# Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap.



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 13, 2017)

Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog


> December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
> *Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around...*
> Good morning everyone.  Happy Wednesday!
> 
> It’s a bitter cold midweek with windchills in the single digits and teens for millions this morning across the Great Lakes, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic over the next few days.


 So lets try this again.

Back in 2000 Al Gore said that the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years if the United States didn't do something about it.  The Earth is still here.
Back in 2006 Al Gore produced an Inconvenient Truth predicting increased in Cat 5 hurricanes each year, massive tornado's, very little snow events, and warming to the point the Earth would burn up in 10 years.  Guess what, less hurricanes each year, little tornado activities, lots of snow through polar vortexes, and the Earth is still here.
So with Global Warming year after year, because of the increase of CO2 each year, (liberal's words not mine) if last 2 years the temperature around Manassas has been in the high 30s and low 40s, WITH THE INCREASE OF TEMPERATURE YEAR AFTER YEAR....Where did the 20 degree temperature come from.  What you morons don't understand is that your science says "each year with CO2 on the increase, the temperature will increase", yet is is 15 degrees lower...And don't give me shit that it is only weather... Yeah and when the summer is HOT , it is only weather.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 13, 2017)

Once again, Billy-bob Cleetus the redneck shows he doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 13, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Back in 2000 Al Gore said that the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years



Link?

BTW Gore is not a scientist and should not be treated as one.

Here's an example of what scientist predicted 10 years ago.

Projections of Future Changes in Climate - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 13, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Back in 2000 Al Gore said that the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years
> ...


I noticed that you avoided the question * Where did the 20 degree temperature come from.  *as typical of the left when they have no answer.  Just more bullshit from the IPCC who wants to take our money from US and give it to the liberal elites in the biggest Ponzi Scheme ever derived..


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 13, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Once again, Billy-bob Cleetus the redneck shows he doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.




lol.......that old line is what? 25 years old? Fails to play with much of the public.........and overwhelming majority in fact. Nobody who votes gives a crap about climate change. Every single major poll shows it. ( will post up by request ). Whats amazing is.........after 25 years of losing, the progressives refuse to change the established narrative one bit. How they all missed the memo I'll never know but as the old adage says, "Reality is 95% perception" >>>

*Perception of climate change*

James Hansena,1,
Makiko Satoa, and
Reto Ruedyb
 Author Affiliations


aNational Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY 10025; and
bTrinnovim Limited Liability Company, New York, NY 10025

Contributed by James Hansen, March 29, 2012 (sent for review March 4, 2012)
Perception of climate change



Indeed.........when people go and walk outside their house and their balls turn blue in 30 seconds ( like today in New York.....in December ), the whole "weather isn't climate" nonsense means zero. Because for years, when the bozo's talk "warming" and the temperatures remain bone chilling cold for 8-9 months out the year, the science isn't going to matter for dick.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 13, 2017)

And all the time you get the real oddball stuff like this new tax on meat to reduce CO2. C'mon now.......regular folks hear shit like that and laugh their asses off.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 13, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> 
> 
> > December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
> ...






spot on..............

Meanwhile, the most obvious question is, if the science is so settled, why do all of these organizations like the NOAA and NASA keep fucking around with the data???. Doesn't raise a single eyebrow amongst the climate nutters.


Why?

Well..........duh..........information doesn't matter when you are perpetuating a great hoax.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 13, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> I noticed that you avoided the question * Where did the 20 degree temperature come from. *



It comes from "winter". You're pretty much the only kook on this board who thinks global warming means it should never again be cold ever anywhere on the planet.

Oh wait, I take that back. Skook is just as retarded as you are, being he relies on "Look, a snowflake!" as his primary debate technique, along with weeping and flapping his limp wrists. And there are a few other cult sheep who always jump on Skook's bandwagon-of-stoopid.

In general, deniers just are just kind of dim. People of normal intelligence instantly see through denier propaganda, but the denier cultists here lack common sense, so they're easy prey for the cult.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 13, 2017)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed that you avoided the question * Where did the 20 degree temperature come from. *
> ...





Skooks might be part of a "bandwagon of stoopid" but that's only to a handful of the uber climate crusader k00ks who troll in this forum. The vast majority of people side with the deniers = a defacto sentiment of not caring about the "consensus science". And we skeptics will take that all day like we have been for decades which is to say the skeptics are winning for the past 1 1/2 decades and in decisive fashion I might add.

How do we know?

Because............of *THIS * *>>>  The world's addiction to fossil fuels hasn't changed in 40 years


*
lol........but the deniers are retarded???


Geee that whole weather doesn't = climate campaign of 20 years has been real effective!!








s0n.........when are you going to realize that I excel in making special people look even more special!!


----------



## JustAnotherNut (Dec 13, 2017)

Well, it's obvious it's not coming out of the liberals asses cause everyone knows they are full of hot air.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 13, 2017)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed that you avoided the question * Where did the 20 degree temperature come from. *
> ...


So when the temperature is 100 degrees that comes from "summer" right?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 13, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> So when the temperature is 100 degrees that comes from "summer" right?



Yes. It's the global average and the trend that matters, not any single temperature in winter or summer.

That's why you don't see us pointing to one hot or cold day as evidence of anthing. We leave such bad logic to you deniers.


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> 
> 
> > December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
> ...



yes, all the climate scientists say there's a problem. but little trumptard science denier knows better.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 13, 2017)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > So when the temperature is 100 degrees that comes from "summer" right?
> ...


Even when the evidence there was extreme cooling like what is going on this week, is left out of the data?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 13, 2017)

jillian said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> ...


Hate to say this moron, but not all the climate scientists are saying there is a problem, only those that are on the payroll for the climate zelots.

'Global warming the greatest scam in history' claims founder of Weather Channel


> *'Global warming the greatest scam in history' claims founder of Weather Channel*
> *THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world's best known climate change sceptic has claimed.*


 I understand why you wont change your mind because if you do, then you must realize that your whole life has been one big lie.


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2017)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > So when the temperature is 100 degrees that comes from "summer" right?
> ...



if their ignorance didn't affect normal people, it would be funny.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 13, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



That's not really a question is it?  I mean you do understand that the tilt of the earth is what causes earth to have seasons as we travel around the sun?  When the northern hemisphere tilts away from the sun it gets colder and we have winter......... happens every year. 

Now then, do you or don't you have a link to where Al said the earth was going to burn up in 10 years or not.  If not I'll  just presume that you made it up, which of course is most likely.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 13, 2017)

jillian said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...




Hey honey........show us all where the science is mattering in the real world. Billboard stuff is ghey..........provide links please!!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 13, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Al Gore’s 10-year warning – only 2 years left, still no warming «  Roy Spencer, PhD
Maybe if you liberals would pull your head out of Uranus, you might know what was said.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 13, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



Linking an article that links to Rush Limpnoodle saying Gore said we're gonna fry in 10 years is hardly a credible link in the real world. Limpy uses exaggeration and hyperbola to entertain you dumb fucks to such an extent that he fictionalizes most every event he references.

So I'm going to take that as a no.  All you have is a fictionalize account of what Al said.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 13, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Oh, so when you said you wanted a link, and I provide one, now you run off like a petulant little spoiled girl, because you don't like the source. Go fucking figure.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 13, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Back in 2000 Al Gore said that the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years
> ...





His adviser is *JAMES HANSEN* who the fuck are you trying to fool?


.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 13, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



The link you provided didn't link to anything Al said.  Why are you trying to pass off what Rush said was said as what was actually said?  Are you really that much of an uninformed dittohead?  I'll understand if you can't provide a link to Al actually saying in 2000 that in 10 year the earth will burn up, because he never said it.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 13, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


You know what, take your fucking Rules for Radicals bullshit and shove it up your ass.  Instead of debating the issue that outside it is fucking freezing cold, and not GLOBAL WARMING up, you take the rules to try to intimidate me.  Fuck off dirtbag.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 13, 2017)

bear513 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



So was it James Hansen that said back in 2000 the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

What are you trying to say here?


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 13, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> 
> 
> > December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
> ...




Just remember the great edict of the Global Warming Left:

1).  If it warms up, THERE'S your global warming!
2).  If it cools down, then you can REALLY bet global warming is on the way!!!

Therefore, ALL WEATHER, ALL ROADS lead to a global warming crisis!  (Never mind that we have been doing everything to avoid it the Left says we need to do for almost 40 years!)


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 13, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 13, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



Hey you're the one that jumped in with that link.  Not me.  I already explained why it is cold in winter,  that is not debatable.  I'm guessing you don't really give a shit what Al Gore actually said do you?  You like the exaggerated version much better, so much so that it passes as reality for you doesn't it?


----------



## Crixus (Dec 13, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Once again, Billy-bob Cleetus the redneck shows he doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.





You are a wannabe propagandist Joe. Stop talking like you are anything but a nerdy old fart.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 13, 2017)

bear513 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Thanks Captain Obvious.  Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 13, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Take you sorry ass outside and see if Global Warming is up your alley. Try sunbathing.  Dumbass...


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 13, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



Proving that it's winter (not really debatable) does nothing to prove that Gore said what you claimed he said about the Earth burning up in 10 years.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 13, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Not going to play your game of Rules for Radicals, you tard...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Once again, Billy-bob Cleetus the redneck shows he doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.



Weather only counts when it's hot..........


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 13, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Back in 2000 Al Gore said that the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years if the United States didn't do something about it.



So you still can't prove he said it and you say I'm the one playing games?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 13, 2017)

Crixus said:


> You are a wannabe propagandist Joe. Stop talking like you are anything but a nerdy old fart.



Stop talking like you are literate or have anything to add to a conversation..  You don't.


----------



## Crixus (Dec 13, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > You are a wannabe propagandist Joe. Stop talking like you are anything but a nerdy old fart.
> ...




Truth hurts eh? Your stupid cut and past don’t work. Jose. An original thought from you would be as valuable as gold. But you can form your own thoughts. You just cut and paste and rip off other people’s ciews and present them as your own. You lie and say you are a professional writer, yet have nothing to show for it. Then you try and say weather is not climate change when on any other day you blame climate change for the weather. You are just a loud mouth dumb fuck who failed your whole life. I kind of feel pity for little transgender types like you.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 13, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...





Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's 



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 13, 2017)

*James Hansen’s Supervisor States Global Warming as Fear Mongering*
Posted on: _January 27, 2009

Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’ 

Washington DC: NASA warming scientist *James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, *is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”  Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. [See: U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims & See Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’  &  Gore laments global warming efforts: ‘I’ve failed badly’ – Washington Post – November 11, 2008  ] 

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained. 

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it)




_


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 13, 2017)

Crixus said:


> Truth hurts eh? Your stupid cut and past don’t work. Jose.



"Cut and Past"  Oh, yes, Spell Check is not always your friend. 



Crixus said:


> You just cut and paste and rip off other people’s ciews and present them as your own.



And sometimes it is!!!



Crixus said:


> You lie and say you are a professional writer, yet have nothing to show for it.



Sure I do.  A lot of money in my bank account. That's what I have to show for it.  



Crixus said:


> Then you try and say weather is not climate change when on any other day you blame climate change for the weather.



Well, when you get a 80 Degree day in February in Chicago, that is kind of freaky, yeah... 

But I take more of a long term view.  When I was a kid in Chicago, Chicago winters were truly brutal.  We voted mayors out of office for not handling them well.  Today... meh, not so much.  I'd be hard pressed to remember when we had a really brutal winter here like we had when I was a kid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Truth hurts eh? Your stupid cut and past don’t work. Jose.
> ...



* When I was a kid in Chicago, Chicago winters were truly brutal.  
*
But we were pumping all that CO2 into the air in the 1970s.
Did that old CO2 make us colder?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *When I was a kid in Chicago, Chicago winters were truly brutal.
> *
> But we were pumping all that CO2 into the air in the 1970s.
> Did that old CO2 make us colder?



Obviously, you don't understand it's a cumulative effect... it's the compound effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. 

We were dumping much worse things in the atmosphere than CO2 back in the 1970's.  There were days where you couldn't see the sun because the smog was so thick.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 14, 2017)

So as a recap of what you liberals are saying is....

When the temperature is going up to "HOT" it is Global Warming..
When the temperature is going down to "FREEZING" it is weather.

Thanks for participating and you can make the decision on who the mentally ill people are on this post...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> So as a recap of what you liberals are saying is....
> 
> When the temperature is going up to "HOT" it is Global Warming..
> When the temperature is going down to "FREEZING" it is weather.
> ...



Again, we can explain the science to you and you still wouldn't understand it.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > So as a recap of what you liberals are saying is....
> ...




We see the climate crusader nutters post this graph up in here 5,000 times/day. Have been doing it for years and years now..........to zero effect. Nobody is caring about the science in the real world despite 25 yeas of bomb throwing..........

lol........in this past weekends REALCLEARENRGY >>> The world's addiction to fossil fuels hasn't changed in 40 years


Who's not winning??


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 14, 2017)

Spambot ftmfw!!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> We see the climate crusader nutters post this graph up in here 5,000 times/day. Have been doing it for years and years now..........to zero effect. Nobody is caring about the science in the real world despite 25 yeas of bomb throwing..........
> 
> lol........in this past weekends REALCLEARENRGY >>> The world's addiction to fossil fuels hasn't changed in 40 years
> 
> ...



Spambot, the fact that we aren't fixing the problem doesn't mean we don't have a problem. 

the science is pretty clear.  The world is getting warmer, people are the cause.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *When I was a kid in Chicago, Chicago winters were truly brutal.
> ...



*Obviously, you don't understand it's a cumulative effect... it's the compound effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. 
*
Oh, cumulative.
So in the 70s, the cumulative effect made things colder....now, the cumulative effect makes things warmer.....
Is that what you meant?
*
 There were days where you couldn't see the sun because the smog was so thick.
*
I don't remember that in Chicago, do you?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Oh, cumulative.
> So in the 70s, the cumulative effect made things colder....now, the cumulative effect makes things warmer.....
> Is that what you meant?



No. there wasn't as much in the atmosphere in the 1970's as there is now. 

Okay, going to try to make this as simple as you as possible.  CO2 is put into the atmosphere by certain processes and taken out by certain processes.  When you put more in, it stays there, because the processes to take it out don't take it out fast enough. So while the level was 300 PPM in the 1970's, it has increased to 400 PPM today. 








Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't remember that in Chicago, do you?



Um, yeah, I recall seeing that a bit in the early 70's, when you had smoky haze over the city in the summers.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, cumulative.
> ...


And ~5 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was >400 ppm and we transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.  So what is your point?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, cumulative.
> ...


*
No. there wasn't as much in the atmosphere in the 1970's as there is now. *

Obviously.
So why did the added CO2 cool us in the 70s while the larger amount added by now has warmed us?

*Um, yeah, I recall seeing that a bit in the early 70's, when you had smoky haze over the city in the summers.
*
If American haze cooled us in the 70s, shouldn't Chinese haze today throw us into a new Ice Age?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> And ~5 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was >400 ppm and we transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. So what is your point?



That changes that happen over millions of years are different than changes that happen over decades, but you guys think Jay-a-zus has a plan or something, fuck that science stuff.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Obviously.
> So why did the added CO2 cool us in the 70s while the larger amount added by now has warmed us?



are you some kind of fucking retard?  

We have more CO2 now than we had in the 70's.
We have more high temperatures now than we had in the 70's. 

Seriously, are you some kind of fucking complete retard inbred that you can't see this?


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > And ~5 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was >400 ppm and we transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. So what is your point?
> ...


So atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm that preceded the  glacial cycles is irrelevant?  

But atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm today that you believe leads to a greenhouse planet, isn't?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Arent we going into a new ice age?
The End of Global Warming — the New Ice Age — Bundle Up! | Armstrong Economics


> There is now growing concern among *scientists* that we may indeed be heading into global cooling rather than warming. The concerns center on the apparent weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. This seems to be triggering a growing amount of speculation about abrupt cooling.


 Many of the European counties are moving away from fossil fuels, and relying on renewable energies for their electricity. If we are going into a new ice age, many people are going to die.

'30,000 could die from extreme cold'


> The Office for National Statistics said this could be due to the “prolonged period of cold weather”. The National Federation of Occupational Pensioners said deaths among its members had more than quadrupled since the end of last year.
> 
> Chief executive Malcolm Booth said almost 500 of its members died last month, double the January figure.
> 
> He said: “At the rate we are going, and if this extreme cold continues we could be looking at 30,000 deaths.” Age UK said extreme cold weather can increase the risk of serious illness in elderly people.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> So atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm that preceded the glacial cycles is irrelevant?
> 
> But atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm today that you believe leads to a greenhouse planet, isn't?



Again- changes over millions of years vs. changes over decades... 

Here's the thing. there's a whole bunch of species that died out from 5 million years ago because of these changes....  but because this happened over a long period of time, other species evolved to fill those niches.

When it happens over decades, it happens too fast for evolution to keep up, so we have massive die-offs of coral reefs or melting permafrost.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm that preceded the glacial cycles is irrelevant?
> ...


400 ppm is 400 ppm.  Are you saying that 400 ppm doesn't matter?


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

I bet good ole Joe doesn't even know that for most of earth's history, the earth has been a greenhouse world and it's only been about the last 5 million years that the earth has become an ice house world.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> 400 ppm is 400 ppm. Are you saying that 400 ppm doesn't matter?



are you some kind of Christian retard.  

Here's the thing. We can probably live with 400 PPM.  But when it gets to 500 PPM or 600 PPM, then you reach a point of no return. At that point, the permafrost melts and all that biomatter starts rotting and creating even more CO2.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> I bet good ole Joe doesn't even know that for most of earth's history, the earth has been a greenhouse world and it's only been about the last 5 million years that the earth has become an ice house world.



