# Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates



## Crick (Mar 30, 2015)

Antarctic Ice Shelf Thinning Speeds Up
BBCNews

Scientists have their best view yet of the status of Antarctica's floating ice shelves and they find them to be thinning at an accelerating rate.
Fernando Paolo and colleagues used 18 years of data from European radar satellites to compile their assessment.
In the first half of that period, the total losses from these tongues of ice that jut out from the continent amounted to 25 cubic km per year.
But by the second half, this had jumped to 310 cubic km per annum.
"For the decade before 2003, ice-shelf volume for all Antarctica did not change much," said Mr Paolo from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, US.
"Since then, volume loss has been significant. The western ice shelves have been persistently thinning for two decades, and earlier gains in the eastern ice shelves ceased in the most recent decade," he told BBC News.
The satellite research is published in Science Magazine. It is a step up from previous studies, which provided only short snapshots of behaviour. Here, the team has combined the data from three successive orbiting altimeter missions operated by the European Space Agency (Esa).
Faster flow
The findings demonstrate the value of continuous, long-term, cross-calibrated time series of information.
Many of Antarctica's ice shelves are huge. The one protruding into the Ross Sea is the size of France.
They form where glacier ice running off the continent protrudes across water. At a certain point, the ice lifts off the seabed and floats.
Eventually, as these shelves continue to push outwards, their fronts will calve, forming icebergs.
If the losses to the ocean balance the gains on land though precipitation of snows, this entirely natural process contributes nothing to sea level rise. But if thinning weakens the shelves so that land ice can flow faster towards the sea, this will kick the system out of kilter. Repeat observations now show this to be the case across much of West Antarctica.
"If this thinning continues at the rates we report, some of the ice shelves in West Antarctica that we've observed will disappear by the end of this century," said Scripps co-author Helen Amanda Fricker.
"A number of these ice shelves are holding back 1m to 3m of sea level rise in the grounded ice. And that means that ultimately this ice will be delivered into the oceans and we will see global sea-level rise on that order."
Prof Fricker was speaking on this week's Science In Action programme for the BBC World Service.
Modelling capability
Various studies have now confirmed that the land, or grounded, ice in Antarctica is losing mass.
Esa's current polar observing spacecraft, known as Cryosat, recently reported that the continent's ice sheet was diminishing at a rate of 160 billion tonnes a year. Cryosat found the average elevation of the full ice sheet to be falling annually by almost 2cm.
It is thought that all this thinning is predominantly the consequence of warm water getting under the floating ice at the continent's margins to melt it from below.
This warmer water appears to be being drawn towards Antarctica by stronger westerly winds in the Southern Ocean.
But the precise drivers at work and their scale are poorly understood. And until scientists get a better grasp of some of these issues, their ability to project future change will be limited.
Prof David Vaughan is the director of science at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), and was not involved in the Paolo paper.
He commented: "We need three components: we need to understand the changes in the grounded ice; how the floating ice is behaving; and finally how the oceanographic conditions under the floating ice have changed. With those three things, we have the basis for building really good models. Ten years ago, we didn't have any one of those elements. Today, we've made good progress on two, but on the oceanographic side we're only just beginning."
BAS recently placed moorings in the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica to gather data on ocean conditions. In the same sector, BAS also sent a sub under the floating shelf ahead of Pine Island Glacier to better understand how water moves under the ice.
*********************************************************************
I think we're going to find that, like the rest of the world, Antarctica has been responding to ongoing global warming just about precisely as it was expected to do so.

The Earth continues to warm.  The primary cause of that warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation.  Claims that it is not, that there is no greenhouse effect, that CO2 does not behave as scientists have understood it to behave for the last hundred years, are going to make some bitter crow on which some will be forced to dine.


----------



## Porker (Mar 30, 2015)

Where will the penguins go!!!


----------



## PratchettFan (Mar 30, 2015)

It is already too late to do anything.  We have already gone off the cliff.  Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything.  Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it.  Human behavior is entirely predictable.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 30, 2015)

The article is a farce and a lie.. Good God the idiots are so gullible..


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 30, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> The article is a farce and a lie.. Good God the idiots are so gullible..
> 
> View attachment 38773


LOL! Why? Because you say so?


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2015)

Porker said:


> View attachment 38769
> 
> Where will the penguins go!!!


----------



## Gracie (Mar 30, 2015)

Folks just love to keep their heads buried in the sand. Eventually, there will be plenty of it for everyone.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2015)

*East Antarctica Melting Could be Explained by Oceanic Gateways*
March 16, 2015

AUSTIN,Texas — Researchers at The University of Texas at Austin’s Institute for Geophysics (UTIG) in the Jackson School of Geosciences have discovered two seafloor gateways that could allow warm ocean water to reach the base of Totten Glacier, East Antarctica’s largest and most rapidly thinning glacier. The discovery, reported in the March 16 edition of the journal _Nature Geoscience_, probably explains the glacier’s extreme thinning and raises concerns about how it will affect sea level rise.


Totten Glacier is East Antarctica’s largest outlet of ice to the ocean and has been thinning rapidly for many years. Although deep, warm water has been observed seaward of the glacier, until now there was no evidence that it could compromise coastal ice. The result is of global importance because the ice flowing through Totten Glacier alone is sufficient to raise global sea level by at least 11 feet, equivalent to the contribution of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet if it were to completely collapse.




A map showing the previously-hidden landscape beneath Totten Glacier. Orange arrows indicate seafloor valleys deep enough to allow warm water to enter beneath the glacier's ice. The solid orange arrow leads to the deeper of the two gateways, a three-mile-wide seafloor valley. Image: Jamin Greenbaum

“We now know there are avenues for the warmest waters in East Antarctica to access the most sensitive areas of Totten Glacier,” said lead author Jamin Greenbaum, a UTIG Ph.D. candidate.

The ice loss to the ocean may soon be irreversible unless atmospheric and oceanic conditions change so that snowfall outpaces coastal melting. The potential for irreversible ice loss is due to the broadly deepening shape of Totten Glacier’s catchment, the large collection of ice and snow that flows from a deep interior basin to the coastline.

“The catchment of Totten Glacier is covered by nearly 2½ miles of ice, filling a sub-ice basin reaching depths of at least one mile below sea level,” said UTIG researcher Donald Blankenship.

Greenbaum and Blankenship collaborated with an international team from the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and France.

Because much of the California-sized interior basin lies below sea level, its overlying thicker ice is susceptible to rapid loss if warm ocean currents sufficiently thin coastal ice. Given that previous work has shown that the basin has drained its ice to the ocean and filled again many times in the past, this study uncovers a means for how that process may be starting again.

East Antarctica Melting Could be Explained by Oceanic Gateways News

*Not just the West Shelf.*


----------



## kflaux (Mar 30, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> It is already too late to do anything.  We have already gone off the cliff.  Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything.  Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it.  Human behavior is entirely predictable.


Climate change has frequently been likened to slavery in the U.S. before the Civil War. The same denial of stark truths, by people who do not see how we could live without slavery, on the one hand, fossil fuels, on the other. Horrific injustice towards millions--of blacks on the one hand, and of the young and unborn generations, on the other.

It is useful therefore to recall that, going into the Civil War, almost no-one thought that slavery would be ended in just a few short years.

Change CAN happen rapidly. It can happen virtually overnight. Even when it seems like the institutions in question are impregnable, invincible.


----------



## Politico (Mar 31, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> It is already too late to do anything.  We have already gone off the cliff.  Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything.  Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it.  Human behavior is entirely predictable.


There is no status quo. Why you folks won't accept the fact you can;t control nature is beyond me.


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2015)

Porker said:


> View attachment 38769
> 
> Where will the penguins go!!!



Where will your children go?


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> It is already too late to do anything.  We have already gone off the cliff.  Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything.  Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it.  Human behavior is entirely predictable.



It's already undeniable yet they still deny it.  We may conclude, then, that they are not rational or sufficiently intelligent to understand what's happening.


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 31, 2015)

Now if we could just get China to stop polluting......


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 31, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> Now if we could just get China to stop polluting......



Can't get others to stop doing what we keep doing. They laugh and tell us to fuck off.


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 31, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Now if we could just get China to stop polluting......
> ...


That makes no fucken sense.....


----------



## PratchettFan (Mar 31, 2015)

kflaux said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > It is already too late to do anything.  We have already gone off the cliff.  Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything.  Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it.  Human behavior is entirely predictable.
> ...


 
The difference between the two situations was slavery was entirely under the control of human beings.  To stop it all we had to do was stop doing it.  What is currently going on is now out of our hands.  We have already passed the point of no return.  The best we can do now is perhaps slow it down a bit and mitigate some of the damages, but that is it.  And to do that will take a global effort that simply is not going to happen.  By the time we begin to do something concrete, nothing we can do will matter.  I wish I was wrong about that, but I don't think I am.


----------



## PratchettFan (Mar 31, 2015)

Politico said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > It is already too late to do anything.  We have already gone off the cliff.  Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything.  Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it.  Human behavior is entirely predictable.
> ...


 
Why you folks can't see the obvious is beyond me.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2015)

Yeah whatever, ice has been receding for the past 12,000 years, so what?

Moreover, there's an 800,000 year data set demonstrating that CO2 lags temperature and never leads it, not once.

Finally, the death worshiping, Doomsday AGWCult have never once shown any evidence linking a wisp of CO2 to temperature increase. This is their standard MO, find a news item and blame it on the their God, the CO2 molecule. It fails as science


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

Politico said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > It is already too late to do anything.  We have already gone off the cliff.  Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything.  Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it.  Human behavior is entirely predictable.
> ...


If you could point to the last time temperatures rose this quickly I'd love to know about it.



> Why you folks won't accept the fact you can;t control nature is beyond me.


That appears to be merely a belief you hold, not backed by evidence or logic.[/QUOTE]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> Now if we could just get China to stop polluting......



Obama cut a great deal with them! They will keep polluting for 20 more years and then maybe think about it


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> Porker said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 38769
> ...



Keep family out of it fuckface


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 31, 2015)

Politico said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > It is already too late to do anything.  We have already gone off the cliff.  Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything.  Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it.  Human behavior is entirely predictable.
> ...


Why you are so fucking dumb that you can't see that we have overwhelmed nature already?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Moreover, there's an 800,000 year data set demonstrating that CO2 lags temperature and never leads it, not once.



I don't really get your point.

Are you suggesting that raising temperatures are causing humans to add more CO2 to the air?


----------



## kflaux (Mar 31, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> The difference between the two situations was slavery was entirely under the control of human beings. To stop it all we had to do was stop doing it. What is currently going on is now out of our hands. We have already passed the point of no return.


Maybe, maybe not. I don't think anyone knows.

To go on fighting in the hope that we still have some chance of salvaging the situation is I think one working definition of courage....



> The best we can do now is perhaps slow it down a bit and mitigate some of the damages, but that is it.


And because of the nonlinearity of the system, that may make a huge difference. Again, nobody knows for sure.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

kflaux said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between the two situations was slavery was entirely under the control of human beings. To stop it all we had to do was stop doing it. What is currently going on is now out of our hands. We have already passed the point of no return.
> ...


yawn!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> Antarctic Ice Shelf Thinning Speeds Up
> BBCNews
> _*
> Scientists have their best view yet of the status of Antarctica's floating ice shelves*_ and they find them to be thinning at an accelerating rate.
> ...


I love this place, skooks check this one out!!!! the OP opening sentence:

"Scientists have their best view yet of the status of Antarctica's floating ice shelves"  Note the big word there, 'floating'  so folks if it is already floating, melting will cause zero sea rise.  can you hear me, zero sea rise.  here a little louder...ZERO......or ZERO


----------



## PratchettFan (Mar 31, 2015)

kflaux said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between the two situations was slavery was entirely under the control of human beings. To stop it all we had to do was stop doing it. What is currently going on is now out of our hands. We have already passed the point of no return.
> ...


 
"Know" is a dangerous word, but I think it is the general consensus that stopping the landslide is no longer an option.  I am not saying we should not do what we can.  I am just not optimistic that we will do anything meaningful at all.  It would require leadership more concerned with the future than the present, and I don't see that leadership anywhere on this planet.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Antarctic Ice Shelf Thinning Speeds Up
> ...




Ice shelves are part of what keeps glaciers and ice sheets from sliding into the ocean.  Did you know that?


----------



## Porker (Mar 31, 2015)

kflaux said:


> Climate change has frequently been likened to slavery in the U.S. before the Civil War.



That's funny shit right there^^^^. Frequently likened to slavery, you say? You have just dethroned the champion as the world's dumbest algoreist cult member. If you're going to say something ridiculous you could not possibly use a worse analogy. Slavery = global warming. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Moreover, there's an 800,000 year data set demonstrating that CO2 lags temperature and never leads it, not once.
> ...



No. Raising temperature cause an increase in CO2






Here's a 400,000 year data set and not once did CO2 act as the AGWCult proposed

400,000 years


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Keep family out of it fuckface #2


----------



## Liminal (Mar 31, 2015)

The ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland are melting at an accelerated rate.   There is no actual controversy about that.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


I'm not talking about the past 400,000 years. I'm talking about the last 150. Are you saying rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


dude, you can't really be that stupid can you?  If it is the past 400,000 years, doesn't that include the last 150?  I'm just saying, goofy is as goofy does. way to go goofy!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


it ain't my article bub.  You did read what I highlighted right?  Do you know what the word 'float' means?  Or are you still goofy?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

Liminal said:


> The ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland are melting at an accelerated rate.   There is no actual controversy about that.


sure there is!! what the heck are you talking about? Prove it.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I did. Did you read what was past what you highlighted? From your own quotation:


> "A number of these ice shelves are holding back 1m to 3m of sea level rise in the grounded ice. And that means that ultimately this ice will be delivered into the oceans and we will see global sea-level rise on that order."


Do you know what "rise" means?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


. Are you saying rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


son if it is floating, the ice volume is already added to the level of water.  DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

fill a glass fully up to the rim, freeze the liquid. Once frozen let it thaw, now tough question for you, when the liquid is thawed, does the liquid spill out?  

Answer, only if you pour it, hit or knock it over.  What a goof.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > The ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland are melting at an accelerated rate.   There is no actual controversy about that.
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


what's the number of the ice shelves holding back grounded ice?  And if it's grounded, how will it fall into the sea?  Note the word grounded.  It means no warm water will flow under it like the shelves.  And if you think the grounded will fall off, there is no evidence to that.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes.
Did you read the rest of your own quotation?


Do you understand this passage:


> "A number of these ice shelves are holding back 1m to 3m of sea level rise in the grounded ice. And that means that ultimately this ice will be delivered into the oceans and we will see global sea-level rise on that order."


Do you know what "rise" means?


> fill a glass fully up to the rim, freeze the liquid. Once frozen let it thaw, now tough question for you, when the liquid is thawed, does the liquid spill out?
> 
> Answer, only if you pour it, hit or knock it over.  What a goof.


I really don't think you understand the article you linked. Your analogy does not include a glacier or ground ice. Please read again this passage:



> "A number of these ice shelves are holding back 1m to 3m of sea level rise in the grounded ice. And that means that ultimately this ice will be delivered into the oceans and we will see global sea-level rise on that order."


Do you know what "rise" means?

Its from YOUR link. Do you understand it? It means that the floating ice shelves are exerting horizontal pressure on the ground ice that prevents the ground ice from sliding into the ocean. Do you get that concept? Do you need a refresher on vectors? So while the melting of the ice shelf itself does not directly contribute to sea level, when it disappears there is nothing left to hold back the glaciers and ground ice from sliding into the ocean. Again, this is from the article you quoted. I'm guessing you didn't get past the first line or two, perhaps you are a slow reader. I can wait.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


what is this?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


It ain't my article goof.  Try again.

And, try and keep up with the pace.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 Your link says a number.



> And if it's grounded, how will it fall into the sea?  Note the word grounded.  It means no warm water will flow under it like the shelves.



Gravity.




> And if you think the grounded will fall off, there is no evidence to that.


LOL! I can assure you the evidence that glaciers move towards the ocean is quite substantial.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




You quoted the article. Did you not read what you were quoting?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Those are graphs indicating the loss rates of ground ice mass from the worlds four largest ground ice masses.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


but son, that is normal.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


well if it is, the sea level hasn't risen at all.  So?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


dude, you are really one goofy sob.  I quoted to you the first sentence in the article.  I had no reason to read on.  floating is floating.  Until you have some other evidence of something that will really impact the world, perhaps then I'll read, but I'm not wasting my time on mumbo jumbo from the left on here when the opening sentence debunks the post.

BTW, I'm like popeye the sailor man, strong to the finish.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





Now they are moving QUICKER to the ocean - because: (YOUR LINK)



> "A number of these ice shelves are holding back 1m to 3m of sea level rise in the grounded ice. And that means that ultimately this ice will be delivered into the oceans and we will see global sea-level rise on that order."





Do you get it now? Do you get "fast" and "slow"


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




It has, actually.







You are very ill informed on this topic, it would seem.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


hello goof,  can you read?  it isn't my link you goof.  Learn what OP means.  come back later.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You should read this part:




> "A number of these ice shelves are holding back 1m to 3m of sea level rise in the grounded ice. And that means that ultimately this ice will be delivered into the oceans and we will see global sea-level rise on that order."



Do you understand what it is saying yet? '

Why would you quote something you didn't read? Do you have a formal education?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


oh and if you think you know what the sea levels are really at, well The president just purchased beach front property in Hawaii.  think he's scared of your opinion piece?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


I don't care what that says, that is someones opinion!!!!! Now, until you have something else, you have exhausted your goofiness.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I just showed you what they really are. Have you ever heard of a tidal gauge?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It isn't an opinion, its a matter of fact. 

If you don't care what the truth is, why are you even debating? 

If I were you, I would find some textbooks that pick up in the year after whatever grade it was you dropped out of elementary school. You can probably find some at your local library.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



I'm saying a wisp of CO2 has no discernible effect on temperature on planet Earth


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...




Tidal gauges from 1870

LOLz


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 31, 2015)

AGW people always make BIG news out of insignificant things!!!

That's all the progressives know how to do......like the bogus story in Indiana about the bakery that wont sell to gays. Fucking ghey..........they always take obscure and insignificant things and try to lob a bomb with pronounced levels of hysteria!!!!!


Cant these people ever find anything meaningful in life? I mean really............wtf??.........some thiniing of some ice in Antactica and these people are heading out to build emergency arks!!!!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Yeah. They had rulers back then


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Are rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Are rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?



CO2 has been increasing at a steady 2.1ppm or so per year since we started measuring even though mankind's CO2 output has increased 350% since 2002.  Explain why mankind's CO2 output which has increased 350% since 2002 remains indistinguishable from the natural rise that has remained essentially the same since we started measuring.


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


[/QUOTE]







The Holocene thermal maximum, the Minoan Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period, the Medieval Warming Period...to name a few...


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








No.  Based on empirical data the most likely reason for the increased CO2 we are experiencing today is due to the Medieval Warming Period of 800 years ago.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


ah see, I do care about the truth, and the left hasn't presented much in terms of that word on here since I've been on here fifteen months ago.  Now, one point I missed a few posts ago by you, was you used the word gravity as an answer to grounded ice.  Hmmm, if the ice is already on the ground, are you saying that gravity will be removed and it will float in the air?  Sorry, I didn't quite grasp why you choose the word gravity to support the ice that is already on the ground!!!!!! dude, for real you wrote that.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2015)

westwall said:


> Based on empirical data the most likely reason for the increased CO2 we are experiencing today is due to the Medieval Warming Period of 800 years ago.



