# The best case a lay person can make against AGW



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists  predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables. 
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it 
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture  who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW 
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly  destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must  ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

The best case against AGW is to simply ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...I have been asking for damn near two decades now and am still waiting of the first bit of actual evidence to be presented...it doesn't exist.

It is, however, damned entertaining to see what passes for actual evidence in the minds of warmers.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Dec 15, 2016)

I said the same thing to American airlines.  The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).

But since theyve made mistakes before I figured that trusting any pilot is a bridge too far.  The airline disagreed but that's because the establishment "pilots" sought to conspire against me.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The best case against AGW is to simply ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...I have been asking for damn near two decades now and am still waiting of the first bit of actual evidence to be presented...it doesn't exist.
> 
> It is, however, damned entertaining to see what passes for actual evidence in the minds of warmers.


 I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> I said the same thing to American airlines.  The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).
> 
> But since theyve made mistakes before I figured that trusting any pilot is a bridge too far.  The airline disagreed but that's because the establishment "pilots" sought to conspire against me.


can you tell us what your point is if you know??


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.



Of course they do...and when I ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that we are altering the global climate with our CO2 emissions, none can be found...if any such evidence existed, no one on earth would be able to avoid it...

And do you really think that you need to be a scientist to recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical data that supports a hypothesis?...what educational system failed you so miserably?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.
> ...



as I said their evidence is in 1000's of scientific papers. You would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be useful


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And do you really think that you need to be a scientist to recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical data that supports a hypothesis?.?



yes yes yes ever read about the higs boson you need a PHd in physics and an IQ of 150 to have any idea at all if it exists!!! Climate science is almost that complex.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 15, 2016)

My take is quite simple. We've had five major ice ages. Guess what happened in between? It freaking warmed up. And we were not around. 

Climate changes.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,



Wrong, being temperatures have steadily increased the whole time.



> 2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists  predicted



Again, totally wrong, being temperature has increased steadily, and is now actually warmer than model predictions.



> 3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables



Wrong, as rate of change is totally unlike anything seen before. And other factors (stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands) demonstrate the warming is not part of a natural cycle, and is caused by greenhouse gases.



> 4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it



Wrong, as everyone, including insurance companies, agrees weather extremes are getting worse.



> 5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick



And it did. The "hiatus" was essentially a denier invention. Everyone who knew statistics saw the steady upward trend, which continues now.



> 6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture  who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW



Conspiracy nonsense. Pielke still has a fine job. So does every denier professor. No professor anywhere has been fired for a contrary opinion. In contrast, all deniers demand not just the firing, but the prosecution of scientists. All of the Stalinist thuggery is on the denier side.



> 7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet.



Kook claim unsupported by any evidence, just some Stalinist anti-intellectualism.



> Any good crack in the consensus will instantly  destroy them



The consensus has been attacked relentlessly for decades, and as a result it's even more solid. That's what happens with good science. That statement is delusional, the complete opposite of observed reality.



> all as the worst scientists in history



The whole world disagrees, and thinks they are excellent scientists. Is the entire world is engaged in a VastSecretSocialConspiracy, and only a group of kook fringe extremist political cultists knows the RealTruth? 




> so they must  ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.
> 
> Can anyone help me with any more?



If that's the best they have, denialism is in a sad state.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Wrong, being temperatures have steadily increased the whole time.
> .



1/100 of a degree per year perhaps and a hiatus perhaps?? this is the opposite of what was predicted. Do you follow at all now?????

Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.

*Old View (July 2006): Robet Hanson father of AGW*

“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” he wrote in his July 2006 review of Al Gore’s book/movie, _An Inconvenient Truth_. “We have reached a critical tipping point,” he assured readers, adding “it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.”


----------



## ClosedCaption (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > I said the same thing to American airlines.  The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).
> ...



A mistake isn't a reason to throw away all the science.  Nor is it a reason to put you in the cockpit.  That's weak logic


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> A mistake isn't a reason to throw away all the science.



if its a huge mistake its the best reason to throw away what obviously was not science. Makes sense now?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
> 2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists  predicted
> 3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
> 4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
> ...


#1.  What the hell are you talking about? The hockey stick continues to go straight up. Both GHG numbers and temperature. And there has been over a dozen independent studies since then, all confirming the Hockey Stick. One of those was conducted by the National Academy of Science.

#2.  No, 'they' did not say that AGW began in 1900. What is said is that when we began to add large amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere, that was the beginning of AGW. That would be at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. On the contrary, the temperature was about 1.5 C above the pre-industrial temperatures last year.

#3.  Bullshit. We have measured it with instruments, and by the affects on the cryosphere. 

#4.  My goodness. You are an amateur at lying. You can go to the sites of Swiss Re and Munich Re and see where they state that the amount of damage from extreme weather events is increasing dramatically.

#5.  There never was a hiatus. The average temperature was higher than most of the highs previous to 1998. And the last three years have all been records. 2014 established a new record. 2015 broke that record. And 2016 will break the record of 2015. 

#6.  Crap. Only an uneducated fool like you would refer to a university monoculture. Concentrate government? Whose government? For all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities in the world state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

#7.  What the hell are you talking about? The evidence of a warming climate is coming from all in the scientific community. Geologists, biologists, chemists, and physicists. 

Lordy, lordy, you willfully ignorant asses truly demonstrate daily just how stupid your are.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Again, totally wrong, being temperature has increased steadily, and is now actually warmer than model predictions.
> 
> .



what on earth are you talking about???????Hanson said in 2006 his model showed we had 10 years to change climate or we'd be doomed. The ten years passed dear and no doom and possible warming hiatus is biggest news!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2016)

tinydancer said:


> My take is quite simple. We've had five major ice ages. Guess what happened in between? It freaking warmed up. And we were not around.
> 
> Climate changes.


Spoken like a true ignoramous. Look, stupid, it is not the fact that it is warming that is alarming, it is the rate of warming. And, in the last interglacial, there was 300 ppm of CO2, 20 more than we had prior to the Industrial Revolution. And the sea level was over 6 meters higher than today. We are above 400 ppm today, and, were it not for the inertia in the system, sea level would be swamping our port cities. And it will be doing that over the coming years. The scientific debate is not whether that will happen, but the speed at which it will happen.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

tinydancer said:


> My take is quite simple. We've had five major ice ages. Guess what happened in between? It freaking warmed up. And we were not around.
> 
> Climate changes.



yes climate changes and we really don't know climate history at all. For example was the Little Ice Age regional or not. So how do we know if temp is going up normally after ice age?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Again, totally wrong, being temperature has increased steadily, and is now actually warmer than model predictions.
> ...


Where have you been the past three years? 2014 was the warmest year on record. Until 2015 surpassed that. And now 2016 will surpass 2015. 

And, no, Dr. Hansen did not state that we would be doomed. He said that if we continue on the present path, in ten years we will have reached a point that will ensure that the warming will create conditions that will negatively affect all of our lives. Why do you tell such lies?


----------



## Zander (Dec 15, 2016)

Climate Science is to "Science" as  Astrology is to "Astronomy". 

It sounds like something legit, but it's track record is as reliable as Tarot cards and Palm readings....it's a total joke.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Wrong, as rate of change is totally unlike anything seen before..



incredible stupid lie!! 1/100 of a degree a year over the last 140 years and slowing when the conditions claimed for AGM have increased 10000 times!! Beyond absurd!!


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> what on earth are you talking about???????Hanson said in 2006 his model showed we had 10 years to change climate or we'd be doomed.



He did not say what you're claiming. He said change would have to start within ten years, or major problems would occur much later.

So, are you just too stupid to parse simple English, or are you being deliberately dishonest?


----------



## PredFan (Dec 15, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> I said the same thing to American airlines.  The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).
> 
> But since theyve made mistakes before I figured that trusting any pilot is a bridge too far.  The airline disagreed but that's because the establishment "pilots" sought to conspire against me.



Yeah too bad that isn't true, we wouldn't have to listen to your stupid drivel now.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > My take is quite simple. We've had five major ice ages. Guess what happened in between? It freaking warmed up. And we were not around.
> ...


Because, by the Milankovic Cycles that controlled all previous ice ages, we should be gradually, very slowly, descending into the next ice age. And that is exactly what we were doing, until the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the massive burning of fossil fuel. If you actually bothered to do a little research instead of just flapping your dumb yap, you would know this.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> I said the same thing to American airlines.  The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).
> 
> But since theyve made mistakes before I figured that trusting any pilot is a bridge too far.  The airline disagreed but that's because the establishment "pilots" sought to conspire against me.




Do people who study worms experts on climate change? Mr low information voter


Society of Nematologists Says man made climate change is realreal


----------



## PredFan (Dec 15, 2016)

There isn't one shred of proof that man is residing temperatures by his actions. There is no science there all there is is agenda driven politics masquerading as science.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Wrong, as everyone, including insurance companies, agrees weather extremes are getting worse.
> 
> .


A liberal loves to lie!!!!
As Buffett pointed out his letter, the insurance premiums for covering catastrophes have fallen in recent years, making that type of coverage less lucrative than before. Indeed, global financial losses from weather events in 2015 were lower than any other year since 2009


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

Zander said:


> Climate Science is to "Science" as  Astrology is to "Astronomy".
> 
> It sounds like something legit, but it's track record is as reliable as Tarot cards and Palm readings....it's a total joke.



Except it's been very accurate for over 30 years running now. Only brainwashed political cultists still try to deny it.

That's why climate science has such credibility, because it's been so successful with its predictions for so long. And that's why deniers are considered to be cult cranks, because they've failed so completely at everything for so long.

Deniers, it's not our fault that you suck so hard at the science. You're simply not going to get any crediblity until you stop sucking, and whining won't change that.


----------



## Zander (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Science is to "Science" as  Astrology is to "Astronomy".
> ...


Climate "Science" the illustrated version....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> And it did. The "hiatus" was essentially a denier invention. Everyone who knew statistics saw the steady upward trend, which continues now.
> 
> [.


*Bumps and wiggles*
Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2016)

Zander said:


> Climate Science is to "Science" as  Astrology is to "Astronomy".
> 
> It sounds like something legit, but it's track record is as reliable as Tarot cards and Palm readings....it's a total joke.


*What a fucked up liar you are. First, until 2000, liars like you were insisting that there was no warming. Then, when everyone could see it in their backyard, they changed their story to 'it is all natural'. And the leading scientist in this field in 1981, accurately predicted what we are seeing right now;*

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse 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 1980's. *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.*

*The Northwest Passage first opened in 2007. And last summer, a 900 passenger luxury cruise ship made the passage. When Dr. Hansen made this prediction, he thought that the passage would open up in the latter half of the 21st century. And was called an alarmist for making that statement. Turns out to have been a very conservative prediction.*


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

PredFan said:


> There isn't one shred of proof that man is residing temperatures by his actions. There is no science there all there is is agenda driven politics masquerading as science.



No, you're just an imbecile who knows nothing of the science.

Tell us, cultist, what do you make of the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, the changes in outgoing longwave radiation, all of which are smoking guns for human-caused global warming?

Oh, you mean you don't know what those big words mean? That means, idiot manchild, that you should stay out of the grownup conversations.

Now, I hear your masters calling. They need another coat of saliva applied. Run along, your services are required.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> A liberal loves to lie!!!!
> As Buffett pointed out his letter, the insurance premiums for covering catastrophes have fallen in recent years, making that type of coverage less lucrative than before. Indeed, global financial losses from weather events in 2015 were lower than any other year since 2009



So, you're a statistical ignoramus as well, a fool who cherrypicks one year and ignores the trend.

No wonder you were such easy pickins' for the denier cult. You simply lack the common sense to resist the propaganda.


----------



## Zander (Dec 15, 2016)

Get your "Climate Science"....on sale now!! Pick up some beer while you're here!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> He said change would have to start within ten years, or major problems would occur much later.





mamooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > what on earth are you talking about???????Hanson said in 2006 his model showed we had 10 years to change climate or we'd be doomed.
> ...


*Old View (July 2006):*

“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” he wrote in his July 2006 review of Al Gore’s book/movie, _An Inconvenient Truth_. “We have reached a critical tipping point,” he assured readers, adding “it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.”

feel like a fool liberal now?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2016)

*Antarctic Daily Images*




Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

*Now make your case that that does not represent warming.*


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> yes climate changes and we really don't know climate history at all. For example was the Little Ice Age regional or not.



It was regional. That's well known. All the data confirms that.



> So how do we know if temp is going up normally after ice age?



Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago, and had been gradually cooling since. It should have kept on slowly cooling into the next ice age. That's how the natural cycle was working. Instead, things totally reversed and switched to fast warming. Being that's the exact opposite of the natural cycle, it's clearly not the natural cycle.


----------



## Zander (Dec 15, 2016)

Get your "Doomsday Clocks". Al Gore says we only have 10 years to save the planet....







11 years later and ......STILL HERE!!!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Science is to "Science" as  Astrology is to "Astronomy".
> ...



*Except it's been very accurate for over 30 years running now.*


So you agree prior 30 years ago it was highly inaccurate..


Check..


But yet your your that statistically ingnorant that you think 30 years is some how significant?


Jesus Christ..


.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> It was regional. That's well known. All the data confirms that.
> 
> .



can the liar tell us what region????????


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > He said change would have to start within ten years, or major problems would occur much later.
> ...


Why should anyone feel like a fool over that statement? Other than those like you that seem incapable of understanding that he is saying that if we continue as we have, the future is going to be not to our liking. Perhaps he used too many multisyllable words?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> “We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” he wrote in his July 2006 review of Al Gore’s book/movie, _An Inconvenient Truth_. “We have reached a critical tipping point,” he assured readers, adding “it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.”
> 
> feel like a fool liberal now?



Obviously not, given you just confirmed you lied about what he said.

What is it about the word "far-ranging" that has you declaring it means "right now"?

Again, are you being stupid, or deliberately dishonest?


----------



## Zander (Dec 15, 2016)

Al Gore predicted that polar ice caps would be completely melted by 2014....Hows that working out for ya?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago,.



and it didn't go up after Little Ice Age???????


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2016)

Zander said:


> Get your "Climate Science"....on sale now!! Pick up some beer while you're here!!


So all that you are capable of is answering with silly pictures and cartoons. Oh well, I suppose you are not to blame for your lack of intellect.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> can the liar tell us what region????????



North Atlantic, dumbass.

If you don't know such basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups. And if you had any decency, you'd thank me for taking the time out to educate a cultist like you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago,.
> ...


After it had gone down. But not to where it was 8000 years ago.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > can the liar tell us what region????????
> ...


 how far east and west of north Atlantic??
Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the twentieth century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2016)

PredFan said:


> There isn't one shred of proof that man is residing temperatures by his actions. There is no science there all there is is agenda driven politics masquerading as science.


Either you are very stupid, or you are a liar. Most likely both is true. Here is what the American Institute of Physics has to say. They are the largest Scientific Society in the world.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > “We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” he wrote in his July 2006 review of Al Gore’s book/movie, _An Inconvenient Truth_. “We have reached a critical tipping point,” he assured readers, adding “it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.”
> ...



did we fundamentally alter direction of carbon emissions in 10 years or are they still going up and yet we are talking hiatus not undesirable consequences? Notice  how his wisdom about weather did not allow him to say how undesireable. What do you learn from that? We should alter the earths economy and stave millions to death to avoid undesireable consequences?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Dec 15, 2016)

PredFan said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > I said the same thing to American airlines.  The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).
> ...



Why not?  You think only insiders can land planes?  That's a clear indication you only trust big aviation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



This appeal to authority is the hallmark of group think as is the notion of consensus. This is anti-science and political.

Lets say just one of the papers in your list of thousands is in error. It happened to be one of the very first papers on which everyone else built their work upon. Every single paper after that one is worthless.

The IPCC made their original assumptions in 1988. IN that work they gave estimates of warming which would occur. Ever since the original  4-6 deg C rise / doubling of CO2, they have continually lowered their estimates to the point that now they are near zero.  They claimed that there would be a tropospheric hot spot due to a self re-enforcing energy loop of water and CO2, which never materialized and now cooling of that region is occurring as the sun cools and went quiet.

New science has now come out that water vapor is not acting as a positive forcing and is acting as a negative one.

But the faithful refuse to embrace the empirical evidence being presented and cling to the IPCC Man Made Global Warming meme even though it has been proven wrong.

Any one with a high school science background and the ability to think critically and cognitively can disprove this MMGW lie.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > A mistake isn't a reason to throw away all the science.
> ...



So like, crashing a plane?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> how far east and west of north Atlantic??



If you want any more of my education, you'll need to pay. I accept PayPal.

I educate those willing to learn for free. Those who expect me to do all the research for them, they have to pay.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



dear when you say co2 causes temperature to rise and then massive CO2 doesn't make it happen that a mistake. Do you understand now?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> The IPCC made their original assumptions in 1988. IN that work they gave estimates of warming which would occur. Ever since the original  4-6 deg C rise / doubling of CO2



280 to 400 is a doubling?

God, you're stupid. You can't even divide. Or get the sensitivity right, being 3.0 is the generally agreed upon number.

And again, here's how good the models are. Note that they have _underpredicted_ the warming. That is, current global temps are a bit warmer than model predictions.

moyhu: Current global temps compared with CMIP 5






[/QUOTE]


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > how far east and west of north Atlantic??
> ...


Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the twentieth century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Yeah, I understans that you are against scientists but seem to give pilots a pass.  I suspect it's because you support Big Aviation and are in on the scam to bilk flyers put of money claiming pilots, who clearly have a shoddy record, should be "Trained and Certified".


----------



## PredFan (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > There isn't one shred of proof that man is residing temperatures by his actions. There is no science there all there is is agenda driven politics masquerading as science.
> ...



I know exactly what they mean, and you also have absolutely no proof that human activity is causing it. You only believe what you are spoon fed. You believe that it's a smoking gun  for human activity because that is what you are told to say. Parroting replaces thinking for you.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...




Still want to ignore my post what the fuck does worm scientist have to do with AGW?


Thought so


----------



## PredFan (Dec 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > There isn't one shred of proof that man is residing temperatures by his actions. There is no science there all there is is agenda driven politics masquerading as science.
> ...



Like I very clearly stated, agenda driven politics masquerading as science. The greenhouse effect, like the hockey stick graph has been easily debunked. Try again.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 15, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Lol, you actually think you have made a relevant point! That's cute.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You're saying the pilots crashed the planes on purpose to enrich big aviation?


----------



## Zander (Dec 15, 2016)




----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> as I said their evidence is in 1000's of scientific papers. You would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be useful



I never said that I have read them all...I said that I have been asking for decades for even one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions are altering the global temperature...and in those decades, I have not yet seen even one small bit of such evidence....there are plenty of people who are so convinced that one would imagine that they have seen a veritable mountain of such evidence...and I have had long discussions with them and asked over and over for such evidence...and none has been forthcoming....even from people who claimed to have seen such evidence....

If any such evidence existed, a person would not be able to avoid it...it would be in ads in the magazines, on billboards everywhere, on television, etc...do you think that if such evidence existed anyone on earth could ask for even a day, much less for decades and never have it shown to them?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And do you really think that you need to be a scientist to recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical data that supports a hypothesis?.?
> ...



Yes...I have read some about the higs boson...and you don't need an IQ of 150 or a PhD in physics to grasp the idea, and to know that even if you had an IQ of 250, and a PhD in 5 fields of science you still would not know if it exists or not...and climate science is nothing like that complex....the higs boson particle is theoretical...it remains theoretical and unobserved...

Here is a quick lowdown on the higs boson that I would hope that most anyone with an even average education could understand...



> Higgs Boson is a theoretical particle. Reefed to as the "GOD" particle. It is what makes up the stuff every thing is made of but at the smallest of levels. *Not much is known about it since it has not been observed.* It would be able to become any thing since it is what every thing is made of. It would be what would make up electrons, protons or Neron's. Every thing. It is on a scale we have not yet been able to achieve. But the implications would be extreme. You would be able to make any thing from nothing and possibly make it two things at the same time.



Climate science is the study of observable, measurable, quantifiable entities....the atmosphere and the climate....the claim is that the science is settled...in order for the science to be settled, a mass of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence must exist...in fact, can you name any science that is actually settled?  Name any science in which we know all there is to know?  I am quite sure you can't...and as far as climate science goes, we have barely scratched the surface.  The claim that we KNOW what drives the climate is a bald faced lie.