And if we still had Dinosaurs, that might be a point.  

But essentially, we are releasing millions of years of CO2 in a few decades, that's the problem.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > 400 ppm is 400 ppm. Are you saying that 400 ppm doesn't matter?
> ...


Really?  CO2 and not methane?  Do you want to check on that and get back to me?


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I bet good ole Joe doesn't even know that for most of earth's history, the earth has been a greenhouse world and it's only been about the last 5 million years that the earth has become an ice house world.
> ...


Have you ever done a material balance on CO2, Joe?


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I bet good ole Joe doesn't even know that for most of earth's history, the earth has been a greenhouse world and it's only been about the last 5 million years that the earth has become an ice house world.
> ...


Were there dinosaurs 5 million years ago, Joe?

Do you want to check on that one too and get back to me?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Really? CO2 and not methane? Do you want to check on that and get back to me?



NO, I don't discuss science with people who believe in talking snakes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously.
> ...



*We have more CO2 now than we had in the 70'*s.

Were the 70s unusually cold? Colder than the 60s? Colder than the 50s?
What about the 40s?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > 400 ppm is 400 ppm. Are you saying that 400 ppm doesn't matter?
> ...



* But when it gets to 500 PPM or 600 PPM, then you reach a point of no return.
*
Everything dies?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Were the 70s unusually cold? Colder than the 60s? Colder than the 50s?
> What about the 40s?



again, are you some kind of retard?  

Look, the problem with you deniers is not that you understand the science, because you don't.  

The problem is, that you don't want the science to be true, because that might require you to change your lifestyle as a matter of survival. You are pretty much the guy who stuffs his face with hamburger and ignores his doctor when he tells him to change his diet.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Were there dinosaurs 5 million years ago, Joe?
> 
> Do you want to check on that one too and get back to me?



Missing another point, Bible Boy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Were the 70s unusually cold? Colder than the 60s? Colder than the 50s?
> ...


*
again, are you some kind of retard?  
*
No, I'm not a liberal believer in AGW.

*The problem is, that you don't want the science to be true
*
Were the 70s unusually cold or not? Use the science for your answer.

* because that might require you to change your lifestyle as a matter of survival.
*
I'm willing a build an entire new fleet of nuclear power plants to reduce CO2.
Are you?


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Really? CO2 and not methane? Do you want to check on that and get back to me?
> ...


As a GHG Methane is like 50 times worse than CO2, Joe.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Were there dinosaurs 5 million years ago, Joe?
> ...


No.  I don't think I am, Joe.  Are you?


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

For a supposed scientologist, Joe, sure don't know jack.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No.  Joe turns into a pumpkin.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

Joe, do you even know the formula for associated temperature from associated atmospheric CO2?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, I'm not a liberal believer in AGW.



Right, you are right and 95% of Ph.D's in Climate Science are wrong. Got it. 



ding said:


> As a GHG Methane is like 50 times worse than CO2, Joe.



Your point being? That the permafrost melting would be really bad?  Yes, yes, it would, Bible Boy.  We should probably do something to keep that from happening.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> No. I don't think I am, Joe. Are you?



Yeah, you kind of are, Bible Boy.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No. I don't think I am, Joe. Are you?
> ...


I don't think so.  I know the formula for associated warming from CO2.  You don't.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> For a supposed scientologist, Joe, sure don't know jack.



I'm an atheist... and I'll admit, I don't know all the science. 

but the people who DO know the science, 95% of them say, yes, Global Warming is real and people are responsible.  

The other 5% are being paid by the Koch brothers to get stupid people like you to enjoy your denial.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

Joe thinks dinosaurs roamed the earth 5 million years ago.  Silly old, Joe.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> I don't think so. I know the formula for associated warming from CO2. You don't.



Yeah, but you are an AGW denier... so that discredits you.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > For a supposed scientologist, Joe, sure don't know jack.
> ...


You worship science right up to the point it disagrees with you, Joe.  

Too bad you don't know diddly squat about science, Joe.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think so. I know the formula for associated warming from CO2. You don't.
> ...


Joe, there is a greenhouse gas effect.  I can calculate it.  Can you, Joe?  

No, you can't.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm not a liberal believer in AGW.
> ...


My point being that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, Joe.  You're kind of slow on the uptake.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> You worship science right up to the point it disagrees with you, Joe.
> 
> Too bad you don't know diddly squat about science, Joe.



I know enough to know we have a real fucking problem.  

This is what I don't get about deniers.  I can get having a valid disagreement on what to do about it, but the science is the science.  CO2 traps heat.  Human beings have increased CO2 levels well above normal levels at an accellerated rate.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You worship science right up to the point it disagrees with you, Joe.
> ...


There's no problem, Joe.  

We're in an interglacial cycle.

That's what they look like.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> There's no problem, Joe.
> 
> We're in an interglacial cycle.
> 
> That's what they look like.



Um, no. the fact that the temperature is rising as quickly as it is - much faster than a normal cycle, is the problem. 

95% of Climate scientists disagree with you.  Are they ALL wrong?


----------



## Taz (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The earth is being warmed unnaturally by humans at a fairly rapid rate. Interglacial period or not, humans are having some effect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm not a liberal believer in AGW.
> ...



*Right, you are right and 95% of Ph.D's in Climate Science are wrong.
*
Did they say the 70s were unusually cold?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > There's no problem, Joe.
> ...


*
the fact that the temperature is rising as quickly as it is - much faster than a normal cycle
*
How fast does it rise in a normal cycle?
Why don't you break it up into 20 year increments?
The last 30,000 years should be a good starting point.

Thanks!


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?








Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 14, 2017)

bear513 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising 
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the _Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society_ titled _The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus._ It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did _not_ conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...


----------



## Taz (Dec 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?


----------



## Taz (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So you think we should all be ignorant of what humans are doing to climate?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

Taz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



As soon as we can isolate the human contribution from the natural fluctuation, please let me know.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...





BlindBoo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



So tell us was Walter Cronkite spreading fake news and making shit up or was he posting news from scientist?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...





BlindBoo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




And with your link now you get your science from a *Writer*? 


*Brian Dunning (author)*
*Brian Andrew Dunning* (born 1965) is an American writer and producer who focuses on science and skepticism.[1]He has hosted a weekly podcast, _Skeptoid_, since 2006, and he is an author of a series of books on the subject of scientific skepticism, some of which are based on the podcast. _Skeptoid_ has been the recipient of several podcast awards such as the Parsec Award. Dunning also created a _Skeptoid_ spin-off video series, _inFact_, available on YouTube.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 14, 2017)

bear513 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




He mentioned a study from one scientist.  Interesting fellow too.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/02/Lamb.pdf


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 14, 2017)

bear513 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Do you think what the writer wrote was science?

Are you questioning the information he wrote about?  The 90-10 split among climate scientist in the 60's-70's?   If so do you have another study that you'd care to cite?


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




Thanks for that. Lamb would be disgusted at the state of climate science today.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




That 2008 survey is the same thing Cook did to produce the 98% myth .. cherry picked to get the results they wanted .

Did you read the part where it said " we didn't have models back then"


I can see these jerks 20 years in the future saying " well we didn't have flux capacitors back then" as an excuse


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




Anyways read this PDF where the dick head Brian Dunning got it from...


_Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society_ titled _The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FAvQQFggjMAE&usg=AOvVaw26i7HmIp7UhfvT-6DrTf-B

_


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2017)

bear513 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...






From My PDF link




THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS:
A COOLING TREND. Efforts to accumulate and organize global temperature records began in
the 1870s (Somerville et al. 2007). The first analysis to show long-term warming trends was published
*in 1938. However, such analyses were not updated very often. Indeed, the Earth appeared to have been 
cooling for more than 2 decade*s when scientists first took note of the change in trend in the 1960s. The
seminal work was done by J. Murray Mitchell, who, in 1963, presented the first up-to-date temperature
reconstruction showing *that a global cooling trend had begun in the 1940s*. Mitchell used data from
nearly 200 weather stations, collected by the World Weather Records project under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization, to calculate latitudinal average temperature. His analysis showed
that global temperatures had increased fairly steadily from the 1880s, the start of his record, until about 1940, before the start of a steady multidecade cooling (Mitchell 1963).By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work
(Mitchell 1972), *the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood. *The first satellite records showed increasing snow and ice cover across the Northern Hemisphere from the late
1960s to the early 1970s. This trend was capped by unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North
America in 1972 and 1973 (Kukla and Kukla 1974


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2017)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




So they had to  change it


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did they say the 70s were unusually cold?



nothing to do with my point, but man, you specialize in just trying to change the subject, don't you? 



ding said:


> Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years.



Congrats, you learned "how to lie with Charts!"  The Koch brothers will be sending your diploma shortly.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2017)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




*the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood*
*

*
All they are saying to me well we didn't understand it but we know everything now, what a bunch of clowns .

We'll see it was areosoles back then cooling the planet ..that's it ureka ..

If it wasn't for areosoles this planet would of burnt up by now ..


What a bunch of retards.




 
*
*


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2017)

Apparently we didn't know how to read a thermometer in any of the decades of the last century. They all had to be 'adjusted'.

Then we found out that we didn't know how to read thermometers in the 00's. And everything had to be 'readjusted'.

In three years we will find out that we didn't know how to read a thermometer in the 10's either. And all the readings will have to be re-readjusted.
 In actual fact, the numbers are being constantly changed. The readings for pre-1960 typically go down, and after 1960 they typically go up.






The abrupt change at 1940 is the result of two things. Necessary but still discretionary adjustments to ocean temperatures. And a need to smooth out warming/cooling bump that wrecked the temperature to CO2 correlation.

Here is part of an email chain released in Climategate-

*From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip"

*
Edit- remember these are just changes from 2008. No one knew that the adjustments were going to be made and the old data tossed out, or at least made unavailable. All the most reasonable and necessary adjustments had already been made by the turn of the millennium.


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2017)

Here is more detailed info for two specific dates.

A more suspicious mind than mine might wonder if the traction in the public for this graph might have caused a little correction for Jan 1915 in 2015 to reduce the bad publicity.


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2017)

The GISS maturity graph, and specific info for two dates. The major version change at the end of 2012 is vary visible.

A more suspicious mind than mine would wonder why climate4you chose jan1910 rather than jan1915 like in the NCDC graphs.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> The GISS maturity graph, and specific info for two dates. The major version change at the end of 2012 is vary visible.
> 
> A more suspicious mind than mine would wonder why climate4you chose jan1910 rather than jan1915 like in the NCDC graphs.



Yes, yes, 95% of Climate scientist are getting it wrong, but you can read a graph, you think.  Got it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Did they say the 70s were unusually cold?
> ...



It's true, I'm not going to let you mention how cold the 70s were and then avoid my questions.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's true, I'm not going to let you mention how cold the 70s were and then avoid my questions.



Well, when you ask an honest question, then I'll engage you like an adult.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The GISS maturity graph, and specific info for two dates. The major version change at the end of 2012 is vary visible.
> ...



*Yes, yes, 95% of Climate scientist are getting it wrong, 
*
If 95% of scientists are on your side and the data is on your side, why does your side need to keep cheating?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It's true, I'm not going to let you mention how cold the 70s were and then avoid my questions.
> ...



You said we had real winters when you were growing up in the 70s.
Were the 70s unusually cold?


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


What part of CO2 does not drive climate change did you not understand?


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2017)

Taz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


We aren't doing anything to the climate.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If 95% of scientists are on your side and the data is on your side, why does your side need to keep cheating?



Except they don't.  That's only a crazy claim the deniers came up with. 

The deniers are too dumb to understand the science. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You said we had real winters when you were growing up in the 70s.
> Were the 70s unusually cold?



Wasn't the point I was making and you know it... this is why talking to you is a waste.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If 95% of scientists are on your side and the data is on your side, why does your side need to keep cheating?
> ...



*Except they don't.  
*
Right. All those adjustments to historical temperatures. 
Perfectly normal. Happens all the time.
The fact that they make the past look cooler so the present looks warmer, coincidence.

And those climate-gate emails?
They were just joking when they discussed preventing the other side from publishing.
And "hiding the decline", "Mike's nature trick", in no way were they discussing ways to 
manipulate the data to make things look worse. 

Nope, just a crazy denier claim.

*Wasn't the point I was making and you know it...
*
Excellent!

So the 60s were colder than the 50s?

The 50s were colder than the 40s?

The 40s must have been colder than the 30s, right?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, yes, 95% of Climate scientist are getting it wrong, but you can read a graph, you think.  Got it.



Those who are familiar with the science know that the total adjustments have, by making the past look much warmer, made the current warming look much smaller. That's not debatable, and that means Ian's crank conspiracy theory goes into the shitcan. Not that Ian will care. He's a true believer. His cult tells him to believe, so like every other denier here he'll keep cherrypicking his heart out until reality matches his dogma. He's not as dumb as the other deniers, but he is just as fanatical and brainwashed

The denier cult is based entirely on faking data. Fraud is what deniers do. It's all deniers do. If a denier says something, experience shows one should initially assume it's a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.

<data:blog.pageTitle/>


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right. All those adjustments to historical temperatures.
> Perfectly normal. Happens all the time.



Um, yeah, they usually do take outliers out of a statistical survey. Another one of them new fangled science things you don't dun learn you at Talking Snake U, Cleetus.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Excellent!
> 
> So the 60s were colder than the 50s?



wouldn't know, Cleetus... don't have much of a memory of the 60's... 

Now there was a dip in the 70's... There was also a dip in the 40's, (this was the years of the brutal russian winters that beat the Nazis) 

But, the temps have been steadily going up since the begining of the century.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Right. All those adjustments to historical temperatures.
> ...



*Um, yeah, they usually do take outliers out of a statistical survey. 
*
30, 60, 100 years later?
Do they usually destroy the original, unimproved data as well?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do they usually destroy the original, unimproved data as well?



So who told you such a crazy lie, and why were you stupid enough to believe it?


----------



## Taz (Dec 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Personally, I'm FOR global warming, but you're an ass with his head stuck in the sand.


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2017)

Taz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I never claimed not to be an ass, Taz. 

The only question is do you think you are any different. 

As for my head being stuck in the sand, I've studied the geologic record extensively and I have yet to see any signs that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change. What about you?


----------



## Taz (Dec 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Naturally occuring amounts of CO2. We don't yet know how our human produced GHGs will affect the earth in such a shirt time frame. Sea will rise, that's a given. ...


----------



## Taz (Dec 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


We're pumping in GHGs by the shitload every day.


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Can you show me using CO2 and temperature from the geologic record where CO2 drove a climate change?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 30, 60, 100 years later?
> Do they usually destroy the original, unimproved data as well?



Again, Cleetus, you don't really understand statistics, so no point explaining it to you. 



mamooth said:


> So who told you such a crazy lie, and why were you stupid enough to believe it?



It was probably the Koch Brothers.


----------



## Taz (Dec 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The GHGs that we're pumping into the atmosphere these days is helping to change the climate.


----------



## Taz (Dec 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Right after you show me the the records over that same time period where humans were helping to change the climate more rapidly then it would without their GHGs.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 15, 2017)

lol........I see people in here going tit for tat on the whole science debate. But this crap has been going on for 20 years.........the same stoopid-ass back and forth nonsense. Members of the religion keep taking bows on this idea that they have the debate locked up in their favor. Yuk......yuk..............

But nobody is caring,...................

*https://www.vox.com/2016/10/19/13342250/presidential-debates-climate-change*



*http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/357701-congress-must-come-to-terms-on-regulating-climate-change*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2017)

Taz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



If we determine the optimum temperature is higher, I'm for it too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > 30, 60, 100 years later?
> ...



*Again, Cleetus, you don't really understand statistics, so no point explaining it to you. 
*
You don't need to explain statistics when the subject is government funding.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You don't need to explain statistics when the subject is government funding.



Quit changing the subject because you lost the argument Cleetus.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> Apparently we didn't know how to read a thermometer in any of the decades of the last century. They all had to be 'adjusted'.
> 
> Then we found out that we didn't know how to read thermometers in the 00's. And everything had to be 'readjusted'.
> 
> ...




Yup reading that PDF on how they tried to explain the ice age of the 1970s was a myth the more I get file gate the more I get they really did change the temperature records.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent!
> ...




Russia winter? You do know tard local weather is not climate


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Were the 70s unusually cold? Colder than the 60s? Colder than the 50s?
> ...




Oh we understand science and politics all right Mrs Naomi Klein all your interested is redistributing the wealth for social climate Justice , who the hell you trying to fool?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm not a liberal believer in AGW.
> ...




So trying to post that myth huh?


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2017)

bear513 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently we didn't know how to read a thermometer in any of the decades of the last century. They all had to be 'adjusted'.
> ...




Yup. It is the way they manufactured adjustments that changed the SHAPE of the temperature record. Adding or subtracting half a degree across the whole range doesn't make much of a difference. Cooling the start and warming the end makes a big difference in the trend.

Knocking the tops off hills and valleys makes the whole record look like a steady climb, rather than a series of cycles with an upwards trend. This is what homogenization does, although the massive corrections around the 40's were specifically targeted.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I used to be cynical...but after reading this PDF I totally see what they did...and they say Trump is a Barnum Bailey con artist this is pure B.S.


