# Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct



## Star (Aug 26, 2012)

"Recent events have caused speculation that the current Republican Party is anti-science.

For a nation that values its traditional science and technology edge over most of the rest of the world, it is somewhat astonishing that so many Republican politicians treat science as unproven theory or disregard it completely." ~ Ann McFeatters 


Climate Change Deniers: First they said it isn't happening, then they said it was real but humans had nothing to do with it, then they said maybe it's natural warming or maybe it's caused by humans but we can't do anything about it, then they said it was real but...



Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct | NationofChange

Most North Americans know that human-caused global warming is real, even if political leaders dont always reflect or act on that knowledge. According to a recent poll, only two percent of Canadians reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming at alarming ratesa figure that may seem surprising given the volume of nonsense deniers (many of them funded by the fossil fuel industry) spread through letters to the editor, blogs, radio call-ins and website comments.

Polling indicates more deniers live in the U.S., but they still make up just 15 percent of that population.


&#9988;snip>


The truth is, as most of us know, that global warming is real and humans are major contributors, mainly because we wastefully burn fossil fuels. We also know solutions lie in energy conservation, shifting to renewable sources, and changing our patterns of energy and fuel use, for example, by improving public transit and moving away from personal vehicles.

Scientists have been warning about global warming for decades. Its too late to stop it now, but we can lessen its severity and impacts. The side benefits are numerous: less pollution and environmental destruction, better human health, stronger and more diversified economies, and a likely reduction in global conflicts fueled by the rapacious drive to exploit finite resources.

We can all work to reduce our individual impacts. But we must also convince our political and business leaders that its time to *put peopleespecially our children, grandchildren and generations yet to comebefore profits.*


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 26, 2012)

Star said:


> "Recent events have caused speculation that the current Republican Party is anti-science.
> 
> For a nation that values its traditional science and technology edge over most of the rest of the world, it is somewhat astonishing that so many Republican politicians treat science as unproven theory or disregard it completely." ~ Ann McFeatters
> 
> ...



The astro-turfed anti-science cult of AGW denial, sponsored by the fossil fuel industry and the oil billionaires, is fast sliding down the poop chute into the sewer pit of history, along with the Flat Earth Society, as temperatures soar and evidence of sudden climate changes becomes more and more unmistakable to the general public. You can only fool people with propaganda, smears and lies for so long when the evidence for AGW is so widespread and obvious. Only the brainwashed and retarded ideologues are still holding fast to the denier cult dogmas and myths these days.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 27, 2012)

We have global warming every summer and global cooling every winter.


----------



## Papageorgio (Aug 27, 2012)

Star said:


> "Recent events have caused speculation that the current Republican Party is anti-science.
> 
> For a nation that values its traditional science and technology edge over most of the rest of the world, it is somewhat astonishing that so many Republican politicians treat science as unproven theory or disregard it completely." ~ Ann McFeatters
> 
> ...



Are you quoting an article or is this all your own thinking?

If it is an article, you are required to give a link.

If it is your own work, can we get a link to the polls you acquired your information from.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 27, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> We have global warming every summer and global cooling every winter.


I knew you were really retarded but are you really so retarded that you aren't aware that summer and winter are reversed in the southern hemisphere? Do you even understand the meaning of "global"?


----------



## Star (Aug 27, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > "Recent events have caused speculation that the current Republican Party is anti-science.
> ...


 

WTFU dude/dudette! -pewsh!-
.


----------



## Papageorgio (Aug 27, 2012)

No links? 

Okay, I understand and where you are coming from.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2012)

AGW, it's not science, it's a cult


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 27, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> We have global warming every summer and global cooling every winter.


That's right. The Sun changes the climate *almost* on a daily basis!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2012)

All we know for certain is that Americans are evil and need to be stopped from melting the polar ice caps. They can accomplish this by either: mass die off and/or fully implementing an 18th century agrarian economy (that's Progress for you)


----------



## Star (Aug 27, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> No links?
> 
> Okay, I understand and where you are coming from.


 

No link?
LOL - you understand? -- puhhhleeze! 
2 funny -- R U stew-pid or is yer haed up yer azz?


I'd school you on how to find the/a link but it's more fun watching you make a fool of yourself.





*Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation Poll*. July 25-Aug. 5, 2012. N=3,130 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.​ 
*"Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?"*​ 
Find results *here*.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2012)

Star said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > No links?
> ...



That's science?

Seriously?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 27, 2012)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2012)

Do you think the mass of a particle approaches infinity as it approaches the speed of light?

Yes: 10.5%
No: 22.5%
WTF are you babbling about?: 64.5%
I voted for Obama-- Twice and I follow his tweets: 2.5%


----------



## Douger (Aug 27, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> All we know for certain is that Americans are evil and need to be stopped from melting the polar ice caps. They can accomplish this by either: mass die off and/or fully implementing an 18th century agrarian economy (that's Progress for you)


Frank FINALLY sees it my way !


----------



## Star (Aug 27, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...


 

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? -- this thread is about how AGW deniers have manned up and admitted they were wrong. The 15% or so that continue to be duped tend to be *old farts that are gullible* enough to continue to believe the carbon industry's propaganda.





*FRIDAY, Aug. 24, 2012 (HealthDay News) * Whether it's an email from an unknown gentleman on another continent pleading for money or a financial scammer selling a promising penny stock, *the young and old tend to be more easily duped than middle-aged people.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 27, 2012)

Hey Star::

Are you aware that increasing numbers of scientists are pointing to a HUGE probability of Global Cooling due to natural cooling via Sunspot activity within the next 12 years or so?? 

Are YOU aware of that? And if so -- are you PLEASED or dissapointed that the amount of cooling will be mitigated by warming that YOU THINK is caused solely by CO2 emissions? The best estimates are that the events of the next couple decades will be "a statistical wash" between natural cooling and "man-made" Global Warming? 

PERHAPS those mean nasty Carbon dudes are saving your frigid ass from fracturing in the cold.. 

Anyway -- long term prognosis for making political hay out of this is ALMOST THE "F" Over.. When NATURAL CYCLICAL causes can wipe out all that hooting and hollowering that your minions have done to us for the past 20 years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey Star::
> 
> Are you aware that increasing numbers of scientists are pointing to a HUGE probability of Global Cooling due to natural cooling via Sunspot activity within the next 12 years or so??
> 
> ...



Links? To peer reviewed articles, not nonsense from fruitcakes like you.


----------



## emptystep (Aug 27, 2012)

Wow! 21% don't think we should regulate greenhouse gas emisions. Then again they might not even understand what 'greenhouse gasses' are. They problably like to troll message boards though.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 27, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey Star::
> 
> Are you aware that increasing numbers of scientists are pointing to a HUGE probability of Global Cooling due to natural cooling via Sunspot activity within the next 12 years or so??


Nobody but the insane are aware of that because it is not true, you poor delusional moron. It is not only not true, it is simply meaningless nonsense. "Natural cooling via Sunspot activity"???? Increased sunspot activity signals a solar maximum and more heat, not less. LOLOLOLOLOLOL......you are such a retard!!!







flacaltenn said:


> Are YOU aware of that? And if so -- are you PLEASED or dissapointed that the amount of cooling will be mitigated by warming that YOU THINK is caused solely by CO2 emissions? The best estimates are that the events of the next couple decades will be "a statistical wash" between natural cooling and "man-made" Global Warming?


The "_best estimates_" of who exactly??? Your body lice maybe? Fossil fuel industry stooges? 'Cause it is certainly not what the real climate scientists are predicting for the temperature/climate changes in "_the next couple decades_".

*Study: Thawing permafrost will worsen global warming*
By Seth Borenstein, Associated Press
USA Today
11/30/2011 
(excerpts)

*WASHINGTON  Massive amounts of greenhouse gases trapped below thawing permafrost will likely seep into the air over the next several decades, accelerating and amplifying global warming, scientists warn. The permafrost scientists predict that over the next three decades, a total of about 45 billion metric tons of carbon from methane and carbon dioxide will seep into the atmosphere when permafrost thaws during summers. That's about the same amount of heat-trapping gas the world spews during five years of burning coal, gas and other fossil fuels. And the picture is even more alarming for the end of the century. The scientists calculate that about than 300 billion metric tons of carbon will belch from the thawing Earth from now until 2100.

Adding in that gas means that warming would happen "20 to 30 percent faster than from fossil fuel emissions alone," said Edward Schuur of the University of Florida. "You are significantly speeding things up by releasing this carbon." Usually the first few to several inches of permafrost thaw in the summer, but scientists are now looking at up to 10 feet of soft unfrozen ground because of warmer temperatures, he said. The gases come from decaying plants that have been stuck below frozen ground for millennia. Schuur and 40 other scientists in the Permafrost Carbon Research Network met this summer and jointly wrote up their findings, which were published in the journal Nature on Wednesday. "The survey provides an important warning that global climate warming is likely to be worse than expected," said Jay Zwally, a NASA polar scientist who was not part of the study. "Arctic permafrost has been like a wild card."

Schuur and others said increasing amounts of greenhouse gas are seeping out of permafrost each year. Some is methane, which is 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide in trapping heat. In a recent video, University of Alaska Fairbanks professor Katey Walter Anthony, a study co-author, is shown setting leaking methane gas on fire with flames shooting far above her head. "Places like that are all around," Anthony said in a phone interview. "We're tapping into old carbon that has been locked up in the ground for 30,000 to 40,000 years." That triggers what Anthony and other scientists call a feedback cycle. The world warms, mostly because of human-made greenhouse gases. That thaws permafrost, releasing more natural greenhouse gas, augmenting the warming.*


----------



## emptystep (Aug 27, 2012)

With the way the energy companies are bankrolling Romney don't be surprised if you don't start seeing a lot more of flacaltenn like nonsense showing up all over the place. The super rich seem to believe they can live through anything. Who knows, maybe they can.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Star::
> ...



You need links to articles that we just fought over 3 days ago??? Are you going daft?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 27, 2012)

emptystep said:


> With the way the energy companies are bankrolling Romney don't be surprised if you don't start seeing a lot more of flacaltenn like nonsense showing up all over the place. The super rich seem to believe they can live through anything. Who knows, maybe they can.



Really? Perhaps you should spend more time studying the topic and less time shaking those Blue-Green environaut pom-poms eh??? 



> Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online
> 
> *According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the &#8216;Dalton minimum&#8217; of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.*However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the &#8216;Maunder minimum&#8217; (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the &#8216;Little Ice Age&#8217; when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
> 
> ...



Faced with the inevitability that the Jig will Soon be Up --- The alarmists are gonna INSIST that CO2 based Global Warming WILL WIN THE DAY -- saving humanity from freezing their sorry skeptical buns right off..        

You have become a willing example of WHY I CHOSE that quote in my footer.. Because you ATTACK expecting lies and deceit because that's just what liars expect... 

Next time -- check it out before you look silly..


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2012)

And how many years now have I been hearing, "Don't worry, it's going to be cooling soon."?

And now we have just seen the record for the melt in the Arctic Ocean broken with 2 to 4 weeks of melt left. The vast majority of glaciers in the world are receding at an ever increasing clip. 

I will remind you of this post in the coming months, Flatulance.


----------



## Papageorgio (Aug 27, 2012)

Star said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > No links?
> ...



That's all I asked for dumb fuck.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 28, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > With the way the energy companies are bankrolling Romney don't be surprised if you don't start seeing a lot more of flacaltenn like nonsense showing up all over the place. The super rich seem to believe they can live through anything. Who knows, maybe they can.
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.........ROTFLMAO.........oh fecalhead, ya gotta stop wit dat shyt......I nearly pissed myself laughing at that one......










flacaltenn said:


> and less time shaking those Blue-Green environaut pom-poms eh???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are really funny today, little retard....that last line....omg...

This post of yours, besides being hilarious, is a good example of just how screwed up and confused you are. You, very ironically (unconsciously), advise someone else that they "_should spend more time studying the topic_" and then you demonstrate what that means to you by posting some idiotic drivel from a newspaper article without ever checking up on the accuracy of that drivel. LOL. You are such a good example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

That reporter for the Mail, David Rose, is a denier cult nutjob and a major liar. His article was so full of errors, lies and fraudulent statements that the Met Office, whose studies he was supposedly quoting, took the very unusual step of publicly responding to his bullshit.

*Met Office in the Media* 
29 January 2012
(not under copyright)

*Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled Forget global warming  its Cycle 25 we need to worry about.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.

The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.

However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record  for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.





Global average temperatures from 1850 to 2011 from the three individual global temperature datasets (Met Office/UEA HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC






Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.

It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCCs B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).  In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum  a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level  the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.
*


----------



## Barb (Aug 28, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...


IN the post you so arrogantly tried to school the OP about, were the links you were looking FOR. 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...deniers-are-almost-extinct-2.html#post5879876 

At this part,  





> Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct | NationofChange


 you hover your mouse over the words, and TA DAAAA, it's a fucking link. 

Now be a nice boy and apologize.


----------



## Barb (Aug 28, 2012)

emptystep said:


> With the way the energy companies are bankrolling Romney don't be surprised if you don't start seeing a lot more of flacaltenn like nonsense showing up all over the place. The super rich seem to believe they can live through anything. Who knows, maybe they can.



Wasn't Newt promising colonies on the moon?

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or1Mb1Vje1Q]Newt Gingrich promises US moon colony by 2020. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 28, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



I don't know WHY you think that LARGER BOLDED type is gonna work to intimidate folks like me or make you look smarter. *The MET did NOT DENY any of the analysis they did to predict a COOLING CYCLE.* And the author (Rose or whoever) did NOT MAKE UP those statements clarifying the MET press release. He had INTERVIEWED and QUOTED several different RESPECTABLE scientific sources that disagreed with the MET conclusions over THE DEGREE of NET WARMING/COOLING that was gonna occur. They can holler all they want about their attempt to show that it will still warm "a little" even if there is a massive NATURAL shift in climate cooling due to the sun. But that was result of largely picking upper/lower bounds in a favorable fashion to come up with a slight net warming. Something that MANY climate researchers disagree with. What is NOT GENERALLY disagreed about is the CRUX of the MET report. That accelerated warming predicted by CO2 alone and touted as gospel by the IPCC is gonna largely disappear for the next decade or so.. 

And that is that rough times are ahead for the "Church of CO2" as NATURE shows how much of an effect she has on NATURAL cycles of the climate. And the Top Clergy have to circle the wagons to find a rational way NOT to look stupid over the next 20 years or so.... 

I don't think you fully grasped the SCOPE of what the MET was quibbling about in that "reply". It did NOT affect the major prognostication that they are on record as making.


----------



## Star (Aug 28, 2012)

Barb said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...


 

ooohhh noes, now you've let the cat outta the bag Barb --- unfortunately for Papageorgio, Papageorgio doesn't even seem bright enough to recognize that s/he's just made a *fool* of him/herself.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 28, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Qw3Foa_XE]don&#39;t eat the yellow snow and nanook rubs it - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Aug 28, 2012)

Star said:


> "Recent events have caused speculation that the current Republican Party is anti-science.
> 
> For a nation that values its traditional science and technology edge over most of the rest of the world, it is somewhat astonishing that so many Republican politicians treat science as unproven theory or disregard it completely." ~ Ann McFeatters
> 
> ...







Yes, "denialists" are such a dying breed that we are kicking your asses all over the planet.  You've been able to get ONE carbon tax scheme passed since your cult exploded over CLIMATEGAT and that will be repealed as soon as the current government gets booted out of office (as it will because it has been revealed that the politicians that voted for the fraud get to make buckets of money from the tax....that doesn't sit well with the Aussies) and you say the sceptics are a dying breed


Your delusion is very illustrative....very.....


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 28, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


I don't use larger type to "_intimidate_" you, fecalhead, I use it because *you're a retard* and you need that emphasis. Unfortunately you're too retarded to comprehend what you read anyway, as this post of yours demonstrates pretty conclusively.







flacaltenn said:


> *The MET did NOT DENY any of the analysis they did to predict a COOLING CYCLE.*


You have no idea what the Met Office did or did not do, you clueless retard. You're getting all of your information from newspaper accounts written by liars.







flacaltenn said:


> And the author (Rose or whoever) did NOT MAKE UP those statements clarifying the MET press release.


Oh but that denier cult douchebag Rose did in fact make up lots of stuff, moron. Starting with the headline.
"_*Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years*_"
First off, NASA scientists have never said anything that even implies that the Thames will be freezing over again. Second, the claim that the Met Office figures show no warming in 15 years is a total lie. A very obvious lie too since the very first two paragraphs of the Met Office's press release say:

*2012 is expected to be around 0.48 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a predicted likely range of between 0.34 °C and 0.62 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.

    The middle of this range would place 2012 within the top 10 warmest years in a series which goes back to 1850.*​
First paragraph of Rose's error filled article:
"_The supposed &#8216;consensus&#8217; on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years._" - LIE

Second paragragh:
"_The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century._" - LIE

Third paragraph:
"_Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997._" - LIE

Actual Met Office releases:
"*New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.*"

"*Our findings suggest  a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.*"

"*The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun. It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC&#8217;s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).  In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum &#8211; a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level &#8211; the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.*"​












flacaltenn said:


> He had INTERVIEWED and QUOTED several different RESPECTABLE scientific sources that disagreed with the MET conclusions over THE DEGREE of NET WARMING/COOLING that was gonna occur.


LOLOLOLOL. Yeah, denier cult reporter Rose interviews several denier cult kooks and cranks who pose as scientists but have little or no credibility in the world scientific community. 
Henrik Svensmark
"The rebuttals to Svensmarks cosmic ray theories and hypothesis generally included lack of confirmation and unsupported claims."

Dr Nicola Scafetta
Ties to several AGW denying front groups linked to or sponsored by the fossil fuel industry; Heartland Institute, SPPI.
His findings are disputed by the rest of the scientific community - "Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature"

Judith Curry Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot









flacaltenn said:


> They can holler all they want about their attempt to show that it will still warm "a little" even if there is a massive NATURAL shift in climate cooling due to the sun.


It is not going to warm "_a little_", fecalhead, it is going to warm *a lot*. There is no "_massive NATURAL shift in climate cooling due to the sun_", there may be a minor shift in the solar influence on Earth's climate. As the Met Office actually said:
"*The study in question...confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases.*"​








flacaltenn said:


> What is NOT GENERALLY disagreed about is the CRUX of the MET report. That accelerated warming predicted by CO2 alone and touted as gospel by the IPCC is gonna largely disappear for the next decade or so..


Total bullshit based only on your inability to comprehend what the scientists are actually saying. That inability apparently comes from both the fact that you've been brainwashed by some clever propaganda and by the fact that you're incredibly retarded and completely ignorant about science.
Once again for the retard...
"*The study in question...confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. *"​






flacaltenn said:


> And that is that rough times are ahead for the "Church of CO2"


Actually it is the "Cult of Reality Denial" that is having rough times now as temperatures soar and droughts intensify. Your cult is fast sliding down the poop chute of history into the septic tank of failed ideological craziness. You are on a par with the Flat Earth Society.







flacaltenn said:


> as NATURE shows how much of an effect she has on NATURAL cycles of the climate. And the Top Clergy have to circle the wagons to find a rational way NOT to look stupid over the next 20 years or so....


You denier cult retards have been looking stupid for the last 20 years or so and you will soon be looking even more stupid as the climate change crisis deepens.








flacaltenn said:


> I don't think you fully grasped the SCOPE of what the MET was quibbling about in that "reply". It did NOT affect the major prognostication that they are on record as making.


You're obviously far too retarded to have any idea what the Met Office actually said. Too bad you're such a gullible little cretin.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 28, 2012)

TinkerBelle:

It's become increasingly difficult to find ANY evidence that you were sufficiently educated in Middle School. We've already established your inability to read graphs and understand the basics of  logarithms and NOW --- your abysmal reading comprehension skills and logic are on full display.. 