I await Westwall's explanation as to why the isotope ratios show the CO2 increase comes from burning fossil fuels and not from natural CO2 releases.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> The president just purchased beach front property in Hawaii.



No, he didn't.

jc, did you choose to lie deliberately there, or did you just brainlessly parrot someone else's lie?

Oh, if you care about the truth, you'll let us all know who fed you the lie, and condemn them yourselves. However, if you love your cult more than you love the truth, you'll try to shield the source that fed you the lie.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > The president just purchased beach front property in Hawaii.
> ...


yo, yo...from Politic----http://Obamas may be buying Magnum P.I. home in Hawaii - Nick Gass and David Nather - POLITICO

BTW, nice beach front property there.

Edit: provide the experiment hairless or tell the truth you haven't got one.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


sure you did friend, pop open this link.  BTW, your link goof job.


Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

Now stop lying and just admit you made another goof!!! Lmfbo


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





I don't believe that you are actually dumb enough to not comprehend that gravity pulls things down. That's simply not possible. You are pulling my chain.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> yo, yo...from Politic----http://Obamas may be buying Magnum P.I. home in Hawaii - Nick Gass and David Nather - POLITICO
> BTW, nice beach front property there.



So you brainlessly repeated a crazy rumor, got it. A person of normal intelligence would now have gone back and checked out his facts, but that excludes you.

Do you understand I'm having fun toying with you now? Don't worry, everyone else understands. The goal here now is to work you into a lather so that you  double down again on your big lie. Please proceed.


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > The president just purchased beach front property in Hawaii.
> ...






Well, the Maldives are supposedly going to be underwater real soon and yet they just spent several hundred million dollars on nice, shiny new airports to bring all the tourists to the islands.  



"While Louise Gray was wetting her knickers in the Daily Telegraph at the prospect of handing over billions of our money to compensate low lying island states, and our ludicrous Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, talked about helping “_people who are losing their countries below the waves”, _the Maldives have been busy getting on with life in the real world.



During the past year, they have been busy building four new airports.





September saw the opening of the new airport at Kooddoo. The airport was developed by Bonvests Holdings Ltd, a leading property development company from Singapore. Bonvests Holdings owns the The Residence Maldives resort and they are currently developing another resort in Dhigurah island, both resorts are just few minutes from Kooddoo airport.
In the same month, the new airport at Maamagili was completed. Villa Airport Maamigili is equipped with a full aerodrome comprising of a 1,800 meter long runway equipped with industry standard runway lighting system to facilitate landing and take-off in low visibility and at night.
Construction finished at the new airport at Dharavandhoo in April, and management was passed over to Island Aviation to sort out the finishing touches.
At the start of the year, the airport at Fuvahmulah began operations.

Maldives Opening Four New Underwater Airports NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT


----------



## Staidhup (Mar 31, 2015)

Hey Chicken Little the sky is falling run back to your cave. So the earth is undergoing a weather change, too freaking bad, like it has done so for millions upon millions of years, what the F do you think you can do about that? Do you honestly think that if man and technology were to be removed from the face of the earth that it would make a difference? Are you for real?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 31, 2015)

Gracie said:


> Folks just love to keep their heads buried in the sand. Eventually, there will be plenty of it for everyone.



IN a word... NO...

Before total ice loss would come the next glacial cycle.  We are overdue already..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Not according to the IPCC. AR1 clearly stated that all warming pre 1950 was natural variation and man had little to nothing to do with it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 31, 2015)

Let me see if i can do a man tooth skeptical version of thread summary..

1. Alarmists have insufficient data to prove or disprove anything. The claim that the last 35 years and then modeling further in the past proves their point. Do i have to remind these fools that models are not empirical evidence of anything..

2. Alarmists then appeal to their authority, from made up crap they call science, that was Pal Reviewed by only their side, while they keep other works showing their meme a lie from publication.  Simply so they can claim they have peer reviewed works  that back up their positions.

3. Alarmists will then produce debunked crap from Michale Mann and James Hansen as proof, even though those works have been thoroughly shown falsified.

4. Alarmist will cry "ITS FOR THE CHILDREN" hoping that this will impede cognitive thinking skills and commonsense.. and again appeal to their made up and manufactured authority....


Reading through this thread I have seen every single Alyinsky tactic to remove cognitive thought and commonsense..  They only fool the ignorant..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 31, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Based on empirical data the most likely reason for the increased CO2 we are experiencing today is due to the Medieval Warming Period of 800 years ago.
> ...



You are aware that isotopes break down rapidly and their half life's make them almost totally useless for dating beyond 30 years.. Even CO2's atmospheric half life has been greatly exaggerated by the alarmist shills at under 7 years, not the 30-120 years they tout...  But man tooth knows this and still posts crap over and over and over again..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



You mean to tell me that two masses of unequal size are not governed by electrical attraction and bonds?  WOW... going to have to tell the other PHD's in the shop they are wrong... Gravity just pulls things down... wow..   I wonder how all those molecules stay together.../Sarc

Moron..


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Isotopes break down rapidly?  What the fuck are you talking about?  That's complete horseshit.  And isotopes have NOTHING to do with CO2's lifetime in the atmosphere, which IS 30-120 years.  You know we can link you to multiple peer reviewed studies stating precisely that while you can link to NOTHING supporting your ignorant lies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 31, 2015)

Billy Boob is, well, Billy Boob.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


How can It go lower than the ground goof?

I see, you don't know what the word grounded means you really are a goofball!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > yo, yo...from Politic----http://Obamas may be buying Magnum P.I. home in Hawaii - Nick Gass and David Nather - POLITICO
> ...


Right just like showing an experiment that shows what 120 ppm of CO2 does with temperature right?


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 31, 2015)

Ok Op. short of killing off a couple billion people. how do suggest You the g-d of globull warming stop and prevent more of it THINNING


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

The


Billy_Bob said:


> Let me see if i can do a man tooth skeptical version of thread summary..
> 
> 1. Alarmists have insufficient data to prove or disprove anything. The claim that the last 35 years and then modeling further in the past proves their point. Do i have to remind these fools that models are not empirical evidence of anything..
> 
> ...


Themselves


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy Boob is, well, Billy Boob.


Crick is crick, old socks is old socks, and tooth is messed up!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The ocean is lower than the ground you bumbling imbecile. And the term "grounded" means an electrical circuit where the ground wire is held to a fixed voltage, usually the same as the earths. Not relevant here.

Do you seriously not get that glaciers move towards the sea? When did you become so stupid?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


So what did cause CO2 to go up in the past 150 years?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 31, 2015)

The AGW Faithers say that the Earth has a fever.  And ice is getting thinner.

And they blame mankind and the release *by human beings* _*and *_*industry* of "carbon" in various forms (but mainly as CO2) into the atmosphere.  

They then blithely and perpetually ignore the question about how ice ages and warming periods came and went prior to human kind and prior to human industry.

And they blithely ignore such questions about what we can ACTUALLY do to slow down or stop this glowbull _warmering_.

Granted, they can't actually demonstrate causation.  That is, they cannot show that human beings and human industry have anything at all to do with any alleged global heating.  They can't actually establish that but-for human beings and human industry there would be no increase in global temperature.  

But they DO BELIEVE.  They PREACH it.  They say "The Science is SETTLED!"  Amen.  "We have a CONSENSUS!"  Gaia be PRAISED!

But since they can't demonstrate via actual science that human beings and human industry "are" responsible for global _warmering_, then they are REALLY hard pressed to demonstrate that there is something that humans can effectively do to slow it down or stop it.

This makes them all kinds of bat shit crazy MAD!  They point their fingers and hiss, "Deniers!"

Blasphemers!

They'd burn a few folks at the stake but that might release extra CO2.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



So, what caused it to go up before human kind ever showed up and before human industry ever took place?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Simple... CO2 lags warmth by 200-300 years. Vegetation and the natural die off and decay of that vegetation. Ocean release as areas of ocean warm. And it can all be attributed to that natural variation. We exited the Little Ice Age just over 200 years ago. Guess what follows by empirical evidence..


----------



## Politico (Apr 1, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


The fact you can't control nature by limiting cow farts is obvious.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


So what does it mean when planes are grounded? You know airplanes when they can't fly there grounded!

In the event you don't know what an air plane is, it is a flying machine.  Yep, it actually defies gravity and flies in the air. And sometimes there are mandatory groundings.  Know what that means?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


so the ice that is grounded is electrically charged and is a wire?  What does this have to do with gravity then?  funny stuff today.   Holy crap, I never knew that.  wow the danish this morning have quite a lot of nuts in it.  LOL. Question, are you a loner. You are a confused goof.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 1, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> You are aware that isotopes break down rapidly and their half life's make them almost totally useless for dating beyond 30 years.



C12 and C13 are stable isotopes, you complete imbecile.

You are utterly clueless of all the most basic science here. You're just a profoundly stupid person.

Again, the isotope ratios show the additional CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. That means you deniers who say it's natural are babbling morons. That's one reason among many as to why the whole planet is laughing at you so hard.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2015)

Things Einstein or any other real scientist, never said:

Relativity is settled science

We have consensus


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware that isotopes break down rapidly and their half life's make them almost totally useless for dating beyond 30 years.
> ...


and yet......................you can't prove it.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 1, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> And they blame mankind and the release *by human beings* _*and *_*industry* of "carbon" in various forms (but mainly as CO2) into the atmosphere.



That's because the data says so. You'll have a hard time understanding why that's important, being your cult is so actively hostile to a reality-based lifestyle.

AGW theory is the only theory that explains the directly observed data. No natural cycle explains the stratospheric cooling, decrease in outgoing longwave radiation, and the increase in backradiation. No "natural causes" theory explains any of that. Therefore, the natural causes theories are all demonstrably wrong.

And you won't care, since your herd leaders said to ignore the facts. Denier herdbeasts, all terrified at the thought of banishment from the herd, will reliably bleat out what they're told bleat.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > And they blame mankind and the release *by human beings* _*and *_*industry* of "carbon" in various forms (but mainly as CO2) into the atmosphere.
> ...



Oh, there's an AGWTheory?

Can you let us in on this best kept secret?

I thought it was "Point at the Weather Channel and shriek 'Manmade Global Warming'"


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > And they blame mankind and the release *by human beings* _*and *_*industry* of "carbon" in various forms (but mainly as CO2) into the atmosphere.
> ...


hahahahahaahahahahaha the data says  so.  Well again, the hairless comes through for the daily laugh.  Thanks hairball. Now when you find that there data that says so, why not punch that puppy right up here and show us all.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 1, 2015)

jc456 said:


> And yet......................you can't prove it.



And now, jc is demanding proof that C12 and C13 are stable isotopes. Most denier are like that, completely unaware of the last century of physics.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > And yet......................you can't prove it.
> ...


and the laugh continues, again tooth, post up here that data that says so.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Oh, there's an AGWTheory?
> 
> Can you let us in on this best kept secret?
> 
> I thought it was "Point at the Weather Channel and shriek 'Manmade Global Warming'"



Frank's particular mental illness is clearly antisocial personality disorder.

That would be the clinical way of saying "He's quite the pissy little bitch."


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, there's an AGWTheory?
> ...


and yet..............still no proof!


----------



## mamooth (Apr 1, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > And now, jc is demanding proof that C12 and C13 are stable isotopes. Most denier are like that, completely unaware of the last century of physics.
> ...



No. There's no need to "prove" basics just because you're such a moron.

If you're too stupid to know the most basic of basics, you should take that as a clue that you shouldn't be bothering the grownups and embarrassing yourself.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, there's an AGWTheory?
> ...



Notice, they never post an experiment or can even tell us what their bizarre "Theory" might be


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2015)

AGWCult Theory

1. Point to the Weather Channel and shriek "ManMade Global Warming"!

2. If questioned, call the questioner a "DENIER!"

3. Since only fellow Cult members get published we have Consensus


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


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


It is certainly that way here and the other mb I frequent.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


dude/dudette, you don't have to prove anything.  However, if you don't, then you have nothing to tell any of us on here on doom and gloom.  so either post it or button it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, there's an AGWTheory?
> ...


and the difference between you and he is he shows integrity.  None of which you have.


----------



## Liminal (Apr 1, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Wrong.
Is sea level rising


----------



## Liminal (Apr 1, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > The ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland are melting at an accelerated rate.   There is no actual controversy about that.
> ...



Stupid denials of obvious facts don't make a very persuasive argument.
Sea Level Rise -- National Geographic


----------



## Liminal (Apr 1, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Begs the question: Why are all you climate change deniers only this smart?
Greenland Ice Sheet Today Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC


----------



## Liminal (Apr 1, 2015)

I have to wonder why the deniers bother to post on a public forum, as if they actually had an argument.

Warming Seas Drive Rapid Acceleration of Melting Antarctic Ice


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Come on dude is that all you got to show me a link during a flood, you know what a flood is?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

Liminal said:


> I have to wonder why the deniers bother to post on a public forum, as if they actually had an argument.
> 
> Warming Seas Drive Rapid Acceleration of Melting Antarctic Ice


S0n you are so out of your league! Thanks for thinking that you can play in the big but you can't you got a have some what they call factual data, do you know what that is?


----------



## lake avenue (Apr 1, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > I have to wonder why the deniers bother to post on a public forum, as if they actually had an argument.
> ...


the link you failed to read posts two studies full of factual data.
Multidecadal warming of Antarctic waters
West Antarctic melt rate has tripled


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2015)

*JC, you dumb fuck, Liminal has presented real evidence and all you have done is flap yap. 

You cannot dispute a single asseration that he has made, because all the evidence states that he is correct. So all you do is make nonsensicle statements.* 

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Sea Level

*Sea Level*
LATEST MEASUREMENT: December 2014
60.12 mm
DOWNLOAD DATA
Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water coming from the melting of land ice and the expansion of sea water as it warms. The first chart tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites.

The second chart, derived from coastal tide gauge data, shows how much sea level changed from about 1870 to 2000.

*SATELLITE DATA: 1993-PRESENT*
Data source: Satellite sea level observations.
Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
RATE OF CHANGE

3.18
mm per year

*So, JC, are you going to say that NASA is lying?*


----------



## westwall (Apr 1, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *JC, you dumb fuck, Liminal has presented real evidence and all you have done is flap yap.
> 
> You cannot dispute a single asseration that he has made, because all the evidence states that he is correct. So all you do is make nonsensicle statements.*
> 
> ...









Here's what NOAA has to say.  Funnily enough the majority of the sea level "rise" areas are in the 0-3 mm/year range.  I wonder how many of those are actually ZERO?  I checked several and many had +/- levels that are greater than their supposed rise.  When you look at the areas that are dropping, it's a different story.  Take Churchill Canada for instance...the sea level there is dropping at a rate of 9.48mm/year +/- .57mm/year.

How about Kodiak Island AK?  Well the sea level there is dropping at 11.05mm/year +/- .95mm/year.

Isn't that interesting.....the areas that are dropping are HUUUUGE.  The areas that are rising are so minor as to be unreadable in many cases.


Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2015)

By all means, go to this site;

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents

Note how many more areas are rising than falling. And note that the areas that are falling are exactly those areas in which there is very active subduction.

And Walleyes knows this, and is again lying by misdirection.


----------



## Liminal (Apr 1, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Well that answers that question.  You really are just as full of shit as you can possibly be.


----------



## westwall (Apr 1, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> By all means, go to this site;
> 
> Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents
> 
> ...






Active subduction  lowers sea levels now?  That's weird.  All the papers I've seen say the opposite.

 CSZ A Key Factor for Pacific Northwest Sea-Level Rise Yale Climate Connections

Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California Oregon and Washington Past Present and Future 2012 Division on Earth and Life Studies
etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 1, 2015)

Liminal said:


> I have to wonder why the deniers bother to post on a public forum, as if they actually had an argument.
> 
> Warming Seas Drive Rapid Acceleration of Melting Antarctic Ice



_Warren Cornwall needs to read the articles he uses for sourcing.._

_2-3 mm per decade rise and many areas show less than 1mm giving  serious question to the validity of their claims. Given the land subsidence of many islands and regions the level of rise is near zero.._

The Antarctic is over 1 million KL^2 larger than just 5 years ago and winter time averages are upwards of 3-4 million KL^2 larger setting records which exceed written record keeping. The paper Cornwell cites even acknowledges that VOLCANIC FLOWS AND WARM WATER from the region are the main cause for melt.. Yet you seem to miss that point as did the alarmist shill for NG...

_The only argument you can muster is one on how long it would take you to escape from a wet paper bag..  without directions..._ You and Mantooth will have great time inside your bag...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 1, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> By all means, go to this site;
> 
> Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents
> 
> ...



ZERO TO 3mm per decade....

How long will it take to rise 6 inches? 160 years...  1 Foot? 320 years...


----------



## Liminal (Apr 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > I have to wonder why the deniers bother to post on a public forum, as if they actually had an argument.
> ...



Thankfully we can rely on your scientific expertise to interpret the information and put it into context for us, we sure are lucky.   I'd be very surprised if some foundation hadn't already offered funding for you to start your own think tank.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> So what did cause CO2 to go up in the past 150 years?



You asked this same stupid question yesterday as if every ice core ever done didn't answer that very question. 

I posed a question to you yesterday which you apparently dodged and even the hairball let it pass...and the hairball never passes on an opportunity to look like an idiot...could it be that the answer raises questions that would make it obvious to even you warmers that you have been taken in by a hoax?  I'll ask again.

CO2 has been increasing at a steady 2.1ppm or so per year since we started measuring even though mankind's CO2 output has increased 350% since 2002. Explain why mankind's CO2 output which has increased 350% since 2002 remains indistinguishable from the natural rise that has remained essentially the same since we started measuring.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> By all means, go to this site;
> 
> Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents
> 
> ...



Maybe Obama lowered those areas


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > By all means, go to this site;
> ...


What an absolute liar you are, Walleyes. You claim that you have a Phd in Geology, then you don't seem to understand that those levels are relative to the land. Where the land is rising, due to isostasy from the continental ice melt, or being pushed up from subduction, the sea level relative to land, is falling. Everywhere else it is rising.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *JC, you dumb fuck, Liminal has presented real evidence and all you have done is flap yap.
> 
> You cannot dispute a single asseration that he has made, because all the evidence states that he is correct. So all you do is make nonsensicle statements.*
> 
> ...


Yes


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

I


Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


nicely said, a most predictable response with a leftist insult.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


You have scientific expertise? Right!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > By all means, go to this site;
> ...


That's accelerating


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


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


Where?


----------



## Liminal (Apr 2, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Enough to know that you don't know anything.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


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


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...








The "context" is the claims are lies.  That is the only "context" that matters.


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


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








Show us some papers that claim subduction zones cause sea level decreases there olfraud.  I backed up my claim.  How about you do the same.  You are great at hurling insults like the junkyard dog that you are, but you are remarkably short on facts.  Subduction zones cause volcanoes to form INLAND.  They don't cause the continental plates to rise.