Climate science, in so far as it goes, is a soft science as opposed to the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, biology...a degree in climatatology doesn't involve much in the way of upper level mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc...which would lead to actually having observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of a hypothesis involving observable, measurable, quantifiable entities.

If you believe that climate science is in the same ball park as far as complexity goes as theoretical physics, and that one needs a PhD in order to tell whether or not observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence exists in support of any hypothesis,  then all I can ask is what educational system has so thoroughly failed you???


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

mamooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
> ...




Bullshit hairball...temperature data set manipulation has been going on the whole time...and anyone who claims a record global temperature by a hundredth of a degree when the margin of error is ten times that amount is nothing but a hand waving hysteric and propagandist.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> A mistake isn't a reason to throw away all the science.  Nor is it a reason to put you in the cockpit.  That's weak logic



A complete lack of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of a hypothesis is plenty of reason to question anyone making claims of imminent disaster...couple that with multiple predictive failures and you have a perfectly valid reason to call any hypothesis falsified...in real science.....a SINGLE predictive failure is grounds to toss out a hypothesis and begin work on one that better explains the phenomenon in question...the AGW hypothesis is one failed prediction after another...and its biggie...the smoking gun that humans are causing the climate to change...the tropospheric hot spot simply hasn't appeared and it is 20 years past due in the face of an ever growing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Spoken like a true ignoramous. Look, stupid, it is not the fact that it is warming that is alarming, it is the rate of warming.



You claim to be educated rocks...if you are, then you know that there is no proxy reconstruction that would allow you to make any claim whatsoever regarding the rate of temperature change on the 100, or 300 year level...in which case, you are a deliberate bald faced liar...or you are not educated and don't know, in which case, your claims of being educated are a deliberate bald faced lie...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Where have you been the past three years? 2014 was the warmest year on record. Until 2015 surpassed that. And now 2016 will surpass 2015.



Gross data manipulation...and claiming records by 100ths of a degree when the margin of error is 10 times that is again...deliberate bald faced lying and propagandizing...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

mamooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > yes climate changes and we really don't know climate history at all. For example was the Little Ice Age regional or not.
> ...



More lies from the hairball....the fingerprint of the little ice age, as well as the  warm holocene optimum, the minoan warm period...the roman warm period and the medieval warm period all show up in both the greenland ice core data and the vostok ice core data...interesting that a regional effect would show up in such far flung locations.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

mamooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > can the liar tell us what region????????
> ...




So why does it show up in the vostok ice core data?


----------



## gipper (Dec 16, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
> 2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists  predicted
> 3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
> 4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
> ...


It is patently obvious that warmers do not require proof of AGW, to believe.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So why does it show up in the vostok ice core data?



what is it????


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So why does it show up in the vostok ice core data?
> ...



The cooling signature of the little ice age that the hairball claimed was regional to the north atlantic.  The antarctic is quite a distance away for a fingerprint of an event that was restricted to the north atlantic don't you think?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...





SSDD said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



interesting point; so how do the scientists explain it way?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



they don't...they ignore it since it doesn't support the false claim that events like the minoan warm period...the roman warm period...the medieval warm period and the little ice age were regional in nature.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Law Dome ice core data seems to fit perfectly with AGW??


----------



## Crick (Dec 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.
> ...



You've been pointed at THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers presenting evidence of AGW. You simply lie and continue to claim they don't exist.  You're comments are absolutely worthless.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> You've been pointed at THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers presenting evidence of AGW.



sure but 
1) all scientists don't agree despite 1000's of papers
2)  the left throws out all who disagree so what is real value of papers?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
> 2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists  predicted
> 3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
> 4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
> ...


 8th point added and its a good one!!!


1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists  predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture  who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly  destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must  ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.



8) Most so called scientists are leftists in the university monoculture who throw out scientists who disagree with them so what value does their "science" really have?


----------



## Crick (Dec 16, 2016)

I haven't read anything but the OP in this thread, so if others have already taken the opportunity to shred you a new one, I may be duplicating their effort.  Mea culpa, mea culpa



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,




What the fuck does that mean?  The Hockey Stick was not a prediction.  It was accurate and the trend still resembles a hockey stick.



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists  predicted



AGW began with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1760.  Radiative forcing from CO2 since that time has increased steadily with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.



Bullshit.  The rate of temperature increase since 1965 has been 0.23F/decade.  It is blazingly different than the backdrop changes.









EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it



Are you ignorant or do you choose to lie?
From Munich RE





NOAA















EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.



There has been no hiatus.  Global temperatures have continued to rise, setting nonstop records for the last several years.







EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture  who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW



Ignorant bullshit.



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly  destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must  ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.



Ignorant bullshit



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Can anyone help me with any more?



Yes.  Get a fucking education.  Read objective science vice ignorant right-wing blogs.



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 8th point added and its a good one!!!


No, it's not



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 8) Most so called scientists are leftists in the university monoculture who throw out scientists who disagree with them so what value does their "science" really have?



Ignorant bullshit


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> What the fuck does that mean?  The Hockey Stick was not a prediction.  It was accurate and the trend still resembles a hockey stick.
> t



*Old View (July 2006):*

Jim Hanson:
“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” he wrote in his July 2006 review of Al Gore’s book/movie, _An Inconvenient Truth_. “We have reached a critical tipping point,” he assured readers, adding “it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.”

so now we know he was wrong. We're past ten years, he said we had less than 10, we have not altered trajectory, and everything is fine, there have been no undesirable consequences, let alone significant ones that would justify changing the world's economy and starving a billion people to death.

Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
'On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure, and IPCC’s 1990 statement about the realistic nature of these projections was simply wrong.' (Pat Michaels)

*James Hansen's climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong ...*
https://wattsupwiththat.com/.../*james*-*hansens*-climate-*forecast*-of-1988-a-whopping-1...
Jun 15, 2012 - James Hansen's climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong .... It's actually been cooling since 1998, so that means it's infinite times ...

n 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist and author Rob Reiss how the “greenhouse effect” would affect the neighborhood outside his window within 20 years (by 2008). “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water,” Hansen claimed. “And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.... There will be more police cars … [since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” In 1986, Hansen also predicted in congressional testimony that the Earth would be some two degrees warmer within 20 years. In recent years, after the anticipated warming failed to materialize, alarmists have cooled on predicting such a dramatic jump in temperature over such a short period of time.

Separately, another prominent alarmist, Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as “chief scientist” for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” The situation would get so bad that “Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

When confronted on his failed predictions, Oppenheimer, who also served as former Vice President Al Gore’s advisor,


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.




Bullshit.  /QUOTE]
The average temperature in 2013 was 14.6 °C (58.3 °F), which is *0.6 °C* (*1.1 °F*) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen *about 0.8 °C* (*1.4 °F*) since 1880, according to the latest (January 2014) analysis from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).Mar 10, 2016


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2016)

Are you ignorant or do you choose to lie?
From Munich RE

[/QUOTE]

so much for the science of global  warming!!!!

Hurricanes are likewise used as an example of the “ever worse” trope. If we look at the U.S., where we have the best statistics, damage costs from hurricanes are increasing—but only because there are more people, with more-expensive prop-erty, living near coastlines. If we adjust for popu-lation and wealth, hurricane damage during the period 1900-2013 decreased slightly

Warren Buffett: Up to now, climate change has not produced more frequent nor more costly hurricanes nor other weather-related events covered by insurance. As a consequence, U.S. super-cat rates have fallen steadily in recent years, which is why we have backed away from that business. *If super-cats become costlier and more frequent, the likely – though far from certain – effect on Berkshire’s insurance business would be to make it larger and more profitable*.

*10 Things We Know About Accumulated Cyclone Energy*
1. There is no evidence of a systematic increasing or decreasing trend in ACE for the years 1970-2012.

2. There is a cyclical variation in the ACE of 6 and 12 months' length.

3. The contribution of ACE from the Eastern and Western Pacific is approximately 56% of the total ACE.

4. The contribution of ACE from the Atlantic Ocean is approximately 13% of the total ACE.

5. The minimum and maximum values of ACE per month are respectively 1.8 and 266.4.

6. The average value of ACE per month is 61.2.

7. The minimum and maximum values of ACE per year are respectively 416.2 and 1145.0.

8. The average value of the ACE per year is 730.5.

9. The total of ACE for 2012 through September is 540.8.

10. There is a correlation of ACE between some oceans.
“By and large, the projected changes will be pretty small compared to natural variability so may not be detectable for a long time,” Knappenberger said. “Recent trends, in whatever direction, are dominated by natural variability and thus very likely do not display a detectable global warming signal.”

Other scientists note just how small the projected changes in hurricanes and other storms will be. Dr. Christopher Landsea, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), argued global warming can make it harder for storms to intensify.



Read more: The Real ‘Consensus’: Global Warming Causes FEWER Hurricanes


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Ignorant bullshit.



can the  silly liberal say why its BS or is it more girly emotional liberal feelings. Time to go to your safe space?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 16, 2016)

mamooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > yes climate changes and we really don't know climate history at all. For example was the Little Ice Age regional or not.
> ...



LOL

A hysterical load of crap..

The LIA was most certainly a global event and is in paleo records in both plant life and geological records..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> You've been pointed at THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers presenting evidence of AGW. You simply lie and continue to claim they don't exist.  You're comments are absolutely worthless.



And I haven't seen a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...and since neither you, nor anyone else seems to be able to find any, and haven't for decades, one can only assume that it isn't there....evidence of a changing climate is not evidence that mankind is changing it...


If any actual evidence existed, one would not be able to avoid it rather than asking fruitlessly for decades for it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Law Dome ice core data seems to fit perfectly with AGW??




Really?  How does this jibe perfectly with AGW?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The IPCC made their original assumptions in 1988. IN that work they gave estimates of warming which would occur. Ever since the original  4-6 deg C rise / doubling of CO2
> ...


You really are a fucking retard.  280 x 2 =560 or one doubling. Our current value is 408 and should be at least 62% of one doubling or 3-4 deg C by the IPCC assessment projections... We are at less than 0.8 deg C rise and consistent with orbital change and solar change.. values..  Where is your attributable to CO2 warming?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 17, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> You really are a fucking retard.  280 x 2 =560 or one doubling.



But the current level is 400.

And you said the doubling had already happened. 

"Ever since the original 4-6 deg C rise / doubling of CO2"

See? That's you saying it had already happened.

Instead of digging deeper into the stupid liar hole, just admit you screwed up. Lying ever bigger and crying at me isn't going to make your screwup go away.


----------



## ding (Dec 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago, and had been gradually cooling since. It should have kept on slowly cooling into the next ice age. That's how the natural cycle was working. Instead, things totally reversed and switched to fast warming. Being that's the exact opposite of the natural cycle, it's clearly not the natural cycle.



What?  Are you smoking crack?  No.  That's not how the natural cycle was working.  Can you show me why you believe that was how the natural cycle was working that way?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You really are a fucking retard.  280 x 2 =560 or one doubling.
> ...



I see your ability to think critically escapes you as does basic reasoning skills do..


----------



## Crick (Dec 17, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What the fuck does that mean?  The Hockey Stick was not a prediction.  It was accurate and the trend still resembles a hockey stick.
> ...



I repeat, the MBH 98  hockey stick was not a prediction. Neither Hansen nor Oppenheimer had any involvement in it.  Hansen made model projections in 1980 that are still amazingly accurate and infinitely more accurate than ANY GCM made that does not assume AGW is taking place.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> I repeat, the MBH 98  hockey stick was not a* prediction*. Neither Hansen nor Oppenheimer had any involvement in it.  Hansen made model projections in 1980 that are still amazingly accurate and infinitely more accurate than ANY GCM made that does not assume AGW is taking place.



AGW is more goofy religion than science:

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen *predicted*."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...








Of course, it gets better - using all the data in ddjtemp.txt, this is what is shown.


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You've been pointed at THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers presenting evidence of AGW.
> ...




Better than 97% of climate scientists concur that human GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary cause of the warming observed over the previous 150 years.  Your comment about "the left" is specious and completely unsubstantiated.


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I repeat, the MBH 98  hockey stick was not a* prediction*. Neither Hansen nor Oppenheimer had any involvement in it.  Hansen made model projections in 1980 that are still amazingly accurate and infinitely more accurate than ANY GCM made that does not assume AGW is taking place.
> ...



Of what model are you speaking? And why are you attempting to equate "global temperature" with "ground-based temperature"?

These?




And do you have a model from 1988 that performed better?  Do you have ANY model that does not assume AGW that bears even the slightest resemblance to reality?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Better than 97% of climate scientists concur that human GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary cause of the warming observed over the previous 150 years.  Your comment about "the left" is specious and completely unsubstantiated.



You use that bit of bullshit all you can for the next few weeks....that will also be one of the questions that pops up in the coming public debate between warmers and skeptics...among practitioners of the soft science of climate science, I suppose there is a consensus...but among the practitioners of the hard sciences, those who believe that our CO2 is the primary cause of warming are in a stark minority...and as we all know...the only reason there is a consensus among the practitioners of the soft science is money...


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2016)

Since the level of consensus is going to do nothing but approach 100% in some sort of asymptotic fashion, I will continue to use it without concern. Your asshole getting in to the White House does not change reality, fool.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Since the level of consensus is going to do nothing but approach 100% in some sort of asymptotic fashion, I will continue to use it without concern. Your asshole getting in to the White House does not change reality, fool.




I will be sure to bookmark this post to remind you in a little while how wrong you are yet again...

Reality is that AGW is a scam and a hoax...that reality won't change, but it will become common public knowledge.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> .
> 
> Reality is that AGW is a scam and a hoax..



isn't that why they switched from AGW to Climate Change only to then discover that ACE (accumulated cyclonic energy) was going down not up?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


, 

is anything going to look different down there in 20( 2021) years?” He (Hanson) looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, *“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. *And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Better than 97% of climate scientists concur



1) if its only 97% then it is not science
2) how can it be science if they kick out the scientists who disagree ?
3) if its science why have the predictions been so far off?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Your comment about "the left" is specious and completely unsubstantiated.


now thats a great joke given that most climate scientists work in leftist university mono cultures that depend on the leftist federal govt for grant money and have always used any conceivable  excuse to concentrate power in Washington whether to control climate or the economy.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 20, 2016)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago, and had been gradually cooling since. It should have kept on slowly cooling into the next ice age. That's how the natural cycle was working. Instead, things totally reversed and switched to fast warming. Being that's the exact opposite of the natural cycle, it's clearly not the natural cycle.
> ...



Because you say so?

As is usual, I notice the complete lack of evidence to support the loopy claim you made.



> Can you show me why you believe that was how the natural cycle was working that way?



I believe it because the data shows it.

Look at the sawtooth pattern of your own graph. Fast warmup, slow cooldown.

Look at the holocen temps graph. The fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. We were in the slow cooldown phase.  That is, until it suddenly completely reversed.






If you're not familiar with basic facts such as this, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


You like to play with scales, don't you.  You need a better perspective. Of course, if we assume that you are right - that temperatures were going to fall -  then we must also assume that we would have descended into another ice age, lol.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 20, 2016)

ding said:


> [You like to play with scales, don't you.  You need a better perspective.



Thanks for that, as it confirms my point further. The pattern is clearly quick up, slow down.

You're not going to suddenly have trouble reading a graph again, are you?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> .  That is, until it suddenly completely reversed.
> .



you mean because of the hiatus? that occured when temperature should have been flying upward off the hockey stick blade?


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > [You like to play with scales, don't you.  You need a better perspective.
> ...


You are literally giving credit to AGW averting another ice age, lol.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > [You like to play with scales, don't you.  You need a better perspective.
> ...



how do they know temperature rise of 1/100th degree per year is not caused by heat islands and heat from burning billions of barrels of  oil and gas??


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2016)

Because they tested those hypotheses and they failed.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Because they tested those hypotheses and they failed.




Where is the tropospheric hot spot predicted by the AGW hypothesis?...that's right...it never showed up...the AGW hypothesis failed as well...in science...real science, how many failures does a hypothesis get?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 20, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
> 2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists  predicted
> 3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
> 4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
> ...


*Unabomber Cult*

They are retrograde misfits who want to drag society down into the anti-growth pit where only they belong.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 20, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, being temperatures have steadily increased the whole time.
> ...


*Wallowing in the Slimepit of Scenarios*


Hanson gets a sick pleasure out of imagining Gloom and Doom.  He doesn't need evidence, he needs that depressed masochistic emotion.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Because they tested those hypotheses and they failed.



so you mean heat islands and burning billions of barrels of oil does not raise temperatures 1/100 of a degree a year? Seems impossible!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Again, totally wrong, being temperature has increased steadily, and is now actually warmer than model predictions.
> 
> .



Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

“I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like ‘most warming since the 1950s is human caused’ or ‘97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming’, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading,” Spencer wrote on his blog.



Read more: Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



You, A grown up?  

What kills me is how you fools use the resolution of a graph to push your lies.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 20, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.”



Being that he's laughably wrong, who cares? Your appeal to authority fails because your authority is contradicted by the data. Spencer uses his own botched UAH temperature model, which is a wild outlier on the cold side. The surface data disagrees with it, the weather balloon data disagrees with it, and the RSS satellite model disagrees with it. Nobody except desperate deniers use the bad UAH model.

Again, here's how the actual models vs. reality stacks up, without the denier fraud and fudging. Current measured temperatures are a bit _warmer_ than what the models predicted. And all the scientists know that, along with all the informed people, which means they'll laugh at denier fables.

moyhu: Current global temps compared with CMIP 5






Let me also mention my amusement about deniers raving about models, and then relying solely on UAH ... which is a model. In contrast, the surface data and balloon measurements are not models. Deniers are denying the direct data, and accepting only a flawed model.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 20, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> so you mean heat islands and burning billions of barrels of oil does not raise temperatures 1/100 of a degree a year? Seems impossible!!



Do the math. Compared to the sunlight hitting the earth, the heat produced by burning stuff is nothing.

Heat islands have an effect ... inside the heat island. Outside it, Nada. And it's warming like hell everywhere, not just in urban areas.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 20, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
> 2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists  predicted
> 3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
> 4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
> ...



I got one more for you- it's fraudulent phony science designed to get the delicate snowflakes who can't think objectively to cry about fossil fuels.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Where is the tropospheric hot spot predicted by the AGW hypothesis?.



Well-documented. It's an example of yet another successful prediction. You just lie about it, in the same way you lie about everything.

Climate science has gotten everything right for over 30 years running now. That's why climate science has such credibility around the world.

In contrast, the denier religion has done a constant face plant into a cow patty for those 30 years. That's why the world correctly defines denialism as cult pseudoscience.

If you want the same credibility as climate science, you need to stop failing so hard, and develop the same record of success. Just whining about how everyone is laughing at you will not convince the world to assign you credibility just out of pity.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 20, 2016)

ding said:


> You are literally giving credit to AGW averting another ice age, lol.



You're failing hard at basic logic again.

The next ice age would have been in 20,000 - 50,000 years. That means it's really damn stupid to roast the planet now to avert it. You're like a fool saying he has to run his furnace full blast in July because winter will eventually be coming.


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You are literally giving credit to AGW averting another ice age, lol.
> ...


Then you should not be expecting our temperature to gently fall.  The only fool here is you.  You cannot have a rational discussion on this subject.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 20, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The best case against AGW is to simply ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...I have been asking for damn near two decades now and am still waiting of the first bit of actual evidence to be presented...it doesn't exist.
> ...



Only problem with your fantasy scenario is unless you are willing to do research, you don't hear about the 1000's of scientist who don't buy the phony AGW scenario. Do some research and you'll be a skeptic....assuming you're not a complete idiot.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Your synthetic temperature curve is bullshit.  Just look at all of the oscillations.  Natural variation is the norm.


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The people in your survey work for the oil industry.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



And the people in the pro AGW camp get paid for producing papers that say fossil fuels are bad, so who you gonna believe?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 20, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> And the people in the pro AGW camp get paid for producing papers that say fossil fuels are bad, so who you gonna believe?



No, they don't. Why did you think you could pass off such a stupid lie?

Oh, that's right. You'd lie for money yourself, so you assume everyone acts that way. The concept that people can be honest simply never occured to you, being it's so utterly foreign to your way of life.

Try to understand that not everyone is as corrupt as you and your heroes, eh? On both a moral and intellectual level, you're not worthy to sniff the jocks of the people you slur.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 20, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> isn't that why they switched from AGW to Climate Change



The Bush admin did that. Are you claiming they're in on it?