This is worth repeating




THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS:
A COOLING TREND. Efforts to accumulate and organize global temperature records began in
the 1870s (Somerville et al. 2007). The first analysis to show long-term warming trends was published
*in 1938. However, such analyses were not updated very often. Indeed, the Earth appeared to have been 
cooling for more than 2 decade*s when scientists first took note of the change in trend in the 1960s. The
seminal work was done by J. Murray Mitchell, who, in 1963, presented the first up-to-date temperature
reconstruction showing *that a global cooling trend had begun in the 1940s*. Mitchell used data from
nearly 200 weather stations, collected by the World Weather Records project under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization, to calculate latitudinal average temperature. His analysis showed
that global temperatures had increased fairly steadily from the 1880s, the start of his record, until about 1940, before the start of a steady multidecade cooling (Mitchell 1963).By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work
(Mitchell 1972), *the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood. *The first satellite records showed increasing snow and ice cover across the Northern Hemisphere from the late
1960s to the early 1970s. This trend was capped by unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North
America in 1972 and 1973 (Kukla andKukla 1974


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2017)

bear513 said:


> By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), *the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood.*


*
*
And at the same time, the majority of scientists were already predicting how the cooling trend would reverse into warming. And they were right. It went against the obvious trend, but scientists went with the physics and the data, and were proven to be correct.

A few scientists, of course, predicted cooling. Those scientists generally remained hardcore global warming deniers for the rest of their lives.

The real science has been correct since the 1970s, and the deniers have been wrong since the 1970s. Heck, most deniers are _still_ predicting an ice age RealSoonNow. That's why the real science has credibility, and why denialism is considered to be a kind of Ice Age Cult.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), *the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood.*
> ...




You became an  arm chair QBs   your cult went back in time to change it ..

It's like some asshole Q.C. person when they had a shit load of defects .. change the S.P.C. records..



You guys changed it mamooth quit denying it..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), *the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood.*
> ...



And who are you trying to fool the term 'denier" was made up by your cult around 2004 ..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

You changed it and we all know you did now mamooth 


THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS:
A COOLING TREND. Efforts to accumulate and organize global temperature records began in
the 1870s (Somerville et al. 2007). The first analysis to show long-term warming trends was published
*in 1938. However, such analyses were not updated very often. Indeed, the Earth appeared to have been 
cooling for more than 2 decade*s when scientists first took note of the change in trend in the 1960s. The
seminal work was done by J. Murray Mitchell, who, in 1963, presented the first up-to-date temperature
reconstruction showing *that a global cooling trend had begun in the 1940s*. Mitchell used data from
nearly 200 weather stations, collected by the World Weather Records project under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization, to calculate latitudinal average temperature. His analysis showed
that global temperatures had increased fairly steadily from the 1880s, the start of his record, until about 1940, before the start of a steady multidecade cooling (Mitchell 1963).By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work
(Mitchell 1972), *the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood. *The first satellite records showed increasing snow and ice cover across the Northern Hemisphere from the late
1960s to the early 1970s. This trend was capped by unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North
America in 1972 and 1973 (KuklaandKukla 1974


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

You had to change it to promote fear mongering..

You had to change it to promote propaganda..

You had to change it because you wanted climate social justice..

You had to change it because you wanted the rich nation's to pay

You had to change it , because you hate the rich..



You guys are such liars , Hillary and Trump  is not bigger liars then Jim Hansen, Cook  Michael Mann and  Naomi Klein combined..


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2017)

bear513 said:


> You changed it and we all know you did now mamooth



Changed what?

If you're talking about the term "climate change", the Bush admin created that, specifically Republican strategist Frank Luntz in 2002. They thought "global warming" sounded too scary, and wanted to downplay it, so that they could excuse not acting. That's not debatable, at least not by any non-cultist. I can show you the video of Frank Luntz saying it.

Now, when did "denier" become common? When Republicanism began turning into a cult of wide-eyed kooks, which really took off after the Bush election. So yes, after 2000. Before denialism became one of the many mandated insane beliefs of a bedwetting political cult, there was no reason to label it.

Don't cry at me for pointing out the obvious. You shit your own bed, fraud, so now you have to sleep in it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > You changed it and we all know you did now mamooth
> ...



Bullshit your cult changed it to climate change and you even go back in time (like you always do) to claim there was deniers in the 1970s...


Fruit loops they are called " scientist" trying to figure shit out..

But your cult already had your mind made up .

Anti science ...that's all you are


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > You changed it and we all know you did now mamooth
> ...




You changed the records don't lie mamooth...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > You changed it and we all know you did now mamooth
> ...




Read the PDF

You changed the temperature records to suite your narrative... your cult lied ..

I hate the AGW cult even more now mamooth, you guys are the biggest liars on the planet...

Just because your drama queens..
Just because you want social economic Justice..


You confuse the public.. you want pollution and climate  to be the same.

You can't stand freedom, you can't stand people wanting to drive pick up trucks while you drive a clown car.

You can't stand fossil fuel for providing cheap heat to poor people..while you live in $2,000 dollars apparments paying out the ying yang for higher energy bills


Yea mamooth, you want to scrafice .go ahead...I am not with you ..


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 15, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Yup reading that PDF on how they tried to explain the ice age of the 1970s was a myth the more I get file gate the more I get they really did change the temperature records.



Except there wasn't an "ice age" in the 1970's.  We did have some particularly brutal winters, especially at the end. But whenever someone tries to claim "Scientists were predicting an Ice Age in the 70's", they point to one article in Time Magazine.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Yup reading that PDF on how they tried to explain the ice age of the 1970s was a myth the more I get file gate the more I get they really did change the temperature records.
> ...




No we don't, I remember watching this the day it was in television, 8 pm Chicago , Thursday...I don't know why I remember it but I do.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2017)

Btw I also remember Bewitched being on Thursday's at 7 pm when I was around 4 years old in the late 60's


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 15, 2017)

bear513 said:


> No we don't, I remember watching this the day it was in television, 8 pm Chicago , Thursday...I don't know why I remember it but I do.



This was the same show that talked about UFO's, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and the Bermuda Triangle like those were real things. .  

In Search of... (TV series) - Wikipedia

The only mystery is why Leonard Nimoy sold out his credibility.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 16, 2017)

bear513 said:


> You changed the temperature records to suite your narrative...



No, that's just more open fraud on the part of you and your cult. Not all deniers possess low intelligence, but the great majority of them are like that. Denier cultists self-select for stupidity, because people of normal intelligence just laugh at denier propaganda.

Even you understand that on some level, which is why you've gotten so hysterical here. All the evidence contradicts you, your cult is dying, and you don't know what to do. Don't worry. Your masters won't let the efforts of a Useful Idiot like you go to waste. They'll instruct you on how to devote yourself to a different cult, and then give you some new deranged conspiracy theories to parrot.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 16, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > You changed the temperature records to suite your narrative...
> ...




No one tells me anything, unlike you I research the hell out of it, all you do is parrot blogs 


It's so damn obvious now when I connect all the dots especially after I read that 2008 study ....you want to remain stupid go ahead but I know you're not your cult is after a huge bluff.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> 
> 
> > December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
> ...


LOL  For sure you brand yourself as an idiot. Stating things that were never said, lying about reality, when even those that do not like that reality have to acknowledge it.





http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2017_v6.jpg


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2017)

bear513 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


LOL  Reading Briebart and other right wing nut blogs can hardly be considered research. Reading articles from Science, Nature, Geology, and other peer reviewed scientific journals is research. Something you have never done. Or you can even go to Youtube like this;


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


You know, you are one sad liar. No, it is not left out of the data. It is simply because you are just too stupid to understand that we are talking about the whole of the planet, not the sad little spot you inhabit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


How predictable. A silly fuck like you chose a chart that ended in 2014, and began in 2006. Both Spencer and you are asshole liars. Spencer does not dare alter his charts, as he once did, and got caught changing signs in the data to contradict reality. One more trick like that, and he becomes persona non grata within the scientific community. He is damned near there at the present. Here is his graph, as you can see, 2015, 2016, and 2017 have seen major warming.





http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2017_v6.jpg


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


LOL  

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that say AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Against that we are to take the meanderings of a demented old man that was never a scientist?


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


There aren't any because it hasn't happened.  We are still at least 2C below the peak temperature of the previous interglacial cycles.  

You do understand what interglacial cycles are, right?


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You said that already.  Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today.  Guess what?  No one died.

12,000 years ago New York was under a quarter mile sheet of ice.


----------



## Taz (Dec 17, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So you're of the opinion that we won't go past the previous peak that is only 2 degrees away? And that human activity isn't doing anything in this regard?


----------



## Taz (Dec 17, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So these 2 meaningless stats are supposed to prove that humans aren't affecting climate change? Or are you purposely moving the goalposts to now discuss the level at which it might get harmful to humans?


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2017)

mamooth said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, yes, 95% of Climate scientist are getting it wrong, but you can read a graph, you think.  Got it.
> ...



The thing you have to remember about mamooth is that he is a shyster. Three card monte, pea under the thimble, a huckster.

He tries to convince us that all adjustments are suitable because ONE large sea surface temperature correction went in the opposite direction. He wants us to ignore all the other adjustments since then.

In the 90s they just couldn't get the climate models to work with raw sea surface data so they made a large correction to compensate for going from canvas buckets to water intakes. A necessary but still discretionary adjustment.

Land surface station coverage is poor, especially before, say, 1950. But sea surface coverage is pathetic to non-existent for that period.

The poo flinging monkey likes to put up this graph as proof-






What does this graph imply? That post 1950 readings have hardly been adjusted, and that pre 1950 readings have been warmed. Say what????? That can't be right! 

How the hell did they pull that off? Have you figured it out? Kept track of the pea under the thimble? Figured out which card is the queen of spades? Hahahaha.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...




So far the only large scale event that can be directly attributed to increased CO2, at least in part, is the greening of the planet. 

Evil, right?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2017)

ding said:


> You said that already. Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today. Guess what? No one died.
> 
> 12,000 years ago New York was under a quarter mile sheet of ice.



You keep missing the point... the CO2 level isn't just high, it's skyrocketing faster than the planet can cope with.  

Those past increases did not happen over decades, they happened over millennia. In short, there was time for life to evolve to cope with changed climate.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You said that already. Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today. Guess what? No one died.
> ...




The change in CO2 is mostly man made. Thanks goodness! If it was being caused by natural factors then we really would be in the middle of climate upheaval.

CO2 is usually a symptom, not a cause, although it does seem to reinforce the warming side of the cycle between glacials and interglacials.


----------



## ding (Dec 17, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


The data shows that we are still in the normal range, Einstein.


----------



## ding (Dec 17, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Ummm.... no.  And they aren't meaningless.  

Do you think we live in an icehouse world or a greenhouse world right now?


----------



## ding (Dec 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You said that already. Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today. Guess what? No one died.
> ...


You seem to keep missing the point that associated temperature due to GHG does not care about how fast CO2 rises.  

Is it your belief that CO2 emissions will continue to rise exponentially?  Because even the IPCC base projection does not show that.

Just how high do you think atmospheric CO2 will rise to by the year 2100?


----------



## ding (Dec 17, 2017)

Come on boys.... it's time to do some math!


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2017)

ding said:


> You seem to keep missing the point that associated temperature due to GHG does not care about how fast CO2 rises.
> 
> Is it your belief that CO2 emissions will continue to rise exponentially? Because even the IPCC base projection does not show that.
> 
> Just how high do you think atmospheric CO2 will rise to by the year 2100?



Probably high enough to kill us all, but do keep pretending we don't have a problem.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2017)

ding said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



At roughly 1C warming per doubling, CO2 is not going to produce any sort of tipping point. Hopefully for our descendants it will delay the next glacial period for a bit longer.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> At roughly 1C warming per doubling, CO2 is not going to produce any sort of tipping point. Hopefully for our descendants it will delay the next glacial period for a bit longer.



Our descendants will probably all die out massively when the planet can't sustain humans anymore like it does now. 





_*"Don't mind us, we are just putting off the next glacial age!" *_


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 17, 2017)

Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap.

Tell it to the Inuit


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to keep missing the point that associated temperature due to GHG does not care about how fast CO2 rises.
> ...



Well, it won't be the cold or lack of food killing us. What exactly do you think WILL kill us?


----------



## ding (Dec 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to keep missing the point that associated temperature due to GHG does not care about how fast CO2 rises.
> ...


So you don't even know what the IPCC projections are and what they are based upon?

Yet, you are certain there is a problem, Joe?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> Well, it won't be the cold or lack of food killing us. What exactly do you think WILL kill us?



The fact that a lot of farmland will turn into desert. Massive die-offs of species like bees we rely on for pollenizing. Melting glaciers will no longer feed rivers, causing areas to dry up.  Stuff like that.


----------



## ding (Dec 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Joe, is that 1C from doubling of CO2 due to associated temperature from GHG or associated temperature from GHG plus feedbacks?


----------



## ding (Dec 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it won't be the cold or lack of food killing us. What exactly do you think WILL kill us?
> ...


ummm... the world will become much wetter Joe.  The warming will be predominantly at the poles.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2017)

ding said:


> Joe, is that 1C from doubling of CO2 due to associated temperature from GHG or associated temperature from GHG plus feedbacks?



I would say that it is entirely because of AGW... and so do 95% of climate scientists.  

But i'm sure you want to see the doctor who recommends the Ice Cream Diet.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2017)

ding said:


> ummm... the world will become much wetter Joe. The warming will be predominantly at the poles.



Again, 95% of REAL scientists disagree with you. 

But, yeah, you might have a point, the world will be a lot "Wetter" 







Fuck you, Florida!!!


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it won't be the cold or lack of food killing us. What exactly do you think WILL kill us?
> ...




Do you think for yourself?

The huge amount of green space in the Sahara that disappeared when the monsoons stopped five thousand years ago didn't 'kill us all'.

Do you really think the few tenths of a degree of warming is killing the bees when they appear to do just fine with year-to-year variations of whole degrees?

Glaciers have advanced and retreated for a very long time. Did you believe the IPCC prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2030? Do you still believe? How about Gore's prediction for Kilamanjaro?

Just how credulous are you?


----------



## Taz (Dec 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I never said that I was against global warming, in fact, I'm all for it, to a point. He's trying to say that humans don't affect climate change. Which is false.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Anyone got an answer for this?

Anybody want an answer for this?


----------



## Taz (Dec 17, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


But for how long?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> The thing you have to remember about mamooth is that he is a shyster. Three card monte, pea under the thimble, a huckster.



You're cute when you sulk over being busted for fraud.



> He tries to convince us that all adjustments are suitable because ONE large sea surface temperature correction went in the opposite direction.



No, I'm ripping apart your amazing stupid conspiracy theory. Your kook theory says that scientists made a huge correction one way, because they were honest. And then, somewhere in the 1990s, they all became socialist pod people. And the socialist pod people scientists knew it would look bad to cancel that correction, so they tried to overwhelm the old correction with new corrections.

The really funny part is how you expect that people won't laugh at that.



> He wants us to ignore all the other adjustments since then.



I want you to point out why the newer adjustments aren't justified. So far, you just keep screaming how it must be fraudulent because you don't like the results. That bit of non-logic plays well with your fellow cultists, but rational people require a little more than your endless rounds of BECAUSE I SAY SO.



> In the 90s they just couldn't get the climate models to work with raw sea surface data so they made a large correction to compensate for going from canvas buckets to water intakes. A necessary but still discretionary adjustment.



The first mention of those corrections, in HadISST, was published here, in 2003. Prior to HadISST, they weren't worked into any temperature record.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf

And then it's reinforced in 2005 with HadSST2

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3637.1

According to your kook conspiracy theory, the vast secret global socialist plot formed in the 1990s. That means they had ample time to quietly trash the data that challenged their nefarious socialist agenda ... and yet they didn't.

So, in addition to having zero evidence to back it up, your conspiracy theory isn't even internally consistent. Care to revise your timeline? Give us the exact date as to when the alien socialist pods took over the minds of all climate scientists. Given the evidence here, it has to be after 2005. But if you have to accept the science up to 2005, that totally ruins almost all of your other conspiracy kookery.

Dang, sucks to be you. Maybe DearLeaderMcIntyre can help you out, little fraud. Alas, he's been quiet lately, so you'll probably have to fake something on your own.


----------



## ding (Dec 17, 2017)

Taz said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Let me put it this way.  Humans have affected the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Atmospheric CO2 does not drive climate change.  Atmospheric CO2 reinforces climate change.


----------



## ding (Dec 17, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


It depends on the trigger mechanism for the glacial cycle and whether or not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is high enough to avoid that trigger.


----------



## ding (Dec 17, 2017)

Taz, you do realize that man had no influence on the glacial - interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years, right?

Our climate transitioned to an icehouse world about 5 million years ago.  It has only gotten colder since.  The same conditions which precipitated that did that are still in place today (ask me what they are).  The native state of the planet is an icehouse with the next climate change being a glacial cycle.  These facts are indisputable.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2017)

mamooth said:


> No, I'm ripping apart your amazing stupid conspiracy theory. Your kook theory says that scientists made a huge correction one way, because they were honest. And then, somewhere in the 1990s, they all became socialist pod people.




Nope. I'm saying that a large sea surface correction was made in the 90s so that they could make some semblance of a decent climate model that had a correlation with CO2. Otherwise they would have had to invoke unknown natural factors.

I guess I'll have to go back and search for the original threads. The main and largest 'correction' was made long before 2003.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> Nope. I'm saying that a large sea surface correction was made in the 90s so that they could make some semblance of a decent climate model that had a correlation with CO2.



So, good science, in other words.



> Otherwise they would have had to invoke unknown natural factors.



Which would be lousy science, invoking the mysterious unknown. That is, denier shit science.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2017)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. I'm saying that a large sea surface correction was made in the 90s so that they could make some semblance of a decent climate model that had a correlation with CO2.
> ...