Isostasy is where the actual continental plates are rising due to the enormous weight of all those continental glaciers melting off 11,000 years ago.  THAT is what is occurring.  Subduction zones have NOTHING to do with that you fucking moron.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

Wh


Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Which is worlds more than you


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

Dot Com said:


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


That's the best post you've ever made!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2015)

westwall said:


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


LOL. Of course, Phd Geologist. Be glad to give you a basic primer in subduction geology of the Pacific Northwest;

Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California Oregon and Washington Past Present and Future 2012 Division on Earth and Life Studies

The history of crustal strain accumulation andrelease above subduction zone faults over hundreds of years is described by the earthquake deformation cycle(Nelson et al., 1996; Satake and Atwater, 2007). During an earthquake (known as the coseismic period), vertical
land motion can change almost instantly by more thana meter (see “Rare Extreme Events” in Chapter 5).
Between earthquakes (known as the interseismic period),rates of vertical land motion can be on the order of mm yr-1 and thus can have a significant impact on the relative sea level. Vertical land motions for the Cascadia Subduction Zone and San Andreas Fault Zone are described below.

SEA-LEVEL VARIABILITY AND CHANGE OFF THE CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON COASTS 71
TABLE 4.3 GIA Predicted Relative Sea-Level Rise for ± 250 Years Relative to the Present Day Using an Ensemble of 16
GIA Models at 21 West Coast Tide Gage Locations
GIA Predicted Relative Sea-Level Rise (mm yr-1)
Location Latitude Longitude Mean Standard Deviation
Cherry Point, WA 48.87 -122.75 -0.16 0.44
Friday Harbor, WA 48.55 -123.00 0.14 0.46
Neah Bay, WA 48.37 -124.62 0.58 0.64
Port Townsend, WA 48.12 -122.75 0.40 0.48
Seattle, WA 47.60 -122.33 0.53 0.44
Toke Point, WA 46.72 -123.97 1.03 0.53
Astoria, OR 46.22 -123.77 1.07 0.43
South Beach, OR 44.63 -124.05 1.00 0.34
Charleston II, OR 43.35 -124.32 0.86 0.32
Port Orford, OR 42.73 -124.50 0.81 0.32
Crescent City, CA 41.75 -124.20 0.67 0.31
N. Spit, Humboldt Bay, CA 40.77 -124.22 0.63 0.32
Point Reyes, CA 38.00 -122.98 0.53 0.30
San Francisco, CA 37.80 -122.47 0.47 0.29
Alameda, CA 37.77 -122.30 0.44 0.29
Monterey, CA 36.60 -121.88 0.48 0.28
Port San Luis, CA 35.17 -120.75 0.45 0.27
Santa Monica, CA 34.02 -118.50 0.34 0.25
Los Angeles, CA 33.72 -118.27 0.36 0.25
La Jolla, CA 32.87 -117.25 0.34 0.25
San Diego, CA 32.72 -117.17 0.35 0.25
NOTE: Relative sea-level change is the change in absolute sea level minus the change in height of the solid earth surface. Relative sea-level rise has a negative
sign compared to uplift of the earth surface due to GIA.


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2015)

jc456 said:


> That's the best post you've ever made!



You're pleased to see Westwall shown to be a liar?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > That's the best post you've ever made!
> ...


Is that what I said? Nope. The fact he did't write a damn thing, priceless and his best post Eva


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2015)

Old Rocks concluded that Westwall was a liar as he claims to be a PhD geologist but seems utterly ignorant or many basic geological points.  Then you said that was Old Rocks best post ever.  How else should we take that?  I imagine it's how Westwall took it.


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


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


\





I know Tanya quite well.  Nothing in this paper, nor in the link you provide says that subduction zones cause ocean level reduction.  Nothing.  Every paper I have ever read states the exact OPPOSITE.  As even this one does silly person...

Sea-Level *Rise* for the Coasts of California Oregon and Washington Past Present and Future 2012 Division on Earth and Life Studies


See, I made it big so even a blind fool such as yourself can see what YOU posted you twat.


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2015)

But apparently those URL tags are just a skosh beyond you.  Did you make up this statement or did it actually come from some grownup you met once?


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Old Rocks concluded that Westwall was a liar as he claims to be a PhD geologist but seems utterly ignorant or many basic geological points.  Then you said that was Old Rocks best post ever.  How else should we take that?  I imagine it's how Westwall took it.








Olfraud has done nothing but confirm that every paper out there states that subduction zones cause sea levels to rise, not fall.  I showed that the areas where sea level is falling is very large, while the so called sea level rise for the majority of the planet is ZERO to 3 mm.  

Some day, when you develop a brain you will be able to discern what people are saying.  Sadly, you are currently only semi sentient, so are not quite as smart as the squirrel outside my window at the moment.


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> But apparently those URL tags are just a skosh beyond you.  Did you make up this statement or did it actually come from some grownup you met once?








WTF are you blabbering about?


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2015)

The wrinkle in the ongoing story of our planet’s warming seas is discussed in a recent report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences, “Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future.” The report estimates that a major earthquake triggered beneath the Pacific Ocean, within the CDZ, “would cause *some coastal areas to immediately subside* and relative *sea levels to suddenly rise*.” How much? More than three feet higher than what’s already projected for the region.

[urlhttp://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/07/cascadia-subduction-zone-a-key-factor-for-pacific-nw-sea-level-rise/[/URL]


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> The wrinkle in the ongoing story of our planet’s warming seas is discussed in a recent report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences, “Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future.” The report estimates that a major earthquake triggered beneath the Pacific Ocean, within the CDZ, “would cause *some coastal areas to immediately subside* and relative *sea levels to suddenly rise*.” How much? More than three feet higher than what’s already projected for the region.
> 
> [urlhttp://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/07/cascadia-subduction-zone-a-key-factor-for-pacific-nw-sea-level-rise/[/URL]







Proving that you too are a simpleton.....  Once again the link says sea level RISE, and nothing about subduction zones causing sea level to drop.  Thanks for proving my point yet again.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Old Rocks concluded that Westwall was a liar as he claims to be a PhD geologist but seems utterly ignorant or many basic geological points.  Then you said that was Old Rocks best post ever.  How else should we take that?  I imagine it's how Westwall took it.


Sorry I realize it was a post that made sense and completely lost by you!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

So 


Crick said:


> The wrinkle in the ongoing story of our planet’s warming seas is discussed in a recent report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences, “Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future.” The report estimates that a major earthquake triggered beneath the Pacific Ocean, within the CDZ, “would cause *some coastal areas to immediately subside* and relative *sea levels to suddenly rise*.” How much? More than three feet higher than what’s already projected for the region.
> 
> [urlhttp://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/07/cascadia-subduction-zone-a-key-factor-for-pacific-nw-sea-level-rise/[/URL]


a rise due to the earth and not man. Hmmm


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2015)

Let's use our heads Mr jc.  Isostasy - the rise and fall of the contintents - is roughly symmetric around the planet.  Just about as much rises as falls.  Thus this process will have very little effect on the average global sea level.  The thermal expansion from global warming and the increase from Greenland and Anatarctica's melted ice WILL raise levels globally. Now, I've had a few geology classes, but I'm no geologist. But the first article I came across when I started looking seemed to be related to whatever Westwall and OldRocks were talking about and it claimed, as you saw, that continental subduction led to an increase in local sea level.  That only makes sense: lower the coastline and the ocean will come to a higher point. However geocentric sea level - the level of the ocean with respect to the center of the Earth, will rise.  As continental masses are subducted below the previous sea level, they displace the ocean's volume.  Think what would happen were we to pick up Mt Everest and drop it into the Pacific.  The ocean would rise slightly everywhere, wouldn't it.


----------



## Yarddog (Apr 2, 2015)

Politico said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > It is already too late to do anything.  We have already gone off the cliff.  Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything.  Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it.  Human behavior is entirely predictable.
> ...




Yeah, what if this is just part of the natural cycle.  Who is really to say what is normal, obviously there has been much less Ice than there is today during other periods, then the i ce returns.


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Let's use our heads Mr jc.  Isostasy - the rise and fall of the contintents - is roughly symmetric around the planet.  Just about as much rises as falls.  Thus this process will have very little effect on the average global sea level.  The thermal expansion from global warming and the increase from Greenland and Anatarctica's melted ice WILL raise levels globally. Now, I've had a few geology classes, but I'm no geologist. But the first article I came across when I started looking seemed to be related to whatever Westwall and OldRocks were talking about and it claimed, as you saw, that continental subduction led to an increase in local sea level.  That only makes sense: lower the coastline and the ocean will come to a higher point. However geocentric sea level - the level of the ocean with respect to the center of the Earth, will rise.  As continental masses are subducted below the previous sea level, they displace the ocean's volume.  Think what would happen were we to pick up Mt Everest and drop it into the Pacific.  The ocean would rise slightly everywhere, wouldn't it.









No, it's not.  Isostatic rebound is the Earth returning to it's original level after the overbearing ice sheet has melted.  Period.  The raising of the Himalayas is due to the collision of the Indian plate into the Asian plate with a small amount of isostatic rebound thrown in.  

Isostatic rebound CAN'T be symmetrical around the planet.  Just think (I know it's hard for you) of what that statement means.  Really, think about it.

And, yet again, you reinforce my statements that subduction zones don't cause sea level decrease which is what olfraud, NOT ME, was claiming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2015)

A graphic showing a relative sea level curve



View Original Image at Full Size
Figure 2. Coquille River estuary relative sea level curve. Modified from Figure 6 of Witter et al. (2003).

Image 18540 is a 3886 by 5355 pixel JPEG 
Uploaded: Dec13 09

Beneath the surface of coastal lowlands archives of mid- to late-Holocene subduction zone earthquakes

Damn, Walleyes, you are stupid.


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> A graphic showing a relative sea level curve
> 
> 
> 
> ...









  Says the imbecile who's EVERY post confirms what I stated!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2015)

A graphic showing a relative sea level curve



View Original Image at Full Size
Figure 2. Coquille River estuary relative sea level curve. Modified from Figure 6 of Witter et al. 

(2003).

Image 18540 is a 3886 by 5355 pixel JPEG 
Uploaded: Dec13 09

Ol' fucking dumb Walleyes sees the interseismic period of sea level fall between the subduction quakes, and calls it sea level rise. At present, in areas of rapid subduction, the sea level is falling relative to the land, until a quake re-adjusts the landscape up, then it begins all over again.


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> A graphic showing a relative sea level curve
> 
> 
> 
> ...








No, I showed the areas where seal levels are dropping at very fast rates.  You claimed that it was due to subduction zone activity.  I said subduction zones don't cause sea level to fall.  You have since supported my statement with every link you post you fucking imbecile.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2015)

Sea level is relitive to land. And the land is rising. Therefore, sea level at those points relitive to land is falling. Same as the sea level near New Orleans is rising very rapidly due to the subsidance of the land there, and the general rise in sea level due to ice melt and warming of the ocean. By this site, one can see that there are far more places where the sea level relative to land is rising than falling;
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Sea level is relitive to land. And the land is rising. Therefore, sea level at those points relitive to land is falling. Same as the sea level near New Orleans is rising very rapidly due to the subsidance of the land there, and the general rise in sea level due to ice melt and warming of the ocean. By this site, one can see that there are far more places where the sea level relative to land is rising than falling;
> Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents








  Once again for the imbecile in the room.   Subduction zones cause volcanoes to form INLAND from the sea.

Look at the map below.  The subduction zone is off to the left of the map image.  See the line of volcanoes?  That's where they form!


You are spouting horse poo.  Learn of what you speak before you make an even bigger fool of yourself you damned halfwit!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> Let's use our heads Mr jc.  Isostasy - the rise and fall of the contintents - is roughly symmetric around the planet.  Just about as much rises as falls.  Thus this process will have very little effect on the average global sea level.  The thermal expansion from global warming and the increase from Greenland and Anatarctica's melted ice WILL raise levels globally. Now, I've had a few geology classes, but I'm no geologist. But the first article I came across when I started looking seemed to be related to whatever Westwall and OldRocks were talking about and it claimed, as you saw, that continental subduction led to an increase in local sea level.  That only makes sense: lower the coastline and the ocean will come to a higher point. However geocentric sea level - the level of the ocean with respect to the center of the Earth, will rise.  As continental masses are subducted below the previous sea level, they displace the ocean's volume.  Think what would happen were we to pick up Mt Everest and drop it into the Pacific.  The ocean would rise slightly everywhere, wouldn't it.


Well interesting, no I am not familiar with this topic, however, again using logic, I would believe as earth moves out of the water, the water then would have to eventually equalize around the globe. And that equalization around the globe would cause a rise in levels around the globe.


----------



## Liminal (Apr 3, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > A graphic showing a relative sea level curve
> ...



It doesn't matter what you think you've showed.  You can't even begin to put any of it into an actual context, you aren't a scientist.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


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



How did I know you were going to support the AGW hocus-pocus?  Because you're a moron!


----------



## westwall (Apr 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


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








Actually, I am.   But it doesn't matter.  You fools are still trying to sacrifice virgins to the volcano Gods. 
You're not worth wasting time with.


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Well interesting, no I am not familiar with this topic, however, again using logic, I would believe as earth moves out of the water, the water then would have to eventually equalize around the globe. And that equalization around the globe would cause a rise in levels around the globe.



What do you mean "as earth moves out of the water?


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2015)

Most of the land surface is either rising (rebound from having glaciers sitting on top) or sinking. If you find the pivot point and search out tide gauge stations in that area, what do you find? From the examples I've seen there is a 1-2 mm/yr SLR. Certainly not the 3+ mm/yr the satellites appear to show, for uncheckable ocean locales.

Which tide gauges are the satellites adjusted to? I don't know, it is not easily accessible info.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Well interesting, no I am not familiar with this topic, however, again using logic, I would believe as earth moves out of the water, the water then would have to eventually equalize around the globe. And that equalization around the globe would cause a rise in levels around the globe.
> ...


As volcanoes erupt and plates move the land mass rises out of the ocean.


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2015)

westwall said:


> Actually, I am.



You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe.  So difficult, that no one here does.


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2015)

IanC said:


> Most of the land surface is either rising (rebound from having glaciers sitting on top) or sinking. If you find the pivot point and search out tide gauge stations in that area, what do you find? From the examples I've seen there is a 1-2 mm/yr SLR. Certainly not the 3+ mm/yr the satellites appear to show, for uncheckable ocean locales.
> Which tide gauges are the satellites adjusted to? I don't know, it is not easily accessible info.




So... you know this topic better and have conducted a better analysis than the CU Sea Level Research Group.  That's amazing.  You've done a good job of hiding your flame Ian.


----------



## Liminal (Apr 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I am.
> ...



I know I don't.


----------



## westwall (Apr 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I am.
> ...









You have no idea how little I care about your clueless opinion.


----------



## westwall (Apr 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Big deal.  What you believe is so immaterial to the discussion that your mere mention of it exposes the weakness of your so called arguments.  Scientists attack evidence.  Asshats attack people.


----------



## Liminal (Apr 3, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



People pretending to be scientists have no idea what the evidence means, let alone knowing how to attack the evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2015)

Who cares


Liminal said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Who cares?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


What evidence?


----------



## Liminal (Apr 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



How much evidence do I need to smell bullshit?


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...







Then by all means present some for me to destroy.  So far all you have done is shoot your mouth off.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




the sun


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Uhhh, not now it doesn't. Maybe you can explain that.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Things Einstein or any other real scientist, never said:
> 
> Relativity is settled science
> 
> We have consensus



Special relativity is actually quite settled, and there is a consensus.  If you can find me a physicist that says otherwise I'd love to meet him.

Though, in Einstein's day, of course, it would not have been "settled". He just came up with it.

AGW btw predates Einstein's relativity.


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








So.  Why is it not the Sun now?  Occams Razor says it is....


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Things Einstein or any other real scientist, never said:
> ...








No, it doesn't.  The theory that CO2 is a GHG does.  Not the theory of AGW.


----------



## IanC (Apr 4, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the land surface is either rising (rebound from having glaciers sitting on top) or sinking. If you find the pivot point and search out tide gauge stations in that area, what do you find? From the examples I've seen there is a 1-2 mm/yr SLR. Certainly not the 3+ mm/yr the satellites appear to show, for uncheckable ocean locales.
> ...




I have no doubt that I would have made a perfectly acceptable climate science researcher if that was the direction life had taken me. I may even have fallen into line with the groupthink so common in climate science because that is the easiest way to get funding.

as an outside observer all I have to do is peruse the data, infer the idea behind the paper and decide whether the conclusions are correct or even supported by the data. in climate science I often find that the conclusions are poorly supported by the available data, and the ideas behind the papers are skewed in such a way as to almost be misdirection.

here is a common example of a climate science paper. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html






the idea was to give a plausible reason for the drop in altimetry SLR in the 2000's. they decided to 'correct' for La Ninas. voila!

but what would have happened if they corrected the 1990's for El Ninos instead? 2.5mm/yr?


there are too many graphs like this one, to get on board with the doomsday scenarios being predicted.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2015)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Mr. Phd Geologist, the Special Theory of Relativity was proposed in 1905. Arrhenius showed what the increase in CO2 by man would do when it doubled the natural amount in 1896. AGW predates Relativity.


----------



## Liminal (Apr 4, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Evidence of what?  Evidence that you aren't a scientist?  You've already done that work for me.


----------



## Liminal (Apr 4, 2015)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Let's use our heads Mr jc.  Isostasy - the rise and fall of the contintents - is roughly symmetric around the planet.  Just about as much rises as falls.  Thus this process will have very little effect on the average global sea level.  The thermal expansion from global warming and the increase from Greenland and Anatarctica's melted ice WILL raise levels globally. Now, I've had a few geology classes, but I'm no geologist. But the first article I came across when I started looking seemed to be related to whatever Westwall and OldRocks were talking about and it claimed, as you saw, that continental subduction led to an increase in local sea level.  That only makes sense: lower the coastline and the ocean will come to a higher point. However geocentric sea level - the level of the ocean with respect to the center of the Earth, will rise.  As continental masses are subducted below the previous sea level, they displace the ocean's volume.  Think what would happen were we to pick up Mt Everest and drop it into the Pacific.  The ocean would rise slightly everywhere, wouldn't it.
> ...



A nearly impressive level of Wikipedia based knowledge.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


 How about, something that proves 120 ppm of CO2 actually does anything to temperatures!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Well, if you want to go there today every piece of evidence posted on this forum has smelt like bullshit!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 4, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Things Einstein or any other real scientist, never said:
> ...



AGW does not predate Einstein. AGW started after you guys crapped out on "Global Cooling"


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




The first paper on agw was published in 1896 by Arrhenius. Einsteins first paper wasn't published until 1905. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to figure out which came first...1896 or 1905.



> AGW started after you guyscrapped out on "Global Cooling"


 debunked like a zillion times. You should unplug yourself then plug yourself back in, see if that helps


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 4, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Do you know what AGW stands for?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Have you figured out if 1896 predates 1905 yet? Lemme know.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 4, 2015)

westwall said:


> So.  Why is it not the Sun now?  Occams Razor says it is....



And Westwall now fails at the Razor. No actual scientist could ever fail that hard at something so essential.

The Razor says the simplest theory THAT EXPLAINS THE OBSERVED EVIDENCE is most likely correct. The solar theory is contradicted by the observed evidence in multiple ways.

1. The solar theory predicts stratospheric warming. We see stratospheric cooling.

2. The solar theory does not predict OLR decreasing in the greenhouse gas bands, as we measure.

3. The solar theory does not predict backradiation increasing, as we measure.

4. The solar theory would require ALL planets, dwarf planets and moons be warming. Most (Mercury, Venus, Luna, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) are not warming Uranus is cooling, while Neptune and Pluto are warming.