> only to then discover that ACE (accumulated cyclonic energy) was going down not up?



And ... more denier bunk science. It never ends.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 20, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Only problem with your fantasy scenario is unless you are willing to do research, you don't hear about the 1000's of scientist who don't buy the phony AGW scenario. Do some research and you'll be a skeptic....assuming you're not a complete idiot.
> Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis



Ah, that survey of Alberta tar sands petroleum engineers. No bias there.

Why are you pretending those people are "scientists"? They all know jack about climate. I am much, much better informed than they are. The fact that your side resorts to such dishonest propaganda should be a warning sign.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Only problem with your fantasy scenario is unless you are willing to do research, you don't hear about the 1000's of scientist who don't buy the phony AGW scenario. Do some research and you'll be a skeptic....assuming you're not a complete idiot.
> ...


Speaking of dishonest propaganda and bias....  Your biased climate scientists model's are flat out wrong.

Near-term global surface temperature projections in IPCC AR5 | Climate Lab Book







Methane mendacity – and madness








Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) « Roy Spencer, PhD






Fig. 1. Projected warming (assumed here to occur by 2100) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the IPCC climate models versus from various observational indicators.








Fig. 2. Frequency histogram of total (reflected solar plus emitted infrared)feedback parameters computed from all possible 5 year periods in transient forcing experiments in 18 climate models tracked by the IPCC, versus the same calculation from Aqua CERES and NOAA-15 AMSU channel 5 satellite data.

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD






Why the IPCC climate model is wrong

*Why the IPCC climate model is wrong*
This important lecture is by Roy Spencer who is part of the team that manages the various NASA satellites that monitor the earths climate, clouds, precipitation and other related atmospheric conditions. These satellites have only been monitoring temperature since 1979 and as Roy Spencer explains recently launched new satellites are beginning to provide significantly more data than previously. This means that for the first time there is actual data about many aspects of the earths atmosphere and weather which previously had only been estimated.

The reason this all matters is because the global warming scare is based on what various computer models of the earths climate say will happen if CO2 adds some extra heating to the climate system. Everyone accepts that on its own the CO2 will only add a small amount of heating over the next century even if there are no controls or reductions in emissions. The computer models say that this little bit of heating will trigger various other mechanisms that will push temperatures much higher. They say that there is some sort of dangerous tipping point which we are fast approaching.

This lecture shows that the latest data has shown these models to be wrong. As Roy Spencer explains even the modellers accept the new data and accept that the previous models are wrong. The new data seems to indicate that the feedback mechanism in the climate system actual act to reduce the warming effect of the CO2.

One final point. This lecture shows just how important the cloud-precipitation system is in controlling the earths weather and climate systems. This directly relates to the recent work of Professor Svensmark on a possible climate driver based on the cosmic ray effects on cloud formation. This theory is explained and explored here “A new solar theory of climate “, here ” Cosmic Rays and Climate” and here “Svensmark’s new solar theory of climate change ”

The chart below compares the model predicted change of outgoing radiation to the actual satellite measured change of outgoing radiation, both in response to changing sea surface temperatures.

*Satellite Observed vs Predicted Outgoing Radiation*





The red lines show the eleven climate models prediction of decreasing outgoing radiation as temperatures rise.

The green line in the middle of the chart shows the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Satellite (ERBE) observed response. It shows that more outgoing radiation escapes to space as temperatures rise, rather than being trapped as the UN computer modellers believe. CO2 emissions do not trap much heat and do not cause significant global warming

Friends of Science |

The models predict a distinctive pattern of warming - a hot spot of enhanced warming in the upper troposphere over the tropics, shown as the large red spot in the diagram below. Radiosonde data from weather balloons show no such "hot spot" pattern. If it was there we would have easily detected it.

*Model Predicted Warming*






*Actual Radiosonde Measured Warming*






The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that most of the global temperature change cannot be attributed to increasing CO2 concentrations.

The models fail because they assume both water vapour and clouds strongly increase the CO2 induced temperature changes, whereas recent research shows both water vapour and clouds greatly reduce the temperature changes.

Friends of Science |


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Well-documented. It's an example of yet another successful prediction. You just lie about it, in the same way you lie about everything.



While I suspect you are deliberately lying...it wouldn't surprise me in the least that you would actually believe that the non existent tropospheric hot spot is well documented...


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2016)

Tropospheric Hot Spot Predicted In Global Warming Models Detected




And, for the hundredth time, a tropospheric hot spot is produced by ANY form of warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 21, 2016)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


As stated before, every time I see you use this graph in order to lie, I will post the original article. Where NASA scientists come to a far different conclusion than you do. 

Global Warming : Feature Articles

*How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?*
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.









Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring _much more rapidly_ than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.





Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

*Note that I also post a link so anyone can verifiy that is a credible site. You do not because you know that if you do they will realize that you are pushing bullshit.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.”
> ...


And, bad as it is, it still shows a strong warmng. That is why I post it. Dr. Spencer pushes the limit on avoiding acknowledging the warming, but he won't go over the limit. You see, he lost all kinds of credibility when he was berating the other scientists when their graphs disagreed with his. Then they found that he had reversed a plus sign, and that when that was corrected, his graphs were pretty much in line with the rest. Kind of an amatureish 'mistake' for a Phd scientist.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 21, 2016)

It is now common knowledge that the climate models are consistently wrong.......it is a change in the dynamic from 10 years ago when the public didn't know that global warming projections were NOT based upon the data ( and back then, people didn't know how much the #'s were being rigged by NASA and the IPCC ). The public also have concluded that all of these scary red graphs/maps are displaying .5 degree's.........

It all adds up to nobody caring about the science in 2016.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Tropospheric Hot Spot Predicted In Global Warming Models Detected
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Compare the axis scales.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > And the people in the pro AGW camp get paid for producing papers that say fossil fuels are bad, so who you gonna believe?
> ...



When my grand kids ask me "grandpa, did you believe that New York City was going to be underwater, did you know anyone who did, were you scared?"  I can be honest and say of course not, but I did know a lot of people who believed it, and I just laughed at them.  Are you going to lie when you get asked that question, or are you going to chuckle and admit you were duped like a stupid micro-brained sissy bitch? I'm guessing you'll lie, because I sense you have very little character.


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2016)

A tropospheric hot spot is produced by any form or warming.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> A tropospheric hot spot is produced by any form or warming.




Oh Gawd........."tropospheric hot spot"

s0n.......that argument is over 15 years old. Nobody gives it any credence anymore except the hard core OCD's.

C'mon.........its 2016!

Seriously dude........you and your pals are stuck in the past......need to hit the rest button, don't you think? When you do the same thing over and over and over and over and the landscape stays static, Id say its time to come up with a Plan B...........don't you think?

IDK....unless you can show us where you guys are winning? Its ALL about who's winning, not the science.

Links please................


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 21, 2016)

Hey Crick s0n...........in the holiday spirit, just trying to be charitable here.........best start to mentally prepare yourself.

The entire dynamic of climate change as we have known it is about to change >>

Obsolete Climate Science On CO2


Id find some new hobbies s0n......and Im not even kidding. The religion is about to get whacked over the head with a baseball bat like never before!!!


----------



## polarbear (Dec 21, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey Crick s0n...........in the holiday spirit, just trying to be charitable here.........best start to mentally prepare yourself.
> 
> The entire dynamic of climate change as we have known it is about to change >>
> 
> ...


Every time I look into the environment section the entire right hand column is filled with:
Crick Today at 5:53 AM
Crick Today at 6:12 AM
from top to bottom...talk about being obsessive
synonyms:all-consuming, consuming, compulsive, controlling, obsessional, fanatic, fanatical, neurotic, excessive, overkeen, besetting, tormenting, inescapable, pathological
Who the hell else would start long before the sun comes up ranting about AGW and keep it up every day all day long.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Tropospheric Hot Spot Predicted In Global Warming Models Detected
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your article states clearly that the hot spot was fabricated....a million radiosondes, and state of the art satellites couldn't find it, but a couple of programmers and a computer model create it in short order...like all the other claims of AGW....


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2016)

Your record of lying at every opportunity stands untarnished.

The third paragraph in the linked article:

_The discovery was made by *extending an existing data record* and removing artifacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed* real changes in temperature* as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected. *No climate models were used* in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Iterative Universal Kriging._


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Your record of lying at every opportunity stands untarnished.
> 
> The third paragraph in the linked article:
> 
> _The discovery was made by *extending an existing data record* and removing artifacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed* real changes in temperature* as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected. *No climate models were used* in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Iterative Universal Kriging._



So your claim is that they found an upper tropospheric hot spot that couldn't be detected by a million radiosondes and satellites that are looking at the upper troposphere with ground instruments?

It gets better all the time.....hold on while I make some popcorn...I always like pop corn at story time....tell me about how these ground based instruments found the upper tropospheric hot spot predicted by the AGW hypothesis when a million radiosondes and satellites couldn't find it.

I like some graphics with my story so I will provide some...The bottom of the predicted tropospheric hot spot is 8 kilometers straight up....I am especially interested in learning how ground based thermometers detected it...and what station moves of a few miles at most had to do with helping them find it...






You will believe absolutely anything so long as it supports your fantasy won't you...you should sue whoever failed so abjectly in teaching you any critical thinking skills.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 21, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> When my grand kids ask me "grandpa, did you believe that New York City was going to be underwater, did you know anyone who did, were you scared?"



If you're honest, you'll tell them nobody made such a prediction, and that the paid professional liars of the denier cult just openly lied about it, like they lie about every single thing. However, I think you strike everyone as the kind of person who would lie to his grandkids' faces.

Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway

Hansen's prediction was for 40 years after a doubling of CO2. Given that CO2 hasn't doubled yet, that 40 year countdown hasn't even started yet, so it's staggeringly dishonest for your masters to have spoonfed you the lie about how a prediction was made that NYC would be flooded now. Nobody made such a prediction, your masters know it, and yet they choose to deliberately lie about it. And you proudly choose to smooch the keisters of such openly dishonest people.



> I can be honest and say of course not, but I did know a lot of people who believed it, and I just laughed at them.  Are you going to lie when you get asked that question, or are you going to chuckle and admit you were duped like a stupid micro-brained sissy bitch? I'm guessing you'll lie, because I sense you have very little character.



You could have used your rank ignorance as an excuse for spreading lies before. You can't now. You know your cult lied, and now you have a choice. You can show courage, and admit your were misled by professional liars. Or, you have another one of those limp-wristed hissyfits that deniers are so famous for.

I highly suspect you'll go the latter route. Admitting you screwed up would require integrity, and all people who possess integrity look upon the denier cult with disgust. Criticizing your cult masters in any way is absolutely forbidden in your cult. It would take courage to stand up to your cult, and that's a quality deniers don't possess.

So, proceed with your feeble squirming. Invoke the conspiracy theory about how all facts that contradicts your liars' cult are part of a liberal plot. You know you want to, and it's not like you have any other options.


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Your record of lying at every opportunity stands untarnished.
> ...




Despite being caught red-handed, you fail to admit that you lied (or that you erred).  When I meet someone who lies as often as do you, their failure to exhibit "critical thinking skills" becomes almost irrelevant.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


*B Students Jealous of A Students*

And the Eco-Eunuchs are bitter and vindictive because their grades weren't high enough to get hired by any industry.  They're followers, not leaders, and shouldn't call themselves scientists any more than sportswriters call themselves athletes.  All they ever did in school was accurately parrot what their infallible-father-figure professors told them; they were never capable of thinking for themselves.  Only a childish mind believes in the primitive superstitions that nature is supernatural and that industrial development is a sacrilege.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 21, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...




Interesting...........I have always speculated that this is the case. You see this in many industries.........

These "climate scientists" truly are like the Triple A league of the scientific community and you've seen over the past two decades, real scientists are pissed because they have spent their lives 100% embracing the scientific method that these climate scientists scoff at.

ghey


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2016)

Crick said:


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



Still waiting for you to explain how ground based thermometers were used to detect an upper tropospheric hot spot that is 8 KM up....this has to be at least as good as the claim that it was detected via the wind when thermometers that were actually 8KM up missed it...so lets hear it.....how did they do it.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 21, 2016)

I was just in the store, and saw an infrared thermometer for sale.

I tried it out. It worked very well. I pointed it at the cold window, it read a colder temp. According to SSDD's hilariously stupid ravings, that shouldn't have been possible, because it couldn't have read the IR from a colder object.

So, cheap consumer electronics again show how SSDD is a gibbering cult retard.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> I was just in the store, and saw an infrared thermometer for sale.
> 
> I tried it out. It worked very well. I pointed it at the cold window, it read a colder temp. According to SSDD's hilariously stupid ravings, that shouldn't have been possible, because it couldn't have read the IR from a colder object.
> 
> So, cheap consumer electronics again show how SSDD is a gibbering cult retard.



Idiot...I never said that they didn't work...hell I have one myself that is damned accurate...but it isn't measuring IR...it is measuring the amount and rate of temperature change of an internal thermopile behind that lens just above the laser pointer...

Do you never tire of being wrong?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 21, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> And the Eco-Eunuchs are bitter and vindictive because their grades weren't high enough to get hired by any industry.



Sage, let me give you a helpful hint. In order to pull of the condescending act, you have to be smart. That's why I can do it.  You can't, because you're a paste-eating cult parrot.

Now, I'll discuss some science with you, because that's the sure way to make you turn tail and run.

Climate science has so much credibility, top-of-the-world credibility, because it's been so successful with all of its predictions for over 30 years now.

Your denier cult, OTOH, has failed completely with every prediction over that time. That's why you have zero credibility.

You can't gain credibility in science by whining and tossing insults, which seems to be your strategy. You have to come up with a theory, make predictions based on that theory, and see them come true.

So, what is your theory of denialism, and what predictions about the future does it make? Show some sac, take a stand, and do some actual science.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Idiot...I never said that they didn't work...hell I have one myself that is damned accurate...but it isn't measuring IR...it is measuring the amount and rate of temperature change of an internal thermopile behind that lens just above the laser pointer..



As is usual with you, that makes zero sense.

How is the thermopile supposed to change temperature if it doesn't absorb the IR from the cold surface?

You're just one seriously stupid human being.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot...I never said that they didn't work...hell I have one myself that is damned accurate...but it isn't measuring IR...it is measuring the amount and rate of temperature change of an internal thermopile behind that lens just above the laser pointer..
> ...



You really are stupid aren't you?....when the lens in front of the thermometer focuses on a cooler object, the thermopile starts cooling off....energy moves from warm to cool and the amount and rate of change of the thermopile is run through a calculation and a temperature is derived...


----------



## mamooth (Dec 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You really are stupid aren't you?....when the lens in front of the thermometer focuses on a cooler object, the thermopile starts cooling off....energy moves from warm to cool and the amount and rate of change of the thermopile is run through a calculation and a temperature is derived...



No, not a chance, given the instantaneous change in the output. Objects simply don't radiate away that quickly. You're just delusional.

Also, by your kook theory, the thermopile should be incapable of measuring hotter temps. It couldn't radiate away, regardless of whether it was 1C or 100C warmer, so it would see any warmer temp as "hot", and be unable to narrow it down any more than that.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> No, not a chance, given the instantaneous change in the output. Objects simply don't radiate away that quickly. You're just delusional.



How long do you think it takes to for a thermopile to decrease by 5 or 6 hundredths of a degree?...



mamooth said:


> Also, by your kook theory, the thermopile should be incapable of measuring hotter temps. It couldn't radiate away,



The stupidity just never stops with you does it...if it is pointing at a warmer object, a thinking person would figure out that the temperature of the thermopile would be increasing....the rate of change from a particular temperature is what the internal computer uses to calculate temperature...not absolute temperature...


----------



## mamooth (Dec 21, 2016)

You poor thing. You just get more and more confused.

So, now tell us how the more complicated systems display images of a cold sky.

Don't just wave your hands around about a "model" or "algorithm". Tell us, in detail, how the "model" manages to display pixel-accurate pictures of cold sky and cold clouds, all based on your "a thermocouple cools down by radiation" kookery.

This is funny, watching you tie yourself up in knots.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Tropospheric Hot Spot Predicted In Global Warming Models Detected
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sherwood used ground based temperature measurements to find heat at 8,000 feet...

Funny as hell....


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Good Lord, you are a dumbass.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2016)

Some dumbasses like make a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles. My answer to that is that it is not possible to make that comparison because we have many data points for the last 50 years but very few for the previous interglacial cycles.

For the red line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 6,957 years from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.3C. Dumbasses don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 6,957 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only 2 data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots will continue to argue that the slope from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the blue line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 7,950 years from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 years ago where the temperature rose by 12.4C. Dumbasses don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 7,950 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if that slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots will continue to argue that the slope from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 just had to be constant at 0.002 C/yr.

For the orange line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots will continue to argue that the slope from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the black line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 11,925 years from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 11,925 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots will continue to argue that the slope from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the yellow line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.1C. Dumbasses don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots will continue to argue that the slope from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> A tropospheric hot spot is produced by any form or warming.


The hot spots don't exist.  They changed the freaking scales, moron.  If they used the same scales there wouldn't be any reddish colors.  They would all be yellow.  Good Lord, how stupid are you?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 21, 2016)

ding said:


> Some dumbasses like make a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles. My answer to that is that it is not possible to make that comparison because we have many data points for the last 50 years but very few for the previous interglacial cycles



"You can't prove it didn't happen, so therefore it did!" 

That logical fallacy has been used before by desperate deniers. It's some seriously bad science. But then, since all the data contradicts you, that kind of awful logic is all you've got.

Some more of your blunders:

Trying to get a rate of change off a couple pixels width, a dreadful misunderstanding of the limitations of a compressed scale. In general, you fail at scale reading on every graph. You're simply graph-illiterate. I've never seen someone so incapable of reading a graph as you are.

Hilarious misuse of significant figures to claim a phony amount of certainty, something unforgivable in a supposed engineer.

Telling us what our arguments are, when you fail completely to understand them.

Being unable to present data coherently. Those who understand a topic can explain it clearly. You can't. Your rant, ramble and rave for paragraphs, and never quite get to any coherent point.

Conclusion:
Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, along with narcissism, a classic case of Engineer's Arrogance Syndrome. You're too stupid to understand how stupid you are in this field. That wouldn't be such a serious problem if you were willing to learn, but you're not. Instead of thanking the smarter people for taking the time out to educate you on your failures, you simply disbelieve that you could be wrong, and you react with rage instead, and then repeat the same failures over and over.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 21, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



Will you kindly keep your sane and rational thoughts to yourself. Some people are looking for a cause, and it makes them feel really good that they think they are saving the polar bears. You seem to be suggesting that science should prevail over emotions and that is unsettling to those who find math and science difficult. Please restrict future post to poetry and other non-threatening things.


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2016)

Oil industry employees, termed "geo-scientists" or "geo-engineers" by pro-denier survey efforts have always had a lower acceptance of the IPCC consensus than any other group.  The Institute of Petroleum Engineering was the last major organization to reject AGW.  They finally accepted it 7 or 8 years ago, but they were a lone holdout for quite some time.  And, of course, there's no reason petroleum engineers or scientists should have any particular expertise regarding climate science, the greenhouse effect or global warming.

Your survey isn't worth shit.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 22, 2016)

ding..........loving the dominance in these threads. Making the k00ks look silly.

Years ago, I dropped out of the science debate stuff with these fools.....total waste of time. In most cases, its a total brainwash dynamic coupled with an OCD disorder. In my field of work, Ive spent 30 years dealing with OCD folks.....even medication is rarely effective. These people will go to their boxes obsessed with climate change. For the others, its just part of the agenda. Ive just taken to making fun of these people.........all I do is win in this forum and expose interested parties in the hopelessness of this climate change stuff and back it up with ease.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Some dumbasses like make a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles. My answer to that is that it is not possible to make that comparison because we have many data points for the last 50 years but very few for the previous interglacial cycles
> ...


You are dense.  It happens all of the time, dumbass.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 22, 2016)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...





He's not real bright......and if you notice over time, 98% of his stuff is his opinion!


----------



## mamooth (Dec 22, 2016)

ding said:


> You are dense.  It happens all of the time, dumbass.



So as usual, you ran away from your stupidity getting ripped to pieces, pretended it never happened, and then simply repeated the same hilariously stupid blunders yet another time.

