least, you are freely admitting that your opinion concerning climate change issues is based entirely upon politics and your political beliefs and considerations of some of the issue's political implications.
> ...



The history of what particular and specific issue?



> Environmentalists have predicted that all kinds of disastrous effects would take place since the early 1900's.



Who are you labelling "environmentalists" and by what measure do you distinguish them from hunters, fishermen, farmers and outdoorsmen in general? 



> None have ever been correct. I refuse to let a few charts and graphs erase 100 years of lies.



what specific claims of disaster/lies are you referring to?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > If you are willing to outline, specifically, in Hansen's 1988 paper, which predictions you feel that Hansen was eggregiously in error about. Then we can define exactly what was stated and use the historic record to look at the actual climate data since 1988 and see for ourselves what this tells us.
> ...



There is a good starting point, though to be honest I would prefer not to explore a blog post when we have the actual paper itself to go by. I would rather discuss Hansen's own words than some blogger's impressions of the paper and whether or not he properly evaluated the paper and the data which supports or doesn't support that paper. This is especially the case if you are going to dismiss the blogger's assessment regardless of his qualifications to make those assessments. By exploring the actual paper and what it actually says and then comparing those words to the actual data records for the initial periods since those words were published we should be able to see precisely what is going on and where the "predictions" you are concerned about are incorrect or correct.

Do you understand the difference in meaning and application between a "senario" and a "prediction?"



> 1984 is the starting point for the CO2 Readings.



Mauna Loa instrumental atmospheric CO2 measurement readings began in 1958.



> The presentation was made in 1988.  At that point the actual temperature was already lagging the projections by a tad with 1988 being a valley between peaks of 1987 and 1989.



Please explain how the initial start point of a projection can "lag" behind that projection.



> There were three Scenarios and the one that most closely matches the CO2 scenario is B.



Well, there was also the 100-year control run with CO2 levels held at the fixed 1958 level, and while that isn't a "prediction," it gets at the heart of the issue concerning the problems that come from trying to associate and call and think about senarios as if they were "predictions." 

We can discuss the individual senarios in more detail if you'd like, and it would greatly help in the understanding of a term that post dates the 88 Hansen paper, that being the phrase now commonly known by the acronym SRES (Special Report on Emission Scenarios). If we really want to properly understand Hansen's senarios, we need to use his paper and see what it says rather than trying to work with other people's interpretations and considerations.

If you want to go back over what the paper actually says and explore this subject properly, I am more than willing to join you in that exploration, if however, you are only interested in proving or disproving what one blogger has said about another blogger in regards to the first blogger's considerations of the paper,...I'll allow you to continue on that path on your own


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2011)

Warmers are a DoomsDay Cult


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Warmers are a DoomsDay Cult



As a potentially interesting tidbit of information; the term "doomsday" comes from the old English "Domesday" which was the regular census of people and properties of the realm instituted by William the Conquerer around the turn of the first millenia. Tie this to the fact that the purpose of this counting and measuring of people and properties was primarily for the purpose of assessing taxation and the association of the term "domesday" with "dreaded impending events" becomes all the more comprehensible.


----------



## The Gadfly (Jun 1, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Yes, it will matter.  A bit more warming will do wonders for improving the quality of human life just like it did during the Medieval Warming Period.    The mini Ice Age ended in the mid 1880s, and the warming ever since has been very favorable to agriculture.



Yeah, but "The poor Third World is starving", don't you know. We in the evil industrialized West consume way more than them. Waaaaah. It's not fair; how dare we do that! Waaah, we should share their misery; Waaaaah, it's all OUR fault. That about right, Chicken Littles? Have I about covered your pathetic Leftist whining, (which is exactly what this issue is about!). Why did this start, in the leftist realm of academia (guess how many conservatives ever get tenure in these bastions of communist indoctrination?)? Why is it mostly Liberals who push this tree-hugging, the sky-is-falling, we're all gonna die nonsense? A mere cult of Leftist Pseudo-religion, masquerading as science; arrant nonsense, all of it. Maybe if we just ignore them, they'll go away.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 1, 2011)

