# 2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record



## ScienceRocks (Jan 8, 2012)

2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record
 January 4th, 2012 at 10:16 pm by Jim Spencer under Weather 
2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record | KXAN.com Blogs
Global Temperature Report: December 2011

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade

December temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.13 C (about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.20 C (about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.06 C (about 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Tropics: +0.04 C (about 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

Notes on data released Jan. 4, 2012:

2011 was the ninth warmest year (globally averaged) in the 33-year global satellite record despite La Niña Pacific Ocean cooling events at the start and finish of the year, according to John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Globally averaged, Earth&#8217;s atmosphere was 0.15 C (0.27 degree Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30-year average in 2011; That was less than half of the warming anomaly seen in 2010.

Average annual global
 temperature anomalies,
 warmest to coolest
 1979 &#8211; 2011

1998   0.424
 2010   0.411
 2005   0.251
 2002   0.22
 2009   0.187
 2003   0.185
 2006   0.175
 2007   0.168
*2011  0.15*
 2001   0.112
 2004   0.104
 1991   0.025
 1987   0.018
 1995   0.018
 1988   0.017
 1980  -0.003
 1990  -0.017
 1981  -0.04
 2008  -0.041
 1997  -0.044
 1999  -0.051
 1983  -0.056
 2000  -0.056
 1996  -0.071
 1994  -0.104
 1979  -0.165
 1989  -0.202
 1986  -0.239
 1993  -0.24
 1982  -0.245
 1992  -0.284
 1985  -0.304
 1984  -0.348

With A COLDER SET UP for 2011 we got 9th, while 2008 had the 19th coldest at  2008  -0.041c. 2011 had a double nina...That hasn't happened since 1999-2001 nina cycle. The first nina in 2008 may of been close to the first one, but we didn't go below -.5c globally or even a offical second nina. This year we made -1.0 or moderate for the second nina and never warmed up at all.

This year was a impressive .191c warmer then 2008!

Ladies and gents, if this year couldn't knock us outside of the 10th warmest years-- we aren't ever going to see another in are life times. Seriously, no nina event since 1974 was as strong. Yes, sir we just faced down one of the coldest patterns in 40 years in laughed in its face! A pattern that could of put us near 1984-1985 or lower on that list.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 8, 2012)

Yeah, the La Nina conditions have kept the averages a tiny bit lower this last year so that means that the next El Nino on top of the cumulative greenhouse warming will soon give us some new record high temperature years. It is also worth remembering that our Jan-Dec year is arbitrary so the yearly rankings, like in your list, are somewhat arbitrary too. Looking at every consecutive twelve month period on record  and comparing it every other 12 month period on record, the very recent period from June 2009 to May 2010 was, in fact, the warmest 'year' on record since widespread record keeping began in the late 1800's. The first half of 2010 was so hot that only the beginning of a new La Nina period in mid 2010 kept the year from being the hottest year on record by a large margin rather than just ending up being tied with 2005 as the formal 'hottest year on record'.

Here's some more detailed info about that period from Dr. Jeff Masters, a professional meteorologist and climate scientist.

*Globe has 3rd consecutive warmest month on record*
Dr. Jeff Masters
 June 17, 2010
(excerpts)
*The globe recorded its warmest May since record keeping began in 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The May temperature anomaly of 0.69°C (1.24°F) beat the previous record set in 1998 by 0.06°C. We've now had three consecutive warmest months on record, the first time that has happened since 1998. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies also rated May 2010 as the warmest May on record, tied with May 1998. Both NOAA and NASA rated the year-to-date period, January - May, as the warmest such period on record, and the last 12-month period (June 2009 - May 2010) as the warmest 12-month period on record. May 2010 global ocean temperatures were the second warmest on record, while land temperatures were the warmest on record. Global satellite-measured temperatures for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere were the 2nd warmest on record in May, according to both the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) groups.

Asia and Southeast Asia record their hottest temperatures in history
The mercury hit an astonishing 53.5°C (128.3°F) at MohenjuDaro, Pakistan, on May 26. Not only is the 128.3°F reading the hottest temperature ever recorded in Pakistan, it is the hottest reliably measured temperature ever recorded on the continent of Asia. The evidence for this record is detailed in a post I made earlier this month. The Pakistan heat wave killed at least 18 Pakistanis, and temperatures in excess of 50°C (122°F) were recorded at nine Pakistani cities on May 26, including 53°C (127.4°F) at Sibi. Record heat also hit Southeast Asia in May. According to the Myanmar Department of Meteorology and Hydrology, Myanmar (Burma) had its hottest temperature in its recorded history on May 12, when the mercury hit 47°C (116.6°F) in Myinmu. Myanmar's previous hottest temperature was 45.8°C (114.4°F) at Minbu, Magwe division on May 9, 1998. According to Chris Burt, author of Extreme Weather, the 47°C (116.6°F) measured on May 12 this year is the hottest temperature measured in Southeast Asia in recorded history.*


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2012)

what is more important, the actual average temp of any particular year or the change from the proceeding year? the 90's saw a lot of increase but the 00's were stagnant at a high average. which measurement carries more information, the actual temperature or the rate of change?

is CO2 more important than cloud cover? or is it Matthew's beloved ENSO? I don't think we have peeled away enough onion skin to know yet but I think we should keep measuring everything we can. the answer is down the road and we will find it. even after this disasterous detour into the CO2 cul-de-sac we have taken.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 8, 2012)

Matthew said:


> 2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record
> January 4th, 2012 at 10:16 pm by Jim Spencer under Weather
> 2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record | KXAN.com Blogs
> Global Temperature Report: December 2011



That's another way of saying "temperatures have been flat."


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 8, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > 2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record
> ...


Even assuming that 9 of the top 10 temps being from the last decade means that temps have been "flat" for a decade, shouldn't they be cooling? Isn't a warm cycle supposed to be followed by a cool cycle? There hasn't been a cooling cycle for 100 years! Each warm cycle has been followed by a flat cycle that was followed by a new warm cycle that begins about the same place the old warm cycle left off. What has happened to the natural cooling cycles????


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2012)

when should the recovery from the Little Ice Age end? I dont think anyone knows. but I dont think we will be happy when the temps go back down again. cold is not good for civilization


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 8, 2012)

another gay thread about a topic that brings yawns in 2012............

Relative to the public at large, nobody cares about this shit anymore!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 8, 2012)

Still, the stubborn fact remains, that although satellites can observe the temperature, they STILL can't tell us the CAUSE of any temperature increase.

1- So, WITH UNCOMPROMISED PROOF (no EAU Climate, NASA or Penn State data and unverified compromised surface stations), what is causing the temperature warmer this year, versus any other?  

2- Can you explain how there is no possible way nature caused it without man's help?  

3- Is there ANY solution that does not require threat of government force to create?

4- Can you guarantee a quantifiable, measurable result from your solution showing it's direct effect on temperatures inside a reasonable timeframe?


Just as a reminder, over 75% of this planet is covered in water and is not habitable by man.  Out of the remaining <25%, less than 10% of that is urbanized.  Mankind may produce billions of tons of CO2 a year, but that is still less than 0.0005% of atmospheric composition, while water vapor accounts for about 4%, and cannot be quantified or measured on it's impact, AND is a far more powerful green house gas.

The Chicken Little Chorus hasn't been able to answer these 4 questions in over 5 years of asking.  Do you think you can do it?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 8, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > That's another way of saying "temperatures have been flat."
> ...