You're a persistently gutless Bozo, I'll give you that. You're like one of these. Dreadfully easy to knock over, but then it just pops up again with the same stupid look on its face, so one quickly realizes the exercise is pointless.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You are dense.  It happens all of the time, dumbass.
> ...





s0n.....not for nothing but you're getting pwned. Every single one of your ghey posts screams "Im a snowflake and I will be heard because well...........I JUST WILL BE!!"

But please s0n..........how about some evidence your side is winning? Calling me a bozo doesn't quite cut it.............

Links please!!


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 22, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


*Revenge of the Nerds*

Those who can't make it on the outside escape into the academic echo-chamber, where the motto is "If it's weird, it's wise."  This refusal to face real life can only satisfy for so long.  Becoming miserable and depressed, they next escape through the fantasy of being superheroes saving the world from the productive scientists whose success so humiliated them.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You are dense.  It happens all of the time, dumbass.
> ...


No, I didn't. I presented the absurdity of your ridiculous position. There is nothing special about the current rate of change. Happens all the time.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 22, 2016)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*Global Igloo*

Since the snowflakes tend to huddle together in safe spaces, that will form glacial cryopiles that will counteract the effects of any global warming.  So we should keep them around, just to make sure.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 22, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


*Smoked by Smokey*

Timothy Treadwell was into bears too.  Was.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Dec 22, 2016)

*Ice-melting temperatures forecast for Arctic midwinter*
The Guardian-Dec 21, 2016
A large pool of meltwater over sea ice in the Beaufort Sea in July. Scientists say parts of the _Arctic_ will climb above water's freezing _temperature_ ...
_Arctic Temperatures_ Are Expected to Soar 30 Degrees Above Normal
TIME-3 hours ago
North Pole 27.5°C hotter than normal tomorrow as _Arctic_ ...
Highly Cited-Daily Mail-Dec 21, 2016
North Pole predicted to warm 50 degrees above normal Thursday
In-Depth-Chicago Tribune-Dec 21, 2016
North Pole to warm to near melting point this week: 50 degrees ...
Highly Cited-Mashable-Dec 20, 2016


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
> 2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists  predicted
> 3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
> 4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
> ...








What actually heats the Earth?  Answer UV radiation penetrates up to 500 meters into the oceans and over billions of years that has warmed the Earth.  All the Atmosphere does is retain that warmth (it doesn't, and can not add to that warmth).  Otherwise, when the Sun is absent, like at night, the surface temp would be over 200 below zero.  The theory of AGW is that after the UV radiation strikes the Earth it then radiates upward (as LONG WAVE INFRA RED) and then, upon striking atoms in the air, 50% of that Long Wave IR gets radiated back to the ground which then gets reheated.  

The problem with that is yes, the IR can warm rocks and dirt, but then very rapidly that warmth radiates away.  Think about nightime in the desert as an analogy.  What IR CAN'T do, is penetrate beyond a few microns into the oceans which is why the theory of AGW fails its first test.  The very mechanism that we KNOW warms the planet, it is physically impossible of accomplishing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> The very mechanism that we KNOW warms the planet [sun, greenhouse], it is physically impossible of accomplishing.



I have no idea whatsoever what this means. Care to explain?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> which is why the theory of AGW fails its first test.  .



what does it  fail??????????


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The very mechanism that we KNOW warms the planet [sun, greenhouse], it is physically impossible of accomplishing.
> ...







It's pretty clear.  Water is warmed by UV radiation penetrating to a depth of 500 meters.  Long wave IR (the very actor in the AGW "theory") can't penetrate even one millimeter into the water.  Thus it is not capable of warming the water.  Thus, the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do.  Ever.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do.  Ever.


sorry still lost. We know the sun warms the planet so how can it  not do that??


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do.  Ever.
> ...









OK.  I'll take this one step at a time.  

What warms the Earth?  

It is your turn to answer .......


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> What warms the Earth?
> ..



sun, thickening greenhouse


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> It's pretty clear.  Water is warmed by UV radiation penetrating to a depth of 500 meters.  Long wave IR (the very actor in the AGW "theory") can't penetrate even one millimeter into the water.  Thus it is not capable of warming the water.  Thus, the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do.  Ever.



Do you seriously believe the crap you type.  How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What warms the Earth?
> ...







Sun yes.  Greenhouse no.  The Earth is not a closed system which is a requirement for a greenhouse to work.  Why do I say the Earth is not a closed system?  Because it loses mass every year.  Thus it is not a closed system.  If the Earth ONLY gained mass then it could be claimed to be a closed system.  In other words it is a one way aggregate.  However, it is not.  Thus the greenhouse has no windows.  Thus it isn't a greenhouse.

*Earth Loses 50,000 Tonnes of Mass Every Year*


Earth Loses 50,000 Tonnes of Mass Every Year


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It's pretty clear.  Water is warmed by UV radiation penetrating to a depth of 500 meters.  Long wave IR (the very actor in the AGW "theory") can't penetrate even one millimeter into the water.  Thus it is not capable of warming the water.  Thus, the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do.  Ever.
> ...







I'm a geologist who fundamentally understands the functionality of this planet.  You are an internet hack who is only capable of posting discredited propaganda.  Come back when you can actually talk about science.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> Sun yes.  Greenhouse no.  r



so now you are changing subject and saying there is no greenhouse and so it cant be warming the planet?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> [
> 
> 
> I'm a geologist who fundamentally understands the functionality of this planet.  You are an internet hack who is only capable of posting discredited propaganda.  Come back when you can actually talk about science.



A geologists isn't a climate scientist. Two different things. A heart surgeon and and orthopaedic surgeon are both surgeons. You want an orthopaedic surgeon to operate on your heart?

Everybody on this board are hacks. Nobody has any background in climate science. None. However, there are plenty of published articles by reputable climate scientists. That's who I get my info from....not some message board...


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...







A geologist can teach ANY climatology class.  A climatologist can teach undergrad geology, but would be totally out of his depth in graduate level classes.  A geologist is orders of magnitude more versed in actual science than any climatologist.  Those are called facts.  Climatology is called an "inexact science".  Gelogy is an exact science.  The difference between the two is like at a track meet or a ice dancing competition.  The ice dancers (climatologists) blabber a lot, and come up with a story, and they argue amonst themselves till they figure out which dancer they like best.  

Geology on the other hand is who gets to the finish line first.  Our results are OBJECTIVE.  Climatology is SUBJECTIVE.  Learn the difference then get back to us.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> there are plenty of published articles by reputable climate scientists. .



but why believe them when they are from a leftist university monoculture that does does not allow dissent, is dependent on leftist govt money , will use any excuse to centralize govt and take our freedoms, and made absurd predictions 20 years ago that were little more than lies?


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...









I'm not changing the subject at all.  You claim that AGW exists.  You wanted a laymen to try and talk to you about it but I 'm a full fledged scientist and I am telling you that you can't have a greenhouse without intact glass panels.  Feel free to show me how you can.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2016)

UV might penetrate 500 meters in pure water, but it most certainly will not do so in sea water.  Typical sea water absorbs close to 80% of UV in the first 10 meters.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> I'm not changing the subject at all.  You claim that AGW exists.  You wanted a laymen to try and talk to you about it but I 'm a full fledged scientist and I am telling you that you can't have a greenhouse without intact glass panels.  Feel free to show me how you can.



1) you were talking about  long wave not being able to warm oceans now you are talking about the greenhouse.

2) they have always said the greenhouse does not have perfectly sealed windows but that CO2 is sealing them better and better


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> UV might penetrate 500 meters in pure water, but it most certainly will not do so in sea water.  Typical sea water absorbs close to 80% of UV in the first 10 meters.


 and your point is???????????


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> A geologist can teach ANY climatology class.  A climatologist can teach undergrad geology, but would be totally out of his depth in graduate level classes.  A geologist is orders of magnitude more versed in actual science than any climatologist.  Those are called facts.  Climatology is called an "inexact science".  Gelogy is an exact science.  The difference between the two is like at a track meet or a ice dancing competition.  The ice dancers (climatologists) blabber a lot, and come up with a story, and they argue amonst themselves till they figure out which dancer they like best.
> 
> Geology on the other hand is who gets to the finish line first.  Our results are OBJECTIVE.  Climatology is SUBJECTIVE.  Learn the difference then get back to us.



And yet you're a geologist not a climate scientist.

Is the science settled?


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> UV might penetrate 500 meters in pure water, but it most certainly will not do so in sea water.  Typical sea water absorbs close to 80% of UV in the first 10 meters.







Yes it does.  Before you make an idiot out of yourself again I suggest you do a bit more research.  It is called the disphotic zone and actually extends to a depth of 1000 meters.



Light Transmission in the Ocean - river, sea, depth, oceans, percentage, important, plants, source, marine


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > A geologist can teach ANY climatology class.  A climatologist can teach undergrad geology, but would be totally out of his depth in graduate level classes.  A geologist is orders of magnitude more versed in actual science than any climatologist.  Those are called facts.  Climatology is called an "inexact science".  Gelogy is an exact science.  The difference between the two is like at a track meet or a ice dancing competition.  The ice dancers (climatologists) blabber a lot, and come up with a story, and they argue amonst themselves till they figure out which dancer they like best.
> ...







Yes.  That means your favorite PhD climatologist isn't nearly as well educated as am I.  I can teach any class he can but he can't teach a single one of my graduate level classes.  Hell i think they would be totally lost in a optical crystallography class which is only a third year class.  It requires tons of math, and an ability to visualize in three dimensions however..  Most people find that tough.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



hard to compare since most scientists are so bright at least in a limited way. I saw a show on climate guys sending up satellites to detect and measure different metals in ocean currents, They discovered that metals released from melting antarctic icebergs  created ocean currents as they sunk into the ocean. Everybody involved was a genius I'd say


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...







Not even close.  Geologists have been talking about dissolved metals in the oceans, and how to extract them, for decades.  There are billions of dollars of gold held in solution in the oceans, the problem is it costs more to recover it (with current technology) than it is worth.  I have only ever interacted with one genius and that was Feynman.  He and I used to go to dinner every couple of months and I was always amazed at how quickly he could grasp anything that was tossed at him.  

I am very bright but a normal person, I still plod from A to B to C, I just do it quicker than most.  But he would go from A to C to F.  And do it faster than I could get to C.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> Geologists have been talking about dissolved metals in the oceans,



talking about it is one thing, creating a satellite network to measure it from space and discover how it creates particular ocean currents is another.

Did you give up getting me another lay person argument against global warming??


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Geologists have been talking about dissolved metals in the oceans,
> ...







Not at all.  Ask me a question and I will happily answer you.  And it has been done many times before.  LANDSAT (ERTS) was the first satellite that was actively used for prospecting.  I worked on the very first at Hughes Aircraft back in the very early 1970's.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



what is best lay person argument against AGW not in my OP


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...








The best one is that the Earth isn't a greenhouse.  Period end of theory.  If mass can escape to space there is ZERO possibility that the Earth can operate like a greenhouse.  That is called a scientific fact.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



as I said its not perfect greenhouse but co2 is making it better and better


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...









Like I said before, if you smash all of the windows out of a greenhouse it's no longer a greenhouse.  CO2 only works, and can only work if the greenhouse is intact.  The Earth has never _been_ a greenhouse, and can never *BE* a greenhouse.  That's the whole point.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do.  Ever.
> ...



You are conflating downward Ultra-Violet radiation (UV) and up-welling Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR).

The Sun can warm but AGW requires the up-welling radiation to be slowed or returned to the earth. UV radiation has the ability to drive deep into matter where LWIR can not.  LWIR is absorbed in the first few microns of most matter and thus has no ability to warm anything. Thus AGW, relying on LWIR to heat things up fails..


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> Like I said before, if you smash all of the windows out of a greenhouse it's no longer a greenhouse. .



all agree. and????????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> The Earth has never _been_ a greenhouse, and can never *BE* a greenhouse. .



please tell us why you think that


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said before, if you smash all of the windows out of a greenhouse it's no longer a greenhouse. .
> ...







If you have no greenhouse, how can you have a greenhouse effect?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



why do you say there is no greenhouse?


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The Earth has never _been_ a greenhouse, and can never *BE* a greenhouse. .
> ...







I don't "think" that.  I KNOW that.  A greenhouse works because it is a sealed system.  The atmosphere inside is controlled.  The heat inside is controlled.  Nothing is allowed to mix with the outside.  If the Earth were a greenhouse the only transmission would be one way.  Mass could enter but nothing could leave.  Thus the greenhouse theory would be in play.
It's all about energy.  If energy can only go one way, eventually the temperature gets too high.  We don't have a one way system.  Tens of thousands of tons of mass get ejected to space every year.  All of that mass takes heat with it, and it also shows that energy can freely leave.  

Thus there is no greenhouse.  And never will be.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



A true green house requires an impermeable barrier, ie; glass windows which do not allow free travel of heat and air mass.  The earth is an open system where air and heat are allowed to travel without restriction.

Earth is not a greenhouse and it is a poor description of the energy slowing process in our atmosphere.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It's pretty clear.  Water is warmed by UV radiation penetrating to a depth of 500 meters.  Long wave IR (the very actor in the AGW "theory") can't penetrate even one millimeter into the water.  Thus it is not capable of warming the water.  Thus, the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do.  Ever.
> ...


If I understand his point it is that it does not cause warming it retains heat.  Two different things.  It can't heat up the ocean.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



show me scientists who say there is no greenhouse? Both side agree there is one.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Really?  Air can leave the planet and arrives from space?  Does heat conduct to the vacuum?

The greenhouse effect does not require an impermeable barrier.  It requires that greenhouse gases _slow _the transmission of IR to space.  Slow, not stop.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> The greenhouse effect does not require an impermeable barrier.  It requires that greenhouse gases slow the transmission of IR to space.  Slow. Not stop.



correct I'm afraid!!


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


That's not accurate.  There is a logarithmic relationship between the radiative forcing of CO2 and associated temperature.  The biggest effect is at low CO2 concentrations and diminishes as CO2 levels increase.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 22, 2016)

Westwall said:
			
		

> Long wave IR (the very actor in the AGW "theory") can't penetrate even one millimeter into the water.  Thus it is not capable of warming the water.  Thus, the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do.  Ever.



According to Westwall's hilariously stupid physics there, sunlight is incapable of warming a rock, since it can't penetrate into the rock more than a few microns.

Yep, that's the caliber of "science" from the denier side, stuff that fails so badly, even a first-grader would laugh at how dumb it is.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> Sun yes.  Greenhouse no.  The Earth is not a closed system which is a requirement for a greenhouse to work.



Another hilarious blunder.

 "Greenhouse" is sort of a scientific metaphor, and is not meant to mean that earth is a closed system like a sealed greenhouse.

Therefore, declaring victory because you've shown earth isn't like a glass greenhouse is pretty damn stupid, and demonstrates the speaker is utterly clueless about the science involved.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> A geologist can teach ANY climatology class.



That's especially hilarious because Westwall couldn't pass a middle school science class these days.



> A climatologist can teach undergrad geology, but would be totally out of his depth in graduate level classes.



Well, duh. It's amusing that Westwall here thinks that means something. The normal people note that nobody can teach out of their specialty at a graduate level. Geologists would be utterly helpless if they tried to teach advanced climate physics.



> A geologist is orders of magnitude more versed in actual science than any climatologist.



Westwall, through his own total ineptness at all science, proves that to be false.



> Those are called facts.  Climatology is called an "inexact science". Geology is an exact science.
> 
> The difference between the two is like at a track meet or a ice dancing competition.  The ice dancers (climatologists) blabber a lot, and come up with a story, and they argue amonst themselves till they figure out which dancer they like best.
> 
> Geology on the other hand is who gets to the finish line first.  Our results are OBJECTIVE.  Climatology is SUBJECTIVE.  Learn the difference then get back to us.



Meanwhile, outside of Westwall's delusional world, the climatologists are all graduates of the hard sciences that Westwall says are so perfect. Thus, by his own definition Westwall says the climatologists are all brilliant.

Westwall is so clueless, he actually thinks climatologists come from undergraduate programs of "climatology" similar to rocks-for-jocks type undergraduate geology programs. Out in the real world, there are no such programs. Climate scientists come from hard science backgrounds. Given Westwall says hard scientists are brilliant, he's just defined climate scientists as brilliant

Most climate scientists come from a physics background, and have doctorates and postdoc training. Those guys make everyone look like simpletons, not just the geologists.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Ask any atmospherics physics student.  This is not only a poor description but antiscience to boot..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > A geologist can teach ANY climatology class.
> ...



Its amazing how many of you are totally clueless..  And you are a simpleton fool.. no question about that..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Tell me moron, does air travel to reaches of our atmosphere and release heat or not? Does the earth loose atmosphere?


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The greenhouse effect does not require an impermeable barrier.  It requires that greenhouse gases slow the transmission of IR to space.  Slow. Not stop.
> ...







If it were correct the ice ages would have never occurred.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe he is saying that IR will warm the ocean surface waters but it’s effects are overwhelmed by solar radiation.  Your rock analogy is stupid to say the least.  So is your belief that CO2 drives climate change.


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Wrong again as usual.  Are you intentionally playing stupid and misrepresenting what I said or are you truly this ignorant and stupid?  I stated very clearly that IR WILL warm rocks and dirt.  They don't warm the planet though, if they did the desert would be hot, hot, hot, morning, noon, and night.  But the reality is it's not.  The desert at night cools off very, very fast.  Rocks and dirt don't retain warmth.   That is what massive amounts of water does.  And that is what we are talking about.  Aren't we....


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall said:
> ...






No.  IR can only warm rocks and dirt.  Not the water that actually is the heat sink of the world.


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sun yes.  Greenhouse no.  The Earth is not a closed system which is a requirement for a greenhouse to work.
> ...







If it were a metaphor it would actually be working as advertised.  It isn't.  The pause is very real and no matter how many temp records you clowns falsify the regular people know it to be true.


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > A geologist can teach ANY climatology class.
> ...







It means loads moron.  You claim that nobody but climatologists can understand what they do.  If that were true they would be smart enough, and educated enough, to teach a graduate level geology class.  They can't.  That means their science is EASY.  Mine is hard.  So hard that they have no clue how to do it.  So, to the learning impaired, it is MY science that is beyond them.  Theirs isn't beyond me.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 22, 2016)

ding said:


> No.  IR can only warm rocks and dirt.  Not the water that actually is the heat sink of the world.



And so Westwall is now denying the law of conservation of energy outright. According to him, IR strikes the ocean, and then ... vanishes into a mystery dimension.

Denying the law of conservation of energy literally puts someone in the same camp as flat earthers and creationists.

For amusement, let's get Westwall to expand on his theory. Westwall, what magical properties does water have that allows it to negate the law of conservation of energy? Please go into details about the physics involved.


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No.  IR can only warm rocks and dirt.  Not the water that actually is the heat sink of the world.
> ...






Wrong again bozo.  It gets reflected away, just like most light energy that hits water.  Let's play a game.  Is there ANYTHING scientific that you actually know?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> It means loads moron.  You claim that nobody but climatologists can understand what they do.



We say no such thing. We say smart people can understand it too. That's why the smart people here on this board understand it.



> If that were true they would be smart enough, and educated enough, to teach a graduate level geology class. They can't.



Being your premise is false, your conclusion is thus incorrect.



> That means their science is EASY.  Mine is hard.  So hard that they have no clue how to do it.  So, to the learning impaired, it is MY science that is beyond them.  Theirs isn't beyond me.



Our mere earth-logic can't parse that train of thought. As Neitzsche sort of said "When you gaze into the stupid, the stupid gazes back into you." It's dangerous to the mind of a healthy person to try to understand denier thought processes.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> Wrong again bozo.  It gets reflected away, just like most light energy that hits water.



Wait. You told us before it penetrated the water. So you're saying it penetrates the water, and then gets spit back out later?

Interesting. Optics theory says reflection only occurs at a boundary of differing indexes of refraction. Can you tell us more about the physics of your new groundbreaking theory? Does the planet know you've rewritten the rules of optics that have been known since Newton's time?



> Let's play a game.  Is there ANYTHING scientific that you actually know?



I know that the reflection coefficient of seawater in the IR range is well studied, and that only a few percent is reflected in the longwave range. Hence, your theory, in addition to being completely bonkers, is directly contradicted by observed data.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> If it were a metaphor it would actually be working as advertised.  It isn't.  The pause is very real and no matter how many temp records you clowns falsify the regular people know it to be true.



That's one way to change the subject from your failure to under the greenhouse effect.