Hahahaha, only you would think making a huge adjustment to the data so that agrees with the pet theory is good science.

In this specific case I believe some adjustments were necessary. In many other cases they were not, and in a few cases adjustments were not made when they should have been.

The main sea surface adjustments were in place by Parker 1995, although a lot of the work was done before that. Since then many further adjustments have been made to tailor the data to the need to prop up the AGW theory. Such as Karl 2015, the pausebuster paper released just in time for Paris, which trimmed a little here, added a little there, in an effort to smooth out the hills and valleys to make the trend seem like it stretched over a longer period of time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > At roughly 1C warming per doubling, CO2 is not going to produce any sort of tipping point. Hopefully for our descendants it will delay the next glacial period for a bit longer.
> ...



Milder winters, longer growing seasons, higher crop yields......we're doomed!!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> The huge amount of green space in the Sahara that disappeared when the monsoons stopped five thousand years ago didn't 'kill us all'.
> 
> Do you really think the few tenths of a degree of warming is killing the bees when they appear to do just fine with year-to-year variations of whole degrees?
> 
> ...



I think Gore is a bit of an alarmist... however, the real scientists who study this stuff tell us that these things are going to be bad.  

so again, let's get down to brass tacks.  You don't really doubt the science, you don't like the inevitable conclusion we'll all have to change our lifestyles to fix this.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Milder winters, longer growing seasons, higher crop yields......we're doomed!!!



droughts, more extreme weather, shifting of the gulf stream... um, yeah, we would be.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> so again, let's get down to brass tacks. You don't really doubt the science, you don't like the inevitable conclusion we'll all have to change our lifestyles to fix this.




I have three children that make various 'sacrifices' to signal their virtue to Gaia and the uplifting of mankind. Bless their hearts cause I was just like them at their age.

Now I am older and know better. But I still go around behind them turning down thermostats and turning off lights. 

It's one thing to talk the talk, another to walk the walk.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> I have three children that make various 'sacrifices' to signal their virtue to Gaia and the uplifting of mankind. Bless their hearts cause I was just like them at their age.
> 
> Now I am older and know better. But I still go around behind them turning down thermostats and turning off lights.
> 
> It's one thing to talk the talk, another to walk the walk.



I'm very glad you are cynical in your old age... but the reality is, the science isn't in dispute.  Much like evolution, it's not the science you have a problem with, it's the implication.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I have three children that make various 'sacrifices' to signal their virtue to Gaia and the uplifting of mankind. Bless their hearts cause I was just like them at their age.
> ...



The science is definitely in dispute. Many or most of the doomsday predictions are absolute garbage. 

I do believe in the warming influence of CO2. A minor influence. Everything thing else is hyped up and exaggerated. 

Pick an area of research. The claims are unsupported by the level of certainty. I actually like science, so I am concerned about the damage being done to it in the name of 'The Noble Cause'.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 17, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




Who is reading briebart you moron I was reading the 2008 study jack ass from your cult



The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
AMetSoc › journals › 2008BAMS2370
by TC Peterson · 2008 · Cited by 103 · Related articles
Feb 8, 2008 · Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge,. United Kingdom ... either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was


----------



## mamooth (Dec 17, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Who is reading briebart you moron I was reading the 2008 study jack ass from your cult



Yes, the study that says you're totally full of shit. That's why it's so pointless of you to keep bringing it up. Everyone already knows you're a cult fraud, so you don't need to keep reinforcing that point.


----------



## MaryL (Dec 17, 2017)

Not this bullocks  again,I live in Colorado and I am seeing cold dead dry facts. Pine beetles devouring forests, the dying of the wilderness and the drought we are locked into. In my lifetime. And California is burning in December.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 17, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Who is reading briebart you moron I was reading the 2008 study jack ass from your cult
> ...




Where in this study proves me wrong mamooth.. I nailed you with your own study .

THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS:
A COOLING TREND. Efforts to accumulate and organize global temperature records began in
the 1870s (Somerville et al. 2007). The first analysis to show long-term warming trends was published
*in 1938. However, such analyses were not updated very often. Indeed, the Earth appeared to have been 
cooling for more than 2 decade*s when scientists first took note of the change in trend in the 1960s. The
seminal work was done by J. Murray Mitchell, who, in 1963, presented the first up-to-date temperature
reconstruction showing *that a global cooling trend had begun in the 1940s*. Mitchell used data from
nearly 200 weather stations, collected by the World Weather Records project under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization, to calculate latitudinal average temperature. His analysis showed
that global temperatures had increased fairly steadily from the 1880s, the start of his record, until about 1940, before the start of a steady multidecade cooling (Mitchell 1963).By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work
(Mitchell 1972), *the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood. *The first satellite records showed increasing snow and ice cover across the Northern Hemispherefrom the late
1960s to the early 1970s. This trend was capped by unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North
America in 1972 and 1973 (Kukla andKukla 1974


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 17, 2017)

bear513 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Your own fucking study mamooth says global cooling was WIDELY accepted in the 1970s. .


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 17, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Who is reading briebart you moron I was reading the 2008 study jack ass from your cult
> ...





s0n..........you've evidently never heard of a bell curve. Here......in order to talk about "cults" you must first understand a bell curve. "Cults" can only derive at the bottom of either end of the bell curve, which means they are in a *distinct minority.

The Bell Curve - Wikipedia



*
Consider...........most people don't care about global warming..............


*http://grist.org/climate-energy/most-americans-accept-that-climate-change-is-real-they-just-dont-care-that-much-about-it/*

*http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-climate-change-liberals-20160114-story.html*

*http://247wallst.com/media/2015/11/08/chinese-dont-care-about-climate-change/*

*http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/27/eve-cop21-paris-talks-world-just-doesnt-care-global-warming/*

*http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-lack-of-public-concern-about-climate-change-how-much-do-we-need-to-care-how-much-people-care*

*https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/24/why-we-care-about-global-warming-consensus*
*


*
Which puts special people like you at one of the far ends of the bell curve. When you are OCD about one specific school of thought that is not popular, by definition, you are "cult"-like. Oh....too........have you ever heard about posting links up to support your stuff? You know.........the whole opinions are like assholes thing.........you have that shit down to a T.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 17, 2017)

*Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap*

Then I suggest you do research without the pachyderms excrement...


----------



## depotoo (Dec 17, 2017)

California burns when the Santa Ana winds blow and there has been enough rain to grow up the underbrush and someone accidentally lights a fire.  Happens every time. 
And the blight from  the pine beetle?  It has its cycles, just as drought does.

Around 150 years ago, France's reputation as one of the world's greatest producers of wine was under critical threat from a terrible *blight*. When scientists were finally able to determine the cause, they found the blame lay with a tiny parasitic *insect* that traveled over from the United States.Mar 19, 2015
Wiki




http://teachers.sduhsd.net/bbodas/more water related materials/colorado water resources.pdf



MaryL said:


> Not this bullocks  again,I live in Colorado and I am seeing cold dead dry facts. Pine beetles devouring forests, the dying of the wilderness and the drought we are locked into. In my lifetime. And California is burning in December.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> The science is definitely in dispute.



No, it really isn't. The Koch Brothers paying some sell out scientists to dispute settled science is not a dispute.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 18, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The science is definitely in dispute.
> ...




But doesn't matter what the scientists say...........its what the people think. Most people believe the science to be in dispute which is the only thing that matters. Zero congressional legislation for the past 10 years tells us all we need to know: the people don't care about climate change. If the people don't care, the science doesn't matter..........it stands there much like a billboard. Fringe progressives can take bows, but in the real world, "settled science" is an internet hobby and little more.


And lets face it.........progressives get hysterical about just about everything.( see "Russian contacts" stories ). Most people have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more pressing matters to worry about than climate science.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 18, 2017)

Spambot is too stupid to understand science.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Okay , if i can prove that the data has been fucked with, will you kiss my ass?

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures


> The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.
> 
> *An adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies*


 Of course you don't believe the evidence provided, just shove that brainless cranium farther up Uranus.


----------



## social philosopher (Dec 18, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> 
> 
> > December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
> ...



You didn't put anything as a choice I would want to vote for. Just like standing in front of a redneck bar asking about gay rights, you rigged the outcome of your opinion pole. You didn't want a real result. 

Start with a cold room. Enter room. Burn oil. Cook food, Have friends over. Breathe. Exhale. Move about. Is the room still cold? No. It has warmed up. The room is a closed system illustration. Earth is a closed system. Produce mass quantities of heat and the planet heats up. Fairly simple stuff. Yes global warming is real. The weather is decidedly different than when I was a child. I am 65 now. Al Gore's timetable may be off but his message is true.

Unfortunately conservatives tend to be somewhat narrow minded in perspective. The toe the line and their philosophical leanings tend toward subjective views. Too bad.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2017)

social philosopher said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> ...



*Yes global warming is real. The weather is decidedly different than when I was a child. I am 65 now. 
*
How many trillions should we spend on windmills to make it like it was when you were a kid?
How will we know when we can stop?


----------



## social philosopher (Dec 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> social philosopher said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> social philosopher said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Good question. I don't know how many windmills. I can't tell you how long. Probably longer than it took to get here. 

You don't know either. i don't know what your idea of development and use of resources is but whatever we do it needs to be sustainable where ever possible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2017)

social philosopher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > social philosopher said:
> ...



* I don't know how many windmills. I can't tell you how long.
*
You want us to spend trillions on unreliable "sustainable" energy and you don't know the answers?

Why don't we forget the windmills and build some reliable nuclear reactors instead?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 18, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Okay , if i can prove that the data has been fucked with, will you kiss my ass?



Sure. Conversely, you have to kiss our ass if we show you're pushing fraud.

So, your link was a rambling opinion piece by Christoopher Booker, a well-know journalist anti-science crank who has no experience in any field of science, fabricating claims of fraud. Booker also denies evolution, that asbestos is harmful, that second-hand smoke is harmful, and that DDT is harmful. He's a crank and fraud on multiple topics, and you suck his ass. Just making it clear where we both stand. You suck the asses of frauds, and we reject frauds.

So, pucker up, snowflake. And try to understand that you won't make your fraud less fraudulent by repeating it over and over. I suggest you give up this scam. You're literally too goddamned stupid to understand the topic, so you can only post links to subjects you don't understand, and that will always leave you humiliated.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 18, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Your own fucking study mamooth says global cooling was WIDELY accepted in the 1970s. .



_Past_ global cooling, shit-for-brains. 

You're so dang stupid, you literally can't understand the difference between past behavior and future predictions. Being how you're such a paste-eating moron, you have no business annoying the grownups here. Here's a juicebox, now run along back to the kiddie table.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 18, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Your own fucking study mamooth says global cooling was WIDELY accepted in the 1970s. .
> ...





Translation you got burned again..why can't you refute any thing?

More true colors...








Copenhagen Institute - Liberty Empowers  - WTO To Face U.S.-E.U. Kyoto Dispute

Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom revealed the mindset of the European policymakers. “[Kyoto] is not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an issue where the scientists are not unanimous” she said. “This is about international relations, *this is about economy about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world.” To the EU, Kyoto is about the U.S.’s “unfair tax competition”, its government consistently refusing to match the Europeans' zeal for taxing energy use to modify behavior, particularly repressing automobile use and population.

*


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 18, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> 
> 
> > December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
> ...


Says knees news and our PhD climate guy here.
NASA  and all the other scientific organizations don't know as much as you genius?
What are your qualifications again?
A knees news viewer?
Wow


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 18, 2017)

JustAnotherNut said:


> Well, it's obvious it's not coming out of the liberals asses cause everyone knows they are full of hot air.


Might help if you knew the def of liberal instead of blabbing knees news.
No Latin in college?
No college?
Do tell


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 18, 2017)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Okay , if i can prove that the data has been fucked with, will you kiss my ass?
> ...




2nd hand smoke is not harmful you moron it has been proven...


It was another bullshit like by your assnine cult .


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 18, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Spambot is too stupid to understand science.




But winning............

People on the right don't have to try and understand the science. When you are winning there is no need. This whole ghey 10 year campaign by DUMS trying to portray the right as being stoopid on science has netted them what exactly? Well lets see now..........

1) A dead Paris treaty.
2) An EPA that is being gutted like a pig.
3) Zero climate legislation from congress in 10 years.
4) Laughable growth in renewable energy over the last 20 years.
5) Cap and Trade dead as a doornail.
6) Green candidates getting their clocks cleaned in every mid-term election.
7) Rising tide of climate skeptics
8) Major scientific organizations caught rigging the data.
9) Obama's CPP being train wrecked as we speak
10)  Zero discussion of climate change at every presidential debate.


Spambot will take stupid every day to Sunday, s0n!!!


----------



## ding (Dec 18, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ummm... the world will become much wetter Joe. The warming will be predominantly at the poles.
> ...


So how high do you think the sea level will rise by 2100, chicken little?


----------



## ding (Dec 18, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Joe, is that 1C from doubling of CO2 due to associated temperature from GHG or associated temperature from GHG plus feedbacks?
> ...


You do realize there is a calc for that but then they add on top of that so called feedback, right?  

So, what do you think atmospheric CO2 will be by 2100 and how much of a temp rise will that be responsible for, Joe?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Dumb fuck, there were no humans alive at that time. Not only that, we have been homo sap only for about the last 200,000 years, just about two glacial cycles. So we were never around when the CO2 was above 300 ppm. Yes, 12,000 years ago, there was a continental ice sheet. So what?

And there have been a few times in geological history when the GHGs increased very rapidly. They were times of extinctions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Ian, old chap, you are losing it. Were they to adjust data to support increasing global warming, they would have made the older data cooler so as to show a larger warming. What they did was review the data, and adjust it for what they found in the review.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2017)

IanC said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ian's a dumb fuck, right? The melt of the north polar sea ice is having a major affect on our weather right now. From the increase in extreme precipitation events, to the fires that are currently costing us billions in property damage.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2017)

IanC said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


LOL  Well now, other being totally full of bullshit, Ian, what else have you to say. We have reached 1 C already, and are nowhere near doubled. But at the rate we are seeing the increase in CO2 and CH4 from clathrates and permafrost I think that we will see the doubled mark in my lifetime. Of course, the system does have quite a bit of inertia in it, therefore I may not see the full result of that doubling.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2017)

ding said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


No, parts of it will become much wetter, other parts will become much drier. And much wetter really helped the crops around Houston, right? And we know what much drier has done in California and South Dakota.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 19, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...




Wait so Dino's lived when C02 was five times higher and your telling us humans can't?


Your taking propaganda to new exreme's old rock tell us more...


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Milder winters, longer growing seasons, higher crop yields......we're doomed!!!
> ...


Not doomed, but handing our children and grandchildren a much lesser world than we inherited.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 19, 2017)

ph3iron said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> ...




His main qualifications is he graduated from the 2nd grade when they were talking about ice ages and stuff it appears you did not .


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You failed to address that I pointed out it was very rapid changes in GHGs that caused the extinctions. In fact, rapid changes in either direction has caused extinctions. 

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 19, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




This was happening any way regardless if man was here or not...

You want to leave them a world of crap sky high Electric prices  sky high taxes ..


A sihitty ass world


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2017)

MaryL said:


> Not this bullocks  again,I live in Colorado and I am seeing cold dead dry facts. Pine beetles devouring forests, the dying of the wilderness and the drought we are locked into. In my lifetime. And California is burning in December.


As well as South Dakota.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 19, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Once again so what? Once again we seen the sahra dessert go from tropical to dry in a cosmic flash ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2017)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


*Crap. Widely accepted by those that did not bother to read the scientific publications of the da*y. 

*Peer-Reviewed Literature*
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.





_Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers_ _(__Peterson 2008__).

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?_


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 19, 2017)

I almost wish that the worst case of global warming would occur within my life in order to see you admit how wrong you're.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> social philosopher said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Now really dumb fuck, no one is forcing all those windmills being built in Texas. They are built because they provide cheaper electricity than does coal burning plants. Even dirty coal burning plants. We are going to spend trillions worldwide for energy, so we should buy the most economical energy available, and that is now renewables.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> social philosopher said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Two good reasons. Nuclear power is very expensive. And, were someone to pop a nuclear bomb off at a nuclear power station, it would poison half the nation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2017)

bear513 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Ah yes, just ask anyone with asthma. You are one stupid ass.


----------



## IanC (Dec 19, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




Hahahaha. I already told you that the models they wanted to use were incompatible with the raw figures for sea surface temperature. They had to get them to align better with land temperatures. So they did, with a large adjustment for the change in measurement method.

Land temperatures are more volatile than water temperatures but the land can only get a certain amount out of sync before the greater heat capacity of the oceans brings them back to reflect what the oceans are doing. The same can be said for the atmosphere.

So what did I mean when I asked if you were keeping your eye on the pea under one of the three thimbles?

I could have been more direct and simply asked what was happening to land temperatures while the sea surface readings we're being cranked up. But what is the fun in that?











!!! Ocean temps were massively adjusted up and land temps were only hugely adjusted down! This put the land and ocean temperatures into a relationship that could now be explained by AGW modeling.

I could go on and on. What happens if you normalize the graph so that the temperatures are equal at the beginning of the graph instead of the end? And what about the maturity graphs that show cooling off the past and warming of the recent? That's in just ten years of constantly changing adjustments from 2008. The main large adjustments had ALREADY been made by 2008!

Don't even get me started on homogenization.


----------



## IanC (Dec 19, 2017)

That is why I consider this graph to be misleading.