I don't want to waste time on your bolded rants. But I DO WANT to offer a pop quiz to establish your general competency to discuss.. Remember those Weekly Reader quizes? Here goes.. I give you a paragraph, and you answer the questions... 




> According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the &#8216;Dalton minimum&#8217; of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
> However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the &#8216;Maunder minimum&#8217; (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the &#8216;Little Ice Age&#8217; when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.



1) What is the MINIMUM predicted temperature impact of weak SunSpot Cycle 25 on average temperatures?

2) If Cycle 25 resembles the Maunder Minimum --- would that impact yield LOWER average Temps or HIGHER?

3) What is chance of this event NOT happening?

Good so far? The next paragraph builds on the facts presented in the first paragraph.. 



> Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun's activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.
> 
> It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).
> 
> ...



Which of these statements are correct?  (Choose just one)


A) The Cycle 25 effect on temperature in the 21st Century is only 0.08degC.

B) The NET effect of Cycle 25 and "global warming" in the 21st Century would result in a cooling of between 0.08 and 0.13degC.

C) The temperature difference between the Dalton Min and the Maunder Min is 0.05degC.

D)  "...it's gonna warm a lot"....  attributed to a DundrHead known as Rolling Thunder.


Stop there -- pencils down... Pass your papers to the front..

We will discuss the incredible flailing of the Met Office themselves to pull numbers and dates out of their arses tomorrow.. 
And I will have videos of that as well...


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 28, 2012)

Star said:


> "Recent events have caused speculation that the current Republican Party is anti-science.
> 
> For a nation that values its traditional science and technology edge over most of the rest of the world, it is somewhat astonishing that so many Republican politicians treat science as unproven theory or disregard it completely." ~ Ann McFeatters
> 
> ...






Is that so s0n?


Then please..............show us where your side is winning??











LMAO.........I posed this same ? to Rolling Thunder last October. Still.........not one single link ( but Ive beenn called "retard" 1,000 times )





In the real world ( outside the nether-regions of the internet).........nobody gives a rats ass about the global warming science. It they did............Cap and Trade would be a slam dunk. Instead? Its dead as a fucking doornail!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 28, 2012)




----------



## IGetItAlready (Aug 28, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> No links?
> 
> Okay, I understand and where you are coming from.



No links required. 
Are you not aware that someone with the right opinion has already proclaimed that the GD debate is over? And if you disagree you will be marginalized as a nut. 

pffft
AGW alarmism is the Loch Ness Monster debate for adults.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 28, 2012)

Climate Change Deniers "almost extinct"??? Maybe so if the Climate Change Bus keeps losing parts as rapidly as it is.. There IS Climate Change -- but we won't need Deniers and Skeptics once a better, more comprehensive theory of the Change is produced.. 

I'll be relieved when the Doom and Gloom cheering section is silenced everytime there's a natural weather disaster..


----------



## Barb (Aug 29, 2012)

Star said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



He knows, he hasn't been back to acknowledge his mistake.

 Skookerasbil following in his footsteps...








> LMAO.........I posed this same ? to Rolling Thunder last October. Still.........not one single link ( but Ive beenn called "retard" 1,000 times )


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2012)

Oh yeah, gonna get cooler. No reason to worry about the ice just going down and down in the Arctic. 2.570 square kilometers on the Cryosphere chart;

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh yeah, gonna get cooler. No reason to worry about the ice just going down and down in the Arctic. 2.570 square kilometers on the Cryosphere chart;
> 
> Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area



That's YOUR JOB OldieRocks. And you do it quite well..


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> It's become increasingly difficult to find ANY evidence that you were sufficiently educated in Middle School. We've already established your inability to read graphs and understand the basics of  logarithms and NOW --- your abysmal reading comprehension skills and logic are on full display..


Going by the evidence provided by your posts, it is very obvious that you are so retarded that brain damaged dogs could cheat you at cards. Every bit of denier cult drivel that you've posted has been completely debunked. You have no idea what is going on but you're so brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry propaganda that you mistakenly imagine that you know something about this area of science. In fact though, you're a faith-based, anti-science rightwingnut moron who just parrots the lies and idiotic pseudo-science you get off your denier cult blogs.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yeah, gonna get cooler. No reason to worry about the ice just going down and down in the Arctic. 2.570 square kilometers on the Cryosphere chart;
> ...



Well, Flatulance, once again, I have been caught out. Remember, I predicted 2.7, possibly as low as 2.5. We are almost at 2.5 right now, and it is not even September yet. Wrong again.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > It's become increasingly difficult to find ANY evidence that you were sufficiently educated in Middle School. We've already established your inability to read graphs and understand the basics of  logarithms and NOW --- your abysmal reading comprehension skills and logic are on full display..
> ...



So you didn't do well on the pop quiz eh princess? Don't worry. We'll save that little desk for you next year deary...


----------



## westwall (Aug 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 29, 2012)

The last time we had droughts like this in the midwest was in the 30's during the FDR Administration, therefore it can only be that Progressive Administrations cause droughts

I can make a chart, one line Progressiveness of the Administrations peaking with FDR and Obama, the other  line will be severe droughts and they will match perfectly.

Science = Settled


----------



## mamooth (Aug 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both



The Met says that's bullshit, but we've been over that before.



> 1) What is the MINIMUM predicted temperature impact of weak SunSpot Cycle 25 on average temperatures?



I'm unaware of such projections, but it's not too hard to scratch one up. Normal trough-to-peak solar cycle temp variation is about +0.18C. If Cycle 25 was half of the normal, we'd take the average again and get about an -0.05C difference.



> 2) If Cycle 25 resembles the Maunder Minimum --- would that impact yield LOWER average Temps or HIGHER?



Lower, of course.



> 3) What is chance of this event NOT happening?



Probably 99%.



> Which of these statements are correct?  (Choose just one)
> 
> A) The Cycle 25 effect on temperature in the 21st Century is only 0.08degC.



Unknown, given that we have to wait until Solar Cycle 25 to find out.



> B) The NET effect of Cycle 25 and "global warming" in the 21st Century would result in a cooling of between 0.08 and 0.13degC.



Totally wrong. Net affect is way, way positive.



> C) The temperature difference between the Dalton Min and the Maunder Min is 0.05degC



Not sure. But it's commonly agreed that very high volcanic activity was the primary driver of the Dalton minimum low temperatures.



> D)  "...it's gonna warm a lot"....  attributed to a DundrHead known as Rolling Thunder.



Definitely correct. Even if the solar output fell to Maunder Minimum levels, that would simply slow down the warming a bit. Forcings from greenhouse gases are vastly greater than any conceivable solar forcings.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 29, 2012)

You got less than half right Mamooth.. Expect to see me after class. 

The article CORRECTLY states (directly from the MET) that the expected temp diff for a cycle similiar to the Dalton Min is about -2DegC. You missed that one?????

And I don't know where you got a 99% of "not happening" because the MET itself declared this to be 92% certain. Leaving a simple subtraction for you to botch.. 

THe MET declares that the NET EFFECT of this would result in a COOLING of at least 0.08degC.. (Don't blame me for the anal details -- take it up with the Authors). It would NOT continue to warm but this incredibly weak solar cycle would effectively "cancel" out the proposed warming that the IPCC projects using the most dire of scenarios.

(MET used the Worst case AGW anomaly and the Weakest solar forcing to arrive at their forecast AND they completely lost cred when they declared that the expected diff between Maunder and Dalton Mins to be all of 0.05degC)

Obviously, you're not taking this class seriously. And we BOTH know you could do better.

Since we can't agree on WHAT THE MET SAID -- in 2 simple paragraphs. And both TinkerBelle and yourself CAN'T READ --- this leaves us in an awkward place to continue a rational discussion doesn't it?

By the way Mamooth -- this MET brainfart confirms in detail the forecast made by Scaffetta several years ago - the scientist you called an astrologer a week or 2 ago.. I guess if it comes true -- you'd have to eat Fancy Feast for a week or two....


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 29, 2012)

Seriously man.. Isn't there a Warmer who can read those 2 paragraphs and LITERALLY and FACTFULLY demonstrate understanding of them?

Not INTERPRET what the MET said. Not answer my questions with your own crapped out numbers. Not SMEAR the reporter that interviewed others for comment -- But the BASIC PREDICTION that the MET was making.. 

Does the OP understand how this makes it hard for Deniers and Skeptics to go extinct? Looks like we're still needed...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> The article CORRECTLY states (directly from the MET) that the expected temp diff for a cycle similiar to the Dalton Min is about -2DegC. You missed that one?????



Why are you claiming that a fiction piece from David Rose is "directly from the MET"? You wouldn't happen to have a actual source from the Met, would you? No, I didn't think so. Don't worry, I do.



> Since we can't agree on WHAT THE MET SAID -- in 2 simple paragraphs. And both TinkerBelle and yourself CAN'T READ --- this leaves us in an awkward place to continue a rational discussion doesn't it?



Of course we can agree on what the Met said, because the Met says it publicly and directly. There's no need to listen to arch-liar David Rose.

Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog
---
It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCCs B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).  In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum  a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level  the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.
---

I now await your no doubt very creative explanation as to why what the Met says isn't really what the Met says.


----------



## daveman (Aug 29, 2012)

Star said:


> Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct


Kinda like the Medieval Warming Period, huh?

Oh, wait -- that really happened.  Never know it from AGW "science", though.


----------



## daveman (Aug 29, 2012)

emptystep said:


> With the way the energy companies are bankrolling Romney don't be surprised if you don't start seeing a lot more of flacaltenn like nonsense showing up all over the place. The super rich seem to believe they can live through anything. Who knows, maybe they can.


Al Gore thinks he can, buying his beach house.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 29, 2012)

Ive seen some goofball threads in my day on this forum..........but this one takes goofball to a new level!!


How can the deniers be "extinct" when they are clearly winning!!!


If anything........the alarmists are extinct............Cap and Trade died three years ago, so obviously, your ordinary American couldnt give a rats ass about the "science".  Google away s0ns.........*THERES DAYS AND DAYS WORTH OF READING MATERIAL!!!*..............like THIS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>


http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/21357

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/cap-and-trade-is-dead-long-live-cap-and-trade/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558070997168360.html


http://science.time.com/2010/07/22/cap-and-trade-is-dead-really-truly-im-not-kidding-whos-to-blame/


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59620.html


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 29, 2012)

The environmental goofballs live life in a science bubble........as naive as the average cucumber.



Chapter 9: Conclusions

Canadas Energy Future: Energy Supply and Demand Projections to 2035 provides a projection of Canadian energy supply and demand to the year 2035. The projections employ currently available information, trends, policies and technologies to form a view of the Canadian energy system over the next 25 years. Over the projection period, new information will become available, trends, policies and technology will evolve, and certain assumptions made in the report may no longer apply. Readers of this report should consider the projections a baseline for discussing Canadas energy future, not a prediction of what will take place.
The results of the Reference Case imply three broad conclusions:
Energy supply grows to record levels

New and innovative ways of producing energy causes Canadian energy supply to reach its highest levels ever. *Oil production doubles by 2035*, with oil sands providing the majority of new production. *Natural gas production reverses its historical declining trend by 2016 with tight and shale gas extraction driving production above record levels by the end of the projection period*. Electricity production grows gradually as renewables, such as wind, hydro and biomass, make up a greater portion of the generating mix.

Projections for Canada energy out to 2035>>>>> NEB - Energy Reports - Canada?s Energy Future: Energy Supply and Demand Projections to*2035 - Energy Market Assessment




*Ummm.........who's not losing??*


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 29, 2012)




----------



## mamooth (Aug 30, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Ummm.........who's not losing??



Just what do the rants and pictures the have to do with the fact that AGW denialists are considered to laughingstocks?

You could just 'fess up and admit that you were dutifully babbling whatever nonsense your cult ordered you to babble. After all, it's not like you were ever fooling anyone. But no, you're not emotionally capable of admitting those dirty environmentalists were right yet another time.

My suggestion? Just slink away in disgrace, along with the rest of the denialists. Memories are short, and in a few years, you'll be able to pretend you never believed something as dumb as denialism.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 30, 2012)

There are dozens of "educational" programs on TV today that give credible evidence for "Bigfoot" and "para-normal sightings". The same phony pseudo-science and fudged data and biased crazy hype is used by the international left to promote the phony crisis of "global-warming" as  an extortion scheme to bring America to it's knees in a time of economic unrest.


----------



## westwall (Aug 30, 2012)

mamooth said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Ummm.........who's not losing??
> ...







Sceptics are feared and hated by those (like you) who have a political agenda.  Every time you clowns make a prediction it is proven wrong.  Mann's methodology was proven false and it was shown that no matter what numbers you punched into his little algorithm warming was the result.

Sceptics are so feared that the climate mafia was forced to resort to unethical behavior and prevent studies being published that presented evidence that ran counter to what the climate mafia was stating.

And you claim we're the laughing stocks?

Your delusion is laughable on its face, you once again attempt to marginalise those who are threatening your illegal livelyhood.  Nice try but the only laughing stocks are you and yours.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2012)

The above chart shows the correlation between the Obama and FDR Administrations and Midwest droughts. Pretend for a moment, using Michael's Mann substitution of Data method that instead of 0-1000, the numbers at the bottom range from 1920-2010, the assume that the range on the left is the relative Progressiveness of the Presidential Administration, finally the purple lines are US Presidents and the black line is Midwest droughts.

As you can see there is as perfect correlation between severe drought and the Administrations of FDR and Obama. 

Progressives create droughts. Clearly, the science is settled.


----------



## daveman (Aug 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The above chart shows the correlation between the Obama and FDR Administrations and Midwest droughts. Pretend for a moment, using Michael's Mann substitution of Data method that instead of 0-1000, the numbers at the bottom range from 1920-2010, the assume that the range on the left is the relative Progressiveness of the Presidential Administration, finally the purple lines are US Presidents and the black line is Midwest droughts.
> 
> As you can see there is as perfect correlation between severe drought and the Administrations of FDR and Obama.
> 
> Progressives create droughts. Clearly, the science is settled.



I have peer-reviewed this post, and can find no fault with its conclusions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2012)

daveman said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct
> ...



*Another ignoramous chimes in on what he knows nothing of.*

Reconstructing the climate of medieval Europe | Ars Technica

To try and understand the temperature variations, the researchers then examined correlations between their climate reconstruction and known volcanic activity and solar activity. They found at least one cold year in the following three years after major volcanic eruptions. Generally, warm years coincided with years of high solar activity, and vice versa. The one exception was at the end of the medieval warm period; the researchers speculate that deforestation in Europe may have increased the local albedo enough to compensate for the solar activity. 

With all that established, what of the medieval warm period? Well, the weather was certainly warmer in Northern Europe and in the North Atlantic, but it was colder and more variable in Southern Europe. After roughly 1400 CE, the less stable weather expanded to Northern Europe and both areas cooled. 

The little ice age, on the other hand, was common to most of the continent. The point is that if one used just Northern Europe's tree ring data, the medieval warm period would look very strong, while Southern European proxies would show no warm period. Only by combining data from throughout Europe can one see just how local the medieval warm period actually was. 

This is pretty much what climatologists had concluded alreadyat least as far as the medieval warm period goes. What's important in the new way is that the temperature reconstruction drawn from the proxies resulted in what seems to be a more accurate temperature reconstruction. Because the calibration was internal, the different proxy data sets could be more accurately combined with each other and used to draw much stronger conclusions than previously. 

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

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

*Science from scientists, not flapyap from nincompoops.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2012)

whitehall said:


> There are dozens of "educational" programs on TV today that give credible evidence for "Bigfoot" and "para-normal sightings". The same phony pseudo-science and fudged data and biased crazy hype is used by the international left to promote the phony crisis of "global-warming" as  an extortion scheme to bring America to it's knees in a time of economic unrest.



Oh my, another dumb fuck equating silly programs on TV to articles in peer reviewed scientific journals. But then, if one only watchs such programs, and never reads such journals, what can you expect of them


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2012)

daveman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The above chart shows the correlation between the Obama and FDR Administrations and Midwest droughts. Pretend for a moment, using Michael's Mann substitution of Data method that instead of 0-1000, the numbers at the bottom range from 1920-2010, the assume that the range on the left is the relative Progressiveness of the Presidential Administration, finally the purple lines are US Presidents and the black line is Midwest droughts.
> ...



For sure, you and Frankie Boy are peer level.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2012)

daveman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The above chart shows the correlation between the Obama and FDR Administrations and Midwest droughts. Pretend for a moment, using Michael's Mann substitution of Data method that instead of 0-1000, the numbers at the bottom range from 1920-2010, the assume that the range on the left is the relative Progressiveness of the Presidential Administration, finally the purple lines are US Presidents and the black line is Midwest droughts.
> ...



We have consensus!

Science = settled!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That's how science is done.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



A consensus of room temperature IQ's. That for sure is a settled fact.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Im not shocked that a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing fool like yourself is so intimidated by our science that you resort to childish namecalling


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...



Not so fast FauxdiRocks.. You're quoting one Hockey Stick era study that was there to confirm the flatness of the previous surface temp record.. The REAL SCORECARD is below... 






Note the number of studies that show the MWP to be significant and EXCEEDING the common era warming. I'm supposing that your effort to save Mann's silly ass exceeds your conscience to even CONSIDER the majority report on the topic.. 

So you are relying on MINORITY consensus to make the case that something this significant DID NOT HAPPEN.. In fact -- I HATE tree rings and mud sediments, but there is AMPLE evidence for a GLOBAL impact of the MWP. 




> Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The 2009 Mann et al. study found warmth exceeding 19611990 levels in Southern Greenland and parts of North America during the Medieval climate anomaly (defined for this purpose as 950 to 1250) with warmth in some regions exceeding temperatures of the 19902010 period. Much of the Northern hemisphere showed significant cooling during the Little Ice Age (defined for the purpose as 1400 to 1700) but Labrador and isolated parts of the United States appeared to be approximately as warm as during the 19611990 period.[8]
> 
> ...



PLENTY of evidence that you HAVE to ignore to stay as ignorant as you want to be... 

Ice cores, and sediments and tree rings --- Oh MY!  Ice cores and sediments and tree rings -- *OH MY !!!!*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...








My altered and fabricated data disagrees!


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 30, 2012)

Show me your wood  --- 

             and I'll tell you the future !!!


----------



## westwall (Aug 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...









I love the opening paragraph....Interesting how a colony that existed for *500* years (longer than most of the countries of the Earth have been around) is considered "short lived", that the colony involved consisted of between 5,000 and 13,000 individuals, and that as a percentage that equals between 5 and 10 percent of the ENTIRE Viking population.  Clearly they are both history and logic challenged.


"One of the uncertainties in climate science is figuring out how global climate trends translate into local predictions and reconstructions, and vice versa. A classic example of this is the medieval warm period, the time when Vikings roamed the North Sea and North Atlantic in shallow-draft open boats. They settled Greenland and made periodic visits to North America to get timber, placing some short-lived settlements there. "

But when you're whoring out propaganda little things like facts don't matter....do they olfraud.  You're a classic example of that.


----------



## westwall (Aug 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...








No, that's how CLIMATOLOGY is done!


----------



## westwall (Aug 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...









The anti science cultists don't do science.  Havn't you figured that out.  I've shown all of them plenty of evidence that the MWP was global and warmer....they don't care.  Theirs is a faith based religion.  Facts don't matter when you are dealing with faith.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




Oh my, a crap post quoting a crap site. Of course Flatulance, Walleyes and the rest of the cadre of willfull ignorance would put more credance in that than a PNAS publication. After, what do those damned scientists know?

CO2 Science

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change - SourceWatch

Learn more from the Center for Media and Democracy's research on climate change.


The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is one of Mother Jones magazine's 2009 global warming skeptic "Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial"[1]. Founded in 1998 by members of the Idso family, its income has increased in recent years.

It employs Science and Public Policy Institute head Robert Ferguson.[2].