However, every cultist uses "It's all a plot against us!" to explain why reality contradicts their cult dogma. That's kind of boring. I could go talk to a Scientologist if I wanted to hear stuff like that.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > *NOT DING'S QUOTE "No.  IR can only warm rocks and dirt.  Not the water that actually is the heat sink of the world.  NOT DING'S QUOTE*
> ...


That wasn't my quote.  My quote was, "I believe he is saying that IR will warm the ocean surface waters but it’s effects are overwhelmed by solar radiation. Your rock analogy is stupid to say the least. So is your belief that CO2 drives climate change."


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No.  IR can only warm rocks and dirt.  Not the water that actually is the heat sink of the world.
> ...


You are an idiot.  A posser.  An imposter.  A wannabe.  IR warming of a water body is more likely to be lost through evaporation, since its warming only occurs at the surface, and that energy is more likely to be lost through evaporation than absorbed solar radiation would be which penetrates more deeply.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 22, 2016)

ding said:


> That wasn't my quote.  My quote was, "I believe he is saying that IR will warm the ocean surface waters but it’s effects are overwhelmed by solar radiation. Your rock analogy is stupid to say the least. So is your belief that CO2 drives climate change."



I'm apologize for getting the attributions screwed up there. Board software sometimes runs stuff together when you've responding to posts on multiple browser pages, which is what I was doing, and I made an editing mistake. I'd fix it, but that would look like hiding it now, so I'll just apologize for it again.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 22, 2016)

ding said:


> You are an idiot.  A posser.  An imposter.  A wannabe.



I'm the only one in this conversation not sucking hard at basic science.



> IR warming of a water body is more likely to be lost through evaporation, since its warming only occurs at the surface, and that energy is more likely to be lost through evaporation than absorbed solar radiation would be which penetrates more deeply.



So it's your contention that the ocean skin is constantly boiling away? If so, where's the steam when it's cold?

Nice try, but no, that's not happening. Believe it or not, experiments have been done that can measure skin temperature of the oceans. The skin layer is colder than the ocean below it.

Now, I could show you exactly how the heat flow works. Heck, I'll be nice, and educate you for free.

The short but not-really-correct version: "IR is absorbed by the skin and conducts into the rest of the ocean." Nope, the real world is more complicated than that.

The longer correct version:

This is the temperature profile of most spots in the ocean. Note the vertical scale is sort of logarithmic.






The bulk of solar energy penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as depth gets shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You are an idiot.  A posser.  An imposter.  A wannabe.
> ...



No.  The skin is cooler because of evaporation, not because the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.  Furthermore, the wave action and resultant angle created from the waves also affect the penetration depth.  What you have really proven is that solar radiation warms the ocean.  Big surprise.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer



This is an incredibly stupid statement.  My goodness, solar dominates at every depth.  What exactly do you do for a living?


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2016)

"What exactly do you do for a living"?  I guess that'll solve the problem.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Well, then crick just went on record agreeing with a crazy cat lady.


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2016)

SSDD likes to accuse Mamooth of being a woman because SSDD believes that to be a slight. It looks as if you agree.  Is that so?


  I am in complete agreement with Mamooth on every topic on which he has ever written here.  He is quite knowledgeable on physics.  Better than me.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> "What exactly do you do for a living"?  I guess that'll solve the problem.


I'm a deep water completions engineer.   I design and execute 100 million dollar completions in Deepwater oil and gas wells.

No, it doesn't solve the problem but it does go to the question of credibility of scientific principles. 

You just agreed with Mamooth that IR is responsible for warming the skin layer and that it decreases the delta T across the skin layer.  If it is heating the skin layer, that would increase the delta T across it, not decrease it.  The decrease in the temperature profile of the skin is due to evaporative cooling. 

What is your scientific backgrounds?  Watching mythbusters?


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2016)

Mamooth is correct about the temperature profile of the skin layer.  If you think he isn't, show us someone's work that says otherwise.  I rather doubt any of us here have done that actual measurement.  I have dropped and processed several thousand BTs but T5s and T7s aren't of much use in the micron range.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 23, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > "What exactly do you do for a living"?  I guess that'll solve the problem.
> ...




Cool..........but ding.......if you had 89 PHd's, you'd still be wrong 100% of the time with these k00ks...........

Im in the field of psychology for 30 years........check the avatar of the guy standing in front of the pyramid with that pose. Look closely.  If I did DAP testing on this guy, I can tell you right now what type of personality he has. Don't think I even have to elaborate, do I?


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Mamooth is correct about the temperature profile of the skin layer.  If you think he isn't, show us someone's work that says otherwise.  I rather doubt any of us here have done that actual measurement, though I have dropped and processed several thousand BTs.  T6 and T7 aren't of much use in the micron range.


That's funny that you ask for me to show someone's work to prove that the decrease in temperature from the subskin to the skin is due to evaporative cooling, but you don't ask Mamooth to provide someone's work to prove that the warming effect of IR causes a GHG effect on the ocean thereby slowing evaporative cooling and increasing temperature.  

If IR is adding energy to the ocean, evaporation will increase, not decrease.  Mamooth should have posted the nighttime curve with the daytime curve.   The temperature profile of the skin layer is not driven by IR.  It is driven by evaporative cooling.  IR does not decrease the delta T.  If anything it increases delta T.  

Both of your condescending attitudes have led to these unpleasant type of discussions.  What is it that you do again?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Dec 23, 2016)

Santa makes the case for AGW


----------



## mamooth (Dec 23, 2016)

ding said:


> I'm a deep water completions engineer.   I design and execute 100 million dollar completions in Deepwater oil and gas wells.



Oh, that explains why you're so angry about this. You have a direct financial stake in it. You're doing it for the money. Same as Westwall, who has a 401k full of fossil fuel stocks.

In contrast to you paid shills, none of the rational people here have any financial stake in the science. Credibility, us. Lack of credibility, you.



> No, it doesn't solve the problem but it does go to the question of credibility of scientific principles



Engineers aren't scientists. The fact that you took a couple technical classes to get a bachelors degree does not make you anything close to a scientist.



> You just agreed with Mamooth that IR is responsible for warming the skin layer and that it decreases the delta T across the skin layer.  If it is heating the skin layer, that would increase the delta T across it, not decrease it.  The decrease in the temperature profile of the skin is due to evaporative cooling.



So, you can't even grasp that increasing the temperature on the colder side decreases the delta_T.

You're just terrible at the common sense aspects of the science. You fail the most basic stuff. And you can't ever admit to a mistake, so you just keep failing.



> What is your scientific backgrounds?  Watching mythbusters?



Degrees in physics and electrical engineering, and experience in running nuclear reactors and designing aircraft avionics.

Of course, I normally don't bring that up, because it's not significant. What I post is. That's the way of reason, to value results over credential-dropping. Backgrounds are of little importance here. What matters is that, like the other rational people here:

A. I'm willing to learn.

and

B. I'm willing to admit when I make mistakes.

Deniers do not possess those qualities, hence they will endlessly continue failing.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Oh, that explains why you're so angry about this. You have a direct financial stake in it. You're doing it for the money. Same as Westwall, who has a 401k full of fossil fuel stocks.
> 
> In contrast to you paid shills, none of the rational people here have any financial stake in the science. Credibility, us. Lack of credibility, you.



No.  I could retire tomorrow, but I would not expect you to see me any other way because that is your only argument.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 23, 2016)

ding said:


> This is an incredibly stupid statement.  My goodness, solar dominates at every depth.  What exactly do you do for a living?



So, you're implying that IR from the sun isn't solar, then throwing insults about how someone else is stupid. Ah, the sweet irony.

Tell us, Einstein, if the IR doesn't come from the sun, where does it come from?


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Engineers aren't scientists. The fact that you took a couple technical classes to get a bachelors degree does not make you anything close to a scientist.


Engineering is the commercial application of science.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> So, you can't even grasp that increasing the temperature on the colder side decreases the delta_T.
> 
> You're just terrible at the common sense aspects of the science. You fail the most basic stuff. And you can't ever admit to a mistake, so you just keep failing.



I can grasp that energy is energy.  It does not matter where it comes from.  To argue that IR is a special case is ridiculous.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Degrees in physics and electrical engineering, and experience in running nuclear reactors and designing aircraft avionics.
> 
> Of course, I normally don't bring that up, because it's not significant. What I post is. That's the way of reason, to value results over credential-dropping. Backgrounds are of little importance here. What matters is that, like the other rational people here:
> 
> ...



That is your bias.  You have a preference for an outcome.  I don't.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > This is an incredibly stupid statement.  My goodness, solar dominates at every depth.  What exactly do you do for a living?
> ...


I am implying that there is no special case for IR and that it is negligible.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Degrees in physics and electrical engineering, and experience in running nuclear reactors and designing aircraft avionics.



What is your present job?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 23, 2016)

ding said:


> If IR is adding energy to the ocean, evaporation will increase, not decrease.



And yet the measurements say that's not happening. The ocean skin is _cooler_ than the water below, hence it is clearly not boiling away.

Use of ATSR-measured ocean skin temperatures in ocean and atmosphere models
---
Studies of the bulk-skin temperature difference (the "skin effect") show that it has a typical daytime value of 0.3 K (Schlussel, 1990) for high latitudes.
---

That paper then goes into detail on instrumentation and such things. If you want more, here's a list of references to look at.

Brunke, M. A., X. Zeng, V. Misra, and A. Beljaars, 2008: Integration of a prognostic skin sea surface temperature scheme into climate and weather models. Journal of Geophysical Research, *113*, D21117, doi:10.1029/2008JD010607.

Fairall, C. W., E. F. Bradley, J. S. Godfrey, G. A. Wick, and J. B. Edson, 1996: Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research, *101*, 1295-1308.

Garratt, J. R., 1992: The Atmospheric Boundary Layer, Cambridge University Press, 316 pp.

May, D. A., M. M. Parmeter, D. S. Olszewski, B. D. McKenzie, 1998: Operational processing of satellite sea surface temperature retrievals at the naval oceanographic office. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, *79*, 397-407.

Schluessel, P., H.-Y. Shin, W. J. Emery, and H. Grassl, 1987: Comparison of satellite-derived sea surface temperatures with in situ skin measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research, *92*, 2859-2874.

Wick, G. A., W. J. Emery, L. H. Kantha, and P. Schluessel, 1996: The behavior of the bulk-skin sea surface temperature difference under varying wind speed and heat flux. Journal of Physical Oceanography, *26*, 1969-1988.

Zeng, X., and A. Beljaars, 2005: A prognostic scheme of sea surface skin temperature for modeling and data assimilation. Geophysical Research Letters, *32*, doi:10.1029/2005GL023030

Summary? All the science says you're wrong. This is not debatable. You're just wrong, end of story, and crying about how mean I am won't make you less wrong.



> Mamooth should have posted the nighttime curve with the daytime curve.



I could have, but the post was already running very long. Learn the value of brevity, son, as it's one key to good science communication. Keeping more heat in the ocean half the time still means more heat is kept in the ocean, so the point of the post is unaffected.



> The temperature profile of the skin layer is not driven by IR.  It is driven by evaporative cooling.



No, it's driven by IR, heat conduction, and evaporative cooling. You're just not very good at this.



> IR does not decrease the delta T.  If anything it increases delta T.



Let's try a simple exercise for you.

Say temp on the colder surface side is 20.0, and temp on the warmer deep side is 20.3. Delta-T is 0.3.

Now add IR to the colder surface side. 20.0 rises to 20.1. Delta-T is now 0.2.

Einstein, did delta-T just go up or down?

You keep saying it goes up. You apparently believe "0.2" is more than "0.3". Hence the reason circus-clown music plays when you show up.



> Both of your condescending attitudes have led to these unpleasant type of discussions.  What is it that you do again?



I post good science, I'm quite polite to those who are willing to learn. However, I have no patience with butthurt narcissists, and I don't apologize for that.

You flounced in here and started out in your first post with arrogance and insults, even though your science was crap propaganda. And when we gently pointed out your errors, did you do the classy thing and thank us for taking the time to educate you? No. You went into meltdown mode, and you haven't stopped crying since.

Grow the fuck up.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 23, 2016)

ding said:


> I am implying that there is no special case for IR and that it is negligible.



No, your entire argument is based on IR being a special case, which is why it's junk. In your world, IR makes water evaporate without any vapor being detectable. That's pretty damn special.

In contrast, our argument is entirely consistent with standard physics. and the observed data.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2016)

ding said:


> If IR is adding energy to the ocean, evaporation will increase, not decrease.


It is short wave radiation that adds energy to the ocean - a wide spectrum that includes visible light. 
It can easily penetrate several meters.

Thermal long wave IR does not add energy to the ocean because it can penetrate only a few microns. What is happening is that incoming IR is subtracted from the ocean's outgoing IR so that the ocean does not loose as much heat as it otherwise would if there were no incoming IR. 

If there were no incoming IR from GHG's such as water vapor and others, the ocean would radiate 400 watts/m^2. That is much more than the sun's 162 watts/m^2 short wave input, so the ocean would eventually freeze or come close to freezing.

It is popular to say that IR adds energy to the ocean, but that is very misleading if you look at the physics behind it.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I am implying that there is no special case for IR and that it is negligible.
> ...


What did you say your present job was again?

You keep saying that my argument is based on IR being a special case but that's not my argument.  Please show me in my words - not your assumptions of what you believe my words imply - where I say it is a special case.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> And yet the measurements say that's not happening. The ocean skin is _cooler_ than the water below, hence it is clearly not boiling away.
> 
> Use of ATSR-measured ocean skin temperatures in ocean and atmosphere models
> ---
> ...



The skin is an artifact of evaporation.  Nothing else.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> I could have, but the post was already running very long. Learn the value of brevity, son, as it's one key to good science communication. Keeping more heat in the ocean half the time still means more heat is kept in the ocean, so the point of the post is unaffected.



No.  The curves show a skin exists at night and day.  The skin is an artifact of evaporation.   The curves show that solar radiation is heating the ocean and that IR is negligible.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> No, it's driven by IR, heat conduction, and evaporative cooling. You're just not very good at this.



It is affected by even more things than that but the dominant driver of the skin is evaporative cooling.  IR is negligible.  So much so that it can be ignored entirely.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Let's try a simple exercise for you.
> 
> Say temp on the colder surface side is 20.0, and temp on the warmer deep side is 20.3. Delta-T is 0.3.
> 
> ...



The skin does not drive evaporative cooling.  The skin IS and artifact of evaporative cooling.  The driver is the temperature below the skin.  If it as you say that IR is heating up the ocean than evaporation can only increase as a result of it.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> I post good science,



I don't believe you do.  I believe you confirm your bias.  



mamooth said:


> I'm quite polite to those who are willing to learn. However, I have no patience with butthurt narcissists, and I don't apologize for that.
> 
> You flounced in here and started out in your first post with arrogance and insults, even though your science was crap propaganda. And when we gently pointed out your errors, did you do the classy thing and thank us for taking the time to educate you? No. You went into meltdown mode, and you haven't stopped crying since.
> 
> Grow the fuck up.



I hope you don't mind if I see it the other way around.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 23, 2016)

westwall said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



seems absurdly illogical to me. All houses leak but with enough heat or improved sealing the temperature still goes up and up. Where are you getting lost exactly?

is there even one scientist who thinks that because the greenhouse leaks it has no effect???


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 23, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Mamooth is correct about the temperature profile of the skin layer.  If you think he isn't, show us someone's work that says otherwise.  I rather doubt any of us here have done that actual measurement, though I have dropped and processed several thousand BTs.  T6 and T7 aren't of much use in the micron range.
> ...


At one time I posted a graph of energy frequency and what it was able to penetrate to depth of different substances. I will have to try and find it again, though I don't think crick or mantooth could grasp why what they believe can not work.

Its like the old cell bricks of the 80's that operated at 160mhz which couldnt get good reception or work well in buildings vs today's 2-5Ghz phones that use little power and can penetrate just about anywhere.  It is the size of the wave vs what it passes though but they can not grasp this simple energy/power/radiation concept. 

Cell phones don't work well under water due to density and wave trapping, the same reason LWIR does not penetrate the first 10 microns of the surface tension.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > This is an incredibly stupid statement.  My goodness, solar dominates at every depth.  What exactly do you do for a living?
> ...



Downwelling radiation is way above the IR spectrum.. the sun may produce some but the majority is created by cooling black bodies..


----------



## westwall (Dec 23, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...










I suggest you talk to a gardener.  They seem to know more about greenhouses than the scientists.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 23, 2016)

westwall said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



is there even one scientist who thinks that because the greenhouse leaks it has no effect???


----------



## westwall (Dec 23, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...







Like I said.  Talk to a gardener if you want to know how a greenhouse works.  Scientists only tell you what they THINK.  A gardener SHOWS you how it WORKS.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 23, 2016)

westwall said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



so there is not even one scientist who agrees???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 23, 2016)

westwall said:


> Talk to a gardener if you want to know how a greenhouse works.



I did; he said it works best when completely sealed and partially when partially sealed. Sorry.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 23, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Talk to a gardener if you want to know how a greenhouse works.
> ...



The earth is an unsealed screen porch..


----------



## westwall (Dec 23, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Talk to a gardener if you want to know how a greenhouse works.
> ...









Oh, I doubt that.


"Traditional greenhouses are normally *heavily ventilated *during the day to prevent overheating. A standard rule of thumb in the commercial greenhouse industry is to exchange the entire volume of air in the greenhouse every minute. That requires enormous fans to constantly flush air outside. In a cannabis greenhouse, this results in continually venting warm, CO2 rich, and odorous air outside. In turn, ventilation raises a number of issues. In many areas, regulations prohibit exhausting untreated, odorous air outside. Furthermore, excessive ventilation can brings pests and pathogens into the greenhouse."


3 Signs you Should Invest in a Sealed Cannabis Greenhouse | Ceres Greenhouse


----------



## Crick (Dec 24, 2016)

YO!  Time to wake up folks!  The function of a gardener's greenhouse has no bearing on the function of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 24, 2016)

westwall said:


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


Mr. Westwall actually thinks that he is capable of teaching and post grad course in atmospheric physics. LOL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> YO!  Time to wake up folks!  The function of a gardener's greenhouse has no bearing on the function of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.


This is rich....


----------



## Crick (Dec 24, 2016)

So do you believe that showing a greenhouse should be ventilated to keep the plants alive means that Earth's atmosphere is constantly coming and going?  What do you mean by "This is rich"?


----------



## westwall (Dec 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


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








No problem at all.  Physics was my minor.


----------



## Crick (Dec 25, 2016)

I see geology and climatology as simply the studies of large bodies of matter, solid and gaseous.  I see no grounds for calling one inexact and one exact.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 25, 2016)

Geologists, until the paradigm shift of plate tectonics, were the stamp collectors of science. They collected rocks, and mapped the surface, but had no reasonable explanation for what they were seeing. It was not until the mathematicians and physicists did the seismic data and the measured the magnetic stripes off the Straight of Juan de Fuca that we began to see the real workings of geology. Seismic tomography gave us the mapping of the deep subsurface. All of this was done by Geophysicists. And all the results are but models. Nobody has been down to look at a subduction zone. Nobody has seen the magma chamber of the Yellowstone Hot Spot. So, the over arching theory of geology, plate tectonics, depends on models created from indirect data. 

Now, we can see the atmosphere in action. We can measure, directly, the chemical composition of the atmosphere, we can measure it's temperature and pressure directly. So, as a matter of fact, climatology is a far more exact science then geology. Because we are making direct observations of the matter that we are talking about. Whereas, in geology, we are indirectly measuring all the major players in the theory.


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> I see geology and climatology as simply the studies of large bodies of matter, solid and gaseous.  I see no grounds for calling one inexact and one exact.








That's because you are scientifically illiterate.

Here are the definitions for you. 



*Definition of exact science*


:  a science (as physics, chemistry, or astronomy) whose laws are capable of accurate quantitative expression


Definition of EXACT SCIENCE





*soft science*

Word Origin
noun
1.
any of the specialized fields or disciplines, as psychology, sociology,anthropology, or political science, that interpret human behavior,institutions, society, etc., on the basis of scientific investigations forwhich it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria.

the definition of soft science




Geology is a exact science in that everything we do is MEASURABLE.  Climatology is a soft science in that the majority of it's conclusions are NOT measurable.  They are OPINION.  Hence the "consensus OPINION of climatology scientists is....."  See the difference?


