# Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1



## ScienceRocks (Oct 31, 2013)

*Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000*


> A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.



 Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.


----------



## Politico (Nov 1, 2013)

Cool. More gnarly waves.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 1, 2013)

Matthew said:


> *Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000*
> 
> 
> > A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.
> ...



Well, if those 10,000 yr mud samples from the Pacific can FIND 0.18degC and do THAT with 60 years of TIME RESOLUTION ---- *I'll eat the sediment core sample*.. 

Let's see --- did they survey the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME? 
 --- do they have a proxy as accurate as THOUSANDS of autonomous buoy recorders at all depths? 

C'mon.. Let's get a REAL PAPER on the NEW data from BTK before we launch into all this mudbug stuff..


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 1, 2013)

Did you read the abstract for this one Matthew?? 

It's not all it's press release says it is.. Put the violins on hold..


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 2, 2013)

Ok.. no other comments.. Can we rename this press release then?

*New Study Confirms the Medieval Warm Period was a Global Event with higher Pacific Ocean Temperatures than Today.*

Reposted from Judith Curry is the Abstract Below.. 



> Pacific Ocean Heat Content for the Past 10,000 years | Climate Etc.
> 
> Abstract: Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses *linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters* were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. *Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.* Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.
> 
> ...



THAT --- seems NOT to have been emphasized in these typical AGW inspired, muckraking headlines.. 
This young sector of science is gonna learn some important things about public relations and politics -- versus their reputations as serious scientists.. In a recent poll, only 40% of "climate scientists" thought that the climate proxy studies were convincing evidence, but THESE jerks keep on making claims BEYOND the level of the evidence they uncover.. 

Also from that Judith Curry link... 



> <<Judith Curry comments.. >>
> 
> It seems a substantial portion of the new insights we are gaining (over the past year) are coming from paleo proxy analyses.  The real significance of this is as a baseline for understanding recent climate change, and assessing whether  the recent change is natural or anthropogenically forced.  The flat handle of the hockey stick has been substantially misleading in this regard.  The key issue for AGW detection is to get paleo proxy resolution at decadal time scales.  If the temporal resolution of the paleo time series is a century or lower, but sees an &#8216;uptick&#8217; at the end of the time series, to me this doesn&#8217;t say anything about AGW detection, which at best is detectable since about 1975.



BTW: If this study finds warmer water 1200 years ago at INTERMEDIATE LEVELS, then there is MORE to the BTK "peekaboo" OHC chart that we haven't seen yet. Since this would suggest that OCEAN STORAGE has kicked in many times in the past.. AND with greater results.. 

GREAT STUDY MATTHEW.. Thanks a lot for posting it... TODAY -- I LOVE mudbugs and tree rings. But they should NOT be over-interpreted as accurate proxies for temperatures.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 2, 2013)

Matthew said:


> *Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000*
> 
> 
> > A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.
> ...



Evidence that you've been played for a AGW sucker


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 3, 2013)

BTK 2013 was published by Geophysical Research Letters in Volume 40, Issue 9, pages 1754&#8211;1759, 16 May 2013.  GRL is a refereed, peer-reviewed journal.  The repeated accusations from your side that BTL 2013 is no more than some sort of letter to the editor show only your ignorance or your dishonesty.  Or both.

As to the OP's reference paper: where did you get the idea that ocean temperatures for the last 60 years would be determined in the same manner in which one would determine it for the last 10,000?  We HAVE more than 60 years of BT data.

The BTK results show precisely the same results as do these sediment core analyses: Ocean heat content is rising at an exceptionally high pace.  The Earth's acquisition of thermal energy has not slowed in the least and it has very, very little to do with TSIs.  

The current temperature rise (the last 150 years) does not share causes with the Medieval Warm Period.  So whether or not the MWP was global in extent (which I do not believe to be demonstrated by cores from a single location or even from the northern Pacific extrapolation the lead post's authors make) is irrelevant.  The MWP was not anthropogenic.  The MWP was not caused by GHGs.  The current reality is the product of AGW.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> BTK 2013 was published by Geophysical Research Letters in Volume 40, Issue 9, pages 17541759, 16 May 2013.  GRL is a refereed, peer-reviewed journal.  The repeated accusations from your side that BTL 2013 is no more than some sort of letter to the editor show only your ignorance or your dishonesty.  Or both.



OR -- you left out the most LOGICAL explanation.. Which is that you're not that familiar with Scientific Journal submissions. Please apologize AFTER you learn... 

In the good old days, when REAL scientists prepared their manuscripts with an exacto knife, elmers glue and a couple secretaries --- "Letters" were included in the front sections of "Journals" as sort of the "breaking news" items. BRIEF descriptions of work in progress that were RESTRICTED in length and content. Often, 2 to a page. Later -- some Orgs split their Letter sections and published separately and allowed EXPANSION of the letters (as have the GeoPhys guys).. BUT as you can easily find out from the difference in submissiion rules ---  "LETTERS" are still subject to less rigorous review and completeness.. 

When you strip away the Abstract, Conclusions, References and the charts, there is LESS than 3 pages of description.. GeoPhys DOES publish a JOURNAL --- still waiting for the REAL SCIENCE to be documented there. 

Now's a good place to apologize for the "ignorant or dishonest" comment..  



> As to the OP's reference paper: where did you get the idea that ocean temperatures for the last 60 years would be determined in the same manner in which one would determine it for the last 10,000?  We HAVE more than 60 years of BT data.



Don't think you understand the process of how proxies are validated. A proxy is WORTHLESS unless you continue the data to the Common Era. Otherwise, you have no way to twiddle the data and align it to MEASURED TRUTH. So in the case of THIS mudbug study -- they HAD to see "a blip" indicating the CEra warming. Now that blip is not significant because the proxy has neither the TIME RESolution or the Temp Resolution to accurately resolve the CE data. But it does have to be there to "align" the proxy with CE data.  What the Significance of this study is that when those proxies are ALIGNED with CE data like BTK --- it shows MUCH MORE OCEAN STORAGE occurring in the middle layers of the ocean in the RECENT past. Like say 1000 years ago. But it does NOT have the RES to make specific comments about the DURATION or RATES of that observation relevent to a 50 or 60 year period. Thus the SCREAMING headline for the study is a DEFLECTION from its REAL VALUE. 



> The BTK results show precisely the same results as do these sediment core analyses: Ocean heat content is rising at an exceptionally high pace.  The Earth's acquisition of thermal energy has not slowed in the least and it has very, very little to do with TSIs.



No -- BTK study has a problem..  If the OLDER PROXIES are gonna show MORE OHC just a thousand years ago --  we may never KNOW exactly HOW FAST that heat accumulated or dissipated because of proxy res.. So -- the BTK CLAIM that CE OHC increase is UNIQUE -- is gonna fall on the cutting room floor.



> The current temperature rise (the last 150 years) does not share causes with the Medieval Warm Period.  So whether or not the MWP was global in extent (which I do not believe to be demonstrated by cores from a single location or even from the northern Pacific extrapolation the lead post's authors make) is irrelevant.  The MWP was not anthropogenic.  The MWP was not caused by GHGs.  The current reality is the product of AGW.



That's a problem for YOUR theory to resolve then.. THe LIA might have been TOTALLY a solar cause.. But CO2 does not explain how the middle oceans were 0.5 or 0.65degC WARMER than today. For heat to get "stored" -- there must have been an imbalance. 
And it WASN'T CO2... 

((And as the OP paper asserts -- that heat was THERE for a very long period of time in an otherwise COOL history  of deep ocean temps.))


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 3, 2013)

I chuckle everytime I see that paper summarized as BTK 2013...

Heeeee'sss BACK !!!!!  The Bind, Torture, Kill serial killer. And he's coming to a Journal near you soon.

Betcha Trenberth took second billing just to get that acronym...


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > BTK 2013 was published by Geophysical Research Letters in Volume 40, Issue 9, pages 1754&#8211;1759, 16 May 2013.  GRL is a refereed, peer-reviewed journal.  The repeated accusations from your side that BTL 2013 is no more than some sort of letter to the editor show only your ignorance or your dishonesty.  Or both.
> ...



BTK 2013 is a research paper, not a letter to the editor.  It was peer reviewed by the selected editors of GRL, a peer reviewed, refereed science journal.  No apology coming your way - though my comment about ignorance and dishonesty was not aimed at you.  

I have more than sufficient understanding of the use of proxies in paleoclimatology.  Too bad there's no paleo- in BTK 2013.  The  output of their runs was OHC from 1958 to 2009.  The input was: 


			
				BTK 2013 said:
			
		

> ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalsys fluxes and quality controlled ocean observations.  These consist of temperature and salinity (T/S) profiles from the Hadley Centre's EN3 data collection [Ingleby and Huddleston, 2007], which include expendable bathythermographs (T only, with depth corrections from Table 1 of Wijffels et al. [2008]), conductivity-temperature-depth sensors (T/S), TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA moorings (T/S), Argo pro&#64257;lers (T/S), and autonomous pinniped bathythermograph (or elephant seals, T/S). Altimeter-derived along track sea level anomalies from AVISO are also assimilated. Gridded maps of SST from NOAA are used to adjust the heat &#64258;uxes via strong relaxation, and altimeter global mean sea-levels are used to constrain the global average of the fresh-water&#64258;ux.



Direct temperature measurements as well as measurements of salinity/conductivity and precision local sea level.  No proxies.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 4, 2013)

Where is the JOURNAL LENGTH -- full research description VERSION of BTK? 

I have never seen so much fuss and authority heaped upon a short-cut "LETTER" report.. 

Maybe YOU still don't get the diff between a Letter and a Journal Article.. Because you still are calling it a "letter to the editor" But it IS important. AND there was NOT sufficient discussion in that first publication to replicate or analyze the results.. 

Maybe on PURPOSE? To give the IPCC cover for their failed predictions? To avoid a more intense GENERAL critique of their work? Ask THEM when they intend to write the full Journal submission.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 4, 2013)

Doubling down on the stupid "the ocean ate my AGW" theory


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 4, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Doubling down on the stupid "the ocean ate my AGW" theory



Maybe not "doubling down".. Could be a bluff and a fold..


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 4, 2013)

I don't give a rat's ass what happened during the MWP or the LIA or any other pre-human period.  WE are the cause of the current temperature rise.  All this MWP crap is 100% worthless distraction.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Doubling down on the stupid "the ocean ate my AGW" theory
> ...



It's moving all in with pocket 2s; best case you're looking at a whole deck of overcards


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000*
> ...








Do you want relish with that?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



I stipulate that I get to decide on how to prepare it and the rate of consumption.. I'm thinking lemon, garlic, butter with some herbs... 

Probably pretty healthy dietary supplement... But this is not gonna happen...


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Fine by me.  Have at it.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 4, 2013)

Winter is six weeks away and it's snowing a foot of snow in the Rockies. Let us know when palm trees start growing in Fargo.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 4, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Winter is six weeks away and it's snowing a foot of snow in the Rockies. Let us know when palm trees start growing in Fargo.



As soon as you explain to the rest of us why you equate local seasonal weather variations with global climate.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Winter is six weeks away and it's snowing a foot of snow in the Rockies. Let us know when palm trees start growing in Fargo.
> ...



We all live on the same freaking globe. Surfers in California still have to wear wet suits to ward off hypothermia. Where is all the freaking heat? The dirty little secret is that the warmers use selected data and ignore data that doesn't agree with their agenda. They are getting desperate now that global warming is no longer an issue so the numbers have to go up to keep their low information base happy. If a floating thermometer doesn't give the right reading they put one in a different area until they get what they want. There are stories of warming extortionists placing sensors in black top parking lots and calling the readings "typical".


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2013)

Matthew said:


> *Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000*
> 
> 
> > A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.
> ...








So where's the heat?  If they are going to make such an absurd claim they really should be able to back it up with something...


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 5, 2013)

*Where's the heat?  Are you kidding?
*
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf

*or*

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

*or*

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/ATS421-521/2013/papers/balmaseda13grl_inpress.pdf



*and discussed here:*

="http://tcktcktck.org/2013/03/deep...e-that-climate-change-is-accelerating/49174"]

*and here:*

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/oras4-ecmwf-ocean-reanalysis-and-derived-ocean-heat-content

*and here:*

Hiatus Paper # 2: Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content | Planet3.0

*and here:*

Climate Change Trends at MIT | The Energy Collective

*and here:*

New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated

*and here:*

How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?

Get out much?


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 5, 2013)

whitehall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



I hope you aren't thinking that was a meaningful response.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 5, 2013)

whitehall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



So what you are saying is that you too cannot explain why Whitehall equates local seasonal weather variations with global climate.  I know, it's a puzzle.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 6, 2013)

If it's global how can it be limited to the Pacific ocean


----------



## polarbear (Nov 6, 2013)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000*
> ...




Strange what they call "evidence".
Since when does "may have", "most agree ...that probably has been.." etc qualify as evidence. Another term that appears over and over again in these pseudo science "studies" is "may have been underestimated".
What`s the word "estimated" doing in all these so called scientific studies that claim to be based on evidence such as actual measurements ?
If the oceans warmed up 15 times faster in the past 60 years there is no way this trend could have been hidden from the probes we have been using for now almost 50 years.
They just can`t let go of the hockeystick. If there is no evidence above the surface then it must be in the ocean. If it can`t be found in the oceans then it must be in the depth beyond the reach of our probes.
And the proxy "thermometers" get sillier all the time.
Anything...no matter how absurd, what matters is to keep the dead frog`s legs twitching


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 6, 2013)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Scientists typically underestimate future scenarios and predictions because they are cautious and, believe it or not, conservative in their estimates when there is a relatively high degree of uncertainty. Surely you've heard of what they call in statistics, degrees of freedom, in physics, they have what is called sigma.  The first hint of the Higgs was a sigma 3.  Further data took that to sigma 4.  Sigma 5 is the highest degree of certainty in physics.  They use these benchmarks because NOTHING is certain in science.  There is nothing unusual about this, nor is there anything unusual about climate scientists qualifying their results.  That's what all scientists do.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You're confusing AGW with science


----------



## westwall (Nov 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...









Not climatologists.  They make wild claims unsupported by fact and expect you to give them all your cash.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 6, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



That's an odd accusation, as no climate scientist has ever asked me or, I suspect, anyone I know, for money.  But I suspect that you say that because your denier buddies may have had grant applications denied.  Perhaps your guys ought to get the science right BEFORE they apply for the grant money.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 7, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


Here is the deal we are supposed to "eat":


> Temperature calibration of Mg/Ca ratios in the intermediate water benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica
> Based on error analysis of the calibration data and this validation  test, we show that the uncertainty of reconstructing bottom water  temperature and salinity from paired Mg/Ca and _&#948;_18O measurements of _H. balthica_  is better than *±0.7°C* and ±0.69 practical salinity scale, respectively.  The small uncertainties allow for the reconstruction of seawater  density to better than 0.3_&#963;_&#952; units, which is precise  enough for the identification of specific water masses and  reconstruction of changes in their properties. We propose that the  relatively high Mg content and temperature sensitivity of _H. balthica_  might be due to minor, biologically mediated contribution of high-Mg  calcite to the primarily low Mg calcite test, which is influenced by the  ambient temperature. *This hypothesis, if correct,* suggests that benthic  species with relatively high Mg/Ca *may be* better suited for deepwater  temperature reconstructions than species that have thus far been more  commonly used.


So all we got is yet again an _unproven hypothesis_ and the margin of error is 7 times higher than the  increment "measured" with this method.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


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



That is what's on the menu here. It kinda stretches the credulity of "empirical evidence". 

You would THINK that any proxy like that can only be validated against ONE TRUE observation. Which is the modern temperature record.. If the mudbug's shells predict the last 100 yrs of VERIFIED temperatures ---- you have ONE empirical observation. 

HOWEVER -- you can get MANY OTHER empirical looks at the truth data if you can find that mudbug shell somewhere else in either warmer or colder waters AND you have a valid truth table of OBSERVED temps for that different area. 

The MAJOR problem you run into with ANY EMPIRICAL VALIDATION is the temporal resolution.. The modern TRUTH data in temperatures for mid or deep oceans is WAY shorter than the real time resolution of proxy. You will NEVER KNOW exactly how accurate the proxy really is if it came from a few looks at sediment cores.. 

I'm sure you COULD validate that way.. At least thru the natural habitat range of that one specie. So why isn't that DONE BEFORE we launch into sweeping generalizations about finding "hidden heat" in the mid-oceans? Or making news with wild ass pronouncements of how "unprecendented" this false crisis really is?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 7, 2013)

I assumed it came from the paper we are discussing in this thread's OP.. 

Why don't you check there ---BEFORE you try to accuse?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


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



So, did you pull that quote from thin air, your own arse, or a bona fide peer reviewed science paper?  Hard to tell since you didn't provide a source.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 7, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I assumed it came from the paper we are discussing in this thread's OP..
> 
> Why don't you check there ---BEFORE you try to accuse?



I have a better idea. Ursa the dick can cite his source(s) like everyone else instead of insisting that others go searching to them.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 7, 2013)

Big chunks of Hawaii have slid off into the ocean in the past. I watched part of a documentary that showed huge part of the main island that looks like giant stairs. Its where big sections are moving toward the ocean at 4" every year. They were explaining that global climate change is a causative factor in the movement speeding up. 

Worst case scenario isn't just that sections of the islands would disappear. Its that these sections are as large as Connecticut and would cause a tsunami that would pretty much wipe out much of the west coast. One scientist said it could be 300' feet high or higher.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Since when does "may have", "most agree ...that probably has been.." etc qualify as evidence.



Since Francis Bacon and the birth of the natural sciences.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> Not climatologists.  They make wild claims unsupported by fact and expect you to give them all your cash.



Funny that you and P Bear have diametrically opposed observations of the exact same document.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Here is the deal we are supposed to "eat":
> 
> 
> > Temperature calibration of Mg/Ca ratios in the intermediate water benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica
> ...



What we have here is an unattributed quote.  It did NOT come from the article to which the lead posts links.  Where DID it come from?  No telling.  So... for now, this is worthless bullshit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Since when does "may have", "most agree ...that probably has been.." etc qualify as evidence.
> ...



Ya Know -- I DO read most of your posts in the science forums. But I had to take a double-take at your name to make sure this was the same Abraham who YESTERDAY WROTE:



> http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...e-may-last-for-20-more-years.html#post8106498
> 
> 
> I don't know about you, but their repeated use of the term "hypothesized" (and "contender" and "appear" and "traces") makes me think this idea is being thrown out for discussion and is a GREAT LONG WAYS from refuting AGW.



Did ya not know about Francis Bacon YESTERDAY?


----------



## westwall (Nov 7, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









Odd acusation?  In light of this?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the deal we are supposed to "eat":
> ...



Not worthless bullshit.. Not even Bearshit.. 

SAME Lead Author --- SAME specie used as a proxy as in the OP study.. 
Came from HERE.. 



> Temperature calibration of Mg/Ca ratios in the intermediate water benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica - Rosenthal - 2011 - Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems - Wiley Online Library
> 
> Temperature calibration of Mg/Ca ratios in the intermediate water benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica
> 
> *Yair Rosenthal1*, Audrey Morley2, Christine Barras3, Miriam E. Katz4, Frans Jorissen



The OP study is ------ 
Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years
.
*Yair Rosenthal*, Braddock K. Linsley, Delia W. Oppo

Learn to research --- that took me 45 seconds.. Lessen the shitting..


----------



## polarbear (Nov 7, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



You can`t be all that smart if you have no clue where it was from ..and no it was not from "skeptical science" where all your quotes are from.
Besides I`m not the one who posted this wild ass guess mud bug temperature crap that you defended without even knowing how the so called "calibration" was done... 
Had I added the URL, then you would have* never admitted* that you had *no clue how* this so called calibration was done, but would have kept pretending that you knew !  
The first thing anybody else but dimwits like you would have done is to investigate how the author of this mud bug hypothesis came up with these numbers.
Not you!....
All you had to go on was this sensational media release article:
Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000
With a picture of somebody in front of a microscope hand picking a sample and that was enough to impress you..
Seeing how ridiculous the error margin of this "calibration" is it`s no wonder this article does not want to discuss it.
And you would not want to know anyway, because you can`t handle the truth. Without fail you & the rest of the doomsday occult act as if somebody butchered your Easter bunny every time garbage such as this gets debunked....and all the while pretend that you understood the "science"....
Again and again it can be shown that without Google and Wiki you haven`t got a snowball`s chance in hell.
Now that your ignorance  has been established I`ll show you how easy it was to find the details where the devil is *as always* and that they pulled these numbers out of their ass and stuck them up your`s...it`s easy because you assume the position every time "skeptical science" gets a hard-on.
*Let me google that for you*

How long have you been using Google?...by now you should have known how it`s done..unless of course your "science literature" is confined to "skepticalscience".com and the bullshit links you keep feeding us over and over again.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


> You can`t be all that smart if you have no clue where it was from



Would that have been an appropriate response when you folks rejected the BTK ocean heat content graph I posted for perhaps the tenth time but failed to include a link to its source?  

It did not come from the article linked to by the lead post in this thread.  If it came from somewhere else, you need to tell us where.  Otherwise, it's just useless bullshit. 



polarbear said:


> You can`t be all that smart if you have no clue where it Had I added the URL, then you would have* never admitted* that you had *no clue how* this so called calibration was done, but would have kept pretending that you knew !



Wow!  You can predict the future!  And you actually think that means SOMETHING!

Tell you what Mr Bear.  Fuck you and the weasel you rode in on.  You haven't refuted jack shit except the unsupportable contention that you have some idea what you're talking about.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 7, 2013)

Why just the Pacific Ocean?


----------



## westwall (Nov 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > You can`t be all that smart if you have no clue where it was from
> ...




\



You post a graph that has no possibility of being taken seriously.  The ERROR bars are greater than the instruments can measure, or did that FACT escape your pointy little head?


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> Odd acusation?  In light of this?




Your second graph there makes an interesting claim: "Almost all show Earth hotter than it is... some by as much as 1C".  However, the last observation value reads about 14.2C (unidentified reference) yet no datum in the assembly of model predictions exceeds 14.9 at that point.  Someone seems to have a problem with basic math.

As to the value of your CO2 vs temperature graph, a discussion of climate trends would be better served by a longer view.  Something like:






As an added bonus, note that the dip in CO2 level about 1940 PRECEDES the drop in global temperature.

When you choose a narrow period over which to make claims, you'd best be ready for a charge of "CHERRY-PICKING".  Before you can even think about making claims based on the last 15 years, you need to provide a working explanation for the last 150.  You have not done so.  The current hiatus has not exceeded the natural variability demonstrated in the climatic record.  The world is still getting warmer and the primary cause is human GHG emissions.  That's accepted science.  And attempting to use tabloid articles to counter that accepted science is simply and truly pathetic.



westwall said:


> You post a graph that has no possibility of being taken seriously.  The ERROR bars are greater than the instruments can measure, or did that FACT escape your pointy little head?



What graph are you talking about?  The BTK 2013 OHC graph has been taken quite seriously and I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding what you mean when you say "The error bars are greater than the instruments can measure".  I was unaware that bathythermographs in common usage were troubled by restrictive upper limits.  Would you care to explain?  For that matter, would you care to show us what graph you're actually talking about?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 8, 2013)

So we're done discussing THIS proxy study that shows SEVERE ISSUES with the BTK assumptions? 

And Abe wants to go back and rehash the BTK study because somehow -- the historical data they present is somehow BETTER and STRONGER than THIS study? 

My head is spinning because EVERY THREAD starts looking the same after 2 pages. This happens because nobody wants to discuss ALL the science and assertions.. Just what they've been TOLD is important..


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> So we're done discussing THIS proxy study that shows SEVERE ISSUES with the BTK assumptions?
> 
> And Abe wants to go back and rehash the BTK study because somehow -- the historical data they present is somehow BETTER and STRONGER than THIS study?
> 
> My head is spinning because EVERY THREAD starts looking the same after 2 pages. This happens because nobody wants to discuss ALL the science and assertions.. Just what they've been TOLD is important..



Blather one if you must, but Abe HAS been discussing the science all along. In fact, he has consistently discussed the science even while the rest of you wallow in your ad hominem.


----------



## westwall (Nov 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So we're done discussing THIS proxy study that shows SEVERE ISSUES with the BTK assumptions?
> ...







"Science" ..........that has been proven faulty you mean, don't you....


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> So we're done discussing THIS proxy study that shows SEVERE ISSUES with the BTK assumptions?



How about providing a reference somewhere for your pronouns.  When you say "THIS proxy study",  I cannot tell to which study you refer.



flacaltenn said:


> And Abe wants to go back and rehash the BTK study because somehow -- the historical data they present is somehow BETTER and STRONGER than THIS study?



Again, what study is "THIS study"?  I mention the BTK data because it clearly supports a conclusion that ocean heat content has accelerated in recent decades.



flacaltenn said:


> My head is spinning because EVERY THREAD starts looking the same after 2 pages. This happens because nobody wants to discuss ALL the science and assertions.. Just what they've been TOLD is important..



You want to discuss ALL science and ALL assertions in each and every thread?  Let us know how that works out for you.

And Orogenicman, I appreciate your support, but if you're going to characterize me as being pure science all the time, you're going to have to ignore several harsh epithets I've thrown out now and then.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> "Science" ..........that has been proven faulty you mean, don't you....



What science do you believe has "been proven faulty"?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > "Science" ..........that has been proven faulty you mean, don't you....
> ...



How is it only in the Pacific Ocean?


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 9, 2013)

It's not, Frank. It's global.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So we're done discussing THIS proxy study that shows SEVERE ISSUES with the BTK assumptions?
> ...



I don't think I suggested that you aren't human.


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I chuckle everytime I see that paper summarized as BTK 2013...
> 
> Heeeee'sss BACK !!!!!  The Bind, Torture, Kill serial killer. And he's coming to a Journal near you soon.
> 
> Betcha Trenberth took second billing just to get that acronym...



Bind, Torture, Kill is what they want to do to the economies of the entire Western world..."for our own good", of course.


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I don't give a rat's ass what happened during the MWP or the LIA or any other pre-human period.  WE are the cause of the current temperature rise.  All this MWP crap is 100% worthless distraction.



When dealing with a cyclical system, it helps to know what happened during previous cycles.

But thanks for proving yet again you're simply not serious about science.


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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


You found a picture of a sediment core.  You DIDN'T prove how it fits Fla's condition:  "if those 10,000 yr mud samples from the Pacific can FIND 0.18degC and do THAT with 60 years of TIME RESOLUTION ".


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000*
> ...


The heat in the oceans is hiding as humidity.


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



They've not been cautious nor have they been conservative.  The models have vastly overestimated the amount of warming.

Global Warming Slowdown: The View from Space « Roy Spencer, PhD







The models suck.


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Tell you what Mr Bear.  Fuck you and the weasel you rode in on.  You haven't refuted jack shit except the unsupportable contention that you have some idea what you're talking about.



He did, actually.  Your acknowledgement is not required.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Odd acusation?  In light of this?
> ...



You keep repeating the same crap over and over again much like  a mindless Tibetan prayer mill. The only difference is that your prayer mill came from "skepticalscience.com".

This time you even decided to award yourself... "As an added bonus, note that the dip in CO2 level about 1940 PRECEDES the drop in global temperature",...which in no way meets your 150 year qualifier that you employ when the sequence of events is reversed, as it has been for over 15 years now.
Temperature anomalies could not be determined anywhere near the precision 150 years ago as what we set as a minimum standard for the few decades  since the late 60`s when started to use satellite remote sensing technology.

Even now, with better technology the entire "average global temperature" idea is still as flawed as the earlier methods which have been used to support it.

Looking at the crap you write in here every day, starting ~ 4:30 am till late night it`s clear that you have no idea how your climate doomsday bible stories were created.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html


> The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)
> Q. _What exactly do we mean by SAT ?_
> A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer    this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground    may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and    different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the    presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the    vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of    the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average    temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above    the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what    it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or    generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot    imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers    to be able to find the true SAT at its location.
> Q. _What do we mean by daily mean SAT ?_
> ...


Which  is the basis for this dirty  trick:



> *Using anomalies  means missing data such as this will not bias the temperature record.*


Idiots like you will never realize when you`ve been had.
This isn`t science, it`s just fodder designed to be digested by a bunch of sheep heads  with voting rights.
"missing data will not bias the temperature record"....
The word "bias" is one of the spin doctors favorite persuasion  tools.
All it took was to build the magic word "bias" into that statement and idiots like you swallow it hook line and sinker.
Aside from AGW con-artists there is *nobody else *who would *conduct studies in a way so that "missing data" does not affect the outcome.
Which also means you can make the outcome of such a "study" to be whatever you want it to be.
*But you just don`t get it do you?










.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 9, 2013)

You realize you never addressed the point under discussion.

For the last 150 years, temperature has been following CO2.

BTW, I haven't been to Skeptical Science in weeks.  Believe it or not, there are actually OTHER websites that have accurate information about climate change.


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> You realize you never addressed the point under discussion.
> 
> For the last 150 years, temperature has been following CO2.
> 
> BTW, I haven't been to Skeptical Science in weeks.  Believe it or not, there are actually OTHER websites that have accurate information about climate change.








Actually he DID.  Why oh why can't you keep up?


----------



## polarbear (Nov 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> You realize you never addressed the point under discussion.
> 
> For the last 150 years, temperature has been following CO2.
> 
> BTW, I haven't been to Skeptical Science in weeks.  Believe it or not, there are actually OTHER websites that have accurate information about climate change.


Actually I have addressed "the point under discussion", which was not if temperature followed CO2 or what happened for the last 150 years.
The 150 years etc rant *was your idea.*
 What makes you think that we don`t notice that you change "the point under discussion" every time you get cornered. Nevertheless I did respond to it 


> As an added bonus, note that the dip in CO2 level about 1940 PRECEDES  the drop in global temperature",...*which in no way meets your 150 year  qualifier that you employ when the sequence of events is reversed, as it  has been for over 15 years now.*
> Temperature anomalies could not be determined anywhere near the  precision 150 years ago as what we set as a minimum standard for the few  decades  since the late 60`s when started to use satellite remote  sensing technology.


but you refuse to admit that yet again you got caught contradicting yourself.
For some weird reason you assume that you can rule the debate by excluding evidence to the contrary, or that it`s up to you to define a new "point of discussion" whenever you get caught re-posting that same old bullshit from "skepticalscience.com".
Whatever else you read or call "information" is your problem but most of the time the URL`s and the wording pointed to  your usual "source".
Very untypical response this time! I expected you to have the usual fits and brain seizures that produce stuff like "F-off" etc
What happened?
Did you get your "affordable care" meds- prescriptions refilled?
So now you want to discuss if CO2 leads temperature.
Last time I looked I can`t help but notice that it did not do so for 15 years in a row and the only time you say it did was around 1940.
That`s during WW2 and I doubt very much that there were a bunch of "climate scientists" dodging flak, bombs and artillery fire risking their lives and limbs in order to collect CO2 & temperature data to "save the planet" from a plant food overdose.
I think the Met-offices round the globe had other priorities during that tumultuous time. Don`t you ?


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> You realize you never addressed the point under discussion.
> 
> For the last 150 years, temperature has been following CO2.
> 
> BTW, I haven't been to Skeptical Science in weeks.  Believe it or not, there are actually OTHER websites that have accurate information about climate change.


Funny how CO2 has been following temperature since the beginning of time, isn't it?

Since Man started emitting CO2, I guess it just got _stronger_.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 9, 2013)

nobody cares


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 9, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You realize you never addressed the point under discussion.
> ...



If you warm the world, you'll get CO2: from melted tundra, increased anaerobic breakdown and decreased oceanic carbonate solubility.  But that doesn't alter the fact that CO2 will make the world warmer.  