5. And most important, the solar theory would require the sun be getting hotter. The sun has been getting cooler.

In direct contrast, AGW is the simplest theory that explains all the observed data. Hence, Occams Razor says that AGW theory is the most likely to be correct.


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So.  Why is it not the Sun now?  Occams Razor says it is....
> ...







  No, if something happened before, then it is most likely that what caused it then, is causing it now you dipshit.  I mean really admiral, your fundamental lack of scientific understanding is so profound I am surprised you can even walk.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 4, 2015)

As always happens, Westwall couldn't find his balls and give an honest response.

Westwall, the gig's up. You can't get every bit of the science totally wrong every time for years running, and then think you can handwave away all your hilarious failures just by soiling yourself and flinging the poo yet another time.

You're not a scientist. You've never been a scientist. You're a lying fraud, and everyone here knows it.

It's just not possible for someone as ignorant as you to ever have been a scientist. Even the chronic substance abuse and creeping senility which is so evident in your posts couldn't reduce a real scientist to your classification of "totally 'effin stupid".


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So.  Why is it not the Sun now?  Occams Razor says it is....
> ...


Nope


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2015)

mamooth said:


> As always happens, Westwall couldn't find his balls and give an honest response.
> 
> Westwall, the gig's up. You can't get every bit of the science totally wrong every time for years running, and then think you can handwave away all your hilarious failures just by soiling yourself and flinging the poo yet another time.
> 
> ...


And yet.........no experiments.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > As always happens, Westwall couldn't find his balls and give an honest response.
> ...


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Cough,cough dude how many times must I debunk that stupid link? Can you say herr Koch?


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2015)

If you choose to adhere to the work of Herr Koch, I bet you'd find a lot to agree with in the geocentric Almagest of Ptolemy.  Check it out.  It will support a great number of the positions you've already chosen to adopt.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2015)

Crick said:


> If you choose to adhere to the work of Herr Koch, I bet you'd find a lot to agree with in the geocentric Almagest of Ptolemy.  Check it out.  It will support a great number of the positions you've already chosen to adopt.


Funny how you still can't disprove Koch 's experiment. Funny


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2015)

I don't have to because it's already been done, before you and I were born.  You are a fool to try to use Koch to refute the greenhouse effect.  Ian, are you observing this conversation?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 5, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Ah.  Perfect lolberal "logic."

The SUN was responsible THEN, but now, since Capitalism exists, the cause of such things has changed.  It's now all OUR fucking fault.

Thought so.


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Prior to the Industrial Revolution, variations in CO2 levels were primarily caused by temperature changes.  Most of those changes were due to Milankovic cycles (up and down), or volcanic aerosols (down).  Since the CO2 was a strong positive feedback. in many of such instances, greenhouse warming came to dominate the processes taking place.

After the Industrial Revolution began, CO2 from human combustion of fossil fuel rose at rates that had not been seen in tens of millions of years.  Very little of the present atmospheric CO2 originated in warming.  It hasn't had sufficient time.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 5, 2015)

Crick said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Thanks for sharing your preconceived notions.  Actual verifiable science would be preferred.


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2015)

Try IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2015)

mamooth said:


> As always happens, Westwall couldn't find his balls and give an honest response.
> 
> Westwall, the gig's up. You can't get every bit of the science totally wrong every time for years running, and then think you can handwave away all your hilarious failures just by soiling yourself and flinging the poo yet another time.
> 
> ...









Sure thing admiral.  So far you haven't presented a single shred of evidence that you know anything about....well anything.  We do know that you are a lying sack of poo along with all of your othe


Crick said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...









CO2 is a WEAK feedback.  If feedbacks even exist.  So far they only exist in the computer science fiction derived imaginations of their authors.  Nothing empirical has EVER been presented to support the notion.....I won't even give them the appellation of hypothesis.


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2015)

Then there must be dozens of papers out there that demonstrate your claim.  Could you find us some?


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2015)

Crick said:


> Then there must be dozens of papers out there that demonstrate your claim.  Could you find us some?









Present ONE paper that uses empirical data to support your claim.  Computer models ARE NOT DATA!  Funny how you idiots who claim to know so much about science can't seem to wrap your tiny little heads around that FACT!


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2015)

These are empirical data, wheezebulb.






These are empirical data






These are empirical data






These are empirical data






You are such a stupid dipshit.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2015)

Crick said:


> I don't have to because it's already been done, before you and I were born.  You are a fool to try to use Koch to refute the greenhouse effect.  Ian, are you observing this conversation?


Then you live a lie. Foolish!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2015)

Crick said:


> These are empirical data, wheezebulb.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, the falsified data rant again. Way to show your hand!


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2015)

I'm sorry jc, but you're just not up to it.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> Present ONE paper that uses empirical data to support your claim.  Computer models ARE NOT DATA!



The direct measurements of outgoing longwave radiation decreasing, backradiation increasing and stratospheric cooling are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. If no computer models existed, AGW theory would still be proven. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.



> Funny how you idiots who claim to know so much about science can't seem to wrap your tiny little heads around that FACT!



Funny how you deliberately ignore all the direct evidence, and then try to pass off a lie that models are the only evidence.

That's the #2 reason why the denier cult is held in such contempt by the world, its chronic dishonesty.

The #1 reason deniers are scorned, of course, is that the denier cult's science stinks so badly. As in they don't have any science. At this stage, all they have is conspiracy theories.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 6, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Present ONE paper that uses empirical data to support your claim.  Computer models ARE NOT DATA!
> ...


They're too busy tearing down others to do their own research in the field. Extraction industry shills they are.


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Present ONE paper that uses empirical data to support your claim.  Computer models ARE NOT DATA!
> ...







You mean like in the IR spectrum that no one seems to be measuring in the first place?  Further, the very idea that long wave IR is what warms the planet has never, ever been shown to be correct.  IN fact, Trenberths admission that there was no warming in the oceans pushed me to check things out and I found out that IR can only penetrate microns deep into the oceans (the ultimate heat sink for the planet after all) and that renders the whole "theory" false.  IR can't warm the planet.  Period.

"Terrestrial emission plays a critical role in the climate system(1), and over 99% of this radiation occurs in the wavelengthrange from 5 to 100μm (2,000 cm−1to 100 cm−1). However,there have been very few spectrally resolved measurements of terrestrial emission at wavelengths between 15.4μmand100μm(650 cm−1to 100 cm−1), often referred to as the far infrared, even though approximately half of the terrestrial radiation occurs over this subset of infrared wavelengths (2). Under moist conditions, the atmosphere is  opaque to the surface in the far infrared, but the atmosphere becomes partially transparent to the surface under arid conditions. The terms that affect radiation in the far infrared, which are surface, water vapor, and cloud emission, are inferred from measurements in other spectral regions (typically midinfrared wavelengths from 5μmto15.4μm) (3), and it is possible to check for consistency with outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) measurements from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument, which covers between 5μmand 50μm(2,000cm−1to 200 cm−1) (4). It has been demonstrated, however, that this approach can be problematic for water vapor and cloud energetics due to compensating errors (5, 6).  *The paucity of measurements in the far infrared has frustrated efforts to characterize what may be affecting this spectral region*, but the limited measurements that do exist (7−10) suggest the importance of the far infrared for radiometric accuracy in the radiative transfer codes used in climate models (11). For example, Turner et al. (12) found that changing the water vapor continuum absorption in the Community Earth System Model, which affects far-IR radiation, leads to changes in the vertical distribution of radiative cooling."

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16297.full.pdf


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








Yeah, we're all about calling those who don't believe your tall tales "deniers".  Your whole system of dealing with sceptics is to tear them down and ignore their arguments.  You're pathetic dottie.  You engage in the very activity you claim we do but with you it is systemic.  So, in other words, you hypocritical asshat, you can go pound sand.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> Further, the very idea that long wave IR is what warms the planet has never, ever been shown to be correct.



And off you go into loony greenhouse-effect denier territory, so there's no need to even pretend to take you seriously.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 6, 2015)

Sure, ol' Walleyes, sure. And who among your plethora of obese junkies, fake British Lords, and loopy ex-TV weathermen have been threatoned with prosecution for doing science. One of your GOP assholes not only tried that, but then ran for governor, bragging about it. And lost.

There is a reason that all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But, of course, for our little tin hat boys, that is just proof of the vastness of the international conspiracy to fool them and pollute their vital bodily fluids.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> I found out that IR can only penetrate microns deep into the oceans (the ultimate heat sink for the planet after all) and that renders the whole "theory" false. IR can't warm the planet. Period.



Westwall, why can IR only penetrate microns deep into seawater?  Please explain to us precisely what's happening to IR radiation that hits the ocean.

Just to give you something to think about as you're working that up, the diameter of a water molecule is 310 quadrillionths of a meter.  A micron is one millionth of a meter. If your IR photon disappears in one micron, it does so after it has passed roughly 3 million water molecules.

So, again, what is it that you believe is happening to that photon??


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Sure, ol' Walleyes, sure. And who among your plethora of obese junkies, fake British Lords, and loopy ex-TV weathermen have been threatoned with prosecution for doing science. One of your GOP assholes not only tried that, but then ran for governor, bragging about it. And lost.
> 
> There is a reason that all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But, of course, for our little tin hat boys, that is just proof of the vastness of the international conspiracy to fool them and pollute their vital bodily fluids.









No, they all support because it is now the foundation of all of their grant proposals.  You know....."follow the money".   As far as your other non sequitur attacks, who cares.   Those are all you have, personal attacks and appeals to authority.  You have no science to back your preposterous claims up with,.


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I found out that IR can only penetrate microns deep into the oceans (the ultimate heat sink for the planet after all) and that renders the whole "theory" false. IR can't warm the planet. Period.
> ...








Because that's all it can.  IR interacts with the "skin" of the water.  That's it.  Go ahead, don't believe me.  Look it up for yourself.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Turner found that the water vapor column acts much the same as the ocean and the heat is reflected and lost to space.. He found that a simple 40% humidity level, at 0-40 meters renders the 15um - 100um range impotent.   Water vapor near earths surface, in the water column, renders CO2 null. No mid-tropospheric hot spot forms as the energy is lost to space because it can not be absorbed..

Turners paper is a good read and the Faithful boo and hiss because physics doesn't care about agenda's..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I found out that IR can only penetrate microns deep into the oceans (the ultimate heat sink for the planet after all) and that renders the whole "theory" false. IR can't warm the planet. Period.
> ...



It burrows into the ocean until it hits the 700m mark, right?


----------



## Crick (Apr 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> Then there must be dozens of papers out there that demonstrate your claim.  Could you find us some?



Present ONE paper that uses empirical data to support your claim.  Computer models ARE NOT DATA!  Funny how you idiots who claim to know so much about science can't seem to wrap your tiny little heads around that FACT![/QUOTE]

Westwall first.


----------



## Crick (Apr 7, 2015)

westwall said:


> I found out that IR can only penetrate microns deep into the oceans (the ultimate heat sink for the planet after all) and that renders the whole "theory" false. IR can't warm the planet. Period.





Crick said:


> Westwall, why can IR only penetrate microns deep into seawater?  Please explain to us precisely what's happening to IR radiation that hits the ocean.
> 
> Just to give you something to think about as you're working that up, the diameter of a water molecule is 310 quadrillionths of a meter.  A micron is one millionth of a meter. If your IR photon disappears in one micron, it does so after it has passed roughly 3 million water molecules.
> 
> So, again, what is it that you believe is happening to that photon??





westwall said:


> Because that's all it can.  IR interacts with the "skin" of the water.  That's it.  Go ahead, don't believe me.  Look it up for yourself.



What is "the "skin" of the water and how, precisely, do the IR photons interact with it Westwall?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 7, 2015)

So the sun cannot possibly warm a rock or peice of steel as the sunlight does not penetrate either at all. Right? That seems to be the arguement that our Phd Geologist is presenting.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 7, 2015)

But Billy.........if you are a scientist at any level of education and you disagree with the established narrative of AGW science, you are automatically a fake scientist!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 7, 2015)

Oh...........ps......the 97% consensus is a myth!! A huge, huge majority of scientists call BS on the alarmist view of climate change pushed by the bozo's in this forum >>

Cooking Climate Consensus Data 97 of Scientists Affirm AGW Debunked

These scientists value the age old tradition of the scientific method which AGW scientists don't care about.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 7, 2015)

*dEbUnKeD*


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> Oh...........ps......the 97% consensus is a myth!! A huge, huge majority of scientists call BS on the alarmist view of climate change pushed by the bozo's in this forum >>
> 
> Cooking Climate Consensus Data 97 of Scientists Affirm AGW Debunked
> 
> These scientists value the age old tradition of the scientific method which AGW scientists don't care about.




of all those 97% polls, Cook's has to be the worst. it has been hit a lot more and a lot harder since that 2013 piece as well. the Lewandowsky, Nutteracelli and Cook pieces on 'deniers' have taken fatal blows as well. it takes too long to explain how anti-science those guys are but Australia must be ashamed.


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I found out that IR can only penetrate microns deep into the oceans (the ultimate heat sink for the planet after all) and that renders the whole "theory" false. IR can't warm the planet. Period.
> ...










Here you go...Look it up for yourself.

Light Absorption in Sea Water, Wozniak & Dera, Atmospheric and Oceanographic Sciences Library (2007)


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2015)

You evaded the very simple question that Old Rocks brought up.

That is, since any wavelength of sunlight can't penetrate far into the "skin" of a rock, Westwall logic would say that proves sunlight can't warm a rock, right?

Conclusion: Westwall logic is really freakin' stupid. Deniers are literally tossing out conservation of energy solely because it contradicts their religious beliefs.


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2015)

mamooth said:


> You evaded the very simple question that Old Rocks brought up.
> 
> That is, since any wavelength of sunlight can't penetrate far into the "skin" of a rock, Westwall logic would say that proves sunlight can't warm a rock, right?
> 
> Conclusion: Westwall logic is really freakin' stupid. Deniers are literally tossing out conservation of energy solely because it contradicts their religious beliefs.







Olfraud is WRONG!  He's comparing an apple with a hand grenade and as usual, you're too stupid to figure out why.  Now...mr. admiral, why don't you dazzle us with your brilliance and tell us the difference between sunlight radiating on rock, and on water.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2015)

For the case we're discussing, there is no difference. Rock or water, all energy in the form of radiation that isn't reflected is absorbed.

If you think there's a difference, we'd all like to hear how it works. Why do you think the rock absorbs all incoming energy that doesn't reflect, but water doesn't? And where does the energy that the water doesn't absorb go?


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2015)

mamooth said:


> For the case we're discussing, there is no difference. Rock or water, all energy in the form of radiation that isn't reflected is absorbed.
> 
> If you think there's a difference, we'd all like to hear how it works. Why do you think the rock absorbs all incoming energy that doesn't reflect, but water doesn't? And where does the energy that the water doesn't absorb go?







Wrong as usual.  Truly, for someone who claims to have been a "nuclear watch officer" in the Navy, you know bupkus about the physical world.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2015)

So you're not going to tell us what mystery dimension the energy that strikes the water vanishes into?

You're proudly violating conservation of energy. That makes you a flaming kook.

Now, you could still just say "Oops, I made a dumb mistake there." It would be no biggie. However, your all-consuming narcissism prevents you from ever admitting any error of any sort. Therefore, you're going to keep charging down the kook path now, to everyone's great amusement. Please proceed.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 7, 2015)

Come on, Walleyes, explain to us why a rock or peice of steel can be warmed, but water cannot.


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2015)

Hahahahaha!!!!!!!

Old Fraud and the pooh flinging monkey don't understand their question, so they don't know the answer. Now they are hoping Westy doesn't either.  

Its not that difficult to figure out just by thinking. Which leaves Old Rocks out. And the pooh flinging monkey only uses his brain to think up insults and ad Homs.


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2015)

I was thinking about a longwinded explanation with specific heats, highly ordered solar vs diffuse IR, etc but that wouldn't get people to think for themselves.

Instead, just think about why we sweat.


----------



## Crick (Apr 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Oh...........ps......the 97% consensus is a myth!! A huge, huge majority of scientists call BS on the alarmist view of climate change pushed by the bozo's in this forum >>
> ...



Care to show us the polls that refute Cook, Nuccitelli et al?  Care to explain why if their poll was done so poorly why its results match everyone else's.  Care to explain why if AGW is broadly rejected by climate scientists, all these polls find such high acceptance?

Ian, would you care to take this opportunity to correct people whose response to a 97% acceptance poll is to say that science is not settled by a consensus; that it's not a democracy.  To be honest, though, I don't know why you brought the polls u here.  That was a bit out of the blue.

Would you care to tell Crusader Frank and jc456 whether or not the Vostok ice cores prove that CO2 cannot cause the world to heat?

Would you care to tell me what the question was you wanted me to answer so badly?


----------



## IanC (Apr 8, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...




as you could easily tell by reading the comment and the embedded quote, I was conversing with Skooks.

this whole 97% poll thing reminds me of Lewontin's Fallacy. he said there could be no human races because we all shared so many of the same genes. Skeptics and Warmers share the same general ideas for low level binary questions like, 'is the globe warmer?', 'has CO2 increased?', 'has mankind made an impact on nature?'.  both side are next to 100% in agreement on those although the warmers make strawman arguments that skeptics deny them all.

disagreements over magnitudes happen for those same questions, but we are all still on the same page, with more variation.

then come all the predictions, and conclusions of doom. this is where each side starts calling the other side "anti-science". and assumes that the other has bad intentions or is taking graft.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 8, 2015)

While there are some prediction of doom concerning the methane clatherates, for myself, and most scientists dealing with the problem, the predictions have been for major disruptions occurring over decades from sea level rise and crop losses. By throwing out strawmen, as you and the other denialists have been doing, you are engaging in exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco companies. Which is to be expected. After all, both the energy companies and the tobacco companies used the same con men to attack those showing what the effects of their products were.


----------



## IanC (Apr 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Come on, Walleyes, explain to us why a rock or peice of steel can be warmed, but water cannot.




IR can warm a rock's surface which can then only expel energy by radiation and conduction. because are is a good insulator the heat moves into the rock. likewise SW (solar) also warms the rock's surface and conduction warms the interior.

oceans are different. SW penetrates into the interior and directly warms the interior. the surface loses energy by radiation and conduction but it _also loses energy by evaporation!_ the ocean skin is always cooler than the underlying water therefore the direction of heat flow is always towards the atmosphere. IR can only penetrate the skin where it is used up as latent energy of evaporation. 

this does not mean that IR has no effect on ocean temperature. although IR does not directly warm the underlying water, it does affect the equilibrium of how much energy moves up from depth, which is warmed by solar energy. temperature is always a product of energy in minus energy out.


----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2015)

The surface of the ocean is not always cooler than the water below it and if you'll think of any XBT trace you've ever seen, shallow ocean water is almost invariably warmer than the water at depth.

However, I wish to make clear here that you are saying that Westwall and his two minions are wrong.  Good enough.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 9, 2015)

The AGW Cultists (Faithers) accept the orthodoxy of what they are instructed to believe and then they pretend it is "science."

As for anyone who challenges that orthodoxy, they deem em to be 'thblasphemers' and they attempt to label them as "deniers."

AGW Cultists:  THE WORLD IS FLAT!  It is consensus!  Science be praised!

Us Blasphemers:  Uhm.  No.  There is actual data (good data and solid science) supporting the proposition that the world is actually a sphere!

AGW Cultists:  (In a chorus of voices heavy with mocking derision):  DENIERS!