Yes, there was one very large adjustment to bring ocean and land temperatures back into a more realistic relationship. But we have practically no ocean data from back then so it's all a guess anyways. The land data was better but it was adjusted down. Urbanization has increased temperatures in places that humans live and record temperatures. That means we should be either warming past records or cooling recent ones. Yet the opposite has occurred, and is still occuring.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 19, 2017)

social philosopher said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> ...





> Produce mass quantities of heat and the planet heats up.


 So if the planet continues to heat up year after year, and records are set, over and over, the temperature is rising to alarming levels?  Where does the record cold come from?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 19, 2017)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Okay , if i can prove that the data has been fucked with, will you kiss my ass?
> ...


Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data


> In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space.  The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis.  CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.


 I haven't wiped my ass for a week now, better get ready to kiss some shit...


----------



## social philosopher (Dec 19, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> social philosopher said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



There may be record cold in some places, but the polar caps are receding and high glaciers are disappearing. Ice diesn't melt because it's cold.


----------



## Taz (Dec 19, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


So for you, it's all about money?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 19, 2017)

social philosopher said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > social philosopher said:
> ...





> but the polar caps are receding and high glaciers are disappearing. Ice diesn't melt because it's cold


 Yeah, ice doesn't melt when it is cold, but why is there an increase of ice caps by 29%, are you saying that it is cold?
And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Daily Mail Online


> *And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year*
> 
> *533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012*
> *BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013 *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > social philosopher said:
> ...



*no one is forcing all those windmills being built in Texas.
*
Gotta get that tax credit!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > social philosopher said:
> ...



*Nuclear power is very expensive.
*
Very useful.
How many windmills do you need to produce as much power as one dent reactor?
*
And, were someone to pop a nuclear bomb off at a nuclear power station,
*
If you had a nuke, would you waste it on a reactor in southern Illinois, or just hit Chicago?


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You are kind of slow. Yes.  No humans back then and there was real climate changes.   The same conditions exist today too.


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Over dramatize much?

A1000 ft thick sheet of ice over New York would be worse.


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It's called an interglacial cycle.


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


It will be a paradise.


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He's never done a material balance so he thinks there's a problem.


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


You guys keep doubling down on stupid. 

Is there anything that CO2 is not responsible for?


----------



## Taz (Dec 19, 2017)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The same conditions today, meaning no humans? Ummm... no.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 19, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Once again, Billy-bob Cleetus the redneck shows he doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.


Here we go again.  The flip flop argument, just waiting for a warm January day and the left will be proclaiming it is proof of Gorebal Warming again.


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 19, 2017)

ding said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


2" will be enough.
Enjoy Miami while you can


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 19, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, Billy-bob Cleetus the redneck shows he doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.
> ...


Not the left, just NASA and every scientific community.
And your climate science degree was from where genius?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 19, 2017)

ph3iron said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


You going to give me a dollar for every Lefty on USMB using weather to prove gorebal warming?


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 19, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


We're still waiting for your PhD in climate science.
Ah well, what do 95 % of the climate scientists know?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2017)

ph3iron said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...



Come on, you know it was 75/77.......much more convincing than 95%.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 19, 2017)

ph3iron said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...





ph3iron said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


If what you say is true, why do all the liberal elites buy up properties next to the fucking ocean?  Pull your head out of your ass man, and see what your side is doing, like riding around in limos, flying around in private jets, and living in mansions that energy use is like a small city......dumbasses vote Dumbocrat.

Report: Al Gore’s Home Energy Use ‘Surges up to 34 Times the National Average’


> • In September of 2016, Gore’s home consumed 30,993 kWh in just one month – as much energy as a typical American family burns in 34 months.
> • During the last 12 months, Gore devoured 66,159 kWh of electricity just heating his pool. That is enough energy to power six average U.S. households for a year.
> • From August 2016 through July 2017, Gore spent almost $22,000 on electricity bills._6_
> • Gore paid an estimated $60,000 to install 33 solar panels. Those solar panels produce an average of 1,092 kWh per month, only 5.7% of Gore’s typical monthly energy consumption.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> social philosopher said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


And you are either abnormally stupid or a lying bastard. Most likely both. 

The thicker ice, known as multi-year ice, survives through the cyclical summer melt season, when young ice that has formed over winter just as quickly melts again.

The rapid disappearance of older ice makes Arctic sea ice even more vulnerable to further decline in the summer, said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.






1980: The floating ice cap is a large sprawling mass across the top of our planet, holding giant amounts of water







Sign of the times in 2012: The ice covering has dramatically shrunk, with research showing the cap is losing around 15-20% of its mass per decade

The new research takes a closer look at how multi-year ice, ice that has made it through at least two summers, has diminished with each passing winter over the last three decades.





Read more: Disturbing pictures by NASA show polar cap is shrinking in mass by around 15% per decade | Daily Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


No.  The same polar configurations conducive to an icehouse planet.  Land mass centered over the south pole and land locked north pole.  Basically both poles are isolated from the warmer marine currents.


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2017)

ph3iron said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Over dramatize much? 

It's one of the reasons no one believes you.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 19, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Here we go again.  The flip flop argument, just waiting for a warm January day and the left will be proclaiming it is proof of Gorebal Warming again.



But we don't do that. That's the point. You and your whole side are stupid and dishonest, and we're not. You make shit up, we don't. You're pathologically dishonest cult wimps, and we're not.

And I know it triggers you to point that out, but tough luck, snowflake. You wimps need some tough love.



> You going to give me a dollar for every Lefty on USMB using weather to prove gorebal warming?



Yes, provided you give me a dollar every time a denier uses the same trick.

You game, cult boi? Say the word, and the clock starts now. We'll start a separate thread to keep the tally current.

(To clarify, the tally being of posts from people on this board. And to prevent ringers, accounts have to be over a year old to count.)


----------



## mamooth (Dec 19, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data


https://cei.org/content/govt-funded-research-unit-destroyed-original-climate-data

What your lying pals at CEI failed to mention ...

The "data destruction" took place in the 1980s, when large magnetic tapes were the method of data storage.

And all of the data is still available from original sources.

You tried to spin that as being current destruction of irreplaceable data. That is, you tried to foist yet another open fraud off on us. Fraud is all you ever do, because it's all you're capable of.

Now, pucker up and get to work.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 20, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > social philosopher said:
> ...


You go ahead and tell those Global Warming scientists who went to study the decrease in polar ice, during the summertime of the south, and ended up stranded in more ice than ever.  God you guys are the stupidest people in the world who cant see how your side has lied to you over and over.
'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting


> The leader of a scientific expedition whose ship remains stranded in Antarctic ice says the team, which set out to prove climate change, is "stuck in our own experiment."
> 
> But Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at Australia’s University of New South Wales, said it was “silly” to suggest he and 73 others aboard the MV Akademic Shokalskiy were trapped in ice they’d sought to prove had melted. He remained adamant that sea ice is melting, even as the boat remained trapped in frozen seas


Antarctic crew build ice helipad to help rescuers | Daily Mail Online


> They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year.
> 
> The scientists have been stuck aboard the stricken MV Akademik Schokalskiy since Christmas Day, with repeated sea rescue attempts being abandoned as icebreaking ships failed to reach them.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data
> ...


Only thing I can explain for your stupidity.


----------



## Taz (Dec 20, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Except that the last time, there weren't 7 billion little pollution factories and all their gear stinking up the joint.


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


And that changes it how?


----------



## Taz (Dec 20, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Because last time whatever changes were brought upon the earth's climate was done when there weren't any humans polluting the place even more. Sheesh, you're slow.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 20, 2017)

ding said:


> And that changes it how?


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I think you got that backwards, my little trolling friend 

The sky isn't falling.  Relax.


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2017)

ChesBayJJ said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > And that changes it how?


I got one of those too but it's a little more fancy.  It actually makes predictions based upon the existing trend.  Does yours do that too?


----------



## Taz (Dec 20, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Coastal and low-lying areas are already in trouble. You need to get a fucking clue. Quickly.


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2017)

What was your point?  

That man made activity is increasing atmospheric CO2?  Brilliant.

I don't see a problem at all.  What's the problem?


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You better tell them to move, Taz.  

Relax.  It's going to be ok, bro.


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2017)

Tell them that when they run away from the coast to do this.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 20, 2017)

ding said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



My chart is just historic data. No predictions. Only thing to say is CO2 is increasing at historically high rates and is well above any level measured (ice cores, etc) over the past 400,000 years or so. I will leave discussions of the import of all of this to the atmospheric scientists. It is basically a response to your comment about the impact of humankind. Lots more CO2 in the atmosphere.

And I need to depart for now.


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2017)

ChesBayJJ said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...


Actually... the vast majority of CO2 is stored in the ocean.  Which is why when it gets colder CO2 is drawn down out of the atmosphere and stored in the oceans and when it gets warmer CO2 is released from the oceans into the atmosphere. 

Do a material balance and you'll see just how insignificant man's contributions to the carbon cycle really are.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2017)

ChesBayJJ said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



You are overlooking, or entirely unaware of a glaring problem with your assumption...for the past 400,000 years, the earth has been in an ice age...for far longer than that actually, but that is beside the point...if you go back to the point where the present ice age began, atmospheric CO2 was around 1000ppm....cold water holds much more CO2 than warm water...as the earth as warmed, the oceans have been releasing CO2...but the fact remains that when the earth began decending into the present ice age, atmospheric CO2 levels were about 1000ppm...more than twice the amount we are seeing...and ice ages have began with CO2 levels several times higher than that 1000ppm mark.  The simple fact is that CO2 doesn't cause warming except in failing cliamate models.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2017)

ding said:


> Do a material balance and you'll see just how insignificant man's contributions to the carbon cycle really are.



Recent papers have seriously questioned whether we are actually having any real influence on the earth's CO2 levels at all.  The empirical evidence suggests not.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

Clip:  “*A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2  emissions*.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period *1959-2011* were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year.  … [*R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere*."


https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

Clip:  *Conclusion*:
*“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whetherrepresenting sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little inﬂuence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.
*
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Clip:  “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2.* It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2*. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that *temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans*.”

And older work suggests the same thing:


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

clip:   *“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific.  Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a.  Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”

*


----------



## Taz (Dec 20, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It's already not ok.


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


No different than it's ever been. 

Why would you care any way?  You won't live forever.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Why do some of the warmers here say that a big (and necessary) adjustment to sea surface temperatures is proof that the myriad of past and present adjustments to land data are legitimate? Does that one adjustment also prove the more recent adjustments to ocean temperatures are justified as well?

Why does the decision to make one adjustment mean that every adjustment is correct (at least until the next set of adjustments are made).


----------



## mamooth (Dec 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> Why do some of the warmers here say that a big (and necessary) adjustment to sea surface temperatures



Interesting. Before, you implied it was all a big fudge so they were forced to use to match the sucky models. Now you're saying it's good science. Oh well. At least you arrived at reality, so the path you took isn't important.



> is proof that the myriad of past and present adjustments to land data are legitimate?



No, nobody said or implied that. That's your strawman.



> Does that one adjustment also prove the more recent adjustments to ocean temperatures are justified as well?



No. It just proves your conspiracy theory makes no sense. Why adjust output a tiny bit one way if you adjust them massively the other way? Since your conspiracy theory is all you had, that leaves you with nothing.

If you want to be taken seriously, go down the types of adjustments one by one, and tell us why they're unjustified.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Link please. Something to support the 1000ppm claim.

And it is basic physics, an undeniable fact, CO2 passes visible radiation, absorbs longer wave radiation, and stores thermal energy. It is a greenhouse gas.


----------



## Taz (Dec 20, 2017)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I have children and care about leaving them a shithole, unlike you.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 20, 2017)

Good read on historic CO2 levels

Carbon Dioxide Through Time | EARTH 103: Earth in the Future

Bottom line? More CO2 = warmer earth = less ice = higher sea levels


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Interesting. Before, you implied it was all a big fudge so they were forced to use to match the sucky models. Now you're saying it's good science. Oh well. At least you arrived at reality, so the path you took isn't important.




I actually said that ocean temps and land temps (and atmospheric temps) are correlated, and that they must stay within a certain range of each other.

There was no move to 'fix' ocean temps until the models were found to be unable to replicate the ocean warming.

I'm not sure if that's good science, bad science or self serving science.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> No. It just proves your conspiracy theory makes no sense. Why adjust output a tiny bit one way if you adjust them massively the other way? Since your conspiracy theory is all you had, that leaves you with nothing




The land temps were also heavily adjusted, in the opposite direction. Ocean temps are also now being adjusted to cool the past and warm the recent, as evidenced by the Karl pausebuster paper.

In past threads I have discussed the methodology of Berkeley BEST, and shown how it must add extra warming if temps are in general rising (it would add extra cooling if the trend had been cooling).

I am no conspiracy theorist, I am an interested layman who notices a lot of contradictory statements being made and a lot of exaggerated conclusions that are not supported by the evidence supplied.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2017)

ChesBayJJ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Sorry guy, CO2 does not store energy at atmospheric temperatures...cool it to the point that it becomes liquid or solid, and it can store energy..but not in its gaseous form.  Your facts aren't.  And can you offer up any evidence whatsoever that absorption and emission equals warming?  Or can you provide a single real world measurement that establishes a coherent link between the absorption and emission of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2017)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Good read on historic CO2 levels
> 
> Carbon Dioxide Through Time | EARTH 103: Earth in the Future
> 
> Bottom line? More CO2 = warmer earth = less ice = higher sea levels



Every ice core ever done shows us that CO2 lags temperature increases...CO2 is the result of warmer temperatures, not the cause.  Warmer oceans outgas C02..cold oceans take in CO2.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2017)

Got nothing definitive to prove my point. Lots of research available on the subject. The world seems to be getting warmer. Atmospheric CO2 is at a high level and climbing rapidly. At this point, there is little we can do about it as carbon fuel consumption and CO2 emissions continue to grow. We humans are a factor but we are adaptable.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 21, 2017)

ding said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Except it does not take into account feedbacks from permafrost, forest fires, and clathrates.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2017)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Got nothing definitive to prove my point. Lots of research available on the subject. The world seems to be getting warmer. Atmospheric CO2 is at a high level and climbing rapidly. At this point, there is little we can do about it as carbon fuel consumption and CO2 emissions continue to grow. We humans are a factor but we are adaptable.



Since the absorption of IR by CO2 having a coherent relationship with warming in the atmosphere is the entire point, don't you find it a bit odd that you would have to tell me that you have nothing definitive with which to prove your point?  Considering that warmers are telling us that we must spend trillions of dollars, adjust the way we live, and do irreparable harm to whole economies, wouldn't you think that definitive evidence would be inescapable?...front page of every newspaper.....billboards...full page ads in every magazine...SMOKING GUN FOUND...and mountains of definitive, indisputable evidence?....wouldn't you expect that rather than having to meekly admit that you have nothing definitive?

And "the world" isn't getting warmer.  Some regions are warming...some regions are cooling, and a great many regions are not doing much of anything at all.  I started a thread a while back titled "if the globe isn't warming, why is it called global warming.  In that thread I provided quite a few regional temperature graphs...some were warming, more were cooling, and more than that were not changing in any significant way.  "Global" warming only shows up in the heavily adjusted, homogenized, infilled global product produced by government agencies...most regional records don't show the same thing.

And the temperature increases we are seeing are well within the limits of natural variability.  In fact, nothing that we are seeing in the global climate is even beginning to approach the known limits of natural variability.

As to CO2 levels, actual research calls into question whether or not we have any significant influence on global atmospheric CO2 levels.  Our contributions don't even offset the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year.  The claim that we are driving up CO2 levels is patently false.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

Clip: “*A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions*.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period *1959-2011* were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [*R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere*."


https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

Clip:  *Conclusion*:
*“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whetherrepresenting sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little inﬂuence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.*

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Clip: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2.* It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2*. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that *temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans*.”

And older work suggests the same thing:


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

clip:  *“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”

*
Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration

*Clip:  Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO, Concentration
“The initial decrease of the SI in the Friesland phase [~11,400 years ago] suggests that atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose by ∼65 ppmv in less than a century. … Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. Si-based C02 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were >300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception.”

*
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d9d9/eb6e213a1fa8fec2c877685baa81817b15a5.pdf

*Clip:  “In few fields considered to be science-based has there been such a high degree of polarization and refusal to consider alternate explanations of natural phenomena as in climate change at present.”

“The scenario seems to be that between 1985 and 1988, a decision was made to present pre-1958 CO2 concentrations with no humps or dips and to proclaim a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.”

“Compared with the so-called pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm, a level of 410 ppm was found in 1812, rising to 450 ppm in 1825. There were levels of 370 ppm in 1857, and 4 sets of measurements gave 350–415 ppm around 1940 (Figure 10). From 1870–1920 values remained within 295–310 ppm. From 1955–1965 the values were 325 ppm. Beck chose the most carefully done assays for this graph. One was from Poona, India. An effort not described by Beck was one of 350 determinations near Point Barrow, Alaska, from 1947–1949, with a mean result of 420 ppm (Hock et al., 1952).”
“The CO2 levels found at Mauna Loa range from 315 ppm in 1957 to 385 ppm in 2007, a period of 50 years. They are similar on Antarctica, showing good mixing of the atmosphere. Since there was a bigger rise from 312 to 415 ppm from 1927–1944 (27 years), shown by chemical assays as described above (Figure 10), there should be no reason for alarm at present. The start of the infrared data in 1958 showed a CO2 concentration that was 12 ppm lower by NDIR assay than the best chemical data of the period. The chemical data are very consistent with each other. This discrepancy has never been resolved.”
“From 0–60° north, the period from 1905–1940 showed about 1 °C of warming, then steady or dropping temperatures. The 60–70° north record showed about 1.8 °C of warming from 1922–1960, with sinking temperatures thereafter (Kushnir, 1994). This is the reason why the chemical assays registered a large increase in atmospheric CO2, from 295 ppm in 1885 to 440 ppm in 1944 (Figure 10). Ocean cooling of  ~0.6 °C from 1940– 1970 (Kushnir, 1994) brought CO2 levels down for a while to 325 ppm from 1955–1965 (Figure 10).”