100 years is a very short time when you look at the history of the climate.  We had a warm period during the roman empire and another one that peaked around 1200 AD.   That's a separation of roughly 1000 years.  Our climate has been warming since about the year 1650.  100 years is nothing

Those cooling periods were not good times for the human race.  They were times of famine, drought and blight.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 8, 2012)

IanC said:


> what is more important, the actual average temp of any particular year or the change from the proceeding year? the 90's saw a lot of increase but the 00's were stagnant at a high average. which measurement carries more information, the actual temperature or the rate of change?


Ah yes, the moldy old denier cult myths - "warming stopped in 1998' & 'temperatures flat for last decade'.

*Global warming greatest in past decade*
PhysOrg.com
September 1, 2008
(excerpts)

*Researchers confirm that surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer over the last 10 years than any time during the last 1300 years, and, if the climate scientists include the somewhat controversial data derived from tree-ring records, the warming is anomalous for at least 1700 years.

"Some have argued that tree-ring data is unacceptable for this type of study," says Michael Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences and director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center. "Now we can eliminate tree rings and still have enough data from other so-called 'proxies' to derive a long-term Northern Hemisphere temperature record." The proxies used by the researchers included information from marine and lake sediment cores, ice cores, coral cores and tree rings. "We looked at a much expanded database and our methods are more sophisticated than those used previously," says Mann.*


*What has global warming done since 1998?*
Last updated on 18 December 2011
(excerpts)

*To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.

This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.





Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content anomaly from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008. Land + Atmosphere includes the heat absorbed to melt ice.

A look at the Earth's total heat content clearly shows global warming has continued past 1998. The planet is still accumulating heat. So why do surface temperature records show 1998 as the hottest year on record? We see in Figure 1 that the heat capacity of the land and atmosphere is small compared to the ocean. Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature.

In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.*







IanC said:


> is CO2 more important than cloud cover? or is it Matthew's beloved ENSO?


CO2 is definitely more important than either one of those in the long term. CO2 levels can keep increasing indefinitely and the greenhouse effects will get greater. Cloud cover can both reflect sunlight away from the Earth and trap heat energy underneath them (clear winter nights are much colder than cloud covered winter nights) and the ENSO variations just move the heat around between the atmosphere and the oceans. Rising CO2 levels will inevitably trap even more heat energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans.






IanC said:


> I don't think we have peeled away enough onion skin to know yet but I think we should keep measuring everything we can. the answer is down the road and we will find it. even after this disasterous(sic) detour into the CO2 cul-de-sac we have taken.


I'm more interested in what the professional climate scientists "_think_" than what some confused and deluded random bystander like yourself "_thinks_". That you are in fact a deluded tool of the fossil fuel industry is clearly revealed by your use of the idiotic and meaningless denier cult phrase: "_CO2 cul-de-sac_". The fact that you deny the scientifically established physics of greenhouse gases shows you to be just another anti-science righwingnut clueless denier dupe.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 8, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Still, the stubborn fact remains, that although satellites can observe the temperature, they STILL can't tell us the CAUSE of any temperature increase.
> 
> 1- So, WITH UNCOMPROMISED PROOF (no EAU Climate, NASA or Penn State data and unverified compromised surface stations), what is causing the temperature warmer this year, versus any other?
> 
> ...


Man... tha's a lotta crickets out there.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 8, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Still, the stubborn fact remains, that although satellites can observe the temperature, they STILL can't tell us the CAUSE of any temperature increase.
> ...



Well, bigfritz, it's like this - when you ask questions as stupidly ignorant as those, you can expect to be ignored. Try learning something about the subject before coming here to debate. Of course, to actually learn something, you would obviously have to first un-learn the lies and misinformation you've been fed by the propagandists for the fossil fuel industry. That is probably beyond your rather meager mental capacities, given the level of brainwashing to which you've been subjected.

However, if you are truly looking for honest answers and not just following the rightwingnut political agenda of anti-science reality denial, try reading this. 

*The Discovery of Global Warming*


***


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 8, 2012)

Trolling Blunder, if you're trying to respond to me, don't bother.  I ignore non-sentient collections of protoplasm and gristle.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 8, 2012)

Fritzy boy, you ignore anything that resembles intelligiance.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 8, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > 2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record
> ...



Ah yes. Flat. 2010 ties 1998. Yet 1998 was a super El Nino, 2010, a moderate one with the last half of the year in La Nina conditions. 

UAH Global Temperature Update for Dec. 2011: +0.13 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Look at that 13 month average on the graph. Since 1998 we have had two short periods where the low points actually went below some of the high points before 1998. For most of the time, that line has been well above the highest points on the graph prior to 1998.

When we get another El Nino, 1998 is going to look the same compared to that as 1995 looks when compared to 1998. Then, when the ENSO changes again, you dingbats will once again be claiming, "See, it's cooling.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 8, 2012)

You're still on ignore too, Millrat.  I've heard all your lather, rinse, repeat arguments and charts and don't need to bore myself anymore.

Again, sentient beings may reply.  You must be at least that smart to ride this ride.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 8, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> You must be at least that smart to ride this ride.


But apparently even ignorant retarded braindead nincompoops like you and your denier cult butt-buddies can post on this forum.


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > what is more important, the actual average temp of any particular year or the change from the proceeding year? the 90's saw a lot of increase but the 00's were stagnant at a high average. which measurement carries more information, the actual temperature or the rate of change?
> ...



I am more interested in what the data say than in the exaggerated and distorted thoughts and conclusions of some of the 'professional climate scientists'. I am even less interested in your _ad homs_ like "deluded tool of the fossil fuel industry" and "anti-science righwingnut clueless denier dupe". but if that is your style and it makes you happy, go right ahead.

you think I am being duped and deluded but you never consider that you are at risk of the same thing by credulously believing everything as presented to you, especially when you get it via SkepticalScience.






ie- is this graph reasonable or is it emotionally affecting you to come to erroneous conclusions? you have to examine the labelling of the x and y axis and the positioning of the origin. if the intent was to show that the heat content of the atmosphere is miniscule compared to the oceans then it is alright. but if it is trying to show the relative increase of heat content of the oceans it is wildly deceiving. the average global temp is what? ~288K? and the increase has been less than 1K since 1950 so the actual increase in heat content is a very small fraction. are the measurements before ARGO widespread and reliable? not really but we have to start with something. here is a graph of NODC figures since 1955, before and after the adjustment in 2010.






notice that the heat content now looks more like the the global temp curve, which is reasonable. another thing to notice is the type of corrections that were made when it was no longer possible to hide decreased rate of warming. unlike Hansen's GISS land temp adjustments that are unaccountable to scrutiny the OHC adjustments had to make sense. so the artificial lowering of older measurements and raising of newer measurements had to be reversed.

I dont mind that you speak up and defend CAGW. once you make up your mind it is hard to change but I have never been close to being convinced that it is the only or even the best description of the realities of the last few hundreds or thousands of years. I do find it disheartening that so many people like you are willing to mix the scientific and political components together and then resort to an us-vs-them mentality where you no longer even think about the direction the evidence is leading.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2012)

Interesting graph, Ian. Note the relitively flat area from 1976 to 1996. Then look at the very rapid rise from 1995 to 2001. So we have another flat period going on right now. Tell me, how long is it going to last, and how far up will the next rise ratchet the climate? 

For that is what we are seeing in all the records. Ice, atmospheric temperatures, and ocean temperatures. Where once we saw rise and fall, now we see rise and plateu, then another rapid rise. Or, is the case of the ice, rapid decline.

And, in the case of the ice, a threat that nature will now become the driver of the climate change as the clathrates outgass. Then you can truly say that it is nature, not us. As a significant portion of the wolrds human population dies from the effects we triggered.