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

In August 2011, Center founder and Chairman Craig Idso spoke on "Benefit Analysis of CO2"[3] (previously known as "Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2"[4]) at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting.[5] He was accompanied by Robert Ferguson of the Science and Public Policy Institute and MEP Roger Helmer, a Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands of Great Britain who represents the Conservative Party and has used his position on the European Parliament to fight increased regulation of member states through the European Union.[5]




About ALEC




ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve model bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.


----------



## daveman (Aug 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...


Sure, if your sole gauge for what constitutes a scientist is "how much he parrots AGW orthodoxy".

The tree ring data is horseshit.
McIntyre noticed a few problems with the way Briffa chose the sampling of Russian trees, and he wrote to Briffa requesting the data Briffa used in a published tree-ring paper. Briffa declined. And so began a four-year saga involving multiple peer-reviewed journals, behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Briffa and his closest confidants, and a Freedom of Information Act request on the part of McIntyre that appears to be on the verge of being granted. Even without the final set of data, however, McIntyre has shown beyond the shadow of doubt that Briffa may have committed one of the worst sins, if not the worst, in climatology  that of cherry-picking data  when he assembled his data sample, which his clique of like-minded and very powerful peers have also used in paper after paper.

It was already known that the Yamal series contained a preposterously small amount of data. This by itself raised many questions: Why did Briffa include only half the number of cores covering the balmy interval known as the Medieval Warm Period that another scientist, one with whom he was acquainted, had reported for Yamal? And why were there so few cores in Briffas 20th century? By 1988, there were only twelve cores used in a year, an amazingly small number from the period that should have provided the easiest data. By 1990, the count was only ten, and it dropped to just five in 1995. Without an explanation of how the strange sampling of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of cherry-picking became overwhelming, particularly since the sharp 20th-century uptick in the series was almost entirely due to a single tree.

--

But the ruse has now been shot to pieces, by the recent decision from the U.K.s information commissioner that Briffa can no longer withhold the list of sites he used in his suppressed regional record for the Yamal area. The disclosure of these sites has allowed McIntyre to calculate what the broad series would have looked like if Briffa had chosen to publish it. He has shown that it has no hint of the hockey-stick shape that Briffas cherry-picked data indicated. Briffas decision to publish an alarming but unreliable version of the Yamal series  instead of a more reliable and thoroughly unremarkable one  has been the talk of the climate blogosphere, with many prominent commentators openly speaking of dishonesty.​
You've been lied to.  But you love the lies so you believe them.

Moron.


----------



## daveman (Aug 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Not sure about Frank, but I finished college.  You?


----------



## daveman (Aug 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Let the grant checks start rolling in!


----------



## daveman (Aug 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Is that the ONE tree that proves man is killing the planet with CO2?


----------



## whitehall (Aug 30, 2012)

Government funded "researchers" will come up with any skewed data results that keep the government grant money flowing. That's a political axiom you can hang your hat on. We don't have time for this extortion racket while the US is coping with unemployment and the freaking world is coping with civil unrest. Let's table the global warming issue for ten or twenty years while we get our economic situation together.


----------



## daveman (Aug 30, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Government funded "researchers" will come up with any skewed data results that keep the government grant money flowing. That's a political axiom you can hang your hat on. We don't have time for this extortion racket while the US is coping with unemployment and the freaking world is coping with civil unrest. Let's table the global warming issue for ten or twenty years while we get our economic situation together.


That will be too long!  The world will catch fire from all the heat generated by CO2.  But at least the fires will be put out by the rising oceans.

Right, Roxy?


----------



## westwall (Aug 30, 2012)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...







Nope, if his self reported CV is accurate, he bailed after two years....you know when the classes start to get hard


----------



## Oddball (Aug 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Good grief, Charlie Brown...You really are quite thick, aren't ya?


----------



## daveman (Aug 31, 2012)

westwall said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Tsk, tsk.  And it was Geology, too, if I remember.

So, two years of Geology courses makes one an expert in climatology.

Well, it's not like they really have any requirements.  As long as you can recite dogma, you're in.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 31, 2012)

daveman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Mann says that the decline is under his pinky, he's hiding it


----------



## daveman (Aug 31, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



When reality disagrees with an AGW cultist -- reality is wrong.

Right, Roxy?


----------



## westwall (Aug 31, 2012)

daveman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...







Yep, the first two years of geology are pretty simple.  The third year is when the math, chemistry and physics classes pile on.  That's when geologists magically transform to geographers, you know, the BA that most climatologists start with.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 31, 2012)

Anthropogenic global warming/climate change denial is a sinking ship. In this case, the rats are too retarded to jump ship.

*The State of Climate Change Denial
Climate change deniers are on the ropesbut not before they did their damage.*
Mother Jones
By Bill McKibben
Jun. 4, 2012 


*Extreme weather events forecast storm over climate change denial
The US media and meteorologists will be on the wrong side of history if they keep refusing to make the weather-warming link*
The Guardian
Amy Goodman
5 July 2012


----------



## daveman (Aug 31, 2012)

Mother Jones?  Amy Goodman?


----------



## daveman (Aug 31, 2012)

westwall said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Roxy didn't even do that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 31, 2012)

daveman said:


> Mother Jones?  Amy Goodman?



When only Mother Jones, Amy Goodman, and Bill Mahrer are making fun of you --- I'd just start my end zone celebration right there on the 15 yard line....


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 31, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Mother Jones?  Amy Goodman?
> ...



But that is because you're an ignorant retard. And of course, it isn't just them. It is everybody with more than half a brain who makes fun of you reality deniers. You are the new 'Flat Earth Society'.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 31, 2012)

It takes REAL morons to be predicting a repeat of Solar Cycle that previously resulted in a 1 to 2 degC change in surface temp and then TELL people that the effect THIS TIME will only be 1/10 of that because their simple ass model told them so... 

The joke is on you.. We are truly amused at the antics of your heroes..  If you want to double down on the basis of their wisdom -- please do...


----------



## daveman (Aug 31, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Mother Jones?  Amy Goodman?
> ...



Indeed.  If the Moonbat Trifecta disagree with you -- you're doing it right.


----------



## daveman (Aug 31, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You're THIS close to convincing me you're right.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 31, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Anthropogenic global warming/climate change denial is a sinking ship. In this case, the rats are too retarded to jump ship.
> 
> *The State of Climate Change Denial
> Climate change deniers are on the ropesbut not before they did their damage.*
> ...








"The science is steeled! Mother Jones said so!"


----------



## daveman (Aug 31, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Anthropogenic global warming/climate change denial is a sinking ship. In this case, the rats are too retarded to jump ship.
> ...



"They fled. The denier louts fled. Indeed, concerning the fighting waged by the heroes of the Climatologist Socialist Baath Party yesterday, one amazing thing really is the cowardice of the denier soldiers. We had not anticipated this."

"It has been rumored that we have fired falsified data into peer-review. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any falsified data and I don't know why it was fired into peer-review."

"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of the Climatic Research Unit. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 31, 2012)

Yessirreee.....   The dumb fucks are out in force. Predictions of cooling. What dumb asses. Here are predictions from '82, when you dumb bastards were stating there was no global warming.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmpiuuBy-4s]Global Warming: What We Knew in 82 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Aug 31, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Yessirreee.....   The dumb fucks are out in force. Predictions of cooling. What dumb asses. Here are predictions from '82, when you dumb bastards were stating there was no global warming.
> 
> Global Warming: What We Knew in 82 - YouTube







  Looks like some pretty mnormal cyclic climate there olfraud.  Thanks for the confirmation.


----------



## daveman (Aug 31, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Yessirreee.....   The dumb fucks are out in force. Predictions of cooling. What dumb asses. Here are predictions from '82, when you dumb bastards were stating there was no global warming.
> 
> Global Warming: What We Knew in 82 - YouTube



And your word as a 2-year geology dropout is worth...

Not very much.

But, hey, you're a Troo Beleever, so you're an expert.  Right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 31, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Yessirreee.....   The dumb fucks are out in force. Predictions of cooling. What dumb asses. Here are predictions from '82, when you dumb bastards were stating there was no global warming.
> 
> Global Warming: What We Knew in 82 - YouTube



You guys predicted "Global Cooling" remember?

Then it was "Global Warming"

Then ManMade Disaster

Then "Climate Change"

and the melt is probably caused by extra soot anyway


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 31, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yessirreee.....   The dumb fucks are out in force. Predictions of cooling. What dumb asses. Here are predictions from '82, when you dumb bastards were stating there was no global warming.
> ...



No, dumb fuck, that was not the prediction.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 31, 2012)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yessirreee.....   The dumb fucks are out in force. Predictions of cooling. What dumb asses. Here are predictions from '82, when you dumb bastards were stating there was no global warming.
> ...



Stupid ass, never asked you to take my word for it. Simply have posted from real scientists. 

Every scientific society in the world, every academy of science, and every major university states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. It is just you willfully ignorant asses that would ignore all the evidence for reasons of politics.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 31, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You guys predicted "Global Cooling" remember?



Nope. Never happened. As has been documented many times before.



> and the melt is probably caused by extra soot anyway



This surprised me, as it showed a glimmer of sensibility.

You could check out the actual scientists who actually measure such things. They don't need to say "probably". Not being like you, they don't base science on feelings.

Soot has an effect on the arctic ice, but not a big one. And it will be getting less, given that the sea ice now melts totally away in more places each year, losing all the old soot. And when the ice is melting from below, then you know it's not soot driving it. However, soot is a bigger factor in glacial ice, especially in the Himalayas, right next to China.

(At least you didn't blame magic undersea Arctic volcanoes, as many denialists do. So that's progress.)


----------



## Bigfoot (Sep 1, 2012)

Speaking of deniers why do the global warming guys never want to discuss the Antarctic where most of the ice is? Oh that's right, because the massive Antarctic eastern ice pack is growing. Shh! Don't talk about that k?


----------



## editec (Sep 1, 2012)

I think it rather is mistake to call what is happening GLOBAL WARMING.

Why?

Well because _warming_ sounds like a relatively good thing.

What they ought to have called this event is GLOBAL WEIRDING.

Why?

Because the outcome of warmning is exactly what we're seeing happening.

WILD SWINGS in the weather including massive droughts, huge flooding events, terrible hurricanes and tornados, extreme cold snaps and extreme heat waves, too.

So the question: "When will global weirding begin to effect us?" sort of misses the point.

Climate weirding is ALREADY with us, as some of us might finally realize this winter when they start paying huge increases in the cost of food.

When was the last time any of you remember a drought that extended from Maine to California and from the border of Canada to the border of Mexico?

I do not think that has EVER happened in my lifetime.

Global WEIRDING is already here, kiddies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Speaking of deniers why do the global warming guys never want to discuss the Antarctic where most of the ice is? Oh that's right, because the massive Antarctic eastern ice pack is growing. Shh! Don't talk about that k?



OK. You have made a statement. The massive Anarctic eastern ice pack is growing. The next step is to back up that statement with some articles. Can you do that?

Antarctic Ice Melt &mdash; OSS Foundation


----------



## daveman (Sep 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


The "science" of AGW is driven solely by politics.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."

-- C. S. Lewis


----------



## daveman (Sep 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You guys predicted "Global Cooling" remember?
> ...


mamooth 
Registered User
Member #39072

Join Date: Aug 2012​How would you know?

I smell a sock.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of deniers why do the global warming guys never want to discuss the Antarctic where most of the ice is? Oh that's right, because the massive Antarctic eastern ice pack is growing. Shh! Don't talk about that k?
> ...



Is that because of "Ocean acidification"?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 1, 2012)

daveman said:


> I smell a sock.



The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

It's been my experience that those who talk the most about sockpuppets almost always end up being revealed as sockpuppets themselves. It makes sense. How else would they have obtained such expertise in all the ways of sock puppetry?

So Dave, who are you the sock of?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 1, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Oh that's right, because the massive Antarctic eastern ice pack is growing.



No it's not. Where do you get such nonsense?
---
GRACE-based studies data indicate that the EAIS is losing mass at a rate of 57 billion tonnes per year[2] and that the total Antarctic ice sheet (including WAIS, and EAIS coastal areas) is losing mass at a rate of 152 cubic kilometers (ca 139 billion tonnes) per year.[3]
---
East Antarctic Ice Sheet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(yeah, it's wiki, but you can follow the links to the original sources if you want.)


----------



## westwall (Sep 1, 2012)

editec said:


> I think it rather is mistake to call what is happening GLOBAL WARMING.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...







And if your global weirding had never happened before you would have a point.  However, there is written evidence going back over 2,000 years that shows the global weirding is a frequent occurence.


----------



## daveman (Sep 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I smell a sock.
> ...


It's been my experience that someone who's just joined up within the month has no idea what's been documented many times before on a board.

That's called "logic".  I understand you're unfamiliar with the concept, Socko.


----------



## daveman (Sep 1, 2012)

westwall said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I think it rather is mistake to call what is happening GLOBAL WARMING.
> ...


Yeah, but THIS time, it's caused by American SUVs and coal!  Nothing else!  No, really!

Right, AGW cultists?


----------



## westwall (Sep 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Oh that's right, because the massive Antarctic eastern ice pack is growing.
> ...







"As an alternative to Arctic Sea Ice news, Antarctic Sea Ice for Aug 29th 2012 is the highest it has been on this date (from 2006 to 2012 which is the only daily data available at the National Ice Center).

Not only is there 670,000 sq. km more highest than the next highest amount on Aug 29 , 2010, there is 3.7 million sq km more than 2011."





Antarctic Sea Ice Aug 29 &#8211; highest since 2006 « sunshine hours


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2012)

You and your site are full of shit, Walleyes. 15.028 million square kilometers, not a really that high compared to past years.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2012)

Total sea ice way down there.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


----------



## daveman (Sep 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> You and your site are full of shit, Walleyes. 15.028 million square kilometers, not a really that high compared to past years.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png


His site has data taken from NOAA.  

Ice Extent Archives

Are you going to denounce NOAA as denier retards now?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2012)

Interesting. Every other site states that the Arctic Ice is the lowest it has ever been, but this one claims it is not. And the other sites show this years Antarctic Ice not as high as the last couple of years.

Arctic Sea-Ice Monitor


----------



## daveman (Sep 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Interesting. Every other site states that the Arctic Ice is the lowest it has ever been, but this one claims it is not. And the other sites show this years Antarctic Ice not as high as the last couple of years.
> 
> Arctic Sea-Ice Monitor



You do know, don't you, there's a difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic, right?

We were discussing the Antarctic.  You bring up the Arctic, as if that proves something.


Damn, you're just not very bright at all, are you?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 1, 2012)

westwall said:


> "As an alternative to Arctic Sea Ice news, Antarctic Sea Ice for Aug 29th 2012 is the highest it has been on this date (from 2006 to 2012 which is the only daily data available at the National Ice Center).



Um, you understand the difference between antarctic sea ice and the antarctic ice sheet, no? One melts almost totally each summer, one doesn't.



> Not only is there 670,000 sq. km more highest than the next highest amount on Aug 29 , 2010, there is 3.7 million sq km more than 2011."



Babbling nonsense. Antarctic sea ice is not breaking a record now, and "3.7 million sq km more" is an insane claim, not even remotely close to any reality.

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

See the yellow 2012 line? It's right in the middle of all the other lines.

Antarctic sea ice extent has been creeping up, exactly as AGW science predicted ahead of time. But it's a small increase as compared to the massive plunge in arctic sea ice extent. And the long range prediction for antarctic sea ice is back down again. Currently the stronger antarctic circumpolar wind is blocking warm air from the antarctic, but eventually the warming will overwhelm that.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 1, 2012)

The gigantic Smokey Bear army of greenie Park Rangers and government administration ecological experts couldn't figure out that a double wall in a Yellowstone Park cabin invites rodents. Thousands of Yellowstone tourists may have been infected with a potentially fatal disease carried by mice. Anybody think we can trust federal bureaucrats who tell us that the Arctic ice is melting? The Bigfoot science is better than the global warming tripe.


----------



## westwall (Sep 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > "As an alternative to Arctic Sea Ice news, Antarctic Sea Ice for Aug 29th 2012 is the highest it has been on this date (from 2006 to 2012 which is the only daily data available at the National Ice Center).
> ...








Interesting how sailors were able to sail almost 300 miles further south in the 1820's than they can today.  How was that possible if what you claim is true?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > "As an alternative to Arctic Sea Ice news, Antarctic Sea Ice for Aug 29th 2012 is the highest it has been on this date (from 2006 to 2012 which is the only daily data available at the National Ice Center).
> ...



Look I don't do ice... Don't care.. The earth heats -- it melts.. 

But I am interested in your assertion that "Antarctic SIE has been creeping up, *exactly as AGW science predicted ahead of time*"

That's seems to be a step too far over the ledge eh? 

And I'm interested in comments from the hysterical "melters" about what the historical record for Arctic SIE might have looked like if we had satellites in the 1920s -- 40s based on temperature records like... 

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis






Pretty convienient to be ACCURATELY tracking Arctic SIE from about 1979 and making brash conclusions on that short time span.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 1, 2012)

westwall said:


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


It might be "interesting" if it was true but it seems to be another one of your denier cult fantasies with no connection to reality. You say the sailors were able to sail 300 miles further south in the 1820's but you provide no references or context. LOL. As usual. So what are you claiming, walleyed? That the sea ice extends 300 miles further out into the ocean now than it did back then? Good lord but you're stupid.

The Antarctic sea ice grows enormously in the southern hemisphere winter and shrinks to almost nothing in the summer every year, so sailing ships two centuries ago would find that their ability to sail closer depended entirely on the time of year. Go to this NASA site for a year-to-year comparison of sea ice extents. Here's an example.

*Antarctic Sea Ice Concentrations
NASA*


----------



## whitehall (Sep 2, 2012)

I often wonder how those stupid Neanderthals managed to create two Ice Ages. How the hell did they create gigantic glaciers that actually cut grooves in bedrock that we can still see today in NY Central Park? Bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters and ancient alien science makes more sense than most of the junk science anti-American lefties spout these days. Let it go for ten years until the US gets on it's economic feet once again. Is that too much to ask?.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 2, 2012)

whitehall said:


> I often wonder how those stupid Neanderthals managed to create two Ice Ages. How the hell did they create gigantic glaciers that actually cut grooves in bedrock that we can still see today in NY Central Park? Bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters and ancient alien science makes more sense than most of the junk science anti-American lefties spout these days. Let it go for ten years until the US gets on it's economic feet once again. Is that too much to ask?.



Your comments reveal that you're incredibly retarded and massively ignorant about this whole subject. If you actually "_often wonder how those stupid Neanderthals managed to create two Ice Ages_ then you're a clueless moron. The Earth has been in its current "Ice Age", the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, for about 2.58 million years. There weren't any humans or 'Neanderthals' around when it started. Scientists have some clues as to what created the five major ice ages in Earth's history and they have an even better idea what natural forces trigger the transitions between periods of heavy glaciation and the inter-glacial periods that have occurred many times during the current ice age. *Causes of ice ages*. What is happening now is different from the previous natural changes in Earth's climate. Mankind has raised atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas by 40% (and still climbing fast) and this factor is the one causing the current abrupt warming trend. 

And yes, you blind cretin, "_letting it go for ten years_" is way too much to ask but you are far too confused, misinformed, bamboozled and utterly retarded to understand why.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 2, 2012)

whitehall said:


> I often wonder how those stupid Neanderthals managed to create two Ice Ages. How the hell did they create gigantic glaciers that actually cut grooves in bedrock that we can still see today in NY Central Park? Bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters and ancient alien science makes more sense than most of the junk science anti-American lefties spout these days. Let it go for ten years until the US gets on it's economic feet once again. Is that too much to ask?.



How bad would global warming have to be to submerge the land between England and Europr making England an island?

Worse than it is now.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > I often wonder how those stupid Neanderthals managed to create two Ice Ages. How the hell did they create gigantic glaciers that actually cut grooves in bedrock that we can still see today in NY Central Park? Bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters and ancient alien science makes more sense than most of the junk science anti-American lefties spout these days. Let it go for ten years until the US gets on it's economic feet once again. Is that too much to ask?.
> ...