The Gadfly said:


> Yeah, but "The poor Third World is starving", don't you know. We in the evil industrialized West consume way more than them. Waaaaah. It's not fair; how dare we do that! Waaah, we should share their misery; Waaaaah, it's all OUR fault. That about right, Chicken Littles? Have I about covered your pathetic Leftist whining, (which is exactly what this issue is about!). Why did this start, in the leftist realm of academia (guess how many conservatives ever get tenure in these bastions of communist indoctrination?)? Why is it mostly Liberals who push this tree-hugging, the sky-is-falling, we're all gonna die nonsense? A mere cult of Leftist Pseudo-religion, masquerading as science; arrant nonsense, all of it. Maybe if we just ignore them, they'll go away.



You poor deluded, clueless moron.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 1, 2011)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





You posted a link to the paper by Hansen.  In that paper were the scenarios and based on those scenarios were the predictions.

Page 9347 of you posted link shows the predictions that you dismiss as a blogger's work.

It is his predictions that I find suspect because they are wrong.  All of the theoreticals in the world do not make something right if it's wrong.  The Bloggers presentations are higher on the Google search and are easier to find.  Full color is easier to read.  The graphs are the same however and the results are the results.

1988 actual temp lagged the prediction because the predicted temps had already departed higher.  As I said, though, 1988 was a a valley between the relative peaks of 1987 and 1989.

I am not a scientist and am not qualified to discuss scientific theory, the mathmatics that supports the theory or the reputations of those that do the work.  What I can do is look at the prediction vs the actual.  

If they don't match, either the actual or the prediction is wrong.

Since the actual is actual, when a prediction departs from the actual, it must be the prediction that is wrong.  This is as true in sooth saying and economics as it is in climatology.

If you can show me that Dr. Hansen's predctions based on his scenarios were right, that's great.  It's the results that interest me.  Showing your work is only important in getting the better grade in math class.

Your link:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf


----------



## Metzor (Jun 1, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Metzor said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


----------



## daveman (Jun 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but "The poor Third World is starving", don't you know. We in the evil industrialized West consume way more than them. Waaaaah. It's not fair; how dare we do that! Waaah, we should share their misery; Waaaaah, it's all OUR fault. That about right, Chicken Littles? Have I about covered your pathetic Leftist whining, (which is exactly what this issue is about!). Why did this start, in the leftist realm of academia (guess how many conservatives ever get tenure in these bastions of communist indoctrination?)? Why is it mostly Liberals who push this tree-hugging, the sky-is-falling, we're all gonna die nonsense? A mere cult of Leftist Pseudo-religion, masquerading as science; arrant nonsense, all of it. Maybe if we just ignore them, they'll go away.
> ...


No, he's not an AGW cultist.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 2, 2011)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...



No, he's an ignorant anti-science denier cultist like you, daveboy. Neither of you know the first thing about this issue (or shit from Shinola). You both just parrot some lame bullshit you heard Rush say or got off some dumb-ass denier cult blog. Nothing to gadfluff's post but idiotic slogans and puerile posturing.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Do you understand the difference in meaning and application between a "senario" and a "prediction?"
> ...



You mean the two graphs that are characterized in the paper on that page as: "...fig. 3. Annual-mean global surface air temperature computed for '*senarios*' A, B, and C..."?

You altered the coloring of this response, so I know you read it, but I have to ask again,..."Do you understand the difference in meaning and application between a 'senario' and a 'prediction'?"

Just on the "off-chance" that you are unsure:

AR4 WGI Glossary - Glossary P-Z

Senario: A plausible and often simplified description of how the future may develop, based on a coherent and internally consistent set of assumptions about driving forces and key relationships. Scenarios may be derived from projections, but are often based on additional information from other sources, sometimes combined with a narrative storyline. See also SRES scenarios; Climate scenario; Emission scenario. 