Us:  Yeah.  We ARE actually denying your contention.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 9, 2015)

Who is 'us'? And what contention are you denying? That there are GHGs? That GHGs are capable of warming the atmosphere? That the increase in the atmosphere of the amount of GHGs is anthropogenic? Or are you merely once again putting your ignorance on display for giggles.


----------



## IanC (Apr 9, 2015)

Crick said:


> The surface of the ocean is not always cooler than the water below it and if you'll think of any XBT trace you've ever seen, shallow ocean water is almost invariably warmer than the water at depth.
> 
> However, I wish to make clear here that you are saying that Westwall and his two minions are wrong.  Good enough.




I would like to point out this typical crick post. He implies that he has corrected some mistake, but all he is is confused. I really wish he would quote my actual words but he finds it easier to imagine my position or misremember what I said.

I said the skin of the ocean, where evaporation takes place, is always cooler than the water beneath it. Why? Because the H2O molecules that acquire enough speed to break through the skin and become water vapour leave behind a cohort of molecules that must, by definition be cooler. Temperature is the average kinetic speed, so if you keep taking away the fastest....

But crick would rather change the subject. Ocean water has variable temperature at different depths as measured by XBT or ARGO. WTF!?!?!

Evaporation happens in the top micron of water. IR reaches a micron into the ocean. Why does crick think the depths measured by XBTs has anything germaine to the discussion?


----------



## IanC (Apr 9, 2015)

Crick said:


> The surface of the ocean is not always cooler than the water below it and if you'll think of any XBT trace you've ever seen, shallow ocean water is almost invariably warmer than the water at depth.
> 
> However, I wish to make clear here that you are saying that Westwall and his two minions are wrong.  Good enough.




What I said proved that IR doesn't directly heat the ocean. Isn't that what Westy has been saying?

Quote westwall's actual words, in context, not your straw man version of them.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> IR can only penetrate the skin where it is used up as latent energy of evaporation



And you've given us zero evidence to back that up. That's because there's no evidence to support such a crazy claim. It's just totally wrong.

According to Ian here, the ocean's skin is always boiling away. That's absurd. People do measure this stuff, and they do the calculations. The skin of the ocean is not constantly boiling away.

Let's look at the reality. Ian got it half-right, before he started babbling all the cult pseudoscience.

Visible light penetrates into the ocean and warms it. The warm water becomes less dense and rises, so temperatures go up as you get closer to the surface.

Air temperatures are usually cooler than the ocean beneath, so at the skin layer, heat is lost to the atmosphere by radiation, conduction and evaporation. Thus, the temperature dips down again at the skin layer.

This diagram shows a typical temperature profile in the daytime. Note the sort of log scale for depth.






The change of heat retained in the ocean depends on the balance between heat in and heat out. Heat in is all the radiation coming in. Heat out is what flows back out through the skin.

How fast does the heat go back out? That's driven by the delta-T slope in the skin. The backradiation warms the skin and makes that slope less. So, less heat out. The backradiation doesn't have to warm the deeper layers to warm the ocean. It warms the ocean by decreasing the heat flow out from the deeper layers. Less heat out, more heat retained, oceans warm.



IanC said:


> And the pooh flinging monkey only uses his brain to think up insults and ad Homs.



Hypocrisy meter, pegged high.


----------



## IanC (Apr 9, 2015)

Thanks mamooth. Excellent presentation. Exactly what I have been saying for years. It would be better if it also showed how far IR penetrated but that is a minor quibble.

Solar heats the ocean, IR energy is used up at the boundary, equilibrium is changed . 

Cool things indeed can make a warm thing warmer. Lexicon is what confuses people.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> Thanks mamooth. Excellent presentation. Exactly what I have been saying for years. It would be better if it also showed how far IR penetrated but that is a minor quibble.
> 
> Solar heats the ocean, IR energy is used up at the boundary, equilibrium is changed .
> 
> Cool things indeed can make a warm thing warmer. Lexicon is what confuses people.



"Cool things indeed can make a warm thing warmer."

What?????????


----------



## IanC (Apr 9, 2015)

Hahaha. I don't take back what I said in your edit. A 3SD excursion from your usual behavior doesn't change the average (much).


----------



## IanC (Apr 9, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks mamooth. Excellent presentation. Exactly what I have been saying for years. It would be better if it also showed how far IR penetrated but that is a minor quibble.
> ...




Affect the equilibrium, affect the temperature. If solar wasn't already heating the oceans IR wouldn't have the same effect. IR is not 'directly' heating the ocean, except arguably in the first micron, but it certainly does change the equilibrium. As I have said countless times before.


----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2015)

By what mechanism do you believe conduction between that first micron and the water below is prevented from taking place?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 9, 2015)

Crick said:


> I'm sorry jc, but you're just not up to it.


I'm above it, I have graduated and know the fake data is fake.  I call bullshit, I don't accept it and until you present data that is RAW data, it's still bullshit.  comprehenda?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 9, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Present ONE paper that uses empirical data to support your claim.  Computer models ARE NOT DATA!
> ...


what evidence tooth?  tell us we're waiting.

Adn let me add, you say this daily and yet, nothing, nada, zip.  When you gonna post up that there evidence you claim you have? As Ted Knight said in Caddy Shack.... "we're waiting"!!!!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 9, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


who's tearing down who dot head?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 9, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Further, the very idea that long wave IR is what warms the planet has never, ever been shown to be correct.
> ...


the fact house, the true denier you are speaks in forked tongue only you know.


----------



## IanC (Apr 9, 2015)

Crick said:


> By what mechanism do you believe conduction between that first micron and the water below is prevented from taking place?



Heat doesn't flow from cold to warm.


----------



## westwall (Apr 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > By what mechanism do you believe conduction between that first micron and the water below is prevented from taking place?
> ...








Cricky don't do facts.  Just sayin...


----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> What I said proved that IR doesn't directly heat the ocean. Isn't that what Westy has been saying?



No



			
				Westwall said:
			
		

> I found out that IR can only penetrate microns deep into the oceans (the ultimate heat sink for the planet after all) and that renders the whole "theory" false. IR can't warm the planet. Period.


----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > By what mechanism do you believe conduction between that first micron and the water below is prevented from taking place?
> ...



Heat flows from hot to warm slower than it flows from hot to cold.  The effect is the same.  Westwall's idea that the IR's energy simply disappeared without heating anything because it only penetrated a micron into the water was patent nonsense.

And the layer in which actual evaporation takes place is about a millionth of a micron in thickness.  AND, evaporating water is not a loss of energy.  The water vapor has more thermal energy than it did as a liquid, it's just no longer in the ocean.  It's above it, warming the atmosphere and increasing its ability to absorb IR.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry jc, but you're just not up to it.
> ...


Eighth grade?


----------



## Crick (Apr 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry jc, but you're just not up to it.
> ...



It appears that you are afraid of numbers and of anyone that can add them or subtract them.  You seem to believe that arithmetic is a proprietary art of the devil.


----------



## IanC (Apr 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Over and over again. I feel like I am butting my head against the wall of stupidity on both sides of this issue.

 downward IR from the atmosphere is absorbed at the skin of the ocean. what happens to that energy? it goes into the pool of energy used to cause evaporation. what happens because of the water vapour? the air is lighter and starts to rise..what happens to that lighter air? it expands and cools as it gets higher. what happens to the water vapour as it cools? it condenses back into liquid water giving up its phase change energy and returns to the surface. this is a heat engine, taking energy from the surface across the surface bottleneck of GHGs to an altitude where the energy can escape more easily into space.

this same heat pump is also responsible for air currents, taking energy from the equator towards the poles, again, where the energy can escape more easily. likewise a similar system works inside the ocean. both of these systems act as a heat sink where energy is stored and released according to local conditions.

the real problem in discussing AGW is that people focus on one part of energy transfer at a time and ignore all the other pathways. for example, lets assume doubling CO2 causes an extra 5W/m2 at the surface. where does that energy go? alarmists think it all goes into raising the temperature. it does not, most of it goes into heatsinks via alternate pathways. because of the way equilibriums work at least some portion must go into raising temp but certainly not all. lets look at the flip side. if CO2 was halved then the surface would lose 5W/m2. would the surface go down in temperature the full amount? no. less energy would take the alternate pathways and the temperature would only be slightly affected.

the Sun is 10-20% brighter than it was 3 billion years ago, yet there has always been liquid water on earth. 

speaking of the Sun, what happens in the daytime when the solar IR is streaming in? I dont know what portion of the Sun's power is in IR but I bet it is easily gtreater than 10W at the Earth. What are some of the heatsinks that smooth out the change from daylight to nighttime? one simple one is that the atmosphere 'puffs up', storing potential energy that is released later.

what would happen if suddenly the earth no longer received sunlight? all of these heatsinks would give up the energy stored in them. water and wind circulation would slow and stop. the atmosphere would shrink until it lay frozen on the surface.

water is the dominant greenhouse gas and has held Earth in the goldilocks zone for billions of years despite major disruptions. CO2 is a minor ghg that while important, is not the control knob of climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2015)

*Very good, Ian. Except that real scientists present evidence that states just the opposite.

*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> These are empirical data, wheezebulb.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You do know that correlation isn't the same as causation don't you?  You didn't?  To bad.

How about some actual evidence that proves causation?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The direct measurements of outgoing longwave radiation decreasing, backradiation increasing and stratospheric cooling are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. If no computer models existed, AGW theory would still be proven. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.



Sorry hairball, outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing....precisely the opposite of the claims of the AGW models.






You have seen the evidence before but just can't resist telling the lie, can you.  How is that piss fetish working out for you these days?  Understand that you have some strange attraction to sissies as well.  In addition to being just plain stupid, it seems that you are pretty weird as well.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2015)

IanC said:


> Evaporation happens in the top micron of water. IR reaches a micron into the ocean. Why does crick think the depths measured by XBTs has anything germaine to the discussion?



Because crick is an idiot.  He asked for an explanation...then he got one and he knows he was wrong but can't let it end at that so out come the straw men.


----------



## Crick (Apr 10, 2015)

Evaporation takes place in the top millionth of a micron.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 10, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Sorry hairball, outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing....



Pissdrinker, nobody pays any attention to your graphs of faked mystery data.

If you're not faking the data, just tell us exactly where you got it. I've asked you several times, and you've refused to answer every single time. That's because you're a fraud who keeps trying to pass off faked data.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2015)

SSDD got his ass kicked on this board by both the deniers and the warmers because of his insane statements concerning science. Too bad he has come back to repeat the same nonsense. 

His choosey photons are giggle worthy.


----------



## Crick (Apr 11, 2015)

I have no problem with increases in outgoing LW.  It's the obvious result of increasing global temperatures.


----------



## Crick (Apr 11, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > These are empirical data, wheezebulb.
> ...



I know that causation always includes correlation - something you can't seem to grasp.  You seem to think that correlation is evidence of no relation.  And, pardon me if I follow you no further.  The claim here - by several of your buddies - was that mainstream science had no empirical data supporting AGW.  These are empirical data and they support AGW.  

And how are those intelligent photons coming along?  Did you think your claims would be forgotten?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 11, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Pissdrinker, nobody pays any attention to your graphs of faked mystery data.



You are unfamiliar with KNMI?  Of course you are.  See you are still dealing with your piss fetish.  Very strange.  Seems that you are might have gone from 2 cats short of being the crazy cat lady to a surplus of cats.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD got his ass kicked on this board by both the deniers and the warmers because of his insane statements concerning science. Too bad he has come back to repeat the same nonsense.
> 
> His choosey photons are giggle worthy.



On my worst day, my ass hasn't been kicked around as much as yours.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have no problem with increases in outgoing LW.  It's the obvious result of increasing global temperatures.




The models claim that a reduction of outgoing LW at the TOA is to be expected....precisely the opposite of what is happening because the physics upon which they are based are wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



They also support natural variation as the present is in no way unprecedented, extreme, or even moderately unusual.  It is a leap of faith to claim that evidence for natural variation is evidence of man made climate change.


----------



## Crick (Apr 11, 2015)

Natural variation does not mean idiopathic.  You still need a cause.  CO2 works to satisfy observations.  Nothing else - natural or synthetic - does.  You're the one making leaps of unevidenced faith.


----------



## theHawk (Apr 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> Antarctic Ice Shelf Thinning Speeds Up
> BBCNews
> 
> Scientists have their best view yet of the status of Antarctica's floating ice shelves and they find them to be thinning at an accelerating rate.
> ...




The Earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years naturally.  Your article fails to mention that.

There was a time when the planet had no ice at all in the polar regions, yet the planet didn't die.


So tell us again why we should be alarmed?


----------



## theHawk (Apr 12, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




The fear-mongerers don't care about the full scientific facts, especially when it doesn't help the Agenda.


----------



## Crick (Apr 12, 2015)

Frank, there are no indications in the geological record of humans starting forest fires.  Does that mean that humans cannot start forest fires?

Where in the Vostok cores does one find any instance of massive CO2 releases not associated with warming?  They are not there - you have said so yourself.  So where do you get the idea that the Vostok cores can tell us how the Earth will respond to such a thing?


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 12, 2015)

so I guess this is the new fangled vague term employed by AGW k00ks........."thinning"

These phonies are expert at finding these vague terms to scare the people..........like the maps with all the colors but no temperatures!!!

Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank, there are no indications in the geological record of humans starting forest fires.  Does that mean that humans cannot start forest fires?
> 
> Where in the Vostok cores does one find any instance of massive CO2 releases not associated with warming?  They are not there - you have said so yourself.  So where do you get the idea that the Vostok cores can tell us how the Earth will respond to such a thing?



Did you know the American Indians would burn half a state worth of forest to lead animals into a kill zone thereby providing meats and clothing for the tribe for the winter?

Ask Liz Warren about it


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> Natural variation does not mean idiopathic.  You still need a cause.  CO2 works to satisfy observations.  Nothing else - natural or synthetic - does.  You're the one making leaps of unevidenced faith.



No it doesn't because CO2 has been between 1000 and 7000ppm in the past without producing the runaway greenhouse effect that the AGW hypothesis demands.  The fact that the present is in no way unprecedented, unusual, or even slightly strange when compared to earth history is evidence enough that we are experiencing natural variations.  You must completely ignore all of earth history to believe in AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank, there are no indications in the geological record of humans starting forest fires.  Does that mean that humans cannot start forest fires?
> 
> Where in the Vostok cores does one find any instance of massive CO2 releases not associated with warming?  They are not there - you have said so yourself.  So where do you get the idea that the Vostok cores can tell us how the Earth will respond to such a thing?



Idiot...warming results in warmer oceans which then release CO2.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, there are no indications in the geological record of humans starting forest fires.  Does that mean that humans cannot start forest fires?
> ...



Not the native americans...say it ain't so.  They lived in harmony with gaia and were blessed by her.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 12, 2015)

SSDD said:


> No it doesn't because CO2 has been between 1000 and 7000ppm in the past without producing the runaway greenhouse effect that the AGW hypothesis demands.



When CO2 was at 7000 ppm, the sun was 4% cooler than it is now. Without CO2, it would have been snowball earth. Heck, without the CO2, it _was_ snowball earth for a long time.

Deniers can't explain why earth didn't stay frozen when the sun was cooler. As always, their stupid theory fails completely. Only CO2 explains why the earth came out of the snowball earth phase.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 12, 2015)

SSDD said:


> You are unfamiliar with KNMI?



I'm familiar with deniers using it to lie big.

So, exactly where did you get your fudged graph? That is, tell everyone the exact steps necessary to reproduce it on KNMI Climate Explorer, so we can figure out exactly how you lied.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 12, 2015)

theHawk said:


> The Earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years naturally.  Your article fails to mention that.



No, the earth has been slowly cooling for the past 5000 years. That is, until it recently began warming very quickly. You fail to mention that.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> When CO2 was at 7000 ppm, the sun was 4% cooler than it is now. Without CO2, it would have been snowball earth. Heck, without the CO2, it _was_ snowball earth for a long time.



What about when CO2 was in the 4500 range, or the 1000+ range when the earth entered the ice age it is currently climbing out of?  Fact is that CO2 isn't your culprit.



mamooth said:


> Deniers can't explain why earth didn't stay frozen when the sun was cooler. As always, their stupid theory fails completely. Only CO2 explains why the earth came out of the snowball earth phase.



Water vapor, and the atmospheric thermal effect...nothing more is needed to explain the temperature on earth and every other planet in the solar system while the AGW hypothesis can't even explain the temperature on earth without constant adjustment.

And tell me you f'ing idiot...how did the CO2 escape from frozen oceans when the earth was in the snowball phase....did cold water suddenly decide that it wasn't going to hold CO2?  The  recent ice age is the explanation for the currently low atmospheric CO2....given time, the oceans will outgas to the normal 1000+ppm range for earth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 12, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks mamooth. Excellent presentation. Exactly what I have been saying for years. It would be better if it also showed how far IR penetrated but that is a minor quibble.
> ...


This is only at the boundary layer where convection occurs and the difference is in hundredths of a degree. The area of thermal induction (where the excited molecules are rubbing together) which is roughly 1 micron thick.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 12, 2015)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The direct measurements of outgoing longwave radiation decreasing, backradiation increasing and stratospheric cooling are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. If no computer models existed, AGW theory would still be proven. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.
> ...



What is rather funny, is the alarmists ignore that water vapor has been rendering any potential warming by CO2 to zero. 1.3W/M^2 is almost exactly the same amount of potential warming that would be expected with a CO2 increase of 200ppm or 1/2 of one doubling. (ie: the 120ppm addition to 280ppm since 1850)  

This is rather damning evidence that CO2 is not coupled with water vapor positively. Rather water vapor and the convection cycle are negatively correlated. Also noting that La Nina's correlate to the dips in LWIR output with 100% certainty.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No it doesn't because CO2 has been between 1000 and 7000ppm in the past without producing the runaway greenhouse effect that the AGW hypothesis demands.
> ...


Momooth lies again..

DO the math hairball.. what you posted is a lie.

The earth was closer in orbit at that time thus the energy received was greater. It has been a near zero sum game for millions of years. The convection cycle however, was operating quite well rendering the CO2 monster irrelevant just as it does today.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 12, 2015)

No, the earth was not closer

The sun, however, was dimmer. Stars gradually burn hotter over their lifetimes. Our sun heats up by about 1% every 100 million years.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 12, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Water vapor, and the atmospheric thermal effect...nothing more is needed to explain the temperature on earth and every other planet in the solar system while the AGW hypothesis can't even explain the temperature on earth without constant adjustment.



That's based on your cult's utterly insane claim that a gas under pressure constantly generates heat. That is, it's delusional on your part.



> And tell me you f'ing idiot...how did the CO2 escape from frozen oceans when the earth was in the snowball phase....did cold water suddenly decide that it wasn't going to hold CO2?



Volcanoes, combined with the fact that there were no significant CO2 sinks, with the oceans and most the life being frozen.

Since your group claims volcanoes control the current climate, it's hilarious that you forget volcanoes the instant it becomes convenient to do so.



> The  recent ice age is the explanation for the currently low atmospheric CO2....given time, the oceans will outgas to the normal 1000+ppm range for earth.



Henry's Law says you're completely full of shit there. But then, that's just two-century old science. It's obviously all wrong, because you say so.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> That's based on your cult's utterly insane claim that a gas under pressure constantly generates heat. That is, it's delusional on your part.