So what, you silly retard?

The Earth has warmed and cooled due to natural factors in the past. Forest fires have started due to natural factors in the past. Now human caused factors (primarily deforestation and the burning of fossil carbon into the atmosphere) are causing an increase in global average temperatures. Humans now cause some of the forest fires due to carelessness with cigarette butts, improper campfires, and mismanaged so-called 'controlled burns', as well as deliberate arson. Just because something happened naturally in the past does not mean that it is impossible for humans to have an influence now, moron.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 2, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



You know that what you just said was exactly what was said in the 70s to prove that the world was cooling and we would be in a massive human caused ice age.   More than that, human activity caused a hole in the ozone layer and we were all going to get cancer and die.

Today none of that is true.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 2, 2012)

December 2010






August 2010


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 2, 2012)

These crises and emergencies are resurrected and milked for as much money as they can be milked for, they they are abandoned for the new crisis.  How much money was wasted on the hole in the ozone layer?   We all stopped using hairspray because the emissions damaged the ozone layer and we might have another hole.   It was getting bigger,  disaster.  It got smaller, worse disaster.  We spent millions studying that hole and plans to close it.

Then the result, after 20 years.   The ozone layer has a naturally occurring hole that may serve a purpose.  It gets bigger and smaller as some sort of natural occurrence and there's nothing we can do to stop it or change it.   Likely it has always been there.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Jeez, Katzhitbrainz, you have got to be one of the most misinformed, confused and generally brain damaged retards on this forum. Your post makes no sense. You claim that "_what (I) said is exactly what was said in the 70s to prove the world is cooling and we would be in a massive human caused ice age_" but that is an insane statement on so many levels, you little wacko you. What I just said is that "*human caused factors (primarily deforestation and the burning of fossil carbon into the atmosphere) are causing an increase in global average temperatures*", so what do you imagine that has to do with your global cooling fantasies, retard? 

"_What was said in the 70s to prove the world is cooling_"......LOLOLOLOLOLOL...."_what was said_" by who exactly, you clueless moron? Where exactly did anyone try to "_prove the world is cooling_"? You're so gullible and so full of bogus denier cult bullshit. "_And we would be in a massive human caused ice age_"....that is very wacko indeed, little cretin....in the 70's, there was some speculation (a minority opinion, BTW) that natural orbital cycles might be bringing the Earth back towards another period of glaciation, which might really get going in a few thousand years, and there was some investigation into the possibility that mankind's industrial atmospheric pollution might be causing some measure of short term cooling, but nobody at all was "_proving_" or even suggesting that humans were going to cause a "_massive ice age_". That's just some kind of crazy delusion you've been infected with. There was far more speculation among scientist in the 1970's that human caused warming would dominate the natural cycles and possibly prevent any new period of glaciation for as long as CO2 levels remained elevated.

*Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s*
USA TODAY
By Doyle Rice 
2/22/2008
(excerpts)

*The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s  frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds  is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era. The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age. But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends. The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

...Robert Henson, a writer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and author of The Rough Guide to Climate Change, says: "This is an important part of science history, and Peterson and his co-authors have done a great job of excavating it. People have long claimed that scientists in the 1970s were convinced a new ice age was imminent. But in fact, many researchers at the time were already more concerned about the long-term risks of global warming." Along with Peterson, the study was also authored written by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal. The research will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.*

Copyright 2011 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

(_In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes_)






Katzndogz said:


> More than that, human activity caused a hole in the ozone layer and we were all going to get cancer and die.


And here's further evidence (as if any was needed) that you are a brainwashed retard. Are you really idiotic enough to deny the reality of the scientifically measured damage that humans were doing to the ozone layer that protects us and the rest of the biosphere from the full effects of the sun's ultraviolet radiation output? LOLOLOL......you know, the Flat Earth Society has a spot open for you.....go ahead, you'd fit right in.....LOLOLOL.

Here's the facts:

*Ozone Science: The Facts Behind the Phaseout
United States Environmental Protection Agency*
(government publication - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
(excerpts)
*The Earth's ozone layer protects all life from the sun's harmful radiation, but human activities have damaged this shield. Less protection from ultraviolet light will, over time, lead to higher skin cancer and cataract rates and crop damage. The U.S., in cooperation with 190 other countries, is phasing out the production of ozone-depleting substances in an effort to safeguard the ozone layer. 

In the early 1970s, researchers began to investigate the effects of various chemicals on the ozone layer, particularly CFCs, which contain chlorine. They also examined the potential impacts of other chlorine sources. Chlorine from swimming pools, industrial plants, sea salt, and volcanoes does not reach the stratosphere. Chlorine compounds from these sources readily combine with water and repeated measurements show that they rain out of the troposphere very quickly. In contrast, CFCs are very stable and do not dissolve in rain. Thus, there are no natural processes that remove the CFCs from the lower atmosphere. Over time, winds drive the CFCs into the stratosphere. The CFCs are so stable that only exposure to strong UV radiation breaks them down. When that happens, the CFC molecule releases atomic chlorine. One chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules. The net effect is to destroy ozone faster than it is naturally created. To return to the analogy comparing ozone levels to a stream's depth, CFCs act as a siphon, removing water faster than normal and reducing the depth of the stream.

One example of ozone depletion is the annual ozone "hole" over Antarcticathat has occurred during the Antarctic Spring since the early 1980s. Rather than being a literal hole through the layer, the ozone hole is a large area of the stratosphere with extremely low amounts of ozone. Ozone levels fall by over 60% during the worst years. In addition, research has shown that ozone depletion occurs over the latitudes that include North America, Europe, Asia, and much of Africa, Australia, and South America. Over the U.S., ozone levels have fallen 5-10%, depending on the season. Thus, ozone depletion is a global issue and not just a problem at the South Pole. Reductions in ozone levels will lead to higher levels of UVB reaching the Earth's surface. The sun's output of UVB does not change; rather, less ozone means less protection, and hence more UVB reaches the Earth. Studies have shown that in the Antarctic, the amount of UVB measured at the surface can double during the annual ozone hole. Another study confirmed the relationship between reduced ozone and increased UVB levels in Canada during the past several years. Laboratory and epidemiological studies demonstrate that UVB causes nonmelanoma skin cancer and plays a major role in malignant melanoma development. In addition, UVB has been linked to cataracts. All sunlight contains some UVB, even with normal ozone levels. It is always important to limit exposure to the sun. However, ozone depletion will increase the amount of UVB, which will then increase the risk of health effects. Furthermore, UVB harms some crops, plastics and other materials, and certain types of marine life.
*






Katzndogz said:


> Today none of that is true.


Actually today both are still true but you are so fucked up that you can't tell up from down.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 2, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



And NOW that we understand many of those NATURAL cycles, we have scientists that are so dumb and blind that when they PREDICT the recurrence of one of those Natural cycles, they don't bother to note what happened in the past -- they create a model. And when that model tells them the effect on temp. will be 1/10 of what we know has happened before --- they buy it wholesale and YOU APPLAUD !!!  Good Job MET!! Great catch NASA !!

How stupid is that?

Man is getting "charged" for CO2 emissions for raising cattle, and engaging in forest harvesting. How fair is that considering the NATURAL historical record of plains FILLED with buffalo and forests DEVASTED by wildfire without suppression?

And your claim that we've raised the CO2 level by 40% also charges us with effects we didn't create. When temps go up --- there are NATURAL increases in CO2. Part of the same AGW theory you adore. That CO2 amplification is charged to man as well. But when it comes to temps increasing from Solar effects, no such amplification is applied -- the models and the hype still charge it to MAN.. That's ludicrous. But you buy it without hesitation don'tcha?

Ever occur to you that all these models are OVERestimating the effects from man-made CO2 and UNDERestimating the effects from natural cycles? 

Forget a 40% rise in CO2 -- why don't you give us the weather when CO2 was 4000ppm (*1400% HIGHER*) and dinosaurs farted up the place? Did they all drown from the Sea Level rise and killer hurricanes? Or from massive 3meter mesquito borne diseases? Or haven't you figured that out yet?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 2, 2012)

Actually DundrHead -- not surprising but EPA makes the claim that --



> The sun's output of UVB does not change; rather, less ozone means less protection, and hence more UVB reaches the Earth.



Most recently we are finding out that the Suns' spectrum DOES shift balance between the IR side and UV side of emissions. *We've only had 20 years (less than a full sunspot cycle) of satellite data and only 10 or so years of CONTINUOUS solar studies to understand the most important DRIVER of the climate. *

And evidently -- the EPA is NOT keeping up with current advances in understanding.

Previous attempts to understand interaction between solar irradiance, spectrum and atmos "windowing" and heating were stymied by observing thru the very medium you're trying to isolate. Satellite measurements are the ONLY way to do accurate CONTINUOUS long term studies.. And you are already jumping right the hell over all that science and understanding when you proclaim that you KNOW IT ALL.. 

This short history of REAL measurements in the atmos and of the sun is a major reason why we don't know Jack about solar spectral shifts on GreenHouse Window effect or shifts in Long Wave IR radiation to be captured by the "blanket". A couple of more solar cycles of observation might straighten out our understanding of all this... In fact -- until then -- tree rings are more accurate than most Climate Models.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2012)

Yessirreee.......  We should all pretend to be as ignorant as Flatulance. Just hide our head in the sand and claim that nothing is happening. Natural cycles? Total bullshit from lying assholes. 

The first mapping of the absorption spectra was done in 1858 by Tyndall. Arrhenius made the first good estimate of what a doubling of CO2 would bring in terms of temperature increase in 1896. 
Since then many scientists have examined the data, and found the estimate of around 3 C to be pretty accurate.

Now Flatulance, you and Walleyes can flapyap all you wish, won't change the fact that the real scientists predicted exactly what we are seeing in a changing climate right now as early as the 1980's.


----------



## daveman (Sep 2, 2012)

Emily_I said:


> I want the government to focus more on the environment


I'm sure that's a great comfort to the unemployed.


----------



## daveman (Sep 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Yessirreee.......  We should all pretend to be as ignorant as Flatulance. Just hide our head in the sand and claim that nothing is happening. Natural cycles? Total bullshit from lying assholes.
> 
> The first mapping of the absorption spectra was done in 1858 by Tyndall. Arrhenius made the first good estimate of what a doubling of CO2 would bring in terms of temperature increase in 1896.
> Since then many scientists have examined the data, and found the estimate of around 3 C to be pretty accurate.
> ...


That's right, because the climate NEVER changed before America was established.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 2, 2012)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yessirreee.......  We should all pretend to be as ignorant as Flatulance. Just hide our head in the sand and claim that nothing is happening. Natural cycles? Total bullshit from lying assholes.
> ...



I know that you're a hopeless retard, DaveDumb, but maybe if this was explained to you in very small words.......

The Earth's climate patterns have changed many times in the past due to natural factors. Everyone knows this, including all of the climate scientists. Usually those climate changes occur very slowly, on human time scales. Now, in our time, rapid warming and climate changes are being scientifically observed and studied and there are no natural factors that can account for these changes. What does explain it very well scientifically is the very large increase in the atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, up 40% to date and still rising. This excess CO2, like an extra blanket on your bed, is causing the Earth's atmosphere to retain more of the heat energy that the Earth originally got from the sun, and that extra heat energy is measurably warming the lower atmosphere, the ground and the oceans.

BTW, your attempts at sarcasm are undermined by the fact that you're a halfwit who has no understanding of this subject at all. Save yourself some embarrassment and avoid trying to mock things that you are completely incapable of comprehending.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2012)

I love the k00ks knocking themselves out with all the CO2 this and ice melting that.








Nobody cares about this shit in 2012. Its as if these people live under a rock..........the whole real world is imploding with job losses, soaring debt, increased prices for everything and the nuts on here think people are worried about forest fires!!!


I love this forum!!!!


----------



## mamooth (Sep 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The ozone layer has a naturally occurring hole that may serve a purpose. It gets bigger and smaller as some sort of natural occurrence and there's nothing we can do to stop it or change it.



The ozone hole was not there in 1956. It's not natural.

The dirty hippies pointed out the problem, and got the fix in place. The dirty hippies saved your ass here. Show some gratitude.

This is a lot like the kooks who think the Y2K issue was all a conspiracy. Many thousands of people busted their butts to fix the problem. And since they fixed the problem ... it proves that the problem never existed! Take that, dirty liberals!

Denying CFC-caused ozone depletion is like denying that smoking causes cancer. Not surprisingly, the same group of paid shills worked hard to deny both. And that exact same group of paid shills, literally the very same people, are now being paid to deny AGW.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The ozone layer has a naturally occurring hole that may serve a purpose. It gets bigger and smaller as some sort of natural occurrence and there's nothing we can do to stop it or change it.
> ...






..........there!!!!!


Nobody cares honey.............your point is 100% moot. Nobody is spending 76 trillion fucking dollars to fix the hole in the ozone!!!



Like every single k00k nutty-ass environmentalist, they NEVER consider answering the question..........."At what cost?". Accordingly, it is why they always lose.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 3, 2012)

Just a whole bunch of farmers and home owners in the Mid-West care very much as the intense drought has caused them a great deal of financial pain.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Just a whole bunch of farmers and home owners in the Mid-West care very much as the intense drought has caused them a great deal of financial pain.



I thought AGW caused floods and record rainfall?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2012)

2012  The Sixth Most Severe Drought in United States History

Drought: A Paleo Perspective -- 20th Century Drought



Once again, the alarmists are pushing this notion that "drought" is some kind of a new phenomena in the United States ALL due to global warming.


And once again, for the millionth time, skooks comes in and nukes the whole load of bs


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Actually DundrHead -- not surprising but EPA makes the claim that --
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All of your idiotic drivel just equals the fact that you don't really know anything about this subject, physics or science in general, and you're so stupid you imagine that everyone else is as ignorant and clueless as you are.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Just a whole bunch of farmers and home owners in the Mid-West care very much as the intense drought has caused them a great deal of financial pain.
> ...





Hey Frank............check this out.............. Election model with 100% success rate for past 30 years predicts Romney victory | The Raw Story


heard this guy interviewed today. Fascinating shit. They look at it as 50 single contests, not one. At the present, Obama is going to get about 211 electoral votes. Even if two or three close ones swing ( Pa, New Mexico and Nevada), he's still falling far short. Of course, every singel media outlet is going to be calling it a horse race for the next two months to get people viewing every night but we're looking at a Romney blowout. Over the past 8 elections, they call between 45 and 48 states correctly. He said the September economic numbers may even make it worse for the president.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 3, 2012)

President Obama   332      Governor Romney    206

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...oral_college_map_no_toss_ups_race_changes.htm


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 3, 2012)

Obama was going to lower the oceans...what happened?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 3, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Actually DundrHead -- not surprising but EPA makes the claim that --
> ...



Really? How many published papers do you have? How many conferences have REQUESTED a paper from you? If you'd like -- PM me and we'll chat about my lack of a science background..

 You got nothing.. Can't or won't discuss any of this in detail.. Which is it TinkerBelle?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> President Obama   332      Governor Romney    206
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...oral_college_map_no_toss_ups_race_changes.htm





c'mon Ray..........only the far left reference RCP. Its loaded up with lefty polls................but if that provides you solace in this time of disaster, amen. People are hurting big time and nobody cares about George Bush anymore except the k00k left. When the economy sucks, the incumbent goes down. Like me, you've lived enough years to have seen it. Its just the way it works.

Im not even worried anymore.........just waiting for election day so I can swoop into the POLITICS forum and torture the OCD mental cases in there like Lakota, Star, Franco and all those other misfit mental cases.

And by the way Ray.......the fallout is going to be catastrophic for your alarmist stuff..............gonna be about 50 on the priority list of the next administration who will be going to town on ^ oil and natural gas production. Thats how you deliver on a 12 million jobs promise............and I'll be in here every day pointing that out!!!


----------



## mamooth (Sep 3, 2012)

I thank the denialists for proving my point so well. You know, about how denialism is entirely a political cult which has nothing to do with science. Poke any denialist, and off they go on crazy political rants. Just look at this thread.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 3, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama was going to lower the oceans...what happened?


Perhaps your IQ got lowered again instead, CrazyFruitcake. That would be too bad really, since it was already at such a pathetically low level to begin with.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Just a whole bunch of farmers and home owners in the Mid-West care very much as the intense drought has caused them a great deal of financial pain.



They didn't care in the dust bowl years of the 30s?   Biafra didn't care in the 60s?

Cycles of Drought

Like everything else, drought has cycles.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 4, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> We have global warming every summer and global cooling every winter.



There are some hiliarious posts on this thread, but I think this is probably the funniest. 

One day Katz is going to be very surprised to find that winter does not occur at the same time right around the world!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 4, 2012)

When you can't point to a single lab experiment that reproduces your "theory" go for the cheap insult


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 4, 2012)

Last time we had a dust bowl in the Midwest, we had a Progressive in the White House then too.

There is a 100% Correlation between Progressive Presidents and Midwest dust bowls


----------



## Saigon (Sep 4, 2012)

IGetItAlready said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > No links?
> ...



I think the debate about whether the climate is changing is over, and has been for some time. 

The debate about the role played by humans is still ongoing, but I doubt we'll be discussing that much five years or so from now. 

The debate about what all of that means and what we do to save the planet I suspect will run for another 20 years. 

I do see some very sound and sane questions posed by people who do not believe people play a role, and I have also seen those questions largely answered - or at least sensibly discussed. 

But when you look through this thread, probably 3/4 of the comments from so-called deniers are simply laugh-out-loud dense. I am sure other deniers laugh at them too, and why not?

That should not mean ALL denial is as silly as what we see here.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 4, 2012)

Saigon said:


> The debate about what all of that means and what we do to save the planet...


There's no debate whatsoever over how utterly arrogant such a statement is.

Save the planet.....ROFLMAO! 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4]George Carlin on The Environment (HQ) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Saigon (Sep 4, 2012)

Oddball -

Why is saving the planet funny?

Why is the debate on how we save it 'arrogant'?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 4, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> Why is saving the planet funny?
> 
> Why is the debate on how we save it 'arrogant'?



It's like a gnat humping an elephant


----------



## Oddball (Sep 4, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> Why is saving the planet funny?
> 
> Why is the debate on how we save it 'arrogant'?


I said it's as arrogant as hell....The humor in it is that you're serious.

While we're at it, who gets to decide what constitutes the planet being "saved"?...What happens when that (purposefully) incomprehensibly vague goal should somehow be met?

Who is "saving" what for whom, and who says the planet gives two shits about your Utopian visions and herculean efforts to achieve such ends?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 4, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball -
> ...



Possibly, but if the human race is capable of destroying land, air and water resources in a dozen different ways, it seems also likely that we have the ability to 'un-destroy' it - to some extent, at least.


Oddball - 

Apparently you don't have a point.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 4, 2012)

The best way to counteract AGW is to move the planet farther from the Sun, so all the Warmers need to wait until the Sun is overhead and hop up and down on the Earth to push it further out into space.

It's the only sane way to save the planet


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 4, 2012)

When people stop to ask you "What are you doing?" You can tell them "I'm saving the planet" and enlist their help


----------



## Saigon (Sep 4, 2012)

And we're descended back to the usual brain-dead spamming....

It's kinda funny - we have a poster complaining that climate sceptics are being ridiculed, but then the only things climate scpetics seem to post are ridiculous.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 4, 2012)

Saigon said:


> And we're descended back to the usual brain-dead spamming....
> 
> It's kinda funny - we have a poster complaining that climate sceptics are being ridiculed, but then the only things climate scpetics seem to post are ridiculous.


It's known as illustrating the ridiculous by being ridiculous.

There's little more ridiculous than the absurd claim that the planet can be "saved".


----------



## Saigon (Sep 4, 2012)

Oddball said:


> There's little more ridiculous than the absurd claim that the planet can be "saved".



I didn't say it could be saved. 