Define prediction | Dictionary and Thesaurus

Extensive Definition - 
A prediction is a statement or claim that a particular event will occur in the future in more certain terms than a forecast. The etymology of this word is Latin (from præ- "before" plus dicere "to say"). Niels Bohr stated "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."


----------



## daveman (Jun 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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


Is this some of that famed liberal tolerance I hear so much about, but rarely see?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 2, 2011)

Why should we suffer fools gladly? Willfull ignorance is ugly in the best of circumstances.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Why should we suffer fools gladly? Willfull ignorance is ugly in the best of circumstances.



Dude, you have to answer how a 60PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 lowers ocean Ph.

Your credibility is on the line


----------



## daveman (Jun 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Why should we suffer fools gladly? Willfull ignorance is ugly in the best of circumstances.


Then quit doin' it!


----------



## The Gadfly (Jun 2, 2011)

daveman said:


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



Why yes....yes, it is.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 2, 2011)

daveman said:


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



Translation: 'Aren't you guys supposed to be nice to retards like us?'. LOLOLOL.

No, bozo, 'liberals' don't need to 'tolerate' ignorant, obstructionist tools of the fossil fuel industry anymore than we needed to 'tolerate' Nazis in WWII.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 2, 2011)

New Mexico is the fifth largest state in land mass in the USA and one of the dryest.  We have less surface water than any state in the union and our terrain is mostly high desert and forested mountain alpine but of a variety that supports wildlife rather skimpily when compared to other mountain states.  Temperatures will exceed 100 degrees in the summer in several parts of the state and sub zero temps are common in the winter in others.

And yet in the past, New Mexico has been under the ocean and it had its lush rain forest period when dinosaurs were plentiful and an enormous diversity of plant and animal life here.

I am hoping for a climate shift in my lifetime that will return us to another lush green prosperous era.

I think CO2 fluctuations that are mostly natural and cyclical occurrences are probably not a huge problem for us.  (Or anybody for that matter.)


----------



## daveman (Jun 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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


And there it is, folks.  The leftist view of the freedom of speech.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Why should we suffer fools gladly? Willfull ignorance is ugly in the best of circumstances.
> ...



Dissolving any CO2 in water increases the the free hydrogen ions (H+) in the water resulting in an increase in the water's acidity. *Any* increase in atmospheric CO2 results in some additional atmospheric CO2 being dissolved in seawater. The greater the CO2 increase, the greater the acidification.

 Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide - http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/Research/Climate_Change/RS Acidification Report.pdf


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 2, 2011)

daveman said:


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



And there it is, folks.  The rightwingnut inability to comprehend what the hell we're talking about. It's not "free speech", daveboy. I have no problem with 'free speech'. You were the one who thought that 'libruls' were 'supposed' to 'tolerate' ignorant retards who stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Fuck you. No we don't have to tolerate your kind of moronic rejection of science and reality for the sake of corporate profits. I'll call you on your idiocy and ignorant denialism every time.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






Hey Dave........and we're dummer than a stump!!!!!!

Yuk.......yuk..............


*Does global warming science matter?*
March 16, 2007 
| 9 Comments | Joshua Gans

Regardless of the large number of scientists willing to put their name to predictions of global warming, th*ere remains a debate in public* about whether it is caused by humans or not. And alongside this is a debate about whether we can do anything about it in any case. Things that I have read over many years cause me to think that (a) it is impacted on by human action and (b) for that reason why may be able to do something about it or at least about its consequences but this post by Orson Scott Card, someone whom I regard as moderately thoughtful about scientific matters, got me thinking about whether it all matters. (There is also this documentary but I havent viewed it yet, although Harry Clarke has). Indeed, I will argue that it doesnt and that what really matters is the smell.

Lets take one base issue summarised by this perspective from Card:

*If you pay close attention, youll find that Global Warming alarmists are not actually saying Global Warming lately. No, nowadays its Climate Change. Do you know why?

Because for the past three years, global temperatures have been falling.*


Oops.