For a good part of the Earth's history, CO2 DOES follow temperature increases caused by other means.  But, as Marcott (of Marcott and Rahmstorff) found, once the process has begun, CO2 comes to lead temperature in almost every case.  That is, something causes the Earth to warm: a solar maximum, an orbital variation, extreme vulcanism....the added warmth causes CO2 in the atmosphere to build up.  The CO2 begins to trap solar energy and after a few hundred years pass, it is that greenhouse effect that drives the continued warming.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> \
> Actually he DID.



No, he didn't.  He launched himself, unaided, into his classic "such things can't be measured with sufficient accuracy" routine.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 9, 2013)

What has happened to the Haiyan thread?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



Nice story..  except for the absence of all the other climate driving parameters.. How could you leave for instance,  the DOMINATE GHGAs out of your fairytale version of how climate works?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 9, 2013)

daveman said:


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



He seemed a bit incontinent, so I offered him an out.


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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








No, they didn't.  Their methodology was shown to be false.  Furthermore the CO2 lag is hundreds of years.  No empirical evidence has EVER been presented to support your crap.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 9, 2013)

daveman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I chuckle everytime I see that paper summarized as BTK 2013...
> ...



If you want to follow the money in your little conspiracy theory, I suggest you take a close look at what the Petro-chemical industry is spending it on.  Guess what?  It ain't on economic or weather-related disaster relief.


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> What has happened to the Haiyan thread?






It got hijacked by you morons.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 9, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't give a rat's ass what happened during the MWP or the LIA or any other pre-human period.  WE are the cause of the current temperature rise.  All this MWP crap is 100% worthless distraction.
> ...



We have, and there is no evidence that either the MWP or the LIA is cyclical.  Next.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 9, 2013)

daveman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 9, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Roy Spencer sucks.  Try again.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



What?  You are allowed to do it but he isn't?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Sure, Jake


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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


...except when it doesn't.

Reality steadfastly refuses to cooperate with your doomsday cult.  Oh, well.


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So...you got nothin'.

I'd be surprised, but I know better.


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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


Really?  Are they claiming the only thing that can save us is world socialism?

Meanwhile, follow your cult's money.  Start with Hansen.


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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


Yet, oddly, climate is cyclical.

Do keep up.  Taking notes helps.


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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


Can't recognize mockery huh?  Yeah.


----------



## daveman (Nov 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


No need.  You saying Spencer sucks, no matter how hard you stamp your feet, is not a refutation.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 9, 2013)

It is kindergarten simple.  The climate scientists of the world are in agreement.  AGW is happening right now and will get worse. 

The politicians of the world are in total disarray. WTF?  You expect us to fix that? What are you crazy? Deny,  deny,  deny. Kick that can down the road. Maybe future politicians will be smarter.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You mean you don't know what they are claiming?  Oh dear.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Can't keep track of the discussion, eh?  Abe dismissed MWP and the LIA, and you spouted misdirection:  Neither of those phenomenon are cyclical.  Whether or not global climate is cyclical does not get you out of the fact that that the anthropomorphic changes happening in modern times are both unprecedented and a warning.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I recognize stupidity.  Congratulations, you're it.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Everyone knows that the models did not predict the current temporary hiatus warming OVER LAND.  That Spencer cited the obvious doesn't make him special.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 10, 2013)

I know of no models that predicted the increase in OHC either.  Six of one, half a dozen of the other.


----------



## IanC (Nov 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I know of no models that predicted the increase in OHC either.  Six of one, half a dozen of the other.



models predicted the tropical hotspot, which never appeared.

models didnt predict OHC increase, which (supposedly) did.

models predicted arctic sea ice melt, but at far lower levels than what actually happened.

models predicted antarctic sea ice melt, but instead it increased.



at every turn the models are mistaken yet a large contingient here think they are proof of an upcoming catastrope. odd, that.


----------



## IanC (Nov 10, 2013)

as to the OP-

the proxy data are limited in resolution. you cannot splice one type of data with another of different resolution, and then conclude that the higher resolution shows 'the highest rate of change' ever. low resolution data by definition washes out the variance. try running the CET data with a hundred year filter and see how close to a straight line it is.

also, an interesting point to ponder is that apparently the OHC is lower now than it has been for most of the last 5000+ years. people think that the oceans are getting ready to boil while the proxy evidence suggests that it is very cool and has only recently started to warm up again. is that the message the media is putting out to the public?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

The energy of incoming radiation in excess of outgoing is going somewhere and will be stored in earth's systems somewhere until AGW restores balance.  Every year that proceeds, in imbalance, will store more energy here and require more AGW to correct.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

There is another word for atmospheric energy. 

Weather. Thats the main mechanism earth has, to deal with energy.  

The recent typhoon (hurricane) in the Philippines is now expected to have killed more than 10,000 people. 

Did that cure any of our energy imbalance caused by GHGs resistance to OLR? . None.  It moved it through various earthly systems where it continues to reside. 

Only higher climactic temperatures can correct the imbalance that fossil fuel use brought upon us.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I know what they're claiming.  I also know they're investing in renewables research.

And why did you snip the bit about Hansen's profiteering from AGW?  Get a little to uncomfortable for you?


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 I said climate is cyclical.  And it is; this is not even debatable.  Abe laughably tried to refute this idea by mentioning the MWP and the LIA.  You backed him up.

Is the climate cyclical?  NOTE: The only possible correct answer is "Yes".


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Nothing is more curious than the almost savage hostility that humor excites in those who lack it.

-- George Saintsbury


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


The models suck.  But you guys just keep bitterly clinging to them.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You suck.  Math works.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Not when it's applied incorrectly -- as in the climate models.  

Did you see the graph?  Did you see how far off they were from real-world observations?

Reality is the benchmark.  If your models can't meet the benchmark, they've failed.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Do you?



			
				caveman Dave said:
			
		

> I also know they're investing in renewables research.



Until people stop looking, then they cancel those programs.  It's a PR stunt, nothing more.



			
				caveman Dave said:
			
		

> And why did you snip the bit about Hansen's profiteering from AGW?  Get a little to uncomfortable for you?



I don't quote bullshite.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 10, 2013)

Matthew said:


> *Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000*
> 
> 
> > A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.
> ...



Yes, the evidence that warmers are getting desperate.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The reality is that models give a range of possible futures.  Spencer's graph plots the low end of what those models plot.  You didn't notice that several of the model plots were close to his plots?  Huh.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Yes.


orogenicman said:


> caveman Dave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





orogenicman said:


> caveman Dave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You misspelled "things I hate but can't factually refute".

You're dismissed.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You didn't notice that most of them were far too high?

Huh.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Really?  



orogenicman said:


> caveman Dave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				caveman Dave said:
			
		

> You misspelled "things I hate but can't factually refute".
> 
> You're dismissed.



No, it is not misspelled.  It simply isn't the Americanized version of the word, mate.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Do you understand the concept of "range"?  Right?  Like not everyone on the planet is the height of Michael Jordan, right?  You do understand that science is not static?  Right?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Only if you believe that models should do long range predictions, of largely chaotic systems, precisely. 

Science is much more attuned to using sophisticated statistics to pry useful trends from noisy data.  

Way above your pay grade,  and mine.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> The models suck.




Take a look at Spencer's graphic.  Look where he starts the model runs.  BEFORE 1975. After over 37 years he gets a fraction of a degree error.  

Wow...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > The models suck.
> ...



Reality says your models are way off


----------



## westwall (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








No, the models give pre-determined ranges, all of which are high.  There is no model that comes in with a low range.  Furthermore ANY number you punch in results in a warming graph.  That means that your computer models are totally and completely worthless.  Any model that has a built in bias is not a model at all.  It is a tool of propaganda and nothing else.  

Science doesn't have pre-determined results.  Politicians and frauds....do.


----------



## westwall (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









*"THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED"* sounds like YOU think science is very static olfraud.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



What pre-determined ranges?  Models pump out results based on the parameters they are modeling and the algorithms they are using.  The results are not known before hand.  If you believe there are no models on that graph with a low range, then you aren't looking at the same graph I am looking at.  Any number one punches in results in a warming graph?  Really?  You've been drinking too much of this stuff:






That means that your argument is worthless.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Hundreds of scientists worked on the new IPCC report, so naturally you believe that former DJs and massage therapists trump hundreds of real scientists.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Yes.  Really.  Hint:  It's not what you progressives tell each other.

You're stupid and gullible.



orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > I don't quote *bullshite*.
> ...


And yet, you have utterly failed to refute anything.  Imagine that.

Oh, and I forgot to mention earlier -- is "caveman" the best you've got?  I've been hearing it for the 10 years I've been going my "daveman" on message boards.

And I bet you thought you were being original.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



It sounds like you believe that all science is either fixed or unknown. 

There things that are fixed,  things that are unknown and things everywhere in between.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Then perhaps you can provide some information showing the models are correct.

Good luck with that.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Yeah, you're right.  I can't refute stupid.  I can only point to it and laugh.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


The models have consistently failed to predict PAST temperatures.

If they can't predict what we know already happened, they're useless for predicting the future.

Period.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > The models suck.
> ...


How do the models compare to reality?


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


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


In case of a discrepancy between reality and climate science, reality is wrong.

Or so the cultists keep saying.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Perhaps you can explain why you apparently believe that a scientific model is anything other than a tool to help scientists figure out if their hypotheses are on the right track.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I accept your surrender.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Are the models on the right track?

If they consistently fail to match with reality, they are not on the right track.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Why would they need to?  We have at least a dozen proxies and other direct and indirect methods for making past temperature determinations.



			
				caveman Dave said:
			
		

> If they can't predict what we know already happened, they're useless for predicting the future.
> 
> Period.



Red herring.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The fact that you believe that someone is winning and someone is losing demonstrates your level of immaturity by believing this to be nothing but a game.  Oh dear.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Models are predictions of the future.  They are the statistical analysis of possibilities of how the excess energy stuck here by GHG concentrations will resolve itself and the impact on our weather as that happens.  

They're not perfect, but you have nothing.  Just what you wish was true with no support at all for it.  

The fact that excess energy is building in earth's systems is known,  certain and will not change. How it ends up creating the warming necessary to rebalance energy is being studied.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



11 Hurricane models used by the National hurricane center frequently are all over the place, and yet the trends they make often are accurate enough to give emergency planners enough time to implement emergency responses.    Every one of the climate models in question show the same trend.  And the trend IS the correct one.  And I for one think it is high time ignorant shits like you shut the fuck up and let the response planners start doing their jobs.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

Deniers are going to deny until modeling can precisely emulate weather everywhere on earth for many years ahead and many past.  

Of course by then mankind will have moved on from fossil fuel use and the climate will be whatever those final decades of use have created. In other words way too late. 

That's why even discussions of climate science with deniers of it is a waste of time. 
They are incapable of understanding it and prefer their mythology.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Deniers are going to deny until modeling can precisely emulate weather everywhere on earth for many years ahead and many past.
> 
> Of course by then mankind will have moved on from fossil fuel use and the climate will be whatever those final decades of use have created. In other words way too late.
> 
> ...



No... I disagree.  I think they are perfectly capable of understanding it (at least most of them).  I am convinced that they CHOOSE to go with their falsehoods.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


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



Orders of magnitude better than ANY model that doesn't assume AGW.

Do you _really_ not see my point?  I just posted a note that contended you DO understand what all this means.  Are you going to prove me wrong that quickly?


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


So...you don't give a shit if the models are accurate, as long as they give you the answer you want.

Tell me more about how you love science.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


If you had something to refute the claims that the models are inaccurate, you'd present it.

You haven't.  So you don't.  And I know this will come as a shock to you, but your say-so is not compelling.

Bring something, or STFU.  It's that simple.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


So, you believe the predictions based on the modelling are accurate, even though the models can't predict what we know happened in the past.

Magical thinking.  That's all it is.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Yes, we know you hate that people are allowed to disagree with you.

Tough shit for you, huh?


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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


And that's the problem right there.

AGW "science" starts off with the assumption that AGW is fact.

That's not how science is done.  Period.


Abraham3 said:


> Do you _really_ not see my point?  I just posted a note that contended you DO understand what all this means.  Are you going to prove me wrong that quickly?


Your problem is I DO understand what all this means.  I understand it better than you, actually.  

I understand the science is flawed and, as you just admitted, it starts off with the conclusion.

I understand why the people advocating AGW are doing so...and it has nothing to do with "saving the planet".  

I understand that increasingly your conclusions are being proven wrong by reality...and YOU understand it, too.  That's why you're more and more emotional.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



It`s easy to prove you wrong, the problem is that people like you are unable to accept scientific proof which is based on actual & measured data and yields real correlations. Your lot is hell bent to average everything that is not ppm CO2 & temperature to death, till it`s a constant "average" value, which is then plugged into these garbage in/garbage out computer models.
Thus you keep insisting it`s CO2 that drives temperature first and foremost.
You got your heads buried far too deep in your own bullshit while "climate science estimates" have been "updated".  
Here is what the IPCC stated in the AR4:
1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science


> Between 1902 and 1957, Charles Abbot and a number of other scientists  around the globe made thousands of measurements of TSI from mountain  sites. Values ranged from 1,322 to 1,465 W m2, which encompasses the *current estimate* of *1,365 W m2*
> 
> 
> Tett et al., 1999; Cubasch and Voss, 2000) suggest that the changes in  solar radiation could cause surface temperature changes *of the order of a  few tenths of a degree celsius. *


There are tons of data, but none of that will ever appear on one of these dumb blogs you keep quoting:








Take another  look  at solar irradiance & temperature @ 1940...you know the data point you tried to use in order to "prove" that CO2 leads temperature !

If you only trust reconstructions that re-inforce your CO2 psychosis and have an issue with solar irradiance reconstructions there is much more recent data that show the same nearly perfect correlation...
Column1 = the date and #5 = TSI [watts/m^2]
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

Scroll down column 5 and keep track how far off the "current estimate" is, which these milkmaid math computers models have been plugging in.
I can`t find even a single occurance of 1365 [watts/m^2] most are at ~ 1360 to 1361.5 which is the highest one listed.

It takes a real  idiot to try find the 1.6 watts/m^2 "missing heat" in the ocean`s depth while the IPCC`s "estimate" has been *5 watts/m^2 too high * for the entire time period and data set since  it has been logged with ERBS, ACRIM-III, VIRGO, ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

Pffft.  Changes in temperature are caused ONLY by man-made CO2.  That star in the neighborhood has NOTHING to do with it.

And if you hear of someone dying of heatstroke, that's a lie by BIG OIL.  They REALLY died from too much CO2.


----------



## westwall (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








I thought you claimed to BE a scientist?  The climate models ARE the hypothesis you nimrod.  And they have utterly failed.  As daveman pointed out, they can't even do a hind cast with perfect knowledge of all the variables involved.  Why is that?

The logical answer is because they have a built in bias.  What does it mean, in science I mean..when there is a built in bias?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



"they can't even do a hind cast with perfect knowledge of all the variables involved."

Thus assumes that we have records of every variable affecting weather in every place on earth over the past decade. 

I have the feeling that you have no idea how ridiculous that assumption is. 

There is no doubt that the only significant change in climate forcing in modern history is increasing GHG concentrations from burning fossil fuels.  It is the only variable that we have any control over. 

So why would we study anything else????


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



*Thus assumes that we have records of every variable affecting weather in every place on earth over the past decade. 

I have the feeling that you have no idea how ridiculous that assumption is.*

Not as ridiculous as assuming we know every variable over the next 100 years.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You're right. We don't need to.  We only need to know about what's changing and what we have control over.  Atmospheric GHG concentrations.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Hurricane models are as accurate as they NEED TO BE.. When it comes right down to it, the FORCING variables for MOVING a storm just may be TOO WEAK to GET a prediction. 
You can often see those 11 models diverging RADICALLY from one another, because the MAGNITUDE of the steering currents is just not large enough.  (which is a lesson for the AGW modelers, when they selectively choose a WEAK predictor of climate change as their star variable)


OTH --- The AGW models were never meant to explain or model the climate system. We know very little actually about how heat is transported or how to predict the known CYCLIC events that are currently stumping the models. The stupider thing about AGW models is that they ATTEMPT to model the ENTIRE GLOBAL SYSTEM --- rather than make more accurate predictions just about the Poles, or Tropics or the Cont. USA. This is because climate science is in a rush to validate a GLOBAL EMERGENCY -- not push scientific knowledge. Which is why I'm a fan of EVERY researcher out there that DOESN"T think the climate is driven by CO2. THESE are the dudes/dudettes who understand that CO2 is not even the DOMINANT GHGas..


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Yes, because EVERYTHING ELSE in the atmosphere and oceans is static.  Nothing ever changes but manmade greenhouse gases.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Actually,  most things change every second.  Just not over the long term,  and big picture.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


At least you admit your complete ignorance of science.  You're the perfect AGW cultist.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



And you're a perfect idiot.  Trying to solve science problems with politics. 

Ridiculous.


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You even get THAT wrong.  That's what the AGW cult is trying to do.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The IPCC pretty much invented climate science.  Fox propaganda pretty much invented denialism. I know which side I'm on.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 With all the hot air being on the Atlantic side in Washington, it's no wonder the Pacific is chilling. And to borrow some of your upcoming thunder ahead of time, "prove it isn't true." 

You really need to lighten up, PMZ.


----------



## westwall (Nov 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Ummmmmm, we're not the ones trying to pass legislation that will control every facet of peoples lives.  That's YOU ASSHOLES!  That's politics dipshit.  Not us.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 10, 2013)

polarbear said:


> It`s easy to prove you wrong



Then why do you fail to do so?



polarbear said:


> the problem is that people like you are unable to accept scientific proof which is based on actual & measured data and yields real correlations.



Just for starters and cause this is just about my favorite nagging point: there's no such thing as proof in the natural sciences.  Secondly, I have no problem accepting proper applications of the scientific method.  That's why I tend very strongly to accept the views of mainstream science.  You're the one that is rejecting all the actual evidence out of hand.



polarbear said:


> Your lot is hell bent to average everything that is not ppm CO2 & temperature to death, till it`s a constant "average" value, which is then plugged into these garbage in/garbage out computer models.



I have done no such thing.  Models make use of lots of averages and integrals and running means and average standard deviations and floating norms and RMSs because the have to; the world is a very big place.



polarbear said:


> Thus you keep insisting it`s CO2 that drives temperature first and foremost.



The world's climate scientists tell us that CO2 is the primary driver because that is what their calculation tell them.  And, as I have told you before, you're just going to have to pardon me for preferring their word to yours.



polarbear said:


> You got your heads buried far too deep in your own bullshit while "climate science estimates" have been "updated".



Your babbling.



polarbear said:


> Here is what the IPCC stated in the AR4:



Yes.  I've read it



polarbear said:


> Between 1902 and 1957, Charles Abbot and a number of other scientists  around the globe made thousands of measurements of TSI from mountain  sites. Values ranged from 1,322 to 1,465 W m&#8211;2, which encompasses the *current estimate* of *1,365 W m&#8211;2*



That's an 11% range of values.  Yet modern measurements show less than 3% in the 11-year cycle and less than half that in the last century's change.  I'd say this was an indication of some crap data pre-satellite.  Funny how much that sounds like something you'd say about some dataset we 'warmers' had presented.



polarbear said:


> Tett et al., 1999; Cubasch and Voss, 2000) suggest that the changes in  solar radiation could cause surface temperature changes *of the order of a  few tenths of a degree celsius. *



Tett (Gambassa - Ammon Tuimaualuga - web document - (Tett et al. 1999) was suggesting TSI changes affected global temperatures in the early part of the century.  His paper fully accepts and supports AGW.

Cubasch and Voss were talking about the 11-year cycle when they mentioned a temperature change of a few tenths C.  The two of them have spent the last several years working on SOLVO: "The aim of this project is to investigate the solar influence on climate with a GCM recently developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, USA. The model is the first that has been designed specifically to investigate the interaction between radiation, chemistry and dynamics from the Earth's surface to the thermosphere (140 km). The close collaboration with NCAR's experienced model team ensures the realization of the project which adds new aspects to previous work with GCMs looking for the mechanism of Sun-climate interactions."

Neither of these folks have said anything that would alter the current understanding of AGW.  All three of them accept AGW as settled science.  

So... where's your proof?



polarbear said:


> There are tons of data, but none of that will ever appear on one of these dumb blogs you keep quoting:



I've seen these plots in numerous locations.  They are not being repressed.



polarbear said:


> Take another  look  at solar irradiance & temperature @ 1940...you know the data point you tried to use in order to "prove" that CO2 leads temperature !



Surprising that you would bring that up.  At that point point in time, CO2 levels dropped and, within two years, temperatures dropped.  TSI, on the other hand, chose that point in time to accelerate an upward climb.  So, what correlation are you seeing?



polarbear said:


> If you only trust reconstructions that re-inforce your CO2 psychosis and have an issue with solar irradiance reconstructions there is much more recent data that show the same nearly perfect correlation...



Changes in TSI do have an effect on global temperatures but they're small ones.  The actual changes in TSI over the pertinent time period simply have not been large enough to have caused the observed warming.  



polarbear said:


> Scroll down column 5 and keep track how far off the "current estimate" is, which these milkmaid math computers models have been plugging in.
> I can`t find even a single occurance of 1365 [watts/m^2] most are at ~ 1360 to 1361.5 which is the highest one listed.



That's right.  Cause if you look at the TSI sources to which the IPCC refers, you will see the change over the last century has been much smaller than some earlier estimates - the estimates you and FCT like to use.



polarbear said:


> It takes a real  idiot to try find the 1.6 watts/m^2 "missing heat" in the ocean`s depth while the IPCC`s "estimate" has been 5 watts/m^2 too high  for the entire time period and data set since  it has been logged with ERBS, ACRIM-III, VIRGO, ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II.



I am uncertain what you're trying to say here.  If you're suggesting that BTK did not find a sharp recent rise in OHC, I would have to say you're full of __it.  If you're trying to say something else, you're going to have to make yourself a little more comprehensible.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Why?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Not us.  Our business is progress.  There are many obstacles to progress.  Ignorance.  Irresponsibility.  Bigotry.  Apathy. Self centeredness. 

We take things on rather than run from them. Don't worry.  We'll carry you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> Ummmmmm, we're not the ones trying to pass legislation that will control every facet of peoples lives.  That's YOU ASSHOLES!  That's politics dipshit.  Not us.



What legislation?

What facets of whose lives?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ummmmmm, we're not the ones trying to pass legislation that will control every facet of peoples lives.  That's YOU ASSHOLES!  That's politics dipshit.  Not us.
> ...



Anarchy is big in these parts. For its compatability with irresponsibility and ignorance.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Gee, another red herring.  Want some tartar sauce with that?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



It isn't my job to refute your claims.  It is your job to convince me that your claims have any merit.  And so far all I've seen from you is a lot of redneck bravado and not a lot of documentation.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > It`s easy to prove you wrong
> ...



The IPCC FABRICATED a different method of calculating TSI change since 1750. One the IGNORES all of the documented evidence. It is based on pure deceit to *take the TSI values WITH the solar cycle variations sitting on TOP of that curve*. Why? I could explain it but you chance of understanding. Anyone who's CAPABLE of understanding it -- I'd be glad to discuss this dishonesty and fraud. 

We are only looking for 0.12% SHIFT in TSI to explain ALL of the warming. OR we are looking for modulations of the SHAPE of the solar insolation spectrum. MINOR shifts in HOW much solar energy occurs in different bands could FULLY explain additional heating. We KNOW for instance that UV values have increased GREATLY compared to other bands. If that energy shifted from the IR bands without changing the TSI --- you could still end up heating the surface MORE than enough to account for the warming. We need 20 or 40 more years of satellite data before we can even OBSERVE how "constant" the solar constant really is....


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Go ahead, Lucy, 'splain.  (This should be good).  Oh wait, that was your explanation.  Yes more data is always good.  But to suggest that we don't have enough solar data, well that's just not a good argument to make.  We have more high quality solar data that we've ever had, far more than other types of data, in fact.  To continue to make this argument that it is the sun that is the problem, particularly when it appears to be heading for a log-term minimum, is not just silly, it is unwarranted.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



For you ---- I will.. The TSI values are different from the zero baseline "sunspot activity" proxy for TSI.. When you look at the SORCE/TIM curve (for example, back one page in PBear's post) you can see the cyclic 22 yr solar cycles superimposed on top of the increased baseline. It's the AVERAGE of that TSI over more than 300 yrs that has increased by 1.2W/m2 --- NOT the latest yearly value wrt to 1750. The IPCC IGNORED EVERYTHING ABOUT the long term trend and baseline to derive a number that is MINISCULE in comparison to the actual AVERAGE increase. They did this by using the LATEST YEARLY VALUE (which coincides with a relative low solar period of time). The cyclical solar cycle portion of the curve is a large percentage of the ABSOLUTE --- and that's how they lied. 

The thermal mass and inertia of the Earth is too large to equalize to new temperature in a few years. We know that now since your climate heroes JUST NOW DISCOVERED that the earth STORES heat. (bless their slow uptake on that "discovery" 20 yrs into the debate and MUCH after they declared "the science is settled"        ). 

As for needing more data --- of course we do.. There were ever only 2 or 3 REAL TIME sat measurement packages and 2 of those are now defunct. And we never even got data over a COMPLETE solar cycle.. You  cannot accurately measure TSI from the earth surface. Because the atmos you're trying to study is in the way. 

And you totally ignored my observation about SPECTRAL composition of the solar insolation which also needs to be measured from space. More data IS REQUIRED.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Here is what you are conveniently ignoring:


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

All a bunch of crap.  A giant red herring.  There is only one significant change going on that we can do something about.  Atmospheric GHG concentrations.  It restricts OLR, creating energy imbalance for planet earth. There is only one possible response. Warming.  Warming until OLR balances incoming solar.  

Everything else is bullshit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Don't throw skepticalscience shit at me.. At least pull that data from a reputable source. Note they cut the comparison halfway into the TSI runup since the 1700s.. That's dishonest.

I'm not ignoring anything.. In fact, I KNOW FOR CERTAIN, that *the earth's climate system contains elements that virtually guarantee that the resulting temperature DOES NOT HAVE TO MATCH the shape of any particular input forcing function*.. THe entire concept of looking for 2 curves that match is Sesame Street. 

For example, Does your gas furnace get hotter the higher the thermo setting to outside temp ratio gets? Of course not.. The amount of additional heat/min stays the same. It just STAYS ON for longer. Any Linear system with an integral in it will CONTINUE TO RISE in response to an input imbalance.. Basic systems theory.

The climate models are tainted BECAUSE they expect the output shape to match the input forcing function shape. If you create a thermal imbalance by raising the source to a level that it is EXCESS to the thermal loss rates --- EVEN IF --- the input stalls and remains at that level --- the output temp curve will CONTINUE to increase. 

Take another look at those curves you posted. WHEN did the TSI RISE and stall? About 35 or 40 years ago. *You want a PLAUSIBLE explanation for the halt in observed surface temps?* Whoooops ---- there it is.. Takes that long for a WHOLE GDam planet to reach a new thermal equilibrium. Only silly shit like AGW theory expects that to happen OVERNIGHT. Just so the output curve can be curve-fit to the input forcing function.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Don't throw science,  facts, at me.  My mind was made up before,  and I'm certainly not going to change it now.  For any reason.


----------



## westwall (Nov 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ummmmmm, we're not the ones trying to pass legislation that will control every facet of peoples lives.  That's YOU ASSHOLES!  That's politics dipshit.  Not us.
> ...







What's a "carbon tax"?  Explain in detail.

What are "eco-friendly houses"?  And who is supposed to live in them?

That's a good start.  Let's see what you come up with.


----------



## westwall (Nov 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Yes, we know.  That's the problem with you anti-science deniers.  No amount of scientific information will sway you from your quasi-religious faith.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 10, 2013)

westwall said:


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



I assume that some day you will supply us with some science that shows some possibility that GHGs in the atmosphere have some effect other than AGW. That will win you the day.


----------



## westwall (Nov 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








I don't have to.  It's YOU that has to prove your case.  That's how science works.  Your total and complete, abject, failure is why you are trying to recast the null hypothesis method (like right now) which you are failing at.  Like everything else you clowns try to do.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Right.  Hundreds of real scientists are wrong, but a DJ and a massage therapist have it figured out.


----------



## daveman (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



But you DON'T know it's the wrong side.


----------



## daveman (Nov 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


No, it's not a red herring.  It's what you said.

I can understand your desperation to backtrack.  You made yourself look quite silly.


----------



## daveman (Nov 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I proved my claim.  You responded with "Nuh-UH!!"

That don't cut it. My claim stands.


----------



## daveman (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> All a bunch of crap.  A giant red herring.  There is only one significant change going on that we can do something about.  Atmospheric GHG concentrations.  It restricts OLR, creating energy imbalance for planet earth. There is only one possible response. Warming.  Warming until OLR balances incoming solar.
> 
> Everything else is bullshit.


Bless your heart.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 11, 2013)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The only thing you've proven is your own desperation.


----------



## daveman (Nov 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You sure do get emotional, don't you?


----------



## IanC (Nov 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers are going to deny until modeling can precisely emulate weather everywhere on earth for many years ahead and many past.
> ...




And I disagree with you....most people on both sides of this debate are mathematically illiterate and therefore unable to separate the wheat from the chaff. they pick a side and a few ideas and then stonewall.

for example- konradv and PMZ have chosen the CAGW side and their cornerstone argument is that CO2 absorbs some longwave radiation and sends half of it back to the surface where it increases temperature in a substantial way. because their thinking is unsophisticated, they would rather dismiss anyone who brings up confounding issues as simply a 'denier' or 'conservative' who can be easily ignored.

wirebender and SSDD are the same type of one-trick-ponies who chose the other side and used a distorted (mis)understanding of the second law of thermodynamics as the bedrock of their argument. 

itfitzme is perhaps one of the most dangerous types of posters because he offers up simple equations that are mathematically correct but conceptually wrong. time series analysis is much more than just picking out a correlation for a single factor.

polarbear on my side is prone to putting up a blizzard of numbers and equations that are irrelevent to the topic at hand. he is the only one on this board that I would accuse of deliberate deception but then I am harder on skeptics than warmers.


one of the most common mistakes here is the inflated credibility given to proxy studies and the seemingly careless acceptance of them being compared to recent direct readings. just because 'climate science' gets away with it in pal review, that doesnt mean it is correct. it baffles me that none of the warmers here seems to understand the flagrant abuse of science behind 'Hide the Decline'.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

IanC said:


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



You certainly have been offered many chances to answer the admittedly simple question,  where does the excess energy go?  You keep chasing the energy around the globe and assume that after a while it gets tired and sneaks out the back door or just lays down and goes to sleep.  But physics says it's conserved.  It's here until warming sends it by the increasing every day atmospheric GHG concentrations into space. 

The answer to where does it go and how does it get there is an amazing adventure and worthy of your self described superior intellect but in the end the answer must be it goes into warming until energy in and out get rebalanced.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

A good example is the recent grossly fatal Philippines typhoon.  The worst storm ever there.  

How much energy was consumed by it? 

None.  It's all still here.  It was merely moving from where it was to where it is.


----------



## Meister (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You're almost there.....the IPCC invented "politicized climate science".  Big difference between the two.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Fox invented climate politics,  the IPCC,  climate science. 

"politicized climate science" is an oxymoron.


----------



## Meister (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So what you're saying is that the polluters just need to redistribute the wealth to third world countries, and that would make things right.  
Fox invented nothing of the sort, PMZ
And, no, "politicized climate science" is not an oxymoron.
Now get back to your echo chamber for your next talking points.


----------



## westwall (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> A good example is the recent grossly fatal Philippines typhoon.  The worst storm ever there.
> 
> How much energy was consumed by it?
> 
> None.  It's all still here.  It was merely moving from where it was to where it is.









  "worst storm ever"  What a laugh.  While this most recent storm was terrible it is far, far from the worst ever.  