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Geologists, until the paradigm shift of plate tectonics, were the stamp collectors of science. They collected rocks, and mapped the surface, but had no reasonable explanation for what they were seeing. It was not until the mathematicians and physicists did the seismic data and the measured the magnetic stripes off the Straight of Juan de Fuca that we began to see the real workings of geology. Seismic tomography gave us the mapping of the deep subsurface. All of this was done by Geophysicists. And all the results are but models. Nobody has been down to look at a subduction zone. Nobody has seen the magma chamber of the Yellowstone Hot Spot. So, the over arching theory of geology, plate tectonics, depends on models created from indirect data.
> 
> Now, we can see the atmosphere in action. We can measure, directly, the chemical composition of the atmosphere, we can measure it's temperature and pressure directly. So, as a matter of fact, climatology is a far more exact science then geology. Because we are making direct observations of the matter that we are talking about. Whereas, in geology, we are indirectly measuring all the major players in the theory.









Wrong again.  And you claim to be a geology student.  What a farce.  Geology became an exact science in the 1800's with the combined works of James Hutton and Charles Lyell.  "Principles of Geology" published in 1830 IIRC is the beginning of the modern scientific era for geology.  That is when it went from being a soft science to an exact science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 25, 2016)

Exact science prior to plate tectonics? Like hell. There was zero explanation for how mountains were built, or for the apparent, from fossils and morphology, the movement of continents. When you can just collect the rocks they were made of, and map the surface, but have no explanation for how it got that way, that is just scientific stamp collecting.


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Exact science prior to plate tectonics? Like hell. There was zero explanation for how mountains were built, or for the apparent, from fossils and morphology, the movement of continents. When you can just collect the rocks they were made of, and map the surface, but have no explanation for how it got that way, that is just scientific stamp collecting.







Once again you demonstrate your ignorance.  Yes exact science prior to Plate Tectonics.  Look up the "Principle of Uniformitarianism", that is what took geology from a soft science to an exact science.  With that principle ALL sciences were strengthened.  And it came from geology.  Hutton laid the ground work for the accurate measurement of time in a geologic sense.  Lyell codified the science.  With his Principles of Geology we could describe in detail a formation, how it was formed, why it formed, and the conditions that would see it formed again.  Thus MEASURABLE.  It didn't matter where in the world you were, if you saw a sedimentary formation you could describe the mechanism of its creation. 

Unlike climatology that says CO2 will inexorably raise temperatures "except when natural causes are too powerful".

What a farce that "science" has become.  It says a lot about your "science" that a well known charlatan, Sylvia Brown, has a more accurate prediction rate than your hero's.  And by a LOT.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 25, 2016)

No, the farce is you, Mr. Westwall. The AGU, the GSA, the leading scientific societies in the US concerning geology, both say that the drivel you try to pass off is just that. As does the oldest scientific society in the world, the Royal Society. 

And how did the geologists explain the folding of the sedimentary strata prior to plate tectonics? What force did they invoke? And what do we think of their explanations today? 

Uniformatism is fine for normal times. But it fails to explain the abnormal. That argument was used against the obvious evidence that J. Harlan Bretz presented in relationship to the Spokane Floods. Uniformatism has to be modified by the punctuated equilibrium, events not in the normal run of things that are not happening at present.


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> No, the farce is you, Mr. Westwall. The AGU, the GSA, the leading scientific societies in the US concerning geology, both say that the drivel you try to pass off is just that. As does the oldest scientific society in the world, the Royal Society.
> 
> And how did the geologists explain the folding of the sedimentary strata prior to plate tectonics? What force did they invoke? And what do we think of their explanations today?
> 
> Uniformatism is fine for normal times. But it fails to explain the abnormal. That argument was used against the obvious evidence that J. Harlan Bretz presented in relationship to the Spokane Floods. Uniformatism has to be modified by the punctuated equilibrium, events not in the normal run of things that are not happening at present.








  You little internet cut and paster you!  Punctuated Equilibrium is a evolutionary theory you 'tard.  Catastrophism is the very philosophy that was preventing geology from becoming an exact science you religious nut job.  Once Hutton broke us out of the religious shackles of catastrophism and presented us with Uniformitarianism, a Principle that crosses ALL exact sciences (it is a friend of Occam, after all), then, and ONLY then, could geology evolve into the exact science it is today.  Do catastrophes occur?  Of course they do.  Are they THE cause of all things that occur?  Nope.  Uniformitarianism is the Principle that put that bullshit to bed. 

Funny how you, who claim to be all sciency and stuff, resort to a failed religion based philosophy to attempt to bolster the failed theory of AGW.

Priceless.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 25, 2016)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > No, the farce is you, Mr. Westwall. The AGU, the GSA, the leading scientific societies in the US concerning geology, both say that the drivel you try to pass off is just that. As does the oldest scientific society in the world, the Royal Society.
> ...



Hard sciences prove AGW a fraud so he must use something he can bend into what he believes.. AGW is a religion and faith based so he must deviate from hard sciences to protect his faith. His appeal to authority is a dead giveaway that he has no scientific facts to support him.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 25, 2016)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > No, the farce is you, Mr. Westwall. The AGU, the GSA, the leading scientific societies in the US concerning geology, both say that the drivel you try to pass off is just that. As does the oldest scientific society in the world, the Royal Society.
> ...


JOHN ALLEN RETIRES FROM PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. John Eliot Allen has retired from the faculty of Portland State University after 17 years as head of the Earth Sciences Department and a long career that had considerable influence on geological education and research. Dr. Allen had stepped down as chairman and head of the Earth Sciences Department at PSU last year, continuing to teach during the recently ended school year. He has a long list of publications both in the scientific journals and in materials written for the layman. He received his bachelor and master's degrees from the U of 0 and his doctorate from the University of California, Berkeley. Between 1939 and 1944 he was a geologist with Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. He is succeeded as head of the Department by Dr. Richard E. Thoms, who joined the Earth Sciences Department staff in 1964.

http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/og/OBv36n06.pdf

Dr. Allen wrote an article on how punctuated equilibrium applied to the basic geology in Oregon.


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


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







Yes, just like the Principle of Uniformitarianism is a geologic Principle, it also can be applied to other aspects of science.  But the underlying theory is evolution.  Catastrophism CAN be an element of evolution, just like it can be an element of geological processes.  In fact in many respects it seems to be a necessary precursor.  Pretty much all of evolution (90%) occurs in the temperate zones where there are unstable climates to drive distress.  Distress causes evolution.

Once again, you demonstrate a surface knowledge, but not a deep understanding of the subject.


----------



## Crick (Dec 26, 2016)

You think statements like "Uniformitarianism... also can be applied to other aspects of science" shows your "deep understanding" of geology?  Give us a fooking break.


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> You think statements like "Uniformitarianism... also can be applied to other aspects of science" shows your "deep understanding" of geology?  Give us a fooking break.







The fact that you DON'T demonstrates your total lack of scientific understanding.  Let us take a look at the Ideal Gas Laws, as a for instance.  Did you know that they apply to whatever planetary body you might happen to look at?  Or how about gravity?  Did you know that gravity affects orbiting bodies the same, no matter where in the universe you are?  That is called UNIFORMITARIANISM.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 26, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You think statements like "Uniformitarianism... also can be applied to other aspects of science" shows your "deep understanding" of geology?  Give us a fooking break.
> ...



Crick et al think there is a special set of physics for refrigerators....when you are talking about refrigerators, heat and energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm, but talk about something other than refrigerators and energy and heat move from cool to warm spontaneously...all the time.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2016)

westwall said:


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


LOL  I accept your concession on this issue. Yes, here in Oregon we see very punctuated equilibrium in our geology. Everything from the Spokane Floods to the large caldera eruptions at various times in the geological history of Oregon.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


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


I didn't see that as a concession on his part.  I saw it a beat down of you.  A brutal, bloody beatdown.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2016)

You see what you wish to see, and nothing else. Mr. Westwall said that punctuated equilibrium applied only to evolution. When I pointed out there were papers by very well respected geologists using the term for general geology, he backtracked and stated that was the case, but I had only a minimal understanding of what that meant. He conceded the argument, I did not.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> You see what you wish to see, and nothing else. Mr. Westwall said that punctuated equilibrium applied only to evolution. When I pointed out there were papers by very well respected geologists using the term for general geology, he backtracked and stated that was the case, but I had only a minimal understanding of what that meant. He conceded the argument, I did not.


No.  I saw a bloody beat down.


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> You see what you wish to see, and nothing else. Mr. Westwall said that punctuated equilibrium applied only to evolution. When I pointed out there were papers by very well respected geologists using the term for general geology, he backtracked and stated that was the case, but I had only a minimal understanding of what that meant. He conceded the argument, I did not.








No, I said that catastrophe's occur.  Those catastrophe's will be preserved in some cases in the geologic record.  The Channeled Scablands are an excellent example of that.  What they are not is punctuation marks in a continuing series of sentences (periods of geologic history).  Punctuated Equilibrium states that evolution occurs as a series of moments of distress, followed by periods of serenity. 

Geologic history is filled with fantastically enormously long periods of serenity, with the very, very rare asteroid strike, or giant volcanic caldera eruption thrown into the mix to really mix things up.  What they are not is episodic.  They are ONE TIME EVENTS (in the entire 4.5 billion year history of the Earth we have evidence of maybe 17 giant calderic eruptions., and ONE asteroid strike that has good empirical evidence to support) Thus, not punctuated equilibrium.  Learn English, and even more really take a geology class.  I suggest you start with a good historical geology class as that will give you a good basis to start other studies from.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2016)

LOL  43 known impacts with craters of over 20 km. Five with craters of over 100 km. Considering that 3/4 of the earth is covered with oceans, and that very little of the ocean crust is over 600 million years old, your statement of only one asteroid strike with evidence to support it is laughable. You need some classes in Geologic History.


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  43 known impacts with craters of over 20 km. Five with craters of over 100 km. Considering that 3/4 of the earth is covered with oceans, and that very little of the ocean crust is over 600 million years old, your statement of only one asteroid strike with evidence to support it is laughable. You need some classes in Geologic History.









And only one of those is tied to an extinction event.  Truly olfraud, the depths of your ignorance is epic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2016)

In Oregon we have 6 known volcanic calderas, with two large ones. That is not counting Crater Lake.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2016)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL  43 known impacts with craters of over 20 km. Five with craters of over 100 km. Considering that 3/4 of the earth is covered with oceans, and that very little of the ocean crust is over 600 million years old, your statement of only one asteroid strike with evidence to support it is laughable. You need some classes in Geologic History.
> ...


*" They are ONE TIME EVENTS (in the entire 4.5 billion year history of the Earth we have evidence of maybe 17 giant calderic eruptions., and ONE asteroid strike that has good empirical evidence to support it."*

That is what you said. "one asteroid strike that has good empirical evidence to support it." And why would it have to have a worldwide extinction event to be an important punctuation in the local, or even continental, geology. And there are undoubtedly many unrecognized volcanic calderas. The Crooked River Caldera was only recently recognized.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> So do you believe that showing a greenhouse should be ventilated to keep the plants alive means that Earth's atmosphere is constantly coming and going?  What do you mean by "This is rich"?



I think he means there is not one scientist on earth who agrees with him?

Does anyone have a good argument that a lay person can use against AGW??


----------



## SSDD (Dec 27, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So do you believe that showing a greenhouse should be ventilated to keep the plants alive means that Earth's atmosphere is constantly coming and going?  What do you mean by "This is rich"?
> ...



The absolute best argument to use against the AGW argument is to simply ask warmers to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis...I have been asking for nearly 2 decades now and am still waiting for even one single shred of actual evidence supporting the hypothesis...

And it is damned entertaining to see what those goobers bring to the argument when they bring anything at all...it is amazing what passes for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis in their minds...it becomes very clear why they were duped in the first place....

Most of them simply bring some evidence of climate change and simply assume that it must be due to man...some bring charts showing that greenhouse gasses absorb IR...but fail to bring the graph showing that they also emit the absorbed energy immediately....and the can't even begin to provide any sort of evidence that supports the claim that absorption and emission equal warming...the whole scam is based on little more than assumptions and unfortunately there are a large number of people who lack the thinking skills to wonder why there is no actual evidence in support of the hypothesis.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Most of them simply bring some evidence of climate change and simply assume that it must be due to man...



So you say there is evidence of climate change but not man made climate change?
The best evidence they bring is accumulating  CO2 since man started buring  oil.
How does a lay person confute that?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 27, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Most of them simply bring some evidence of climate change and simply assume that it must be due to man...
> ...



Of course...the climate is always changing and will always be changing...



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The best evidence they bring is accumulating  CO2 since man started buring  oil.
> How does a lay person confute that?



How about the gold standard for temperature reconstruction....Ice cores...this one is from greenland...it covers the past 10,000 years...







If our emissions of CO2 are the reason the earth is warming now....why are we, in fact, cooler than most of the past 10,000 years?

Now warmers will try and say that the warming was local to that area, but when one looks at ice cores from Antarctica, one sees  temperature spikes there that roughly correspond to the greenland ice core record....at the south pole...that is clear evidence that the warming indicated in the greenland ice cores was both warmer than the present, and was global...and those ice cores seem to indicate that at times in the past 10,000 years, temperatures rose more rapidly than anything we have seen.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 27, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Most of them simply bring some evidence of climate change and simply assume that it must be due to man...
> ...



By the way...higher CO2 along with increasing temperatures is known as a correlation...not a cause...assuming that correlation equals cause is simply not science...which brings us right back to there not being a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions.


----------



## Crick (Dec 27, 2016)

Show us a cause and its effect that has no correlation fool.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Show us a cause and its effect that has no correlation fool.


Well fool, how about you tell me why the earth glaciated with CO2 levels of 7,000ppm? If CO2 were truly a driver why did it allow us to enter glacial cycles?


----------



## Crick (Dec 27, 2016)

You don't even understand the request.  Show us a cause and its effect that have no correlation.


----------



## Crick (Dec 27, 2016)

Mr Balamonte,

If you are asking help to make a case against AGW, it indicates you feel you do not have enough information to make a convincing case that AGW is invalid.  Rather than making the assumption that it is without sufficient evidence, why don't you simply follow where the evidence leads.  If you are objective and stay away from prejudices and unsupported assertions, I'm quite confident you will find that the overwhelming majority of evidence support the validity of AGW.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> You don't even understand the request.  Show us a cause and its effect that have no correlation.


Do you men like it taking 12 million years for the temperature to fall by 7C when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

Are you suggesting that no other factors affected that rate?  Are you suggesting that a cause and effect can have no correlation?

Just a BTW, if you want to convince folks here that you know what you're talking about in general science, lining yourself up with SSDD may not be the best strategy.

PS: "Do you *men*..." ? ? ?


----------



## ding (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Are you suggesting that no other factors affected that rate?  Are you suggesting that a cause and effect can have no correlation?
> 
> Just a BTW, if you want to convince folks here that you know what you're talking about in general science, lining yourself up with SSDD may not be the best strategy.
> 
> PS: "Do you *men*..." ? ? ?


Are you suggesting that no other factors are at play today?  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

I have never denied it.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 28, 2016)

ding said:


> The skin does not drive evaporative cooling.  The skin IS and artifact of evaporative cooling.



And your evidence for this is where?

In post #256, I showed you many science articles that state the opposite of what you claim.

And as always happens with deniers, that data was ignored. That's why you're called deniers, because you simply deny the existence of all data that contradicts your cult beliefs.

When you get a minute, do what I did, and post some actual science backing up your claim. Repeating "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" endlessly is not going to win a Nobel Prize for you or for any of the deniers who specialize in that tactic.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Mr Balamonte,
> 
> If you are asking help to make a case against AGW, it indicates you feel you do not have enough information to make a convincing case that AGW is invalid.  Rather than making the assumption that it is without sufficient evidence, why don't you simply follow where the evidence leads.  If you are objective and stay away from prejudices and unsupported assertions, I'm quite confident you will find that the overwhelming majority of evidence support the validity of AGW.



so what is best evidence?
Co2 has doubled in last 125 years and temperature is still lower than last 10,000 years?
and through most of history temp went up before  Co2??
and recent temp rise since end of llittle ice age is tiny compared to previous temp changes


----------



## ding (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have never denied it.


I see.  So which one of those factors do you believe is capable of damping the radiative forcing of CO2 such that it would take 12 million years for temperature to fall the 7C predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2 equation when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?  Because as near as I can tell according to your table CO2 dominates the equation as you have the rest basically cancelling each other out.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 28, 2016)

ding said:


> I see.  So which one of those factors do you believe is capable of damping the radiative forcing of CO2 such that it would take 12 million years for temperature to fall the 7C predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2 equation when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm



Just what are you babbling about?



> Because as near as I can tell according to your table CO2 dominates the equation as you have the rest basically cancelling each other out.



Don't ask us to explain your science.


----------



## ding (Dec 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The skin does not drive evaporative cooling.  The skin IS and artifact of evaporative cooling.
> ...


The temperature profile, Einstein.   Evaporation only occurs at the skin, and we know that evaporation is the major component of heat loss by water bodies.  You do realize the skin is cooling down, right?   Not heating up.   If it is not evaporative COOLING that is responsible for the skin COOLING down, prey tell, what is?  Your argument that IR is heating up the skin is ridiculous.


----------



## ding (Dec 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I see.  So which one of those factors do you believe is capable of damping the radiative forcing of CO2 such that it would take 12 million years for temperature to fall the 7C predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2 equation when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm
> ...


Obviously Crick knows what I am talking about.  What is the predicted temperature change from the radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 falls from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 28, 2016)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


a 2.5 doubling of 1 deg C or about 2.5 deg C....LOG scales are so much fun...


----------



## ding (Dec 28, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Should have been a ~7C decrease in associated temperature.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 28, 2016)

ding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...







Above 550ppm its roughly 1.1 deg C per doubling.

550+550=1,100ppm / 1.1 Deg C
1,100+1,100=2,200ppm /1.1 deg C
2,200+2,200=4,400ppm /1.1 deg C

If we subtract 3,500 from 4,400 we get 900ppm/2,200 = essentially 0.5 deg C

2.2 Deg C + 0.5 Deg C = 2.7 deg C in rise or fall according to observed data without any other influences..

When you consider the oceans and the time factor it takes for that size in mass to cool it is very likely that the majority of that cooling was mass related and not CO2 related.


----------



## ding (Dec 28, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


delta T = 5.35 * ln (600/3500) *.8 = -7.548159175 C


----------



## ding (Dec 28, 2016)




----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 28, 2016)

ding said:


> View attachment 104222


Your using the 2.43/doubling forcing table... Used in modeling.

That is a high estimate table. Empirical observations are at 1.1/doubling .


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 104222
> ...


I am using their formula to show them their error.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> Show us a cause and its effect that has no correlation fool.



Just because you have correlation does not imply that you have cause...only idiots assume cause as a result of correlation...

There is almost perfect correlation between autism and organic food sales...does that mean that organic food causes autism...to you, it must since the correlation is so good...

there is a high degree of correlation between the internet explorer market share and the US murder rate...since you simply assume that correlation equals causation do you assume that IE causes a rise in murder or that murder causes a rise in IE?

There is a high degree of correlation between active face book users and the 10 year yield on Greek government bonds...which causes an increase or decrease in the other..it must be true due to the degree of correlation between the two according to you...

You must establish cause before correlation can be realistically claimed...and to date, there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions is causing a change in the global climate...and before you refer me to your bit of dogma from the ipcc..claiming a physical basis..how about you go bring some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from that steaming pile that supports the AGW claim....just one piece....since you claim to be so familiar with it, it should be little trouble for you to bring just one small piece of such evidence from that paper to here....but you  have proven over and over that you can't....and why can't you?...because there is none there regardless of what they call it...just because it has a title doesn't mean it isn't fiction...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> Mr Balamonte,
> 
> If you are asking help to make a case against AGW, it indicates you feel you do not have enough information to make a convincing case that AGW is invalid.  Rather than making the assumption that it is without sufficient evidence, why don't you simply follow where the evidence leads.  If you are objective and stay away from prejudices and unsupported assertions, I'm quite confident you will find that the overwhelming majority of evidence support the validity of AGW.




the actual evidence leads to the conclusion that AGW is bullshit without regard to the story line....if I am mistaken, lets see a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 29, 2016)

ding said:


> The temperature profile, Einstein. Evaporation only occurs at the skin, and we know that evaporation is the major component of heat loss by water bodies.



Red herring, based on a colossal logic failure.

The issue isn't that evaporation occurs. It does.

The issue is that you're making the hilariously stupid and completely unsupported claim that the IR instantly vaporizes the skin layer, and thus adds no heat to the ocean. You've shown nothing to support such a crazy claim, and I've shown you the papers that directly refute it.