Of course it isn't....you don't seem to be able to differentiate the difference between static columns of air and a chaotic system which is constantly moving the heat at the surface generated by pressure....I am sure that you are blissfuly unaware that repeatable experimental evidence exists to support the claim.



mamooth said:


> Volcanoes, combined with the fact that there were no significant CO2 sinks, with the oceans and most the life being frozen.[/qipte]
> 
> Really?  So your claim is that back then Volcanoes melted the snowball earth, but modern volcanoes, even the thousands below the surface of the ocean have nothing to do with the atmospheric concentration of CO2 today.  Right.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Apr 12, 2015)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaa.... GOD are you   *S T U P I D
*
Let's see it asshole


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaa.... GOD are you   *S T U P I D
> *
> Let's see it asshole


Look up Roderich Graeff's work...or not.  No point in bringing it here as you would not read it and wouldn't grasp the implications if you did.  These are a good start....probably not interesting to you because they are the result of actual experiment and observation...not the output of flawed models.

Measuring the Temperature Distribution in Gas Columns

Gravity Machine

The Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect Old controversy new relevance Science and Technology


----------



## Crick (Apr 12, 2015)

You're even more stupid than I thought.  Gravity creates a temperature GRADIENT.  It does not heat the mass.  The equilibrium temperature of the column as a whole will be unaffected. None of your articles say ANYTHING about heating the mass.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> You're even more stupid than I thought.  Gravity creates a temperature GRADIENT.  It does not heat the mass.  The equilibrium temperature of the column as a whole will be unaffected. None of your articles say ANYTHING about heating the mass.
> 
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.


good point. The OP is indisputable.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> You're even more stupid than I thought.  Gravity creates a temperature GRADIENT.  It does not heat the mass.  The equilibrium temperature of the column as a whole will be unaffected. None of your articles say ANYTHING about heating the mass.
> 
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.



Like I said, you wouldn't grasp even if you were shown.  Why would that gradient exist as opposed to the equilibrium claimed by Maxwell?  And the articles are written for people who are theoretically able to grasp what they are saying...don't expect such papers to be put in juvenile terms that you can understand.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2015)

And so SSDD starts quoting lunatic cult pseudoscience from "free energy!" sites.

That is, he's openly nuts.

The rest of the deniers, they're crazy too, but they usually hide it better.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > By what mechanism do you believe conduction between that first micron and the water below is prevented from taking place?
> ...


Hmmm, that's what I've always said.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I did almost 40 years ago.  Too bad you're still waiting to graduate.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


well friend,  there are zero experiments that have shown that adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere does anything to climate or temperature. I don't need math, I just need to know there are no numbers from you all to add or subtract.  there is just zero, absolute zero at that.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > These are empirical data, wheezebulb.
> ...


you mean like an experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to cause a temperature increase?  Yeah, I've been waiting a long time for that.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry hairball, outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing....
> ...


well I've asked you to post an experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperature and you refuse to show one.  So are you saying you are a hypocrite?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have no problem with increases in outgoing LW.  It's the obvious result of increasing global temperatures.


from?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Causation always includes correlation--fact, correlation does not mean causation--fact.  And until you can prove CO2 causes temperature increase, you have zip of CO2 causing anything.  And is what every skeptic says.  everyone I know on here at least along with those I've read on the internet.  So where is the evidence of this causation you wish to speak of?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD got his ass kicked on this board by both the deniers and the warmers because of his insane statements concerning science. Too bad he has come back to repeat the same nonsense.
> 
> His choosey photons are giggle worthy.


man those old socks are getting ripe.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> Natural variation does not mean idiopathic.  You still need a cause.  CO2 works to satisfy observations.  Nothing else - natural or synthetic - does.  You're the one making leaps of unevidenced faith.


bullshit! eVer hear of water vapor?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2015)

jc, thanks for reminding everyone that SSDD still refuses to tell us where he copied his faked data from.

And here you are, running cover for his fraud. That makes you a willing accomplice to his fraud.

There's only form of life lower than a fraudster, and that's a willing suckup to a fraudster. That would be you.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No it doesn't because CO2 has been between 1000 and 7000ppm in the past without producing the runaway greenhouse effect that the AGW hypothesis demands.
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > When CO2 was at 7000 ppm, the sun was 4% cooler than it is now. Without CO2, it would have been snowball earth. Heck, without the CO2, it _was_ snowball earth for a long time.
> ...


I wish these k00ks would learn about the history of the planet and the ice age.They have programs on the tellie that explains this kind of stuff all the time educational programs from those science places, one that states that an asteroid took out the dinosaurs.  hmmm,


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, thanks for reminding everyone that SSDD still refuses to tell us where he copied his faked data from.
> 
> And here you are, running cover for his fraud. That makes you a willing accomplice to his fraud.
> 
> There's only form of life lower than a fraudster, and that's a willing suckup to a fraudster. That would be you.


you're just a big fat old hypocrite, there you are barking like a fool again.  keep barking


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> No, the earth was not closer
> 
> The sun, however, was dimmer. Stars gradually burn hotter over their lifetimes. Our sun heats up by about 1% every 100 million years.


prove it


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Water vapor, and the atmospheric thermal effect...nothing more is needed to explain the temperature on earth and every other planet in the solar system while the AGW hypothesis can't even explain the temperature on earth without constant adjustment.
> ...


so there you go again talking and barking like a k00k.  what happens when a volcano erupts? it spews particles into the atmosphere limiting the sun light.  So how did the volcano cause the earth to warm when it was frozen?  Could it be that the volcano caused the frozen?  huh? what say you!!!


----------



## IanC (Apr 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> I have no problem with increases in outgoing LW.  It's the obvious result of increasing global temperatures.



It doesn't really matter if LW or SW increases or decreases, as long as the total matches the incoming solar.

You don't seem to understand the principles if you think higher surface temps should increase LW out at the TOA.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, thanks for reminding everyone that SSDD still refuses to tell us where he copied his faked data from.



I have given you the source several times you stupid old woman.  Either you are illiterate and simply can't read, or are a congenital, pathological liar.  Since it is clear you can read, we are left with you being a liar....no surprise since we knew it all along.  Hell, I bet even your warmer buds know that you are a liar but I think that perhaps the AGW cult shares an oddity with islam in that it is perfectly acceptable to lie to the infidel so long as you are doing it in the name of allah....in your cult, is it ok to lie to skeptics so long as you do it in the name of gaia?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> so there you go again talking and barking like a k00k.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2015)

IanC said:


> You don't seem to understand the principles if you think higher surface temps should increase LW out at the TOA.



Except surface temps aren't increasing...haven't for a couple of decades now.  What is increasing is atmospheric CO2, shuttling more energy out into space as evidenced by increasing LW leaving at the TOA.  CO2 has zero or less effect on the temperature of earth.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2015)

SSDD said:


> I have given you the source several times you stupid old woman.



Yelling "KNMI" and running is not giving a source. It's you being a dishonest chickenshit, an oozy spineless thing that tries to walk upright and fails.

For probably the fifth time, where did you get your faked data about the OLR? Try to locate your balls and tell us exactly how to pull it off of KNMI. If you're not lying, that should be easy. If you are lying, you'll find another excuse to run.



> Either you are illiterate and simply can't read, or are a congenital, pathological liar.  Since it is clear you can read, we are left with you being a liar....no surprise since we knew it all along.  Hell, I bet even your warmer buds know that you are a liar but I think that perhaps the AGW cult shares an oddity with islam in that it is perfectly acceptable to lie to the infidel so long as you are doing it in the name of allah....in your cult, is it ok to lie to skeptics so long as you do it in the name of gaia?



So sorry about your tiny penis.

Yes, you do make it that obvious. It's standard micropenis-possessor doctrine to attempt to use "woman" as an insult.

And by the way, your neckbeard isn't fooling anyone. Everyone still knows you have that bullfrog chin.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Yelling "KNMI" and running is not giving a source. It's you being a dishonest chickenshit, an oozy spineless thing that tries to walk upright and fails.



As I have pointed out before, KNMI isn't the only source for the data.  I have given you NOAA data which says the same thing and yet you continue to tell the lie.  The fact that outgoing LW at the top TOA is increasing is, and has been a well known fact.  Only those who are ingesting the Kool Aid intravenously remain unaware.

Dishonest old women are so sad.













mamooth said:


> For probably the fifth time, where did you get your faked data about the OLR? Try to locate your balls and tell us exactly how to pull it off of KNMI. If you're not lying, that should be easy. If you are lying, you'll find another excuse to run.



Guess you want to say NOAA data is faked also.....well they do fake temperatures so they may be faking LW at the TOA although it doesn't help their case any since their models say that LW at the TOA should be decreasing.



mamooth said:


> So sorry about your tiny penis.



Can't impress a slut I guess.  When you have so many to compare to, you forget that tiny is a relative term.  Above average became tiny somewhere along the way huh?  You must miss the good old hippy free love days and are bitter about being a dried up old woman.



mamooth said:


> Yes, you do make it that obvious. It's standard micropenis-possessor doctrine to attempt to use "woman" as an insult.



So in addition to a piss fetish, you are now going to be fixated with my dick?  You really are a dried up old attention seeking slut aren't you?



mamooth said:


> And by the way, your neckbeard isn't fooling anyone. Everyone still knows you have that bullfrog chin.



More talking out of ignorance I see....my beard is trimmed to the imperial style.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2015)

You _still_ haven't given us a single actual source. Provide the links that show where your graphs actually came from, and someone might believe you're not posting faked data.

Your first plot? Mystery data. You claim it came from NOAA ... because someone labeled a graph with "NOAA". On the graph, the Y-axis isn't even labeled as to what the units are. Someone was confused, and left it as a question mark. But then, they also claim OLR was being measured in 1946.

Your second plot is senseless. An RSS or UAH temp plot has nothing to do with OLR. You're flailing.

We know what happened. On one of your cult websites, someone put together a bunch of crap. You had no idea where it came from or what it meant, but you thought it backed your cult beliefs, so you pasted it here and claimed it was gospel. And now you're throwing a tantrum because it's getting laughed at.


----------



## IanC (Apr 13, 2015)

incoming and outgoing radiation can be directly measured by satellites, unfortunately there is a roughly 5W/m2 discrepancy. Hansen arbitrarily set the difference at 0.85W/m2, others have used different methods. while the satellite measurements do not appear to be accurate (5W would fry us pretty quickly) they seem to be precise. we cansee the trend, just not the absolute value. maybe.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> You _still_ haven't given us a single actual source. Provide the links that show where your graphs actually came from, and someone might believe you're not posting faked data..



Your desperation has become palatable...screaming fake over every piece of actual data that casts doubt on your faith.  Pitiful....f'n pitiful.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2015)

You _still_ haven't given any source for your crazy graphs. That's because it's faked data. And now you have sand in your mangina about it.

Why not grow a pair and admit what everyone knows? You copied fabricated nonsense from your cult website. If you admit it, you'll still look like a cult loser, but at least you won't look like a cowardly dishonest cult loser.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> You _still_ haven't given any source for your crazy graphs. That's because it's faked data. And now have sand in your mangina about it.
> 
> Why not grow a pair and admit what everyone knows? You copied fabricated nonsense from your cult website. If you admit it, you'll still look like a cult loser, but at least you won't look like a cowardly dishonest cult loser.



Feel free to provide some data from NOAA that contradicts the graph I provided.  We both know that won't be happening.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2015)

You didn't provide any data from NOAA. You provided a mystery graph that somebody slapped a "NOAA" title on, and which also claimed OLR data was measured in 1946. You're lying outright by pretending to have data from NOAA.

So, how can you stand to look in a mirror without puking? If I acted as badly as you, I'd off myself out of pure shame. But then, sociopaths don't feel shame, do you?


----------



## Crick (Apr 13, 2015)

The Earth gets warmer, outgoing LW will increase.


----------



## IanC (Apr 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> The Earth gets warmer, outgoing LW will increase.




TOA radiation depends on solar input. surface temperature depends on how that solar energy travels through the system.


----------



## Crick (Apr 14, 2015)

Look at it from the outside.  At the very least from equilibrium, higher temperatures must produce greater outgoing LW.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Look at it from the outside.  At the very least from equilibrium, higher temperatures must produce greater outgoing LW.



but the earth hasn't been getting warmer...not for a couple of decades while outgoing LW goes right on increasing.


----------



## IanC (Apr 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Look at it from the outside.  At the very least from equilibrium, higher temperatures must produce greater outgoing LW.




you are incorrect. you really should try thinking about these problems. energy out must match energy in, to a very fine degree. on the other hand, any particular position on the path that energy takes to move through the system has no particular temperature that is necessary (within realistic constraints).


----------



## Crick (Apr 14, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Look at it from the outside.  At the very least from equilibrium, higher temperatures must produce greater outgoing LW.
> ...



The Earth HAS been getting warmer.  I know you love to ignore the oceans, but doing so will, in the end, get you worse than all wet.


----------



## IanC (Apr 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




explain in your own words why you think higher surface temperature must translate into more outgoing LW radiation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 14, 2015)

http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/group/dave/at605pdf/Chapter_2.pdf

The temperature of the Earth’s surface varies strongly and rapidly over land, and
considerably less over the oceans. The reason for this difference between land and sea will be
discussed below, in the subsection on the surface heat capacity.
The oceans cover about two thirds of the Earth’s surface. Their average depth is about 4
km. Water is heavy stuff; the mass of 1 m3 of water is 103 kg. The mass of the oceans is about 1.3
x 1021 kg. For comparison, the mass of the atmosphere is about 250 times less, roughly 5 x 1018
kg.
Not only is water dense, it has a very high specific heat: about 4200 J kg-1 K-1 . In contrast,
the specific heat of air (at constant pressure) is a little less than a quarter of that, i.e., 1000
J kg-1 K-1 . The total heat capacity of the oceans is thus about 1000 times larger (250 x 4) than the
total heat capacity of the atmosphere. When the oceans say “Jump,” the atmosphere says “How
high?”

*An interesting discussion, a long arcticle, on heat in the atmosphere and oceans, its transport and radiative balance. However, as it pertains to ice thinning of continental ice caps and Arctic Sea ice, the above paragraphs, and the graph below, tell the primary story.
...................................................................................
Figure 2: OHCA curves produced using the same mapping technique.






Solid lines are OHCA curves with a single 1993–2002 climatology and variously corrected XBT data provided by individual research teams. Dashed and dotted lines show the same thing as the solid lines, but using a single 2005–2008 climato
.........................................................................................................

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/full/nature09043.html

*


----------



## IanC (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> The Earth gets warmer, outgoing LW will increase.



I will ask you again. why do you think that a warmer world will increase outgoing LW?

I responded to your statement with-


> TOA radiation depends on solar input. surface temperature depends on how that solar energy travels through the system.



I want to know why you think there will be more LW leaving the Earth. just a few sentences in your own words to give us the gist of your reasoning.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The Earth gets warmer, outgoing LW will increase.
> ...



Because he actually believes that CO2 multiplies energy but is just to embarrassed to admit it.


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2015)




----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


>




And you think that proves that CO2 multiplies energy?


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2015)

God are you stupid.

It explains why LW increases as the Earth warms


----------



## IanC (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.
> 
> It explains why LW increases as the Earth warms




and you think the extra LW from the surface leaves the Earth? explain.


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2015)

As you yourself just stated, greenhouse gases only SLOW the transmission of IR to space, they don't stop it.  Obviously, I'm talking about equilibrium states here.


----------



## IanC (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> As you yourself just stated, greenhouse gases only SLOW the transmission of IR to space, they don't stop it.  Obviously, I'm talking about equilibrium states here.




no, I'm asking you why you think more LW leaves when surface temperatures go up. does this mean you think less SW leaves?

you are not really making any sense. that's why I asked you to explain what you mean.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> As you yourself just stated, greenhouse gases only SLOW the transmission of IR to space, they don't stop it.  Obviously, I'm talking about equilibrium states here.



But you said that you believe that LW from the atmosphere actually warms the surface of the earth..that means you not only believe that CO2 stops outgoing LW, you believe it actually sends it back to the surface of the earth to be absorbed and create warming.


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2015)

When you think you have something clever and informative to post, save all of us a great deal of time and just type "Duh".


----------



## IanC (Apr 16, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > As you yourself just stated, greenhouse gases only SLOW the transmission of IR to space, they don't stop it.  Obviously, I'm talking about equilibrium states here.
> ...




are you incapable of explaining your statement?

or have you given it more thought and found out that you screwed up?

or perhaps you can't find either your statement or my question. will you be sending a note from your wife excusing your behaviour again?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> When you think you have something clever and informative to post, save all of us a great deal of time and just type "Duh".



So now you don't think that CO2 absorbs LW and emits it back to the surface to be reabsorbed and create warming?  You say you don't believe it turns LW around then you say you do believe it turns LW around.  You sound like typical climate science it causes it id doesn't cause it...it causes it...it doesn't cause it.

US is having far fewer heatwaves






US is having more heatwaves






It never ends for pseudoscience, does it?


----------



## Crick (Apr 16, 2015)

Says the man who quotes nothing but blogs and scandal sheets.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> Says the man who quotes nothing but blogs and scandal sheets.



Which is it crick....do you believe that CO2 slows down the escape of LW from the atmosphere, or do you believe it turns some of it around and sends it back to the surface of the earth to be absorbed and cause warming...You claimed the IPCC as the source of your belief, but seem to be contradicting yourself at every turn....typical of warmers...and climate science in general...you must keep changing your story and stance or look like the complete fool you are for believing in the first place.  Which is it?  Describe which version of the greenhouse effect you ascribe to....as there are many....more evidence of how poorly science understands the physics in question.


----------



## Crick (Apr 16, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Which is it crick....do you believe that CO2 slows down the escape of LW from the atmosphere, or do you believe it turns some of it around and sends it back to the surface of the earth to be absorbed and cause warming...



Do you WONDER why I keep expressing amazement at your ignorance?  What in god's name makes you think it can't do both?  In fact, doing one thing is how the other is accomplished.



SSDD said:


> You claimed the IPCC as the source of your belief, but seem to be contradicting yourself at every turn....typical of warmers...and climate science in general...you must keep changing your story and stance or look like the complete fool you are for believing in the first place.



I still hold the IPCC to be the most qualified source of climate and global warming information.  I am quite certain that their conclusions are the likeliest to be correct.



SSDD said:


> Which is it?  Describe which version of the greenhouse effect you ascribe to....as there are many....more evidence of how poorly science understands the physics in question.



You are a complete idiot.


----------



## IanC (Apr 17, 2015)

since Crick will not defend his statements, I will have to explain the situation and show why his comments are wrong.

the vastly simplifed (and incorrect) version of the greenhouse gas effect that the warmers put forward goes like this. extra CO2 in the atmosphere intercepts more 15micron IR from the surface, and because half of it is re-emitted back towards the surface, the surface warms up. supposedly this extra rebounded energy is now missing from the TOA (top of atmosphere) energy balance of [solar energy in minus SW +IR out]. as the surface warms up it produces more IR which compensates for IR held at the surface by CO2.

the problem with this in regards to Crick's statement is that CO2 causes a deficit at TOA which is slowly compensated for by a slowly increasing surface temp. but we are still pumping more CO2 into the air and the surface temp is not rising anywhere close to the expected amount. the actual amount of IR should be decreasing not increasing.

again- energy balance is solar in, minus SW and IR out. if the solar input is more than the other side there will be warming. if it is less then there will be cooling. you can play around with the three variables in many ways, which is why I asked Crick if he thought short wave out was decreasing. IR could increase with a balanced energy budget but only if SW decreased.

in my opinion the most likely scenario is that IR has decreased slightly, with an even smaller increase in SW out, leading to a miniscule budget surplus that will heat the globe somewhat. unfortunately our instruments are incapable of the precision necessary to prise these small effects out of the noise and natural variability.