*
http://www.langtoninfo.com/web_content/9780521767187_frontmatter.pdf

“*The resemblance between observed changes of CO2 and those anticipated from increased surface temperature also points to a major inconsistency between proxy records of previous climate.* Proxy CO2 from the ice core record indicates a sharp increase after the nineteenth century. *At earlier times, proxy CO2 becomes amorphous: Nearly homogeneous on time scales shorter than millennial, the ice core record implies virtually no change of atmospheric CO2.*  According to the above sensitivity, it therefore implies a global-mean climate that is “static,” largely devoid of changes in GMT and CO2. Proxy temperature (Fig. 1.45), on the other hand, exhibits centennial changes of GMT during the last millennium, as large as 0.5–1.0◦ K. In counterpart reconstructions, those changes are even greater (Section 1.6.2). It is noteworthy that, unlike proxy CO2 from the ice core record, proxy temperature in Fig. 1.45 rests on a variety of independent properties. In light of the observed sensitivity, those centennial changes of GMT must be attended by significant changes of CO2 during the last millennium. *They reflect a global-mean climate that is “dynamic,” wherein GMT and CO2 change on a wide range of time scales.* *The two proxies of previous climate *[global temperatures and CO2 concentration values]* are incompatible. They cannot both be correct*.” pg. 254


Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

Clip:  “*[T]he trend in the airborne fraction *[ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity]* since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.* The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. *Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found*.”


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy, CO2 does not store energy at atmospheric temperatures...cool it to the point that it becomes liquid or solid, and it can store energy..but not in its gaseous form




Of course CO2 intercepts 15 micron energy being emitted from the surface, and stores it in the atmosphere by molecular collision which transforms it into kinetic energy and/or potential energy in the gravity field.

There is no limit as to how much 15 micron radiation can be absorbed because it is quickly transformed into other types of energy. But there is only a certain amount of total atmospheric energy that can be reemited as 15 micron radiation. This is controlled by temperature and the average time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit. 

At sea level, the density of air means that an excited CO2 molecule is much more likely to give up its energy by collision than by emitting a photon. It is only at rarified heights that excited CO2 can emit a photon that can escape to space. The temperature at this height is around minus 60C so there is not as much energy to be converted into radiation.

The difference in the amount of 15 micron radiation produced at the 15C surface, and the amount produced at the -60C emission height, is the amount of energy being stored in the atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Got nothing definitive to prove my point. Lots of research available on the subject. The world seems to be getting warmer. Atmospheric CO2 is at a high level and climbing rapidly. At this point, there is little we can do about it as carbon fuel consumption and CO2 emissions continue to grow. We humans are a factor but we are adaptable.
> ...




Thanks for that. It is a good example of how different scientists can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. The science is not settled.

Of course I see no reason to believe this set of papers are the 'truth' and others are 'lies'. There is a very large probability that all climate science papers are wrong, at least to some degree.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy, CO2 does not store energy at atmospheric temperatures...cool it to the point that it becomes liquid or solid, and it can store energy..but not in its gaseous form
> ...



You are missing an upper tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result of CO2 having the magical powers you attribute to it...no hot spot...no magic...your hypothesis is a failure...try looking to the real world and the actual observed, measured, empirical evidence which points to the absorption of IR by CO2 having no coherent relationship with warming in the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> Of course I see no reason to believe this set of papers are the 'truth' and others are 'lies'. There is a very large probability that all climate science papers are wrong, at least to some degree.



Sorry they don't jibe with your dogma.


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



The predicted hotspot is a function of the water cycle not CO2. The fact that it has not appeared in the predicted magnitude is evidence that the climate models are missing some important factors in their calculation of feedbacks.

The hotspot for CO2 would be centred on 2 meters from the surface, the mean free path of a surface emitted 15 micron photon. The fact that 'surface temperature' is actually air temperature measured at 1.5 metres confounds finding it.


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I see no reason to believe this set of papers are the 'truth' and others are 'lies'. There is a very large probability that all climate science papers are wrong, at least to some degree.
> ...



I don't have a dogma. That is why I am skeptical of papers from both sides of the issue.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> The predicted hotspot is a function of the water cycle not CO2. The fact that it has not appeared in the predicted magnitude is evidence that the climate models are missing some important factors in their calculation of feedbacks.



The hot spot is a function of the water cycle that is supposed to be aggravated by CO2...denying that the hot spot is supposed to emerge with increasing atmospheric CO2 is just as bad as the alarmist bullshit spewed by the AGW zealots on this board....face it, your interpretation of physics is flawed and the observational evidence proves it...were your beliefs correct, the upper tropospheric hot spot would be right were it was predicted and we wouldn't be having this conversation because I would be in agreement with you since the evidence would be there for all to see.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Of course you do...you believe that energy moves from cool to warm even though it can never be demonstrated or measured...you believe it because an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model says so and you are perfectly willing to engage in fraudulent bad math in an effort to convince others.  You have dogma in spades.


----------



## IanC (Dec 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The predicted hotspot is a function of the water cycle not CO2. The fact that it has not appeared in the predicted magnitude is evidence that the climate models are missing some important factors in their calculation of feedbacks.
> ...



Roughly five years ago I was one of the first here to point out and discuss the hotspot failure. It fails because the climate models are not capturing the water cycle correctly. 

I have given several reasons for this. An extra watt of IR does not have the same ability to evaporate water as does an extra watt of solar. The Iris Effect short-circuits evaporation. The coefficient of evaporation that the models use is different than the accepted value.

I tried to get people to read JoNova's thorough explanation of the process a few years ago, with little success or interest.

I pointed out some of the misdirections that RealClimate were using when Schmidt and Mann came to the defense of the hotspot by deflecting to stratospheric cooling. Again, to deafening silence.

Yahoos like you have no understanding of the hotspot other than to use it as a talking point. I am more than willing to discuss the hotspot. But first you have to show some basic knowledge about the subject.


----------



## IanC (Dec 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



You give qualities of matter to light, as shown by your incongruent examples such as air leaking out of a tire. Only one bit of matter can occupy a point in space at one time. Light does not have the same restriction. Electrons can only flow in one direction through a wire, light can move in both directions through an optical fibre.

Photons do not cancel out. Once emitted they exist until they are absorbed by a bit of matter. Millions of experiments have been performed over the last few hundred years to discover the properties of light, often with very unusual results. You reject this data, I don't. You reject the explanations given for the results even though the predictions have led to spectacular discoveries and technology.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> Roughly five years ago I was one of the first here to point out and discuss the hotspot failure. It fails because the climate models are not capturing the water cycle correctly.



And shortly afterwards, you decided that the hot spot must be just above the surface...otherwise, your belief system would be challenged and you can't have that...can you?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2017)

IanC said:


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



The second law of thermodynamics applies equally to everything..no exemptions....energy does not move up hill...entropy always increases.


----------



## IanC (Dec 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The second law of thermodynamics applies equally to everything..no exemptions....energy does not move up hill...entropy always increases



The two way flow happens simultaneously, while you can calculate how much energy is going in either direction you cannot separate the flows and say heat is going in both directions.

Entropy is the main reason why your version is wrong. You are saying radiation is throttled down from the warm object and is non-existent in the cooler one. That is a decrease in entropy compared to full flows in both directions and the ensuring exchange of momentum. Eg two objects in a cold environment would be pushed together by an inbalance of momentum acting outwards but not between the two objects.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 25, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> 
> 
> > December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
> ...


Yes,  it is "only weather".  You seem to have less understanding of this topic than a 5th grader.  No really, i mean  that .... my 5th grade daughter learned, in class, that you can still have some very cold weather (even local record low temps) on a globe that is warming overall.  You would literally fail a 5th grade science test.  Damn man, get some self-respect!


----------



## SSDD (Dec 28, 2017)

IanC said:


> \
> 
> The two way flow happens simultaneously, while you can calculate how much energy is going in either direction you cannot separate the flows and say heat is going in both directions.



Sorry ian...that is model output...not observation.  If you don't have anything but unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models, just say that you have nothing...relying on models when their results can be tested and verified in reality is one thing...relying on them when reality highlights the fact that the results they give you are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable is just stupid.  From this point forward..if all you have is model results, then just keep them to yourself..unless of course, you can provide some observation and measurement out here in the real world to back them up.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 28, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes,  it is "only weather".  You seem to have less understanding of this topic than a 5th grader.  No really, i mean  that .... my 5th grade daughter learned, in class, that you can still have some very cold weather (even local record low temps) on a globe that is warming overall.  You would literally fail a 5th grade science test.  Damn man, get some self-respect!



Sorry guy, but alas, it is you who seems to have less understanding of the topic than a 5th grader.  You clearly believe the AGW hypothesis is correct, and yet, you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports that hypothesis over natural variability.....nor can you provide any actual observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.  Most 5th graders that I have spoken to are naturally skeptical and might question belief in such things without the first bit of observed, measured evidence.

Got any actual data to support your beliefs, or have you been dumbed down to the point that you simply believe what people you perceive as smarter than you tell you to believe?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2017)

Why am I not surprised in the least that fort fun is not coming forward with that single shred of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...or a single piece of observed data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Why am I not surprised in the least that fort fun is not coming forward with that single shred of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...or a single piece of observed data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?


Because , dumb ass, neither Fort Fun nor anyone else has to prove to some uneducated fraud the truth of any scientifoc theory on an internet message board. The forums where these things are argued exist, and you are neither qualified nor invited to emgage in any of them. I am simply making fun of you , because you are a charlatan.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because , dumb ass, neither Fort Fun nor anyone else has to prove to some uneducated fraud the truth of any scientifoc theory on an internet message board. The forums where these things are argued exist, and you are neither qualified nor invited to emgage in any of them. I am simply making fun of you , because you are a charlatan.



Completely unsurprising....name calling, logical fallacy, and outright lies.  What else could you do?  Since no such data exist, it was either that, or acknowledge that your positon is an act of faith without the first piece of actual data in support.  And alas, since your positon is one of faith, not science, I am afraid that it is you who is unqualified to discuss the topic....and the question was asked to make fun of you...since we all knew that no such data would be forthcoming from you.  And since you clearly believe such data exists but can't seem to come up with even the first shred, it is clearly you who is the charlatan.  But feel free to step on up to the plate Susie and slap me down with the very sort of data I am asking for...or don't and just prove that I am right about you.


----------



## IanC (Dec 30, 2017)

SSDD would have us believe that a box of air would stay at the same temperature, with or without a 15 micron energy source being added. Sounds dubious to me but I have never seen the experiment performed. Where does the energy go, if not to warm the air?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 30, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > social philosopher said:
> ...





Lmfao what a propaganda tool


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 30, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> ...





She also knows about dinosaurs and ice ages that man had nothing to do with ..


So it appears your 5th grader is smarter then you .


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...


Study this and then let's talk.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2018)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


They aren't going to live forever either.

Just how bad do you think this is going to get?

I need to assess your level of emotionalism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Because , dumb ass, neither Fort Fun nor anyone else has to prove to some uneducated fraud the truth of any scientifoc theory on an internet message board. The forums where these things are argued exist, and you are neither qualified nor invited to emgage in any of them. I am simply making fun of you , because you are a charlatan.
> ...


Yes, that's right, "name calling". You sit there and call the people who have dedicated their lives to this science "incompetent liars", and then you have the nerve to whine like a little bitch that someone called you a name when standing up for them? You are an uneducated slob who knows jack shit about any of this. Nor do you have any wish to know anything about it. That is why your worthless ass is here squawking into an echo chamber, and not learning about the topic from the scientists who taught us everything we know about it.

I'm not here to litigate the truth of accepted scientific theories with uneducated slobs who have less knowledge about any of this in their entire family than the scientists who study this have in a pimple on their ass. No, you are not presenting any actual challenge to any accepted science. You are merely masturbating in public


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> She also knows about dinosaurs and ice ages that man had nothing to do with


Yes idiot, the same scientists who taught us everything and anything we know about any of that have formulated the current, accepted theories and have supported them with mountains of science. Did that even cross your mind befire you vomited that post? Think of the stupidity of what you are trying (not very well) to say....that these scientists need to be reminded of their own discoveries by some uneducated idiot who looks at all of this through a lens of superstition amd politics. I'm not sure which is more outrageously idiotic: the idea itself, or the fact that you can't see how idiotic it is for yourself.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > She also knows about dinosaurs and ice ages that man had nothing to do with
> ...




That post says what to me?

What accepted theory's ?

We had 5 ice ages..
Ok
How many of those ice ages was caused by man


1?
2?
3?
4?
5?

You tell us..how many


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Have you forwarded your brilliant question on to the scientists who not only taught us all of that, but also are sounding the alarms about AGW? Imagine their embarrassment when they find they were outsmarted by a GED-waving goober with no education or experience in this field! You must be very proud of yourself!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > She also knows about dinosaurs and ice ages that man had nothing to do with
> ...



Wait a second let's back up here if I am uneducated monkey:

 how would I ever know a about the ice ages ?

 How would I know about C02 being five times higher in the Jurassic period? 

How would I ever know about the great Sahara desert turning tropical to dry in a blink of a cosmic eye?

If I am uneducated how do I know that that Micheal Mann used just a a few tree rings in Siberia for his hockey stick graph


If I am so uneducated how do I know Naomi Klein says she wants social climate change justice 

If I am so uneducated how do I know the temperature records are so unreliable in the early 1900s from land and oceans

If I am so uneducated how do I know about the climate gate emails

If I am so uneducated how do I know about cap and trade?

Fuck you you little prick I know more about the man made climate scam more then you ever will.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Goober that would be you now tell us fruit loops who caused the 5 ice ages fuck head?


Tell us


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



You do know this is my original meme right?



A picture says a thousand words


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




You do know who Naomi klein is right and you calling me uneducated?


Another one of my original memes 


You think you have something on me prick? Try again


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


What an uneducated ass. You constantly post tripe that has nothing to do with the subject. The ice ages and interglacials are the result of natural cycles, the Milankovic Cycles. Now if you were not such a lazy bitch, you would have already read how those cycles work, and the role of GHGs in those cycles. But you are too happy to wallow in your ignorance to take a chance on a little enlightenment.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Yes, silly little bitch, you read all the shit thrown out by the denialists, and never open a science book. Your ignorance and stupidity shine clearly through your posts. You know virtually nothing concerning climate, how GHGs work, or anything else that has to do with science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Yes, it does. It says that you are one stupid ass. Mann's graph has been verified by more than a dozen independent studies. Even the National Academies of Sciences of the United States did a study and verified his graph. They did not like the way he did his statistics, but using their preferred methods, they got exactly the same results. That you have to repeat this old refrain simply demonstrates the fact that you have read no science.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 3, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




I know everything  I need to know about it to make you cry...i could care less about the details like i said a million times before the only thing I am interested  in is 

The politics 

And

Data aka how they got the fucking  data..

With those two it's easy to make fun of you..

Because  you don't have a thousand  years worth of data ..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...





bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Past and future Milankovitch cycles. VSOP allows prediction of past and future orbital parameters with great accuracy.

Figure shows variations in orbital elements:

  Obliquity (axial tilt) (ε).

Eccentricity (_e_).

Longitude of perihelion (sin(ϖ) ).

*Precession index* (_e_ sin(ϖ) ), which together with obliquity, controls the seasonal cycle of insolation.[1]

  Calculated daily-averaged insolation at the top of the atmosphere ({\displaystyle {\overline {Q}}^{\mathrm {day} }}
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ),

on the day of the summer solstice at 65° N latitude.


Two distinct proxies for past global sea level and temperature, from ocean sediment and Antarctic ice respectively are:

_Benthic forams_

_Vostok ice core_

The vertical gray line shows current conditions, at 2 ky A.D.

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia

*And you thought that you knew something? LOL*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Scientists smashed the previous record for the oldest ice core in the world, collecting an ice core that dates back 2.7 million years ago. This is compared to one of the oldest ice cores which extends back 800,000 years, the Antarctic Dome C ice core. Scientists were able to recover a significantly older ice core through several novel methods, which will help to advance sample collection for glacier climatology.

Scientists use ice cores in the Arctic and Antarctica to reveal clues about past climates, specifically the concentration of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and proxies for temperature. Analysis of the new ice core reveals that CO2 did not exceed 300 ppm in the past 2.7 million years, well below the current CO2 level of 407.25 ppm. However, the new Allan Hills ice core provides one of the most comprehensive views of Earth's past climate.

This allows scientists to compare past climates with the modern climate for analogies of what the future holds. Unfortunately, the ice core did not go back far enough to capture Earth's atmosphere when it was well above 400ppm. This will likely be the goal of future ice core attempts using the new techniques.









Record Shattering 2.7-Million-Year-Old Ice Core Reveals The Genesis Of Ice Ages

*Why don't you just continue to prove how fucking stupid you are? We have ice cores from glaciers and ice caps. We have sediment cores from many places in oceans and lakes. We have varved lake deposits that give us detailed information as to the local climate. Just keep posting your stupidity for all to see.*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 4, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So what does it tell us old rocks?

That for one man was not there

Two man was not burning fossil fuels..