<<snip>>

To be sure, I do not want to underestimate the importance of science and what science should achieve. *I just want to suggest that science isnt really driving this debate. Something else is.* And so it may be that global warming science does not matter for the environmentalist movement and it is time to accept that.

Does global warming science matter? : Core Economics








_*Forum policy, to be found HERE, prohibits the posting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball*_


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 2, 2011)

More on: The Science doesnt mattter................

Don't count on long-term success in climate policy, warns paper in Decision Analysis


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 2, 2011)

Even the lefty green nutballs are just this side of hysterical......................

Threat of climate change demands we re-engineer the world economy right now | Damian Carrington | Environment | The Guardian



The science isnt mattering s0ns!!!!




*Its become a hobby for those with social issues!!!!!*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 2, 2011)

C'mon Rocks.........its been at least 24 hours since you last posted up that "Greenhouse Effect" link for the 839th time!!!!

Sooo..........its time for that favorite k00k hobby game: *POST UP THE SAME GAY-ASS FAKE TEMERATURE LINKS AGAIN*


----------



## daveman (Jun 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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



Like I said:  You tolerate free speech _only if it agrees with you_.  

Congratulations.  You have zero understanding of the Constitution and America.  Do us all a favor and don't vote, because you're too ignorant.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 2, 2011)




----------



## Samson (Jun 2, 2011)

Metzor said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Metzor said:
> ...



"Lumberjacks....Jackholes.....Sasquatch......Santa Clause AND THE EASTER BUNNY!!"


damn you guys are harsh.

Better not get to close to the rapier wits clashing together...I may get a paper-cut.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 2, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> New Mexico is the fifth largest state in land mass in the USA and one of the dryest.  We have less surface water than any state in the union and our terrain is mostly high desert and forested mountain alpine but of a variety that supports wildlife rather skimpily when compared to other mountain states.  Temperatures will exceed 100 degrees in the summer in several parts of the state and sub zero temps are common in the winter in others.
> 
> And yet in the past, New Mexico has been under the ocean and it had its lush rain forest period when dinosaurs were plentiful and an enormous diversity of plant and animal life here.
> 
> ...



You are in the wrong place, buddy. Going to get warmer and drier in New Mexico. And, more than likely, where I live now will get warmer and wetter. Wish we could send you a little of that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > New Mexico is the fifth largest state in land mass in the USA and one of the dryest.  We have less surface water than any state in the union and our terrain is mostly high desert and forested mountain alpine but of a variety that supports wildlife rather skimpily when compared to other mountain states.  Temperatures will exceed 100 degrees in the summer in several parts of the state and sub zero temps are common in the winter in others.
> ...



It may.  Or may not  I've lived long enough to have experienced minor climate change both in New Mexico/West Texas and Kansas--changes that feel 'permanent' after a decade or two.  But these aren't even blinks in the grand scheme of things.  When science measures things in tens of thousands or millions or billions of years, a couple of hundred years doesn't mean much.

However it goes I figure I will spend my time more effectively by adapting to whatever climate throws at us rather than expend precious time, energy, and resources on trying to control the climate.

Given its track record on managing other things, do we really  WANT to trust govrenment with control of the climate?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > New Mexico is the fifth largest state in land mass in the USA and one of the dryest.  We have less surface water than any state in the union and our terrain is mostly high desert and forested mountain alpine but of a variety that supports wildlife rather skimpily when compared to other mountain states.  Temperatures will exceed 100 degrees in the summer in several parts of the state and sub zero temps are common in the winter in others.
> ...




Really s0n???!!!!

Just like your prediction a few years back that snowstorms would become rare events??!!!









PS Rocks......your "Predictions" thread seems to have died there bub. Still waiting to see a response from ANY k00k on how the data is mattering in the real world. Data debate for the sake of debating data is gay. MIght as well use the time to make some improvements in that backyard emergency ark project you have going.