You're a poor excuse for a propagandist, that's all I can say.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



The answer to the question,  who will spend the most  moving to sustainable energy,  is dead simple.  Those who value energy the most.  They have no option. 

Fossil fuels are unsustainable.  Do you know what that means?  They are,  and always have been, a temporary solution.  That's why those that profit from them pay Fox to politicize their use. They want that to be a secret until the last carbon containing molecule has been profited from. 

Smart countries won't,  and aren't, waiting for that supply and demand debacle to materialize. 

It's called proactive problem avoidance and it far and away the least expensive transition alternative.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > A good example is the recent grossly fatal Philippines typhoon.  The worst storm ever there.
> ...



That's why I said worst storm ever THERE,  which it was.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 "proactive problem avoidance"

Project much?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 11, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Redistribute to third world countries?  Much of the world's oil is located in THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES.  If there is anything that is politicized, it would be oil!


----------



## polarbear (Nov 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



No matter what you show them they`ll keep quoting "skepticalscience.com" and none of them notice when they`ve been had yet again.
He pulled that idiotic graph of this web-page without listing the URL where they said it;  hoping everybody is as stupid as he is...unable to track it down.
IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
As usual their graph stops at 2000 after which their crap assertions turn out to be just that, CRAP...not just there but for the entire PMOD data set.


> _Figure 2: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, *1979 to 2009 from PMOD), with 11-year running averages*._


According to that garbage web site solar irradiance has been "dropping"  since 1980 from 1366 [w/m^2] by about 0.25 [w/m^2] ...and according to  them stayed down there.


And if you go to see what PMOD lists from 1979 to 2009 you`ll get the picture how easy it is to fool the same idiots over and over again with blatant falsifications:





"Skepticalcience.com" is quite confident that none of the suckers who get their "information" from their web site would ever even bother to check up & verify their version with the original publication.

It`s a wonder they haven`t been slapped across the face with a defamation suit....then again why should any of the authors of the studies they falsify bother with an insignificant loony-web site which is feeding on the paranoia of their dimwitted clientele.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Not at all.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 11, 2013)

Never seen a chart from skepticalscience that isn't obviously buggered. 
But the IPCC number for solar forcing is sheer fraud. 

There was a confrontation between ACRIM II engineering and support staff and the Climate Clowns. The clowns started to apply all manners of corrections to the instrument that were not in any way justified. They will do everything they can to bugger the measurements and the evidence.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

It's tough when you stake your reputation on something that proves to be false.  

Skepticalscience merely reports on and explains the findings of the IPCC.  And that creates all of this derision from people who were wishing for reality to be different.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 11, 2013)

Odd that PD claims that the graph stops at 2,000, then posts the description of that graph (Figure 2) which shows that the graph stops at 2009, not 2000.  Even stranger still is his claim that I didn't provide a link to the graph because I was trying to make it hard for people to find the source.  The source was rather obvious, since all one has to do is right click on the graph and read its url under the properties dialogue, a fact of which I am certain he is aware. Strangest of all, he posts the link to skepticscience.com which is full of information that completely contradicts his own lame argument.  Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 11, 2013)

Talk about dense..  That graph from the sphincter of skepticalscience is fraudulent in more than one way.. Why don't we address that first? THE DATA IS FORGED and cut-off at 1880 ON PURPOSE to obscure the bulk of the rise from the 1700s.. 


Satellites show no decline around 2010 anyway NEAR what your criminal clowns invented. You approve of MANUFACTURING data? 
THAT'S what PBear pointed out.. Don't CARE what excuses and lies these creeps have at that webpage.. I've seen enough to impeach them forever.. Prove me wrong. What SOURCE did they quote for their phoney TSI graph?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Talk about dense..  That graph from the sphincter of skepticalscience is fraudulent in more than one way.. Why don't we address that first? THE DATA IS FORGED and cut-off at 1880 ON PURPOSE to obscure the bulk of the rise from the 1700s..
> 
> 
> Satellites show no decline around 2010 anyway NEAR what your criminal clowns invented. You approve of MANUFACTURING data?
> THAT'S what PBear pointed out.. Don't CARE what excuses and lies these creeps have at that webpage.. I've seen enough to impeach them forever.. Prove me wrong. What SOURCE did they quote for their phoney TSI graph?



Your vendetta is the moral and intellectual equivalent of an old fashioned book burning. 

Destroy that knowledge because it's counter to what authorities want people to believe. 

IT'S HERESY I TELL YOU AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE IT ARE HERETICTS! 

What a streaming,  stinking pile.


----------



## Meister (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's tough when you stake your reputation on something that proves to be false.
> 
> Skepticalscience merely reports on and explains the findings of the IPCC.  And that creates all of this derision from people who were wishing for reality to be different.



You might be on to something if there wasn't the manipulation of the data.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's tough when you stake your reputation on something that proves to be false.
> ...



Here's your chance to present some evidence.


----------



## Meister (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Bone up on the leaked emails, dude.  Just google it....


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



This passes for evidence in your circles?


----------



## daveman (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Your vendetta is the moral and intellectual equivalent of an old fashioned book burning.
> 
> Destroy that knowledge because it's counter to what authorities want people to believe.
> 
> ...


Indeed it is.
Blog: Academic warmists celebrate book burning at San Jose State University

Global-warming skeptics are sick and must be treated, says prof

?Execute? Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ?At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers? ? ?Shouldn?t we start punishing them now?? | Climate Depot

Howard Dean on climate change deniers: ?Run ?em over?

Blog: Al Gore compares global warming skeptics with racists, apartheid supporters, and homophobes

Columnist says that global warming skeptics 'should have their houses burnt down' | Mail Online

The AGW cult is scary.  Dangerous.


----------



## daveman (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


When the manipulators are admitting they're manipulating the data, yes, that's evidence here in reality.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 11, 2013)

Of course they manipulate data.  It's necessary. That's why the world's scientists weren't flipped out by the stolen emails.  They fully understood that the parties involved weren't doing anything they weren't supposed to do; that they didn't have to do, to make their conclusions as accurate as possible.

Remember the ARGO floats.  Your side of the camp was very happy with their initial results.  They seemed to show that the ocean wasn't warming at all.  That didn't jibe with a lot of other observations, but that didn't seem to make much difference to a number of denier pundits.  Then it was finally figured out that the floats had a significant bias in their temperature readings.  What did they do about it?  They began MANIPULATING the data to bring their readings back to accurate values.

The same is true almost  everywhere.  Data gets manipulated to make it MORE accurate, not to achieve some proprietary goal.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Your vendetta is the moral and intellectual equivalent of an old fashioned book burning.
> ...



If you are afraid of science but comfortable with mythology,  that means that you are what's called a primitive.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Of course they manipulate data.  It's necessary. That's why the world's scientists weren't flipped out by the stolen emails.  They fully understood that the parties involved weren't doing anything they weren't supposed to do; that they didn't have to do, to make their conclusions as accurate as possible.
> 
> Remember the ARGO floats.  Your side of the camp was very happy with their initial results.  They seemed to show that the ocean wasn't warming at all.  That didn't jibe with a lot of other observations, but that didn't seem to make much difference to a number of denier pundits.  Then it was finally figured out that the floats had a significant bias in their temperature readings.  What did they do about it?  They began MANIPULATING the data to bring their readings back to accurate values.
> 
> The same is true almost  everywhere.  Data gets manipulated to make it MORE accurate, not to achieve some proprietary goal.



Denialists have no use for data.  It almost always conflicts with their mythology. It's just too inflexible.


----------



## westwall (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...






No, no it's not.  And by a fairly long way.


----------



## westwall (Nov 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Of course they manipulate data.  It's necessary. That's why the world's scientists weren't flipped out by the stolen emails.  They fully understood that the parties involved weren't doing anything they weren't supposed to do; that they didn't have to do, to make their conclusions as accurate as possible.
> 
> Remember the ARGO floats.  Your side of the camp was very happy with their initial results.  They seemed to show that the ocean wasn't warming at all.  That didn't jibe with a lot of other observations, but that didn't seem to make much difference to a number of denier pundits.  Then it was finally figured out that the floats had a significant bias in their temperature readings.  What did they do about it?  They began MANIPULATING the data to bring their readings back to accurate values.
> 
> The same is true almost  everywhere.  Data gets manipulated to make it MORE accurate, not to achieve some proprietary goal.










  Yes, fraudsters will rationalize every facet of their falsification of data to support their pre-determined* PROPRIETARY GOAL.*


----------



## daveman (Nov 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Of course they manipulate data.  It's necessary. That's why the world's scientists weren't flipped out by the stolen emails.  They fully understood that the parties involved weren't doing anything they weren't supposed to do; that they didn't have to do, to make their conclusions as accurate as possible.
> 
> Remember the ARGO floats.  Your side of the camp was very happy with their initial results.  They seemed to show that the ocean wasn't warming at all.  That didn't jibe with a lot of other observations, but that didn't seem to make much difference to a number of denier pundits.  Then it was finally figured out that the floats had a significant bias in their temperature readings.  What did they do about it?  They began MANIPULATING the data to bring their readings back to accurate values.
> 
> The same is true almost  everywhere.  Data gets manipulated to make it MORE accurate, not to achieve some proprietary goal.


Wow.  Just...wow.


----------



## daveman (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I love science.  I'm uncomfortable with your mythology.

Because some of you cultists are insane.  And violent.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The strongest tropical cyclones in world history
Super TyphoonYearWinds, mphmbLandfall?
Nancy1961215882Made landfall as a Cat 2 in Japan, killing 191 people
Violet1961205886Made landfall in Japan as a tropical storm, killing 2 people
Ida1958200877Made landfall as a Cat 1 in Japan, killing 1269 people

Haiyan2013195895Made landfall in the Philippines at peak strength.

Kit1966195880Did not make landfall.
Sally1964195895 Made landfall as a Cat 4 in the Philippines.

From   http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/nov/08/typhoon-haiyan-philippines-tropical-cyclones


----------



## PMZ (Nov 11, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You love science but don't believe it?? 

We keep asking for some little shred of science that supports what you wish was true.  So far,  nothing. 

Will this be your big revelation? 

Start with GHGs.  Why are they called that?


----------



## Meister (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Do your homework, I'm not going to do it for you.  Your post is just deflection from something you don't want to admit as true.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 11, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Your vendetta is the moral and intellectual equivalent of an old fashioned book burning.
> ...


Excellent links, Daveman. Isn't it funny how the very person who screams "prove it" etc. does not understand what is known and continues on as though the truth does not exist anywhere but on his talking points sheet from a corrupt group of fact-jumpers.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 11, 2013)

Do you believe the vast majority of the world's active climate scientists make up or are involved in a cult?

Do you think that thousands of PhDs have an interest in physically punishing those who disagree with them?

[Just saw your response to my last post to you.  Not much of a response, but it was something]


----------



## westwall (Nov 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Not even close monkey boy....  

http://www.typhoon2000.ph/stormstats/PhilippineTyphoons1566-1900.pdf


The Selga Chronology, 1348-1900


----------



## westwall (Nov 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Do you believe the vast majority of the world's active climate scientists make up or are involved in a cult?
> 
> Do you think that thousands of PhDs have an interest in physically punishing those who disagree with them?
> 
> [Just saw your response to my last post to you.  Not much of a response, but it was something]








No, I believe that 74 climatologists are so dependent on public largesse that they will lie through their teeth to keep the gravy train running.  They are merely lazy criminals.  You though, and your fellow clones, you are either just as dependent, or you are religious cultists...or you're just plain crazy.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 11, 2013)

When you have a MAJOR climate scientist writing colleagues suggesting that they need to radiacalize the ipcc process even more........  Its time to admit ..... its an extortionion ring. Not a scientific venture.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...








But of course, you have no problem with the real crime that was committed - the hacking of secure government servers.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they manipulate data.  It's necessary. That's why the world's scientists weren't flipped out by the stolen emails.  They fully understood that the parties involved weren't doing anything they weren't supposed to do; that they didn't have to do, to make their conclusions as accurate as possible.
> ...



Of course, never having calibrated or used a scientific instrument in your life, you are well informed to come to that conclusion - IF you want to be seen as a friggin idiot.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe the vast majority of the world's active climate scientists make up or are involved in a cult?
> ...



As opposed to the 'geniuses' who are pushing the agenda you support - a former DJ and a massage therapist.


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And you have no problem with what WAS in those emails?  Of course you don't. 
Just keep drinking the orange Kool-Aid, dude.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

Meister said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Still zero evidence to support what you wish was true.  None.


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Look it up on this message board, there are several threads on this very subject.  But like a true leftwing nut, you would like someone do it for you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No -- actually I don't.. If the govt thinks it can ignore my Rights and hack my papers and communications --- then I ENCOURAGE that we take measures to monitor THEM as well. 

In fact -- I've suggested that the big new Spy Palace we are building for the NSA in Utah be taken over and repurposed into a citizen led program to spy on every GOVERNMENT employee..

Private employers have that right. Citizens do also....


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



There are none.  I've looked.  There is spin in attempts to create what is not there.  That's not evidence, much less proof,  that the IPCC is not the most reliable source of climate science on the planet. 

It is evidence of propaganda attempted by those who profit from the status quo.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Our enemies have tried since day one to do what you want.  To cripple our government in attempts to weaken us. 

If by "ignore my rights"  you mean your Constitutional rights,  they've never been breached. 

If you mean your self described and self serving want, to impose what's best for minority politics on others,  I hope that will always be prevented by our laws


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What the Global Warming Emails Reveal - WSJ.com
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes
New leak of hacked global warming scientist emails: A 'smoking gun' proving a conspiracy - or just hot air? | Mail Online
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=0
Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - Taking Liberties - CBS News
Global warming hoax exposed by "Climategate" - Columbia Independent | Examiner.com
Global Warming Emails Give Rise to Climategate - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com
Global Warming a Hoax
EMAIL LEAK: Global Warming Researchers Caught Doubting Their Own Claims - Business Insider
Global warning: New Climategate leaks ? RT News

*I hope you don't want me to read them to you. *


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



A Kool-Aid drinker would believe your drivel.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You are such a person. The kool aid of make more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's time for you to hit the sandbox, sonny.  You are moving your posts all over the place, try and stay on topic


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Gramps,  I don't like snake oil salesmen like you.  Every time that you set up your stand to screw the rubes,  I'll be in your face. Get used to it.


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Sorry, sonny, your not tall enough to be in my face.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Gramps,  you forget that you rarely leave your chair now.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2013)

Meister said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Since no wrongdoing was ever found, whatever point you thought you might have had, is not only moot, but at least four years past getting over.  Do you have OCD, or what? Oh, and none of which has anything to do with the validity of AGW.  Speaking of drinking the kool aid, why is it you folks are the only ones who even talk about it?  You apparently can't help yourself when it comes to being a party to an open smear campaign against climate scientists orchestrated and paid for by the  fossil fuel energy sector, and yet never discuss one of the REAL crimes, the fact that someone hacked into secure government servers.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



They are volunteers for big oil recruited by Fox Propaganda.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Oh gee, you'll have to explain to me what hacking into UK government-university e-mail servers has to do with the NSA spying on you (allegedly). Are you willing to allow others to view YOUR e-mail?  No?  Then what gives you the right to read the private e-mail of anybody else?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Actually, you moved the goalpost when you diverted the conversation with your lame four year old refuted arguments about the fabricated e-mail gate, arguments nobody cares about.  Care to get back on topic now?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



I'm on quite solid ground here. As you should know, the original charter of NSA was to FREELY spy on foreign entities and foreign citizens. They are allowed maximum to do this in the cloak of national security. This affair being an International cartel designed to control and influence public policy and scientific output is adequate justification for interested parties to "spy" across national boundaries.

*University emails ARE NOT PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS*.. They are property of that entity. That ENTITY is funded with public money.. They work FOR US. ESPECIALLY if that university is largely funded thru tax dollars. 

It's becoming clear that citizens can no longer TRUST the govt with issues of either privacy or oversight. So to get accountability, many folks have determined that (for instance) the US Congress couldn't investigate or manage a grade school yardfight. If my tax dollars are being used to fund devious practices that affect public policy -- I expect I have the right to form or hire INDEPENDENT investigation of those activities. 

Now that aside -- you can CLAIM that "no wrong-doing was ever found".. But the CLEAR EVIDENCE of wrong-doing is now in the public domain.. Asterism put it right under your nose. REASONABLE people declare all that to be "wrong-doing". Tho not illegal, those acts of collusion and conspiracy and academic fraud --- they are wrong and they are forever documented. 

Just like the Wiki leak files or Snowden's disclosures -- you can't UNSEE the wrong-doing.

Unless you're a partisian who only wants to blame the leaker for the wrong-doing. Know any partisian hacks who DENY the evidence?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



So what you are saying is that the end justifies the mean, even if it means breaking the law.  I find it ironic, then, to see you whine like a stuck pig when the government follows your lead.  Why don't we discuss this in a new thread.  Be sure to title it (I can't argue the merits of the science, so I will just debase the good name of the scientists).


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



From the emails that I've seen there has to be the presumption of guilt to see any wrong doing. Mostly it's just chatter between colleagues. 

That's why I hoping for a denier to post one that you consider evidence.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



They have already debased themselves. Do you still blame Matt Drudge for breaking the Lewinsky story? When two "innocent" senior private citizens TAPPED the cell phone of then Maj. Leader Newt Gingrich -- did you REFUSE to USE THAT INFO against him? Of course you didn't. 
And Congressman McDermott who released that ILLEGAL tape to the press? Slapped on the wrist.

Government is LIMITED in its rights to spy on and misuse MY information.. Thats EXPLICIT in the highest law of the land. OTHER Laws protecting your privacy from FELLOW CITIZENS are under such intense assault --- that most experts and leaders such as Bill Gates and EFFoundation --- say they don't actually exist.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



I disagree with any criminal effort to break the law, no matter who is doing it, including right wing extremists attacking the integrity of the world scientific community to further a fossil fuel industry economic agenda.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Didn't get my check from Exxon this month.. The rhetoric is over the top.. 

Can you see a pattern here? 

Skeptic Name   RIGHT-WING???     Funded by oil/gas/coal??? 
Westwall           No                                No
IanC                  No                                No
FlaCalTenn        No                                No

Your sample size is too small to make inferences, but I think you should check your premises. And listen to the futility of your own rhetoric.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



I didn't say that YOU are funded by Exxon or any other fossil fuel conglomerate.  You're just a willing stooge.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



"Government is LIMITED in its rights to spy on and misuse MY information.. Thats EXPLICIT in the highest law of the land. "

Be specific.  

I think that your ego is talking if you think that anyone cares about your life.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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


Then how are you so certain that those emails were freed by "right wingers funded by big fossil fuel?  Thats what you believe  ---- right?

I think it was likely to be elements of this "scientific community" that tired of the activism and bullying..  Whose theory is more likely?


----------



## polarbear (Nov 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Amazing how much non subject related garbage you and your fellow trolls can puke up  in just a few hours every time your "skepticalscience" crap backfires.
What`s with all these  lame "Fox" news remarks?
Which one of us has ever quoted them and how would any of you know if or what we watch on TV. You figure the only people who laugh at global warming idiots like you live in the US and watch Fox on TV ?
How did you wind up having this Fox news fetish and how would you even know what`s on there unless you are watching it as a part of your compulsory anger management program to qualify for an early parole.
You could not sucker anybody to respond to it so now it`s on to the next best trolling tool...If it`s not a Fox news conspiracy, it`s the "oil lobby" and everybody who is not as dumb as you idiots are is a part of it.
People like you are socially dysfunctional in a free and competitive society, are low skilled  and get twisted out of shape when others succeed.
Thus the only way for mentally handicapped idiots like you to achieve equality is by having a government restricting the rest of us to come down to your level "playing field". 
Equality for all at the price of excellence for none !
Neither Exxon nor any other oil company has to beg or coerce anyone to buy the oil they bring to the market.
Matter of fact the sanctimonious assholes  you quote and admire so much  are always the first ones to start hording gas or oil futures when trouble looms. And you would load up every can and container you can get into your car and drive clear across the continent for a 50% gas rebate.
Nobody that reads and quotes the crap like you do, day after day from sun-up to midnight would know how to survive just 30 days if we cut you off oil & gas.
I`m pretty sure you got the same appliances as the rest of us and don`t wait with a magnifying glass in your hand for the sky to clear so that you can roast garden insects for dinner


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Good grief


----------



## daveman (Nov 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


No, child.  You don't get to be condescending.  You don't have the horsepower to pull it off.

I love science.  Climate science is NOT science.  It's "science".  With scare quotes.

And there is no question:  Some of you cultists are violent.  But then, progressivism is based on sheer emotion, the primary ones being rage and hatred.  Violence comes naturally.


----------



## daveman (Nov 12, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Indeed.  He has his programming -- and that's ALL he has.  No facts, no logic, no reason, and certainly no science.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You actually believe that you have the power to create truth by typing what you wish to be true??????  Or do you have to click your ruby slippers too.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 12, 2013)

polarbear said:


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





> How did you wind up having this Fox news fetish and how would you even know what`s on there unless you are watching it as a part of your compulsory anger management program to qualify for an early parole.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

Science is hard.  All answers are either right or wrong. 

Politics is much more forgiving.  Any answer can be right or wrong. 

Those with limited education and cognitive wherewithal choose politics every time and try to bullshit their way through it. 

Science is too hard for most here.


----------



## daveman (Nov 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


No, child.  I acknowledge reality.  Progressives ignore it.  

You HAVE to ignore reality -- i.e., history -- to be a progressive.

Otherwise you wouldn't embrace such a demonstrably-failed ideology.


----------



## daveman (Nov 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Science is hard.  All answers are either right or wrong.
> 
> Politics is much more forgiving.  Any answer can be right or wrong.
> 
> ...


Indeed.  That's why climate "science" is political.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

Dave is unable to distinguish between science and politics.  Such that he thinks that science comes from opinions and politics from facts.  Weird,  huh? I'm thinking that most third or fourth graders would catch that mistake.


----------



## daveman (Nov 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Dave is unable to distinguish between science and politics.  Such that he thinks that science comes from opinions and politics from facts.  Weird,  huh? I'm thinking that most third or fourth graders would catch that mistake.



No, child.  Your delusions of adequacy are not reality.  You know nothing of science; you just know your programming.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Dave is unable to distinguish between science and politics.  Such that he thinks that science comes from opinions and politics from facts.  Weird,  huh? I'm thinking that most third or fourth graders would catch that mistake.
> ...



Wrong again dumbo. You aren't doing very well debating science, without understanding it. Thats why the  education that you passed on was so important.


----------



## daveman (Nov 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I debate fine.  The problem is, you don't want debate.  You want instant, unthinking, unquestioning acceptance and endorsement of the talking points you're programmed with.  All you can do is repeat them.  You don't understand them, and you can't debate them.

Since I know how important it is to your fragile ego that you be able to pretend you've won, I'll let you have the last word.  You're welcome.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Science is not opinion.  It's questions are resolved through peer reviewed experiments.  It's findings are facts.  

The IPCC does that for climate science. 

You should stick to your demented politics.


----------



## westwall (Nov 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









The IPCC _used_ to do good science.  Now it is beholden to NGO's and other political operatives.  They have destroyed the peer review process in climatology, and become a laughing stock in the scientific world.  Now, the only people who care about them are fellow travelers and mentally deficient people such as yourself.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No.  Denialists are the laughing stock of the scientific world because you propose a world and a pseudoscience for which there's no evidence.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Right, the very people who support AGW tried to do it in.  Are you drunk?  The fact is that the hacking and release of those e-mails just happened to coincide with a major international conference on global warming, and was timed to negatively influence its outcome.  And that could only have benefited the those who are fighting so vehemently against AGW.  We all know who they are.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



This is an important and worth discussing oroman.. You're laboring under this tremendous misconception of "consensus". As tho every scientist in the 30 disciplines related to climate science are one happy family and extremely proud of the bullying, grandstanding, and outright shoddy leaps to conclusions. It's not. There is AMPLE evidence that my picture of discontent is more accurate than your picture of consensus. For instance, one poll of AGU and (someother vital bastion of Climate research) says that a full 30% of the participants don't think the proxy science portion is stable or convincing.. (no surprise there). 

So where does Law Enforcement FIRST LOOK for the perpetrator? Do they go to the oil companies or talk show hosts? NO. They find all the SPOUSE or the disgruntled INSIDERS who are closest to the scene of the crime and the victim.. Logically --- I have a better theory of who was responsible for embassing these clowns who deserved to be embarrassed..


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2013)

polarbear said:


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



You'll have to explain that one since I only posted a graph from that web site, but could just as easily posted the same graph from the original paper from which it came.  Stop making excuses for the fact that you got it wrong.



			
				polar teddy bear said:
			
		

> What`s with all these  lame "Fox" news remarks?



Since I posted nothing whatsoever about Fox, you'll have to explain this one as well.



			
				polar teddy bear said:
			
		

> Which one of us has ever quoted them and how would any of you know if or what we watch on TV. You figure the only people who laugh at global warming idiots like you live in the US and watch Fox on TV?



Looks like you are the one whining about Fox, since I said nothing about it.  But to answer your question, since you asked, no, it appears quite a few live and breath right here on this forum.



			
				polar teddy bear said:
			
		

> How did you wind up having this Fox news fetish and how would you even know what`s on there unless you are watching it as a part of your compulsory anger management program to qualify for an early parole.



Oh my.  It looks like you are the one who could use an invitation to an anger management program.



			
				polar teddy bear said:
			
		

> You could not sucker anybody to respond to it so now it`s on to the next best trolling tool...If it`s not a Fox news conspiracy, it`s the "oil lobby" and everybody who is not as dumb as you idiots are is a part of it.



Gee, I mention Exxon and you go on this tirade about Fox.  Is there some kind of connection between the two that you aren't telling us?



			
				polar teddy bear said:
			
		

> People like you are socially dysfunctional in a free and competitive society, are low skilled  and get twisted out of shape when others succeed.



If you are so successful, how do you manage to spend so much time posting nonsense here?



			
				polar teddy bear said:
			
		

> Thus the only way for mentally handicapped idiots like you to achieve equality is by having a government restricting the rest of us to come down to your level "playing field".



Gee an ad hominem.  How quaint.



			
				polar teddy bear said:
			
		

> Equality for all at the price of excellence for none!



That sounds like something a member of the kkk would say.  Congratulations.



			
				polar teddy bear said:
			
		

> Neither Exxon nor any other oil company has to beg or coerce anyone to buy the oil they bring to the market.



Indeed, they just run right over anyone who opposes them.  Just ask the Nigerians.



			
				polar teddy bear said:
			
		

> Matter of fact the sanctimonious assholes  you quote and admire so much  are always the first ones to start hording gas or oil futures when trouble looms.



Really?  And who is it that I am quoting that does this?  In fact, who am I quoting.  Do you even know?  Who's 'name' is being quoted by me in this very post?  



			
				polar teddy bear said:
			
		

> And you would load up every can and container you can get into your car and drive clear across the continent for a 50% gas rebate.



Would I?  Why would I do that?



> Nobody that reads and quotes the crap like you do, day after day from sun-up to midnight would know how to survive just 30 days if we cut you off oil & gas.



As a matter of fact, I have gone for very long stretches without using any oil or gasoline at all.  So I actually know how to do that.  And you?



			
				polar teddy bear said:
			
		

> I`m pretty sure you got the same appliances as the rest of us and don`t wait with a magnifying glass in your hand for the sky to clear so that you can roast garden insects for dinner



I'm pretty sure my stereo, coffee maker, refrigerator, computer, and heating and air conditioning unit do NOT run off of oil and gasoline.  In fact, I am certain that none of my appliances run off of it, since my electric company uses only natural gas these days, and used coal in the past.  It might be possible for you to run all of your appliances off the hot air you spewed in your response, above.  You should look into that possibility.  It might save you a lot of money.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Law enforcement has given up on finding the perpetrators because trying to track hackers on a tight law enforcement budget is virtually impossible.  What is clear from the timeline of events is that minutes to hours after the hacking occurred, the files showed up on a Russian server (Russia has been very vocally opposed to any international agreement on climate change, as has the energy sector of this country and their unpaid lackeys such as people like polar teddy bear, and even you) , and then some hours later, on denier web sites.  Do you deny this?  Now, I am not saying that you or anyone here had anything to do with it; of course you did not.  

The point is that I have yet to see a single denier complain about or condemn such criminal and unethical behavior being used instead of actually confronting the science itself.  It does point, in large measure, to desperation on your side of the argument.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



That's funny --- cause I ASKED YOU about the source of that MANUFACTURED graph and you never responded. And of COURSE, the TSI chart on that graph looks NOTHING LIKE any of the satellite record data as PBear pointed out. Like I said, MOST of the crap on that website is MADE UP or RETOUCHED or otherwise FUDGED.. If there's a source and a paper --- I'd love to be proven wrong. For once........................... 

<<<<< EDIT >>>>>  News Flash.. 

I donned my total isolation suit and briefly braved the skepticalscience sewers to retrieve the CAPTION from the graph you posted.

Figure 2: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD), with 11-year running averages.




> Figure 2: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, *1979 to 2009 from PMOD*), with 11-year running averages.



Solanki --- OK, but not the most used version of proxy data.. But HEY OREOMAN --- THAT AINT THE PMOD DATA in that piece of shit... 
When you gonna wise up and stay out of the gutter??????


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



What do you believe the significance of that factoid is ?? *Who else were they gonna give them to? The frickin FBI??? * The IPCC ??? Maybe Drudge or WikiLeaks??? 

Probably a LOT of disgruntled RUSSIAN scientists that aren't sitting at the "popular kids table" when it comes to having papers included.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



If I didn't respond it is because I didn't see the question asked.  The source is on the description of the figure (Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions



			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> FUDGED.. If there's a source and a paper --- I'd love to be proven wrong. For once...........................



Consider yourself proven wrong.   

While you are checking that out, you should also read this one, which is more recent:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131107204235.htm


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Nope not at all --- As I suspected your passing disease and crap along from your trips there.. I edited the post above... You missed it.. 



> Figure 2: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD), with 11-year running averages.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See for yourself how contaminated you are.. I lost the link to PBear's post on page 12 or 13 with the PMOD data. But you can find it.. Better FIND IT --- you need an antidote for this before it becomes an epidemic around here.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



You miss the point.  The point is that they broke the law, and those who supported their actions behaved unethically (and have yet to condemn such behavior) all for the purpose of undermining an international agreement on global warming instead of doing what everyone else was doing, which was discussing the facts.  But now I see YOU are speculating instead of discussing the facts.  Gee, I wonder where you got that idea?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 13, 2013)

I'm only speculating because my speculation is better than your speculation.

 

Right now --- I'm anticipating a total conversion on your part once you've realized how badly you've been duped by skepticalscience.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



You are confused.  Solanki's data is not from PMOD.  His data is right here:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data/tsi_1611.txt

1880 to 1978 is from Solanki, above, while 1979 to 2009 is from PMOD.

Have you read this yet?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I'm only speculating because my speculation is better than your speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> Right now --- I'm anticipating a total conversion on your part once you've realized how badly you've been duped by skepticalscience.



Dude, if skepticalscience.com was the only place I get my information on climate science, you still would lose the argument. The fact of the matter is that I rarely go there for any reason.  I usually read from Nature, Science, or similar sources.  But as popular science web sites go, skepticalscience.com is orders of magnitude better than anything you deniers have.

As for my speculating, you'll have to point out where I speculated with regard to the e-gate crapola your side would have the world believe makes any difference (of course, it does not).  I simply stated what is known.  You speculated because that's all you have.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



ABSOLUTELY NO MISTAKE.. Those morons FORGED the PMOD data. 

I understand that Solanki data goes to 1978.. And the PMOD data goes from 1979.. 

*THAT IS NOT THE PMOD DATA *--- Got it? There is no "SAGGY DICK" feature in the PMOD data around 2008..

Compare for yourself at    http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...60-years-than-in-past-1-a-13.html#post8132432


 Start your conversion to the dark side.
And NEVER shove any shit at us from skepticalscience again...