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

Let's say, hypothetically, that CO2 emissions are reduced to the point that atmospheric levels stabilize permanently at 400 ppm.  What happens?  I think there's a name for it.  It's called EQUILIBRIUM.  And what happens to the difference between in and out at equilibrium Ian?  Why, they're equal.  At the moment (and for the last 150 years), in has been greater than out.  To get to equilibrium out will increase (with rising temps).

Get it?


----------



## IanC (Apr 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Let's say, hypothetically, that CO2 emissions are reduced to the point that atmospheric levels stabilize permanently at 400 ppm.  What happens?  I think there's a name for it.  It's called EQUILIBRIUM.  And what happens to the difference between in and out at equilibrium Ian?  Why, they're equal.  At the moment (and for the last 150 years), in has been greater than out.  To get to equilibrium out will increase (with rising temps).
> 
> Get it?




I get that we are still pumping out CO2 at the same furious pace. where is the equilibrium there? with no, or little surface warming?

do you think that more IR is escaping now? what dataset are you using. if more IR is escaping does that mean we are already on the road to recovery? you never add much in the way of details to your comments.


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

Do you think we are NOT moving towards equilibrium?  It's what the universe is ALWAYS doing Ian.  I think they call it the Second Law.


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

More IR is leaving because the Earth IS still getting warmer.  It is NOT leaving at the rate at which our absolute temperature requires because we are not at equilibrium.


----------



## IanC (Apr 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Do you think we are NOT moving towards equilibrium?  It's what the universe is ALWAYS doing Ian.  I think they call it the Second Law.



so CO2 is now causing less of an imbalance than before even though it is still rising 'exponentially'?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> More IR is leaving because the Earth IS still getting warmer.  It is NOT leaving at the rate at which our absolute temperature requires because we are not at equilibrium.


...and that's caused by the 2ppm of CO2 added last year?

Yeah?


----------



## IanC (Apr 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> More IR is leaving because the Earth IS still getting warmer.  It is NOT leaving at the rate at which our absolute temperature requires because we are not at equilibrium.




you guys just dont get it. the surface temperature DOESN'T MATTER! the only thing that matters is how much incoming energy minus how much outgoing energy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 17, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Let's say, hypothetically, that CO2 emissions are reduced to the point that atmospheric levels stabilize permanently at 400 ppm.  What happens?  I think there's a name for it.  It's called EQUILIBRIUM.  And what happens to the difference between in and out at equilibrium Ian?  Why, they're equal.  At the moment (and for the last 150 years), in has been greater than out.  To get to equilibrium out will increase (with rising temps).
> ...


*Little or no surface warming? What the hell do you call this;*

The oceans are warming so fast they keep breaking scientists charts John Abraham Environment The Guardian

*The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts*


NOAA once again has to rescale its ocean heat chart to capture 2014 ocean warming






 Ocean heat content data to a depth of 2,000 meters, from NOAA.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



The oceans are warming at a slower rate than they were in the 70's.  They have been warming for 150 years but the rate of warming is slowing...why is that?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick- have you had enough time to think about it? 

Do you understand that it is the simple equation of energy in minus energy out at the TOA that matters?

If LW out is increasing (without SW out decreasing) then the Earth is warming less or cooling more. There are no other options.

If we are warming less, and CO2 is still increasing, where does that leave CO2 theory? Care to explain your position? No? I thought not.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> More IR is leaving because the Earth IS still getting warmer.  It is NOT leaving at the rate at which our absolute temperature requires because we are not at equilibrium.





IanC said:


> you guys just dont get it. the surface temperature DOESN'T MATTER! the only thing that matters is how much incoming energy minus how much outgoing energy.



When I say "the Earth", I mean the whole kit and caboodle.

Why do you keep ignoring the issue of equilibrium?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick- have you had enough time to think about it?
> 
> Do you understand that it is the simple equation of energy in minus energy out at the TOA that matters?
> 
> ...



He has backed himself into a corner and his gyrations and mental gymnastics in an effort to get out of it are a delight to watch.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > More IR is leaving because the Earth IS still getting warmer.  It is NOT leaving at the rate at which our absolute temperature requires because we are not at equilibrium.
> ...





Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > More IR is leaving because the Earth IS still getting warmer.  It is NOT leaving at the rate at which our absolute temperature requires because we are not at equilibrium.
> ...




It is you who is ignoring the one basic equilibrium. Everything else is just the pathways that solar energy takes to leave the Earth.

You neglected to answer my question on increased outgoing LW. Does it mean the Earth is warming less or not? Please explain your position with respect to the ongoing increase in CO2.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

An increase in outgoing LW would indicate that the Earth (all of it) is getting warmer.  I have already stated this repeatedly.  What do you think such a thing would indicate?  That the Earth is getting cooler or that the atmosphere is becoming more transparent to IR?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> An increase in outgoing LW would indicate that the Earth (all of it) is getting warmer.  I have already stated this repeatedly.  What do you think such a thing would indicate?  That the Earth is getting cooler or that the atmosphere is becoming more transparent to IR?



I find it difficult to debate with someone who cannot grasp the basics.

Consider the hypothetical case where Earth is at TOA equilibrium. Add CO2. Less LW gets through the atmosphere and that energy is added to heatsink, raising temps in various places or changing the pathways (also heatsinks but not necessarily temperature changes). Warmer surface temps produce more LW and a percentage of that gets through the atmosphere and raises the LW until it approaches the perfect equilibrium again. The longwave was always decreased, and only moving back to equilibrium.

If LW is increasing that means we are warming less and less because there is no longer as much need to get back to equilibrium. Starting to get it yet?

Because we are continually adding CO2 the LW should also be decreasing. Any increase in outgoing LW means we are getting closer to equilibrium and warming less.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> An increase in outgoing LW would indicate that the Earth (all of it) is getting warmer.  I have already stated this repeatedly.  What do you think such a thing would indicate?  That the Earth is getting cooler or that the atmosphere is becoming more transparent to IR?





IanC said:


> I find it difficult to debate with someone who cannot grasp the basics.



As do I.



IanC said:


> Consider the hypothetical case where Earth is at TOA equilibrium.



And thus in and out are equal across the TOA and neither are changing.



IanC said:


> Add CO2. Less LW gets through the atmosphere and that energy is added to heatsink, raising temps in various places or changing the pathways (also heatsinks but not necessarily temperature changes).



LW is not blocked, it is delayed.  The atmosphere becomes a holding tank for LW energy.  Once equilibrium is reattained, the rate at which LW is leaving the planet will have increased because the equilibrium temperature is now higher than before you added CO2.

  If you raise the temperature of the Earth, the Earth will radiate more LW.  If you had equilibrium and instantly added CO2,  you would instantly decrease outgoing LW and begin increasing the temperature of the Earth.  As that temperature increased, the amount of outgoing LW would increase until, when equilibrium was reached, it would STOP increasing.



IanC said:


> Warmer surface temps produce more LW and a percentage of that gets through the atmosphere and raises the LW until it approaches the perfect equilibrium again.



Yes, increasing temperatures increase outgoing LW.



IanC said:


> The longwave was always decreased, and only moving back to equilibrium.



You're missing the point that the equilibrium temperature has increased and thus the Earth's heat content at equilibrium will also be increased.

There are two processes taking place here simultaneously.  Increasing levels of GHGs are S L O W I N G the rate at which LW is crossing the ToA.  That deceleration increases both the amount of thermal energy held in the atmosphere and the value of the equilibrium temperature.  Both of those changes accelerate the rate of emission across the ToA.  But these are all internal processes.  If we restrict ourselves to two observations: the average temperature of the entire Earth and the rate at which LW is leaving, we will always see that increasing temperatures increase outgoing LW, no matter where we are wrt equilbrium. 

Our deviation from equilibrium will control the imbalance between in and out which will in turn control the acceleration of those rates.



IanC said:


> If LW is increasing that means we are warming less and less because there is no longer as much need to get back to equilibrium. Starting to get it yet?



I am starting to see that you do not.

As we approach equilibrium, the acceleration of the outgoing LW rate approaches ZERO.



IanC said:


> Because we are continually adding CO2 the LW should also be decreasing.



The amount of LW produced by the Earth is a function of it's temperature.  CO2 levels determine how much of that emitted energy is held in the atmosphere.  More CO2 means more energy held in the atmosphere and that means higher temperatures.  Higher temperatures radiate more LW. 



IanC said:


> Any increase in outgoing LW means we are getting closer to equilibrium and warming less.



As the Earth's temperature increases, it's emission of LW will increase.  As that temperature approaches the equilibrium point set by the sun and our GHG levels, the acceleration of LW emissions will approach zero; it will STOP increasing.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

CO2 absorbs 15 micron LW at the surface boundary and converts it into atmospheric energy. The warmer atmosphere decreases the surface's ability to shed energy by radiation, therefore the surface warms. Once you get past the extinction distance for 15 micron LW (about 10 meters) the only new 15 micron radiation comes from blackbody radiation produced by atmospheric molecular collisions.

Do you have a link to a source that says 15 micron IR only gets absorbed and re-emitted until it finally escapes? Why do the graphs show a missing chunk at 15 microns? 

The time between collisions is much shorter than the time it takes for CO2 to absorb and re-emit. Especially at surface densities.

I'll look at the rest of your comment later.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick- you are correct in saying that the amount of energy sequestered in heatsinks has increased after the addition of CO2. That energy is what powers increased surface temps, convection etc. It will not increase TOA LW past the equilibrium point. What would increase LW (or SW) is the case of the heatsinks releasing energy, which would mean cooling or some other loss of energy in the heatsinks.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> CO2 absorbs 15 micron LW at the surface boundary and converts it into atmospheric energy. The warmer atmosphere decreases the surface's ability to shed energy by radiation, therefore the surface warms. Once you get past the extinction distance for 15 micron LW (about 10 meters) the only new 15 micron radiation comes from blackbody radiation produced by atmospheric molecular collisions.
> 
> Do you have a link to a source that says 15 micron IR only gets absorbed and re-emitted until it finally escapes? Why do the graphs show a missing chunk at 15 microns?
> 
> ...



If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to change the subject.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 absorbs 15 micron LW at the surface boundary and converts it into atmospheric energy. The warmer atmosphere decreases the surface's ability to shed energy by radiation, therefore the surface warms. Once you get past the extinction distance for 15 micron LW (about 10 meters) the only new 15 micron radiation comes from blackbody radiation produced by atmospheric molecular collisions.
> ...




I am addressing your belief that the 15 micron IR that CO2 interacts with almost exclusively (the other gases do not) is simply passed along from one molecule to the next until it escapes. it does not. it is absorbed and thermalized almost immediately. the amount of 15 micron radiation that actually escapes is minimal, as per the absorption and emission graphs that you like to post up


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick- you are correct in saying that the amount of energy sequestered in heatsinks has increased after the addition of CO2.  That energy is what powers increased surface temps, convection etc.



Thank you



IanC said:


> It will not increase TOA LW past the equilibrium point.



I never said it would.



IanC said:


> What would increase LW (or SW) is the case of the heatsinks releasing energy, which would mean cooling or some other loss of energy in the heatsinks.



Ian, you're starting to sound like some of your less rational cruising buddies.  "What would increase LW would be if we had a giant Westinghouse oven cranked up high"  Do you have some mechanism that would cause the atmosphere to start releasing heat all by itself?  If so you've probably got a Nobel prize coming to you and a fortune as you replace the world's refrigerators and A/C units.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Where did you get the idea that "thermalizing" the energy of a photon would prevent a molecule from emitting it sometime later?  The filament in an incadescent light bulb 'thermalizes" a great deal of the energy passing through it.  What does IT do with that energy?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick- you are correct in saying that the amount of energy sequestered in heatsinks has increased after the addition of CO2.  That energy is what powers increased surface temps, convection etc.
> ...




a simple example is the fact that the atmosphere puffs up during daylight hours, storing energy as gravitational potential. at night the atmosphere gives up this potential energy. this heatsink moderates the temperature differences between day and night. is this the type of example you were looking for?

it is far easier to recognize atmospheric interference in SW. clouds can reflect solar, which both decreases energy entering the deep layers and increases the SW leaving. your reference to an air conditioner is apt. surface energy is the source of evaporation, which powers convection, which leads to cloud formation. this is a much more efficient pathway to lift energy past the surface boundary than is radiation. it is interesting that both the formation of clouds, and the timing of the formation have an effect on energy loss to space.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

I missed where you overshot equilibrium.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> I missed where you overshot equilibrium.




I missed where you tried to make a coherent description of what you believe to be happening. care to point it out for me? I have certainly tried to find areas of agreement, and when I disagreed I gave a reason why. you could show the same courtesy


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

How many times have I stated that my position on all these matters may be found at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

And, I'm sorry, but comments such as how difficult it is for you to talk with people who don't get the basics and asking me if I'm starting to get [your incorrect point] do not come across as attempts to find areas of agreement.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> How many times have I stated that my position on all these matters may be found at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
> 
> And, I'm sorry, but comments such as how difficult it is for you to talk with people who don't get the basics and asking me if I'm starting to get [your incorrect point] do not come across as attempts to find areas of agreement.




As you wish. The IPCC uses a point less than the TOA to make its calculations which screws up the whole equilibrium thing. Carry on then.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz paaaaalease


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

Paaaalease what?


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick- have you had enough time to think about it?
> ...



Were they?  I'm glad you enjoyed them.  Did you enjoy Ian admitting I was correct?

Thought not.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Up until about 2013 Old Rocks was not just claiming that global temps were rising but that the warming was accelerating. Now that everyone knows about the pause he has turned to ocean warming at depth. What he fails to tell is that the last decade has seen increases of thousands of a degree at 2000 meters, hundredths of a degree at 700 meters, and tenths close to the surface. If you trust that ARGO buoys are that accurate at one buoy per 140,000 cubic km of water.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 18, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> It is already too late to do anything.  We have already gone off the cliff.  Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything.  Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it.  Human behavior is entirely predictable.


Got any proof of that?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Only crick could spin the last five pages of me showing him where he was wrong into an admission that he was right because I agreed with one thing he said, and that he only said by accident not insight.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 18, 2015)

Gracie said:


> Folks just love to keep their heads buried in the sand. Eventually, there will be plenty of it for everyone.


Spoken like a brainwashed fool.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 18, 2015)




----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Only crick could spin the last five pages of me showing him where he was wrong into an admission that he was right because I agreed with one thing he said, and that he only said by accident not insight.



Your core point, that increasing LW meant we were approaching equilibrium was 180 degrees out.

Your contention that some mechanism was causing the atmosphere to shed energy was nonsense.

The conversation is still present if anyone would like to review it.  No spin, just facts.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Earth's energy budget consists of solar in, minus (shortwave and longwave out). Surely there is no argument there. Solar is considered constant. That leaves SW and LW out as the variables. CO2 theory involves LW almost exclusively so we can consider SW out as constant too.

Any deviation from equilibrium will cause warming or cooling. It is presumed that increased CO2 has blocked 0.85watts per square meter of long wave radiation from escaping at the top of the atmosphere which leads to warming in the pathways below TOA.  Are we still in agreement?

As long as there is blocked LW there will be warming. If the surface and atmosphere warm up enough to produce enough LW to force 0.85w more out into space then the Earth will once again be in equilibrium. The surface and atmosphere will still be warmer than before the extra CO2 blocked 0.85w but the system will be back in equilibrium. Are we still in agreement?

Any increase from the deficit of 0.85w will cause less warming, and indeed any increase of LW more than 0.85w will cause cooling. Is that concept clear?

Crick believes the extra LW produced by surface warming will still be present all the way through the atmosphere and finally escape. This is obviously not true because the radiation affected by CO2 is missing for the most part in spectrographs taken by satellites at the TOA.

QED

Crick doesn't have a fucking clue.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

Missing?  Where do you think it went?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Missing?  Where do you think it went?




I know where it went. You are the one who seems ignorant as to what happens. As is shown by your reluctance to actually put down your thoughts, and when you do, it's wrong.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Earth's energy budget consists of solar in, minus (shortwave and longwave out). Surely there is no argument there.



Nothing significant. 



IanC said:


> Solar is considered constant.



No, it's not. But we can do so.



IanC said:


> That leaves SW and LW out as the variables. CO2 theory involves LW almost exclusively so we can consider SW out as constant too.



If we want to.



IanC said:


> Any deviation from equilibrium will cause warming or cooling.



Here is a problem of yours.  You made the same sort of statements in our earlier discussion.  No system will move away from equilibrium.  Systems always move towards their equilibrium.  EQUILIBRIUM moves away from the system.  Tell me you understand that.



IanC said:


> It is presumed that increased CO2 has blocked 0.85watts per square meter of long wave radiation from escaping at the top of the atmosphere which leads to warming in the pathways below TOA.  Are we still in agreement?



No.  CO2 doesn't block IR.  It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.



IanC said:


> As long as there is blocked LW there will be warming. If the surface and atmosphere warm up enough to produce enough LW to force 0.85w more out into space then the Earth will once again be in equilibrium.



Equilibrium is a state whose parameters are defined by the physical characteristics of the system.  Change the system and you change the equilibrium state.



IanC said:


> The surface and atmosphere will still be warmer than before the extra CO2 blocked 0.85w but the system will be back in equilibrium. Are we still in agreement?



The system will be warmer but it will be back in equilibrium.  The system became warmer because the equilibrium temperature increased.



IanC said:


> Any increase from the deficit of 0.85w will cause less warming



If you mean, the rate of warming slows as the system approaches equilibrium, I agree.  However, this is the opposite of what you said earlier and a point on which I clearly corrected you.



IanC said:


> and indeed any increase of LW more than 0.85w will cause cooling. Is that concept clear?



No, and I'm becoming less and less impressed with your smarts Ian.  If the equilibrium state has not changed from the +0.85w/m2 that you posited in the beginning, temperatures will not exceed that value.  As you yourself just said, warming slows as equilibrium approaches.  The system cannot overshoot it.  The temperature parameter of the equilibrium state space can be increased which will cause the system to be driven towards  a new, warmer state, but it cannot be driven past equilibrium.  Ever.  



IanC said:


> Crick believes the extra LW produced by surface warming will still be present all the way through the atmosphere and finally escape.



Is English a second language for you?



IanC said:


> This is obviously not true because the radiation affected by CO2 is missing for the most part in spectrographs taken by satellites at the TOA.
> 
> It is not "missing".  It is reduced.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


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



Correct in your own mind....certainly not in reality.  You are still hopping and dodging and refusing to say what you think...clearly because you know it would be a terrible embarrassment if you actually said it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> No.  CO2 doesn't block IR.  It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.



You said that you believe CO2 sends IR back to the surface of the earth to be reabsorbed and cause warming....now you just think it slows it down.  You keep changing your story....why?  Which is it, does CO2 slow down outgoing LW or does it send it back to the surface to be reabsorbed to cause warming?


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

here is a useful graph that packs a lot of information. for one it gives both the wavelength and the wavenumber. it shows the amount of radiation emitted at the top of the atmosphere but I am not sure for which year. it still gives the general idea. notice that it gives dotted lines for (blackbody) Planck curves at different temperatures.