I said the debate on how it could be saved will continue, as the debate on whether or not human acitivity plays a part in climate change seems to be coming to a close.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 4, 2012)

Now you're just blabbering incomprehensibly.

How do you propose to debate about how it can be saved sans the presupposition that can be?

After that, who gets to decide what "saved" even means?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball -
> ...



So, Screwball, once again, you make it clear that you are completely clueless about what is going on. It's really too bad that you are such an ignorant retard but those are the cards you were dealt apparently. These issues concerning anthropogenic global warming/climate changes are just way too complex for a feeble minded booger eater like you to comprehend. Perhaps you should stick to advising the RNC on campaign strategy.


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2012)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







Remember the environmental mantra of old "THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY"  I will let you figure out what that means.


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > There's little more ridiculous than the absurd claim that the planet can be "saved".
> ...







The very statement that the debate will continue, pre-supposes a goal.  Or don't you undserstand English?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2012)

The planet doesn't need saving.  It's doing just fine.  It is behaving exactly like a healthy planet should behave.  If we did not have cyclical weather patterns.  No jet stream.  No periodic warming or cooling.  This would be a dead planet.

The idea of saving the planet by recycling water bottles or shutting the lights off isn't funny, it's hilarious


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2012)

I bought a Keurig coffee maker just to be able to throw two non-biodegradable plastic cups in the trash every day.

Just doing my part.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 4, 2012)

Saigon said:


> And we're descended back to the usual brain-dead spamming....
> 
> It's kinda funny - we have a poster complaining that climate sceptics are being ridiculed, but then the only things climate scpetics seem to post are ridiculous.



I really don't ever see you engaging in debate on the more meaningful parts of this topic. Would be nice if ONCE there was actual engagement. All I get back is juvenile attempts to impeach my science cred or lectures on how I should be going extinct soon..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 4, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > And we're descended back to the usual brain-dead spamming....
> ...



Remember when Einstein and Newton said the same?

Yeah, me neither


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 4, 2012)

Who denies that climate changes?

The only constant in the history of the earth is change.

Now whether or not a couple degree rise in temperature is the harbinger of death doom and destruction is another thing.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 4, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > There's little more ridiculous than the absurd claim that the planet can be "saved".
> ...



Well you're correct on that. Now that the accelerating temps have seemed to flatten out, and we are looking at a 200 year low in Solar activity that LAST TIME brought a 1.5degC COOLING to the planet.. I imagine SOMEBODY is gonna get foreclosed on.. 

The Global Peace and Serenity resulting from that will be worth living for..


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 4, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



The earth does not need to be saved as it will be here long after we as a species are extinct.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 4, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Their models discount any effect that "Big Yellow Thing in the Sky" might have on climate


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 4, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The planet doesn't need saving.  It's doing just fine.  It is behaving exactly like a healthy planet should behave.  If we did not have cyclical weather patterns.  No jet stream.  No periodic warming or cooling.  This would be a dead planet.
> 
> The idea of saving the planet by recycling water bottles or shutting the lights off isn't funny, it's hilarious



Even more hilarious is the mixed messages from the Earth Warriors. You're shutting off your lights and turning down the thermostat so that your neighbor can install a 220V 40A service to charge his EV.. Or how the dams that were built with the urging of the ECO-FRAUDS now need to come down. Or how building nuclear power plants is a much larger threat to the world than Global Warming. Or how by mandating MTBE and oxygenates in gasoline to clean the air -- the ECO-NAUTS ended up destroying clean water supplies. Or how Biomass conversion now includes garbage incinerators and burning trees. Or how CO2 in your lungs is a pollutant.. 

That list of backfires and giggles is extremely long. They really won't be happy until your local beavers are handed the deed to your property..


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The planet doesn't need saving.  It's doing just fine.  It is behaving exactly like a healthy planet should behave.  If we did not have cyclical weather patterns.  No jet stream.  No periodic warming or cooling.  This would be a dead planet.
> 
> The idea of saving the planet by recycling water bottles or shutting the lights off isn't funny, it's hilarious



You poor brain damaged reality-denying fool. You have no idea what is going on.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2012)

Of course I do, you think what you like, run along and save the planet.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 4, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Of course I do, you think what you like, run along and save the planet.



Quickly PLEASE --- for the children.. Oh and a good place to start is to reduce your Font Footprint...


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 4, 2012)

this thread is ghey


----------



## mamooth (Sep 4, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Now that the accelerating temps have seemed to flatten out,



13 years of mostly La Nina and a deep solar minimum, and temps still rose.



> and we are looking at a 200 year low in Solar activity that LAST TIME brought a 1.5degC COOLING to the planet.



Nobody outside of the gibbering loons at WUWT believes something that stupid. They started raving 3 years ago that temperatures would crash ... and temps kept rising. But, like the true believers they are, they have faith that temps will start falling RealSoonNow!

Care to make a very large cash bet on 2013 global average temps? Since you're so confidently predicting this temperature crash, you'd take the "2011 will be warmer" side. Myself, I consider it to be on the "taking candy from a baby" level to predict that 2013 will be warmer than 2011, given the El Nino forming now and the upcoming solar max. (The only caveat is that a massive Pinatubo-level volcanic eruption cancels the best).



> I imagine SOMEBODY is gonna get foreclosed on..
> 
> The Global Peace and Serenity resulting from that will be worth living for..



After you get proven totally wrong, what's your excuse going to be? You might want to start working on it now.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2012)

The denier cult retards' ship is sinking fast as the reality of the global climate changes becomes more and more obvious to everyone with more than half a brain. As the evidence supporting AGW/CC mounts along with the temperatures , the insanity of their desperate excuses and pseudo-scientific rationalizations just gets more apparent. Their long running propaganda meme that claims that "_temperatures will be dropping soon because this is all natural cycles_" has run head on into the reality of unmistakably rising temperature trends and new record hot temperatures all around the world. Next year will almost certainly set a new record for high global average temperatures. What will the poor denier cult retards do? Well, obviously, they will find some new, even crazier, way to deny the facts. It will be interesting and probably very amusing to watch their intellectual contortions in their continuing and entirely futile attempts to deny the obvious.

*If 2013 breaks heat record, how will deniers respond?
With an El Niño on the way, 2013 could be the warmest year on record. But the climate-denial machine will keep on churning*
New Scientist
by Stefan Rahmstorf
03 September 2012 
(excerpts)

*IT HAS been another "normal" global-warming summer in the northern hemisphere. The US sweltered in the hottest July on record, following the hottest spring on record. More than 60 per cent of the contiguous US is suffering from drought, as are parts of eastern Europe and India. In the Arctic, sea ice cover is at a record low and the Greenland ice sheet shows what the US National Snow and Ice Data Center calls "extraordinary high melting". Global land temperatures for May and June were the hottest since records began in the 19th century. Meanwhile, El Niño conditions are forecast to develop in the tropical Pacific Ocean, warming up ocean surface temperatures. Some observers have predicted that this will lead to record-breaking global temperatures next year. If El Niño does arrive and temperature records are broken, there will inevitably be much discussion of the causes of the warming. So now is a good time to sort signal from noise in the global temperature records.

For the past 30 years, global temperature has shown a linear warming trend of 0.16 °C per decade (Environmental Research Letters, vol 6, p 044022). When looking for the cause of this warming, a physicist will look for the heat source. One possibility is that the oceans are releasing heat. But measurements show the opposite: the oceans are soaking up heat. The other possibility is that the heat is coming from above, and indeed it is: more radiation is entering the top of the atmosphere than leaving it. This is because increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere hamper the loss of heat into space. Superimposed on this global-warming signal is short-term natural variability, which makes some years hotter and some colder. Some, notably 2005 and 2010, stick out above the trend line, whereas others, like 2008 and 2011, stay below it. But overall, temperatures are creeping upwards within a corridor of plus or minus 0.2 °C around the trend line. Climate deniers use this variability to claim there is a slowdown in global warming, by cherry-picking time intervals that happen to start in the upper part of the corridor and end in the lower. They mix up signal and noise. Three known factors explain much of the natural variation. The first is volcanic eruptions - the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 was followed by three cold years, for example. Then there is the sun's variability, mostly in the form of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Finally, there is the irregular oscillation between warm El Niño and cold La Niña conditions in the Pacific.

We have independent measurements describing all three that we can easily correlate to global temperature changes. This shows, for example, that during a solar maximum the globe is about 0.1 °C warmer than during a solar minimum, but also that solar activity has contributed nothing to the warming trend of the past 30 years. In fact, it has acted to reduce it, but the effect is so small that the hottest year on record, 2010, was near the end of the deepest solar minimum since satellite measurements began in the 1970s. The analysis further shows that global temperature typically reaches a maximum about four months after El Niño conditions peak, and is correspondingly colder after La Niña. La Niña episodes in 2008 and 2011 have cooled the past few years, masking the warming trend. But while 2011 was cool in the context of the previous 10 years, it was the hottest La Niña year on record. It is straightforward to remove the effects of the solar and El Niño cycles from the data, just as unemployment figures routinely have seasonal effects removed. Once this is done, and regardless of the global temperature dataset used, the result is always a steady warming trend that has been no slower in the past decade than it was in the previous two - and which, incidentally, agrees with what is predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The signal of global warming caused by humans is very clear, despite attempts by certain parties to drown it out with a lot of noise.*

*(Stefan Rahmstorf heads the Earth System Analysis department at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. He is coauthor of The Climate Crisis (Cambridge University Press, 2009))*

© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.

_(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)_


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 4, 2012)

Hey Mamooth: 

What is the general trend for surface temps over the past 8 years or so? Are they anywhere CLOSE to the acceleration and slope of the 90s? Why don't you give me the rate and acceleration for say 2000 to 2011.... 

If you don't recognize that my statement was COMPLETELY CORRECT --- you don't get to call me names.. In fact -- you don't get much cred at all... 

I lifted this from a local Warmer Church site so I wouldn't have to listen to spoiled whining.. 






Look familiar? Mann says that rate is "not statistically significant".. Anyone with any knowledge of the topic would have to agree.. Would you say the RATE is about 0.04DegC per DECADE???? How about the acceleration? Wanna give me a number for that? Let's see -- at that rate it would be 0.4degC warmer at the start of the next Century wouldn't it? Satellites say it's less for the past decade.. 

*Did I say ESSENTIALLY FLAT??? *  Wanna give your list of excuses again??? 

I'm wasting too much time with idiots and bullies.. I'll wait for some smarter, more capable warmers.. They will ALL be smarter in about one more decade.. 

I don't do climate year to year --- YOU shouldn't either.. Makes you look denser than you are...

Have you even LOOKED at the work being done on the Solar side of the issue? Betcha haven't..  When was the Dalton Minimum? How much do think it accounted for in cooling? 

All these questions --- so LITTLE chance of an intelligient response...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 4, 2012)

Hey TinkerBelle:: 

You link job above says the 30 yr rate is 0.16degC.. Not anymore it aint'...

It also lies when it says the solar cycle over 30 years contributes nothing.. BY DEFINITION --- even sun spot cycles contribute to temp modulation. And they don't want you to see the TSI measurements which ARE NOT the same as "sun activity cycles". 

Over 1.2W/m2 HIGHER than 200 year ago.. And no feedbacks in the GCModels attributed to that warming.. Why do you think that is?


----------



## daveman (Sep 4, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Now you're just blabbering incomprehensibly.
> 
> How do you propose to debate about how it can be saved sans the presupposition that can be?
> 
> After that, who gets to decide what "saved" even means?


I think the planet will be saved when we have world socialism and Al Gore has another beach house or three.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 4, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The planet doesn't need saving.  It's doing just fine.  It is behaving exactly like a healthy planet should behave.  If we did not have cyclical weather patterns.  No jet stream.  No periodic warming or cooling.  This would be a dead planet.
> 
> The idea of saving the planet by recycling water bottles or shutting the lights off isn't funny, it's hilarious



You have to laugh, don't you?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I do understand English, and I understand that your statement is nonsense. 

What is the goal of the debate on abortion? 

Debate on the possibly solutions to climate change could well continue for another 20 years without ever reaching any kind of agreement or consensus.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 4, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > And we're descended back to the usual brain-dead spamming....
> ...



Actually, I'm not sure I've ever seen you on these threads before. 

I totally agree about more real engagement, but I often feel there is no real possibility for debate here, given the lack of fundamental information, integrity and intelligence present. 

I have no interest in your scientific credentials, so I look forward to discussing the real issues with you. 

To begin - how do you explain the fact that no major scientific bodies have stated that human beings do not play a role in climate change?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> What is the general trend for surface temps over the past 8 years or so?


Calculating trends over such a short time period is pointless due to the 'noise' of the natural variations, as you would know if you actually knew anything about science and weren't just another clueless dupe parroting denier cult propaganda.






flacaltenn said:


> Are they anywhere CLOSE to the acceleration and slope of the 90s?


Due to natural factors that affect the climate (that have been discussed many times here but that you still manage to ignore) like the extended low solar minimum and the multiple La Nina years, this last decade or so has seen a slight slowdown in the rising surface temperature trend. So what? That kind of decadal variation is exactly what the climate models have predicted and observations have confirmed. The last decade was still the warmest decade in the entire instrumental record going back to 1860. Almost all of the top ten warmest years on record occurred in the last decade. Even more important, scientists have found that as the Earth continues to retain more of the radiative heat energy it receives from the sun than it is able to radiate back into space, a good deal of that heat energy has been going into the oceans. Here is the real temperature trend line for both the land surface and the oceans.













flacaltenn said:


> Why don't you give me the rate and acceleration for say 2000 to 2011....


Why don't we look at it in the larger context that actually conveys the definite upward direction of the long term trend and demonstrates that the decade to decade variability due to natural factors doesn't affect the long term underlying trend.















flacaltenn said:


> If you don't recognize that my statement was COMPLETELY CORRECT


It is only in your deluded little fantasy world that your retarded drivel ("_statements_") is ever "_COMPLETELY CORRECT_", you flaming moron.








flacaltenn said:


> I lifted this from a local Warmer Church site so I wouldn't have to listen to spoiled whining..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, retard, it shows the rising temperature trend from 2000 to 2011 and also demonstrates the year to year ups and downs induced by the play of natural variability. The anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is overwhelming all of the up and down natural variations and pushing the longer term temperature trend steadily upwards. Temperatures were rising even though there was a very deep and extended solar minimum over most of the decade. The previous solar cycle peaked around the beginning of the decade and then went into a decline and extended minimum that lasted until 2011. As solar cycle 24 heads for its maximum next year, we will almost certainly see new record high temperatures as natural variability adds to the rising temperature trend rather than diminishing it. 













flacaltenn said:


> Mann says that rate is "not statistically significant"..


Dr. Mann never said any such thing, you lying POS. You don't even understand what 'statistically significant' means, retard, or just how it differs from simply 'significant'.

You may be dredging up some old distorted memory of one of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda memes from 2010 when a reporter asked Prof. Phil Jones of the CRU if the warming trend from 1995 to then was "statistically significant". Prof. Jones explained to him that such small time periods weren't very useful for gauging long term trends. He said that the trend was very close to statistical significance, maybe 90%, but that it didn't quite achieve the arbitrary 95% confidence level that defines 'statistical significance' - yet. Of course his words were seized on and distorted by the fossil fuel industry propagandists and their easily confused denier cult dupes. But guess what, fecalbrain???

*Global warming since 1995 'now significant'*
BBC News
By Richard Black - Environment correspondent 
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

*Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones...Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not [statistically] significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis. 

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.*


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 5, 2012)

A little something offered in as a sort of tribute to ol' fecalhead and the rest of the denier cult retard crew. I hope you foam at the mouth upon reading this.


*"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data*
Forbes
2/05/2012


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> *How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data*


I see you finally got around to reading the Climategate emails.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

You just did EXACTLY what I said the Warmers do -- they IGNORE the Solar TSI increases and throw up charts of Sunspot Activity. Do you understand the diff? 

We'll discuss the actual significance of your chart for Ocean vs Land warming when I don't have clients screaming at me..  

You're the one that's over your head and duped. YEs it was Jones not Mann. I screwed up.. 

However, the argument about statistical significance does not change the fact that the RATE has slowed from about 0.16degC/decade to what you see in the graph which is more like 0.04degC/decade. THAT'S THE FACT.. Regardless of the nutty claim of statistical significance from 12,000 surface sensors averaged over the total of the earth's surface detecting just 0.04degC rise. 

Speaking of FOOLING PEOPLE with statistics. You need to check the date for the Jones claim that 2011 pushed the measly feeble warming trend "into significance"... *It was JUNE 2011.. By the end of that year -- with a very cold winter -- that claim could no longer be made.* If you HAD a brain and any scientific chops -- you could see that from the decadal temp chart yourself.  Talk about cherry-picking data. 

It's not "fooling people" to take a 10 year at temps. It's what has actually happened. It should be INTERPRETATED realistically however. It does not mean that Global Warming has stopped or reversed. I'm not making that claim. It DOES however bring realism to the discussion and REDUCE THE HYSTERIA to show that the climate is NOT gonna skyrocket off into instant oblivion of the planet. And that the models have limitations in terms of predicting or validating WEATHER events that YOU and your fellow alarmists are pissing your pants about... 

More when I have time..


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2012)

Not talking about oblivion. More strawmen from a idiot. We are already seeing the shape of the damage. Increases in food prices, inconveniant for the industrial nations, a death sentence for many in the third world. Very expensive damage both to private and governmental infrastructure, worldwide. All of that represents money out of our pockets, and things that would have otherwise been done, left undone because of the spending on repairing damage from a changing climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2012)

TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2012)

There is no doubt that no one could tell those aztecs that sacrificing virgins wouldn't have an effect on the rainfall.  To them it was simple science.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2012)

We will continue to have global warming hysteria until we work through the cycle, then we will have global cooling hysteria, just like we did in the 70s.   The next cold winter will be climate change hysteria.

People believe that they can do something to change the natural cyclical nature of the planet.  They can't.  They need to be dealt with using more than pity for their utter stupidity, they need to have their machinations limited by those with better sense.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 5, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> We will continue to have global warming hysteria until we work through the cycle, then we will have global cooling hysteria, just like we did in the 70s.   The next cold winter will be climate change hysteria.
> 
> People believe that they can do something to change the natural cyclical nature of the planet.  They can't.  They need to be dealt with using more than pity for their utter stupidity, they need to have their machinations limited by those with better sense.



Sorry, Katzhitbrainz, but you're still a delusional idiot. There will be no "_global cooling_", you poor confused retard. The next few years will very probably repeatedly break the old records for "warmest year" (baring a major volcanic eruption) and the temperature trend will inevitably continue to rise, faster some years and a bit slower some other years, but still always clearly upward over each decade. The physics of the situation make this pretty much inevitable. Your ignorance of physics and science (and, of course, your extreme retardation) makes this fact obscure to you.

Nobody is trying to "_change the natural cyclical nature of the planet_", you silly nitwit. The fact that you think that just show how very little you understand about this subject. What people are trying to do is to reduce the changes to the Earth's climate patterns that human CO2 emissions have and are and will be creating (for centuries to come). We are creating these CO2 emissions and we can stop doing that. It is as simple as that. Of course that idea is anathema to your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry since their continued profits depend on mankind's continued use of fossil fuels. Thus their propaganda campaign of disinformation and denial of reality, a campaign that has completely bamboozled you, assuming, that is, that you are not just a paid agent of disinformation, collecting a check from Exxon or the Koch brothers for trolling and spamming the internet forums and news sites with your lies and bullshit, as often seems very likely.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.



what was in the top 10?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.



I need YOU and all your pant-wetting alarmist brothers to read and understand this.. It's not front-page science and the Warming Church doesn't want to discuss the implications.. 

Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor II (ACRIM2)
> A photo of the UARS/ACRIM2 Total Solar Irradiance monitoring instrument.The ACRIM2 instrument on the UARS satellite measured the total solar irradiance (TSI), the total solar radiant energy reaching Earth, continuing the climate change database begun in 1980 by the ACRIM1 experiment on the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM).[12] The ACRIM1 experiment's results provided the first discoveries of intrinsic variations in the TSI and their relationships to solar magnetic activity phenomena.[13] *ACRIM experiments have confirmed TSI variation occurs on virtually every timescale from their 2 minute observation cadence to the decades-long length of the TSI record to date.[14] A precise knowledge of the TSI and its variation over time is essential to understanding climate change. Recent findings indicate that instrinsic TSI variation has had a much larger role (up to 50 %) in global warming during the industrial era than previously predicted by global circulation models (GCM&#8217;s)*.[15] The profound sociological and economic implications of understanding the relative climate change contributions of natural and anthropogenic forcings makes it essential that the TSI database, a critical component of climate change research, be carefully sustained into the foreseeable future. The UARS/ACRIM2 experiment was an important part of providing the long term TSI database.



This is just PART of the science that is buried by the Warmers.. This is NOT studying sun spots. It was measuring the total variation of Solar Output in REAL TIME for about 10 years before the satellite de-orbited.. 

Ask questions if you want --- but there you have it in bolded big font above.... And it's not the only proof that AGW fanatics are purposely glossing over NATURAL contributions to the warming... 

Think maybe SOME OF THAT AGW LOOT ought to spent to REPLACE this satellite? Or do we have a de facto CENSORSHIP of alternate scientific investigation?

I specifically need SAIGON to read and acknowledge this - since the poster claims they have seen NO evidence to contradict the CO2 theory of GW...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2012)

TSI is irrelevant because Warmers have totally discounted any effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on Climate.

CO2

Only CO2


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2012)

Co2 emissions would be responsible for global cooling, not global warming.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Co2 emissions would be responsible for global cooling, not global warming.



Technically it's Globalcoolerwarmering and its ugly twin Globalwarmercoolering


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TSI is irrelevant because Warmers have totally discounted any effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on Climate.
> 
> CO2
> 
> Only CO2



Ugh! me thinks the big yellow thing is Angry... 






The chart that will NEVER be shown in an IPCC report... The TSI that no Warmer Deacon wants to discuss. All on an appropriate 300 yr+ time span... Accounting for at least 1/2 of the W/m2 warming at the surface that we're looking for. 

And you gotta ask.. How long after you turn up the knobby on the stove does the water get hot? Remember that chart that DundrHead plundered showing the MAJORITY of surface warming in the oceans? Well we could be looking at (easily) a 50 to 100 year thermal lag in the ocean water heating up.. PROBABLY much longer than that to reach equilibrium... 

* TSI is at a RELATIVE PEAK over a 200 cycle*.. And you want me to believe that this has NEGLIBLE EFFECT on GW?

 Go probe yourself..... 

Time for cloud dance Franky.. Must put out that fire.. CO2 makes Sun god angry...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TSI is irrelevant because Warmers have totally discounted any effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on Climate.
> ...



LOL

I found that chart too and that's why I asked OR to answer his "top ten" statement first.

I doubt we'll be seeing much of OR in this thread after that

Scarfetta and West and various other Warmers have models that conclusively prove the Sun has no effect on climate, it's peer reviewed and all so you know it's been subjected to real bedrock scientific testing...like "Can I get an 'Amen!'?"


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.



Please be accurate and qualify your answer ; the top ten since records have been kept.

The earth has been hotter than it is today and it will be colder than it is today at some point.

And neither will be the end of the world.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.
> ...



Technically, it will be hotter than it is today, then it will be colder than it is today, then it will be hotter, followed by colder, over and over again and none of it will be the end of the world.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.
> ...


_15 - ^ Scafetta, N., West, B. J., Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900&#8211;2000 global surface warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., V. 33, 2006_

*Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature*
PhysOrg
April 7, 2010
(excerpts)

*A new study has discredited a previous hypothesis suggesting the existence of a link between solar flares and changes in the earth&#8217;s global temperature. In a handful of studies published in Physical Review Letters between 2003 and 2008, a team from Duke University and the Army Research Office including Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West analyzed data that appeared to show that solar flares have a significant influence on global temperature. However, in the new study, which is also published in Physical Review Letters, Martin Rypdal and Kristoffer Rypdal of the University of Tromso in Norway have reexamined the data and the previous analysis and noticed some shortcomings. One of the biggest causes of concern is that the previous analysis did not account for larger trends in factors that affect solar flares and global temperature. The Norwegian researchers also noted that the previous analysis had errors beyond the lack of detrending. As the researchers explain, the results provide more evidence to support the supposedly controversial theory of human-induced global warming. "The theory of anthropogenic global warming consists of a set of logically interconnected and consistent hypotheses,&#8221; Martin Rypdal said. &#8220;This means that if a cornerstone hypothesis is proven to be false, the entire theory fails. A corresponding theory of global warming of solar origin does not exist. What does exist is a set of disconnected, mutually inconsistent, ad hoc hypotheses. If one of these is proven to be false, the typical proponent of solar warming will pull another ad hoc hypothesis out of the hat. This has been the strategy of Scafetta and West over the years, and we have no illusion that our paper will put them to silence.*

Copyright 2010 PhysOrg.com.

_(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
_


*Solar Variation - Effects on Global Warming*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)
*Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth&#8217;s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth&#8217;s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."* - Lockwood, Mike; Claus Fröhlich (2007). "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society A 463: 2447. Bibcode 2007RSPSA.463.2447L. doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880. "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

*"Solar forcing has declined since 1987"* -  Lockwood, Mike; Fröhlich, Claus (8 June 2008). "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale". Proc. R. Soc. A 464 (2094): 1367&#8211;85. Bibcode 2008RSPSA.464.1367L. doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.0347

*A paper by Benestad and Schmidt concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."* - Benestad,, R. E.; G. A. Schmidt (21 July 2009). "Solar trends and global warming". Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres 114. Bibcode 2009JGRD..11414101B. doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.


You are such a gullible cherry-picking retard, fecalhead.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

THe chart I posted HAS NOTHING TO DO with "solar flares".. That's just your juvenile interpretation or what you been instructed to do by your warmer handlers.. Look at the chart again... A 200 year HIGH for the SUN'S TSI. I don't care about 10 year time spans or sun spots or ANYTHING that you clipped and pasted.. You have not commented on the 300 year TSI chart that I posted... 

And perhaps you're too stupid to realize (no perhaps) that the chart you posted showing the bulk of the surface warming occurs in oceans is INTIMATELY related to this solar forcing.. With lags of 100 years to reach equilibrium at least.. 

*You just told me this morning that what happens in a 10 or 20 yr time span is dishonest in a climate discussion... I give you a 300 yr chart of solar forcing -- and you shoot back with what the sun did last year.. Are YOU being dishonest?*


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TSI is irrelevant because Warmers have totally discounted any effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on Climate.
> ...



Grasp what this chart means -- don't guess. And DON'T give me crap about solar flares or what's happened in the past 10 years...

You see those squiggly lines? those are your sunspot cycles.. The LONG TERM UNDERLYING TREND is for the sun to contribute CONSIDERABLE WARMING to the surface of the Earth... Not the squigglies Princess --- The underlying trend line...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Looks like a for real hockey stick chart


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



See? what did I say? The Warmers have models that complete ignore that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Kinda does --- doesn't it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2012)

BTW the Scarfetta and West paper was the first AGW "Scientific paper" I read and when I was done reading it I was convinced that the Warmers were outright lying


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

Didja notice that when we say there has been no SIGNIFICANT warming in the past 10 years -- the warmers are all over us for choosing such a short time span and being "dishonest"... But when you bring out the TSI chart for 300 yrs of SOLAR INCREASE --- they drag out what happened to the sun in the past 20 years ---- RIGHT THERE in DundrHead's 2nd quote.... 

Hypocrits?? First - Class....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Didja notice that when we say there has been no SIGNIFICANT warming in the past 10 years -- the warmers are all us for choosing such a short time span and being "dishonest"... But when you bring out the TSI chart for 300 yrs of SOLAR INCREASE --- they drag out what happened to the sun in the past 20 years ---- RIGHT THERE in DundrHead's first quote....
> 
> Hypocrits?? First - Class....



Hide the decline, brother.

Have they rechecked Mann's tree rings?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> THe chart I posted HAS NOTHING TO DO with "solar flares".. That's just your juvenile interpretation or what you been instructed to do by your warmer handlers.. Look at the chart again... A 200 year HIGH for the SUN'S TSI. I don't care about 10 year time spans or sun spots or ANYTHING that you clipped and pasted.. You have not commented on the 300 year TSI chart that I posted...
> 
> And perhaps you're too stupid to realize (no perhaps) that the chart you posted showing the bulk of the surface warming occurs in oceans is INTIMATELY related to this solar forcing.. With lags of 100 years to reach equilibrium at least..
> 
> *You just told me this morning that what happens in a 10 or 20 yr time span is dishonest in a climate discussion... I give you a 300 yr chart of solar forcing -- and you shoot back with what the sun did last year.. Are YOU being dishonest?*



Again you demonstrate that you have no real idea what you're talking about. You just throw stuff at the wall and hope something sticks. But you're a clueless retard so all of your speculations are just unscientific nonsense.

Climate forcing from greenhouse gases = about 3 W/m2

*"The increase in solar-cycle averaged TSI from the Maunder Minimum to the present amounts to (0.9 ± 0.4) Wm&#8722;2."* - *Total solar irradiance during the Holocene* - 
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L19704, 5 PP., 2009 - doi:10.1029/2009GL040142


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > THe chart I posted HAS NOTHING TO DO with "solar flares".. That's just your juvenile interpretation or what you been instructed to do by your warmer handlers.. Look at the chart again... A 200 year HIGH for the SUN'S TSI. I don't care about 10 year time spans or sun spots or ANYTHING that you clipped and pasted.. You have not commented on the 300 year TSI chart that I posted...
> ...



Now -- you're on topic.. 0.9 W/m2 +/-0.4 is a LOW estimate of that Reconstruction.. I'd say more like 1.1 or 1.2... 

And climate forcing from CO2 ALONE is no where near 3W/m2... Those figures include the 2ndary feedbacks of Natural CO2 increases and water vapor due to temp rise.. The SAME EXACT feedbacks that SHOULD BE APPLIED to an increase in TSI warming.. But the MODELS attribute all those feedbacks to man and CO2 and NO feedback to TSI.. From CO2 alone -- the forcing is more like 2.4 W/m2.. So like I said --- UP TO HALF of the forcing function that we're looking for.... 

FF = ln(C/Co) * 5.35  ----> 2.4 when you use 400/250 ppm CO2

Good job Princess....     A weak sign of following along..

BTW --- I checked out your link.. The 0.9W/m2 is NOT an estimate of the ACTUAL TSI reconstructions. It's a VALIDATION of their Holocene model to check the sanity of the MODEL !!!! Note that THEY USE the same chart I posted above to TEST their model....

Please NOte how much NEWER much of this work on Solar is than the old Hockey Stick graph.. These folks (like the paper you posted are working furiously on new Satellite data that has JUST RECENTLY been available.. It's a NEW look at the total forcing functions on climate based on "SPACE AGE" tools... Not 20,000 mangled thermometers..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Warmers eliminate the effects of TSI on climate using the peer reviewed "Just because we say so!" method first used by Scareatta and West in 2006


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Not talking about oblivion. More strawmen from a idiot. We are already seeing the shape of the damage. Increases in food prices, inconveniant for the industrial nations, a death sentence for many in the third world. Very expensive damage both to private and governmental infrastructure, worldwide. All of that represents money out of our pockets, and things that would have otherwise been done, left undone because of the spending on repairing damage from a changing climate.


You keep saying these things are due to global warming.

Are you ever going to prove it?  

Oh, and just so's you know, because I don't think you do:  Correlation does not imply causation.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> THe chart I posted HAS NOTHING TO DO with "solar flares".. That's just your juvenile interpretation or what you been instructed to do by your warmer handlers.. Look at the chart again... A 200 year HIGH for the SUN'S TSI. I don't care about 10 year time spans or sun spots or ANYTHING that you clipped and pasted.. You have not commented on the 300 year TSI chart that I posted...
> 
> And perhaps you're too stupid to realize (no perhaps) that the chart you posted showing the bulk of the surface warming occurs in oceans is INTIMATELY related to this solar forcing.. With lags of 100 years to reach equilibrium at least..
> 
> *You just told me this morning that what happens in a 10 or 20 yr time span is dishonest in a climate discussion... I give you a 300 yr chart of solar forcing -- and you shoot back with what the sun did last year.. Are YOU being dishonest?*


He has no choice.  If he were honest, the whole charade would fall down around him.

And he's too heavily emotionally invested in the charade to take a chance on falsifying it.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Didja notice that when we say there has been no SIGNIFICANT warming in the past 10 years -- the warmers are all over us for choosing such a short time span and being "dishonest"... But when you bring out the TSI chart for 300 yrs of SOLAR INCREASE --- they drag out what happened to the sun in the past 20 years ---- RIGHT THERE in DundrHead's first quote....
> 
> Hypocrits?? First - Class....



Hell, Chris posts numbers of record daily high temps and claims it's proof of global warming.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Didja notice that when we say there has been no SIGNIFICANT warming in the past 10 years -- the warmers are all us for choosing such a short time span and being "dishonest"... But when you bring out the TSI chart for 300 yrs of SOLAR INCREASE --- they drag out what happened to the sun in the past 20 years ---- RIGHT THERE in DundrHead's first quote....
> ...


To clarify:  

The rings from ONE tree.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

daveman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The rings from ONE tree.  =00=     In ONE forest.  Good ole VAD061.


----------



## westwall (Sep 5, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...








Ummmmm, I hate to state the obvious...but clearly you need the help, but, ummm, the length of time taken is pretty meaningless and STILL doesn't negate the fact that there is a GOAL in mind.

But, you have to be intellectually honest to admit that, and we know warmers are anything but honest.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



That is absolute nonsense. 

The concept of debate in no way indicates any specific goal - otherwise there wouldn't be debate, there would be consensus. 

btw, I am not a "warmer". I have no idea what that would even mean, and why you feel you have the insight to label people who disagree with you hardly speaks well of the honesty you claim to have a monopoly on.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

Doesn't seem to be a DEBATE here Saigon.. As once again you just skip right thru any discussion of the science on the topic and look to assert your considered opinion on semantics.. 

Did ya miss all that a couple pages back? 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5934668-post204.html

Or doesn't any of that crappy factual stuff matter to you? And you're just waiting to be TOLD what to think by institutions with impressive looking credentials?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 5, 2012)

Flac - 

I am sure I did miss it - a busy day at work yesterday and today. I don't see every comment you make, but give me a post # and I'll make a point to go back and read it and respond to it.

OK, I looked back through the thread but couldn't find any statement of yours directed to me...


----------



## Saigon (Sep 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Not talking about oblivion. More strawmen from a idiot. We are already seeing the shape of the damage. Increases in food prices, inconveniant for the industrial nations, a death sentence for many in the third world. Very expensive damage both to private and governmental infrastructure, worldwide. All of that represents money out of our pockets, and things that would have otherwise been done, left undone because of the spending on repairing damage from a changing climate.



This is a very good comment. 

I mentioned earlier that much of the debate on this topic seems to be turning a corner, and I think this really makes that clear. We are starting to see evidence of climate change every time we buy groceries. Even holiday destinations are changing as increased heat, storms and drought make once-popular destinations less attractive. 

Climate change will effect every one of us to some extent - even if the climate where we live has not yet shown any sign of dramatic change. 

I don't think climate change will be utterly catastrophic or mean the end of human kind or anything like that (and I regret that there has been some wildly hysterical statements about that in some media)- but I do think it will be something that we experience on a day-to-day basis, even if not in the ways some people might have thought.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Flac -
> 
> I am sure I did miss it - a busy day at work yesterday and today. I don't see every comment you make, but give me a post # and I'll make a point to go back and read it and respond to it.
> 
> OK, I looked back through the thread but couldn't find any statement of yours directed to me...



Well there's your problem.. You can't drive a browser. I gave you a link to a particular post. Use the post number to navigate back into the thread.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

Post #204 --- Page 14... 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...eniers-are-almost-extinct-14.html#post5934668


----------



## daveman (Sep 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Rather a flimsy hook to hang one's case on and then demand we cripple the economies of the entire Western world to fix that case.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That's how science is done, no? As long as you have Consensus because it's peer reviewed it's OK.  That's how Einstein sold everyone on relativity, right?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 6, 2012)

daveman said:


> Rather a flimsy hook to hang one's case on and then demand we cripple the economies of the entire Western world to fix that case.



I'm not sure who "demands" that - I am hearing much more about this driving economic development than crippling it. Potentially it is a massive export earner.

Do you think you maybe relying just a little too much on partisan "news" sources?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Not talking about oblivion. More strawmen from a idiot. We are already seeing the shape of the damage. Increases in food prices, inconveniant for the industrial nations, a death sentence for many in the third world. Very expensive damage both to private and governmental infrastructure, worldwide. All of that represents money out of our pockets, and things that would have otherwise been done, left undone because of the spending on repairing damage from a changing climate.
> ...



Global Warming causes monetary inflation too? Wow! Global warming makes ethanol too?

Science does not involve "Debates" that "turn a corner"


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2012)

daveman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Here we go again. Lies from liars. The climate record by the many so called Mann graphs are from data from coral reefs, ice cores from continental and glacial ice, ocean and lake sediments, stalactites and stalagmites in caves, as well as many other sources. 

A very simple explanation of some of them for the simple minded here;

Paleoclimatology: Climate Proxies


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Really? You mean there was not a time when the fossil record became complete enough that evolution was obvious?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2012)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Not talking about oblivion. More strawmen from a idiot. We are already seeing the shape of the damage. Increases in food prices, inconveniant for the industrial nations, a death sentence for many in the third world. Very expensive damage both to private and governmental infrastructure, worldwide. All of that represents money out of our pockets, and things that would have otherwise been done, left undone because of the spending on repairing damage from a changing climate.
> ...



The dust bowl of the 30s was global warming.   When the drought ended it was climate change.

That's how it works.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2012)

The rate of change, the number of droughts and floods are increasing every decade. Worldwide. Real time observations, not climate models. The people that insure the insurance companies have the numbers, and they are really daunting. They, Swiss Re and Munich Re, state unequivocally that we are seeing a major increase in extreme weather events.


----------



## daveman (Sep 6, 2012)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Rather a flimsy hook to hang one's case on and then demand we cripple the economies of the entire Western world to fix that case.
> ...


No, I'm relying on reality. Try it sometime.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 6, 2012)

Daveman - 

Please post facts, links and statistics to back up your claims - I doubt anyone is interested in mindless taunts.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2012)

Droughts AND floods

See how that works?

Drought agw

Flood agw


----------



## Saigon (Sep 6, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Droughts AND floods
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> ...



Yes, that is right. 

Because different parts of the world experience different climates, thus climate becoming more extreme can mean that the aspects of climate they experience will become more intense. 

Countries like Spain and Australia have more droughts. 

Countries like Bangladesh and Holland have more floods. 

Seriously man - why is that difficult to understand?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 6, 2012)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOL.....oh davedumb, your connection to reality is tenuous at best. You really have no f...ing idea what is going on, you poor deluded and bamboozled retard.

BTW, the scientific "_case_" for the reality of anthropogenic global warming is not at all "_flimsy_", it is actually rock solid, but you're too brainwashed and ignorant to ever comprehend that fact.


----------



## daveman (Sep 6, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> Please post facts, links and statistics to back up your claims - I doubt anyone is interested in mindless taunts.


Tell you what -- you post a link to back up your claim that Aussie grape growers are plowing under their vines due to global warming, and I'll prove my claims (yet again).


----------



## daveman (Sep 6, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Uh huh.  You SUCK at convincing people.  

"Agree with me, you retard!!"


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 6, 2012)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Daveman -
> ...