----------



## mal (Jan 9, 2012)

Couple this with Tebow and 3:16 Yards in his Improbable Playoff Win...

Repent.



peace...


----------



## konradv (Jan 9, 2012)

IanC said:


> what is more important, the actual average temp of any particular year or the change from the proceeding year? the 90's saw a lot of increase but the 00's were stagnant at a high average. which measurement carries more information, the actual temperature or the rate of change?
> 
> is CO2 more important than cloud cover? or is it Matthew's beloved ENSO? I don't think we have peeled away enough onion skin to know yet but I think we should keep measuring everything we can. the answer is down the road and we will find it. even after this disasterous detour into the CO2 cul-de-sac we have taken.



How is it a cul-de-sac?  GHGs will always figure in to overall climate influences.  The only questions are "how much" and "when", not "if".


----------



## konradv (Jan 9, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> another gay thread about a topic that brings yawns in 2012............
> 
> Relative to the public at large, nobody cares about this shit anymore!!!



I've been noticing that you've been gravitating to the gay threads!  Care to explain?  Got something to share?


----------



## konradv (Jan 9, 2012)

IanC said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I find it strange that those who tout natural cycles would hang their hat, not on an actual decrease in temperature, but on a "decreased RATE of warming".  Am I missing something here or are natural cycles invoked only to bash the other guy?


----------



## konradv (Jan 9, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What cooling period?  We're talking about warming!  Are you pushing an effort to increase GHGs to forestall the coming Ice Age?!?!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 9, 2012)

konradv said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You really don't know shit about anything, do you, dipshit?


----------



## konradv (Jan 9, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I know you're joke, *!!!*


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2012)

konradv said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > what is more important, the actual average temp of any particular year or the change from the proceeding year? the 90's saw a lot of increase but the 00's were stagnant at a high average. which measurement carries more information, the actual temperature or the rate of change?
> ...



CO2 culdesac means that the science has gone down a dead end road and continues to circle around just one factor, CO2. we need to back up and travel other roads and factors before we get to the destination. we cant get there stuck on the wrong block going around in circles, it is a different block and probably on a different street.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2012)

konradv said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



the temp of the earth has been amazingly stable. the graph of 'avg' temp would be pretty near impossible to even see if we plotted the actual ups and downs of daily temps. 

konradv- you wonder why I am more concerned about rates of increase or decrease? things dont change unless some force is acting on them. times of change mean imbalance, times of stability mean less imbalance. if you want to find important factors you need to examine times of change where the imbalance is larger than the background noise.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2012)

and I put up the graph of OHCs before and after the adjustments of 2010 to highlight that you cant always take data at face value. there is a lot of leeway built in that can be influenced by those who present the data. past measurements dont stay the same and the shape of the curves seem to change arbitrarily. compare the shape of Hansen's adjustments for continental US temps at the turn of the millenium






and who can forget the drop in post 2000 US temps after McIntyre pointed out the Y2K bug? those corrections were adjusted out of existence within a couple of years and the new values for the 00's are higher than ever.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2012)

Continental US is less than 2% of the world's area. Had you added Alaska to that, the graph would look very differant. Also, please link the source of the graph.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2012)

Old Rocks- yes the continental US is less than 2% of the world's area. all land areas are less than 30% of the total area. the difference is that the ContUS has been measured extensively for quite a while whereas most of the oceans and much of the rest of the land mass has not. if US temps are that easy to manipulate why should we believe that historical ocean and non western style countries have records that are pristeen and reliable, with no added biases?

the blink comparator is made from 2 GISS graphs. we have been over this before. the earlier graph even 'disappeared' for a while until complaints were made and it was restored at the GISS website.


----------



## konradv (Jan 10, 2012)

IanC said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Isn't that because it's the factor that's changing non-naturally?  If you don't think it's coming from man, the skeptic/denier side is going to have to come up with a plausible explanation.  Other factors come and go, but seem to get most of the attention, while my question never gets answered.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2012)

as for Alaska-








> The figure at right shows clearly that this trend is non-linear: a linear trend might have been expected from the fairly steady observed increase of CO2 during this time period. The figure shows the temperature departure from the long-term mean (1949-2009) for all stations. It can be seen that there are large variations from year to year and the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2009, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase



the linear trend for Alaska is quite high. before I asked if absolute temps were more important, or if the rate of change was more informative. in this case it seems as if noticing the steep change that occured when the PDO switched is a primary factor and the trend over the whole period is in fact somewhat misleading.

more info and links at Temperature Change in Alaska


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2012)

konradv said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



konradv- it makes no sense to hector me over CO2. I have already done more than you to support the physics of CO2 as a factor. I just dont believe it is a main factor because I think it is mediated by other pathways in the climate system. you see it as a singular mechanism unaffected by other factors whereas I see it as a small factor that is lost in the myriad of other factors controlling temps and climate. just because it is partially manmade doesnt give it special status in the real world.


----------



## konradv (Jan 10, 2012)

IanC said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Of course it's not the main factor, the sun is.  That's NOT the point.  It's the factor that's changing in one direction, rather than cycling like the others.  It's also the factor over which we have control.  You may want to downplay its role, but I don't consider a 30-40% rise over historical averages to be insignificant, particularly if the rise continues, as it will, if we keep emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2012)

I am sorry that you cant seem to do anything but ride around the cul-de-sac saying the same things over and over again. when you have a new thought, look me up


----------



## Jeremy (Jan 10, 2012)

Wow. 9th warmest since we've put weather satellites into orbit. 

Impressive.


----------



## konradv (Jan 10, 2012)

Jeremy said:


> Wow. 9th warmest since we've put weather satellites into orbit.
> 
> Impressive.



Quite so, as the skeptics keep telling us we're supposed to be heading towards an Ice Age.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2012)

IanC said:


> as for Alaska-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Misleading? How so? Perhaps you should look at that chart more carefully. In fact, the whole site has some very interesting information. Note how much the temperature increase varies from south to north. How much higher the increase in warmth is on the north coast compared to southern Alaska.

And the seasonal temps are particularly telling. Much higher increase in warmth in the winter.

Again, to the graph you posted. Look at the clustering of high temps toward the right side. Seems to me to indicate a very rapid rate of warming. Yes, there is a step effect on that graph. The same as we see on the other graphs of ice, ocean temps, and land temps. A rapid rise, platueing, and another rapid rise. And at every platueing you people start yapping about a cooling. Sheesh.

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2012)

IanC said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Ian. Very simple physics. 

There are only two basic factors in the heat of the surface of the earth. One, the amount of energy from the sun. Two, the amount of energy that is retained. 

The amount of energy from the sun has been in a very minute decline for nearly fifty years. The amount of energy that the atmosphere retains has been increasing because of a very significant increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. The primary GHG in the atmosphere is CO2, even though H2O vapor has a bigger effect. But H2O vapor has a residence time of less than 10 days, CO2, decades to centuries. So H2O is a feedback, CO2 is a driver.

The cause of the 40% increase in CO2 is us. The cause of the increase in CH4, from a bit over 700 ppb to well over 1800 ppb is us. 

Now CH4 is a very potent GHG in the short run. A CO2 equivelence of 60 to 160. Even the lower figure puts the CO2 equivelence figure at present over 450 ppm, without counting the very potent industrial GHGs, many of which have equivelency figures in the thousands, some, tens of thousands.

So we are close to having doubled the amount of GHG heating in the atmosphere right now. All that has kept us from seeing really major effects prior to now is the amount of heat that the oceans are absorbing. 

But that sword has a double edge. For by warming the oceans, we are already seeing the outgassing of the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. And it won't take much of that before we are simply along for the ride. 