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 13, 2013)

So, no response to this?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Actually, the PMOD data DOES show a drop in the 2008 time frame:






Here is their site:

welcome to pmodwrc

In fact, from 1978 to the present, the slope of the graph represents an overall drop in TSI.  The fact that the TSI does not indicate that solar activity is the cause of global warming is also verified independently here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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




There is no cyclical trend shown in POS FRAUD. if u removed the cyclical.. it would be a gentle minor down slope..    NOT A GIANT LIMP DICK.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 13, 2013)

I don't know why all of the interest exists in things that we don't have control over. 

There is only one variable that we can choose to control,  it is unarguably leading us to a warmer climate,  so the only analysis that's useful is  what are the likely consequences from that variable given a couple of alternative actions on our part? 

Everything else is noise.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Dude, in the Skepticalscience.com graph, the x-axis ranges from 1880 to 2009.  The PMOD ranges from 1978 to 2012.  To expect such short term cycles to show up in a much longer-term graph is, how shall I put this nicely - stoooopid.  Ever hear of scaling?  At any rate, both show a downward trend in TSI.  The skepticascience.com graph compares that downward trend to global temperatures, and when that it done, it is clear that there is a significant divergence from 1980 to the present.  Which corroborates the more recent work I posted at this link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm 

A link which you are still conveniently ignoring.


----------



## westwall (Nov 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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









I find it amusing that you laud Gleick for his felonious attack on the Heartland Institute because you despise them but want to torture the person who released the CLIMATEGATE emails which were demonstrating clear evidence of data falsification and fraud.

And for the record it is almost certain that it was an inside IT person who released the emails.


----------



## westwall (Nov 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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











Your science daily is a dead link...


----------



## westwall (Nov 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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








And which is still very dead....


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Since I have posted no comment on Gleick, you are clutching at straws.  If you are certain that it was an inside IT person who broke the law in the e-gate case (and interesting accusation since the police cleared all of the university staff of any wrongdoing as has the university), perhaps you can give us this person's name.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Try this one.  It is not dead.
Solar activity playing a minimal role in global warming, research suggests


----------



## polarbear (Nov 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



First of all that link is dead, but it`s not a problem to find the crap on yet another one of your crap "science" mouth pieces where they discuss galactic rays, not solar irradiance.
Solar activity playing a minimal role in global warming, research suggests
It starts out with great fanfare (as usual)



> Solar Activity Playing a Minimal Role in Global Warming, Research Suggests


But in reality never addresses solar irradiance on climate. It  only examines some nuthead idea how galactic rays may or may not influence cloud formation. Both hypothesis have been "proven" yet again with a "computer model".
So why did you even bring that one up?
What`s that got to do with the effect of solar irradiance?
Are you that stupid or simply cant` understand the difference and all you were looking for with Google was any article other than "skepticalscience" that had the words "solar activity" + "minimum role" -"skepticalscince.com" 
...and pounced on the first thing that came up.
Then you were too eager to boast the link, without even reading the article...and even screwed up that part as well.
None of that surprises me after you pointed to a single solar irradiance low at 2008 of where they switched to a VIRGO  *maximum low* of about 1365.75 [watts /m^2]  and try pass that off as some sort of "scientific proof" to de-couple solar irradiance from temperature.
Let me get this straight.
Idiots like you advocate that 
1.) CO2 "leads temperature"
2.) That it may take years of delay before the CO2 "feedback" manifests itself as a new temperature equilibrium
3.) That not even 15 years of stalled temperature increase is a "trend"
4.) All of you 3 idots in this forum  accept no less than a 150 year time period
But when it comes to solar irradiation one data point + or - 1 year is enough for you to "rule out" any  "trend" other than CO2.
In the process *you never even noticed* how the IPCC has been pulling the wool over your head.
They keep plugging a "solar constant" into their CO2 myth models which is  *lower than the average *as an "average" of what it shows on the stuff you keep posting.
No matter how often I point that out you keep missing the entire boat.
So I guess it`s no use to try and educate you with some basics about heat conduction, equilibrium state etc unless they are simple enough for dummies like you. Maybe this will help you to come to grips with what happens when you apply heat to an object.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4tt5wQr-Po"]Thermal Conductivity - YouTube[/ame]

See the time delay?...and these are different metal rods, small mass and being heated with a blowtorch.
What makes you think that an entire "average global temperature" should instantly respond, lock-step in time  to  what the sun is doing at any given time ?...and according to you "failed to do so".
*Really? How would you know ?*
In the same thread *you *and the other resident idiots *kept claiming* that heat is there alive and well...down in the depths of our oceans and posted a whole bunch of graphs where the "missing heat" can be found.
Keep posting...so far you, "PMZ" etc have been doing about as well as a toad trying to cross the freeway during rush hour


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



DUDE ... I'm ignoring your side-step because that skepticalscience needs to be stopped... 











Your theory about "scaling" is an argument -- but weak.. I could show a couple 11 year cycles on that scale if I wanted to.. The answer is --- they wanted an opportunity to MANIPULATE AND FUDGE the data so as you can see in their "plot" -- they chose to run an 11 yr AVERAGE over the data *to REMOVE those cycles*. And in doing so -- they also introduced changes in the RATE of decline and exaggerated the "limp dick" at the end.

You could take that PMOD data and run a linear fit thru it (with an 11 yr filter if you wanted) and there would be VIRTUALLY NO 1st or 2nd derivatives of slope in that plot. Meaning that the fitted line WOULD BE DAMN NEAR LINEAR...

But what we get in their manipulation is a plot showing very high ACCELERATIONS and higher derivatives that NEVER EXISTED in the pmod data. 

I can almost tell you what they did.. If you zero fill the PMOD data to the right side and run the 11 yr filter over it --- the "droop" at the end would be the expected artifact. I've done this BY ACCIDENT many times. THIS ----- was done on purpose. ((because of the length of the filter, if you don't fill the ends with SOMETHING --- you lose years off the output at both ends))

Compare the 2 in the same post. Incompetence or devious mischief? I don't care....


----------



## PMZ (Nov 13, 2013)

polarbear said:


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



Why do you make something so simple, complicated? 

GHG are the only thing that we can control that is indisputably changing. 

Higher atmospheric GHG concentrations effectively reduce OLR. 

The solar energy coming in,  that's in excess of the decreasing every day OLR has no way out and must increase long term average temperature somehow and at some time to restore energy balance. 

There is no science or theory that refutes that process or suggests any different possibility. 

All of the red herrings in play by denialists are irrelevant.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 13, 2013)

polarbear said:


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



Never will get an answer to why the Climate needs to INSTANTANEOUSLY respond to a new energy balance.. OR --- why that RESPONSE needs to look just like the input.  The PR campaign for AGW has "framed the optics" as they say in politics.. And there's not 1% of the population who understand complex systems.

So my question to you Mr. Bear is -- if we both believe the Climate is that much more complicated --- why did you POUNCE on that Judith Curry work (the "stadium wave" paper) that ATTEMPTS to DEFINE all those complex thermal flows, time delays and storage mechanisms?   There ARE some Climate scientists working on how the ACTUAL climate(s) really operate. Those are ones I support.


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 13, 2013)

So the atmosphere is made up of metals?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Life on earth takes place immersed in air or water. As it has evolved,  most life forms have developed means to sense the energy in their fluid environment.  Temperature,  flow,  sound,  light,  pressure,  humidity. 

For life immersed in air,  what we sense along those lines, humans call weather.  Constantly changing weather. 

We have invented a useful abstraction called climate.  That is a measure of the long term temporal and large area  spatial average of weather. 

The impact of higher concentrations of atmospheric GHGs on climate is easy to state. Climactic temperatures must rise due to effectively restricted energy outflow compared to inflow,  until energy balance is restored. Simple physics. 

The translation of that,  however,  to the weather that we sense,  is extremely complex. There are so many media that can exchange and contain that excess energy that even the most powerful computers today choke on  simplified models of it. 

The Judith Currey stadium wave paper referenced earlier is one attempt to infer the weather effects of AGW.  That is the timing and magnitudes of weather changes that eventually lead to the one thing that can actually restore energy balance,  higher surface temperatures. 

Is that model close enough to reality to be useful?  I imagine it will take a couple of years of peer review before it might gain enough credibility. It will have to compete with other approaches.  

But,  it's certainly progress.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Never will get an answer to why the Climate needs to INSTANTANEOUSLY respond to a new energy balance.. OR --- why that RESPONSE needs to look just like the input.  The PR campaign for AGW has "framed the optics" as they say in politics.. And there's not 1% of the population who understand complex systems.
> 
> So my question to you Mr. Bear is -- if we both believe the Climate is that much more complicated --- why did you POUNCE on that Judith Curry work (the "stadium wave" paper) that ATTEMPTS to DEFINE all those complex thermal flows, time delays and storage mechanisms?   There ARE some Climate scientists working on how the ACTUAL climate(s) really operate. Those are ones I support.



I did not "pounce" on J.Curry`s work but I did object to the term "stadium wave". That`s dumbing down physics to the level how it would be taught at a Kindergarten or in a picture story book for toddlers.
I`m also pretty sure that these cycles are a lot more complex than a "stadium wave" could possibly represent.
Non synchronous waves can amplify each other or  cancel out, depending on their relative phase (shift).
You can observe that  every day. Even though the morning might be a carbon copy of yesterday`s morning by the end of the day you seldom have the same weather conditions as you had @ the same time a day before. There is no simple clock-work mechanism that regulates this complicated process...which is already too complex to predict the next 24 hour "mini- stadium wave" .
All it takes is a small change in the jet stream direction, a few more or less isobars per horizontal kilometer or a small change in the overcast and the next short term "stadium wave" can turn into a monster rogue wave that seemingly came from nowhere or get cancelled altogether. 

It`s not complete random but as long as we can`t resolve the process and assign *realistic magnitudes to all contributing components *then we are not a notch better off with simplistic IPCC "climate science" and now with Curry`s "stadium waves" than with the stuff  for a farmer`s  almanac  and fortune cookies.

Allow me to use an analogy.
You can use the same smooth bore gun with precisely the same charge and bullets and won`t be able to stay on target.
Bullets tumble and then go off in random directions unless you spin-stabilize them.
 With climate predictions there is a lot more involved than what it takes to make an accurate gun.
If the problem was as simple as a "stadium wave" that could easily be compensated with an equally simple time delay shift.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 13, 2013)

polarbear said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Never will get an answer to why the Climate needs to INSTANTANEOUSLY respond to a new energy balance.. OR --- why that RESPONSE needs to look just like the input.  The PR campaign for AGW has "framed the optics" as they say in politics.. And there's not 1% of the population who understand complex systems.
> ...



I think the bottom line is that it may be years before we're able to understand the timing and it's variability between an increment of GHG concentration increase and the resulting increment of surface temperature increase. 

And that says nothing about the contribution of all of the positive feedbacks that might be driven by any increment of surface temperature increase.


----------



## westwall (Nov 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










I clutch at nothing.  That's your specialty.  As far as your statement on Gleick, EVERY AGW supporter has been in favor of what he did, some going so far as to think he deserves a medal.

As far as the supposition that it was an inside job, every IT person I have spoken to confirms that that is the most likely source.  Only an insider would have access that complete and more importantly know where to Hoover up all the proper emails.

I wish I knew who it was because I would like to shake his or her hand.


----------



## westwall (Nov 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Thank you, I'll get the paper and have a look.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 13, 2013)

polarbear said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Never will get an answer to why the Climate needs to INSTANTANEOUSLY respond to a new energy balance.. OR --- why that RESPONSE needs to look just like the input.  The PR campaign for AGW has "framed the optics" as they say in politics.. And there's not 1% of the population who understand complex systems.
> ...



The naming is unfortunate. But thats the price you pay these days for moving science into the mainstream.  
I dont think the name was meant to imply classic wave mechanics. In fact the work that theyve done focuses on semi synchronous and semi oscillatory  pieces of the climate systtem.  Stuff like what makes the AMO CYCLE repeat.

The stadium wave | Climate Etc.



> Building upon Wyatts Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signals tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of braking, whereby positive and negative feedbacks interact in such a way as to support reversals of the circulation regimes. *As a result, climate regimes  multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling  evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular  the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatts thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.



Actually  the dominant weather drivers are propagating like waves guided by pressure grads, the jet stream and rotational energy of the earth itself .  But there doesnt appear to be any feedback during the propagation that CREATES more weather. Weather pulses are just energy dissipators. What curry is trying solve is generating equations for some of the dominant LONG TERM oscillatory elements. AND that starts accounting for a LOT of the thermal paths that in play as the earth equilizes thermal loads..  Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Energy is conserved,  not dissipated.


----------



## westwall (Nov 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Define ENTROPY and how it relates to energy.....


----------



## PMZ (Nov 14, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Irrelevant.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 14, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


 The board nanny sez I have to spread reputation around before giving some to Meister again. 

Good post, Meister.


----------



## westwall (Nov 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








No, it isn't.  It relates directly to your post above.  So.  Do it.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 14, 2013)

westwall said:


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


Ever so true. Funny how that works, isn't it.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 14, 2013)

polarbear said:


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


 Good case, Polarbear.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 Asolutely!!!


----------



## PMZ (Nov 14, 2013)

It's funny that included in Freedom Becky's disguise is an American flag icon,  and "freedom" in her name. 

She wants to be free but at the expense of everyone else.  Free to impose her ignorance and dysfunctional politics on the rest of the country.  Free to change our Constitution to what benefits her. 

You can see her heroes among those tea party nutballs trying their best to shutdown Congress and bring America to our knees. 

We have freedom inherent in our democracy.  She offers tyranny instead. 

Let's show her the freedom of democracy and vote the tea party completely out of responsibility and public office. 

That's real freedom.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 14, 2013)

Becky must be a member of the US Message board royal  turkey basters society.  It appears that if you are on the wrong side of an issue, she agrees with you and gives you a cheer.  She doesn't know why or what the issues are about, but she agrees.  Talk about blind faith!


----------



## polarbear (Nov 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Actually  the dominant weather drivers are propagating like waves guided by pressure grads, the jet stream and rotational energy of the earth itself .  But there doesnt appear to be any feedback during the propagation that CREATES more weather. Weather pulses are just energy dissipators. What curry is trying solve is generating equations for some of the dominant LONG TERM oscillatory elements. AND that starts accounting for a LOT of the thermal paths that in play as the earth equilizes thermal loads..  Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.



There is no fundamental error in Curry`s approach as there is in any method that fudges and "averages" all the other factors except CO2 into oblivion.
Before we go any further let`s take a look at the level of stupidity that Curry is trying to address having to use "stadium waves".

You said:


> Weather pulses are just energy dissipators.


to which PMZ replied:


PMZ said:


> Energy is conserved, not dissipated.



How can anyone even hope to get the point across with stadium wave analogies to dummies like PMZ who claims that energy is *not dissipated*.

Quoting you as far as Curry et al are concerned, 



> Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.


It would be by far easier to describe the "periodic event" sequence for prime numbers.
We have been at that a lot longer than "climate science" and still have no way to establish a valid equation that can predict how far away or how close the next prime number is from the one at hand.

That prime number puzzle can and will be solved eventually because there is no bias or any amount of fudging involved to arrive at the solution.

We can`t hope for any sort of rational solution for something way more complicated as long as the "research" is done, directed and funded by an  "inter governmental" consensus opinion panel who`s sole purpose is not to investigate how to arrive at a rational solution...but who`s sole purpose is to establish that nothing else but CO2 drives temperature, silencing all dissent ..and then lobbies on a political level over our heads with our respective governments.
They don`t refer to themselves as "inter governmental" because its  just a nice sound byte ! They figure that`s their mandate and lobbied governments around the world to usurp that mandate...and are still at it.

A valid climate computer model is the last thing they want, because it would annihilate that entire "climate scientist" cluster-fuck.

Do we even need a valid computer model any more, in order to prove how wrong this CO2 vs. temp hypothesis is, (?)  now that we know for 15 years and running that none of the CO2 based models came even close... 

It`s high time to quit pouring all that funding into an "inter governmental" propaganda operation. As long as they exist the likes of Curry will be muted, defamed or whatever it takes keep the CO2 myth going.

The good news is that fewer and fewer nations respond to the IPCC`s lobbying efforts. Many of these nations don`t even respond any more or send only low-level bureaucrats which have no decision making authority as their delegates


----------



## PMZ (Nov 14, 2013)

polarbear said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Actually  the dominant weather drivers are propagating like waves guided by pressure grads, the jet stream and rotational energy of the earth itself .  But there doesnt appear to be any feedback during the propagation that CREATES more weather. Weather pulses are just energy dissipators. What curry is trying solve is generating equations for some of the dominant LONG TERM oscillatory elements. AND that starts accounting for a LOT of the thermal paths that in play as the earth equilizes thermal loads..  Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.
> ...



"We can`t hope for any sort of rational solution for something way more complicated as long as the "research" is done, directed and funded by an  "inter governmental" consensus opinion panel who`s sole purpose is not to investigate how to arrive at a rational solution...but who`s sole purpose is to establish that nothing else but CO2 drives temperature, silencing all dissent ..and then lobbies on a political level over our heads with our respective governments."

How come that you can't see this for what it obviously is?  Pure non-objective unsupportable bias.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 14, 2013)

The concentration of atmospheric GHGs is the only climate driver that we can influence. We know without a doubt that that variable leads to AGW. And that AGW will inevitably lead to expensive consequences for humanity. 

Why on earth would be studying other esoterica that we can't do a thing about?


----------



## westwall (Nov 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The concentration of atmospheric GHGs is the only climate driver that we can influence. We know without a doubt that that variable leads to AGW. And that AGW will inevitably lead to expensive consequences for humanity.
> 
> Why on earth would be studying other esoterica that we can't do a thing about?








And they are being shown to NOT be a driver of anything.  THE dominant GHG on this planet is H2O vapor.  CO2 is a trivial bit player that doesn't even get in the credits at the end of the movie.  And, mr. luddite, you study that which you don't know so that eventually you can use that knowledge for something useful.  We've discovered through the last three decades that AGW theory is wrong.  Man has no global effect on anything.  However, with the study of Urban Heat Island Effect we know that man does indeed warm small areas of the planet.  However we have also been able to discover that once you get to around 15 miles away from a major urban center the temperatures drop back to normal.

That was a good thing to discover.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The concentration of atmospheric GHGs is the only climate driver that we can influence. We know without a doubt that that variable leads to AGW. And that AGW will inevitably lead to expensive consequences for humanity.
> ...



Agreed.  But GHGs are what we are changing for the worse.  They are the problem.  Even if they only add a couple of degrees,  to the many degrees of total GHG warming, that's enough to tilt the climate from what mankind has adapted to,  to some other climate.  That will cost us a bundle, unless we can stop making things worse in time. 

Pure simple economics but driven by very complex science to predict the dynamics of AGW.


----------



## westwall (Nov 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Provably wrong.  Our contribution to the global CO2 budget is miniscule.  We likewise emit an infinitesimal fraction of the methane that so terrifies you all now (now that that damned CO2 isn't living up to its part of the bargain) and as we all know we don't add to the water vapor either.  So no, your assertion is incorrect.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Miniscule?  In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuel combustion and cement production worldwide.  An you think this is miniscule?  Put the bottle down, son.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Becky must be a member of the US Message board royal  turkey basters society.  It appears that if you are on the wrong side of an issue, she agrees with you and gives you a cheer.  She doesn't know why or what the issues are about, but she agrees.  Talk about blind faith!



What an arrogant set of assumptions that be matey... I know more about Becki's science knowledge and I'd be surprised if she hasn't had enough math and statistics to follow along.

I'll give you a "whoo hoo" when YOU show enough math chops to acknowledge what I've shown you... Then you'll  feel much better... 

Looky -- there are VIRTUALLY NO sources of info political or science that I personally BAN myself from considering.. I LOVE to bash and demolish weak crap. But these guys at skepticalscience are the ONLY folks on my "do not read" list.. Get it? They are the one EXCEPTION to my open mind in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE of knowledge. 

Much like the fact that I only have ONE POSTER on ignore after 10K posts and several YEARS on USMB.. It takes a lot to reach my bar for being banned.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Becky must be a member of the US Message board royal  turkey basters society.  It appears that if you are on the wrong side of an issue, she agrees with you and gives you a cheer.  She doesn't know why or what the issues are about, but she agrees.  Talk about blind faith!
> ...



Gee, you got all of that from "Asolutely!!!"?

No doubt, you used your magic 8 to ball read between the word.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 14, 2013)

polarbear said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Actually  the dominant weather drivers are propagating like waves guided by pressure grads, the jet stream and rotational energy of the earth itself .  But there doesnt appear to be any feedback during the propagation that CREATES more weather. Weather pulses are just energy dissipators. What curry is trying solve is generating equations for some of the dominant LONG TERM oscillatory elements. AND that starts accounting for a LOT of the thermal paths that in play as the earth equilizes thermal loads..  Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.
> ...



Even the climate scientists seem to admit they are a relatively immature science that has been thrown onto the International stage.. ((Poll of AGU and others))

And the problem with a young science playing to the masses is that even HONEST brokers of the discipline will be sucked into the circus. So our USMB idiots are no worse than every journal reporter that doesn't have a prayer of evaluating the concepts.. 

Funny you mentioned prime number prediction.. I spent 6 years in dark belly of the spy biz. And you'd be amazed at how quickly you can find the one prime number that was used to generate a non-repeating pseudorandom sequence of random numbers that is LONGER than the interval to that random number. Which is why there is such an emphasis on FINDING larger prime numbers in the first place. Without that motivation, it would be just another Fermat challenge limited to a small cluster of eggheads..  None of that violates any security oath BTW..... 

But finding the everchanging next interval to a random number is NOT a periodic event. MAYBE a predictable event. When stuff oscillates or almost oscillates its because of well-known Linear System theory descriptions of Gain, Feedback, and Phasing.. Poles and Zeroes crap in linear equations --- if you know what I mean.. That kind of periodic.

And KNOWING for instance the exact PHYSICAL MECHANISM that can give you that equation for the AtlanticMOscillation, or even for ENSO would be a MAJOR contribution to understanding the processes that actually DRIVE the climate. So if Curry thinks that she's on to understanding how openings in Arctic Ice at the choke points DRIVE these patterns and can describe the phenomenon as a heat transfer equation --- that would be super cool. As compared to all the other JUVENILE descriptions that we have right now.. 

MY HOPE is that AT LEAST ----- we will get the message public that complex systems don't NEED to produce temperature results that LOOK EXACTLY LIKE or FOLLOW IMMEDIATELY the changes in the forcing functions. *I already certainly KNOW this is true.* I'm waiting on the climate science to mature to the point where this is EVEN DISCUSSED.

Beyond my paygrade as a spectator of this farce.. I've got my own bunch of idiots to deal with in the disciplines that I dabble in..


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



You really don't want to get a "whoo hoo" from me --- do ya? 

I know some USMB posters BETTER than my own Uncles and Aunts. Why do think forums like these are such a great way of "bonding" or "debating"? Maybe you should consider the lower bar on Twitter.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:
			
		

> I spent 6 years in dark belly of the spy biz



That would explain your propensity for conspiracy theories.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Probably because your uncles and aunts know you and don't want to hear about all the conspiracies rattling around in your head.


----------



## westwall (Nov 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...










Please spare us the hysteria junior.  Compared to an atmosphere that weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons 33 billion tons is a pittance.  That's why the gas is measured in PARTS PER MILLION.  So, lets's use your terrifying 400ppm number.  That means that for every 

400 little bits of CO2,
there are 1,000,000,000 other bits.

*400 compared to 
1,000,000*

Amazing something like that terrifies you.  You who claim to be a geologist...  Poor olfraud...


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 14, 2013)

westwall said:
			
		

> Please spare us the hysteria junior. Compared to an atmosphere that weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons 33 billion tons is a pittance.



Until you consider the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.  No doubt, you would prefer that we have the same concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere as Venus, where lead melts at the surface as a result!  God, you are dumb.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> But finding the everchanging next interval to a random number is NOT a periodic event. MAYBE a predictable event. When stuff oscillates or almost oscillates its because of well-known Linear System theory descriptions of Gain, Feedback, and Phasing.. Poles and Zeroes crap in linear equations --- if you know what I mean.. That kind of periodic.


Finding out if a > 40 digit number is a prime number or not isn`t very hard to do these days, but falls way short of being able to predict it else we would indeed have to discard the cyphers that exploit this math-gap.

"Stuff oscillates" when a system can`t achieve an equilibrium in the first go..so now you get a wave sequence that will eventually dampen over time unless you feed more energy and do so at a the proper phase angle and with the right polarity.

Those of us who worked with older electronic components know that it does not take much to "stall" an RC resonant oscillator or have one fry itself if you don`t tune the positive feedback properly.

It`s no big problem to work out the time constants for oscillators, but it is still a big problem to design one that does not "drift"

The problem with "climate oscillations" is that they don`t conform with the "constants" that climatologists have assigned in the form of averages.

The only constants in that mix of "constants" are the mass, the shape and up to a degree the angular speeds of our planet..not much else remains constant.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lead isn't melting on the surface of this earth. In the artic pole of this earth, water isn't melting either this time of year.  And that ludicrous concentration of CO2? It is four-tenths of one millionth. That's not even a concentration. That's needle in a haystack stuff.

Get a grip.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 14, 2013)

polarbear said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > But finding the everchanging next interval to a random number is NOT a periodic event. MAYBE a predictable event. When stuff oscillates or almost oscillates its because of well-known Linear System theory descriptions of Gain, Feedback, and Phasing.. Poles and Zeroes crap in linear equations --- if you know what I mean.. That kind of periodic.
> ...



Well you old bear --- if ya remember FAR ENOUGH BACK to when you were a mere cub techy--- you might remember making oscillators out of bulb filaments as feedback operators.  The feedback elements don't HAVE to be constants.. HP did this to stabilize the output level of their benchtop Signal Generators. 

With a suitable source of constant power,  (yes power INTO the climate doesn't have to vary) and a gain of one over the transfer function of the system, --- the only other requirement is to turn the PHASE of the output 180 degrees thru the feedback network with respect to the input phase. (like that cheap trick of using an ODD number of digital invertors to create a 10 cent oscillator)

Could thermal flows thru arctic ocean choke points do that? I don't see why not....


----------



## Stashman (Nov 14, 2013)

*Okay I'll grab some tools and head on down there. Maybe bang around on a few pipes and get things back to order in a jiff. No Problem man. *


----------



## PMZ (Nov 14, 2013)

Denialists depend on the red herring of complexity to lead the dogs off the trail of simple truth.


----------



## Meister (Nov 14, 2013)

Sure can tell who the socialists and communists are on this thread.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 14, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Take a chemistry class.  Not that YOU will actually learn anything from it.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I took a chemistry class in college. The professor learned my name after I made the highest score on the final because I studied and worked hard. 

You could appear less confused if you could compute math in your head and understood proportions. That could make you less patronizing, possibly than you were when you wrote your last post's balderdash.

If I were as patronizing as you, I'd just tell you to not speak until spoken to. Aren't you glad I'm not stuffy like you apparatchiks who read from an agenda list that would please Al Bore, I mean, Gore.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Denialists depend on the red herring of complexity to lead the dogs off the trail of simple truth.


Thanks, Archie Bunker, for not seeing yourself as others see you.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 14, 2013)

Meister said:


> Sure can tell who the socialists and communists are on this thread.



And the American Taliban.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 14, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



You should ask your school for a refund, because, damn.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 14, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



I personally believe that you have earned being patronized.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


When those who proffer the theme issues of those who change data, it is an honor to come under their vapid discreditations.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 15, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Those who believe that raw data offers the most insight,  always,  are not scientists.


----------



## Meister (Nov 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



To get to where you're at with this subject, you need to trip over your politics, dude. 
It's the only area where your ilk can get any footing with our government.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 15, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



The corporate politics of peak oil is the entire basis of your position.  Climate science,  the basis of mine.


----------



## Meister (Nov 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



As the scientists that once believed in man made global warming are jumping the ship because of the manipulated and faulty data and the evidence that it just never came to fruition, you're just lingering on your politics, sonny.  It's all you have left. It's okay, I get it.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 15, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You don't get it at all because you are ill equipped educationally to understand climate science.  Most people are.  But most people who are ill equipped educationally to understand any particular discipline are smart enough to rely on those who aren't. 

That's why most everyone who made the investment in education did so.  So that they could claim expertise in at least one field. 

You are trying to sell politics here.  People educated in science will never abandon it for politics.


----------



## Meister (Nov 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That's why YOUR own scientists have been abandoning your side of the argument....because of my politics?     Your a goofball, son.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 15, 2013)

There are no mine and yours in scientists.  There are in politics.  

Science is the business of truth,  politics of power. 

Your current sales pitch in search of more power is to discredit science,  a strategy that tends to work among the uneducated.  Thats why it's so diabolical. 

It doesn't however make even a dent among the scientifically educated.  

Those are the lines that have been drawn.


----------



## Meister (Nov 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There are no mine and yours in scientists.  There are in politics.
> 
> Science is the business of truth,  politics of power.
> 
> ...



You would never know the truth, or admit to the truth even if it had bitch slapped you in the face, as has been proven all through this thread, sonny.  Now, back to your sandbox.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 15, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There are no mine and yours in scientists.  There are in politics.
> ...



This is your only viable argument.  You have nothing else left.  I like it because nobody who reads it will conclude anything  but desperation from your side.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 15, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Your denier cult myths are getting even more desperate and wacko. 

Scientific certainty on the reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate change is even stronger. The things you fantasize are happening aren't real or actually happening but your puppet masters create an illusion about it all within that rightwingnut denier cult media echo chamber where you head is lodged. In the real world, climate scientists are continually extending and refining our knowledge of all aspects of the Earth's climate systems and processes. What they have discovered just adds to their confidence in their conclusions - the Earth is rapidly warming causing climate patterns to change and mankind's activities are the primary cause of that warming. You and your fellow cultists are bamboozled dupes of the fossil fuel industry, without a clue about what is actually going on with the Earth's climate systems.


----------



## Meister (Nov 15, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


This is where you people fall flat.....


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 15, 2013)

So the Tink asserts ----



> ................ without a clue about what is actually going on with the Earth's climate systems.



The dupes that are not focusing "on what's going on with the Climate System" would be Tinkerbelles heroes.
They have wasted their time trying to prove that a trace gas is the answer to everything climate. When water vapor is 
the dominant GHGas and they STILL don't know how heat is redistributed on the Planet or why cyclical events can WIPE out the effects of their single stupid focus on ONE variable.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 15, 2013)

Meister said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Actually, MrMoron, i think we're pretty good at pointing out and demonstrating just how misinformed and manipulated you denier cult retards really are. Like most of your ilk, you would rather cling to your political opinions than listen to the testimony of the world's experts - the climate scientists. Consequently, you're easily duped by the people who are making hundreds of billions off selling fossil fuels and whose profits are threatened by the absolute necessity of drastically reducing human caused carbon emissions.


----------



## Meister (Nov 15, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



It looks like you're the "Mr.Moron"......Your post wreaks of a political opinion.    Just an educated observation......


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 15, 2013)

Meister said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOL......you denier cult morons are so hilarious....you can't even spell 'reeks' correctly but you imagine that you're "_educated_".....sorry, bozo, but most folks today don't think completing the sixth grade makes you "_educated_".....

Beyond that point, I said 'listen to the real scientists' and you say I'm expressing a "_political opinion_"......LOL....you are a true denier cult nutjob....


----------



## Meister (Nov 15, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Yet, your own scientists are jumping off your ship. 
Name call all you want, your politics needs to use manipulated data to arrive at your premise.
Socialist or communist?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 15, 2013)

Meister said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Those are the braindead myths and fantasies that you have swallowed whole because you're so extremely gullible, but they have no connection to reality. Same as you.