Hence, you're still just waving your hands around and yelling "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".



> You do realize the skin is cooling down, right?   Not heating up.   If it is not evaporative COOLING that is responsible for the skin COOLING down, prey tell, what is? Your argument that IR is heating up the skin is ridiculous.



Again, that's your hilariously stupid logic failure in action. "Evaporation exists" is a totally different thing than "The energy from the IR instantly vaporizes the skin layer and the heat instantly leaves the ocean."

If you need me to dumb that down further for you ... you're out of luck. Science can only be dumbed down so far.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 29, 2016)

> The absolute best argument to use against the AGW argument is to simply ask warmers to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis.



And we've given it to you, over and over.

In response, you always squeal out some excuse how the observed data doesn't count because your cult says it doesn't count.

So thanks for that. Your behavior demonstrates the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the denier cult. It shows why you're called deniers. If the evidence contradicts your cult, you simply deny it.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 29, 2016)

ding said:


> Obviously Crick knows what I am talking about.  What is the predicted temperature change from the radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 falls from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?



So why are you babbling about 3500 ppm and 12 million years? Show where those number came from. Give sources. Spell out your logic clearly, step by step.

That is, act like we do, and make a point simply, directly and honestly, instead of playing games. That is, if you're capable of doing so.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > I said the same thing to American airlines.  The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).
> ...








you ain't to bright there bubba.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
> ...


_*#1. What the hell are you talking about? The hockey stick continues to go straight up. Both GHG numbers and temperature. And there has been over a dozen independent studies since then, all confirming the Hockey Stick. One of those was conducted by the National Academy of Science.*_


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> And we've given it to you, over and over.



Well, I admit that you have claimed that you have given it to me over and over...but when asked for it directly, you don't seem to be able to deliver...like right now....I am asking directly for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...

Since you claim that you have given it over and over, you should have no problem providing it now...but I predict that no such piece of evidence will be forthcoming...you will make some half assed excuse...perhaps call some names, or provide us with yet one more logical fallacy....but actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...you won't be bringing any here because none exists.

But take your best shot hairball...lets see what passes for such evidence in your mind

*You watching this EdwardBaiamonte?....a direct request from someone who "claims" to have seen observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis....now watch the response very closely...it will be some variation on the same response I have been getting to the same request for a couple of decades now...the bottom line is that no such evidence will be presented....stay tuned, and you will see evidence of my incredible predictive powers.*


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2016)

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2016)

We'll try a little of the Ding Method.





















































































That's enough for now.  That was 21 of 40 data graphs in Chapter 2 of the 14 chapters and 6 annexes of WG-I's "Physical Science Basis".  Why don't you try to repeat your claim that AR5 contains no empirical data.  That should be good for a laugh.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> #1.  What the hell are you talking about? The hockey stick continues to go straight up.



yep and temperatures are still way lower than over last 10,000 and there are no grave consequences like the ones they warned us about. If we had listened to the communist scientists way back then  they would have taken over the world's economy and perhaps starved to death 1 billion people by now.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> *You watching this EdwardBaiamonte?....a direct request from someone who "claims" to have seen observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis....now watch the response very closely...it will be some variation on the same response I have been getting to the same request for a couple of decades now...the bottom line is that no such evidence will be presented....stay tuned, and you will see evidence of my incredible predictive powers.*



Yes watching but he made my point which is that only a scientist can really attempt to judge all the scientific  evidence like the stuff he just presented and even then not conclusively. A lay person needs lay person arguments such as a 1980 quote from a scientist saying hurricanes will increase in numbers; then a recent scientist's quote saying, whoops it didn't happen and we don't understand weather.

Or a Hansen quote from 1980 saying West Side Hgy will be under water in 2020, and recent quote saying whoops our prediction was wrong we don't understand weather at all.

See what I mean?  The public needs a logical way to participate .


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013




And I have asked you repeatedly to provide something from that steaming pile that you believe is observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...so far, none has been forthcoming.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> We'll try a little of the Ding Method.
> 
> That's enough for now.  That was 21 of 40 data graphs in Chapter 2 of the 14 chapters and 6 annexes of WG-I's "Physical Science Basis".  Why don't you try to repeat your claim that AR5 contains no empirical data.  That should be good for a laugh.



Plenty of evidence that the climate is changing...as if that were necessary since that isn't the topic of discussion and never has been...the question is whether man is to blame with his CO2 emissions...not the first shred there connecting one with the other.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Yes watching but he made my point which is that only a scientist can really attempt to judge all the scientific  evidence like the stuff he just presented and even then not conclusively.



All I can say is that if you really feel that way, then the educational system has failed you miserably.   Anyone with a high school education and any amount of critical thinking skills show be able to look at that and see that there is not the first thing there that connects our CO2 emissions with rising temperatures..





EdwardBaiamonte said:


> See what I mean?  The public needs a logical way to participate .



Unfortunately I see exactly what you mean...and what the public needs is to raise holy hell over the abject failure of the educational system if they can't look at this and see that there is nothing there connecting our CO2 emissions to the changing global climate.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > We'll try a little of the Ding Method.
> ...



Except he proved nothing...and didn't even come close to delivering what was requested...H posted a bunch of graphs and all of us know full well that crick can't make heads nor tails of graphs....what he posted means nothing to him....do you see anything there that actually connects our CO2 emissions to the changing global climate...and most importantly, do you see anything there that even approaches the boundaries of natural variability?

If the climate is behaving as it has in the past, then how exactly do you believe that it is possible to detect a human fingerprint...and if you do, and the human fingerprint looks just like natural variability....what is it exactly that has you worried?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Except he proved nothing


Ding proved nothing.


SSDD said:


> ....what is it exactly that has you worried?


What? Me worry?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Anyone with a high school education and any amount of critical thinking skills show be able to look at that and see that there is not the first thing there that connects our CO2 emissions with rising temperatures..
> 
> 
> .



I"m 100% positive that 99.99% of those with only a HS diploma would look at all that and fail to render a conclusion about AGW. But, if you showed them the Hansen quote they would be able to understand its implications. Do you understand now?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> We'll try a little of the Ding Method.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



SO weather and climate changes...  so what?  Now show us the linking factors and the math proving it. Lots of pretty model outputs and not one linking factor...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Yes watching but he made my point which is that only a scientist can really attempt to judge all the scientific  evidence like the stuff he just presented and even then not conclusively.
> ...



Well, we know temperature and C02 are going way up, ice is melting,  and it might very well be related to greenhouse effect. If true we need to find out and then decide what to do.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > We'll try a little of the Ding Method.
> ...



No... Ding understands what he is posting and can articulate what his graphs show.  Crick doesn't have a clue.


----------



## westwall (Dec 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> We'll try a little of the Ding Method.
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Do you not realize that every single bit of that is derived from computer models?  Are you truly that ignorant?


----------



## westwall (Dec 29, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...








CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.  You need to learn that simple mantra.  It will save you a lot of agony.  The AGW supporters were very happy through the 1980's and 90's as global temp correlated really nicely with the corresponding increase in CO2.  Then, when that ceased after 1998, they suffered a mental breakdown, and instead of modifying their theory to conform to actual fact, they decided to falsify the data to conform to their worthless computer models.  

And that is why they are propagandizing people so hard now.  They have a window of perhaps five years before it becomes painfully obvious to even the most faithful of ignorant non scientific civilians.  Then no matter how much they lie no one will believe them.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone with a high school education and any amount of critical thinking skills show be able to look at that and see that there is not the first thing there that connects our CO2 emissions with rising temperatures..
> ...



Let me help you..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.






The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that* the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant*_ DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION.._






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

IF you place the question in appropriate terms for your audience they can grasp what it is your teaching. IN the lower graph, CO2 is shown to have very little correlation to temperature.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 29, 2016)

Silly Billy, still posting that graph, and failing to realize that if you put 2014, 2015, and 2016 on the graph, the temperature has about caught up with the CO2. Not only that, but this winter has seen the sea ice at 5 standard deviations below normal.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Temp is NOT going up and CO2 is not well correlated to what little rise we have had.  All of the fancy alarmist graphs have scaling problems. Anyone can change the scales to make it appear to be correlated.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Silly Billy, still posting that graph, and failing to realize that if you put 2014, 2015, and 2016 on the graph, the temperature has about caught up with the CO2. Not only that, but this winter has seen the sea ice at 5 standard deviations below normal.


You don't have a clue..  LONG TERM TRENDS are the issue and by long term I mean 500+ years..  Your three measly years are weather and not climate change..  I used the IPCC's own determinations against them to show just how ludicrous their position was.

Funny how you attacked me and not the verifiable facts I posted.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 29, 2016)

A real scientist addresses the issue.


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> That's enough for now. That was 21 of 40 data graphs in Chapter 2 of the 14 chapters and 6 annexes of WG-I's "Physical Science Basis". Why don't you try to repeat your claim that AR5 contains no empirical data. That should be good for a laugh.



Yep, we're in an interglacial cycle.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> A real scientist addresses the issue.


This guy is a kook and he does not reveal his magical numbers either...  Funny how you keep posting that crap as proof but there is nothing there..


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Red herring, based on a colossal logic failure.
> 
> The issue isn't that evaporation occurs. It does.
> 
> ...



No. You are the one who claims that IR is heating the skin instead of evaporative cooling is cooling the skin.  That makes zero sense.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone with a high school education and any amount of critical thinking skills show be able to look at that and see that there is not the first thing there that connects our CO2 emissions with rising temperatures..
> ...



I am sure that 99.9% of people from my generation who graduated from high school could in fact look at those graphs and see that there is nothing there that connects our CO2 emissions to the changing global climate...if 99.9% of your generation can't...then again, I suggest that at the public raise hell over the failure of the educational system.


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Again, that's your hilariously stupid logic failure in action. "Evaporation exists" is a totally different thing than "The energy from the IR instantly vaporizes the skin layer and the heat instantly leaves the ocean."
> 
> If you need me to dumb that down further for you ... you're out of luck. Science can only be dumbed down so far.



Evaporative cooling occurs at the skin and is the dominant driver of the cooling at the surface of the ocean.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Well, we know temperature and C02 are going way up, ice is melting,  and it might very well be related to greenhouse effect. If true we need to find out and then decide what to do.



Define "way up"....

The graph from the greenland ice cores I already provided for you a couple of times shows pretty clearly that the present temperature is lower than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.  It is cooler now than it has been for the past 10,000 years...how do you square that with your claim that temperatures are going way up?


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously Crick knows what I am talking about.  What is the predicted temperature change from the radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 falls from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Silly Billy, still posting that graph, and failing to realize that if you put 2014, 2015, and 2016 on the graph, the temperature has about caught up with the CO2. Not only that, but this winter has seen the sea ice at 5 standard deviations below normal.



You mean those 0.03 degrees are going to be the difference between business as usual and what exactly?.....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Silly Billy, still posting that graph, and failing to realize that if you put 2014, 2015, and 2016 on the graph, the temperature has about caught up with the CO2. Not only that, but this winter has seen the sea ice at 5 standard deviations below normal.
> ...



I think he was hoping that no one would notice we had an El Niño and the one year temp spike was caused by natural process and not MMGW..

In other news, the Great Pause resumed on Dec 19th... stay tuned!


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Rather than behave rationally in the face of the writing on the wall, they are ramping up their idiocy....as if they actually believe that the pseudoscience of AGW is going to survive over the next 8 years....as if it will come back after trump has moved on.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> We'll try a little of the Ding Method.
> 
> That's enough for now.  That was 21 of 40 data graphs in Chapter 2 of the 14 chapters and 6 annexes of WG-I's "Physical Science Basis".  Why don't you try to repeat your claim that AR5 contains no empirical data.  That should be good for a laugh.





SSDD said:


> Plenty of evidence that the climate is changing...as if that were necessary since that isn't the topic of discussion and never has been...the question is whether man is to blame with his CO2 emissions...not the first shred there connecting one with the other.



Obviously, the graphics I've put up here would benefit from the 232 pages of accompanying text in Chapter 2.  However, I think it obvious that SSDD's claim (and that of others) that AR5 contains no empirical data providing evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of our observed warming is simply flat out nonsense.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2016)

As many times as I and other have told the deniers here to read WG-I's "Physical Science Basis", that ANY of them here should indicate to us they have not seen this material before - which seems to be universal among them - is why the "debate" here is a complete farce.

If anyone here thinks whiz brains like SSDD, Billy Bob, Westwall and Ding have identified major flaws in the work of the thousands of PhDs doing this research, they've got a screw loose.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 29, 2016)

The weasel act gets old. We've seen it before. We rip apart a denier claim, they howl "but that's not my claim!". We ask what their claim is, they refuse to tell us. They're just certain their point is right, even though they can't write a sentence explaining what their point is.

So, gather your scattered thoughts together into some kind of coherent explanation. Including an image is fine, but there need to be words explaining exactly why the image is relevant, and exactly what your point is.



ding said:


> View attachment 104375


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


It's a winning argument.  The temperature profile cools at the top of the ocean because of evaporative cooling.  The effects of SR and IR are overcome by evaporative cooling.  Absent this effect the temperature profile would be higher at the surface.  If you start from this position your argument would make more sense.


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The weasel act gets old. We've seen it before. We rip apart a denier claim, they howl "but that's not my claim!". We ask what their claim is, they refuse to tell us. They're just certain their point is right, even though they can't write a sentence explaining what their point is.
> 
> So, gather your scattered thoughts together into some kind of coherent explanation. Including an image is fine, but there need to be words explaining exactly why the image is relevant, and exactly what your point is.
> 
> ...


So in other words you have no answer.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 29, 2016)

ding said:


> So in other words you have no answer.



Oh, I found your other thread, and reamed you out there for your incompetence and fraud. Go check it out. It will be amusing to watch you squeal and run yet another time, like you always do.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 29, 2016)

ding said:


> It's a winning argument.



No, it's a totally wrong argument. Here, let me destroy it again, so you can run again.



> The temperature profile cools at the top of the ocean because of evaporative cooling.



That's nice. And as I already pointed out, nobody is arguing that evaporative cooling doesn't happen, which means you're evading by attacking a strawman. "Evaporative cooling exists" does not mean "evaporative cooling instantly carries away 100% of the energy from the IR". That's entirely your bizarre theory, one with no evidence to support it.



> The effects of SR and IR are overcome by evaporative cooling.



The sources I gave flatly contradict that. All the science says you're just plain wrong. Waving your hands around wildly and screaming "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" one more time won't change that.



> Absent this effect the temperature profile would be higher at the surface.  If you start from this position your argument would make more sense.



If we start by banging our heads against a brick wall, your claims might look sensible.

If we start by agreeing your theory that the data contradicts is right ... it will still be wrong, because the data says it's wrong. That's science. Your wishes don't change reality.


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It's a winning argument.
> ...


I didn't say it did, dumbass.  I corrected your ignorant statement that IR warms the skin.  Your explanation was idiotic.  You could have said it differently and I would have agreed, dumbass.


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So in other words you have no answer.
> ...


I know it is hard for you to face the reality that CO2 is not the end all of climate change.  The truth usually hurts before it helps.  What do you do for a living again, lol?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> That's enough for now.  That was 21 of 40 data graphs in Chapter 2 of the 14 chapters and 6 annexes of WG-I's "Physical Science Basis".  Why don't you try to repeat your claim that AR5 contains no empirical data.  That should be good for a laugh.



And even more graphs that you clearly don't understand...some of which directly oppose the AGW hypothesis....but that aside, which of those graphs do you believe eliminates natural variability as a cause for the changing climate and appears to be a smoking gun for AGW...in your own words please.

And why do you have to lie continually...do you really think you are fooling anyone?...I never said that AR5 contained no empirical data....the temperature in the room it was written in would be empirical data...I have said that it contains no observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the AGW hypothesis...

So again...of all those graphs that you don't understand but have posted anyway, which one(s) do you think support the AGW hypothesis over natural variation...or show a human fingerprint as opposed to natural variation...or eliminate natural variation as the cause of climate change?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> As many times as I and other have told the deniers here to read WG-I's "Physical Science Basis", that ANY of them here should indicate to us they have not seen this material before - which seems to be universal among them - is why the "debate" here is a complete farce.



Again crick...which part of it do you think represents observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis...I have looked at all the pretty graphs you brought...which you clearly don't understand...some of which directly oppose the AGW hypothesis....there is none there that would support AGW over natural variation...there is nothing there that even approaches the boundaries of natural variability....nothing there actually supports the AGW hypothesis unless you first ASSUME that agw is true and real....all you have there is correlation and anyone with any education at all, knows that correlation does not equal causation.



Crick said:


> If anyone here thinks whiz brains like SSDD, Billy Bob, Westwall and Ding have identified major flaws in the work of the thousands of PhDs doing this research, they've got a screw loose.



The major flaw is that none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability unless you first ASSUME that AGW is real and the actual cause of the small climate change we have seen over the past 150 years...not the first bit of it actually supports the hypothesis on its on unless you first make that assumption that AGW is real...it is all correlation...and not the first shred of evidence establishing causation.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The weasel act gets old. We've seen it before. We rip apart a denier claim, they howl "but that's not my claim!". We ask what their claim is, they refuse to tell us. They're just certain their point is right, even though they can't write a sentence explaining what their point is.
> 
> So, gather your scattered thoughts together into some kind of coherent explanation. Including an image is fine, but there need to be words explaining exactly why the image is relevant, and exactly what your point is.
> 
> ...



Projecting again hairball?....

Tell you what hairball...how about you point to one of cricks graphs and, in your own words, explain why you believe it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So in other words you have no answer.
> ...




How about you provide a link to this "reaming" you gave him...


----------



## mamooth (Dec 30, 2016)

ding said:


> I didn't say it did, dumbass.  I corrected your ignorant statement that IR warms the skin.  Your explanation was idiotic.



My explanation  is supported by the direct measurements. The data says I'm right, and you're wrong. That's not up for debate.



> You could have said it differently and I would have agreed, dumbass.



Ding, you're just one babbling cult loser on the internet. Cranks like you are nothing special. Nobody cares about your kook 'tard science.

So, you and SSDD will just have to deal with being thought of as cult losers for the rest of your lives. I'd ask how you handle all the laughter directed at you, but the answer is clearly "not well", given your hysterical postings.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The weasel act gets old. We've seen it before. We rip apart a denier claim, they howl "but that's not my claim!". We ask what their claim is, they refuse to tell us. They're just certain their point is right, even though they can't write a sentence explaining what their point is.
> ...



The correlation of CO2 and temperature, the calculation of warming produced by the CO2 increase matching observations, the cooling in the lower stratosphere, the lack of any other cause.  What have you got that says it isn't?

BTW, are you planning to repeat your claim that AR5 has no empirical data?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Tell you what hairball...how about you point to one of cricks graphs and, in your own words, explain why you believe it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.



Why? So you can run another time? You've already revealed yourself to be a piss-streaked coward meany times. What's the point of doing it again?

Understand your position in the scheme of things. You're a sociopath crying on a message board. The only purpose you serve now in the universe is as comic relief, and as an example for others of how not to behave. Nobody cares if you're stomping your widdle foot and making pouty demands. If it weren't for the internet, you'd be sporting a sandwich board on a street corner.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Well, we know temperature and C02 are going way up, ice is melting,  and it might very well be related to greenhouse effect. If true we need to find out and then decide what to do.
> ...



well,  to be specific, they say temperature is up sharply since 1880 [although lower than last 10,000 years] and this spike correlates with increased co2. And???


----------



## ding (Dec 30, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say it did, dumbass.  I corrected your ignorant statement that IR warms the skin.  Your explanation was idiotic.
> ...


Can you explain how solar radiation is responsible for heating the skin, but it is IR that heats the water above the skin?  Because as near as I can tell solar radiation dominates the temperature profile except at the skin where evaporative cooling dominates the temperature profile. 

What do you do for a living?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 30, 2016)

ding said:


> Can you explain how solar radiation is responsible for heating the skin, but it is IR that heats the water above the skin?



Of course not. Don't expect me to explain your nutty theories.



> Because as near as I can tell solar radiation dominates the temperature profile except at the skin where evaporative cooling dominates the temperature profile



And what does that have to do with your deranged and totally unsupported claim that every single bit of IR instantly goes into evaporative cooling, and not a single erg of that energy enters the ocean?

The measurements say that claim is nonsense. Hence, it is nonsense, and repeating it over and over doesn't cause it to somehow become sensible.