That's a hoot. You have never yet managed to even come close to substantiating any of your retarded denier cult "_claims_" with any real evidence, let alone actually "_proving_" them.







daveman said:


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



Oh davedumb, I long ago gave up on "_convincing_" clueless retards like you. Now I'm content with just mocking you for the ignorant moronic dupe that you are, as I debunk your denier cult myths and lies with the scientific facts.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



HOW SIGNIFICANT is the warming in the last decade Princess? 

What month did P. Jones say that trend became "statistically significant"? 

What's the 300 year trend (+1.2W/m2) for what your heroes call "insignificant solar influence"? 

Why is it NOT OK for me to point out what the temp has done for only 10 years, but it's OK fine for you to quote what the sun has done only over the past 20 years? 

How is the MWP "not Global" with dozens of studies finding evidence for it ON EVERY CONTINENT? [[And even more comical is why are local DROUGHTS and HEATWAVES proof of AGW, the the MWP -- no local event counts for Global Warming]]

Too many hypocrital outcomes.. That what I see.. 

You have not "debunked" crappola here. You've spammed. You've wasted space with personal attacks. You've demonstrated inabilities to read graphs, understand simple math, statistics and most other elementary science/math skills.. You've posted LARGE FONT links that have nothing to do with the current argument. 

Me thinks your head and self-esteem is more swollen than your fonts. 

If that's what you think this forum is for --- for you to repeatedly post the same PERSONAL ATTACKS on multiple people over and over and over and over again --- then BOTH of us are wasting time here. You've pretty gained the status of becoming ignored..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Yeah, you may be right, AGW has that peppered moth and Piltdown Man quality to it


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


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


Very significant, Pea-Brain. Significant enough to make the last decade the warmest decade on record and to make nine of the ten warmest years since 1880 occur since 2000. Significant enough to cause most of the world's glaciers to melt 'significantly'. Significant enough to melt a good part of the Arctic ice cap and drive sea ice levels to the lowest point in many thousands of years. Significant enough to change seasonal timing and cause species migrations. I could go on but I know that you're far too stupid to comprehend this and way too lost in your deranged denier cult fantasies to accept the facts anyway.








flacaltenn said:


> What month did P. Jones say that trend became "statistically significant"?


The fact is, fecalhead, the current rising temperature trend that really started moving in the 70's has always been statistically significant if you use an appropriately lengthy time period and don't cherry-pick your start date in a particularly hot year. It is your total ignorance of science that makes this fact obscure to you. 

*2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
NASA*




*Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth's surface temperatures have increased since 1880. The last decade has brought the temperatures to the highest levels ever recorded. The graph shows global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951-1980 mean temperatures. As shown by the red line, long-term trends are more apparent when temperatures are averaged over a five year period.* Image credit: NASA


----------



## daveman (Sep 6, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Actually, I just shredded your claim that the climate models do a good job.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...e-have-predicted-it-should-5.html#post5942623

You will, of course, sputter and fume and call me names for no other reason than disagreeing with you -- you know, what you usually do.  


RollingThunder said:


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


Really?  Where have you done that?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 7, 2012)

daveman said:


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



Oh....like *right here* where I debunk the thread you started that you just mentioned, you hopelessly confused retard.

Also pretty much every time I encounter your nonsensical drivel and bullshit on here, I give it a thorough debunking. Easy to do with the moronic anti-scientific crap you post.


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


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


See, now you're just lying.  The OP is a summary of a paper published in _Climate Dynamics_ journal -- not a blog.

Further, the two links you "disproved" the OP with are useless.  The first contains data through 2005.  The second references works published in the '90s.  

The OP studied _what actually happened_ versus the predictions.

The predictions were wrong.

Deal with it.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 7, 2012)

daveman said:


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


The link in your OP leads to a denier cult blog which cherry-picks, mangles and distorts the science it picks up from other sites. The interpretation they put on it has nothing to do with the actual science.






daveman said:


> Further, the two links you "disproved" the OP with are useless.


No, you're just too retarded to comprehend the information in them.






daveman said:


> The first contains data through 2005.  The second references works published in the '90s.


The first one debunked your denier cult blog OP by pointing out that there is regional variability in precipitation changes. Temperate regions are showing increased rainfall and snowfall and the tropics are getting less rain. This results in global averages that don't show a trend.

*"Globally-averaged land-based precipitation shows a statistically insignificant upward trend ... ...precipitation changes have been spatially variable over the last century. On a regional basis increases in annual precipitation have occurred in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and southern South America and northern Australia. Decreases have occurred in the tropical region of Africa, and southern Asia."*

So you object to the fact that the second report I cited references studies from the nineties. And you imagine that the situation has reversed itself since then. LOL. OK, little retard, here's some more recent studies for you.

*Increased flood risk linked to global warming
Likelihood of extreme rainfall may have been doubled by rising greenhouse-gas levels.
Nature*
16 February 2011 | Nature 470, 316 (2011) | doi:10.1038/470316a
(excerpts)
*Climate change may be hitting home. Rises in global average temperature are remote from most people's experience, but two studies in this week's Nature1,2 conclude that climate warming is already causing extreme weather events that affect the lives of millions. The research directly links rising greenhouse-gas levels with the growing intensity of rain and snow in the Northern Hemisphere, and the increased risk of flooding in the United Kingdom.*

*Increasing Trend of Heavy Rain Events in Northeast Confirmed by Study*
The University of New Hampshire
Apr 5, 2010
(excerpts)
*DURHAM, N.H.  Confirming what most people in the Northeastern United States are seeing out their windows these days and consistent with projections of climate change associated with global warming, a new study of precipitation in the region over the last 50 years indicates an increasing trend of heavy rain events. Trends in Extreme Precipitation Events for the Northeastern United States 1948-2007 details precipitation data from 219 National Weather Service cooperative stations in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The report concludes that all of the definitions for quantifying extreme precipitation events (frequency of accumulation, the 99th percentile of events, or recurrence intervals) indicate that the occurrences of these events, and the intensity of rainfall, are increasing in the region. The report indicates annual precipitation also showed predominantly positive increases from 1948-2007, with the most significant increases occurring most recently. The increase in extreme precipitation events and in annual precipitation is occurring primarily during the spring and fall. Indeed, three separate downpours in this past March have set new rainfall records across the region.

The report notes that several detailed studies published in peer-reviewed literature conclude that the recent changes in precipitation patterns around the globe are due to an increase in global temperatures driven by enhanced levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which come from the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes. Warmer temperatures lead to greater evaporation rates and allow air to have a higher capacity for water vapor, leading to a more active hydrological cycle. Because more water vapor is in the air, when the air rises and cools due to expansion under lower pressure, more water vapor gas is available to condense into liquid to form clouds and ultimately rainfall, states the report. Overall, the region is experiencing more extreme precipitation events, with the largest increase occurring in the spring and fall seasons. Several stations, especially in coastal regions of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, are experiencing twice the number of extreme precipitation events compared to 50 years ago, says Wake. This is of particular concern as development increases in our watersheds because the combined impacts of more impervious surfaces and increases in extreme precipitation will lead to more flooding in the future. *

I could easily post dozens more, davedumb, but you'd just find another way to deny reality.







daveman said:


> Nothing that has happened since 2005 contradicts these observations. The OP studied _what actually happened_ versus the predictions. The predictions were wrong. Deal with it.


LOLOLOL...oh davedumb, you are such a confused little retard.....
The denier cult blog crap in the OP was just trying to distort and spin one study into implying something it didn't actually say. The amount of rainfall and snowfall, the frequency of extreme precipitation events and the severity of such events have all been increasing. Many studies confirm this. The model predictions were right on. You deranged denier cultists are wrong. Deal with it, dumbass.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 7, 2012)

I just had someone in Maine try to tell me on USMB that the Maine coast is in SEVERE DROUGHT and his pear orchard is drying up.. 

Kinda contradicts any weather observations from 2010 -- don'tcha think??

So lemme get this straight -- you're arguing with me on another thread that the 2011-2012 Texas drought is due to CO2 and the wet weather in New England from 2000 to 2007 is due to CO2.. Do I have that correct? And it was ALL predicted ahead of time?

You're gonna be a very princess defending every weather statement from the warmers. Sure you want this gig?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 7, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> I just had someone in Maine try to tell me on USMB that the Maine coast is in SEVERE DROUGHT and his pear orchard is drying up..
> 
> Kinda contradicts any weather observations from 2010 -- don'tcha think??


No, I don't think so and neither does anyone else with a functioning brain. I'm afraid the reason why is beyond your very limited comprehension, you poor deluded retard.








flacaltenn said:


> So lemme get this straight -- you're arguing with me on another thread that the 2011-2012 Texas drought is due to CO2 and the wet weather in New England from 2000 to 2007 is due to CO2.. Do I have that correct? And it was ALL predicted ahead of time?


Yes, dumbshit, CO2 induced global warming causes both increased precipitation and increased and more severe droughts, and yes, both were predicted by climate scientists decades ago. One example.

*Droughts and flooding rains: climate change models predict increases in both*
Barrie Pittock - Honorary Fellow, Marine and Atmospheric Research at CSIRO
24 February 2012
(excerpts)
*Recent wet weather and flooding across eastern Australia has caused many to ask, wasn&#8217;t climate change supposed to cause more droughts, not floods? Critics of climate change science have suggested that the recent observed flooding shows the science, and especially the climate modelling, must be wrong. This is a misreading of what climate change scientists have repeatedly stated. Climate scientists have been saying for a long time that one of the effects of climate change is likely to be more intense rainfall and flooding. In 1989, at a presentation to the Prime Minister&#8217;s Science Council, Dr Graeme Pearman of CSIRO summarised a scenario of climate change for Australia in 2030. He said there would be:
"higher summer rainfall over northern Australia and extending further south.
    possibly drier winters in southern Australia
more intense rainfall."​CSIRO&#8217;s Climate Impact Group, in a report to the Northern Territory Government in 1992-93 wrote: &#8220;The above results suggest that wet season runoff may increase substantially by 2030 &#8230; the results strongly suggest that flood frequencies may increase significantly. If so, this would have a major impact on the urban environment &#8230; built infrastructure, agriculture and hydrological planning, including the management of tailings dams and other sources of water pollution.&#8221; Other reports to state governments contained similar conclusions. For example, CSIRO warned the NSW government in 1997-98 of &#8220;extreme daily rainfall intensity and frequency increases in many regions, particularly in summer and autumn&#8221;. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has made similar remarks regarding the increase in heavy rain events for Australia and other regions in its reports starting in 1990.

CSIRO-BoM set of projections in 2007:
&#8220;Models show an increase in daily precipitation intensity but also in the number of dry days. Extreme daily precipitation tends to increase in many areas but not in the south in winter and spring when there is a strong decrease in mean precipitation."​In situations where there are no rain-bearing systems &#8211; such as in winter in northern Australia and summer in southern Australia &#8211; warmer conditions and a greater water-holding capacity of the air will lead to more rapid evaporation. This will lead to a more rapid onset of droughts, which will become more intense. The combination of heavier rains followed by more rapid onset of drought will likely lead to lots of drying fuel for bushfires, which are likely to become more frequent and intense. So, basic physics and climate models both suggest that a warmer Earth will likely see both more intense droughts and floods over Australia, with some regional differences. The succession of events in the last decade or so is consistent with this prognosis.*


----------



## Bigfoot (Sep 7, 2012)

..and the largest ice sheet in the world by far, the eastern antarctic, keeps on growing in size and dropping in temperature.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 7, 2012)

A chip off the old ice block


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> ..and the largest ice sheet in the world by far, the eastern antarctic, keeps on growing in size and dropping in temperature.



and the largest ice sheet in the world by far, the eastern antarctic, keeps on growing in size and dropping in temperature because of manmade global warming.

There, peer reviewed


----------



## Bigfoot (Sep 7, 2012)

Yeah, kind of inconvenient truth there Old Farts. The largest ice sheet in the world has been growing and cooling for many years. Oh and by the way...it's HUGE when compared to that little ice sheet you call the arctic. See ice.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 7, 2012)

The largest ice sheet in the world is losing gigatons of ice every year. And while it is the largest, the loss of the Arctic Ice is what is affecting the north hemisphere weather at present. Agin, Bigfool, if you are going to make claims, back them up. With something other than someone with no more evidence than you have presented.

A chip off the old ice block


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 7, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > ..and the largest ice sheet in the world by far, the eastern antarctic, keeps on growing in size and dropping in temperature.
> ...



Now, Frankie Boy, I do beleive that you and Bigfool are peers.


----------



## Bigfoot (Sep 8, 2012)

..and the eastern antarctic ice sheet, the largest in the world, keeps on cooling and growing larger.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 8, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> ..and the eastern antarctic ice sheet, the largest in the world, keeps on cooling and growing larger.





> and the largest ice sheet in the world by far, the eastern antarctic, keeps on growing in size and dropping in temperature because of manmade global warming.



Oh dear. 

Antarctic sea ice anomalies have roughly followed the pattern of warming, with the greatest declines occurring off the coast of West Antarctica. East Antarctica sea ice has been increasing since 1978, though not at a statistically significant rate. 

In recent years, ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula and along the northern coast of Canada have experienced rapid disintegration. In March 2008, the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica retreated by more than 400 square kilometers (160 square miles). Later that summer, several ice shelves along Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada broke up in a matter of days.

Quick Facts on Ice Shelves

The total mass of Antarctic ice is actually decreasing. 

If you want to understand why the eastern sa ice is slowly increasing while western ice rapidly drecreasing, here it is:

The general trend shows that a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport more moisture to Antarctica, causing the interior ice sheets to grow, while calving events along the coast will increase, causing these areas to shrink. A 2006 paper derived from satellite data, measures changes in the gravity of the ice mass, suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years.[9] Another recent study compared the ice leaving the ice sheet, by measuring the ice velocity and thickness along the coast, to the amount of snow accumulation over the continent. This found that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet was in balance but the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was losing mass. This was largely due to acceleration of ice streams such as Pine Island Glacier. These results agree closely with the gravity change


Please acknowledge this point.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > ..and the eastern antarctic ice sheet, the largest in the world, keeps on cooling and growing larger.
> ...


Good post but please don't hold your breath waiting for any of these denier cultists to acknowledge any point of fact, no matter how well you substantiate it with scientific evidence. Denying reality is their 'thing', and they aren't going to let you confuse them with the facts of the matter. When you conclusively debunk the errors, lies and misinformation in their posts, they will usually just ignore you and change the subject, sliding off into one of their others myths. They much prefer to live in their rightwingnut fantasy-world, filled with conspiracies theories and anti-science myths about evolution, global warming, vaccines, faked moon landings, gay agendas, Obama's birth certificate and God knows what. I appreciated all the good work you do here to debunk the misinformation and lies that these denier cult dupes parrot at the behest of their puppet master in the fossil fuel industry. It is good that this drivel gets debunked with the scientific facts but don't ever expect to convince any of these cultists that they are mistaken. Deprogramming a Moonie or a Mormon would be a snap in comparison to cracking the denier cultists' shell of delusion and partisan ideological insanity.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


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


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2012)

To all you science dummies................

How Democrats have shifted on climate, energy since 2008


Been saying it for two years..........this shit doesnt matter anymore due to economic realities on the ground. Real always trumps fantasy when it comes down to most things

Only the bonafide k00k alarmist doesnt recognize he's on the escalator down......and sometimes, I split my sides laughing about it when I think of this forum. ANd after November, I'll be laughing even harder!!! The only things these meatheads have to hang their hats on is the next lawsuit!!


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


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


Since you start off with a falsehood, everything that follows may be safely discarded.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2012)

Models?  Did someone say models?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7399/full/nature11014.html

Warming experiments are increasingly relied on to estimate plant responses to global climate change1, 2. For experiments to provide meaningful predictions of future responses, they should reflect the empirical record of responses to temperature variability and recent warming, including advances in the timing of flowering and leafing3, 4, 5. We compared phenology (the timing of recurring life history events) in observational studies and warming experiments spanning four continents and 1,634 plant species using a common measure of temperature sensitivity (change in days per degree Celsius). We show that warming experiments underpredict advances in the timing of flowering and leafing by 8.5-fold and 4.0-fold, respectively, compared with long-term observations. For species that were common to both study types, the experimental results did not match the observational data in sign or magnitude. The observational data also showed that species that flower earliest in the spring have the highest temperature sensitivities, but this trend was not reflected in the experimental data. These significant mismatches seem to be unrelated to the study length or to the degree of manipulated warming in experiments. The discrepancy between experiments and observations, however, could arise from complex interactions among multiple drivers in the observational data, or it could arise from remediable artefacts in the experiments that result in lower irradiance and drier soils, thus dampening the phenological responses to manipulated warming. *Our results introduce uncertainty into ecosystem models that are informed solely by experiments and suggest that responses to climate change that are predicted using such models should be re-evaluated.*​
The models suck.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 8, 2012)

daveman said:


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


Yeah, that's what everybody says about your fraudulent posts, davedumb.

You started off by linking this thread to one of the idiotic ones you started and claiming that you had just "shredded" the claim that climate models do a good job. I pointed out that I had immediately debunked your thread right after you started it. You're too retarded to comprehend what happens so you're in denial about the fact that your OP was a bunch of phony balony from a denier cult blog misleadingly called "CO2Science" that is run by a couple of denier cult wack-jobs. Now, even more idiotically, you're trying to deny that your OP links to a denier cult blog. Here's is the link in your OP: 


daveman said:


> Heavy Precipitation Over the US: Has it Increased as Some have Predicted it Should?


It takes you to this totally discredited "CO2Science" blog.

*Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group*
*"Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change"

$60,000 received from Koch foundations 2005-2010 [Total Koch foundation grants 1997-2010: $85,000]

The Center is run by Sherwood Idso and his sons Craig and Keith, long-time climate science deniers. The Center runs the climate science denial site CO2science.org.*


*FACTSHEET: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Center for the Study of CO2 and Climate Change*

*The Center means of disseminating information, their magazine and website CO2 Science, includes articles both questioning the existence of climate change as well as touting the benefits to the biosphere from carbon dioxide enrichment. All aspects of climate change and its predicted effects - from melting ice caps to species extinction, to more severe weather - are criticized by the Center and either refuted or presented as beneficial. Fred Palmer, head of Western Fuels, said about the center: "The Center's viewpoint is a needed antidote to the misleading and usually erroneous scientific claims emanating from the Federal scientific establishment and adopted by leading politicians, such as Vice President Al Gore." The Center has since tried to distance itself from the Western Fuels Association, however, the Center is run by Keith and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Keith Idso, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Arizona, was a paid expert witness for Western Fuels Association at a 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing in St. Paul, MN, along with MIT's Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling (The Heat is On). According to news from Basin Electr ic, a Western Fuels Association member, Craig Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth." Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association (Basin Electric Latest News no date given). 

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2012)

We need federal funding to deprogram the warmers

How else do you deal with cult members


----------



## westwall (Sep 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > ..and the eastern antarctic ice sheet, the largest in the world, keeps on cooling and growing larger.
> ...







Oh my oh my, the masters of cherry picking are at it again....Below are just TWO of the dozens of sites that show categorically you're full of horse dung.  And one of them is one of your very own warmist sites...FAIL.

"What about the ice mass of Antarctica? Along with land based ice, which can raise sea levels when melted into the ocean, another significant indicator of polar temperature is the extent of floating sea ice. As the above table prepared by researchers at the University of Illinois indicates, the actual sea ice surrounding Antarctica is well above average. The black line represents the last 12 months of sea ice area, based on satellite data. You can see the sea ice reached a peak of 15 million square kilometers around September, during the peak of the southern winter. You can see it dropped to a low of 2 million square kilometers in mid-February, at the height of the southern summer. Currently the sea ice surrounding Antarctica is 7 million square kilometers and rising. The red line, however, is what is significant, because the red line indicates whether or not the sea ice is above or below the historical norm. And as you can see, as of May 2009, Antarctic sea ice is about 1.0 million square kilometers above normal."