To anti-science denier cult retards like you, this is all about politics - your very question: "_socialist or communist_" reveals that very clearly.


----------



## Meister (Nov 15, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



FYI.....name calling doesn't promote your cause, but it does show stupidity. 
Embrace it over a glass of your orange Kool-Aid.
Socialists and communists exist politically in the environment movement, it's the only place they can exist in a capitalist society.
I'm sure you fit into one of those two categories


----------



## westwall (Nov 15, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








Sure you are, that's why Japan and Australia are abandoning their goals for CO2 reduction!
  Oblivious thy name is trolling blunder!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2013)

Matthew said:


> *Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000*
> 
> 
> > A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.
> ...



We have had no measurement of lower levels of the ocean until recently so making a claim that heating has risen is a complete and total fabrication with out basis in fact or evidence. And it sure as hell is not scientific.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 15, 2013)

The myth that I find most interesting is that all climate scientists are socialist and communists. 

Do you suppose that extends to all scientists or just those using the same tools to study climate specifically?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 15, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



And you have a list of names, right?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 15, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There are no mine and yours in scientists.  There are in politics.
> ...



And you have not addressed ANYTHING in the OP.  All you've done here is deflect attention from it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I repeat if we only have 6 years of recorded data how can ANYONE make a claim about 60 years much less thousands? The reason the global warming is biting the believers in the ass is they panicked over 15 years data and then when the next 15 years had no warming they piled lie on top of lie to protect themselves.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 15, 2013)

Meister said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



That is just about the dumbest accusation I've ever seen coming from the brain of a denier.  Were you dropped on your head as a kid, or are you a self-made idiot?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 15, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Apparently you don't understand that AGW does not depend on any data.  It's a given consequence of increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations.  Which are a given consequence of fossil fuel burning. 

So the question is not if it is happening.  The question is given the dynamics of more energy here on earth,  when will higher climactic temperatures restore energy balance?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Ahh I see so you are free to simply make up any thing you want that furthers your supposed theory. No evidence needed, no data, no facts, no science, just fabricate it from whole cloth and then present it as if it were true.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 15, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Erm, you left out a decimal place.  60 years, not 6 years, as in "Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000 years".  You do recall the OP, right?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



We do NOT have 60 years of data. The devises to measure deep are brand new no one measured the depths of the ocean for 60 years.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 15, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Showing yet again that you did not read the link at the OP.



> In its latest report, released in September, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted the recent slowdown in the rate of global warming. While global temperatures rose by about one-fifth of a degree Fahrenheit per decade from the 1950s through 1990s, warming slowed to just half that rate after the record hot year of 1998. The IPCC has attributed the pause to natural climate fluctuations caused by volcanic eruptions, changes in solar intensity, and the movement of heat through the ocean. Many scientists note that 1998 was an exceptionally hot year even by modern standards, and so any average rise using it as a starting point would downplay the longer-term warming trend.





> Ocean heat is typically measured from buoys dispersed throughout the ocean, and with instruments lowered from ships, with reliable records at least in some places going back to the 1960s. To look back farther in time, scientists have developed ways to analyze the chemistry of ancient marine life to reconstruct the climates in which they lived. In a 2003 expedition to Indonesia, the researchers collected cores of sediment from the seas where water from the Pacific flows into the Indian Ocean. By measuring the levels of magnesium to calcium in the shells of Hyalinea balthica, a one-celled organism buried in those sediments, the researchers estimated the temperature of the middle-depth waters where H. Balthica lived, from about 1,500 to 3,000 feet down. The temperature record there reflects middle-depth temperatures throughout the western Pacific, the researchers say, since the waters around Indonesia originate from the mid-depths of the North and South Pacific.





> Though the climate of the last 10,000 years has been thought to be relatively stable, the researchers found that the Pacific intermediate depths have generally been cooling during that time, though with various ups and downs. From about 7,000 years ago until the start of the Medieval Warm Period in northern Europe, at about 1100, the water cooled gradually, by almost 1 degree C, or almost 2 degrees F. The rate of cooling then picked up during the so-called Little Ice Age that followed, dropping another 1 degree C, or 2 degrees F, until about 1600. The authors attribute the cooling from 7,000 years ago until the Medieval Warm Period to changes in Earth's orientation toward the sun, which affected how much sunlight fell on both poles. In 1600 or so, temperatures started gradually going back up. Then, over the last 60 years, water column temperatures, averaged from the surface to 2,200 feet, increased 0.18 degrees C, or .32 degrees F. That might seem small in the scheme of things, but it's a rate of warming 15 times faster than at any period in the last 10,000 years, said Linsley.
> 
> One explanation for the recent slowdown in global warming is that a prolonged La Niña-like cooling of eastern Pacific surface waters has helped to offset the global rise in temperatures from greenhouse gases. In a study in the journal Nature in August, climate modelers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography showed that La Niña cooling in the Pacific seemed to suppress global average temperatures during northern hemisphere winters but allowed temperatures to rise during northern hemisphere summers, explaining last year's record U.S. heat wave and the ongoing loss of Arctic sea ice.
> 
> ...


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 15, 2013)

The Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) first appeared in 1963.  Prior to that scribing thermometer probes were used.  Much slower and cumbersome, but roughly as accurate.


----------



## westwall (Nov 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The myth that I find most interesting is that all climate scientists are socialist and communists.
> 
> Do you suppose that extends to all scientists or just those using the same tools to study climate specifically?








No, that's the politicians.  The climatologists are either lazy or just plain criminals.  I'll let you choose which classification applies to you.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The myth that I find most interesting is that all climate scientists are socialist and communists.
> ...



You represent the politics because you want the science to support what you wish was true.  

If you're going to claim scientific support for your agenda you're going to have to accept the real truth regardless of your agenda. 

Reality is tough sometimes.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 11, 2013)

The skeptics don't have anything besides the fact that surface temperatures stalled. The oceans make up 80% of our planet and the public is too damn stupid to realize how the climate system works.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 11, 2013)

Matthew said:


> The skeptics don't have anything besides the fact that surface temperatures stalled. The oceans make up 80% of our planet and the public is too damn stupid to realize how the climate system works.



The scientists don't know how the climate system works so how do you expect the people to know?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 11, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Do you need data to accept gravity?  Momentum? Inertia? Do you have to have a textbook to heat water in your microwave? 

Burning fossil fuels increases the concentration of atmospheric GHG concentrations.  That increasingly restricts outgoing long wave radiation.  The energy that cannot leave into space must warm the earth.  It will until the surface  temperatures restore energy balance.  Eighth grade physics.


----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2013)

Matthew said:


> The skeptics don't have anything besides the fact that surface temperatures stalled. The oceans make up 80% of our planet and the public is too damn stupid to realize how the climate system works.



To cure the Earth we just need to send money to third world nations.....that's the ticket.  
Just ask the UN.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 11, 2013)

Meister said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > The skeptics don't have anything besides the fact that surface temperatures stalled. The oceans make up 80% of our planet and the public is too damn stupid to realize how the climate system works.
> ...



AGW is science.  Why do you post exclusively about politics?


----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Because that is what it has been about along, PMZ.  AGW isn't science, it was under the guise of science, but that has been exposed no matter how you and others try and spin it. It has always been political in the sense of redistributing the wealth from one nation to another nation.
I don't usually respond to your nonsense, but this time I did....I'm not going to respond to you again so knock yourself out and go pound sand.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 11, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I appreciate your efforts to not defend your lies.  

AGW is science no matter what you wish was true.  The IPCC is the keeper of that science as a professional service to political hacks like you.  What science knows is extremely inconvenient to your politics so,  in tried and true political fashion,  you are motivated to try to propaganda it to death. 

Conservative power hungry control freaks will,  like you have,  fall for that bullshit every time.  

Scientists won't and haven't.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Here's science:






Climate cycles are natural and CO2 lags temp variations. When Earth cools CO2 slowly sinks into oceans. When Earth warms, CO2 is slowly released from oceans. Just like how a warm soda goes flat while a cold one holds carbonation. Just Physics 101 regarding dissolved gases.

These global climate cycles are caused by many natural means. Primarily Sunspot cycles, Earth orbital cycles/variations around the Sun, and even cyclical wobbles in Earth rotation. Wildcards are volcanic eruptions and massive fires. *Man cannot alter these cycles in any meaningful way.* Our main focus should be on REAL surface air pollution (CO2 is not pollution) and in America we have done a great job on that.

CO2 taxes and fees are just a wealth-redistribution scheme PERIOD.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 11, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



This Christmas you aren't going to get the truth that you want.  

Eighth grade science has some inconvenient truths for you. 

AGW is undeniable. 

The IPCC is right and Rush Limbaugh is wrong. 

The path to inevitable increased surface temperatures has only begun and how it will  manifest itself is not predictable. 

It will cost us plenty. 

Fossil fuels will run out,  oil first. 

The timing of that is such that we have no time to spare getting prepared.  The ever growing demand for ever shrinking supply will escalate the price per gal drastically as the curves cross.  

What you,  and everyone else,  wish the truth was is simply not reality.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



How do you reconcile Michael Mann's fraudulent and debunked "hockey stick" chart with the ice core data I posted which show natural cycles? Even at the very far right when CO2 is increased during the industrial age, temps flatten out. In fact we're likely on the verge of a long cooling.

Blaming CO2 for global climate cycles is like blaming smoke for fire.

AGW is a cult, a religion, and pure bunk based on faith and lies.

We also have MORE than enough natural gas and oil for the rest of this century and beyond IN AMERICA. I suspect that in several more decades we'll finally find a new way to fuel transportation, but in the mean time we're fine IF we're allowed access to those massive reserves.

BTW, oil and natural gas are about as organic and natural as a fuel can get. As long as it's burned as cleanly as possible, a great and very efficient source of energy!


----------



## PMZ (Dec 11, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...



All that is in your post has nothing at all to do with AGW,  which is an easy to understand and inevitable artifact of atmospheric GHG concentrations  only. 

Energy is accumulating on earth as a result.  The more fossil fuel we burn,  the higher those concentrations are,  the more energy is accumulating. 

That energy will be trapped here until higher surface and atmospheric temperatures force it by the GHGs and out into space. 

How that excess energy behaves here will be manifest by changes in weather,  ocean temperature and depth,  and life. 

Nobody knows on what schedule.


----------



## westwall (Dec 11, 2013)

Matthew said:


> The skeptics don't have anything besides the fact that surface temperatures stalled. The oceans make up 80% of our planet and the public is too damn stupid to realize how the climate system works.









  Sure thing buddy!  Let us know when the climatologists figure it out!  The evidence shows that they went down the wrong path and are completely wrong with their theory of CO2 being the driver of climate.

They can't model clouds, they can't figure out how the oceans cycle warm and cold water, they can't model rain, they can't model albedo correctly, they can't model the water vapor in the atmosphere.....  In other words they can't do shit.

And you want to give them all your money and live in abject poverty while all the while they laugh their way to the bank.  what a fool...


----------



## westwall (Dec 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Yes.  Science requires data that is measurable.  Otherwise you could just as easily say that you adhere to the Earth because some god sucks you to the dirt.  See how that works.  Science is based on OBSERVATION AND MEASUREMENT. 

If you can't do either you are dealing with religion bucko.


----------



## westwall (Dec 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









So sayeth the scripture, so sayeth the LORD!



What a moron you are...


----------



## PMZ (Dec 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > The skeptics don't have anything besides the fact that surface temperatures stalled. The oceans make up 80% of our planet and the public is too damn stupid to realize how the climate system works.
> ...



The nature and specifics of GHG behavior with electromagnetic radiation is dead simple and precise at all scales from quantum to universal. To claim otherwise is pure politics and zero, no exaggeration, zero science.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...



Science is truth. Being a control freak, even, doesn't give you any choice on that. You either know the science or you don't. You flunk. 

Stick to the self centeredness of politics.


----------



## westwall (Dec 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...









If it's so straightforward show us the MATH!


----------



## westwall (Dec 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








WRONG!  Religion concerns itself with "truth".  Science concerns itself with FACT.  Learn the difference brainless one.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOLOL....that's a hoot!

You've made it completely obvious that you wouldn't be capable of recognizing either "truth" or "facts" if they bit you on the ass, walleyed. You're a deluded imbecile, lost in some insane fantasyland of lies, misinformation and fossil fuel industry propaganda.


----------



## westwall (Dec 11, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









No, it is patently obvious that you are a child.  Philosophically, educationally, emotionally, and no doubt chronologically as well.  You lack the impulse control of an adult, and you lack the cognitive ability of an adult.  

I feel sorry that you are a hate filled, incompetent, individual and  hope that someday you will seek the mental help that you so clearly need.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You remind me of a two-year-old trying to figure out something that is FAR beyond your comprehension. Or most likely just parroting what some other two-year-old told you...


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...



I've tried to tell Junior (PMZ) that every atmos. physic textbook does the basic calculations for Earth surface warming due SOLELY to CO2. Assuming say a doubling from 250 to 500 ppm. It's a small number that gets even smaller when you factor in water vapor absorption eating into the overlapping absorption of CO2. 

But that's not what he's defending and he doesn't really know it. There's a 4 or 6 times MIRACLE MULTIPLIER that's applied in AGW theory. And you have to hear the sermon and see the light to believe in that part.. 

Let's let him "keep it simple". He's happier that way...


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your misunderstanding of science is even more retarded than you are, fecalhead.

Your Dunning-Kruger Effect inspired assumption that you understand atmospheric physics better than the entire world scientific community is even more retarded still.

Your moronic assertions about subjects that you have no actual knowledge of are just worthless bullshit.

You are a bad joke to anyone with any intelligence, education or actual understanding of climate science.


----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...


So says the self proclaimed genius.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 11, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...



*better than the entire world scientific community *

Wow, you're deluded.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...



If I say it in a public forum where I EXPECT anyone competent to correct me. You can be SURE that I understand it completely.. 

Unlike you, who is NOT that competent competition I'm looking for and has NOTHING to modify anything that I stated. Not much different between you and PMZ. Except that PMZ is more polite and actually makes a good approximation of a conversation.. 

((Don't get all swell headed troll -- you're still on ignore. But MAYBE your competition for that honor just got closer))


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




Actually the combination of GH gases (water vapor being the largest in quantity by FAR), Sunspot cycles, Earth orbital cycles, rotational variances, ocean currents, air currents on and on is VERY complicated and no one on Earth has a grip on it all to date - and to claim otherwise is purely political, ignorant, and anti-science.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 
If it is competent competition you are truly looking for, it seems to me that a public forum is the last place you would go looking for it.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 11, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
Argument from complexity. And not a very good one at that.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 
Every time you make an argument from religiosity, you lose.  Congratulations.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Just like the tides, global climate cycles on Earth have occurred from the very beginning, and always will occur. Perhaps in a "cleansing" role like the tides and seasons offer? So singling out one of the minor GH gases (CO2) as THE culprit, pretending that if we tax and trade it - or even somehow halt all anthropogenic CO2 -- we can alter climate cycles, is the MOST RETARDED FUCKING IDEA I've heard in my life!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 11, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...



Sounds like the retard here is you. If fact, it appears as if ignorance is the only thing that you bring to the table. Flat, you have another peer on the board.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Dont worry --- I have plenty of other opportunities to press my luck with my betters..


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...



Would you have preferred Emaculate Multiplier or MAGIC Multiplier (flacaltenn like that one)? I'm being restrained here out of respect for my neighbors who are people of faith.. 

Got your attention.. You sensitive?


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 11, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Sounds like the retard here is you. If fact, it appears as if ignorance is the only thing that you bring to the table. Flat, you have another peer on the board.




From Portlandia?

Nothing more to say.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Well FINALLY -- it's about time tap4154 showed up.. No offense tap4XXX, but we're dreadfully short of QUALIFIED warmers.. 

And the tap-man was completely correct. NOT an argument from complexity.. 

It's clear all along that you shills have been programmed to believe that a complex system like planetary climate can only have the SIMPLEST linear descriptions. You all BELIEVE that the output temperature MUST LOOK EXACTLY like the input forcing function... 

No reason on the planet that needs to be true. IN FACT, highly unlikely.. Climate science needs to add a few more Physics and Linear/Non-Linear/Stochastic Systems courses to its requirements. Before they embarrass themselves further and cost society an arm and leg.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 11, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...


 

What is retarded is to suggest that we haven't ALEADY altered the climate when the evidence is overwhelming that we have.

As for the Vostok ice core data:

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

*The* *extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.*


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 
And yet here you are.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 
No, what you are doing is pretending that you are anything other than an anti-science religious fruitcake.  No one is buying it.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...


 

If that were true, we wouldn't be wasting our time pointing out the logarithmic nature of both the global temperature and GHG concentrations over the past 100 years.  Ever seen this equation before?

_I = 0.1e^0.02t_

_Of course you haven't._


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes, but IF you could read and comprehend I already said that Man added CO2 since the industrial age (red spike on far right of chart) BUT temps did not follow the spike. In the rest of the chart CO2 increases and decreases lag behind temp changes by 600-800 years, meaning CO2 is not a causal factor, it's a product of warming as it sinks in cold temps into oceans, and releases in warm temps.

And how do you explain (dismiss) all the past cycles?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 11, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...


 
First of all, the resolution necessary to determine whether your claim is valid is not available from that graph, particularly with regard to modern measurements, which are far more precise than the Vostok measurements.  Secondly, when you look at the modern measurements, it is clear that the correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase is not only strong, but dramatic.  That being said, it is clear even with the Vostok measurements that there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature.  The difference between the Vostok measurements and modern measurements is one of scale.  Modern measurements provide more precision at a much smaller scale.  The Vostok measurements give you the trend, but at a much larger scale, only.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




The chart is VERY clear.

Algore is busted

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2QKY3zW8Q]Al Gore Busted. CO2 Lags Behind Temp. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 11, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...


 
If you want to discuss the science, we can do that.  If your intention if to promote rightwing political bullshite, you've already lost the argument.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I did discuss science.

The debate is over.

You lost.

PERIOD.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 11, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...


 
Whining about Al Gore is not a scientific discussion.  You lose.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Did you claim you were a geologist? Then you are either extremely weak in your field or you're trying to pull a fast one here. MOST of that 420Kyr period, 1/2 the globe was covered in snow and ice. CO2 tends to sequester ITSELF quite completely under those conditions. But you knew that ----- right?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Please show the science that supports your argument that the predicted AGW temperature increase will not trigger subsequent events that multiply its effects. 

That snow melt will not occur, changing earth's albedo.

That permafrost will not melt, releasing much more GHGs.

In fact, while you are at it, tell us what the GHG concentration will be when we stop burning fossil fuels that add to it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Is that supposed to cover all the gaps I just mentioned? Does that change my comment that it's virtually impossible for a climate system with the features I mentioned to have matching input/output shapes? 

And WHERE EXACTLY is that relationship used that you posted? It's not the logarithmic CO2forcing function. It MIGHT be a curve fit to a GHGas concentration curve or temperature graph, but that has no modeling significance to climate or the variables you mentioned that i'm aware of.  

*Lemme ask you --- If a simple system contains thermal energy storage AND the input energy forcing is stepped up a constant amount ABOVE the natural cooling rate of the system ---- THen -----

What will the temperature do even if the input is static and does not climb any more?? *


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...


 
It isn't a claim.



			
				flaciddic said:
			
		

> Then you are either extremely weak in your field or you're trying to pull a fast one here.


 
Geology is a very wide-ranging field.  I never said that climate science was my specialty.  It certainly isn't yours, nor is any other geologic discipline.  But my specialty (hydrogeology) has more to do with climate than ANY alleged specialty you might have.



			
				flaciddic said:
			
		

> MOST of that 420Kyr period, 1/2 the globe was covered in snow and ice. CO2 tends to sequester ITSELF quite completely under those conditions. But you knew that ----- right?


 

At no time in the last million years has *1/2* of the globe EVER been covered in snow and ice.  Lying for Jesus and Exxon isn't going to help you win any argument, bubba.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



He CAN'T be busted.. Because if you did bust him --- that MIRACLE MULTIPLIER you twerked on wouldn't work for AGW.. AGW itself (the weird and whacky part) DEPENDS on CO2 following temperature to OBTAIN the MIRACLE MULTIPLIERS.. Did you forget that part. The all powerful positive feedbacks making up the Miracle Multiplier --- the largest is increased CO2 generated NATURALLY by the warming.. 

If CO2 DOESN'T follow temperature -- you've lost a major positive feedback and you have no scary crisis.. 

Me thinks --- We thinks --- YOU'RE the busted one..


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Lord you nailed me on a technicality.. Go fix that percentage for me will ya? The comment stands, my circumcison and Bar Mitzvah are matters of public record. Haven't belonged to a Congregation in over 20 years. BUT ----

You still missed the REAL reason that comparing to cyclical Ice Age climate to our climate today in terms of CO2 is rather stupid.. Hydrologists ought to know that you lock up a lot of CO2 in a couple million sq ft glacier --- Right?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...


 
First of all, whining about Al Gore 10 years on is not a scientific discussion any more than whining about Darwin 150 years after the fact is an example of having a scientific discussion.

Secondly:

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-temperatures-co2-climate.html



> The greatest climate change the world has seen in the last 100,000 years was the transition from the ice age to the warm interglacial period. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen indicates that, contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2 follow each other closely in terms of time. The results have been published in the scientific journal, _Climate of the Past_.
> 
> 
> In the warmer climate the atmospheric content of CO2 is naturally higher. The gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a green-house gas that absorbs heat radiation from the Earth and thus keeps the Earth warm. In the shift between ice ages and interglacial periods the atmospheric content of CO2 helps to intensify the natural climate variations.
> ...


 
But we don't have to wait that long because we are already artificially raising the CO2 concentrations.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 

When you make a statement like that as a matter of fact when it is clearly a lie, that is not a technicality.  Hydrologists don't know a lot about glaciers.  Hydrogeologists do, however.  Another "technicality"?  Oh, and by the way, relative to the amount of CO2 in a couple of million square *MILES* of glacial ice, a couple of million square *feet* is nothing.  Relative to the amount of CO2 released *suddenly* by the combustion of all that fossil fuel, it is nothing as well.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Again -- it's hard to compare a massive glaciation to what we have NOW.. Certainly it could take a 100 years to thaw thru a mile thick glacier to the permafrost... But it's good you took a remedial look at what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest. 

Really anticipating your guess about what that simple system with internal thermal storage does temperature wise to a flat-lined but IMBALANCED heating/cooling rate scenario...


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 
What is so hard about that? 20,000 years ago we had glaciers that nearly breached the Ohio River valley.  They aren't there today, are they?  See how easy that was?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 12, 2013)

Yeah.. Like you said about "why am I still here" --- I really don't have time for your ballroom dancing.

So far --  you've nitpicked and danced a lot.. And now you're playing stupid about the relationship of CO2 levels and Ice Ages. And you're not answering my one simple question that gets back to why CLimate Science is Sesame Street science..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Yeah.. Like you said about "why am I still here" --- I really don't have time for your ballroom dancing.
> 
> So far --  you've nitpicked and danced a lot.. And now you're playing stupid about the relationship of CO2 levels and Ice Ages. And you're not answering my one simple question that gets back to why CLimate Science is Sesame Street science..



During the ice ages the co2 level within the atmosphere dropped to 180ppm...As the glacial absorbed the co2. 

This reinforced the ice ages and made them last longer  Extending the effect of the orbital and rotational cycles that started them. The opposite happened as we entered the interglacial. 

Does co2 start the ice ages...No. But a chain reaction does occur that releases a lot of co2 from the oceans and glacial.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Yeah.. Like you said about "why am I still here" --- I really don't have time for your ballroom dancing.
> 
> So far -- you've nitpicked and danced a lot.. And now you're playing stupid about the relationship of CO2 levels and Ice Ages. And you're not answering my one simple question that gets back to why CLimate Science is Sesame Street science..


 
You complain when you think climate scientists get it wrong, but dismiss my pointing out your stupid answers as me "nitpicking".  Hypocrite.  And flaciddic, I don't response to straw man arguments, even when they are posed in the form of questions.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.



What the science says about it and what you say about it are two different things.  But that's not why I'm here.

Please explain why you believe (as I'm assuming you do) that CO2, physically, can NOT lead temperatures upward.  And I want no history.  I want physics.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 12, 2013)

Matthew said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.. Like you said about "why am I still here" --- I really don't have time for your ballroom dancing.
> ...



Glaciers "absorb" CO2?

Seriously?

I thought the ocean ate it


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 12, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Glaciers lock it up as do the oceans as they cool. A cooler ocean is a bigger sink of co2.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 12, 2013)

BOTTOM LINE: Even IF we could stop ALL anthropogenic CO2 tomorrow, it wouldn't make a whit of difference in global climate cycles. Any effect on future temp increases and decreases would be virtually unmeasurable. 

FACT: Nations like Russia, China and India will just continue to produce more CO2 and other REAL pollution no matter how economically crippled Americas is by any Obama/IPCC CO2 tax/fee wealth-redistribution schemes, so all we'd be doing is harming ourselves FOR NOTHING.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 12, 2013)

Hydro and nuclear are two dependable sources Who need fossil fuels that we have to spend tens of billions digging out of the ground and transporting.

Wind, solar and wave can be 20-25% of the mix of course


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 12, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Hydro and nuclear are two dependable sources Who need fossil fuels that we have to spend tens of billions digging out of the ground and transporting.
> 
> Wind, solar and wave can be 20-25% of the mix of course



I've been advocating new nuclear plants for YEARS! New tech like modular pebble bed are very safe and relatively inexpensive to build, but "progressives" show up en-masse to protest and block the permitting process at even the hint of new nuclear plant being built. Wind, solar and wave will always be just a single digit percentage of the mix. Good for some local applications only. We need BIG and dependable solutions to support the main grid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Hydro and nuclear are two dependable sources Who need fossil fuels that we have to spend tens of billions digging out of the ground and transporting.
> 
> Wind, solar and wave can be 20-25% of the mix of course



*Who need fossil fuels that we have to spend tens of billions digging out of the ground and transporting.*

We do.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 12, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> BOTTOM LINE: Even IF we could stop ALL anthropogenic CO2 tomorrow, it wouldn't make a whit of difference in global climate cycles. Any effect on future temp increases and decreases would be virtually unmeasurable.
> 
> FACT: Nations like Russia, China and India will just continue to produce more CO2 and other REAL pollution no matter how economically crippled Americas is by any Obama/IPCC CO2 tax/fee wealth-redistribution schemes, so all we'd be doing is harming ourselves FOR NOTHING.



The better prepared that we are,  and the less prepared China and India are,  for the end of oil,  for example,  not that far away,  the better that we'll do versus them,  in business.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.. Like you said about "why am I still here" --- I really don't have time for your ballroom dancing.
> ...



 What I said about there being virtually NO EXPECTATION that the Temperature curve for the planet having to be the SAME SHAPE as any forcing function is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.. Either you're not CURIOUS as to why I can confidently assert that -- Or you're AFRAID that it might force you to change your "beliefs".. 

If you REFUSE to engage in a real discussion about AGW models of the climate being ABSURD simplications of the science and math -- *you'll never understand why people are laughing at you*.You've been trained like a seal to expect to see curves  match identically.. 

Your choice... Not my loss..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 
Except that:

1) You did not make that exact statement and appear to want to make it seem that you said something else altogether; and

2) Whether or not you or anyone else has an expectation as to the temperature curve of the planet over time is irrelevant to what that curve actually is. The fact is that the two (CO2 concentrations and global temperature averages over time) are strongly correlated whether or not they meet your expectations.



			
				flaciddic said:
			
		

> If you REFUSE to engage in a real discussion about AGW models of the climate being ABSURD simplications of the science and math -- *you'll never understand why people are laughing at you*.You've been trained like a seal to expect to see curves match identically..


 
The only reason people laugh at me, if they do laugh at me, is because they find it funny, if not sad, that I would even bother to try to have a conversation with such a tool as you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 12, 2013)

Matthew said:


> *Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000*
> 
> 
> > A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.
> ...



Whenever anyone asks why I challenge the warmists and alarmists, I point to drivel like this study that claims that water can magically absorb heat without increasing in temperature anywhere.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Fair enough -- You're not here to converse with me.. 

But just for the record -- the history of that comment goes something like this.. You attempted to dismiss poster "tap" with an "argument from complexity" backhand.

Whereby I asserted that Climate Science DESERVES derision for reducing their contributions way below the bar of all available math and science for public consumption. And I supported that observation by remarking that NO system as complex as Earth's climate should ever be expected to cough out a temperature shape that looks exactly like anyone of it's input variables. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/322005-pacific-ocean-waters-absorbing-heat-15-times-faster-over-past-60-years-than-in-past-1-a-28.html#post8285559

I would have to erase everything I know about complex systems and math and science to spend all my time yelling at folks that "that input doesn't match the observed temperature curve".. And YET --- that's the cornerstone of your AGW stone tablets... 

Sad situation bud..  True story....


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 
The funny thing about science is that expectations have a way of being unexpectedly defeated by observations. As an example, no one expected such a huge and devastating earthquake and tsunami to occur off the coast of Sumatra in 2004 because there was very little past evidence for such an event even though it was widely known to be associated with a large and potentially dangerous megathrust zone. Today, it is being reported that large tsunami deposits were found in a cave near the western Sumatra coast that extends the history of tsunamis in the region back to the year 1000, and probably further. So we now have a very detailed history of such events in the region. Had we known in 2004 what we know today, we could have based a more reasonable disaster plan on that data, and likely saved many lives. 

In this case, you apparently expect that CO2 concentrations and global temperature averages NOT to correlate (though why you would believe such a thing is not explained). Sadly for you and your expectations, they do, in fact, correlate. Next.


----------



## westwall (Dec 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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









Boy.  Ain't that true about AGW.  Expectations were that with all that increased CO2 temps were going to skyrocket.  Then, when that didn't happen the brain trust began falsifying data to support their expectations.  Then, when that got found out they had to do a song and dance routine claiming that they didn't say those things all the while having their minions bury them on the internet.

So sad for them that we actually are competent, unlike them, so silly little tactics like that don't work and we dredge up all the things they said that they denied ever saying.

Funny that....observations haven't been kind to you boys and girls at all!


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



The fact that they correlate means nothing. In fact, it doesn't even tell you which is the dependent variable -- does it? A complex system like I said has no expectation that the inputs are correlated with the output(s). They are related by a transfer function.. Only the SIMPLIEST of systems have y = Ax + b type of transfer functions. And THOSE imply some order of correlation between input and output. 

The known PROPERTIES of the climate system include features that are sure to not fit that 1st order linear type of equation.. As I tried to walk you thru the example of a simple system with storage in it --- you WOULD have found that such a Linear System contains an integral which will allow the output to CONTINUE RAMPING UP in time --- even if the input levels are static.. Not magic -- math and science.. 

So for instance -- when the jerk squads start whining that the TSI Solar forcing can't POSSIBLY cause continuing INCREASING surface temps if it stopped climbing 20 yrs ago and just idles at a relative high...........

  Folks with science and math skills just chuckle and shake their heads.. 

Give it a decade ---- some VERY SHARP Climate scientists are starting to get it....


----------



## PMZ (Dec 12, 2013)

westwall said:


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



"Expectations were that with all that increased CO2 temps were going to skyrocket"

Really? Those must have been your expectations.

The expectations of science have, as you have pointed out, been that a small increase in AGW, would trigger other effects, that, over time, would lead to bigger temperature increases. 

Did you think that you'd wake up some morning and all of the polar ice would be gone? That the earth's albedo would make a step function change? 

Did you think that the arctic permafrost would melt over night?

Did you think that the oceans would, all of a sudden, become a warm bath?

I don't think that you have any idea of the scale of climate effects. The time constants. The dynamics measured in 30 year increments. 

Or the irreversibility of it all. The momentum of all of the interconnected things that once triggered, can never be undone.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 12, 2013)

Whooooa.. Lemme modify that last statement.. 