Then you can truly say that it is nature, not man. Kind of like triggering a landslide, then stating that it is gravity, the dynamite had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2012)

Jeremy said:


> Wow. 9th warmest since we've put weather satellites into orbit.
> 
> Impressive.



Ninth warmest in a year with reduced Solar Irradiance and a double La Nina. Of course, given the intellect of your reply, I suppose that I would have to spend and hour or more defining what those are for you. And then you would forget before tomorrow.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2012)

IanC said:


> I am sorry that you cant seem to do anything but ride around the cul-de-sac saying the same things over and over again. when you have a new thought, look me up



Show us where there are other important factors. Factors that are drivers, not ones that just add ups and downs to the charts. As stated many times before, the ups and downs are still there as we warm, they are just begin and end much higher on the charts. 

Enso, the dodec, and other factors are not drivers. They just put noise on the chart, but the chart continues to go up. 

UAH Global Temperature Update for Dec. 2011: +0.13 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



you are entitled to your own opinions. I think you and konradv are too simplistic in your linear thinking that CO2 increases temps with a linear effect. personally I think there are very many factors that change in a nonlinear fashion according to, and in response to, differences in all of them. you see catastrophy around every corner and I see the globe as a stable system that can (and has many times in the past) deal with disturbances in the conditions. 

much of the evidence is equivical, and there are thousands of explanations for it, and even more possible conclusions. you have picked out the one that suits you and now your worldview adapts anything you here to support your supposition. you are simply restating Pascual's Wager as a religion of climate change instead of a belief in God. and just as Pascual was wrong because there are an infinite number of possible religions, you are wrong because there are an infinite number of outcomes in climate. it is indeed possible that your catastrophes could happen but it is much, much more likely that they will not. you want to cripple economies and revert to a preindustrialized state where people will suffer and die because you dont want people to suffer and die. in all actuality you probably just want to call for changes that you know wont and cant happen so that you will be able to say it wasnt Old Rock's fault. will you give up 3/4 of your lifestyle for changes that will be unlikely to make any difference?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 11, 2012)

konradv said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. 9th warmest since we've put weather satellites into orbit.
> ...


got those answers for my 4 questions yet?  Ole Crocks and Trolling Blunder are disqualified on account of insufficient sentience.  How bout you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 11, 2012)

IanC said:


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



Five times in the past there have been major extinctions because of disturbances in the system. Today, because of the multiple strains we are putting on the natural world, we are in the midst of the sixth great extinction. The path we are on will inevitably lead to many of our own specie dying from the effects of the damage we are doing in so many spheres.

You know, Ian, I have not tried to put words into your mouth. Don't try it with me. I expect that of numb nuts like Fritzy and Franky boy. Up till now, you have not indulged in this. Don't start now. 

No, I do not desire to go back to pre-industrial living. I have actually lived like that for a few months. I have repeatedly pointed out that we have the technology to replace the fossil fuel generation plants with non-polluting generation, wind, solar, geo-thermal, slow current, and wave. Yes, it will be expensive, just as replacing our present antiquated grid is going to be expensive. And the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be on all fronts. At present, the energy companies pass on the downsteam costs of their coal generation, water pollution, destruction of woodlands and prairie, to the public. To say nothing of the costs of asthma.


----------



## westwall (Jan 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







How do you know that the CO2 increase is solely due to man?  Ice core data shows that CO2 levels lag warmth, we have been warming since the end of the LIA so it is completely consistent that the current rise in CO2 is tied to that.  It is a certainty that man contributes (around 4% of the total CO2 budget of the planet) but there is little evidence that man is the sole cause.  And if CO2 were the driver it would increase long before warming commenced.  That is proven to not be true.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 11, 2012)

Once again the same old lie. We are responsible for about 40% of the present 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have records of the amount of coal and petroleum that we have burned in the last 150 years.

In the course of the Milankovic Cycles, yes, as the warming starts with the Southern Oceans, the oceans emit CO2, and that feedback then is the primary driver for the interglacial. The evidence for this has been posted several times. But you keep up the same old yap yap.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 11, 2012)

Who do I see about that gigantic snowstorm last year? Oh it was warmer wasn't it? Don't you global warming henny pennys understand that "on record" is a literal drop in the bucket in geological terms? We are coming out of a mini ice age and lefties want to punish us for it. Keep the masses cold in the winter and poor all year around with high energy costs and it means votes for democrats and the social revolution they have been planning for a century.


----------



## westwall (Jan 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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







No one KNOWS what caused the mass extinctions.  It is an automatic PhD for the first person to figure out what caused them.  Even Alvarez' asteroid impact theory while certainly the "consensus" view is not the end all, we still argue the merits and demerits of other theories (unlike some other "science" that actively tries to limit discussion)

The Earth is rarely stable.  This last 10,000 years is probably the most stable we know of. 
The last 2000 years even more so.  The warming and cooling cycles within those 2000 years are amazingly consistent no matter how hard Mann tried to erase them.


----------



## westwall (Jan 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again the same old lie. We are responsible for about 40% of the present 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have records of the amount of coal and petroleum that we have burned in the last 150 years.
> 
> In the course of the Milankovic Cycles, yes, as the warming starts with the Southern Oceans, the oceans emit CO2, and that feedback then is the primary driver for the interglacial. The evidence for this has been posted several times. But you keep up the same old yap yap.







Prove it.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 12, 2012)

westwall said:


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






They dont know........thats what makes all these temperature threads so utterly gay.

And now, the fact is, people are just so apethetic about this stuff, which is not even debatable anymore. All the bomb throwing has worn out its welcome..........and thinnk about it. With the thousands of members on this board, how many are coming into this particular forum to debate this stuff? A handful.........thats how many. The whole "global warming" thing has completely fallen off the cliff in the last few years in terms of a public concern. The reason is crystal clear and it has all to do about our instinct for survival as it relates to economic realities, which amazingly, the environmental radicals just cannot fathom. Its actually fascinating............

Accordingly........you talk about exercises in futility. These threads on temperature are the most pristine examples I can think of. The reason I pop in here is simply to reinforce that fact.......and for sure, its nothing less than a hoot doing it!! What can be funnier than responding to a dolt like Rolling Thunder.......who truly thinks hes at the forefront of swaying public opinion from this far corner of the internet nether-regions.......and knowing the every single response post you make is akin to whacking a big pumpkin off a batting tee with a bat!! Indeed.........very few people out there are enamoured with the idea of publically looking like a totally eccentric meathead, although there are some, thus, the term k00k.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 12, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Once again the same old lie. We are responsible for about 40% of the present 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have records of the amount of coal and petroleum that we have burned in the last 150 years.
> ...



At present we are putting about 7.1 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere yearly. The isotope distribuition in that carbon is differant than that of the carbon in the normal cycle. And that is the signiture we see proportionally to the amount we have added to the atmosphere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 12, 2012)

westwall said:


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



Really? Seems like there is much research that has pretty well narrowed it down to rapid warming for at least three of the extinctions. And rapid cooling in at least one of the very old, Archean, extinctions. All four related to GHGs, rapidly increasing or decreasing.