AGW is concerned with CO2, and CO2 absorption of 15 micron IR. if you look at the graph you will see what appears to be a large chunk taken out, centered on 15 microns. that is the CO2 fingerprint. no 15 micron IR escapes from the surface, it is all absorbed and converted to heat or energy to power other pathways. but there is still some getting out according to the graph. that is where the Planck curves come in. the amount of power radiated at 15 microns is equivalent to a BB at 215K (about -60C). this means that the radiation comes (on average) from an altitude in the atmosphere that is at -60C, a point where the lower density of air and CO2 allows the radiation to escape rather than simply be absorbed and transformed into something else.


at the surface 99.99% of 15 micron IR is absorbed in the atmosphere at 10 meters. 95% is absorbed at one meter. I wish I had the info for 1cm and 1mm. perhaps on the order of 50% and 25%? the surface boundary is a special case where most of the action in radiative transfers take place. the cloud tops are another boundary but only a faint echo.

the so called greenhouse effect is real. the calculated response for doubling CO2 is roughly 1C at the surface. this is the majority view of most skeptics and lukewarmers. what us 'deniers' contest are the supposed feedbacks that multiply that 1C into 3C, or more. what we really deny are the exaggerated propheses of doom and catastrope coming from the original 1C warming. and the last 20 years of data show that our vision  agrees with reality much more closely than the warmers predictions.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Earth's energy budget consists of solar in, minus (shortwave and longwave out). Surely there is no argument there.
> ...


It seems to me that your disagreements are in the mode of the thought experiments.

I believe IANC is thinking in terms of what will happen as a result of a perturbation from equilibrium.

And Crick is saying that in reality there is always equilibrium.

Of course Crick is correct because changes in CO2 are too slow to allow anything but equilibrium.

And IANC is correct in the sense that he is looking at it from a more academic point.

Crick is in a sense saying that a string will always be vertical if a rock hangs from it.

IANC is in a sense saying that if you push the rock, it will eventually stop swinging and hang vertically.

If I'm wrong, then I don't understand either of your points, and I'm sure you will point that out.


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> No.  CO2 doesn't block IR.  It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.





SSDD said:


> You said that you believe CO2 sends IR back to the surface of the earth to be reabsorbed and cause warming....now you just think it slows it down.  You keep changing your story....why?  Which is it, does CO2 slow down outgoing LW or does it send it back to the surface to be reabsorbed to cause warming?



Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid... amazingly so.  Astoundingly so.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I don't think you understand my point. There is only one main equilibrium. Solar energy in, Earth energy out. If there is an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.

All the other processes are powered by the Sun. While a snapshot any of these processes will still be under pressure to equilibrate there is no value that is defined as the correct one. Eg. The Earth could be in perfect equilibrium at surface temperatures of -15, 0, +15 etc.

Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.

Feel free to bring up any points you disagree with.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 19, 2015)

IanC said:


> * If there is* an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.....


I understand, but Crick seemed to be saying there would never be an imbalance because equilibrium always comes about. It seemed to me that he didn't understand your "if".


IanC said:


> Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.


That is where I'm confused. Considering only the effect of CO2, an increased LW out at the TOA will cause warming at the BOA. But you seem to be saying that an increase in warming at the BOA does not imply an increased LW at the TOA.
It seems like your disagreement with Crick is in what is the cause and effect. I agree with you that the direct cause is at the TOA. But I can't discern if or why Crick is putting his cause at the BOA, and what he thinks would cause the BOA to heat if not an increased TOA radiation.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > * If there is* an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.....
> ...




IF I understand crick, he thinks CO2 has caused a LW deficit at the TOA and that deficit is being used to warm the surface, causing the surface to radiate more LW to compensate. I have no big problem with that. He then goes on to say that the extra LW from the surface is only retarded not transformed, therefore it will cause an increase at TOA regardless of the status of the equilibrium. I disagree. Any increase of LW at TOA means less warming below (or even cooling if equilibrium has been overshot).


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick has to be getting paid by the cult of globull warmers. Just like how Greenbread was for Obama SCAM called, ObamaCare


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Crick has to be getting paid by the cult of globull warmers. Just like how Greenbread was for Obama SCAM called, ObamaCare




I don't think so. A reasonable person could be convinced of AGW or even CAGW by the one-sided explanations given by climate scientists who neglect to point out the weaknesses because they don't want to dilute the message of the Noble Cause. A responsible citizen should gather more than just cherrypicked evidence, especially now that it is obvious there IS alternate opinions and many of the consensus predictions have been invalidated.

Crick believes he is being honorable by refusing to expose himself to any contrary evidence but he is wrong. Better to know both sides and choose which pieces of evidence are most plausible than to just bow to an authority and let someone else do your thinking for you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 19, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Except surface temps aren't increasing...haven't for a couple of decades now.  *What is increasing is atmospheric CO2, shuttling more energy out into space as evidenced by increasing LW leaving at the TOA.*  CO2 has zero or less effect on the temperature of earth.



This is precisely what has been going on now for over 27 years. And many up here in the Boulder Co area are looking at why.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > * If there is* an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.....
> ...




An ever increasing surface (BOA) temperature with an ever increasing TOA deficit is exactly what is being predicted by CO2 theory. As long as CO2 keeps increasing the deficit will also increase leading to ever more warming. Have you heard otherwise from the IPCC etc? I believe they are claiming CO2 is rising at a n exponential rate. I can't see equilibrium pressured warming being capable of overturning that but perhaps I am mistaken.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 19, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



An increase in LWIR at TOA does not have to result in BOA warming. In fact, about 94% off all incoming radiation is reflected, in our atmosphere, back into space. The problem needs to be defined as where is the energy being stopped or reflected and why.  Currently, even with a rise of CO2 in our atmosphere the convection cycle is stopping much of the LWIR in our atmosphere from being reflected back to the surface, ie: no significant warming.

One hypothesis on why the increase of CO2 has not resulted in any net warming, is molecule size. Water being much larger absorbs and then rises away from the earth where it radiates it energy back into space. The increase in CO2 has only lubricated the convection conveyor so there is little (reduced) friction in the coulomb air rise allowing it to speed up.

CAGW requires that a hot spot occur in our lower troposphere where the LWIR is reflected back to the surface to cause warming. This hot spot does not exist, thus no warming is being gained from CO2. It is suspected that CO2 is working inversely and is also a negative forcing on temperature.

The major questions remain, why has CO2 not caused a hot spot and why has the convection cycle speed increased without an increase in BOA temperature?  Nature being a beast that loves equilibrium might just be seeking that in individual gases responses to increased volume.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Paaaalease what?


Did I quote you? No, so it wasn't directed at you


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 19, 2015)

IanC said:


> An ever increasing surface (BOA) temperature with an ever increasing TOA deficit is exactly what is being predicted by CO2 theory. As long as CO2 keeps increasing the deficit will also increase leading to ever more warming.


That is my understanding. As CO2 concentration increases, the altitude where it is thin enough at the TOA to allow a significant portion of LW to escape the earth rises. That means the radiation is from a colder (higher) region and BB radiation decreases. 


IanC said:


> Have you heard otherwise from the IPCC etc? I believe they are claiming CO2 is rising at a n exponential rate. I can't see equilibrium pressured warming being capable of overturning that but perhaps I am mistaken.


If the temperature gradient at the TOA drops roughly linearly with altitude, the Stefan Boltzman law says that the radiant power drops by the fourth power with altitude. That is quite a large leverage. 

If you look at the CO2 history it looks exponential, but with a rather small coefficient. Ie it is close to linear.

Here is a question I have not found an answer to. We know water is the predominant GHG. Yet as you go up in altitude, water goes through two phase changes. It would all be ice and disappear above the freezing point I would think. So any LWL radiation from water would drop off at 0 deg C. In your graph at the top of page 41. The LW between 18 and 25 uM looks to be around 0 deg C (273 K). Is that more than coincidence? How does the complex behavior of water interplay with the increasing density of other GHGs.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Only crick could spin the last five pages of me showing him where he was wrong into an admission that he was right because I agreed with one thing he said, and that he only said by accident not insight.
> ...


That is not what he said at all. You sir are posting incorrect information and should be ashamed of yourself!


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > An ever increasing surface (BOA) temperature with an ever increasing TOA deficit is exactly what is being predicted by CO2 theory. As long as CO2 keeps increasing the deficit will also increase leading to ever more warming.
> ...




I think that is a good observation. Water vapour is not a well mixed gas like CO2. Latent heat is released at the point where precipitation occurs. Like I said before, the cloud tops are another boundary, although not as important as the surface.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Thanks JC. I'm getting pretty used to crick misquoting me. Its easier for him to fight a straw man than quote the real man's words.


----------



## Crick (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> If LW is increasing that means we are warming less and less because there is no longer as much need to get back to equilibrium. Starting to get it yet?
> 
> Because we are continually adding CO2 the LW should also be decreasing. Any increase in outgoing LW means we are getting closer to equilibrium and warming less.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

So you DO know how to quote me yet you prefer not to?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> So you DO know how to quote me yet you prefer not to?


he can't, you made arguments he can't dispute.  So he's speechless.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

here is the crick quote that jc


jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So you DO know how to quote me yet you prefer not to?
> ...




I WISH he was speechless!

unfortunately he misunderstands what I say, and then argues against what he thinks I said rather than what I actually said.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> here is the crick quote that jc
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> ...


yes and no.  He misquotes everyone on here including you a lot.  he is lost and why he doesn't understand.  he can't back up his story or claim.  he is left speechless in the fact that he can't refute what you have posted.


----------



## Crick (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




I did NOT say a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at ToA.  I said, and I maintain, that the amount of outgoing LW is determined by the temperature of the Earth (recall I pointed out that by "the Earth" I did NOT mean just the surface but "the whole kit and caboodle").

The equilibrium state of the planet is determined by a number of its physical parameters.  When those parameters change (eg: by adding CO2 to the atmosphere), the equilibrium values change.  And for Wuwei, no, the Earth is not at equilibrium.  CO2 levels are changing slowly, but nearly as slowly as the Earth warms or cools.  If we stopped changing anything this instant, we would not achieve equilibrium for more than a century.

As I stated repeatedly, CO2 does not "block" LW.  It slows its escape to space and thus increases the heat content of the atmosphere (and the temperature of the land and sea).  The drops in Earth's radiated spectrum at the ToA, at the frequencies absorbed by the atmosphere's greenhouse gases are those portions of the spectrum being slowed by absorption and reemission.  A portion of that particular energy is also being consumed by the warming of the land and seas.  Non-GHG matter, gaining energy via conduction or absorption from the GHGs, will radiate it's thermal energy in different spectral portions of the IR band.

As I stated, Equilibrium is determined by the state of the planet.  The planet's increase or decrease of energy is a result of the difference between its state and equilibrium - equilibrium is not driven in any particular direction by the Earth gaining or losing energy.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Good. Thanks for doing some research. I'm sure future conversations will be far less acrimonious now that we both seem to be on the same page.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

The Slayers, in particular, seem unable to understand that a system, as a whole, can still be in equilibrium even if particular areas within the system change temperature because of disturbances to the pathways of energy flow. Or that energy retention or expulsion from a heatsink is the source of that temperature change. Cotton and Postma simply don't acknowledge questions about it. You might as well be speaking a foreign language.


----------



## Crick (Apr 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I've done no research since we started this conversation and I have changed none of my views.  I don't appreciate your attempt to imply that I have.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2015)

Liar


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


holy crap, are you pretending to be Ian now?  You've never ever made these statements as long as I have been on here.  You are a liar sir.  A man with no integrity I see. Caught and now trying to agree.  It takes a better man to just say you were wrong and Ian was right.  But you don't have that quality.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Remember when crick insisted that water vapour made air heavier? He had no concept of how convection worked. At least that time he came clean and admitted he was confused. This time he is counting on how his garbled statements can be rehabilitated by post hoc explanations about what he 'really meant'. A trick he learned from climate science, I might add. Eg the hockey stick. There was no MWP or LIA. Then there was a MWP and LIA but they were local and small. Then the MWP and LIA are fully consistent with what we have been saying all along.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I must have missed the water vapor makes the air heavier comment.  Had I seen that, I would of asked him if it was easier to hit a home run with a baseball in humid air or dry air.  Love to hear his answer for that.


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> holy crap, are you pretending to be Ian now?  You've never ever made these statements as long as I have been on here.  You are a liar sir.  A man with no integrity I see. Caught and now trying to agree.  It takes a better man to just say you were wrong and Ian was right.  But you don't have that quality.



You are stupid and you are a liar.


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> Remember when crick insisted that water vapour made air heavier? He had no concept of how convection worked. At least that time he came clean and admitted he was confused.



My confusion originated from thinking water vapor was more dense than dry air, which is not the case.  That confusion would lead me to believe under certain circumstances that air would move in a different direction than it actually would. It has nothing to do with convection, ie: heat transfer in a convective scenario, which I understand quite well.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> And for Wuwei, no, the Earth is not at equilibrium. CO2 levels are changing slowly, but nearly as slowly as the Earth warms or cools. If we stopped changing anything this instant, we would not achieve equilibrium for more than a century.


I agree. I was too hasty. We are not at equilibrium.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > holy crap, are you pretending to be Ian now?  You've never ever made these statements as long as I have been on here.  You are a liar sir.  A man with no integrity I see. Caught and now trying to agree.  It takes a better man to just say you were wrong and Ian was right.  But you don't have that quality.
> ...


when one has nothing to say!


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Remember when crick insisted that water vapour made air heavier? He had no concept of how convection worked. At least that time he came clean and admitted he was confused.
> ...




You're still confused. Just look at your last sentence. Perhaps we should bump up that thread to show everyone how certain of things you are, even when you are wrong. I don't actually remember but I think you insulted my first hint to you to recheck your thinking. And belittled me for my ignorance all the way up to when you did some research and found that you were wrong. 

Yah, do you remember what the thread was called crick?


----------



## Crick (Apr 23, 2015)

I  do not, but what I have just said that contends with any of your personal insults?


----------



## IanC (Apr 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> I  do not, but what I have just said that contends with any of your personal insults?



english translation please


----------



## Crick (Apr 23, 2015)

Do you want to talk about the acceleration of the thinning of the Antarctic ice shelf, Ian, or do you want to talk about me?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 23, 2015)

Continental ice, icecap and glacial expands in cold, contracts in warm. The deniars do not want to discuss this at all.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Continental ice, icecap and glacial expands in cold, contracts in warm. The deniars do not want to discuss this at all.


What is it you'd like to discuss?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 23, 2015)

Yes, soot is melting the ice.


----------



## IanC (Apr 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> Ian seems to be having trouble making up his mind.




???

What are you talking about? If you won't quote my words, perhaps you could indicate the message number.


----------



## IanC (Apr 25, 2015)

odd, I could have sworn crick answered me. did you delete your 2 letter long posting crick?


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2015)

IanC said:


> odd, I could have sworn crick answered me. did you delete your 2 letter long posting crick?







*No, I did.*


----------



## IanC (Apr 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > odd, I could have sworn crick answered me. did you delete your 2 letter long posting crick?
> ...




thanks for clearing that up


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 25, 2015)

didnt they have to build Amundsen–Scott Station with adjustable poles as the base 

so it can be raised every year because at least eight inches of permanent  snow falls every year 

failing to raise it the station would soon become buried 

--LOL


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

That is equivalent to 0.8 inches of rain, annually.  That is ONE-FIFTH of the precipitation that falls on the Gobi Desert.


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

IanC said:


> odd, I could have sworn crick answered me. did you delete your 2 letter long posting crick?


*


westwall said:



			No, I did.
		
Click to expand...

*
Why?


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > odd, I could have sworn crick answered me. did you delete your 2 letter long posting crick?
> ...







Because it was a trolling response.


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

Unbelievable.   Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

*Internet troll*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 (Redirected from Trolling)
"Trolling" redirects here. For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).
In Internet slang, a *troll* (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

This sense of the word _troll_ and its associated verb *trolling* are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used _troll_ to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[4][5]


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> Unbelievable.   Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?
> 
> *Internet troll*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...







He asked you for the post you were referring to and you basically told him to fuck off, which is the very definition of trolling behavior.  You're welcome.


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

He asked me a yes or no question and I answered no.

Your abuse of your moderator status here is completely unacceptable.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> He asked me a yes or no question and I answered no.
> 
> Your abuse of your moderator status here is completely unacceptable.







I suggest you go back and reread the exchange bucko.


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

Why, have you altered it to fit your charges?


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2015)

so I found this article yesterday.  I just have to laugh after reopening this thread....


"  Antarctic Ice So Thick Scientists Struggle Getting There  May 11, 2015Source: The Daily Callerby: Michael Bastasch  Scientists are struggling to stage expeditions to the South Pole because Antarctica’s sea ice has been growing rapidly and hit record high levels.

The UK Guardian reports 50 scientists have gathered in Tasmania to discuss more accurate ways to predict Antarctic sea ice levels so researchers don’t get stuck in ice pack when traveling southward.

“It’s quite hard to forecast but whatever effort we put into improving our ability to forecast sea ice will ultimately pay dividends in terms of savings for national programs,” Tony Worby, head  of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, told the Guardian.

Last year, ships “couldn’t get anywhere near” the Australian Antarctic Division’s research site on Antarctica, reports The Guardian. Source: The Daily Caller"
Too funny!!!!!! LoSiNg


----------



## westwall (May 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> Why, have you altered it to fit your charges?







I didn't.  Altering posts is your specialty buckwheat.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2015)

Larsen-B ice shelf projected to finish collapse by 2020.

NASA Study Shows Antarctica s Larsen B Ice Shelf Nearing Its Final Act NASA


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Larsen-B ice shelf projected to finish collapse by 2020.
> 
> NASA Study Shows Antarctica s Larsen B Ice Shelf Nearing Its Final Act NASA



Wow...

A Glacial remnant of the last ice age is about to break up because it has been eaten out from underneath by..... wait for it.....  Volcanically warmed water...  While the rest of Antarctica ice is growing massively.   

Yawn..... Nothing to see hear...  the dam thing was melting at 1,200 meters per year in the 1800's far faster than today... same old failure to research and then scream at the top of your lungs alarm.... ding ding ding....


----------



## Kosh (May 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Larsen-B ice shelf projected to finish collapse by 2020.
> ...



"It's not just the fact that there is melting water, and that water is coming out," Schroeder told Live Science. "It's how that affects the flow and stability of the ice."

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below Discovery News


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2015)

Antarctic Ice Loss Tripled in the Last 10 Years Discovery News

The melt rate of glaciers in the fastest-melting part of Antarctica has tripled over the past decade, researchers said Tuesday in an analysis of the past 21 years.

Glaciers in the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica are losing ice faster than another part of Antarctica and are the biggest contributor to rising sea levels, said researchers at the University of California at Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.






 PLAY VIDEO
Can We Save Our Cities From Drowning?
Over the next 200 years, the ocean is expected to rise 10 feet, putting many major cities worldwide underwater. Can we stop it?
DCI
Research published in May concluded that the melting of glaciers in West Antarctica, which contain enough water to raise sea levels by at least a meter, is speeding up and seems irreversible.

*Seems ol' Boob is pulling more shit out of his ass.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Larsen-B ice shelf projected to finish collapse by 2020.
> 
> NASA Study Shows Antarctica s Larsen B Ice Shelf Nearing Its Final Act NASA


2020...er 2040...um 2080


----------