> Folks with science and math skills just chuckle and shake their heads..
> 
> Give it a decade ---- some VERY SHARP Climate scientists are starting to get it....



Some very sharp climate scientists COLLABORATING WITH physicists, systems specialists and engineers are starting to get it.. The kinda team that Judith Curry has put together at Georgia Tech. 

Less snarky tree ring, mud bug, metastudy Global extravaganzas for public consumption and IPCC stage productions  -- and a lot more TOOLS of math and science brought to bear..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 
I suppose that my earlier pointing out the NON-Linear characteristic of the global climate system went right over your pointy head.  I'm not surprised.  Go ahead - chuckle. Then you can explain with a more straight face why you ignored this fact and instead went with the "linear" straw man.


----------



## westwall (Dec 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










  That's what you clowns have been bleating for over 25 years silly person!  "The science is settled, if we continue to pump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere the inexorable result is run away warming" blah, blah, blah....

That's the AGW mantra.  It *IS* funny to see you trying to run away from it though...it truly is!


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Well no -- it didn't go over my head.. I just didn't recognize it. I've since looked it up and it's really what I thought it was --- a curve fit to the modern observed temperature graph.. A curve fit only describes the observation. It doesn't explain the system internals or inputs in any way.. BUT ---- You are correct --- that the system shouldn't even be expected to be linear. 

Peering into the Black Box Model that contains the climate system -- I'd expect to see both Linear and Non-Linear functions. I'm also sure there's some statistical or stochastic functions in there. Along with the Storage elements, and Delay Elements and all those other constructs of system modeling. The BIGGEST weirdness creating element in a system is FEEDBACK. Which the Climate Black Box also contains. Both positive and negative types.. Can create output OSCILLATIONS and transient behaviours. Really screws with concept of a simple curve matching process between Ins and Outs. 

Something that complex and devious enough to "hide heat in the oceans" isn't gonna behave exactly like JUST ONE of its input variables. GuaranDamTeed.

If it DOES -- it would be a rare coinkydink.. 

The solar forcings act a lot more HVAC furnace. DURATION of power applied determines the room temp --- the magnitude of the heat energy needn't be changing to make the temperature go up.

*I've got reasons to be skeptical.* And they are not just BELIEFS or WHIMS of fancy. They are not "based on my religion or politics".. Just thought you should know..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 
None of which explains your "linear" straw man.  Care to try again?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You like to ignore that AGW is an eighth grade physics certainty. Apparently you skipped that day. 

Denying reality has never worked out for me, a lesson that you, too, will learn sooner or later. 

Probably later for you. Maybe never.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



There's some disconnect here.. Should we just drop it? Or you want to tell me where I insisted about any REAL climate system model being "linear"? The only simplistic "linear" assumption is that the temperature record has to MATCH EXACTLY any climate input.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.
> ...



Any chance of a response here?  This was originally addressed to FlaCalTenn, but I'll take a response from anyone who wants to take the opposing position.  You'd be arguing FlaCalTenn's implication, that the CO2/temperature lag/lead function only works in one direction; that we are clowns to expect it to work in both directions.  Any takers?

Alternatively, of course, I'd take an admission that the physics does allow CO2 to lead temperature upwards.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



You ask a question whose answer reveals the fundamental hole in denier science. The answer is that no science supports any reaction other than global warming as a consequence of increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations.

What they offer is politics in the absence of such science. And obfuscation of the science. Great huge schools of red herrings.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



You snipped so much of my response that I have no idea what the context was. But I'm CERTAIN --- that I never said CO2 couldn't lead temperature.. 

This argument starts everytime one of you AGW zealots starts denying that CO2 EVER leads temperature (like during the Glacials)  -- and we have to remind you that your Armaggedon scenario DOES depend on having it BOTH ways..


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 12, 2013)

You said:



flacaltenn said:


> what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.



I see no other way to take that other than that you believe we are "clowns" to believe it works in both directions.  

If you're having trouble remembering what you said, feel free to look it up.  It isn't that far up the thread.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 12, 2013)

Here's your entire statement.



flacaltenn said:


> Again -- it's hard to compare a massive glaciation to what we have NOW.. Certainly it could take a 100 years to thaw thru a mile thick glacier to the permafrost... But it's good you took a remedial look at what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.
> 
> Really anticipating your guess about what that simple system with internal thermal storage does temperature wise to a flat-lined but IMBALANCED heating/cooling rate scenario...


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Here's your entire statement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Truely man..  I need an interpreter here.  You ranting about demanding physics and claiming I meant something other than what is written there?  ANYONE LEND AHAND HERE? Is there a shrink in the house?


----------



## westwall (Dec 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's your entire statement.
> ...








A shrink would prescribe a rubber room and a hose.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 12, 2013)

Is the problem that I pointed out you were clowns? Or that we have to constantly remind you that it works both ways?  Cause sure as hell someone will say that temperature led CO2 during the glacials and one of you will surely run out into traffic claiming that cant be.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's your entire statement.
> ...



Is there some reason you can't provide a simple explanation of what you meant?  I simply want to know if, as you appear to be saying,you believe there is some physical reason that prevents CO2 from leading temperature.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> A shrink would prescribe a rubber room and a hose.



Are you threatening me with violence?  Or do you perhaps not know what the guards actually DID with the rubber hoses?


----------



## whitehall (Dec 12, 2013)

Watch for it people....When an alleged "scientific climate analysis" starts out with the words... "A RECENT SLOWDOWN IN GLOBAL WARMING"  it's the beginning of the end for the extortionists.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 12, 2013)

It never ceases to amaze me how many idiots are out there.


----------



## Meister (Dec 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how many idiots are out there.



It amazes me to no end, also.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > The funny thing about science is that *expectations have a way of being unexpectedly defeated by observations.* As an example, no one expected such a huge and devastating earthquake and tsunami to occur off the coast of Sumatra in 2004 because there was very little past evidence for such an event even though it was widely known to be associated with a large and potentially dangerous megathrust zone. Today, it is being reported that large tsunami deposits were found in a cave near the western Sumatra coast that extends the history of tsunamis in the region back to the year 1000, and probably further. So we now have a very detailed history of such events in the region. Had we known in 2004 what we know today, we could have based a more reasonable disaster plan on that data, and likely saved many lives.
> ...


And, in fact, temperatures did "_skyrocket_" and continue to soar. Both air and ocean temperatures are rapidly climbing, the polar ice caps are melting, the mountain glaciers are melting, the sea levels are rising, and many other symptoms of warming and rapid climate change continue to manifest.  

*'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming*
PhysOrg
Nov 13, 2013
(excerpts)
*An interdisciplinary team of researchers say they have found 'missing heat' in the climate system, casting doubt on suggestions that global warming has slowed or stopped over the past decade. Observational data on which climate records are based cover only 84 per cent of the planet &#8211; with Polar regions and parts of Africa largely excluded. Now Dr Kevin Cowtan, a computational scientist at the University of York, and Robert Way, a cryosphere specialist and PhD student at the University of Ottawa, have reconstructed the 'missing' global temperatures using a combination of observations from satellites and surface data from weather stations and ships on the peripheries of the unsampled regions.

The new research published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society shows that the Arctic is warming at about eight times the pace of the rest of the planet. Previous studies by the UK Met Office based on the HadCRUT4 dataset, which only covers about five-sixths of the globe, suggest that global warming has slowed substantially since 1997. The new research suggests, however, that the addition of the 'missing' data indicates that the rate of warming since 1997 has been two and a half times greater than shown in the Met Office studies. Evidence for the rapid warming of the Arctic includes observations from high latitude weather stations, radiosonde and satellite observations of temperatures in the lower atmosphere and reanalysis of historical data. He says: "There's a perception that global warming has stopped but, in fact, our data suggests otherwise. But the reality is that 16 years is too short a period to draw a reliable conclusion. We find only weak evidence of any change in the rate of global warming." Robert Way adds: "Changes in Arctic sea ice and glaciers over the past decade clearly support the results of our study. By producing a truly global temperature record, we aim to better understand the drivers of recent climate change."*









westwall said:


> Then, when that didn't happen...



But it did happen. You're just too lost in your denier cult delusions and mythologies to acknowledge that fact.





westwall said:


> ...the brain trust began falsifying data to support their expectations.  Then, when that got found out they had to do a song and dance routine claiming that they didn't say those things all the while having their minions bury them on the internet. So sad for them that we actually are competent, unlike them, so silly little tactics like that don't work and we dredge up all the things they said that they denied ever saying. Funny that....observations haven't been kind to you boys and girls at all!


Just more delusional nonsense from your cultic cesspit of insanity, reality denial, and lies.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 13, 2013)

Earth truly amazes me as one moment we think we know it all and the next moment we're proven as fools.

Politics doesn't allow for debate and the growth of science...It is be right or you're just wrong kind of thing. We know that our planet is massing energy within the climate system but people have been told on thing and don't understand the other...The new truth is most of the energy want into the oceans. 

People don't realize that the climate system is 80% ocean and the real kicker is ENERGY. Putting more of something into the system is the truth...

Doesn't have to be the atmosphere, just that it is being added.


----------



## westwall (Dec 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > A shrink would prescribe a rubber room and a hose.
> ...








Why would I threaten a sock puppet?  Further, yes I do know what they did with them.  Unlike you I read books.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Change to science books rather than history.  History is all over.  Science is about what's coming.  And it's coming regardless of your preferences.


----------



## westwall (Dec 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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









I have over 1000 books in just my science library, how about you?  I'm currently reading Disturbing the Solar System by Rubin with my daughter who is 7, so she can get a better idea of how the universe works.  What's the last book you read period?


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Disturbing-Solar-System-Encounters-Attractions/dp/0691117438]Disturbing the Solar System: Impacts, Close Encounters, and Coming Attractions: Alan E. Rubin: 9780691117430: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Such a shame that you can't seem to comprehend *any* of them, walleyed. It must suck to be as retarded as you obviously are. And then, to be so very afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect like that, on top of the retardation.....you poor, poor befuddled imbecile.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



To understand the certainty of AGW,  all you need is a high school physics text. Got one of those?


----------



## Meister (Dec 13, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So says the self proclaimed genius.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 13, 2013)

Meister said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



High school physics doesn't require genius.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Your comment is a threat of violence.  I will demand that the sysops throw you off for that.  They will ignore it.  But now we all know that you find violence acceptable and that you think it was justified by my polite request to FlaCalTenn that he simply explain his statement.  Doesn't that make you a shining paragon of considered reason and polite discourse.  Brainless asshole.

You claim to have a thousand books in "just" your science library.  Let's see a picture showing at least a few hundred of them, with legible titles and your hand in the picture making a cuckolds horn.  Wear something red.  Or you could just admit you're an asshole AND a liar.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Is the problem that I pointed out you were clowns? Or that we have to constantly remind you that it works both ways?  Cause sure as hell someone will say that temperature led CO2 during the glacials and one of you will surely run out into traffic claiming that cant be.



I, and several other posters here, have NEVER denied that temperature will raise CO2.  That is verified every time we discuss one of the many reinforcing mechanisms like marine outgassing or thawing permafrost.  What has been generally (or completely) lacking in this conversation is an admission on your side that increased CO2 will raise temperatures.  How many times now has it been clearly implied that the greenhouse effect is bogus because of the last decade's temperature trend?

And  I may have missed it, but you seem to have dropped this thread.  I never did hear an explanation for your statement.  You hint about it above, but I would like to hear you say it clearly: Do you, FlaCalTenn, believe increasing atmospheric CO2 will trap infrared radiation and raise global temperatures?  Yes or No?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Is the problem that I pointed out you were clowns? Or that we have to constantly remind you that it works both ways?  Cause sure as hell someone will say that temperature led CO2 during the glacials and one of you will surely run out into traffic claiming that cant be.
> ...



I'm not responding to you because we've been discussing this topic for MONTHS now (for me a few years) and you should KNOW where I stand. I made no comment about what I believe about CO2 lead/lag.. I made a comment about what WARMERS seems to often forget.. You getting all twerky here about it -- is just weird and somewhat scary... 

You also know -- that I've spent HOURS and PAGES defending Back Radiation against my own SKEPTICAL PALS *because you WERE THERE on those threads*. So whatever you're doing is just plain ANNOYING and STUPID..  

SOMEONE provoked me to make that comment. SOMEONE on this thread.. Not worth my time to nail the little warmer sucker.. Maybe YOU think its important enough to sleuth out.. 
Have fun with that...


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 13, 2013)

In other words, no he doesn't believe that CO2 can raise global temperatures - he's just too cowardly to come out and say it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 13, 2013)

What?  We have TWO whiny spoiled children here?     CREEPY...  WWF forum is down the hall next to Gameshows.......


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 13, 2013)

SO do you believe in the green house effect?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> What?  We have TWO whiny spoiled children here?     CREEPY...  WWF forum is down the hall next to Gameshows.......



Realists,  who accept the current need for action,  are put off by politics devoid of science that's aimed at stopping what is necessary, in order to profit today at the expense of the future. 

Fortunately,  denialists don't have the political clout to be successful,  but you're very annoying with your pseudoscience.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Good.  Shame you can't just say it.

Next time we can _both_ try to be more accurate describing each other's positions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2013)

Holy Fucking Moly!

The Pacific Ocean decreased Solar output

Current Solar Activity Cycle Is Weakest in a Century | Space.com


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 14, 2013)

Meister said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It's all relative. Compared to you or the walleyedretard, pretty much anyone with above average intelligence would seem to be a genius. A real genius would make me look kind of dim in comparison, but then a real genius would make you two, or the rest of the denier cultists who post here, seem like retarded dogs.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 14, 2013)

Let's not forget this one '_Westie_'.   Show us some of your library.  And don't forget to stick your hand in there.  Or a sign that mentions me by name.  Or some other proof that will reassure us you aren't just MAKING THINGS UP.



Abraham3 said:


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


----------



## Kosh (Dec 14, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Says the one who is dumber than an ameba.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 14, 2013)

Kosh said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



That's amoeba.  From the Greek.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Westwall has, but you're too freakin' stupid to even realize it.  The scientists are seeing that the numbers aren't adding up and jumping from your ship.....and you're still in denial.
Yeah....we're the "retarded digs"....moron.  Oh, I forgot to spell it your way..."moran".


----------



## PMZ (Dec 14, 2013)

Meister said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Ahhh,  the dream of denialists.  Science on their side.  Ain't happening bro.  You've got big oil on your side and do nothing politicians,  that's it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 14, 2013)

Meister said:


> The scientists are seeing that the numbers aren't adding up and jumping from your ship.



I'd like to see some evidence showing that's the case.

Got any?


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 14, 2013)

abraham3 said:


> kosh said:
> 
> 
> > rollingthunder said:
> ...



ROTFLMAO......too funny...


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > The scientists are seeing that the numbers aren't adding up and jumping from your ship.
> ...



Just Google it, you wouldn't believe anything I would show you.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 14, 2013)

Meister said:


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



Do you think that everything that Google returns is truth?  No wonder you are so easily fooled.


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



  Good grief.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 14, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Another of the evidence deprived.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 14, 2013)

Meister said:


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



So you actually have nothing to back up your delusional bullshit. Of course, and as usual.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 14, 2013)

Meister said:


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



Just Google what?

If you provide us link(s) to objective material from reliable sources, I will most certainly believe you.  I ask again: could you show us some evidence indicating that, as you said, scientists are jumping from our ship?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 14, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



It's hard for me to understand why people choose to live in a delusion.  What is it about the real world that they find so threatening?  

I wonder if it's a control freak thing.  In their fantasy, they are right,  things go their way,  the pieces respond to their moves.  In the real world they are appropriately regarded as ignorant,  incompetent and irresponsible. 

Whatever it is it must be strongly addictive because very few ever return to reality.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...










And yet it's you who resort to juvenile insults when you lose every argument you engage in  My 7 year old is a better debater than you'll ever be.  She almost certainly knows more, now, than you ever will as well.

For someone who bandies D-K about as much as you nitwits do you really don't understand what it means as regards YOU.  Funny that.  Now what would D-K say about you


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Yes, I do.  It's a Los Angeles Unified School District book from 1927.  Funnily enough it say's you're full of poo.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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










  What are you, three?  Anyone with a brain (which clearly excludes you) can quite easily see that there was no threat implied so you can kindly go fuck yourself.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2013)

Matthew said:


> SO do you believe in the green house effect?








Of course.  Water Vapor is the bee's knee's.  If we didn't have water vapor, in the abundance we do, this planet would be a dry rock with a mere exo-atmosphere.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Let's not forget this one '_Westie_'.   Show us some of your library.  And don't forget to stick your hand in there.  Or a sign that mentions me by name.  Or some other proof that will reassure us you aren't just MAKING THINGS UP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Why bother, you'll just claim I photoshopped it.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Probably before quantum mechanics and GHGs were well understood.  If I were you I'd invest in Physics for Dummies and have the 7 year old help you with it.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








You're correct on the QM, but, as far as the GHG's go, it is every bit as good as what is available now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Ameba - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Wow --- I'm impressed Toddster. You dug deep on that one.. Good Catch.. 

I learned something for a change on USMB..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 
There's a first time for everything.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It is not. What the IPCC has uncovered is a quantum leap in climate science effects.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Let's not forget this one '_Westie_'.   Show us some of your library.  And don't forget to stick your hand in there.  Or a sign that mentions me by name.  Or some other proof that will reassure us you aren't just MAKING THINGS UP.
> ...


Nice dodge, walleyed, but in other words, you got nothing and you can't back up your silly claim at all. Understandable. After all, you certainly couldn't have enough space in the cardboard box you live in for that many books.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 14, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



Too bad for you --- The last annual meeting of the USMB climate Skeptics was held at WestWall's spacious Yurt --- and I snapped this photo.... 






There was one volume there that he particularly prized.. 






We spend sooo much time trying to understand your cult.. If you only knew...


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So your denier cult chapter holds meetings, eh? LOLOL.

And your photo of the meeting place, with no one there, just happens to be lifted from the Huffington Post?

LOLOLOL....you are a real hoot, fecalhead......and such an incompetent brainless liar.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









  The IPCC hasn't done shit, stupid.  Neither have the scientists who have been "contributing" to the IPCC reports, save for the very first ones.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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








Wrong, but I do what I wish when I want to.  I don't jump because some internet troll tells me to.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








I owe you rep for that one!


----------



## PMZ (Dec 14, 2013)

Nobody gonna teach Westwall no science. He's got Fox News. Don't need no facts. Don't need no learning. He's entitled to whatever truth that he wants.


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Nobody gonna teach Westwall no science. He's got Fox News. Don't need no facts. Don't need no learning. He's entitled to whatever truth that he wants.








You whine worse than my 7 year old.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody gonna teach Westwall no science. He's got Fox News. Don't need no facts. Don't need no learning. He's entitled to whatever truth that he wants.
> ...



I do whine about people who pretend to be knowledgeable when,  in fact,  they are merely political.


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









  So sayeth the political whore.  All you assholes spout is "consensus" this and "consensus" that.  Do you know what "consensus" is?  It's POLITICAL YOU DIPSHIT!

Your very core mantra is political, always has been, always will be.

What a stupid fool.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



My mantra is follow the science.  Yours is to chase after the bucks.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> So sayeth the political whore.  All you assholes spout is "consensus" this and "consensus" that.  Do you know what "consensus" is?  It's POLITICAL YOU DIPSHIT!
> 
> Your very core mantra is political, always has been, always will be.
> 
> What a stupid fool.



You think the opinions of active research scientists regarding the subjects on which they are expert, are POLITICAL?  

Would you care to explain that?  FCT?  Meister?  You praised Westie for that nonsense.  Surely you could explain what is meant by it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> Wrong, but I do what I wish when I want to.  I don't jump because some internet troll tells me to.



Then don't expect anyone to believe you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Says the guy who "knows" we don't invest any money in fossil fuels.


----------



## Meister (Dec 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So sayeth the political whore.  All you assholes spout is "consensus" this and "consensus" that.  Do you know what "consensus" is?  It's POLITICAL YOU DIPSHIT!
> ...


I sure could, yes, he's absolutely right.

You cultists refuse to follow the money in grants given.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

Meister said:


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



If you were right,  that science only is what money can buy,  the huge advancements of its track record would not exist.


----------



## Meister (Dec 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Your right, and that's why scientists are jumping your ship.
The huge advancements that you're talking about are the emails from Mann, right?
You know the ones that stated the data didn't add up, or, are you just going to deny those facts? I'm mean, if you take them into consideration your agenda does fall apart.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 16, 2013)

Meister said:


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



*Yep..  I second that...  *You always please your grant-giver.. Nice plug for their cause in the Abstract -- a well crafted Press Release prostituting your scientific principles to give the public some alarm --- and a graph made NOT FOR SCIENCE --- but for public policy.. 

The REST of the study could be science --- but nobody will ever get past the abstract and the propaganda..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 16, 2013)

Meister said:


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


 
That sounds like sour grapes because your pseudoscience friends have such a hard time even applying for grants, much less obtaining them.  That is the fault of climate scientists, how?  Let me give you a clue.  If you want to apply for a science grant, you have to demonstrate that: 

1) You are a real scientist conducting real scientific research;

2) You have to understand the forms you are filling out, and provide truthful answers to the questions;

3) You have to convince the government that your research is going to provide results, whether it actually does or not.
The problem with most of your denier pals is that they aren't actually scientists.  The most vocal member of your club is a former disc jockey.  Another is a message therapist.  You guys just don't get it.

You don't go to a fast food cashier if you need brain surgery.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Lemme 'splain to ya how you sell "basic unfettered research" to a Government Agency.. 
My ass was on a plane between San Jose and Dulles 3 times a month for 4 years. My briefcase had 2 or 3 basic vanilla presentations in it for the stuff we were selling in signal and image processing.. THEN --- there was the "customizing" section of slides. 

One for Agency A -- who had a pot of money for Stars Wars Ballistic Missile Defense.
One for Agency B -- who had a pot of money for Satellite interp. of Earth Resources.
One for Agency X -- who apparently had a never empty blank check to listen into the Kremlin.
One for the symposium where I was supposed to present a paper.. 

I took NO exams, they never asked me for "credentials", and I listened VERY CLOSELY to see what their money was ACTUALLY ALLOCATED FOR.. 

Climate scientists are only different because they have become rock stars in terms of public awareness. And the media attention FURTHER causes them to "tailor the message". 

Government doesn't sit there looking for nifty talented scientists to pitch them BRILLIANT new ideas.. They don't even care.. They get a pot 'o money to hand out for a CAUSE -- and they choose the messengers for that cause..

Your end product had BETTER make them look good.. At LEAST thru the abstract and the exec summary part..


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 16, 2013)

You weren't a research scientist.  People were paying you for things you'd already built.  Not quite the same thing.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> You weren't a research scientist.  People were paying you for things you'd already built.  Not quite the same thing.



Oh really?? That's a helluva surprise to me.. Know anything about optical computing? How about Neural Networks? We can chat...


----------



## mamooth (Dec 16, 2013)

Meister said:


> Your right, and that's why scientists are jumping your ship.



If you were in touch with reality, you wouldn't be part of the denialist political cult. Knowledge and common sense destroy denialism.



> The huge advancements that you're talking about are the emails from Mann, right?
> You know the ones that stated the data didn't add up, or, are you just going to deny those facts?



I am going to point out how you're parroting a big lie. No such thing happened. 

Apparently, your political cult never informed you about how the phony climategate non-scandal crashed and burned years ago, leaving egg on the face of all who fell for it. But since your cult never told you, and you only get info from your cult, there's no way you could have known that. Hence I have to tell you now.


----------



## Meister (Dec 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Your right, and that's why scientists are jumping your ship.
> ...



Your cult would deny the truth...it has to.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



There are no scientists jumping ship.  You have zero science to support what your politics wishes was true. Zero.  No theories,  no data,  no scientists,  nothing.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I like how you project your shyster tactics on others.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



What was THAT supposed to mean Junior? That's how you keep 10 research scientists employed with Government funding.  BESIDES what the corporation needs you for.. 

You match your research interest to whatever piles of money Congress allocates for "crises". No crisis -- No money.. *What? You think they just fund any "good ideas" that just walk in door?? * Go try that at DARPA or NOAA or the Pentagon.

MAJOR misconception on the parts of the folks here on the forum that think GOVERNMENT is the director and leader of American innovation..


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Did you promise them specific research results for their money?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Nobody can do that.. But the PREREQUISITE is that you have to tell the story of how this research addresses a specific crisis that they've chartered to address. Technology and research are fungible across MANY disciplines. Same research may be applicable to several interests of the Government. 

In the case of Climate research -- it's pretty much the same. They can pull funding out of the biological sciences (Forestry, Marine Fisheries, etc) or the Ocean Sciences (NOAA, NAVY, etc) or out of other areas like NASA, FEMA, Homeland Security, and NWService. *IN EVERY CASE --- **the money available is under Grant Applications that MENTION "man-made global warming" or "catastrophic climate change"* and you BETTER be prepared to deliver SOMETHING that mentions those crisis --- no matter HOW your research actually turns out.. It's IS biased research --- by the very structure of the funding mechanism.

*What did you mean by "projecting my shyster tactics on others"? EH???*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 16, 2013)

I find it amazing that AGW has affected solar output


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



If you acted as you claim climate researchers do by promising research outcomes for funds, those would indeed be shyster tactics. If you didn't, than your experience would indicate they don't either. They do what what you did. They research topics to determine how natural systems behave.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I find it amazing that AGW has affected solar output



That's not possible.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 

Well, that's a load of shite.  They do not mandate what the results of funded research shall be.  The results are what they are, dude.  Even null results are valid results if they are reproducible, and falsifiable.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



You're not listening to what I'm telling you.. I SAID you can't promise research results. But you had BETTER ACKNOWLEDGE THE CRISIS that created the pot of money that PAID for your research. So you better MENTION the relevence of findings to the issue at hand --- even if you have to stretch or reach for it... 

That's how you get these whacky pronouncements in Abstracts on AGW that go media viral when it's ACTUALLY not even important or relevant to the body of the work...


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



How about some examples of "whacky pronouncements in Abstracts on AGW that go media viral when it's ACTUALLY not even important or relevant to the body of the work."


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Just had one on this forum about a month ago.. Someone counted mudbugs in mid-ocean sediment and the press went wild with OCEANS WARMING AT A QUICKER RATE THAN IN 2000 yrs.. 

Problem was --- as I pointed out --- RIGHT IN THE TOP OF THE STUDY --- these guys conceded that they found a MedWarmPeriod signature MUCH HIGHER than today's oceans temps.. And MUDBUG studies don't HAVE the time resolution in the data to make a pronouncement ABOUT RATES like in that headline. It was actually quite comical how different the science was from the hype it generated.. Almost polar opposite.. 

The whole dustup over the dying Pacific Oysters was another. LOTS of GOVT money went out on that one. Was always a "factory farming" problem and not an Ocean Acidification problem. But you'd see the headline and then read the study and wonder how the hell the press missed all the science..

Was because these GRANT-TAKERS --- GAVE the press the story that the client wanted to hear. NOT a summary of the science in their report..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 
Well, once again, you assume that grant money for climate research is being paid out exclusively on account of some crisis.  A lot of fundamental work is being done simply because we don't have data from which to make any conclusions. Some moneys fund ongoing research in specific areas.  It is like that with every scientific discipline.  Yet somehow you deem it important to single out the climate science community as if they are doing something unique or illegal.  

Clue - there is no conspiracy, Mr. flaciddic.  Take yer meds.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 17, 2013)

Still waiting for the loyal AGW cultists to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate and yet still post with said evidence they claim is out there.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 17, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Still waiting for the loyal AGW cultists to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate and yet still post with said evidence they claim is out there.


 
There are 28 pages of posts here.  If you can't be bothered to read the thread, don't expect anyone to cater to your wishes.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for the loyal AGW cultists to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate and yet still post with said evidence they claim is out there.
> ...



Wrong no datasets with source code has been posted on this thread, please point to the specific post that claim exists with such data that proves CO2 drives climate.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 17, 2013)

Why don't you let us know when you've read

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf


----------



## Kosh (Dec 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Why don't you let us know when you've read
> 
> http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf



.....and yet still no datasets with source code have been provided by the AGW church members.

Just a link to the propaganda.


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...










  How many *BILLIONS* of dollars have been wasted on AGW research?  How many *TRILLIONS* (which you get to skim off the top of course)  do you guys want the planet to spend to lower the global temp by one degree in 100 years...MAYBE?

You and your fellow clones are so full of shit it's no longer funny.


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for the loyal AGW cultists to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate and yet still post with said evidence they claim is out there.
> ...








And not one of them has what Kosh asked for.  Do try and keep up.  You're embarrassing yourself yet again olfraud.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



No crisis -- No money..  Ask the guys at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos.  Without an emphasis on atomic weapons/energy -- these guys are now bidding on Grants for kidney dialysis and cloud computing to keep their staff. Buddy of mine at Livermore is now doing "traffic studies".

The VAST MAJORITY of hot bullet items for climate scientists are now tagged with "man-made global warming" or anthropogenic climate change.. AND -- I didn't mention that the Agency can "science shop" for contracts, just like lawyers have a method to "jury shop".. Because they KNOW from previous work who will deliver the kind of "heavily seasoned product" that they desire..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 
I don't have to ask anyone. My paper got published under an NSF grant. No crisis required. Next.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



You are correct.. NSF is much more open-minded than the agencies that are tasked with SPECIFIC missions.. So their pots of gold are not so cubby-holed..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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


 
But then, agencies that are tasked with specific missions would be expected to dole out grant money based on those missions.  Why the hell wouldn't they?  Would you expect the Department of energy to dole out grant money to fund research on bladder cancer?  I don't think you would.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



NASA right now is doling money for Muslim outreach -- yet you wouldn't figure that would be high in THEIR mission statement.. There is competition for resources. If you are currently doing what Congress and the Admin feel are the IMPORTANT things, you can keep your funding or increase it at somebody else's expense. 

NSF is somewhat sheltered from the "commercialism" of mission statements. 
But you can drill down thru the NOAA grants (eg) and see that they are looking for RESEARCH that CONFIRMS their "mission story" that

1) Climate change & increasingly EXTREME WEATHER is a given and is an accepted prereq to their mission (and funding)
2) You better be producing research that confirms this agency is ESSENTIAL to safeguarding the public from the IMMEDIATE threats of climate change.. 

To wit.. Go to the Grants pages -- enter "climate" into the search.. 
Pick one at random --- like this.. 



> Search Grants | GRANTS.GOV
> 
> NOAA-OAR-CPO-2012-2003041
> Climate Program Office for FY 2012
> ...



Hell -- if the Climate wasn't changing drastically and Extreme Weather WASNT on the increase --- there'd be no Grant. No Crisis --- No Money. No Money -- No Grant.. QED... 

Not exactly as OBJECTIVE a process as MOST people think...  JUST TRY to apply for climate money from NOAA if YOU THINK Climate Change and Extreme Weather is NOT on the horizon... Or you're not seeing the Crisis that they are seeing.. *Or if you're NOT WILLING to prostrate your pride to acheive the "public outreach" portion that I bolded above in your Abstract and Conclusions and invent a nicely spiced Press Release for your work to DISTURB the public into giving NOAA MORE MONEY to protect them*..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 18, 2013)

So what you are telling us is that you don't believe that NOAA should be spending tax payer money to "help society cope with, and adapt to, today's variations in climate and to prepare for tomorrow's"?  You prefer the head in the sand method, do you?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 18, 2013)

These people don't believe America should be a respected science power.

They're extremist and morons.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 18, 2013)

The problem is that they reject what almost everyone else believes.  Thus it seems perfectly natural to us to ask for research on developing responses to global warming, to them that is wrong as it assumes facts they believe (or claim to believe) are unsupported by the evidence.

FCT, what do you believe is convincing all those scientists that AGW is valid?  Do you really think they're all lying for the money?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2013)

Matthew said:


> These people don't believe America should be a respected science power.
> 
> They're extremist and morons.