The Real Facts on Increasing Antarctic Ice | Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld


 "Antarctic sea ice has shown long term growth since satellites began measurements in 1979. This is an observation that has been often cited by skeptics as proof against global warming. However, in all the skeptic articles I've read, not one has raised the crucial question: why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?"

Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2012)

If we added CO2 to a black hole...well the consequences are just too horrible to even contemplate


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 8, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If we added CO2 to a black hole...well the consequences are just too horrible to even contemplate


"_Black hole_"???.....you must mean the inside of your skull, CrazyFruitcake.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 8, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...


You are, of course, referring to yourself and your denier cult butt-buddies.





westwall said:


> Below are just TWO of the dozens of sites that show categorically you're full of horse dung.  And one of them is one of your very own warmist sites...FAIL.


That's another one of your many delusions, walleyedretard. In fact, neither one of those sites shows anything of the sort. The first site you quoted is a denier cult blog and it is totally full of crap about everything. Your second citation explains why the sea ice is growing slightly around Antarctica due to climate change. Here's the actual facts that debunk the lies and misinformation on that denier cult blog.

*Ice Shelves - Disintegration*
National Snow and Ice Data Center
State of the Cryosphere
(excerpts)
*Over the past several decades meteorological records have revealed atmospheric warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, and the northernmost ice shelves on the peninsula have retreated dramatically (Vaughan and Doake 1996). The most pronounced ice shelf retreat has occurred on the Larsen Ice Shelf, located on the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula's northern tip. The shelf is divided into four regions from north to south: A, B, C, and D. In January 1995, after several decades of warming and years of gradual retreat, the Larsen A Ice Shelf underwent a type of retreat that was, at that time, unprecedented. The breakup pattern in the Larsen A, in which roughly 1,500 square kilometers suddenly disintegrated rapidly into small sliver-shaped icebergs, appeared to indicate a new style of ice shelf response to pronounced climate warming. To the south, the Larsen B saw the calving of a 70- by 25-kilometer iceberg. This ordinary calving event received more public attention but the disintegration event was more significant to researchers studying the area. (See Antarctic Ice Shelves and Icebergs: Events in the Northern Larsen Ice Shelf and Their Importance.) In 2002, satellites recorded an even larger disintegration than what occurred in 1995 (see Larsen Ice Shelf Breakup Events: Larsen B Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica). Between 31 January and 5 March 2002, approximately 3,250 square kilometers of the Larsen B shattered, releasing 720 billion tons of ice into the Weddell Sea. It was the largest single disintegration event in 30 years of ice shelf monitoring. Preliminary studies of sediment cores suggest that it may have been this ice shelf's first collapse in 12,000 years (see Larsen Ice Shelf Breakup Events: Seafloor Evidence of Larsen Ice Sheet Breakup). 

Also on the Antarctic Peninsula, southwest of the Larsen Ice Shelf, is the Wilkins Ice Shelf. In 1998, the northern part of that ice shelf broke up, although the ice fragments remained in place for the next decade. In 2008, three significant breakups occurred. The first breakup began in late February 2008, on the western part of the shelf, between Charcot and Latady Islands. This breakup style was very similar to the event previously seen on the Larsen A and B. The event occurred during the Southern Hemisphere summer, after an extensive melt season, although no melt ponds were observed. Beginning in May 2008, the western part of the shelf underwent further retreat, again in the disintegration style, despite cold autumn surface conditions. Later in June and July, a substantial portion of the northern part of the shelf also broke up. The breakups occurring between May and July 2008 were especially significant because they happened during the Southern Hemisphere's cold season. The Wilkins Ice Shelf had broken up in 1998, but the ice blocks remained frozen in place for a decade, held together partly by the accumulation of snowfall. Radar images acquired in 2008 showed a darkening in the areas between ice blocks, followed by the gradual disappearance of these snowy, icy areas. The 2008 imagery indicated thinning between ice blocks, despite winter conditions, and suggested melting from beneath, due to warm water under the ice shelf. As a result of ice loss to the north, rifts south of the 1998 breakup area began to widen, leading to a series of rapid moderate to large iceberg calvings. Through late winter of 2008, the remaining two-thirds of the shelf stabilized between Latady and Alexander Islands, although fresh cracks appeared on the shelf in late November 2008. In April 2009, the ice bridge connecting the remnant shelf to ice fragments around Charcot Island gave way.*


----------



## westwall (Sep 8, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...








  You so funny!  No one, and I mean NO ONE, reads your mindless drivel.  Whenever a thinking person see's your dolded big print we laugh and pass right over it.  Next time try leaving it normal and you may get a response...if it actually makes sense.

But the crap you post right now....no one even looks at it junior.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> To all you science dummies................
> 
> How Democrats have shifted on climate, energy since 2008
> 
> ...



Interesting article.. I clipped this portion of the DEM platform for later use.. 



> We know that global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation  an economic, environmental, and national security catastrophe in the making. We affirm the science of climate change, commit to significantly reducing the pollution that causes climate change, and know we have to meet this challenge by driving smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean energy generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits.



They think POLLUTION CAUSES Global Warming!!! Or that's what they WANT people to start parroting with the very CO2 being exhaled from their lungs as they say it... They can't FACE the science in the beginning of the sentence without perverting science to end the sentence.. 

These people need to be stopped... If they think that LYING is gonna save their cause -- they must be stupid or desperate or both..


----------



## PredFan (Sep 8, 2012)

Why do democrats hate science I wonder?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 8, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



LOL.  Just too funny. Yes, in 2009, Antarctic sea ice was 1 million square kilometers more than in 1979. But in 2008, it was about the same as in 1979.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png

And if you look at the global sea ice area, you see a dramatic decrease from 1979 to the present. Especially after 2000.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

If you look at the Antarctic sea ice anomoly, it runs from a -1.8 million square kilometers in 1980, to a positive 1.9 square kilometers in 2008. It stands at present at 0.559 square kilometers.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

In the Arctic, the highest postive anomoly was in 1997 at about 1.3 million square kilometers, the negative anomoly was -0.2 in 1980. Since 2005, the anomoly has never been in positive territory, and stands today at -2.435

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

One can see from this graph that the increase of Antarctic sea ice has been about 0.5 million square kilometers.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png

While the loss of Arctic sea ice has been about 3 million square kilometers.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

However, that is sea ice. The continental icecaps, both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice by the tens of gigatons. There is a differance between the sea ice and the continental ice caps, as much as you would like to pretend there is not.


----------



## westwall (Sep 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







How about addressing your sceptical science buddies there olfraud.  Even THEY admit that the Antarctic ice is increasing and has been for YEARS!


----------



## Saigon (Sep 9, 2012)

> Even THEY admit that the Antarctic ice is increasing and has been for YEARS!




Jesus wept. 

How hard can this be to understand?

The amount of ice in Eastern Antractica is increasing slightly. 

The amount of ice in Wesnert Antarctica is decreasingly significantly. 

The total amount of ice is thus falling.

Antarctic ice sheet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read the material and acknolwdge the facts.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 9, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......too funny.....what you're basically saying, Walleyed, is that you stick your fingers in your ears and shout la-la-la-la-la whenever you're shown the scientific evidence that debunks your braindead denier cult myths and superstitions. And then you're deranged enough to fantasize that everyone else is doing the same thing and therefore they aren't aware that you just got your ass kicked again, like you always do in these debates, you clueless bamboozled retard.


----------



## daveman (Sep 9, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


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


If you guys put as much effort into climate science as you do in figuring out who's funding the skeptics, the science really WOULD be settled.  

Yeah.  Meanwhile, still nothing to rebut the science in the article referenced in the OP, huh?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 9, 2012)

daveman said:


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


The science *is* settled, retard. It is so typical of you deranged denier cultists that when the facts are shown to you proving that your sources are corrupt stooges being paid by the fossil fuel industry to push propaganda and misinformation about AGW, you shrug it off with a braindead comment like that one. LOLOLOL. You fools are such gullible dupes.








daveman said:


> Yeah.  Meanwhile, still nothing to rebut the science in the article referenced in the OP, huh?


What traces of actual science there are in your OP are OK, but the misinterpretation and spin supplied by the denier cult blog are totally wacked. The rebuttal of those misinterpretations has already been done, davedumb. *Here* and  *here* for starters.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 9, 2012)

Tuning on the Weather Channel and posting a link to here saying, "See that!? Manmade Global Warming" is NOT how science is done


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 9, 2012)

It's a mild September Day today here in NY (because of AGW, right?)


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 9, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Tuning on the Weather Channel and posting a link to here saying, "See that!? Manmade Global Warming" is NOT how science is done



You heartless cretin.. The GRAPES ARE DYING in Australia !!!



> Australia 2011 harvest 'too big', says winemaker federation | Daily wine news - the latest breaking wine news from around the world | News | decanter.com
> 
> Australia 2011 harvest 'too big', says winemaker federation
> Wednesday 15 June 2011 by Rebecca GibbComments (2)
> ...


----------



## westwall (Sep 9, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > Even THEY admit that the Antarctic ice is increasing and has been for YEARS!
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Yes, Jesus weeps whenever you anti science fanatics open your traps.  The Western PENINSULA is warming very slightly.  The rest of Antarctica is either cooling or remaining steady.

Why, oh why do you find it neccessary to lie about everything?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 9, 2012)

Saigon's information is accurate. Westwall's is not.

Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements
---
Accurate quantification of Antarctic ice-sheet mass balance and its contribution to global sea-level rise remains challenging, because in situ measurements over both space and time are sparse. Satellite remote-sensing data of ice elevations and ice motion show significant ice loss in the range of -31 to -196Gtyr-1 in West Antarctica in recent years, whereas East Antarctica seems to remain in balance or slightly gain mass, with estimated rates of mass change in the range of -4 to 22Gtyr-1. The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) offers the opportunity of quantifying polar ice-sheet mass balance from a different perspective. Here we use an extended record of GRACE data spanning the period April 2002 to January 2009 to quantify the rates of Antarctic ice loss. In agreement with an independent earlier assessment, we estimate a total loss of 190+/-77Gtyr-1, with 132+/-26Gtyr-1 coming from West Antarctica. However, in contrast with previous GRACE estimates, our data suggest that East Antarctica is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of -57+/-52Gtyr-1, apparently caused by increased ice loss since the year 2006.
---

Westwall, you uttered a falsehood when you accused him of lying. Was that due to ignorance on your part, or were you deliberately lying? Either way, you owe Saigon an apology.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 9, 2012)

westwall said:


> Yes, Jesus weeps whenever you anti science fanatics open your traps.  The Western PENINSULA is warming very slightly.  The rest of Antarctica is either cooling or remaining steady.
> 
> Why, oh why do you find it neccessary to lie about everything?



Why, or why could you not find a credibly link to back up your claim?!

It i not only a western "peninsula" - it is Western Antarctica which is warming "significantly". Eastern Antarctica is remaining steady or cooling slightly, and we also know why that is. (explained in th Wiki page linked). 

I linked my facts, and am happy to provide more details here:

Antarctic ice melting from below, reveals satellite (+video) - CSMonitor.com

You won't look at them.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 10, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







but still losing s0n!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 10, 2012)

Mild early September day here in NY, leaves already starting to turn, the hummingbirds probably headed back south today. Last year the hummingbirds didn't leave until the week of Sept 14 ....and I can only assume that AGW played some diabolical part in the unprecedented yellowing of the leaves this early, the mild weather and the hummingbird fleeing in terror at the approach of AGW!

One day, you Warmers are going to get booted to the curb at every real college and University on the planet.

You'll always have East Anglia


----------



## mamooth (Sep 10, 2012)

Let's get back to the point Frank is trying so hard to evade, which is that he and his crank denialist buddies are considered outright laughingstocks over most of planet earth, and are doing their Custer's Last Stand thing here in the USA.

Why is it that nearly every denialist is a right-wing nutball who constantly spouts retarded right-wing conspiracy theories on every topic imaginable? Why, it's because denialism is purely a right-wing political cult. In direct contrast, AGW scientists come from all facets of the political spectrum. And they don't spout deranged conspiracy theories, being they can simply point to the data.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 10, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Let's get back to the point Frank is trying so hard to evade, which is that he and his crank denialist buddies are considered outright laughingstocks over most of planet earth, and are doing their Custer's Last Stand thing here in the USA.
> 
> Why is it that nearly every denialist is a right-wing nutball who constantly spouts retarded right-wing conspiracy theories on every topic imaginable? Why, it's because denialism is purely a right-wing political cult. In direct contrast, AGW scientists come from all facets of the political spectrum. And they don't spout deranged conspiracy theories, being they can simply point to the data.



"".... being they can simply point to the data"" OR any other random act of weather and declare the gods have spoken.. They can declare the MWP not important because they DECLARED it was not global, but a drought in New Zealand -- that's global... 

Those AGW scientists can always chose the BEST numbers from a huge RANGE of possibilities to keep the faith in the theory. And IGNORE actual past climatological history when it doesn't support the theory.. 

They can resolve that Natural forces got us in and out of Ice Ages but don't play any significant role today. They can FLOOD THE PRESSES with headlines about how CO2 is killing the oysters in Washington farms, but never retract the story when science proves them wrong. They can lose, mangle and hide their data with impunity. And they RUSH to use math as a weapon to impress the public with numbers that make no physical sense. 

And they have SUPPORTERS that believe the entire earth is a GIGANTIC fuel-air bomb whose fuse is gonna be lit by a 0.5degC increase in temperature.. YET --- they have so much self esteem that they think they are winning.. 

They are one talented cult.. That's for sure..


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 10, 2012)

Warmists will just make their affected areas ever smaller.

The Antarctic ice is melting.   It's not.  So it's the East Antarctic ice is growing, but it's melting in the West.   Soon it will be "See this little ice berg here, it's melting."

Antarctic ice melts every year.  It melts so much that it all but disappears.  This is another perfectly normal occurrence that the warmist cult points to as evidence of warming.

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is generally considered to be ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. 

In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between antarctic and arctic sea ice exists. Arctic sea ice lasts all the year round, there are increases during the winter months and decreases during the summer months but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 10, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mild early September day here in NY, leaves already starting to turn, the hummingbirds probably headed back south today. Last year the hummingbirds didn't leave until the week of Sept 14 ....and I can only assume that AGW played some diabolical part in the unprecedented yellowing of the leaves this early, the mild weather and the hummingbird fleeing in terror at the approach of AGW!
> 
> One day, you Warmers are going to get booted to the curb at every real college and University on the planet.
> 
> You'll always have East Anglia



LOLOLOLOLOL......oh CrazyFruitcake, you are soooo funny.....bird migration timing is indeed changing due to global warming but once again you've managed to get it ass backwards.

You deluded denier cultists have already been kicked to the curb by every University, Scientific Society, National Academies of Science or other climate research organization on Earth. 

But you'll always have Rush Limpdick.

Meanwhile, here's the facts.

*Climate Change, Increasing Temperatures Alter Bird Migration Patterns*
ScienceDaily 
Feb. 23, 2012  
(excerpts)
*Birds in eastern North America are picking up the pace along their yearly migratory paths. The reason, according to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill researchers, is rising temperatures due to climate change. Using migration information collected in eBird, a citizen science program database containing 10 years' worth of observations from amateur birdwatchers, assistant professor of biology Allen Hurlbert, Ph.D., and his team in the UNC College of Arts and Sciences analyzed when 18 different species of birds arrived at various points across their migration journeys. Since 2002, eBird has collected more than 48 million bird observations from roughly 35,000 contributors. The study results were published in the journal PLoS ONE on Feb. 22.

Hurlbert's team focused on bird species that occur over the entire breadth of the eastern U.S. By reviewing the recorded temperatures and the exact dates on which bird watchers first noticed certain species in their areas, the researchers determined how closely bird migration tracks year-to-year variation in temperature. On average, each species reached various stopping points 0.8 days earlier per degree Celsius of temperature increase. Some species' schedules accelerated by as much as three to six days for each rising degree. To date, the Northeast has experienced more relative warming than the Southeast.*


*Climate Adaptation Difficult for Europe's Birds*
ScienceDaily 
Jan. 17, 2012 
(excerpts)
*For the past 20 years, the climate in Europe has been getting warmer. Species of bird and butterfly which thrive in cool temperatures therefore need to move further north. However, they have difficulty adapting to the warmer climate quickly enough, as shown by new research published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Åke Lindström is Professor of Animal Ecology at Lund University, Sweden. Together with other European researchers he has looked at 20 years' worth of data on birds, butterflies and summer temperatures. During this period, Europe has become warmer and set temperatures have shifted northwards by 250 km. Bird and butterfly communities have not moved at the same rate. "Both butterflies and birds respond to climate change, but not fast enough to keep up with an increasingly warm climate. We don't know what the long-term ecological effects of this will be," says Åke Lindström.*


*Global Warming and Birds*
The Audubon Society


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 10, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Let's get back to the point Frank is trying so hard to evade, which is that he and his crank denialist buddies are considered outright laughingstocks over most of planet earth, and are doing their Custer's Last Stand thing here in the USA.
> 
> Why is it that nearly every denialist is a right-wing nutball who constantly spouts retarded right-wing conspiracy theories on every topic imaginable? Why, it's because denialism is purely a right-wing political cult. In direct contrast, AGW scientists come from all facets of the political spectrum. And they don't spout deranged conspiracy theories, being they can simply point to the data.



Here's you

blah blah blah isolated weather event blah blah man made global warming blah blah blah blah
experiment? we have models! we don't need no stinking experiment blah blah denier!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 10, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mild early September day here in NY, leaves already starting to turn, the hummingbirds probably headed back south today. Last year the hummingbirds didn't leave until the week of Sept 14 ....and I can only assume that AGW played some diabolical part in the unprecedented yellowing of the leaves this early, the mild weather and the hummingbird fleeing in terror at the approach of AGW!
> ...



It's warmer? wtf? really? It was cooler today, but I will let you know if the Hummingbirds read your report that AGW is making it warmer and had they stay longer


----------



## mamooth (Sep 10, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Here's you
> 
> blah blah blah isolated weather event blah blah man made global warming blah blah blah blah
> experiment? we have models! we don't need no stinking experiment blah blah denier!



I've never said anything resembling such things. Frank, you're just a liar.

I thank Frank for that example of how dishonesty is another trait that most in the denialist cult share, and another reason that the denialist cult is held in such contempt by most of the planet.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 10, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Warmists will just make their affected areas ever smaller.
> 
> The Antarctic ice is melting.   It's not.  So it's the East Antarctic ice is growing, but it's melting in the West.   Soon it will be "See this little ice berg here, it's melting."
> 
> ...


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Warmists will just make their affected areas ever smaller.
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 11, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Oh walleyed, you old deluded retard you, when a scientist makes deductions based on the evidence and data, that does not in any way imply a "_fundamental lack of on the ground research_". Once again, your post is nothing but your own delusions.

"_Poor performance of every model_"....LOLOLOLOLOL.....I see you're still wedded to that debunked denier cult myth that you like so much....it's really a shame you're such an imbecile.

*Are the Models Untestable? *
(excerpts)
*Some global warming deniers assert that the global climate models (GCMs) used to analyze and predict climate change can be ignored because they are "untestable" or "have no predictive ability." Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let's review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

* That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
    * That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
    * That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
    * That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.     
    * Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
    * That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
    * The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
    * They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
    * They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
    * The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
    * The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
    * The expansion of the Hadley cells.     
    * The poleward movement of storm tracks.
    * The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
    * The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
    * The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
    * That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.​
Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.

Lots of people have asked me to document both the predictions and the confirmations. Here they are in a couple of tables. Read 'em and weep, Rush.

References for Predictions and Confirming Observations​*

***


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 11, 2012)

Excellent source. Not that Walleyes will ever admit that his nonsense is just that. The melt this year in the Arctic has pretty well shown that the people like Walleyes and Flatulance haven't a leg to stand on. Both predicting cooling and more ice. Now we have another step in the death spiral of the summer arctic ice.


----------