Some informaton on the Permian extinction;

AGW Observer


----------



## whitehall (Jan 12, 2012)

Now it's "satellite record" instead of thermometer readings. Anybody notice that the Ice Age isn't referred to as "the Ice Age"? They call it the "last" Ice Age which means (even to the narrow minded greenie) that it's an ongoing phenomena of our solar system. The bottom line is that we ain't got time to disprove this pseudo global warming science. We need to burn fossil fuels for the next hundred years and we need to become independent of foreign oil before we all freeze to death in the winter and have to take bicycles to work because the price of energy is so high and the US has become a 3rd world country.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 12, 2012)

*Very good article on this subject.*

http://pangea.stanford.edu/~jlpayne/Knoll et al 2007 EPSL Permian Triassic paleophysiology.pdf

Frontiers

Paleophysiology and end-Permian mass extinction

Andrew H. Knoll a,&#8270;, Richard K. Bambach b, Jonathan L. Payne c,
Sara Pruss a, Woodward W. Fischer d
a Department of Organimsic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, USA
b Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 20560, USA
c Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305, USA
d Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, USA
Received 13 October 2006; received in revised form 17 January 2007; accepted 6 February 2007
Editor: A.N. Halliday
Available online 11 February 2007


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 12, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Now it's "satellite record" instead of thermometer readings. Anybody notice that the Ice Age isn't referred to as "the Ice Age"? They call it the "last" Ice Age which means (even to the narrow minded greenie) that it's an ongoing phenomena of our solar system. The bottom line is that we ain't got time to disprove this pseudo global warming science. We need to burn fossil fuels for the next hundred years and we need to become independent of foreign oil before we all freeze to death in the winter and have to take bicycles to work because the price of energy is so high and the US has become a 3rd world country.



Sheesh, Whitey, must you persistantly demostrate your ignorance? Both satellite and ground temps are now used. 

So you just discovered that there was more than one ice age. Congratulations. You are only about a century behind everybody else.

No matter how much time you have you cannot disprove AGW because that is what is happening. At our present rate of use, the idea of being independent of foriegn oil is ludicrous. And it probably would do your fat ass good to use a bicycle once in a while.


----------



## westwall (Jan 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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







That's not what I said.  You have to prove the distribution of all isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere.  To date that has not been done.  To date your side claims that the RT of CO2 is 200 years, that is provably false by the C14 isotope readings from Hawaii.  So once again, prove it.


----------



## westwall (Jan 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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







There is no empirical data period to show rapid warming as a cause.  That is the wet dream of your AGW supporters but to date there is zero empirical evidence to support them.  There is plenty of empirical data to support rapid cooling and there is significant evidence to support the asteroid strike theory. 

 But as is made plain by the empirical evidence of the PETM, rapid warming affects a very small percentage of the biosphere in a negative way, it BENEFITS the vast majority of the biosphere.

Try again.


----------



## westwall (Jan 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> *Very good article on this subject.*
> 
> http://pangea.stanford.edu/~jlpayne/Knoll et al 2007 EPSL Permian Triassic paleophysiology.pdf
> 
> ...







It's nice they acknowledge the existence of the bolide evidence but then they completely ignore the SO2 constituent of the Siberian Traps (other then as a passing acid rain reference) while focusing an inordinant amount of time on the CO2 released.  When you go into a paper with a predetermined result wanted...you'll invariably get it.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 12, 2012)

IanC said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......very revealing, Iamnuts. Since you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're rather ignorant about science and would thus have no ability whatsoever to understand raw "_data_", what you're really saying is that you'd rather believe the lies and distortions coming from the non-scientists who are pushing the fossil fuel industry's propaganda line because they tell you what you want to hear. It isn't "_some of the 'professional climate scientists'_" (or, in other words, the top experts in this field) whose conclusions you reject, numbnuts, it is virtually all of them and their conclusions are based on the laws of physics and the mountains of observations and data collected from many sources by scientists from all around the world. Your idiotic notion that the "_conclusions_" that the world scientific community have reached are "_exaggerated and distorted_" is itself an artifact of the propaganda campaign that has you so bamboozled and confused.







IanC said:


> I am even less interested in your _ad homs_ like "deluded tool of the fossil fuel industry" and "anti-science righwingnut clueless denier dupe". but if that is your style and it makes you happy, go right ahead.


I don't really care if you are "_interested_" or not, you poor deluded fool. Those phrases are valid descriptions of you and your absurd anti-science positions on this topic so I will continue to use them to point out the truth about your pretensions about 'arguing the science'.







IanC said:


> you think I am being duped and deluded but you never consider that you are at risk of the same thing by credulously believing everything as presented to you, especially when you get it via SkepticalScience.


No, Iamnuts, I *know* you are duped and deluded. I, on the other hand, accept the testimony of the world's science community and the experts in the fields of climate science which overwhelmingly supports the reality of AGW. I understand and accept the enormous body of evidence collected by the world scientific community over the last half century that indicates the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes. It is you denier cult nutjobs who "_credulously believe_" the biased anti-science drivel spewed by propagandists like Watts, while simultaneously rejecting the testimony of the vast majority of the real climate scientists. 







IanC said:


> ie- is this graph reasonable or is it emotionally affecting you to come to erroneous conclusions?


What an absolutely idiotic question. The graph used scientific measurements of the increase in the heat content of the atmosphere and oceans measured in Joules. It is your fervent beliefs in your denier cult fantasies that are "_emotionally affecting you to come to erroneous conclusions_". 








IanC said:


> you have to examine the labelling of the x and y axis and the positioning of the origin. if the intent was to show that the heat content of the atmosphere is miniscule compared to the oceans then it is alright. but if it is trying to show the relative increase of heat content of the oceans it is wildly deceiving.


Rather than making really stupid claims, dufus, how about presenting some evidence that the heat content of the oceans hasn't increased by the amounts shown in that graph. Oh, that's right, you can't, 'cause you're just blowing smoke out your ass.

*Ocean heat content increases update*


----------



## westwall (Jan 12, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Your link to ocean temps is a bit dated.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 12, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Your link to reality expired a long time ago.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 12, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Very good article on this subject.*
> ...



LOL.  Didn't bother to read it, just skimmed it. And came to totally erroneous conclusions about what the article said.

SO2 forms aerosols in the stratosphere that reflect light, cooling the atmosphere.

TEMIS -- Sulphur dioxide (SO2) -- introduction

Sulphur dioxide in troposphere and stratosphere
The lifetime of sulphur dioxide molecules in the troposphere is a few days. The amount is highly variable, above a low background concentration. 
It is removed from the troposphere  in gas phase by formation of suphuric acid, which forms condensation nuclei for aerosols and clouds and acidifies the rain; 
directly, by way of an uptake on aerosols and clouds, which leads to dry and wet acid depositions. 
Clean continental air contains less than 1 ppb of sulphur dioxide, which corresponds to a total column density < 0.2 Dobson Units (DU) in a boundary layer of 2 km. 
The lifetime of sulphur dioxide molecules in the stratosphere, on the other hand, is several weeks, during which is produces sulphate aerosols. This makes sulphur dioxide from volcanos one of the two most important sources of stratospheric aerosols.


----------



## westwall (Jan 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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







Actually I read it all the way through and they mentioned SO2 twice I believe.  CO2 is mentioned over twenty times and H2S is mentioned I think 6 times.   Based on empirical data that we have loads of the SO2 content is far more powerful then the CO2 component.  Particulate matter is not so much a concern with flood basalts as those type of eruptions are fairly quiescent.

Even minor eruptions cause immediate and measurable DECREASES in temperature.  It only is logical that eruptions of the past will act the same as those we have today.  They are the same after all.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 12, 2012)

Why dont you guys stick to a science subject that the *average person *cares about???

Like this......................


DNA Analysis Catches Owners Who Don't Scoop Poop - Blog


or this...........

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/01/how-peter-jackson-turns-grown-men-into-hobbits.html


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 12, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Why dont you guys stick to a science subject that the *average person *cares about???


Not everyone is as extremely reality-challenged as you are, kookster. And BTW, hate to break it to you but you are faaaaaar from "_average_", kookster, and not in a good direction.