That issue isn't going away just because you run from it over and over. The measurements say you are full of shit, hence, you are full of shit. Would it help if I explained that in smaller words?



> What do you do for a living?



What does that have to do with anything? You're clueless no matter what your occupation, and I'm damn smart no matter what my occupation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The weasel act gets old. We've seen it before. We rip apart a denier claim, they howl "but that's not my claim!". We ask what their claim is, they refuse to tell us. They're just certain their point is right, even though they can't write a sentence explaining what their point is.
> 
> So, gather your scattered thoughts together into some kind of coherent explanation. Including an image is fine, but there need to be words explaining exactly why the image is relevant, and exactly what your point is.
> 
> ...



Funny little hairball..

But you still haven't shown the math or ruled out other sources of warming..  So once again your talking shit out of both mouths..


----------



## mamooth (Dec 30, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> But you still haven't shown the math



Shown what math? Be specific. And then very specifically explain why that particular "math" has to be shown.



> or ruled out other sources of warming..



Sure they have. Do learn the basics. You wouldn't get so embarrassed if you did.

Oh, if you disagree, show what the real source of the warming is. With the hard data, and the precise math, since you're so big on such things.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 30, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> I said the same thing to American airlines.  The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).
> 
> But since theyve made mistakes before I figured that trusting any pilot is a bridge too far.  The airline disagreed but that's because the establishment "pilots" sought to conspire against me.


And of course everybody here who is not a dumbass knows you are simply lying. And even some of the dumbasses know you are lying too.


----------



## ding (Dec 30, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Can you explain how solar radiation is responsible for heating the skin, but it is IR that heats the water above the skin?
> ...


You are a fake.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > But you still haven't shown the math
> ...



I am not embarrassed at all, you should be.. Your lack of intelligence is stunning.. But it is why you are easily duped.

The hard data does not indicate a specific source from within our atmosphere which is responsible for our current rise in temperature. You have not shown any causal link, nor have you mathematically shown how it can be the only answer, by eliminating all other potential sources.

Until that science is actually done your AGW fantasy will remain a wild ass guess at best.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

If you want to see quantitative analyses (the plural of analysis jc) of CO2 warming, I suggest you visit and review How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? as much as I'm sure you hate the site.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> BTW, are you planning to repeat your claim that AR5 has no empirical data?



Again...a bald faced lie....ever wonder why liberals are such damned liars...you lie even when there is nothing to be gained by it...  That is pathological and yet, it is a common liberal trait.

I have said that AR5 has no observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....I have never said that it contains no empirical data....again...if they bothered to mention the temperature in the room they wrote that steaming pile in...that would be empirical data.

Perhaps you should start asking yourself why you lie so pathologically...and why you would lie when there was nothing to be gained by telling the lie.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell you what hairball...how about you point to one of cricks graphs and, in your own words, explain why you believe it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...



Thanks for maintaining your perfect record of not being able to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....even when material that you apparently believe supports the hypothesis is brought right here and laid out...when asked which you believe supports the hypothesis and why, the best you can do is hurl an impotent insult.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> [
> well,  to be specific, they say temperature is up sharply since 1880 [although lower than last 10,000 years] and this spike correlates with increased co2. And???



OK...here is the temperature increase since 1880..this spans about 135 years.  That appears to be about a degree and a half in the past 135 years...I will say that I believe a fair amount of that is due to data manipulation but that is fodder for another discussion....lets say for the purpose of this discussion about a degree and a half.






Now lets refer back to that graph taken from the Greenland ice core...look at the period from about 8210 to  about 8029...  that is about 180 years or so and it appears to show a temperature increase of about 3.3 degrees and if you go on out to about 7900 , an additional 129 years, the temperature increase tops out at at 3.7 degrees in about 310 years.....how does that compare to our 1.5 degrees in 135 years?  And as you look across the graph...you see other periods when the temperatures appear to be increasing must more rapidly than anything we have seen...   So again...do you really see anything there to be concerned about...or any reason to believe that the temperature increase we have seen is in any way approaching the boundaries of natural variability?...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

ding said:


> You are a fake.



Don't tell me that you are just figuring that out...if you do, you are going to drop 4 points on my respectometer...


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 31, 2016)

we know climate change happens; we just need to work on "Stargate: Atlantis" technology.  but, that is just, left wing fantasy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> If you want to see quantitative analyses (the plural of analysis jc) of CO2 warming, I suggest you visit and review How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? as much as I'm sure you hate the site.


BWhaaaaaa  Crayon kids site (skeptical science LIARS)  And they don't have the empirical evidence or math to back up their assumptions.. Color me NOT surprised..


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

Color you having not even looked at it.  Shall we pull that page up piece by piece and you can try your damnedest to tell us what's wrong with their information?  Sounds good to me.





_Figure 1: Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere over both the last 1000 years and the preceding 400,000 years as measured in ice cores_

As a greenhouse gas, this increase in atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of downward longwave radiation from the atmosphere, including towards the Earth's surface.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

*Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation*
The increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere. The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth's surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.





_Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (__Evans 2006__)._


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

*Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation*
The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth's atmosphere.





_Figure 3: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001)._

The increased energy reaching the Earth's surface from the increased greenhouse effect causes it to warm. So how do we quantify the amount of warming that it causes?


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

*Radiative Transfer Models*
Radiative transfer models use fundamental physical equations and observations to translate this increased downward radiation into a radiative forcing, which effectively tells us how much increased energy is reaching the Earth's surface. Studies have shown that these radiative transfer models match up with the observed increase in energy reaching the Earth's surface with very good accuracy (Puckrin 2004). Scientists can then derive a formula for calculating the radiative forcing based on the change in the amount of each greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (Myhre 1998). Each greenhouse gas has a different radiative forcing formula, but the most important is that of CO2:

dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

Where 'dF' is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter, 'C' is the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and 'Co' is the reference CO2concentration. Normally the value of Co is chosen at the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv.

Now that we know how to calculate the radiative forcing associated with an increase in CO2, how do we determine the associated temperature change?


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

*Climate sensitivity*
As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality:

dT = λ*dF

Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing.

So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above:

λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)

Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ

Plugging in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a most likely value of 1.4°C. However, this tells us the equilibrium temperature. In reality it takes a long time to heat up the oceans due to their thermal inertia. For this reason there is currently a planetary energy imbalance, and the surface has only warmed about 0.8°C. In other words, even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state (confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the 'warming in the pipeline'.

Of course this is just the temperature change we expect to observe from the CO2 radiative forcing. Humans cause numerous other radiative forcings, both positive (e.g. other greenhouse gases) and negative (e.g. sulfate aerosols which block sunlight). Fortunately, the negative and positive forcings are roughly equal and cancel each other out, and the natural forcings over the past half century have also been approximately zero (Meehl 2004), so the radiative forcing from CO2 alone gives us a good estimate as to how much we expect to see the Earth's surface temperature change.







_Figure 4: Global average radiative forcing in 2005 (best estimates and 5 to 95% uncertainty ranges) with respect to 1750 (IPCC AR4)._

We can also calculate the most conservative possible temperature change in response to the CO2 increase. Some climate scientists who are touted as 'skeptics' have suggested the actual climate sensitivity could be closer to 1°C for a doubling of CO2, or 0.27°C/(W/m2). Although numerous studies have ruled out climate sensitivity values this low, it's worth calculating how much of a temperature change this unrealistically low value would generate. Using the same formulas as above,

dT = 1.8 * λ = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5°C.

Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

*Conservation of Energy*
Huber and Knutti (2011) published a paper in Nature Geoscience, _Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance_.  They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget using the measurements discussed above, and summarize their methodology:

"We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom-up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s....Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 95-197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm-2."

Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation.  The authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters.

Figure 3 is a similar graphic to that presented in Meehl et al. (2004), comparing the average global surface warming simulated by the model using natural forcings only (blue), anthropogenic forcings only (red), and the combination of the two (gray).





_Figure 3: Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range._

In Figure 4, Huber and Knutti break down the anthropogenic and natural forcings into their individual components to quantify the amount of warming caused by each since the 1850s (Figure 4b), 1950s (4c), and projected from 2000 to 2050 using the IPCC SRES A2 emissions scenario as business-as-usual (4d).





_Figure 4: Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the 5–95% uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5–95% range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models. Observations are shown as dashed lines._

As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling effect:

"Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31°C (0.85-1.76°C) to the increase, that is 159% (106-212%) of the total warming. The cooling effect of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing is about -0.85°C (-1.48 to -0.30°C). The warming induced by tropospheric ozone and solar variability are of similar size (roughly 0.2°C). The contributions of stratospheric water vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are small."

Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated surface warming).  The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming.

"It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Huber and Knutti.  And like Huber and Knutti, they find that greenhouse gases have caused more warming than has been observed, because other factors have had a net cooling effect over the past century (Figure 5).





_Figure 5: Greenhouse gas contribution to global warming according to various peer-reviewed attribution studies_


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

All models all the time...and not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the AGW hypothesis...a hypothesis relating to an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity....strange....don't you think?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Color you having not even looked at it.  Shall we pull that page up piece by piece and you can try your damnedest to tell us what's wrong with their information?  Sounds good to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Crick said:


> *Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation*
> The increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere. The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth's surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.
> 
> 
> ...





Crick said:


> *Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation*
> The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> 
> ...


You really do have a rough time with graphing and what it is they intended to demonstrate.  Yet not one of your copy and pastes implys or demonstrates your point.. Bravo...  More useless crap from Crick..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> *Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation*
> The increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere. The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth's surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.
> 
> 
> ...



Taken with an instrument cooled to a temperature of at least -80F...so it wasn't measuring radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth...it was measuring radiation from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...had you set an instrument at ambient temperature right next to it, it would have shown no such measurements.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> *Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation*
> The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> 
> ...





Crick said:


> *Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation*
> The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> 
> ...



You are just stuck on lie mode aren't you?....why not post the actual graph from Harries 2001 and say what it really means rather than post that bit of fluff as if it proved your point.....Here is the actual graph from the paper...






The red and blue lines are measurements taken by the IRIS instrument in 1970 on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft...the black line is the measurement taken by the IMG instrument on the Japanese ADEOS satellite in 1997...over a single location in the central pacific with no clouds...As you can see, in the CO2 band, the two are damned near identical after 27 years of steady atmospheric CO2 increase....In fact, the differences are so slight that they fall within the margin of error of the instruments themselves....The `spectral range' is given as 600-3,000 for IMG, and 400-1,600 for IRIS.....The `spatial field of view' is given as 8 km x 8 km for IMG, 100 km x 100 km for IRIS.....The `spectral resolution' is given as 0.1 to 0.25 for IMG, 2.8 for IRIS..the differences between the instruments are so different that some variation between their measurements is inevitable....


Either you are a bald faced liar, or too dumb to actually find out what the graph means before you post it....imagine, you trying to prove anything with a graph...what a laugh...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> _Figure 3: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001)._
> 
> You really do have a rough time with graphing and what it is they intended to demonstrate.  Yet not one of your copy and pastes implys or demonstrates your point.. Bravo...  More useless crap from Crick..



See my post just above for an explanation of what that graph actually means....as usual, crick is either a bone head moron who has no idea what the graph was actually about...or the paper he referenced....(Harries 2001)....or he is just a bald faced liar trying to trick anyone who isn't paying close attention....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > _Figure 3: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001)._
> ...


Spectral output... and little or no change..

He doesn't have a clue what its use is either..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



But he sure thought that that graph proved AGW.....it is really no wonder that he and people like him have been so thoroughly taken in by this whole scam....and the funny thing is that he claims to be an engineer...and not the custodial type...


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2017)

You forget.  You didn't ask for proof.  You asked for evidence.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Crick said:


> You forget.  You didn't ask for proof.  You asked for evidence.


You are splitting hairs.  We do not understand the GHG effect well enough to single out CO2.  Correlation does not prove causation.  Our temperatures are what they are due to natural processes which have been occuring for more than 3 million years.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 1, 2017)

Crick said:


> You forget.  You didn't ask for proof.  You asked for evidence.


The proof is, climate change happens.  We need better technologies to "bail us out of it".


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

Crick said:


> You forget.  You didn't ask for proof.  You asked for evidence.



Here is a news flash for you skid mark...that isn't evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis...when the entire story is presented...it is evidence that the AGW hypothesis is terribly flawed....after 27 years of steady increase in atmospheric CO2, the difference in outgoing IR in the CO2 wavelengths is less than the margin of error between the two machines...what your graph proves is that increased CO2 isn't having any effect at the top of the atmosphere...yet one more prediction made by the AGW hypothesis that flopped.

You really should not try to use graphs...it is clear that you don't know what they mean and every time you use one it backfires....an intelligent person would detect a pattern and take appropriate avoidance action...you don't...guess that is a statement in itself.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You forget.  You didn't ask for proof.  You asked for evidence.
> ...



I will agree that if money is to be spent on climate change, it should be put into adaptation rather than the futile attempt to control the climate.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Could depend on advances in fusion (an energy with a future); it could supply power for advances in terraforming and reclamation on Earth, not only for fun and practice, but also to encourage active participation in rational choice theory.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You forget.  You didn't ask for proof.  You asked for evidence.
> ...


That probably does not exist because CO2 probably does not drive climate change, but if they were serious about it, they would look into Azolla.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

I think at this point, we don't know nearly enough to start terraforming the earth....back in the 70's during the ice age scare, there was talk of spreading black soot over the arctic and antarctic to trap heat....where might that have led?

Any attempt at terraforming at this point would be an invitation to disaster.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


what about fusion (an energy with a future) to lower global sea levels with pumps and desalination, and with better aqueducts, move water to where it may be needed.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I think at this point, we don't know nearly enough to start terraforming the earth....back in the 70's during the ice age scare, there was talk of spreading black soot over the arctic and antarctic to trap heat....where might that have led?
> 
> Any attempt at terraforming at this point would be an invitation to disaster.


aqueducts could eliminate droughts on Earth.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I think at this point, we don't know nearly enough to start terraforming the earth....back in the 70's during the ice age scare, there was talk of spreading black soot over the arctic and antarctic to trap heat....where might that have led?
> ...



Or create unexpected droughts in places that we didn't forsee...our limited history of terraforming is rife with unintended consequences...


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


sea levels are rising; how would desalinating and pumping water through aqueducts to where it may be needed, create any unintended consequences? 

extracting some fossil fuels, may be worse.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> sea levels are rising;



Sea levels have been rising for some 14K years...and the rate of rise has decreased in the past decade or so....



danielpalos said:


> how would desalinating and pumping water through aqueducts to where it may be needed, create any unintended consequences?



I don't know...but then, that is the very nature of unintended consequences...isn't it?

I have no problem with desalinating water and moving it to areas that are in need...if that water is provided in an "on demand" way...but attempting to alter natural cycles of drought by filling aquifers, etc..... is where we may run into problems that we couldn't even imagine...until such time as they actually begin to appear at which time it is too late.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Yes, sea levels are rising.  They have always been rising or falling.  That's how it works.  That's how it has always worked.  We do not live in a static world.  Our world is constantly seeking equilibrium.  I think aqueducts are a great idea.  I also think they won't solve every problem.  There will be some unintended consequences.  Somebody will complain.  We can count on that.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> Yes, sea levels are rising.  They have always been rising or falling.  That's how it works.  That's how it has always worked.  We do not live in a static world.  Our world is constantly seeking equilibrium.  I think aqueducts are a great idea.  I also think they won't solve every problem.  There will be some unintended consequences.  Somebody will complain.  We can count on that.



Do you think it would be a good idea to....say...fill aquifers that are steadily dropping....or do you think it would be more prudent to store transported water on the surface....lakes...ponds..etc?


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > sea levels are rising;
> ...


we could be establishing or replenishing wetlands, with an abundant power source.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And what happens to those "replenished" wetlands when the natural cycle comes around to wet again?  Where does that water go?...and what happens to the environment?


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sea levels have been rising for some 14K years...and the rate of rise has decreased in the past decade or so....



Let's see data supporting that statement


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sea levels have been rising for some 14K years...and the rate of rise has decreased in the past decade or so....
> ...



Sure crick...I can always support my statements...and even better, I know what the graphs mean.

You aren't seeing 3.3mm of sea level rise per year...not in the actual ocean anyway.  You are seeing 3.22mm of sea level rise in graphs...and models produced by those who are perpetuating the AGW narrative and raking in the money for it but in the ocean...sorry....just not there.  Not that I think you warmers will be interested in seeing actual evidence of the level of fraud happening within mainstream climate science, but let me show an example for the benefit of those who aren't taking their kook-aid intravenously.  Observe....the blatant altering of past sea level data in an effort to reinforce the imminent climate disaster narrative.  Much like the blatant alteration of past temperatures to support the current narrative, but that's another post....


Luckily, old data is still hanging around to be found to bring the fraud of the climate science modern climate science community into high relief.  This is the sea level increase between 1880 and 1980 shown by NASA in 1980.  The graph shows an increase of just over 3 inches of sea level increase between 1880 and 1980....*NOTE the sharp decrease in the rate of increase after 1950.*






You can't really scare people with a 3 inch sea level increase over a 100 year period so the frauds in climate pseudoscience increased the figure to 6 inches per century with nothing more than adjustments....  NOTE the completely FAKE acceleration after 1950.







Here is an overlay of the two graphs on the same time scale.  One is scientific in nature...showing actual observed sea level increases...the other is a piece of alarmist propaganda that has nothing whatsoever to do with science and everything to do with supporting a fraudulent narrative.






Then in 2004, the University of Colorado showed 2.8 mm per year rate of sea level increase.  This is what the RAW Jason and TOPEX data look like...not similar in the least to what you claim to be the RAW data.






2.8 mm per year?  Not very scary...even to alarmists so again, the data is heavily massaged using inappropriate, and completely fraudulent methods to achieve a 3.3mm per year rate of increase.  A global isostatic adjustment was applied which is blatantly fraudulent in the context of sea level increase.  Such adjustments are correct in the context of calculating ocean depth as the sea floor sinks and have absolutely no relationship to measuring sea level by satellites.  Here is what the adjustments look like...recognize the POS graph as the same garbage you posted.








Again....Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale....one using valid methodology and one using calculations that are not appropriate for determining sea level increase for no other reason than to support the AGW narrative.






So some numbers got a massage and a picture was painted to give the appearance of imminent disaster.  Shit happens...right?  But when the "spokes agency" for modern climate science repeats the fraud as truth....we have real evidence of deliberate data corruption with the intent to deceive regarding climate change.  In 1990 the IPCC said:







Then in 2013 using blatantly massaged data and obviously fraudulent graphs, the IPCC said exactly the opposite of what they said in 1990.  You guys are lairs crick...guilty of malfeasance, and deliberate fraud for no other reason than to gain political power.  You have damaged the reputation of science so deeply that it will take many many decades after this circus is over to restore the trust in science that you climate wackos have destroyed for political reasons


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2017)

You simply claim any data supporting mainstream science are massaged lies.  Arguing with you is pointless.  Bye.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


there must be a drought, somewhere; or, that energy could be diverted to other uses.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

Crick said:


> You simply claim any data supporting mainstream science are massaged lies.  Arguing with you is pointless.  Bye.



If you are unable to see the massaging and manipulating of data from these various agencies and universities, then you are every last bit as stupid as I thought you were....and believe me...that is mighty damned stupid...  Even when given incontrovertible evidence of tampering, you are unable, or unwilling to see....the next years are going to be very uncomfortable for people like you...all of this data is going to be put forward by skeptical scientists with actual power to the likes of michael mann and I so look forward to watching the squirming...


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Crick said:


> You simply claim any data supporting mainstream science are massaged lies.  Arguing with you is pointless.  Bye.


No.  He fucking proved it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You simply claim any data supporting mainstream science are massaged lies.  Arguing with you is pointless.  Bye.
> ...




The willful ignorance is astounding...but then crick is the guy who when given a direct quote by climate scientists talking about fabricating data claimed that they were just having a bit of "fun" between themselves.  Ignorance can be overcome...but deliberate stupidity on that level must be genetic and probably not possible to overcome.

Although, my evidence did consist of graphs and we all know that crick can't make heads nor tails of even the most simple graph.  The funny thing is, he claims to be an engineer of some sort...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



so, Judy Curry PH. D just resigned saying temperature estimates were very wrong, and field is  too political to be called science. MIT scientist agrees. So much for the consensus but it a good argument that a lay person can use.


----------