No better way to get respect than to spend trillions on less reliable energy.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > These people don't believe America should be a respected science power.
> ...



This is true when the alternative is no energy. Not much respect in returning to the caves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



In what imaginary world is there no energy from fossil fuels?

Those solar panel and windmill only idiots are the ones who will return us to the caves.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I guess you believe in the Fossil Fuel Fairy. Bringing energy to good little girls and boys worldwide. 

I don't. Mankind invented and built the fossil fuel world as a good, though temporary solution, now we can build the permanent solution. 

Don't worry, you don't have to do anything. The adults will handle it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*I guess you believe in the Fossil Fuel Fairy.*

I believe in markets. Keep government the fuck out of it, energy will be supplied.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



This pretty much what's going on with the exception of the high risk technology development.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You think the government is keeping out of the energy markets? LOL!

I'm sorry that your Alzheimer's meds have stopped working. 
It does explain the declining quality of your posts.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Speaking of the quality of posts, take this one for instance. What does it say, really. It says what you wish to be true. No evidence, no factual support, not even why you wish it was true. 

Pretty shabby for a guy who fancies himself as smart.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Here's more news of stuff that deniers insist is not happening.

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2013/12/16/4040797/


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

While one record month does not AGW make, when records pile up to the point where they are ordinary, the wise pay some attention.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/2013-warmest-november_n_4461406.html


----------



## Meister (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's more news of stuff that deniers insist is not happening.
> 
> Rising sea level threatens Norfolk



You still won't acknowledge what has been said in prior posts.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's more news of stuff that deniers insist is not happening.
> ...



Not my job, man.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2013)

2013 Brings Warmest November Since At Least 1880

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP)  November was a hot month for planet Earth.

Government scientists reported Tuesday that last month set a heat record. They say it was the warmest November on record, across Earth, since record-keeping began in 1880.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says average global temperature, for water and land surfaces combined, was 56.6 degrees (13.7 Celsius). That's 1.4 degrees (0.78 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average.

It was the 37th consecutive November with above-average temperatures. The last below-average November was in 1976.

It was also the 345th straight month with above-average temperatures. That's almost 29 years.

Among the November hot spots: much of Eurasia, Central America and the Indian Ocean. In Russia, it was the warmest November on record. But parts of North America were cooler than average.

*Almost 30 years of continually climbing temperatures. Yet our fruitloops continue to state nothing is happening. Wow.*


----------



## Meister (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That's quite obvious.


----------



## freedombecki (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's more news of stuff that deniers insist is not happening.
> 
> Rising sea level threatens Norfolk



The city allowed people to build on a floodplain ("wetland") where the earth sinks, and the sea is rising only there?

How does that prove highly intelligent people that you can't debate civilly are AGW deniers?

 /stifling wild laughter


----------



## freedombecki (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


So your job is to discredit any conservative who doesn't buy your Democrat party bullshit?

 That's what you get for getting out of working on the line where you just put rivets on the same place of a single part all day long. So sorry the wringers on the washers you were building went out of date and you had to find job security after your lobotomy at USMB when the Toddster converted other liberals to being conservative believers in years past. You should be mad at the bosses for obtaining a post where you can never win the debate. They're only using your disability because it pleasures them. Poor PMZ, doesn't know he lost the debate his first week here. There aren't any connective receptors up there where other people have them.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's more news of stuff that deniers insist is not happening.
> ...



You forgot to make a point here.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



No point here, either.

"So your job is to discredit any conservative who doesn't buy your Democrat party bullshit?"

My hobby is to study issues and push for what I conclude is best for the country that I'm leaving to my grandchildren. 

As the Republican Party left me in the hopes of picking up conservative votes instead of governing, I find myself at odds with them quite often. However the GOP is showing signs that they understand now that you can't serve conservatism and govern. It has to be one or the other. 

It has taken them quite a few years to conclude the obvious, but, as they say, better late then never.

I'm looking forward to the return of the two party system. Perhaps in 2020.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 
There isn't a market in which government is NOT involved.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 18, 2013)

There isn't a pure capitalist corporation  ran free market on earth. All first world nations are hybrid public/private systems that work very well.

What these people are arguing for is no regulations, no public funds to better society and just pure winners @ losers. These people don't know anything of reality.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You should go sell that story to the happy fossil laborers of the Dakotas --- experiencing and producing the largest energy boom in your lifetime.. DESPITE --- the best efforts of your faithful to have the Govt stop it from happening.. 

We could use a LOT LESS of govt payments for NOT producing stuff WE NEED and govt payments for crap we DONT NEED...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*What does it say, really. *

It says that if you believe the government is keeping out of the energy markets, you are either really, really stupid, or you're losing your marbles.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Give us more government interference, that'll increase supply. Huh.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Give us a list of government funded power plants.


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> So what you are telling us is that you don't believe that NOAA should be spending tax payer money to "help society cope with, and adapt to, today's variations in climate and to prepare for tomorrow's"?  You prefer the head in the sand method, do you?









I equate all the AGW alarmist claptrap the same as I view that laughable TV show "Finding Bigfoot".  The guy gets to hop around the planet seeking "squatch".  He gets to play with all sorts of high tech toys (that he clearly doesn't really know how to use effectively) and he gets paid to do it.

In other words his show is the perfect analog for the AGW pushers....if he admits that there is no "squatch" he no longer gets all those things.

Funny how that works isn't it.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > So what you are telling us is that you don't believe that NOAA should be spending tax payer money to "help society cope with, and adapt to, today's variations in climate and to prepare for tomorrow's"?  You prefer the head in the sand method, do you?
> ...



The people on shows like that,  deny not only science but common sense as well.  Just like AGW deniers.  Or peak oil deniers.


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...










TVA: Hydroelectric Power

http://hydropower.inel.gov/hydrofac...ited_states_hydroelectric_plant_ownership.pdf


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










Funny about peak oil.  They told us that we would be out of oil NOW.  We now have more proven oil reserves than when they began telling us we would be out by now.

You might want to come up with a better example than that one pardner....it exposes your lack of common sense.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Who said that we'd be out of oil now? 

You're another one believing in the Fossil Fuel Fairy bring unlimited energy to good little girls and boys.  

What you really want is the big oil fairy squeezing the last drop of profit out of a world stranded on the highway with no gas.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> So what you are telling us is that you don't believe that NOAA should be spending tax payer money to "help society cope with, and adapt to, today's variations in climate and to prepare for tomorrow's"?  You prefer the head in the sand method, do you?



Not at all. I prefer science that constantly revising the knowledge REGARDLESS of what story has laid out for the future. Meaning that "informing the public" should INCLUDE the possibility that AGW hype is overblown or badly conceived.. 

That NOAA comment doesn't have anything do with the science of "modeling, measuring and understanding climate". That's a description of what NOAA INTERESTS your science should support... 

The NOAA grant description I gave you is NOT A SCIENCE statement. It's a CLUE to the bidder about WHAT CONCLUSIONS they need to support to RETAIN that pot of money. Should your research product not fit that narrative, or you're not willing to FORCE IT to fit that narrative --- you shouldn't waste your time applying.. 

Note the emphasis all over that Grant description on increasingly extreme weather and changes with important implications for public policy and safety. Dont even think about telling them that's not gonna happen..


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > So what you are telling us is that you don't believe that NOAA should be spending tax payer money to "help society cope with, and adapt to, today's variations in climate and to prepare for tomorrow's"?  You prefer the head in the sand method, do you?
> ...



You keep saying that you support science but deny it and try to sell your conspiracy theories.  

It is what it is,  an inconvenient truth. 

There are few science things left to know.  

How much higher will earth's atmospheric GHG concentrations go before we either stop or run out of fossil fuels (including the addition from melted permafrost). 

What is the dynamic response of earth's systems before energy balance stabilizes. 

What will earth's albedo be when all of the snow and ice that's going to melt,  has. 

What will local sea levels rise to. 

What I don't see us knowing for the foreseeable future is the long term weather impact of all of that. 

Your denial has no impact on the work going on to determine those things.


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...










These guys have repeatedly.............


Newsletter

Hubbert's Peak, Current Events

Living with the Age of Entropy | George Monbiot

ASPO - The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas

There's hundreds more.........


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I don't read a single word about running out by now.

But lots of verification that peak oil is behind us.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 18, 2013)

I just scanned that ASPO letter.  It was quoting T Boone Pickens saying world production was 84 million barrels a day and and he didn't see it getting any higher.  That was 2005.  I just looked up current world oil production, eight years later: 84 million barrels a day.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I just scanned that ASPO letter.  It was quoting T Boone Pickens saying world production was 84 million barrels a day and and he didn't see it getting any higher.  That was 2005.  I just looked up current world oil production, eight years later: 84 million barrels a day.



This is including fracking and a growing demand.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2013)

And prices occasionally over $100 a barrel.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2013)

World demand has flattened since 2007 --- Why would you suspect we'd be pumping MORE oil out per day?? These "little details" just seem to escape the minimized cognitive processes of leftists..


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> World demand has flattened since 2007 --- Why would you suspect we'd be pumping MORE oil out per day?? These "little details" just seem to escape the minimized cognitive processes of leftists..








Yes.  They seem to lack the understanding that there is X demand that is easily met by Y production.  Why PAY to pump, and store more than is needed?  It boggles the mind how these people can be so dim witted.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 19, 2013)

Why use fossil fuels when we have the wind and sunshine? Why the long chain of production when we can have nature make it and send it to the grid.

One makes more sense.


----------



## westwall (Dec 19, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Why use fossil fuels when we have the wind and sunshine? Why the long chain of production when we can have nature make it and send it to the grid.
> 
> One makes more sense.








If it worked it certainly would.  Here's the deal.  Lets cancel all "subsidies" (and you know the oil companies don't get subsidies, they just get the normal depreciation tax breaks that any other company gets) but lets' ignore all of that and just take every thin dime away from ALL energy and fossil fuel companies.  

The result is the fossil fuel companies are still operational, the energy companies that use fossil fuels are still up and running and every renewable company on the planet is a ghost town.

That's the reality.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> and you know the oil companies don't get subsidies, they just get the normal depreciation tax breaks that any other company gets



In 2013, subsidies for petroleum products, worldwide, will reach 250 BILLION DOLLARS.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2010/spn1005.pdf


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > and you know the oil companies don't get subsidies, they just get the normal depreciation tax breaks that any other company gets
> ...



That's awesome, but let's limit our discussion to the US.


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 19, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > and you know the oil companies don't get subsidies, they just get the normal depreciation tax breaks that any other company gets
> ...



"Sub-optimal taxation"?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Deniers never met a problem that they couldn't ignore.  

Do you suppose that they are Neanderthal remnants skilled at not adapting to environmental changes?


----------



## westwall (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Deniers never met a problem that they couldn't ignore.
> 
> Do you suppose that they are Neanderthal remnants skilled at not adapting to environmental changes?








I don't know...  We've moved on from the 1890's tilting at windmills.  Technology advancements have left you Neanderthals in the dust.  You really should try and keep up.  Of course, there have been ignoramuses like you bleating about the end of the world since the beginning of time.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-KJWz-5n0g]Sheep Bleating Noise - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Don't you get a kick out of science deniers claiming technological chops? 

And,  they don't even comprehend the irony.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Don't you get a kick out of science deniers claiming technological chops?
> 
> And,  they don't even comprehend the irony.



I get a kick out of liberal idiots.

Wrong about the Carboniferous, wrong about plutonium, wrong about oil production.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Don't you get a kick out of science deniers claiming technological chops?
> 
> And,  they don't even comprehend the irony.



Did you see his science library?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you get a kick out of science deniers claiming technological chops?
> ...



Denying science is wrong. I can't think of anything more bone headed than that.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 19, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > and you know the oil companies don't get subsidies, they just get the normal depreciation tax breaks that any other company gets
> ...



If these are "subsidies" then what should we call all these eco-energy-taxes (*real and direct subsidies*) that are funneled into wind & solar ?

This *crap scheme* is spin-doctoring the taxes individual nations charge on petroleum as a *"subsidy"* if it`s below the average a select group of other countries slap on petro-products, as "optimal" ...and at the same they select which countries are in this "optimal" group.

According to this scheme any country that *does not tax you to the max*, the tax is defined as  "sub-optimal" and that is now according to the authors a *subsidy.*

The only way that could be implemented is to give the IMF the authority to enforce an "optimal" tax on a global level...or for starters with a group of nations that were suckers and gave up their sovereign rights to determine their own taxation structure.

*These communist fuckers outline on page 14 all the wonderful things that can be done with their so called "pre-taxes" .
*


> Mozambique
> *increased petroleum product prices by 38 percent *in 2008.
> 
> Budgetary allocations to *a range of social protection programs were increased substantially *(Direct *Social Support, Social Benefits *Through Work, Income Generation and Community Development).
> ...


So we should let a clusterfuck of *non-elected bureaucrats* decide how much more "pre-taxes" we should fork over to them, and if we don`t then we are guilty of having "subsidized" the petroleum industry if our gas-tax is "sub-optimal" ....and then they use it to run some sort of *international SUBSIDY system *which gives government employees bonuses and  pay-hikes and amongst other things can pay for a wonderful welfare system.

In Mozambique they already have one of the* best in the world for men,* because the *women have to do all the work*:






But this brilliant plan will ensure that everybody, women like the one above can do this instead:





And their "underpaid hard working" (mostly male) government employees can get pay-hikes or as it is in most of the rest of these countries that will benefit from   our  "pre-tax" they can buy more Kalashnikovs.





Do you have any more bright ideas like the one in that pdf?
I was under the impression you are one of those who hates the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party.
Which way would you think mainstream Americans would swing if the democrats would implement this "pre-tax" scheme ?
*I almost wish Obama would try it right now  and deliver Americans  from "sub-optimal" taxes!*
Do you think that Americans are so stupid that they don`t know the difference between a subsidy  and a "non-optimal" tax (hike)?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

This notion that we can't afford fuel-less and waste-less energy is pretty strange.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

If it were up to denialists we'd not raise food.  Why?  The process is unreliable.  Crops and animals sit around mostly and do nothing.  They just grow.  You can't eat that.  

Then only once in a great while they ripen or get slaughtered and actually make food. 

We should wait until technology invents food that is available all of the time before we eat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Says the bonehead who keeps getting the facts wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> This notion that we can't afford fuel-less and waste-less energy is pretty strange.



When your "fuel-less and waste-less" energy is more expensive and less reliable, what makes you think we can afford it?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > This notion that we can't afford fuel-less and waste-less energy is pretty strange.
> ...



Who can't afford free?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Solar and wind is free?

This is why we laugh at liberal idiots.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No,  you laugh because you are idiots.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Solar and wind is free?

I'm surprised you're smart enough to turn on your computer.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Once the first kilowatt hour comes out, the next are virtually free. 

Which fossil fuel can claim that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And after those virtually free kwhs, it's still more expensive and less reliable.

That first kilowatt hour must be an expensive mother fucker, eh?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Which fossil fuel can claim that?

Fossil fuels include coal, oil, and natural gas.

Which one?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No fossil fuel can claim to be as expensive as wind or solar.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Hey genius,,,,    About these free electrons of yours...  As the 1st class engineer and scientist that youare -----  SURELY you can tell us all how many days of free energy it takes TO BREAK EVEN on a home solar installation...  DO IT with and WITHOUT financing costs and insurance...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He failed 3rd grade math, he won't be able to answer.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Let's try is. 

A. Coal
B. natural gas
C. Oil

Pick a letter


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 19, 2013)

About ten years....

The good thing about solar and wind is within the reality we don't have to 
1. Mine, pump or strip mine for coal, natural gas or oil.
2. No expensive trains, studies looking for new energy or pipelines.
3. The resource of wind and solar energy is infite.

Sure in most areas it is more expensive as of this time...BUT only if you don't consider the 3 points made above.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Matthew said:


> About ten years....
> 
> The good thing about solar and wind is within the reality we don't have to
> 1. Mine, pump or strip mine for coal, natural gas or oil.
> ...



I'm thinking that they have a plan to relocate to another planet after trashing this one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2013)

Matthew said:


> About ten years....
> 
> The good thing about solar and wind is within the reality we don't have to
> 1. Mine, pump or strip mine for coal, natural gas or oil.
> ...



Wrong. Solar and wind are more expensive, and less reliable, even if you consider your 3 points.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > About ten years....
> ...



Not to mention it's difficult to store wind energy....which bring it down on the practically list.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 20, 2013)

Meister said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



I don't think that there is anyone in the world that sees sustainable energy as a single technology.  Wind and solar are available when and where they are available.  There is always demand whenever and wherever that is.  You supply the demand with fuel-less and waste-less energy first,  and idle the machinery bringing us a climate different than what we adapted civilization to,  when and where you can. That's the way the grid is designed to work.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 20, 2013)

Here's a whole lot of impossible that deniers can't imagine. 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9w0i8nqOoAQ&desktop_uri=/watch?v=9w0i8nqOoAQ

How much of the output of this plant do you think will not satisfy demand. 

Right.  Zero.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 20, 2013)

Just making sure that PMZ got Matthews answer to how "free" solar energy was... 

Not sure if financing and insurance is counted in that 10 years -- but MASSIVE SUBSIDIES are.. 
In many places -- a roof doesn't even last 10 years because of hail and wind damage.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 20, 2013)

And fossil fuel plants are built for free, right?  And so they require no financing.  And nothing ever breaks or wears out.  They have no moving parts.  And they use no fuel.

Right?

Right?

Right?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> And fossil fuel plants are built for free, right?  And so they require no financing.  And nothing ever breaks or wears out.  They have no moving parts.  And they use no fuel.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...



Boiling water is pretty easy to do.. Doesn't take a lot of exotic materials. Lasts twice as long.  Doesn't depend on clouds or precipt or atmos pressure diffs.  Maybe doesn't require much financing if corporate assets are juggled properly.  Definitely generates MASSIVELY more power per acre than solar.

*Bet even YOU could boil water...*






But they do say that nuclear is the most expensive way to boil water ever developed by man. Then again -- they just never saw the Govt contract for heating the Pentagon.. 

Right? Right? Right?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> And fossil fuel plants are built for free, right?  And so they require no financing.  And nothing ever breaks or wears out.  They have no moving parts.  And they use no fuel.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...



And you know how to eliminate all the above?
Please do tell me* how.
*So far none of your kindred spirit in this forum did.
Here is the problem:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8314775-post1795.html


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > And fossil fuel plants are built for free, right?  And so they require no financing.  And nothing ever breaks or wears out.  They have no moving parts.  And they use no fuel.
> ...



The problem is that you can't imagine anything but the past and that's over.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 21, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > And fossil fuel plants are built for free, right?  And so they require no financing.  And nothing ever breaks or wears out.  They have no moving parts.  And they use no fuel.
> ...



You're trying to deflect the argument.  The point is that solar and wind, when compared to fossil fuel use, do NOT present any additional problems and eliminate several.  If you want to continue to try to make engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies, you need to start comparing them to the technologies they would replace, not pretending they've appeared in a vacuum or in some utopia where energy falls freely from the sky.  Oh, wait... it does.


----------



## Meister (Dec 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



You must have glossed over Polarbear's last sentence when he stated, "the only thing that you guys can do and always have done so far, is responding with the usual evasive troll crap remarks."

You sure highlighted that with your post.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 21, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > And fossil fuel plants are built for free, right?  And so they require no financing.  And nothing ever breaks or wears out.  They have no moving parts.  And they use no fuel.
> ...





			
				Meister said:
			
		

> You must have glossed over Polarbear's last sentence when he stated, "the only thing that you guys can do and always have done so far, is responding with the usual evasive troll crap remarks."
> 
> You sure highlighted that with your post.



Try this one then.



Abraham3 said:


> You're trying to deflect the argument.  The point is that solar and wind, when compared to fossil fuel use, do NOT present any additional problems and eliminate several.  If you want to continue to try to make engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies, you need to start comparing them to the technologies they would replace, not pretending they've appeared in a vacuum or in some utopia where energy falls freely from the sky.  Oh, wait... it does.



Do YOU have a meaningful response?


----------



## Meister (Dec 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



My bad, I would have thought with your intellect that you would have at least read the post he wanted you to read....I should have known better.  {mental not to self}


----------



## polarbear (Dec 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



Alright, at least *you* did respond, but instead of giving it a try to address the *how *(to do it)you are arguing that the *how* is not an issue.

The argument is not if we should *RESEARCH *alternate energy, but rather how to implement the alternate energy sources we got so far !

And that`s an *engineering *problem!
You have to distinguish between the 2 and that is not a deflection as you accuse me.

I would be the last one to make "engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies" *if *there were a solution that *could eliminate* the "spinning reserves" it takes to grid-tie wind or solar.


Unless we address the *how to* engineering problem *we`ll never get away *from using fossil fuel consuming power plants as "spinning reserves".

That`s the billion $ question !
If you don`t want to take my word for it then please do read up on it what environmentalists that are able to understand the *ENGINEERING* aspect have to say about it. I already posted that as well:

WORLD OF PURE ENERGY: Energy Storage and Solar Power *



> *Current energy storage status*
> 
> Until recently, the ramping up and down of natural gas units, some of which are only turned on when needed, *has been used in many places to meet variations in demand. *Many of these reserve units are kept operational, as spinning reserves. *As a result, many nations, including the United States, have not invested* heavily in energy storage.


 If I were against alternate energy then why would I even bother to worry about *how *we should (*or could*) eliminate the back-up power sources it takes to compensate the shortcomings of wind and solar when the demand surges to a level above what a wind mill (or solar) park can handle.

I did more *than just blabber *about this problem on the internet, I made a living working on this problem and did find a solution which cut the fuel consumption of several large Diesel power plants by almost 2/3rds !!!

Actually it amounted to more than that considering it takes 14 gallons of jet fuel to get 1 gallon of fuel to the power plants in the arctic.

I`ll upload the documentation and the how I did it if you think that`s a bunch of bs and show it to you.
The *how to* turned out to be rather obvious & simple. Why it wasn`t done right from the start is still a mystery to me.
Aside from the military nobody else implemented it but should.
There are a lot of communities in the Canadian arctic that could, but don`t.

So like I said, I`m the last one who would make "*engineering arguments **against *alternative energy technologies" 

My last job was to find one,..but now I`m retired.


Other than repeating over and over again *what* we should do tell the world *how *it could be done.
Germany opted to put a huge amount of (tax payers money) into this system:






But realized it`s not feasible and now they are going back to coal fired back-up power plants as a "spinning reserve".

That`s running the full circle *while not going anywhere* !...and wasted a huge amount of money in the process.
*
Your turn!*


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



So,  in your world,  "the only thing that you guys can do and always have done so far, is responding with the usual evasive troll crap remarks." is reasoned debate?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

Meister said:


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



Apparently you don't have a meaningful response either.  Unseemly for a CDZ thug.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

polarbear said:


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



I agree that at this point energy (but not AGW) is an engineering problem. 

Let's see what of the background science we agree on.

Fossil fuels are a temporary gift from past suns of cheap energy. 

They will run out. Oil first, natural gas next, coal last.

A consequence of their use is putting the carbon that they contain into our atmosphere from its below ground sequestration since the Carboniferous Era.

That carbon dioxide is a long lived greenhouse gas and it's concentration in our atmosphere is a function of the rate at which we burn fossil fuels. 

The concentration of atmospheric GHGs effectively restricts the return to space of outgoing long wave radiation created by the absolute temperature of earths surface systems. 

Let me know what you agree/disagree with so far, and if you disagree, why.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

Next chapter.

Given all in the previous chapter, the best engineered energy solution would be the least total cost path to satisfy real global energy demand forever.


----------



## Meister (Dec 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


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


If this was a cdz thread, I would have tempered my words.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Which is the real you?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



I called up this page without logging in first and your response showed up.
I had you already on my ignore list, but I guess I`ll take you off again, as long as you keep it reasonable like you did just now.

*We all know* that oil & gas won`t last *forever*, but we also know that we wont run out in the next 200 years.
The technology to replace fossil fuel already exists, but there is no way Chemical Engineers can justify the cost to do the switch-over *until then*.
If you work in that field you don`t just have to deal with the nuts and bolts, it`s also up to you to exercise due diligence when it comes to the financial aspect of any project you slated.
*And that`s where the problem is* when you have to design a "spinning resource" system to implement wind & solar.
In countries that have still untapped rivers like Canada or China that`s not a problem. We are doing just that in Canada and are using more hydro electric and to some degree more  nuclear instead of fossil fired for back-up.
If you have a good enough internet connection it will be well worth your time to watch this video to get a handle of the scale of the energy problem the Chinese have to solve:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8cCsUBYSkw"]The Largest Dam in The World - YouTube[/ame]

*It is massive...in fact so  massive that when the reservoir filled it slowed down the earth`s rotation.*


Europe is up against the wall as far as more hydro-electric and that includes these elevated pumped basins. They can`t increase with more enviro-friendly natural gas, because they don`t have any of their own and depend on the gas that`s pipe- lined to them from the Russian Arctic.
And Russia has been using that dependency as a political weapon not just agains ex-satellite states that joined the EU but recently against the EU itself. So now it`s back to the coal for Germany, it`s one resource they don`t have to import.
In the US it`s a different situation yet again. 
Where else could you build more hydro electric dams for demand surge back-up. So it`s either elevated pump storage basins pumped by wind & solar and then generating hydro power with these or increasing nuclear.
Both are way more expensive than gas fired power plants and there is a lot of gas inside US territory.
Any engineer, no matter in which country is also responsible to furnish a cost & feasibility estimate along with the technical plan he proposes.
If it turns out that  you were way off in the latter *your career with that corporation is finished*, no matter how good the technical plan was.
And right now you would be way way off using anything else than coal and natural gas in the US.
Okay then
"lead or get out of the way" as you said.
Go and get an engineering diploma...they don`t come easy & cheap either, then risk it all and present *your how to plan *in a board room and then to the shareholders and the investors, if you can make it past the financial analysts and the CEO.
Their career is as much on the line as your`s is after they approved it to be implemented.
So good luck to you if you want to give it a try.
The only way to find a bunch of people that could implement it at no risk to themselves are Government bureaucrats or Government officials in a country that does not hold them responsible for major fuck-ups.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

A starting point to discuss remaining fossil fuels. Seems to be a sticking point.

http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/the-end-of-fossil-fuels

The End Of Fossil Fuels

Fossil fuels, as the name suggests, are very old. North Sea oil deposits are around 150 million years old, whilst much of Britains coal began to form over 300 million years ago. Although humans probably used fossil fuels in ancient times, as far back as the Iron Age1, it was the Industrial Revolution that led to their wide-scale extraction.

And in the very short period of time since then  just over 200 years  weve consumed an incredible amount of them, leaving fossil fuels all but gone and the climate seriously impacted.

Fossil fuels are an incredibly dense form of energy, and they took millions of years to become so. And when theyre gone, theyre gone pretty much forever.

Its only a matter of time

Clearly fossil fuel reserves are finite - it's only a matter of when they run out - not if.  Globally - every year we currently consume the equivalent of over 11 billion tonnes of oil in fossil fuels. Crude oil reserves are vanishing at the rate of 4 billion tonnes a year1  if we carry on at this rate without any increase for our growing population or aspirations, our known oil deposits will be gone by 2052.

Well still have gas left, and coal too. But if we increase gas production to fill the energy gap left by oil, then those reserves will only give us an additional eight years, taking us to 2060.  But the rate at which the world consumes fossil fuels is not standing still, it is increasing as the world's population increases and as living standards rise in parts of the world that until recently had consumed very little energy.  Fossil Fuels will therefore run out earlier.  

Its often claimed that we have enough coal to last hundreds of years. But if we step up production to fill the gap left through depleting our oil and gas reserves, the coal deposits we know about will only give us enough energy to take us as far as 2088. And lets not even think of the carbon dioxide emissions from burning all that coal.  


So does 2088 mark the point that we run out of fossil fuels? The simple answer is no. Some new reserves will be found which will help extend this deadline slightly, but these cant last forever. New reserves of fossil fuels are becoming harder to find, and those that are being discovered are significantly smaller than the ones that have been found in the past.

Take oil, for example, were probably already on a downward slope. Sixteen of the worlds twenty largest oil fields have already reached their peak level of production (the point at which they are producing their largest annual oil yield), whilst the golden age of oil field discovery was nearly 50 years ago.

Renewables offer us another way, a way to avoid this (fossil fuelled) energy time bomb, but we must we start now. As the Saudi Oil Minister said in the 1970s, The Stone Age didnt end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.

---

References

1 All fossil fuel reserve and consumption data from CIA World Factbook.

Go to the website. There's a good graph there.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 21, 2013)

There is an interesting issue concerning heat radiation at 9:42 and how the Chinese engineers dealt with it in this video:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8cCsUBYSkw]The Largest Dam in The World - YouTube[/ame]

The fog blanket over the massive concrete structure blocked by far more solar heat than CO2, but nevertheless if back-radiation would act on the magnitude as some claim then the fog blanket would have been counter productive.
Don`t try & claim the concrete did not crack because the spray droplets cooled it.
A concrete pour on this massive scale gets warm enough to evaporate the water adding even more "green house gas" above it.
"Greenhouse gasses" are not a one way ticket, they act in both direction and the solar they block is way more than the out-going radiation,...and that`s so not just in China over top of poured concrete !


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

polarbear said:


> There is an interesting issue concerning heat radiation at 9:42 and how the Chinese engineers dealt with it in this video:
> The Largest Dam in The World - YouTube
> 
> The fog blanket over the massive concrete structure blocked by far more solar heat than CO2, but nevertheless if back-radiation would act on the magnitude as some claim then the fog blanket would have been counter productive.
> ...



I can't tell if you agree or disagree with my previous points.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

polarbear said:


> There is an interesting issue concerning heat radiation at 9:42 and how the Chinese engineers dealt with it in this video:
> The Largest Dam in The World - YouTube
> 
> The fog blanket over the massive concrete structure blocked by far more solar heat than CO2, but nevertheless if back-radiation would act on the magnitude as some claim then the fog blanket would have been counter productive.
> ...



Great video. There's no problem too big for engineers.


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2013)

A much underdiscussed point. Solar IR is blocked by the atmoshere.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

More info on oil that's left.

From  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-much-is-left

2014 >> The Peak of Oil
The most common answer to how much oil is left is depends on how hard you want to look. As easy-to-reach fields run dry, new technologies allow oil companies to tap harder-to-reach places (such as 5,500 meters under the Gulf of Mexico). Traditional statistical models of oil supply do not account for these advances, but a new approach to production forecasting explicitly incorporates multiple waves of technological improvement. Though still controversial, this multi*cyclic approach predicts that global oil production is set to peak in four years and that by the 2050s we will have pulled all but 10 percent of the world's oil from the ground.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

Still more on how many years of fossil fuels we have left.

From    http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/24/peak-oil-production-business-energy-nelder.html

The End of Fossil Fuel
Source: Forbes, Chris Nelder  (7/24/09)
"By the end of this century, nearly all of the economically recoverable fossil fuels will be gone."

You will never see cheap gasoline again. You will probably never see cheap energy again. Oil, natural gas and coal are set to peak and go into decline within the next decade, and no technology can change that.

Peak oil is not about "running out of oil"it's about reaching the peak rate of oil production.

We are now at the peak rate of oil production. After over a century of continual growth, global conventional crude oil production topped out in 2005 at just over 74 mbpd and has remained at that level ever since.

Oil production is expected to go into terminal decline around 2012. The largest and most-productive fields are becoming depleted while new discoveries have been progressively smaller and of lesser quality. Discovery of new oil peaked over 40 years ago and has been declining ever since despite furious drilling and unprecedentedly high prices.

The IEA estimates the world would need to add the equivalent of six new Saudi Arabias by 2030 in order to meet declining production and growing demand.