----------



## westwall (Jan 12, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Why dont you guys stick to a science subject that the *average person *cares about???
> ...







And yet, he's far closer to average (on the good side) then you ever will be!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 12, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


But you only say that because your link to reality expired a long time ago, walleyedretard. Now, as always, you have absolutely no frigging idea what is going on. In fact, you're almost as reality-challenged as the kookster and he's certifiably insane and probably posting from the day room of the funny farm.


----------



## westwall (Jan 12, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








Yeah, we know.  And we're still winning the argument.  That must just make you feel all goooey inside huh?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOLOL.....always amusing to realize that you're so lost in your delusional denier cult belief system that you imagine that you're winning some argument, in rightwingnut bizarro world I suppose. In the real world, nations and businesses are moving to deal with the climate change crisis in one way or another. In the real world, your futile denial of reality won't stop the physical changes we're collectively creating on our planet.


----------



## westwall (Jan 13, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Sure thing silly person!  You keep telling yourself that.  The world is abandoning your scaremongering.  You can't frighten the savages anymore because they don't believe your BS anymore.

Loser!


----------



## newpolitics (Jan 13, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> another gay thread about a topic that brings yawns in 2012............
> 
> Relative to the public at large, nobody cares about this shit anymore!!!



Don't speak for others. You are obviously out of touch.

Oh, I almost forgot... you get your inspriation from "DA BUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

haha.. idiot


----------



## theHawk (Jan 13, 2012)

The globe is supposed to be warming up.  It will continue to warm up until the next ice age.

Whats the big deal?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 13, 2012)

theHawk said:


> The globe is supposed to be warming up.  It will continue to warm up until the next ice age.
> 
> Whats the big deal?



Well, I guess it wouldn't seem like a big deal to someone as completely clueless as you obviously are. But your idiotic non-comprehension is your own problem. The adults of the world will continue to deal with this without you.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Sticking to your denier cult myths to the bitter end, eh walleyedretard? Reality denial might work for a time in the political arena but reality always bitch-slaps you in the end, you poor deluded fool.


----------



## konradv (Jan 13, 2012)

theHawk said:


> The globe is supposed to be warming up.  It will continue to warm up until the next ice age.
> 
> Whats the big deal?



How fast and why are the questions.  How can we keep putting more CO2 into the atmosphere in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year and not expect to have an effect?  The big deal is that with normal warming the pace is slower and species have time to adapt.  The current rise in GHGs is at a pace that we can't taske the past as a template for the future, because the only time its gone up faster was during periods of natural catatrophes.


----------



## westwall (Jan 13, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Yep, I certainly will continue to follow the scientific method (which the alarmists abandoned decades ago) and strive for a better understanding of the world around us (the alarmists don't care...they just want our money) so that we may be better stewards of the planet (unlike the alarmists who regularly shoot first and aim later resulting in billions of environmental damage  and poisoned water wells in one well known case) so that all the critters can live in harmony.

Harmony, the alarmists don't believe in nor want harmony, they are extremists with all of the negative meaning that that adjective entails.


----------



## westwall (Jan 13, 2012)

konradv said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > The globe is supposed to be warming up.  It will continue to warm up until the next ice age.
> ...







And yet, with all the CO2 we're supposedly pumping into the atmosphere, the only way the alarmists can keep trotting out those "hottest year evah" BS is by falsifying the historical record.  The fact remains that the planets global temp has risen .7C in 1,000 years.  The fact remains the MWP and the RWP saw temps at least 2.5C warmer then we are now.

The facts keep biting you in the ass.


----------



## code1211 (Jan 13, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





You could silence the repetition all of the denier myths by simply proving your assertion whatever that might be.

You may proceed.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 13, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Why dont you guys stick to a science subject that the *average person *cares about???
> ...




How ironic??


Actually..........the only thing I deal with in here is reality. The science hobbyists can debate temperatures and glaciers from now until the cows come home. I couldnt give a shit, frankly. All I care about is that at the end of the day, the "consensus" isnt leading my country to ecomomic devestation due to embracing green energy. And on that count........my reality is the ONLY reality. 

Really............the only thing that brought me in this forum in the first place was the spectre of Cap and Trade, which was still in play back 3 years ago. Now?

*Dead as a doornail* 

So where exactly is the science "consensus" mattering s0n??? THATS the reality in the minds of anybody except the fringe nut environmental radicals..........who are a small percentage of our population. THATS the reality.

What I care about is that the public.........for several years now..........is yawning about the "consensus" and the bomb throwing. How do I know? Because if they cared, we'd be seeing all kinds of progressive environmental legislation on the environment related to global warming. But waht are we seeing? DICK.......and THATS the reality


In fact, I couldnt be laughing any harder these days watching the environmental nutters knock themselves out in the nether-regions of the internet like they are part of this huge groundswell of public sentiment that global warming is coming to kill us!! In fact.....in 2011, its become the water cooler comedy central and a complete reverse from 2006.

Nobody has more fun in this forum than me, particularly when newcomers come in here and see nothing but hyper-bomb throwing from the radicals?? Indeed........reasonable people know the markings of the extremeist k00ks like Rolling Thunder. Like in any forum, when the response is always the mental meltdown rant filled with personal hate if you dont agree, its a neon sign for *"Im a hyper-activist k00k!!!"*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 13, 2012)




----------



## wirebender (Jan 14, 2012)

Matthew said:


> 2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record
> January 4th, 2012 at 10:16 pm by Jim Spencer under Weather
> 2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record | KXAN.com Blogs
> Global Temperature Report: December 2011
> ...





I am looking at the data by which that claim is made Matthew and I have a question.  What is the real margin of error in temperature data that supposes to express an average temperature of the whole earth?  Not how accurate are thermometers, or measuring devices, but how accurate is the mathematical formula that is used to derive an average?

Do you know?  Is it accurate to a 10th of a degree?  Half a degree?  3/4 of a degree?  A couple of degrees?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 14, 2012)

2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record | KXAN.com Blogs

Now Bent, just go to the site, and read it a couple of times. For you, maybe a couple more times. You should be able to get the accuracy, in decimal form, from that reading. Again, maybe not.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOL. Walleyes, you silly retard, why did the AAPG change it's positon on AGW? 

Seems the membership told the board that if it continued it's lies concerning AGW that it would not have any membership. 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warming controversyIn 2006 the AAPG was criticized for selecting Michael Crichton for their Journalism Award "for his recent science-based thriller State of Fear", in which Crichton exposed his skeptical view of global warming, and for Jurassic Park.[2] Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part.[3] The award has since been renamed the "Geosciences in the Media" Award.[4]

The criticism drew attention to the AAPG's 1999 position statement[5] formally rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate. The Council of the American Quaternary Association wrote in a criticism of the award that the "AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."[6]

As recently as March 2007, articles in the newsletter of the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs stated that "the data does not support human activity as the cause of global warming"[7] and characterize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports as "wildly distorted and politicized."[8]

[edit] 2007 AAPG revised positionAcknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[9] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.
The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."[10]

AAPG also withdrew its earlier criticism of other scientific organizations and research stating, "Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."


*So there are real scientists among the AAPG membership. But you are not among them, Walleyes.*


----------



## IanC (Jan 14, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


>



damn!!! thats funny


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 14, 2012)

IanC said:


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


Here's what that comic's based on for all you arcade junkies with your 80's mis-spent youth.

Rolling Thunder - Videogame by Atari


----------



## westwall (Jan 14, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







I assume they decided to change their tune because of money.  How else but throguh governmental regulation can the oil companies make billions more dollars for doing absolutely nothing? 