----------



## daveman (Jun 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > New Mexico is the fifth largest state in land mass in the USA and one of the dryest.  We have less surface water than any state in the union and our terrain is mostly high desert and forested mountain alpine but of a variety that supports wildlife rather skimpily when compared to other mountain states.  Temperatures will exceed 100 degrees in the summer in several parts of the state and sub zero temps are common in the winter in others.
> ...


Better get an umbrella, Foxfyre, because I hear the sky is falling.


----------



## daveman (Jun 3, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


"Yeah, we know the government hasn't worked very well before, but this time, it'll work great!  No, really!  Honest!  Besides...uh....we're all gonna die if you don't vote Democrat!!  Yeah!  That's the ticket!!"

Right, Old Rocks?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2011)

I see, Daveboy. We lost WW2? How about the Corps of Discovery? Transcontinental railrod? Interstate highway system? National Park System? Forest Service? 

And would you care to explain how private enterprise is doing so good when it was the unregulated greed that created both the First Great Republican Depression, and almost created the Second Great Republican Depression.


----------



## Samson (Jun 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> I see, Daveboy. We lost WW2? How about the Corps of Discovery? Transcontinental railrod? Interstate highway system? National Park System? Forest Service?
> 
> And would you care to explain how private enterprise is doing so good when it was the unregulated greed that created both the First Great Republican Depression, and almost created the Second Great Republican Depression.



By "Transcontinental Railroad" do you mean AMTRACK?

Interstate Highway system is falling apart.

The National Park System is nice, except for the Raging Fires and Pine Bark Beetles that have taken them over because of Forest Service Mismanagement.

And finally, Old Retard, bringing up war as an example of government success exemplifies just how far out in left field you continue to be on almost any issue.

WWII cost millions of lives and can be viewed as the pentultimate government failure.


----------



## daveman (Jun 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> I see, Daveboy. We lost WW2? How about the Corps of Discovery? Transcontinental railrod? Interstate highway system? National Park System? Forest Service?
> 
> And would you care to explain how private enterprise is doing so good when it was the unregulated greed that created both the First Great Republican Depression, and almost created the Second Great Republican Depression.


Yeah, government is swell.  That's why they should make everyone's decisions for them.  No, really.  What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 3, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> *Does global warming science matter?*
> March 16, 2007
> | 9 Comments | Joshua Gans
> 
> ...


And the backtracking continues.
Deniers used to say that it's been cooling for the last 15 years. Then they backtracked to the last 10 years. Never mind that the last decade was the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Oops.

And NOW the deniers have backtracked to saying the last 3 years have been cooling, again ignoring the fact that 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest year in the history of direct instrument measurement even though there was an El Nino half the year.

Oops.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010
*Global Highlights*



*For 2010, the combined global land and ocean  surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on recor*d,  at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


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


That's quite true, as both of you demonstrate every time you post.









skookerasbil said:


> *Does global warming science matter?*
> March 16, 2007
> | 9 Comments | Joshua Gans
> 
> ...



Good post for illustrating just how idiotic you are, kooker. The author of the blog, Joshua Gans, is making the point that people are increasingly taking the environmentalist view about global warming, regardless of the scientific evidence. Which is just the opposite of what you imagine is happening and what you seem to think his blog is saying. He makes it clear in one of the comments.

*#  Joshua Gans on March 18th, 2007 11:56 am

Harry, I wasnt supporting Cards views. Instead I was suggesting something completely independent of all this: that the current tip towards environmentalism has nothing to do with any change in the scientific evidence. That has changed a little while views have changed alot. Something else is driving peoples changed views and, you and I, as economists should think about that and what it might mean for policies.*


And the science fiction author he quotes, Orson Scott Card, has his head up his ass too. Global temperatures haven't been falling, they've been still rising. 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record and 2009 was tied for the second warmest year on record. There has been no change in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" in recent years as he and you foolishly imagine. The Intergovernmental Panel on *Climate Change* (IPCC) was first established *in 1988*, dumbass. Both terms have been widely used since then.


----------