Natural gas is likewise expected to peak sometime around 2010-2020, and coal around 2020-2030. Oil, natural gas and coal together provide 86% of the world's primary energy.

By the end of this century, nearly all of the economically recoverable fossil fuels will be gone.

The coming energy shortage is the most serious crisis the world has ever faced, but it could have a positive outcome. In theory, wind, solar, geothermal and marine resources could each provide more than the total energy the world consumes every day.

As fossil fuel prices rise, renewably generated electricity prices will continue to fall. If we are wise and lucky, we will rapidly improve the efficiency of our built environment, deploy renewable capacity and convert to an all-electric infrastructure that runs on it.

If we move fast to re-localize production and proceed with the renewable revolution, we could end the 21st century with a largely carbon-free economy, putting an end to climate change and averting resource wars.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

From   http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=38&t=6

Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs?

Yes. As shown in EIA's International Energy Outlook 2013, the global supply of crude oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and biofuels is expected to be adequate to meet the world's demand for liquid fuels for at least the next 25 years. There is, of course, substantial uncertainty about the levels of future oil supply and demand, and EIA reflects some of this uncertainty by developing low and high oil price cases, in addition to a reference case. The oil resources currently remaining in the Earth's crust, in combination with expected volumes of other liquid fuels, are estimated to be sufficient to meet total demand for liquid fuels in all three price cases of the International Energy Outlook 2013.

An often cited, although misleading, measurement of future resource availability is the reserves-to-production ratio, which given the current rate of consumption and total proved reserves is about 50 years. However, proved reserves are an accounting concept that is based on known projects and is not an appropriate measure for judging total resource availability in the long-term. Over time, numerous additional projects will be developed, which will add to global reserves. Furthermore, reserve estimates at known projects are likely to increase as new technologies are developed.

Learn more:


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2013)

Fossil fuel reserves expand dramatically depending on how much we are willing to pay to get them out of the ground.  At 200$ per barrel equivalent we have much greater reserves.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> Fossil fuel reserves expand dramatically depending on how much we are willing to pay to get them out of the ground. At 200$ per barrel equivalent we have much greater reserves.


 
At $220/barrel, alternative energy becomes a bargain.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Fossil fuel reserves expand dramatically depending on how much we are willing to pay to get them out of the ground. At 200$ per barrel equivalent we have much greater reserves.
> ...



At $ 220/barrel , iit makes NO DIFF to electrical generation. Since almost no petroleum is used.  And even if shifts were made to EVehicles,  neither solar or wind is capable of ADDING to capacity.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


 

No, but hydrogen -based fuel cells can.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> From   Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> 
> Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs?
> 
> ...



Alright I`ll take it then that you have no clue to answer the "how to" implement what you keep demanding, because all you do is dodging the question and repeating over and over again that *"we" *should stop using oil & gas because "*we*`ll run out".
So what`s the difference if *a*.) we run out in ~ 200 years and b.)if "we" make oil unavailable right now ?
With *b.*) your bright idea *"we"* would be totally screwed because *we* don`t have a technical solution yet to grid tie wind and solar
and the *"we"* would be only the nations that are willing to put themselves at a huge disadvantage.
I already asked you* how*you figure that could be implemented so that the *"we"* includes everybody, *including countries like China *.

With* a.) *that problem no longer exists and China will be no better off than *"we"* are because then the *"we" includes everybody* and we have a level playing field.
Going with *a.)  *is better because we already do have turn key synthetic fuel technology which then (in ~ 200 years) does not have to compete any more with oil & gas or against all the countries that refuse to follow your "advice* a*".
Before you quote stuff like that you should first inform yourself, else you shoot your own foot yet again, as you did with this quote which I highlighted in red.
Your copy & past quote included the "learn more" when you snatched it and you should have taken their advice.
You seized on the 25 years and figured the 50 years are based on "misleading data" then posted it to stick it into my face.
Had you clicked on "learn more" at the bottom of that web page then you would have realized that the opposite is the case and we have way more oil and gas which is still in the ground to last way longer than just 25 or 50 years.
"Oil reserves" is defined as what is currently exploited with the current available technology and the oil of gas deposits that have been drilled.

It does not include any of the huge deposits that are known to exist, but have not been drilled yet.
It also does not include deposits that are currently not feasible to be extracted, but will be included as an "oil reserve" as soon as it becomes feasible with improved technology.
Such as fracking, directional drilling and better extraction methods for heavy oil and bitumen deposits , like the Canadian tar sands.
No way will we run out in 25 years or in 50 years, we`ll be going with *a*.) *for  at least 2 more centuries*

 Not only do you keep switching the topic from the *how to* implement renewable  to else  "we`ll run out of oil" if "*we* don`t quit using it right now"...but you also continue to evade the *"how"* to do that on the topic you chose in order to dodge the bullet on the first topic.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 21, 2013)

I'll admit that the skeptics are winning as the pulse has utterly destroyed climate science with the public.

Pray that hundreds of years of physics is truly wrong and we don't see the energy resurface.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



"neither solar or wind is capable of ADDING to capacity."

I'd like to hear the logic behind this statement.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

polarbear said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > From   Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> ...



I see you don't like the methodical approach that I proposed. You seem to be reluctant to tell what you believe. 

I think that the public won't buy wait and do nothing until a miracle occurs. 

And I know engineers won't. Or businesses that depend on energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*I think that the public won't buy wait and do nothing until a miracle occurs. *

The public won't pay more money for less reliable energy, to appease a few bedwetters.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I'll admit that the skeptics are winning as the pulse has utterly destroyed climate science with the public.
> 
> Pray that hundreds of years of physics is truly wrong and we don't see the energy resurface.



Here's what Gallup is finding. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161645/americans-concerns-global-warming-rise.aspx

IMO the average public, who don't know the science, are completely fooled by the temperature record recently. They really do believe that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase. 

Explaining the dynamics of weather and water in responding to increased energy is just way beyond the man in the street. And I'm afraid that the IPCCs attempts to explain it in laymen's terms if anything did more harm than good.

That will correct itself one of these years with what can't be ignored but this unfortunate set of circumstances will cost us several precious years getting started.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I'll admit that the skeptics are winning as the pulse has utterly destroyed climate science with the public.
> ...



*IMO the average public, who don't know the science, are completely fooled by the temperature record recently. They really do believe that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase. *

Only because, for the last 20 years, the warmers told them that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Well, of course you're wrong again as we've come to expect from you.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"we[/B][/U][/SIZE] don`t have a technical solution yet to grid tie wind and solar"

Interesting. 

What happens on the grid today when demand changes or a power plant goes up or down?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 21, 2013)

Since at least IPCC in 2001 we've noted that co2 is 
1. Only part of the total climate system(even through a big player within the warming). You have to consider that a warmer planet = more co2, more water vapor, etc.  
2. The co2 won't cause a snap of the fingers like warming...But the warming will take centuries to reach a new balance. Where do you get what you're saying from? Oceans are where 93% of the energy is going into.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 21, 2013)

Climate Forcings and Global Warming



> Any changes to the Earth&#8217;s climate system that affect *how much energy enters or leaves the system alters Earth&#8217;s radiative equilibrium and can force temperatures to rise or fall.* These destabilizing influences are called climate forcings. Natural climate forcings include changes in the Sun&#8217;s brightness, Milankovitch cycles (small variations in the shape of Earth&#8217;s orbit and its axis of rotation that occur over thousands of years), and large volcanic eruptions that inject light-reflecting particles as high as the stratosphere. Manmade forcings include particle pollution (aerosols), which absorb and reflect incoming sunlight; deforestation, which changes how the surface reflects and absorbs sunlight; and the rising concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, *which decrease heat radiated to space.* A forcing can trigger feedbacks that intensify or weaken the original forcing. The loss of ice at the poles, which makes them less reflective, is an example of a feedback.
> 
> Carbon dioxide forces the Earth&#8217;s energy budget out of balance by absorbing thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by the surface. It absorbs thermal infrared energy with wavelengths in a part of the energy spectrum that other gases, such as water vapor, do not.





> The absorption of outgoing thermal infrared by carbon dioxide means that Earth still absorbs about 70 percent of the incoming solar energy,* but an equivalent amount of heat is no longer leaving.* The exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming.
> 
> When a forcing like increasing greenhouse gas concentrations bumps the energy *budget out of balance, it doesn&#8217;t change the global average surface temperature instantaneously*. It may take years or even decades for the full impact of a forcing to be felt. This lag between when an imbalance occurs and when the impact on surface temperature becomes fully apparent is mostly because of the immense heat capacity of the global ocean. The heat capacity of the oceans gives the climate a thermal inertia that can make surface warming or cooling more gradual, but it can&#8217;t stop a change from occurring.
> 
> ...



Climate and Earth?s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

We've known for decades this fact.



The greenhouse effect.



> The effective temperature of Earth is much lower than what we experience. Averaged over all seasons and the entire Earth, the surface temperature of our planet is about 288 K (or 15°C). This difference is in the effect of the heat absorbing components of our atmosphere. This effect is known as the greenhouse effect, referring to the farming practice of warming garden plots by covering them with a glass (or plastic) enclosure.




http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/index.html


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Warmers haven't been telling us this?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



no,

but we have been saying that it will take hundreds of years for it to reach a new balance.  The ipcc never tried to forecast 5-15 year periods as the natural climatic cycles aren't forecastable....Like the enso, pdo and volcano's...

Some of the models did forecast stalls kind of like the one we're seeing...
RealClimate: The global temperature jigsaw








> Figure 2 Temperature evolution in a model simulation with the MRI model. Other models also show comparable &#8220;hiatuses&#8221; due to natural climate variability. This is one of the standard simulations carried out within the framework of CMIP3 for the IPCC 2007 report. Graph: Roger Jones.
> 
> In this model calculation, there is a &#8220;warming pause&#8221; in the last 15 years, but in no way does this imply that further global warming is any less. The long-term warming and the short-term &#8220;pause&#8221; have nothing to do with each other, since they have very different causes. By the way this example refutes the popular &#8220;climate skeptics&#8221; claim that climate models cannot explain such a &#8220;hiatus&#8221; &#8211; more on that later.
> 
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Dec 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No. It's a denier story. 

Climate scientists have reported that all that is known with certainty, is that the earth is increasingly out of energy balance due to increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations.

And that there is no way for that energy balance to re-stabilize except for the earth surface temperature to warm. 

The nature of how and when that excess energy gets resolved is a significant component of weather in the future. Near or far? That's unpredictable.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 22, 2013)

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?




> Huber and Knutti (2011) published a paper in Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth&#8217;s energy balance.  They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget using the measurements discussed above, and summarize their methodology:
> 
> 
> "We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom-up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s....Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 95-197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm-2."
> ...










> As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling effect:
> 
> 
> "Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31°C (0.85-1.76°C) to the increase, that is 159% (106-212%) of the total warming. The cooling effect of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing is about -0.85°C (-1.48 to -0.30°C). The warming induced by tropospheric ozone and solar variability are of similar size (roughly 0.2°C). The contributions of stratospheric water vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are small."
> ...


----------



## Kosh (Dec 22, 2013)

And as you can see the AGW cult is still pushing their agenda, mind you not based on real science, but religious dogma.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 22, 2013)

Kosh said:


> And as you can see the AGW cult is still pushing their agenda, mind you not based on real science, but religious dogma.



And you know better then phds and professors of their field. Genius???


----------



## Kosh (Dec 22, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > And as you can see the AGW cult is still pushing their agenda, mind you not based on real science, but religious dogma.
> ...



Yes! Money can influence scientists, especially when they are told by the scribes what they must believe in order to get grants. Many believe the AGW farce because of the AGW talk circuit that has caused many of the so called "scientists" to become rich.

James Hansen drives a Bentley to work and lives in a 22 room mansion and is also an environmental wacko that helped fuel the AGW myth based on his personal cause and not any science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 22, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Climate Forcings and Global Warming
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Shame that this BASIC science and math was IGNORED by climate science for 25 years,  because the story needed tobe that simple ass well correlated temp vs co2 curve.  ALL this systems analysis of storage and delays was a plague to these clowns UNTIL they needed to pull the "hiding in the oceans " card..  Majorities of citatations before then assumed a couple years to new tmp equilibrium..  THAT kind of sloppy science is what created a vibrant skeptic opposition.  NOW that the box is opened,  wont be long before the public knows that curve matching is NOT climate science.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 22, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



As compared to big oil execs that private jet to work.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 22, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Forcings and Global Warming
> ...



You seem quite ignorant of the fact that there is zero science behind your politics. It's simply what you wish was true.


----------



## Meister (Dec 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Nobody is arguing about the changing climate, it's been doing that for the last 4 billion years.
What is being argued is that the change is directly linked to man, and your science hasn't proved anything.  What has been proved is that there has been leaked emails from YOUR scientists that contradict their own work.  There are scientists that once believed there was a connection that no longer think there is a connection.  The scientists can't connect the dots unless they jimmy rig the numbers.
There are too many variables that create climate change and the scientists just can't with any certainty say that their work is the end all arguments that it's the cause of climate change.
No matter what you say, PMZ, that is where the rubber meets the road on this issue and for you to say any different is no more than your politics.  So go pound sand in your sandbox, or play with your Barbie, makes no difference to me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Damn those guys spending money in a way you don't like.
They should have received your approval first.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 22, 2013)

Meister said:


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



These are the beliefs for which there is zero supporting science. They are purely political wishes from conservative control freaks. 

We have developed our civilization during a very long period of remarkable climate stability. None of the natural climate change processes have interfered in our progress.

Now science has shown how our prodigious appetite for the gift of cheap energy from past suns has self inflicted what nature spared us from. 

And how delicate the balance is keeping us in the sweet climate spot that we have flourished in.

I suppose that there is some kind poetic justice that the timing of the formulation of science's unavoidable prophecy coincides with the end of the fossil fuel era due to what we always knew would happen. The gift will soon be all gone. We must go to energy plan B at the same time that we have to adapt civilization to our new climate.

The good news, at least compared to the dinosaurs, who fell victim to natures climate change rather than self inflicted climate change, is that we have a distribution of brainpower among us from quite limited to quite advanced, to lead us to the new place. Like Moses sort of.

People like you can relax and let those who are equipped to solve the puzzle of getting from our past to our future, do so. 

Scary, for sure, to be dependent on others. But, what else is civilization?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Interesting.
> 
> What happens on the grid today when demand changes or a power plant goes up or down?



The instant that happens the distribution network switch gear selects the next *closest* power plant to absorb the load increase.
With the HVAC line system you use in the US, the closest one is preferred because with Ac the *power factor* of the generator-line resistance *R*- and the inductive* L *of the local HV transformer does not drop into the basement as it would if you have to get a long distance backup-up .

So if all you got is wind or solar as a backup closest to the area where the failure happened *you are screwed* unless the weather system that causes such a failure  is small & local.
With wind and solar that failure happens all the time and seldom is the cause, that the current weather which caused it is confined to a small area.
If it extends like most of them do to where your next nearest wind & solar driven generators are, then the *whole system goes down.*...
Then you got not enough "spinning reserves" or none at all...and that`s why we use conventional spinning reserves to back wind and solar, because these can crank out power no matter what the weather is doing. 

To understand why it`s not so simple to back the grid with more distant power plants and HVAC transmission lines you first got to understand what a power factor is.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pWOm77KDJM"]Power Factor Correction Explained! Green Leaf Strategic Solutions, Inc - YouTube[/ame]

With long range AC transmission lines R= line resistance Ohms and L = the nearest substation transformer

In Canada especially central Canada most of our power comes from the hydro plant far up North. That`s why we use High Voltage *DC* not *AC* long distance transmission lines. These go first into converter stations that hack the DC and transform it into 60 hertz HVAC for the sub-nets distribution system.
To implement your proposal you would first have to re-design your entire transmission line system and switch gear.
That still leaves you with the problem to find a wind farm that can harvest a wind with speeds that are high enough to handle its *own area base load plus the load *that just came on line when the other wind or solar  power source went down.
And all of that has to happen *instantly*.
There is *no time* to spin-up spare wind turbine props and wait till their output voltage and rpm are in sync with the grid.
In the meantime, till they phase in the whole grid went down.
Look at any wind mill farm when the wind speed would be high enough so that the total output is twice the base load... they all shut down 1/2 of the wind turbines,...because they have to, else they start over feeding the nearest HV transformer sub-station !...and blow it up!
You should try and take a look at some of the wind turbines that show live stream data on the internet:
Good luck if that`s the wind speed for a larger wind farm that is supposed to feed the grid:
Live Turbine Data - University of Maine at Presque Isle

And in Minnesota towns this is what you got for "wind-power"
The Power of Your Hometown - Minnesota Municipal Power Agency

Nothing but *big fat zero`s *or just a few kw`s just enough for a few households.
Arlington 24.3 [KW]
Olivia 88.6 
Winthrop 51.1
That`s what it was at 12:36 when I looked at it.
The wind speeds that they show are the same for a huge area extending from the Arctic down central USA all the way to the Mexican border.
Here is the current screenshot:






*You figure that the rest of the eastern USA would have enough wind and solar to make up for all the rest that don`t ?
*That would require wind speeds which are already above the safe operating range of wind turbines:


> The cut-in speed for each Hometown WindPower turbine is 12 miles per  hour or just over 5 meters per second. The turbine&#8217;s rated speed is the  wind speed that results in the optimal power output for the turbine.   When the wind speed exceeds the turbine&#8217;s rated speed, the turbine&#8217;s  power output stops increasing and actually begins to decrease with  higher wind speeds.  Wind turbines automatically shut down in very windy  conditions &#8211; typically greater than 50 mph - to prevent turbine  damage.  The speed at which the turbine shuts down is called the cut-out  speed.


*On a day like this you would have to send everybody home to freeze in the dark!
And in Germany they have to hope they have enough water in their pumped basins to go hydro-electric till the weather changes!
That`s why they have to go back to coal & gas for "spinning reserves" else they can kiss their current GDP good bye !
*Imagine the cost, the weather could  cause more havoc than a nationwide general strike or even a war if all you got is wind and solar


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*These are the beliefs for which there is zero supporting science. They are purely political wishes from conservative control freaks. *

The conservatives don't wish to force anyone to use wind and solar or oil and natural gas.
If you want to spend big bucks on a solar generating system for your house, feel free.
Please, no government subsidies.

*We have developed our civilization during a very long period of remarkable climate stability. *

Remarkable stability? Like the Little Ice Age? LOL!

*And how delicate the balance is keeping us in the sweet climate spot that we have flourished in.*

Right, because we never had heat waves, cold spells, droughts or floods before ebil men started burning that ebil oil. 
Please, live in a cave, your CO2 is killing Gaia.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Actually Hansen uses private jets to spread the AGW gospel. It is included in his $30,000/hr fee for speaking.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Listen up you  useless ignorant SOB.  Its time you defended this incessant incoherent banter.

I was responding to science that Matthew posted. Something ive NEVER seen YOU DO.
I need you to support 

1  The assertionn that my comments werre political.

2  The asssertion that the is zero science behind the discussion of thermal storage, delays, and inertia in the climate system.  

I have provided PAGES of cites about the retarded adoption of these FUNDAMENTAL climate system elements.   Why dont you give us EVERYTHING that YOU  know onthis topic..

ill be thrilled to hear your analysis of the topic.    GEt to it bastard troll.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 22, 2013)

polarbear said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting.
> ...



You're right. We are doomed to return to the caves. The Three Gorges Dam project and the engineering problems that they solved were the final problems solvable by mankind. Going to the moon did us in. The invention of computers and vast networks, a fluke. Nuclear power and the large hadron collider merely a lucky break.


----------



## Meister (Dec 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Just another typical response from you.  Ignore the facts, and just keep beating your drum .
Your post was strangely sounding like a sermon


----------



## PMZ (Dec 22, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Show us the facts that contradict what I said. The science behind your politics. Stop wishing that I was wrong and start with evidence that you're right.


----------



## Meister (Dec 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - CBS News
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes
Climategate | Tory Aardvark
Climate Conversation Group » Scientists
Articles: Winning the AGW Science Debate: Here's How
Research by Hundreds of Scientists Undermines Global Warming Alarmism | Heartland Institute
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/21977.pdf
Statement on List of 500 Authors | Heartland Institute

*Finally, I'll leave you this to chew on, my chew toy*
The Forbes magazine article goes on to list other scientists - once former devout believers in AGW - who have recently quit the global warming polemic.


To name a few: Fritz Vaherenholt, the socialist founder of Germanys environmental movement. Another is Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.* Also Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore agreed that, We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years.*
Marketing Japan: Global Warming Scientists Abandoning Ship in Droves


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 22, 2013)

simply that our co2 being burnt has a different chemical make up then natural  co2. 

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. *Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere.* If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. 2.3 Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) &#8240; (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4) How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?


----------



## Meister (Dec 22, 2013)

Matthew said:


> simply that our co2 being burnt has a different chemical make up then natural  co2.
> 
> Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. *Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere.* If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. 2.3 Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
> 
> Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2)  (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4) How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?


It seems that the CO2 can be a lagging indicator in your assumption


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

Meister said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > simply that our co2 being burnt has a different chemical make up then natural  co2.
> ...



Show us the facts that contradict what I said. The science behind your politics. Stop wishing that I was wrong and start with evidence that you're right.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Going to ever post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate?


----------



## Meister (Dec 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




I've shown you that emails from Hanson implicated that their work was tainted.
I've shown you that your own scientists and proponents (disciples) have been jumping away from your religion.
That's all I've ever shown you, I'm not debating whether the temps are going up or if there going down.  You don't have a shred of evidence to connect man to the temperature fluctuations. true story.....
Get over it, dude/dudette/it.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

Kosh said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



That would be completely redundant to the lab demonstrations and quantum mechanics and common sense calculations that predict with absolute certainty that, considering only the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration increases from the burning of fossil fuels over the last 150 years, AGW is absolutely certain. The end points of the process are unequivocal. The degree to which our consumption of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric GHG concentrations, and the temperature increase that ultimately has to emerge to restore the energy balance that that concentration increase upset.

What is left to determine is how long it will take to get from that certain cause to that certain effect, and how the weather and sea levels will respond along the way.

The single cause and ultimate effect are known with certainty. The path between them is being quantified. The cause from the past is known with certainty, what mankind does from this day forth is unknowable. The degree to which the civilization that we built adapting to the previous climate and sea levels, must change, to readapt to the climate and sea levels when they stabilize to what they must, from what we've done so far, will obviously be very costly, but can't be predicted with any accuracy.

Wishing things were different has no impact on any of this.


----------



## Meister (Dec 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



 You're fucking crazy.

From what I've shown you.....the science isn't settled.  
I've named names from your own scientists that no longer agree with you and the manipulated science you embrace.

I am right......you ignore the facts that don't back your religion (agenda) and you just keep moving forward with your lies like nothing disproved them.

This discussion is done, you have no evidence of what you're trying to support regarding AGW, and the scientists know it.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



The fact that you don't know the science has no impact on it. That leaves you with two alternatives. Learn it, or keep hoping that ignorance triumphs over knowledge for the first time in history. 

You are a perfect example of the fundamental motivation behind conservative entertainment. To empower ignorance by encouraging it. 

Ignorant conservatives know more science than scientists who spend their entire lives learning it. More Constitutional law than legal experts who spend their lives perfecting it. More statesmanship, diplomacy, and politics than those spending their lives performing it, know. More history than the historians who devote their lives to its careful study. More about the design of our Union than the Constitutional Convention that put it on paper. More macroeconomics than Ben Bernanke. More about risk than actuaries.
More about news than people who live it. 

If you wanted to know what you pretend to know you'd have to spend a dozen lifetimes in school and in practice.


----------



## Meister (Dec 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Still ignoring what's out there?  Figures you would ignore the facts because of your religion. It's sad, but at least you are becoming a non issue because the facts are catching up with your *AGW* agenda.


----------



## Meister (Dec 23, 2013)

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore agreed that, *&#8220;We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years*.  
 Just can't get around what one of your former disciples had to say about your religion


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 23, 2013)

Matthew said:


> simply that our co2 being burnt has a different chemical make up then natural  co2.
> 
> Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. *Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere.* If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. 2.3 Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
> 
> Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) &#8240; (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4) How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?



Several problems with that measurement.. 

1) The C13/C12 ratio is virtually indistinguishable between burning fossil fuels and OTHER natural sources that breakdown in the atmos.. 

2) The ratio SIGNATURE of CO2 from fossil fuels is hard to detect because the Statistical distributions of "fossil" and "non-fossil" are CONTINUOUS and they OVERLAP. Because the numerical gap between those indicators is extremely small. Something like 1.14 to 0.96.. 

3) Large variations in C13 ratio have been observed on "inter-annual" basis. Meaning that if you subtract THIS years reading from Last years reading on a particular date -- you'd expect that the mankinds contribution would be a constant increase. But THAT'S not what seen in data.. It VARIES WILDLY and NATURALLY --- on a level MUCH higher than the "man-caused" signature we're trying to detect..

All that makes sense since the Ocean is chock full of "ancient CO2" and it's tossing 10 times the human emissions into the sky every year..


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Your comments are by definition political because they are aimed at supporting action that denies current climate science. 

"thermal storage, delays, and inertia in the climate system"

Are all part of AGW climate science. They explain how the indisputable cause, increased atmospherics GHG concentrations from the burning of fossil fuels, gets to the effect of higher climatic temperatures in order to resolve spaceship earth's growing energy imbalance.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



What I don't ignore is science. It's the only for sure truth that mankind has uncovered. We are slaves to reality. Understanding and accepting reality is our single path to progress. 

You can shout your fantasies as loud as you are able but you and we can't live them.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

Meister said:


> Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore agreed that, *We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years*.
> Just can't get around what one of your former disciples had to say about your religion



Don't know how long ago that was said but, if it was recently, he's no better informed than you are.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > simply that our co2 being burnt has a different chemical make up then natural  co2.
> ...



None of this matters in the least as we know precisely how much fossil fuel caused GHG we are putting into the atmosphere and how much AGW that has to eventually cause.


----------



## Meister (Dec 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore agreed that, *We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years*.
> ...



Yeah, that's it. 

There are a lot more of your disciples that used to be smart, but are no longer because they couldn't connect the dots, dude/dudette/it.  Is that what you want all of us to believe?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Is this your science?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Thats actually quite chilling.  That you believe dissent in science is a POLITICAL crime.
If youre gonna charge me with a political crime for debating science -- it clearly demonstrates how DANGEROUS and Dogmatic bastard trolls are.. No need to understand the science -- just invoke the power of poltical heresy.  Thats what you just did.



> "thermal storage, delays, and inertia in the climate system"
> 
> Are all part of AGW climate science. They explain how the indisputable cause, increased atmospherics GHG concentrations from the burning of fossil fuels, gets to the effect of higher climatic temperatures in order to resolve spaceship earth's growing energy imbalance.



You just lost the argument and capitualated right there you moron. Its NOT that I have zero science supporting my assertions.  It just that you have no fucking idea how those KNOWN and neglected systems concepts wreck your juvenile simplistic views of climate science.

The analysis of those components means there is NO REQUIREMENT for climate forcings to look exactly like the temperature curve..  IN FACT the presence of those constructs pretty much assures that climate inputs do NOT match the shape of resultant temp change.

You dont understand that this is true in the way your home HVAC heating works ----so we can rule out that you have any chance of understanding the thermodynamics of a climate system.

Please realize that you WILL be called out on your STUPIDEST comments.  And that you might want to work harder on content and post less responding to my posts.


----------



## Meister (Dec 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



If you got the science on your side, why in the world would a co-founder of Greenpeace say what he did?  It can only mean you don't have the science on your side.  He was a disciple of your church for crying out loud.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 23, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



If hes got science on his sside,  there wouldnt be lead IPCC authors saying there shouldnt be ANY MORE IPCC reports -- because they distort the science and process too much..


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Any body in space must conserve energy. Whatever the energy in is, it must, eventually, if a perturbation occurs, be rebalanced by a change in surface temperature. Excess energy heats and raises surface temperatures, reduced energy cools to a lower surface temperature. There is no other possibility. 

We create, every day, by the burning of fossil fuels, such a perturbation, which reduces outgoing energy by the action of GHGs. There is no other possibility. 

Nobody knows the exact dynamics of weather and sea levels as they strive to restore energy balance, but they have to. There is no other possibility.

Show me one scrap of science that offers an alternative scenario.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I, just like you, have absolutely no way to know his motivation.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Youve been told this many times before, but ill try once more..  The power of CO2 to create an imbalance is limited  waaaaay below the types of numbers for temperature rise that AGW INVENTS out of Magic Multipliers.  So heres your quiz bastard troll..  What does physics say the resultant warming from JUST a doubling of CO2 from 250 to 500ppm????????

no magic multipliers......

Ive posted it 100 times... Bet you dont remember   do you?


----------



## Meister (Dec 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Exactly....maybe he's smarter than you.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



So at last, you accept what I've said all along. The burning of fossil fuels has to result in AGW. No other possibility. That's a start. 

How much? The calculations show that the AGW for each doubling of carbon dioxide to be about 2 degrees C. 

Virtually nothing in terms of sensible impact on any person. However enough to cause more extreme weather and changes in precipitation patterns that we've already experienced and paid to recover from and mitigate.

However the next question is what other effects will that change cause? 

Two very significant ones. The melting of arctic ice and snow which changes the earths albedo, further reducing energy reflected from earths surface and thereby creating it's own AGW in addition to the GHG cause. 

And the melting of arctic permafrost which has sequestered it's own supply of GHG by the action of preventing microorganisms from "rotting" organic material deposited before freezing occurred there. This would more than double the addition of fossil fuel  GHGs and the resulting AGW. 

The IPCC has predicted that these effects together would cause 8 to 12 degrees of AGW. 

What's the effect of that cause? Whenever it stabilizes, many years after we stop adding daily to the problem, much higher sea levels, flooding virtually all major coastal cities in the world. Substantial changes in the precipitation pattern, that render the climate in areas that we chose for population and agricultural centers untenable. 

The effect of those causes? 

Somewhere between the end of mankind and centuries of chaos as the survivors rebuild civilization.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



And, maybe not.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (Dec 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


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




Actually -- the number is more like 1,2 -- 1.5degC.. And THAT ignores the filtering of Long Wave by even MODEST amounts of water vapor.. 

But Yeah --- THERE'S your problem.. "The IPCC says.. "  "The Magic Multipliers vary between 1.2 and 5... And there's no historical basis to believe that high end exists. *Your fairty tale above is NOT science.. IT's speculation ABOVE AND BEYOND what we KNOW that CO2 can do to the GreenHouse.. *

So -- when you smugly try to pass off this IRONCLAD argument about what CO2 COULD do to the temperatures --- it's based on BELIEF --- not on science. And you're 6th grade version of "an energy balance argument" simply LEAVES OUT this important note that CO2 ALONE is not powerful enough to bring about your "end of days" scenario.

And this crap about "somewhere between the end of mankind and centuries of chaos as the survivors rebuild civilization" is your Church's "end of days" warning to build congregation size and compliance.. 

You've got MUCH less --- than you've been programmed to "believe"..


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Dec 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



"And there's no historical basis to believe that high end exists."

Of course not. We've never had AGW before. 

Certainly there has been a great deal of scientific comparison of the climates other times when the carbon that we are now putting back into the atmosphere, was there before. We are returning to the climate of those times when you factor out the other climate drivers different between now and then.

The record from now of arctic ice and snow loss and permafrost melting are very consistent with the amount of excess energy in earths systems from the current GHG load.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 23, 2013)

Skating on the thinner ice there troll..  Big diff between INCONTROVERTABLE science and melting ice.. 
And you're the one on skates...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 23, 2013)

About 50 million years ago...Of course we'd have to burn all the carbon under our feet to get back there! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png


http://openyoureyesnews.com/2010/12...hip-between-co2-and-temperature/image002-3-2/

Historical evidence for a high end...Co2 was 1,000 to 4,000 ppm at these times.


----------