Remember olfraud ENRON was a major player in the Kyoto agreements, that criminal company realised early on (hell Ken Lay TOLD Gore about the economic prospects of CO2 control legislation) that the best way to make (well steal it anyway) money for the least amount of effort (the goal of ALL PREDATORS) is to make people have to pay more for your product then they need to.  The more the merrier.

You seem to keep forgetting that the oil companies are now hevily invested in all this "green tech" you keep harping on about.  You claim the oil companies are fighting it tooth and nail when in real fact they WANT the legislation to pass so they can really screw the people of the world over.

If you were truly an environmentalist you would know that.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 15, 2012)

LMAO..........-25 degrees in Calgary tonight!!! I guess global warming forgot about that part of the world!!

IM just laughing at the relentless rants of the alarmist k00ks on all this termperature shit.........as if sub freeezing temps no longer occur in the world


Apparently skipping out on Alaska too.............. No end in sight for bitter cold: Alaska News | Alaska news at adn.com



You fcukking dolts.............



But keep up the nutter rants...........its why we come back!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 16, 2012)

minus 25 in Calgary in January? That is supposed to be world shaking? Bitter cold in Alaska in January? Ever read London?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> minus 25 in Calgary in January? That is supposed to be world shaking? Bitter cold in Alaska in January? Ever read London?




But that's the point Ray.........those who get angst about the temperatures where it is a little warmer completely discount other areas where temperatures are colder than a witches tit!! In 2012, people get this and most are scratching their heads and saying to themselves, "I'll take those environmental radicals seriously when I see Calgary at 40 degree's in mid-January for weeks on end.". Until then, the majority give a big yawn to this stuff. They really do see the true believers as a group who wants to only see temperature readings in places where it is a bit above normal while completely  marginalizing places where fuel valves are frozen solid and rendered inoperable.

Indeed.........in the northeast the past three days, nobody has left their house for fear of their nuts falling off due to frigid temperatures.

Its all about perception..........and far less about special interests and the prevailing data. Its the way its always gonna be. A vast majority have much more pressing concerns in their lives than to be worried about some speculation about weather in 25 or 30 years.........especially if the goal is to have the government rob them of more money for 19th century energy technology solutions. People are out there on their fancy iPhones getting data from the other side of the world in an instant. What? Theyre going to go for spending thousands a year extra on their energy bills so they can have windmills in their backyards? Its not even close to plausible.

When technology catches up to the 21st century in the area of energy, people might listen then.............not a moment sooner.

Funny thing is Ray..........in a pro-growth economy, some of the technologies we need might actually be initiated but my guess is, you want to continue down this road of goofball Keynesian economics which is ironic because it is a stake in the heart of those truly looking to address the climate ( if indeed there really is something to it ) with energy solutions. The idea of taxing the rich to find new energy solutions is simply an exercise in total futility and will never, ever work.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 16, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > minus 25 in Calgary in January? That is supposed to be world shaking? Bitter cold in Alaska in January? Ever read London?
> ...


----------



## westwall (Jan 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







I just love those anomolie maps that show elevated temps where no thermometers are and where the satellites don't cover the planet...priceless!  Every part of the Arctic where there is a thermometer on the ground shows lower temps, amazingly enough where there are NO thermometers there is a rise.  Voodoo I tell ya, voodoo.


----------



## wirebender (Jan 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> [Its all about perception..........and far less about special interests and the prevailing data. Its the way its always gonna be...








[/QUOTE]

Interesting thing about that graphic.  Some of the largest anomolies are where there are the fewest, if any data collection sites.  Makes you wonder.


----------



## wirebender (Jan 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> 2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record | KXAN.com Blogs
> 
> Now Bent, just go to the site, and read it a couple of times. For you, maybe a couple more times. You should be able to get the accuracy, in decimal form, from that reading. Again, maybe not.



In typical fashion rocks, you failed again.  You didn't answer my question and there is no answer to the question at the site.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...





wirebender said:


> Interesting thing about that graphic.  Some of the largest anomolies are where there are the fewest, if any data collection sites.  Makes you wonder.


----------



## westwall (Jan 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







Yes look at that paucity of ground based thermometers in the Arctic and yet that is where the temp anomolies are the highest... voodoo I tell ya, voodoo!


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yeah sure, there are no red anomaly dots in Northern Europe, or Eastern USA, only in the Arctic.


----------



## wirebender (Jan 17, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Well, ol' Walleyes comes out with the silly answer again. There may less weather stations in the Arctic, but they are manned by people of several differant nations. So they are all in a conspiracy to fool the rest of us? Would you like another roll of tinfoil for your little hats?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 17, 2012)

wirebender said:


> old rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 2011 9th warmest year in satellite record | kxan.com blogs
> ...



lol


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 17, 2012)

wirebender said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Jan 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, ol' Walleyes comes out with the silly answer again. There may less weather stations in the Arctic, but they are manned by people of several differant nations. So they are all in a conspiracy to fool the rest of us? Would you like another roll of tinfoil for your little hats?







Yes, and instead of being out in the wild areas they are concentrated in the towns and airports of the Arctic.  When you put blacktop in a world of white guess what happens....


----------



## westwall (Jan 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > old rocks said:
> ...








"Its official: the Alfred Wegener Institute Antarctic Neumayer-Station III is a meteorological observation station thats been measuring air temperature and other magnitudes in Antarctica for 30 years, which is the period of time used to define climate for a region. The results are clear and indisputable. The AWI writes in its press release:


At the Neumayer Station it has not gotten warmer over the last 30 years.

Note they avoid saying it got cooler. If the trend had been the opposite, the results would have been blasted out to the world in the most vivid terms."


Alfred Wegener Institute Neumayer Station III: Antarctic Cooling Over The Last 30 Years!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Now you just stated that for the Arctic, there were too few weather stations to prove a warming, even though almost all of them did report a warming. Now you are stating that for the whole of the Antarctic Continent, you are going to go with just one station? 

Walleyes, that is damned funny.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html


Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year

Eric J. Steig1, David P. Schneider2, Scott D. Rutherford3, Michael E. Mann4, Josefino C. Comiso5 & Drew T. Shindell6

1.Department of Earth and Space Sciences and Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
2.National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA
3.Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol, Rhode Island, USA
4.Department of Meteorology, and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
5.NASA Laboratory for Hydrospheric and Biospheric Sciences, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA
6.NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, New York 10025, USA
Correspondence to: Eric J. Steig1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to E.J.S. (Email: steig@ess.washington.edu).


Abstract

Assessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades1. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone2. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1&#8201;°C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Global Warming Impact Zones | Antarctica

Because the floating ice of the West Antarctic is subject to both warming air and ocean temperatures, scientists think it is especially vulnerable to global warming. Until recently, it was thought that only coastal areas of the West Antarctic were vulnerable to melting. But satellite analysis has revealed that large inland regions are also showing signs of the impacts of warming. There is also evidence that in addition to the loss known to be occurring in West Antarctica, East Antarctica has also been losing ice since 2006.   

Human activities have been identified as an important driver of Antarctic climate change, though a complex set of natural factors are also important. Rigorous analysis of temperature trends show that Antarctica has been warming at an average rate of about 0.2 °F per decade (from 1957 to 2006) or about 1°F for the last half century, roughly comparable to the warming observed for the globe as a whole. Arctic warming is expected to continue as greenhouse gas concentrations rise and the ozone hole heals.

Ice isn&#8217;t the only thing on the decline in Antarctica. As ice extent shrinks, breeding and foraging habitat for Antarctic wildlife is compromised. The population of Emporer penguins has already declined by 50 percent. Researchers studying Emporer penguins in Terre Adélie, Antarctica, estimate that by the end of the century their population will decline from 6,000 breeding pairs to an expected 400 breeding pairs under IPCC climate projections of business as usual emissions of greenhouse gases.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 17, 2012)

lmao......tell the people of Alaska about red dots on some dumb ass map after this past month!!!!