And the climate changed anyways..

God you are stupid in your own proof


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2018)

Well, silly stupid bitch, it tells me that you know absolutely nothing about the subject, and that you intend to keep it that way. That you are perfectly happy to wallow in your ignorance, like an old sow in the mud wallow. You were given the information, but you refuse even to look at it. LOL Just another knownothing fat ass.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 4, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Quit posting wiki for one shit for brains  it makes you look like an idiot on here .


We are talking science and politics here not blogs that anyone can edit ...i know all about Milankovitch cycles again I ask you why you want another ice age ? You stupid fucker you think your wind mills and solar power would produce electricity covered with snow moron?


God you ARE  RETARDED...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2018)

*Abstract*
Earth's land-sea distribution modifies the temperature response to orbitally induced perturbations of the seasonal insolation. We examine this modification in the frequency domain by generating 800,000-yr time series of maximum summer temperature in selected regions with a linear, two-dimensional, seasonal energy balance climate model. Previous studies have demonstrated that this model has a sensitivity comparable to general circulation models for the seasonal temperature response to orbital forcing on land. Although the observed response in the geologic record is sometimes significantly different than modeled here (differences attributable to model limitations and feedbacks involving the ocean-atmosphere-cryosphere system), there are several results of significance: (1) in mid-latitude land areas the orbital signal is translated linearly into a large (>10°C) seasonal temperature response; (2) although the modeled seasonal response to orbital forcing on Antarctica is 6°C, the annual mean temperature effect (<2°C) is only about one-fifth that inferred from the Vostok ice core, and primarily restricted to periods near 41,000 yr; (3) equatorial regions have the richest spectrum of temperature response, with a 3000-yr phase shift in the precession response, plus some power near periods of 10,000–12,000 yr, 41,000 yr, 100,000 yr, and 400,000 yr. Peaks at 10,000–12,000 yr and 100,000 and 400,000 yr result from the twice-yearly passage of the sun across the equator. The complex model response in equatorial regions has some resemblance to geologic time series from this region. The amplification of model response over equatorial land masses at the 100,000-yr period may explain some of the observed large variance in this band in geologic records, especially in pre-Pleistocene records from times of little or no global ice volume.
Filtering of milankovitch cycles by earth's geography - ScienceDirect

one


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2018)

*Abstract*
Climate variability exists at all timescales—and climatic processes are intimately coupled, so that understanding variability at any one timescale requires some understanding of the whole. Records of the Earth's surface temperature illustrate this interdependence, having a continuum of variability following a power-law scaling1,2,3,4,5,6,7. But although specific modes of interannual variability are relatively well understood8,9, the general controls on continuum variability are uncertain and usually described as purely stochastic processes10,11,12,13. Here we show that power-law relationships of surface temperature variability scale with annual and Milankovitch-period (23,000- and 41,000-year) cycles. The annual cycle corresponds to scaling at monthly to decadal periods, while millennial and longer periods are tied to the Milankovitch cycles. Thus the annual, Milankovitch and continuum temperature variability together represent the response to deterministic insolation forcing. The identification of a deterministic control on the continuum provides insight into the mechanisms governing interannual and longer-period climate variability.
Links between annual, Milankovitch and continuum temperature variability

two


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2018)

*Abstract*
Detailed cyclostratigraphic analyses of the Valanginian to Hauterivian part of the Biancone Formation, a pelagic nannofossil limestone in the Southern Alps of Italy, were carried out. The Cismon section in the Belluno Trough near Feltre and the Pra da Stua section on the Trento Plateau near Avio were studied. Carbonate content, magnetic susceptibility and natural remanent magnetization were measured on densely spaced samples from Cismon. The first two properties vary in a cyclic fashion in this pelagic limestone section and are almost perfectly negatively correlated, while cyclicity in natural remanent magnetization is only vaguely indicated. Quantitative time-series analysis is critical in cyclic stratigraphy. The geostatistical method of cova functions (a generalization of the cross-variogram) which has proven to be the most versatile and robust time-series-analysis method is applied. Cova functions can be calculated from unevenly and non-correspondingly spaced time series without any preprocessing. This method also retains relatively more of the signal when noise and extreme outliers obscure the picture. The periodicities detected in the Cismon time series fall in the range of Milankovitch cycles. Cycle periods of 45 cm, 80 cm and 180 cm likely correspond to dominant precession, obliquity and eccentricity cycles. Owing to the inaccuracy of the Cretaceous time scale, periods cannot be matched exactly, but cycle ratios are extremely close to expected ratios so that Milankovitch climate cycles could be positively identified in this Early Cretaceous section. In the Pra da Stua section bedding thickness was measured and analyzed quantitatively. A cycle period of 55 cm is dominant in this data set, while periods of 115 cm and 170 cm are only vaguely indicated, although bedding in the sampled interval visually appears cyclic and even hierarchically structured. It can be expected that densely spaced measurements of sedimentary properties such as susceptibility and carbonate content will reveal the cyclicity much better. This identification of Milankovitch cyclicity in the pelagic Biancone Formation has important consequences for our understanding of the climate system in the past. These results demonstrate that orbital forcing was effective enough to create palaeoclimatic cycles even in the Cretaceous warm, equable, ice-free climate state. Magnetic susceptibility proved to be a reliable proxy for carbonate content reflecting palaeoproductivity cycles in this pelagic setting
Milankovitch cyclicity and rock-magnetic signatures of palaeoclimatic change in the Early Cretaceous Biancone Formation of the Southern Alps, Italy - ScienceDirect

three   *The Milankovic Cycles have been around for a long time. There effects are not in doubt. Now, by those cycles, we should slowly be getting cooler. Slowly as in over thousands of years. And that is what the 10,000 year old temperature record shows. Until the start of the industrial revolution. Now we are very rapidly warming. Because we have put more GHGs in the atmosphere than there has been in since before the ice ages began.*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 4, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> *Abstract*
> Earth's land-sea distribution modifies the temperature response to orbitally induced perturbations of the seasonal insolation. We examine this modification in the frequency domain by generating 800,000-yr time series of maximum summer temperature in selected regions with a linear, two-dimensional, seasonal energy balance climate model. Previous studies have demonstrated that this model has a sensitivity comparable to general circulation models for the seasonal temperature response to orbital forcing on land. Although the observed response in the geologic record is sometimes significantly different than modeled here (differences attributable to model limitations and feedbacks involving the ocean-atmosphere-cryosphere system), there are several results of significance: (1) in mid-latitude land areas the orbital signal is translated linearly into a large (>10°C) seasonal temperature response; (2) although the modeled seasonal response to orbital forcing on Antarctica is 6°C, the annual mean temperature effect (<2°C) is only about one-fifth that inferred from the Vostok ice core, and primarily restricted to periods near 41,000 yr; (3) equatorial regions have the richest spectrum of temperature response, with a 3000-yr phase shift in the precession response, plus some power near periods of 10,000–12,000 yr, 41,000 yr, 100,000 yr, and 400,000 yr. Peaks at 10,000–12,000 yr and 100,000 and 400,000 yr result from the twice-yearly passage of the sun across the equator. The complex model response in equatorial regions has some resemblance to geologic time series from this region. The amplification of model response over equatorial land masses at the 100,000-yr period may explain some of the observed large variance in this band in geologic records, especially in pre-Pleistocene records from times of little or no global ice volume.
> Filtering of milankovitch cycles by earth's geography - ScienceDirect
> 
> one



*The complex model *response in equatorial regions has some resemblance to geologic time series from this region. The amplification of model response over equatorial land masses at the 100,000-yr period may explain some of the observed large variance in this band in geologic records, especially in pre-Pleistocene records from times of little or no global ice volume.



A complex model?



Get the fuck out of here once again...hey old rocks you do live in a state that your government  thinks your to stupid  to pump your own gas right?


Coincidence?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 4, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> *Abstract*
> Detailed cyclostratigraphic analyses of the Valanginian to Hauterivian part of the Biancone Formation, a pelagic nannofossil limestone in the Southern Alps of Italy, were carried out. The Cismon section in the Belluno Trough near Feltre and the Pra da Stua section on the Trento Plateau near Avio were studied. Carbonate content, magnetic susceptibility and natural remanent magnetization were measured on densely spaced samples from Cismon. The first two properties vary in a cyclic fashion in this pelagic limestone section and are almost perfectly negatively correlated, while cyclicity in natural remanent magnetization is only vaguely indicated. Quantitative time-series analysis is critical in cyclic stratigraphy. The geostatistical method of cova functions (a generalization of the cross-variogram) which has proven to be the most versatile and robust time-series-analysis method is applied. Cova functions can be calculated from unevenly and non-correspondingly spaced time series without any preprocessing. This method also retains relatively more of the signal when noise and extreme outliers obscure the picture. The periodicities detected in the Cismon time series fall in the range of Milankovitch cycles. Cycle periods of 45 cm, 80 cm and 180 cm likely correspond to dominant precession, obliquity and eccentricity cycles. Owing to the inaccuracy of the Cretaceous time scale, periods cannot be matched exactly, but cycle ratios are extremely close to expected ratios so that Milankovitch climate cycles could be positively identified in this Early Cretaceous section. In the Pra da Stua section bedding thickness was measured and analyzed quantitatively. A cycle period of 55 cm is dominant in this data set, while periods of 115 cm and 170 cm are only vaguely indicated, although bedding in the sampled interval visually appears cyclic and even hierarchically structured. It can be expected that densely spaced measurements of sedimentary properties such as susceptibility and carbonate content will reveal the cyclicity much better. This identification of Milankovitch cyclicity in the pelagic Biancone Formation has important consequences for our understanding of the climate system in the past. These results demonstrate that orbital forcing was effective enough to create palaeoclimatic cycles even in the Cretaceous warm, equable, ice-free climate state. Magnetic susceptibility proved to be a reliable proxy for carbonate content reflecting palaeoproductivity cycles in this pelagic setting
> Milankovitch cyclicity and rock-magnetic signatures of palaeoclimatic change in the Early Cretaceous Biancone Formation of the Southern Alps, Italy - ScienceDirect
> 
> three   *The Milankovic Cycles have been around for a long time. There effects are not in doubt. Now, by those cycles, we should slowly be getting cooler. Slowly as in over thousands of years. And that is what the 10,000 year old temperature record shows. Until the start of the industrial revolution. Now we are very rapidly warming. Because we have put more GHGs in the atmosphere than there has been in since before the ice ages began.*


Detailed cyclostratigraphic analyses of the Valanginian to Hauterivian part of the Biancone Formation, a pelagic nannofossillimestone in *the Southern Alps of Italy,*


Local weather don't mean global right? 

Fucking asshole give me something usefull and not romper room crap


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 4, 2018)

BlindBoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Back in 2000 Al Gore said that the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years
> ...




The funny thing is that the nature of climate IS to change!  It is always changing!  But how it is changing and why is only beginning to be understood.  The main problem is that climate changes over centuries, millenniums, eons and epochs, and we only have a few decades of sampling research to base our understanding.

*Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap*

Sad to say, global warming is REAL and INEVITABLE.  In about a billion years, our Sun will begin to transition from hydrogen burning to helium, and will begin to turn redder and swell and get hotter.  As the eons pass, the Earth will get only hotter and hotter, eventually drying up and the oceans boiling away.  And there's not a DAMN THING anyone can do about it, so we might as well just relax and enjoy it while we can.


----------



## Mousterian (Jan 4, 2018)

16 minute TED talk, worth watching,


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, that's right, "name calling". You sit there and call the people who have dedicated their lives to this science "incompetent liars", and then you have the nerve to whine like a little bitch that someone called you a name when standing up for them?



Then lets see just a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....if they are the true men of science you claim them to be, then surely they have evidence to support the hypothesis they support...surely they are not making the sort of forecasts for future climate and asking for the sort of social change they suggest without an overwhelming body of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports their hypothesis over the null hypothesis.

I am not asking for the overwhelming body of evidence that a true scientific body would have before they began making such forecasts and suggestions for sweeping social change...I am just asking for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data which supports the hypothesis over natural variability...and neither you, nor all of climate science can provide it.  

Does that speak to dedicated men of science or incompetent liars?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You are an uneducated slob who knows jack shit about any of this.



More name calling without the first shred of actual data to support your own position.  You just keep on fitting my description of you.  Alas, it seems to be you who doesn't know jack.  Two questions and you are reduced to this...you are a joke.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nor do you have any wish to know anything about it.



You may not have noticed...being so immersed in your pompous ignorance...that it is me who is asking for data...me who is asking for information that at least supports the hypothesis.  I have been asking for decades and getting the same response over that span of time as you are giving me now...puffed up bloviating about how little I know, all manner of logical fallacy, name calling...and never the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis s over natural variability.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That is why your worthless ass is here squawking into an echo chamber, and not learning about the topic from the scientists who taught us everything we know about it.



I am asking for data...it is you who is squawking..calling names, going on and on about how superior you are while not offering up even one small shred of observed, measured evidence which supports the hypothesis you so fervently believe in.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I'm not here to litigate the truth of accepted scientific theories with uneducated slobs who have less knowledge about any of this in their entire family than the scientists who study this have in a pimple on their ass. No, you are not presenting any actual challenge to any accepted science. You are merely masturbating in public



What a surprise...now it is excuses for why you aren't posting up that single shred of observed, measured quantified evidence that I keep asking for...and more name calling, and logical fallacy.  

If you were capable of critical thinking at even the most fundamental level, you might ask yourself why it is that you can't offer up a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the so called "accepted science" associated with the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  You might ask why, if the so called science is such a slam dunk, you can't simply slap me down and make me your bitch with an overwhelming body of observed, measured data that supports your hypothesis rather than being reduced to insensate bleating...a never ending stream of logical fallacy, name calling, and impotent chest thumping.  

You are to pitiful to laugh at.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



If we are so uneducated, how is it that we have so easily reduced him to insensate bleating about settled science, and his ever tedious stream of logical fallacy, and impotent chest thumping.  Reducing a self proclaimed superior individual to such behavior is pretty impressive for a bunch of uneducated monkeys...if uneducated monkeys can drive him to such a state so easily, how much further down the ladder must his intellect actually be?


----------



## Mousterian (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD, did you watch the Ted talk, 1 page back?
You want evidence, there's one man's 30 years of evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

Mousterian said:


> SSDD, did you watch the Ted talk, 1 page back?
> You want evidence, there's one man's 30 years of evidence.



I watched about 6 minutes of it and it was just more of the same.  In the 6 minutes I watched, I didn't see anything that was even coming close to being observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  In typical fashion, he presented plenty of evidence for things that I don't thing anyone is really disputing...that the cliamte changes...that we have seen climate change over the past 100 years..etc. etc. etc.  Then he simply assumes that because the cliamte is changing...and man is here that man is causing the change.  He, like all of you believers simply makes an assumption that we are driving the change.  

I am not asking for much...just one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  If he presents any such evidence on that video, then kindly point out an approximate time stamp within the video and I will gladly go back and watch again...and if such evidence is there, I will go back and watch the whole thing and probably begin to alter my position.  I can be swayed by evidence, and it doesn't take a lot.  I don't hold my position based on any ideology, or emotional attachment or political affiliation to the hypothesis...I hold my position because the hypothesis has failed...and because after decades of looking and asking people who are considered to be experts, I have yet to see a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  What other position could I possibly hold?


----------



## Taz (Jan 4, 2018)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So since you won't live much longer, you don't care of the environment? That's very selfish of you. But not surprising.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 4, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> 
> 
> > December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
> ...


Just some more Woolly Mammoth shit that the left doesn't want you to see.

Winter transforms Niagara Falls into winter wonderland


> Ice coats the rocks and observation deck at the base of the Horseshoe falls in Niagara Falls, Ontario on Jan. 3, 2018.The cold snap which has gripped much of Canada and the United States has nearly frozen over the American side of the falls.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 4, 2018)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...





> you don't care of the environment?


 So you go to the inner cities and see the trash that the liberals leave on the ground knowing someone else will pick it up. You watch the liberal elites jet around in their private jets expecting the rest of us to stay home.  Liberal elites ride around in their limos doing award this and award that, creating enough CO2 equal to a large city, yet they tell us to cut back on our energy usage or else the oceans will rise up and drown those very people who buy mansions on the ocean front.  Problem with all this, is that you dumbass liberal constituents NEVER call out the elites out for their fucking hypocrisy, but wait for them to get close to you so you can kiss the hem of their pant suits...


----------



## Taz (Jan 4, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Your record is broken, time for a new one.


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2018)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Actually it has to do with your flawed world view.  You have no reason to care because according to your worldview there is no grand meaning to any of this.


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2018)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I assess your emotional level as high.

Why is it wrong to be selfish again?

What does that matter?


----------



## Pete7469 (Jan 4, 2018)

ding said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




They really are that stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

Taz said:


> So since you won't live much longer, you don't care of the environment? That's very selfish of you. But not surprising.



We have a great many real environmental problems that we could start dealing with.  The man made climate change scam not being one of them.  The problem is that the climate change scam is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers....no real progress towards addressing real environmental problems will be made till the man made climate change scam is laid to rest.


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > 400 ppm is 400 ppm. Are you saying that 400 ppm doesn't matter?
> ...


No you don't.  But I'll take that over a glacial cycle any day.


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I bet good ole Joe doesn't even know that for most of earth's history, the earth has been a greenhouse world and it's only been about the last 5 million years that the earth has become an ice house world.
> ...


Have you ever done a mass balance of CO2 before?


----------



## Taz (Jan 4, 2018)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Why do you make that up? Got nothing else?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

ding said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




You can't really have that sort of conversation with people who believe that we are having any sort of significant influence on the total atmospheric CO2....they won't even look at recent research which suggests very strongly that we have a barely detectable influence on the total atmospheric CO2 if our influence is detectable at all.


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2018)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I got plenty.  I'm starting with this.


----------



## Taz (Jan 4, 2018)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


When you get to the "plenty" part, wake me up.


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2018)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I figured you must be sleeping to swallow this BS.


----------



## Taz (Jan 4, 2018)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Not to worry, I don't swallow any of your bs.


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2018)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


That's because you are already full.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2018)

IF the increase of CO2 was coming from natural causes then we certainly would be in the midst of tremendous climate change.

Fortunately it is not, we have put most of it there ourselves. 

CO2 is more of a symptom than a cause. Yes, there will be some warming of the atmosphere (1C/doubling) and a change in the relative amounts of energy taking the various pathways out to space, but nothing like the doomsday scenarios presented by the Warming Alarmists.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> IF the increase of CO2 was coming from natural causes then we certainly would be in the midst of tremendous climate change.
> 
> Fortunately it is not, we have put most of it there ourselves.
> 
> CO2 is more of a symptom than a cause. Yes, there will be some warming of the atmosphere (1C/doubling) and a change in the relative amounts of energy taking the various pathways out to space, but nothing like the doomsday scenarios presented by the Warming Alarmists.



Recent research questions whether we are even having a measurable influence on the global CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

clip:  
“*A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2  emissions*.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period *1959-2011* were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year.  … [*R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere*.”

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whetherrepresenting sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”
(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little inﬂuence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.



You may like to look at this paper as well although it is a bit off topic...an empirical examination of the greenhouse effect...

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...ment-against-the-greenh-2157-7617-1000393.pdf

Various Clips:

The starting point of the here referenced research was the generally accepted greenhouse thesis which assumes that the present climate change is mainly due to the observed growing amount of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly of carbon-dioxide in spite of the fact that, unlike a greenhouse, the Earth atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a transparent roof …  *This *[greenhouse effect]* idea takes its source in Fourier’s treatise made in 1827, exhibiting* *no empirical data or physical calculations and experimental data*.

The first results were delivered by Tyndall in the sixties of the 19th century, using artificial IR (= infrared) radiation. His photometric [light-measuring] apparatus consisted of metallic tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as heat radiation sources, entailing comparatively low temperatures, namely 100°C and lower. In the [eighteen] nineties, *Arrhenius* continued such measurements. He *established the greenhouse thesis claiming that, unlike air, carbon-dioxide considerably absorbs infrared-radiation*. Thereby we distinguish between near IR (λ = 0.8 – 3μm), emitted at high temperatures (> 1000 K), and medium IR (λ = 3 – 50μm) occurring at lower temperatures as usual thermal radiation, while IR-radiation with larger wavelengths (λ = 50 – 1000μm) is defined as far IR.

*[O]verall, the greenhouse thesis has been commonly settled even if*[…] *its empiric basis appears poor while several theoretical presumptions are speculative*.  … there is reason enough to examine the current climate theory, and in particular the greenhouse thesis, regarding fundamental scientific principles and possibly to question the usual assumptions.

The analytic methods applied in climatology were exclusively photometric [light-measuring] ones. … *Thermal measurements have never been made, except those by pyranometers comprising the whole spectrum, so that direct coherences between light absorption and warming-up effects at matter have not been detected yet*.

The natural laws which were used for constructing the theory were confined to the temperature law of Stefan-Boltzmann (1), Planck’s distribution law (2), both being solely valid for black bodies, and BeerLambert’s absorption law (3), being unequivocally valid solely for visible light, and not compellingly for IR radiation (see below). *These laws were often impermissibly generalized and used in an incorrect way leading to wrong conclusions*.

*Questioning The CO2-IR-Warms-The-Atmosphere Assumption*
[A]ccording to this [greenhouse theory] model the assumption is made that any warming-up of the atmosphere is exclusively due to a partial absorption of medium-wave IR-radiation while any short-wave IR-absorption can be excluded since it has never been detected spectrometrically.

Against this, at least the following [5] arguments may be alleged [just the 1st , 4th, and 5th arguments are included here in very condensed form]:

1. As already found within a previous investigation [12], the greater part – namely *at least 60% – of the energy being emitted from a warmed plate to the surrounding atmosphere is transferred by heat conduction, and not by heat radiation* [i.e., via the greenhouse effect] obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s law which is only valid in the vacuum. That part is even enhanced when the air convection is enhanced. Moreover, *near the ground the molar concentration of water vapour is much higher than that one of carbon dioxide *letting assume that its absorbance of heat radiation is much stronger. (e.g. at 20°C and 60% rel. humidity, the molar concentration of *water vapour is 36 times larger than that one of carbon-dioxide *being 0.038 volume%). Hence it can be assumed that *the major part of the heat transfer between Earth surface and atmosphere occurs near the ground while the greenhouse theory neglects that part solely regarding the radiative absorption by CO2 passing the whole atmosphere*.

4. Between the energetic absorption of electromagnetic radiation by gases and their resulting warming-up no empirical – and also no
theoretical – coherence is known which would be needed to carry spectroscopic results onto thermodynamic properties. *There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Rather it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, to wit in all directions*.* But the link between the two phenomena is not known*.

5. The question of radiation emission by hot gases is related with it since it is obvious that *any gas, also air, begins to radiate to such an extent as it is warmed-up*. This question arises when the so-called radiative energy transfer is studied. But instead of empiric measurements, complicated theories were developed [15-17] starting from the abstruse assumption that the atmosphere behaves like a black body obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s emission law, and disregarding the kinetic gas

*Overall it must be assessed that the atmospheric theory is on a shaky ground. widely missing empiric key methods to check the principles and their consequences*.

*Air Vs. CO2 Experiment: ‘The Final Proof That The Climate Theory Cannot Be True’*
Beyond, there is an aspect which hitherto has been overlooked, and which delivers* the final proof that the climate theory cannot be true*. It is the topic of the here reported author’s work [*Allmendinger, 2016*] concerning thermal measurements instead of spectroscopic ones, and delivering the evidence that *any gas absorbs IR-radiation – but in the short wavelength range -, with the consequence that air is warmed up by direct solar insolation – as well as by artificial IR-light – up to a limiting temperature due to radiative emission, and leading to an equilibrium state*.

Preliminary tests for the present investigation were made with solar light using square twin-tubes from Styrofoam (3 cm thick, 1 m long, outer diameter 25 cm), each equipped with three thermometers at different positions, and covered above and below by a thin transparent foil (preferably a 0.01 mm thick Saran-wrap). The tubes were pivoted on a frame in such a way that they could be oriented in the direction of the solar light (Figure 3). *One tube was filled with air, the other with carbon-dioxide*. Incipiently, the tubes were covered on the tops with aluminium-foils being removed at the start of the experiment.

The primary experimental result was quite astonishing in many respects.

Firstly: *The content gases warmed within a few minutes by approximately 10°C up to a constant limiting temperature*. This was surprising – at least in the case of air – for no warming-up was anticipated since sunlight is colourless and allegedly not able to absorb any IR-radiation. However, the existence of a limiting temperature is conceivable since a growing radiative emission has to be expected as far as the temperature rises.

Secondly: *The limiting temperatures were more or less equal at any measuring point. This means that the intensity of the sun beam was virtually not affected by the heat absorption in the gas tube* since the latter one was comparatively weak.

And thirdly: *Between the two tubes *[one filled with air, the other with CO2]* no significant difference could be detected*.  Therefore, thanks to this simple experiment* a special effect of carbon dioxide on the direct sunlight absorption could already be excluded*.

*As evident from Figure 8*, *any gas absorbs IR-light – even the noble *[non-greenhouse]* gases argon, neon and helium do so* – while there is no significant difference between argon and carbon dioxide, but *only a small difference between carbon-dioxide and air*.






*Conclusion/Summary*
*Besides a critical discussion of the convenient atmosphere theory profoundly questioning the greenhouse thesis by disclosing several basic errors,* *the here reported investigation reveals the discovery of direct absorption of shortwave IR-radiation by air*. It is part of the incident solar light, but also of artificial light which enables a more exact detection. It is caused by another effect than the one which is responsible for the longer-wave absorption being observed at carbon dioxide, and* it is not detectable by IR-spectroscopy* since its absorption coefficient is too low. However, it is clearly detectable by means of the here applied apparatus leading to a distinct temperature elevation up to a limiting temperature which depends on the radiative emission.* The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby* *practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found*.

*Nevertheless, that direct absorption effect *[shortwave]* which was discovered thanks to this method probably contributes significantly to the warming up of the atmosphere while* *the warming-up due to carbon-dioxide can be neglected*.

But since the direct absorption cannot be influenced, the surface albedo must be focused as the governing factor providing the only [anthropogenic] opportunity to mitigate the climate, or at least the microclimate, by changing colour and structure of the surface, particularly in urban areas. However, a prediction seems not feasible since the global climate is too complex. But *the greenhouse theory turns out to be a phantasm delivering the wrong diagnosis for the climate change, and a wrong diagnosis cannot enable a healing*.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 4, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Once again, Billy-bob Cleetus the redneck shows he doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.


LOL...

You don't have a clue that long term weather is CLIMATE..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, Billy-bob Cleetus the redneck shows he doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.
> ...



Geez guy...haven't these people taught you anything?  It is easy to separate weather from climate...They have a very scientific method which works for them every time it is employed...here is a quick lesson that explains the whole thing in a single graphic.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> IF the increase of CO2 was coming from natural causes then we certainly would be in the midst of tremendous climate change.
> 
> Fortunately it is not, we have put most of it there ourselves.
> 
> CO2 is more of a symptom than a cause. Yes, there will be some warming of the atmosphere (1C/doubling) and a change in the relative amounts of energy taking the various pathways out to space, but nothing like the doomsday scenarios presented by the Warming Alarmists.


What I find humorous about the idiocy of the left is that CO2 even when used by man is Natural.  Petroleum a substance that comes out of the Earth is a Natural source of energy, yet the left says it is man made.  Liberals are the most stupid people in the universe and they don't even know it.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 5, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… «  FOX News Weather Blog
> 
> 
> > December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
> ...


This just in....

Winter storm is pulling away, but there's more cold on the way


> Winter storm is pulling away, but there's more cold on the way


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IF the increase of CO2 was coming from natural causes then we certainly would be in the midst of tremendous climate change.
> ...



Well, that was a big spew. Taking tips from Old Rocks now?

I think I have read all three of those papers, and I think we already discussed the last one.

Although each has an interesting idea they fall into the same category as so many of the climate consensus papers. They beg the question and bury the signal in noise.

Also, I think it is hilarious that you chose to paste this quote in bold font-



> .  *the major part of the heat transfer between Earth surface and atmosphere occurs near the ground while the greenhouse theory neglects that part solely regarding the radiative absorption by CO2 passing the whole atmosphere*



You mock me for talking about the surface boundary bottleneck but here you are, highlighting it. Also, atmospheric radiative physics does not ignore it just because it is also concerned with the LTE transfer through the bulk of the atmosphere or the conversion of stored energy at the emission layer.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> IF the increase of CO2 was coming from natural causes then we certainly would be in the midst of tremendous climate change.
> 
> Fortunately it is not, we have put most of it there ourselves.
> 
> CO2 is more of a symptom than a cause. Yes, there will be some warming of the atmosphere (1C/doubling) and a change in the relative amounts of energy taking the various pathways out to space, but nothing like the doomsday scenarios presented by the Warming Alarmists.


What we are seeing today in extreme weather events is the result of the GHG levels of about 30 years ago. As the years go on, and the affects of the rapid rise to 400+ ppm for CO2 and 1850 ppb for CH4 kick in, how long before we are losing ground on repairing our infrastructure just from extreme weather events? How many tens of thousands of homes damaged or destroyed in the hurricanes, floods, and fires of 2017, just in the USA? How much damage to the infrastructure, power, water and sewage, by these events? How much damage are we going to see from the present intrusion of Arctic air on the East Coast? 

Not doomsday, but serious damage to our nation and standard of living.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


SSo DDumb, that map is the result of climate change. Predicted in 2012, and occurring exactly as predicted.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 5, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IF the increase of CO2 was coming from natural causes then we certainly would be in the midst of tremendous climate change.
> ...


Oh my, extreme weather events, like back in 1977 when Cincinnati had a snowstorm, then icestorm then snowstorm again.  You fucking worthless idiots have no clue about history and what has happened before, but just keep on drinking the liberal koolaid while the liberal elites steal your money through carbon taxes and make themselves very wealthy off of it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2018)

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com

*Above is the real cover, and I am sure that you knowingly posted the fake. You 'Conservatives' are like your treasonous fat senile old orange clown leader. You lie constantly, and are proud of it. You are, to the person, despicable examples of the naked ape.*


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> You mock me for talking about the surface boundary bottleneck but here you are, highlighting it. Also, atmospheric radiative physics does not ignore it just because it is also concerned with the LTE transfer through the bulk of the atmosphere or the conversion of stored energy at the emission layer.



And you ignore the next section which states:  

 Between the energetic absorption of electromagnetic radiation by gases and their resulting warming-up no empirical – and also no
theoretical – coherence is known which would be needed to carry spectroscopic results onto thermodynamic properties.

Convection is king ian...radiation is a bit player at best and CO2 doesn't even deserve recognition.


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IF the increase of CO2 was coming from natural causes then we certainly would be in the midst of tremendous climate change.
> ...



You see the CO2 Boogeyman behind everything. It is not, and the evidence does not support your position.

Billions are spent on improving infrastructure anyways. It is a better solution than spending the huge amounts on slowing the inevitable emission of CO2. 

We are paying more for 'insurance' than the possible payout.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I know you wish the predictions climate science made were coming true, but alas, they are complete failures...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 5, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IF the increase of CO2 was coming from natural causes then we certainly would be in the midst of tremendous climate change.
> ...



*Not doomsday, but serious damage to our nation and standard of living*.


Say what you want us to lower are standard of living from this







To this







Are you nuts?


.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*Hansen et al. 1981*
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, *213*, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. *Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage*

*Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide*

*Dr. Hansen made these predictions in 1981, and they have come to pass. At the time, the denialists all said that he was an 'alarmist' and did not know what he was talking about. They said, at that time, that there was no evidence of any warming at all. What a bunch of bullshitting assholes they were then, and continue to be today.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Not at all. To this;


























*All these vehicles far exceed their ICE counterparts in performance, cost of operation, and handling. Very soon, as the price of the batteries continue to decline, and the energy density continues to increase, they will cost less than the comparable ICE. In fact, there is no ICE at the price of the Roadster that can even begin to compete with it.*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 5, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Crap cars ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


No, but you sure as fuck are if you think that today people think of that as the typical EV today. Now they think of one of the Tesla models or even the Chevy Bolt. And, by 2020, there will be many more manufacturers with EV's for sale. Vehicles, like the Tesla's, designed as EV's from the ground up. And, like the Roadster and Semi, many will have very good range on one charge. And, with solar on your roof, you can power both your vehicle and your home. But you neanderthals can continue to pay big corporations, and be so proud of your support of billioniares. LOL


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You mock me for talking about the surface boundary bottleneck but here you are, highlighting it. Also, atmospheric radiative physics does not ignore it just because it is also concerned with the LTE transfer through the bulk of the atmosphere or the conversion of stored energy at the emission layer.
> ...



What you say makes no sense when you follow the energy entering and leaving the system.

The amount of radiation directly escaping through the Atmospheric Window from the surface proves you a liar. A quarter of the solar insolation is transformed into IR and leaves immediately. 25% is negligible in your world?

If CO2 was not present then the AW would be wider, and the direct escape would be almost doubled. Still negligible?

All the energy leaving the planet is in the form of radiation. Still a 'bit player'?

Conduction and convection move a lot of the surface energy to the cloudtops. More than half, they are also major players. But to say radiation is negligible and CO2'S influence is non existent is bullshit.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 5, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Solar on the roof of cars ????


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Liar. LOL  Such a prissy little bitch. Those are the future. Cost of operation of all them far below that of an ICE. Performance superior. Handling superior. And you can make your own fuel for them. In the meantime, you stand in the horseshit beside the road, yelling 'Get a horse' at the passing autos. LOL You are one funny little bitch.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


No, stupid little bitch, on the roof of your house. But not for you. You would rather continue to contribute your hard earned to a billionaire. Such a loyal little idiot.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 5, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




How am I lying a picture says a thousand words...

And what the hell once again it's antique technology its been around for a 130 years plus..


Read a history book will you....


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 5, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




It doesn't pay off and you now it, another feel good feeling


----------



## Taz (Jan 6, 2018)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Full of knowledge, no room for bs of any kind.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Silly, silly bitch. The present EVs that Tesla makes are faster than almost all ICE's, they handle better, are more reliable, and cost far less to operate. As the competition in batteries increases, the costs will come down at the same time the energy density increases. The Roadster, with 620 mile range on a single charge is the future for all of the EV's. And there is no other production car that can touch it's performance. EV's are the future, the ICE is the past.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


*LOL So a market that has been increasing by 32% year over year doesn't pay off. Well, apparently a whole lot of somebodies disagrees with you.*

EIA: US solar output increases 47% in 2017

In market segment terms, utility scale growth was twice as high, increasing 58% from 2016 to 2017, as small scale at 29%. The residential sector increased by 32% year-over-year, while the smaller sectors, commercial and industrial each grew 23%. Overall, PV continues its climb of market share of total electricity generated, going from 1.3% from January through September 2016 to 1.9% in the same time period in 2017.


----------