Fuel Arrives, but Alaska's Deep Freeze Endures - WSJ.com


U.S. NEWS
 JANUARY 14, 2012
 . 
*Fuel Arrives, but Deep Freeze Endures *

*Russian Tanker Churns Through Ice to Relieve Nome, Alaska, but Epic Blizzards Keep State Shivering*

By JIM CARLTON

The ice-bound town of Nome will likely get its emergency fuel supply this weekend from a Russian tanker that has taken three weeks to get there, as Alaska continues to be battered by one of the state's harshest winters in decades.

The tanker Renda arrived just offshore from Nome on Friday with its cargo of fuel for the town, which was cut off from oceangoing supplies by waters that froze earlier than expected.
By early morning Friday, lights from the tanker and a Coast Guard cutter escort were visible from the community of 3,600 in western Alaska, promising relief for residents whose fuel reserves were expected to run out by March.

The Renda was originally going to arrive five days earlier, but thick ice delayed its progress. The tanker won't be able to approach closer than about a mile from shore because of an iced-in harbor, local officials said, so it will transfer 1.4 million gallons of diesel fuel and gasoline by hose to a tank facility. That task was expected to begin Saturday and take as long as three days, amid Arctic temperatures that on Friday stood at minus-31 degrees.
















These Alaska stories were on Drudge for weeks...........seen by tens of millions I might add. We're all real sure people are reading this saying, "Shit......I better get my ass on the phone TODAY and call my representative and make sure they are doing something about this fucking global warming!!!"



You fucking fruitcake alarmists...........cant comprehend that almost invariably, people are not going to give a rats ass about whats going to be written on their tombstone 30 years prior to checking out. But oh.........wait........they're definately going to be shitting in their pants about potential warm weather 30 years from now after reading about Alaska being near 50 below for weeks on end


Yup.........ahhhhhhhhhh ( draws long draw from ciggy in classic Denis Leary style)


----------



## westwall (Jan 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Global Warming Impact Zones | Antarctica
> 
> Because the floating ice of the West Antarctic is subject to both warming air and ocean temperatures, scientists think it is especially vulnerable to global warming. Until recently, it was thought that only coastal areas of the West Antarctic were vulnerable to melting. But satellite analysis has revealed that large inland regions are also showing signs of the impacts of warming. There is also evidence that in addition to the loss known to be occurring in West Antarctica, East Antarctica has also been losing ice since 2006.
> 
> ...






Yes, isn't this the "rigorous study" that was proven false?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Link?


----------



## code1211 (Jan 18, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Global Warming Impact Zones | Antarctica
> 
> Because the floating ice of the West Antarctic is subject to both warming air and ocean temperatures, scientists think it is especially vulnerable to global warming. Until recently, it was thought that only coastal areas of the West Antarctic were vulnerable to melting. But satellite analysis has revealed that large inland regions are also showing signs of the impacts of warming. There is also evidence that in addition to the loss known to be occurring in West Antarctica, East Antarctica has also been losing ice since 2006.
> 
> ...





Um...  Right.

If the all time record high temperature was recorded this year and it was still well below freezing, what are you proposing as the cause of the big melt that you imply is happening as a result of the runaway warming that you are implying is the cause?

Does ice melt at a lower temperature in Antarctica than in all other locations on Earth?

South Pole Records Warmest Temperature On Record | Fox News

SOUTH POLE   The South Pole recorded its highest temperature on record on Christmas Day, when temperatures reached 9.9F (-12.3C), according to the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Space Science and Engineering Center (SSEC).
While calling the new record "warm" may be going a step too far, it is positively balmy compared to June 23, 1982, when the temperature at the South Pole site reached a record low of -117F (-82.8C).
In a brief statement, the SSEC said "the prior record high temperature at South Pole was recorded on 27 December, 1978," when the mercury hit a high of 7.5F (-13.6C).
The average temperature in December at the South Pole is -15.7F (-26.5C), the Weather Underground website reported.
Records have been kept at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole site since 1957.


Read more: South Pole Records Warmest Temperature On Record | Fox News


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 18, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Global Warming Impact Zones | Antarctica
> ...


As anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of science would know, impurities in the water affect the freezing and boiling points of water.  The melting point of ice is lowered by 1.85 degrees Celsius if 29.2 grams of salt are dissolved in each Kg of water.


----------



## westwall (Jan 18, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Certainly if you had a never ending supply of salt to add to the water that might be an issue.  However this is the salt situation in Antarctic waters....

The salinity is 34.62 parts per thousand, temperature is 28.6Â° F and density is 1.02789 grams per cubic centimeter.

Add to that the fact that the VAST majority of ice is continental and thus NOT IN THE WATER to be affected by salinity, renders your comment irrelevant.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 18, 2012)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


Huge chunk of Antarctic ice sheet set to break free - CSMonitor.com

Typically, ice shelves are grounded against rises  in the sea floor near the coast. *But warm seawater has been melting the  underside of Pine Island Glacier's shelf, separating the shelf's bottom  from the rise and allowing the once-grounded section of the shelf to  float free. This allows additional warm water to cross the top of the  rise and pool behind it, melting more of the shelf's underside.*
As  the shelf thins from the bottom, the weaker, unanchored ice grows more  vulnerable to stresses imposed by the rising and falling of the tides.
Prichard  notes that this crack is forming in a general location where the shelf  tends to break about once every decade. "So we'd expect to see a large  iceberg [there] sometime soon," he says.
But, he adds, "it will be really interesting to see if the ice shelf recovers this time and regrows to its current size."
*His  research shows the ice shelf getting thinner and probably weaker over  time.* If it becomes smaller as well, it "would allow Pine Island Glacier  to continue its trend of acceleration" and a increase its contribution  to sea-level rise.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VxLfRkDcK8]Giant iceberg breaks off Antarctic glacier - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 18, 2012)

Climate Alarmism Reconsidered | Institute of Economic Affairs


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 18, 2012)

worth a re-post.........the alarmism is just so gay at this juncture.


Climate Alarmism Reconsidered | Institute of Economic Affairs


----------



## yidnar (Jan 18, 2012)

Matthew said:


> 2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record
> January 4th, 2012 at 10:16 pm by Jim Spencer under Weather
> 2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record | KXAN.com Blogs
> Global Temperature Report: December 2011
> ...


you forgot about the satellite's  the dinosaurs used to record temperatures that were much hotter than todays temps !!! WE NEED OIL COMMY !!! GET OVER IT !!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 18, 2012)

Tuesday, January 20, 2009


* Wheels Falling Off Global Warming Bandwagon *




Over the past decade the global average temperature has fallen to its lowest levels in 30 years:

1. International Falls, Minnesota -- the coldest location in the continental United States -- set a new record in January with a low temperature of minus 40 degrees and snowfall records have recently been set in 63 U.S. locations. 

2. After two years of ice-cap melting in the Arctic, an abrupt turnaround occurred in 2008, with ice forming at a record pace.

3. More and more scientists are paying attention to the evidence and rejecting the link between human actions and the recent warming trend.

"The wheels are falling off the global warming bandwagon," says H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. "While climate action boosters continue to call for politicians to ignore reality -- *even in the face of mounting contrary evidence against catastrophic warming -- scientists, the public and politicians are wising up."*


CARPE DIEM: Wheels Falling Off Global Warming Bandwagon



Of course.........the most imporant component of all this crap is what is highlighted in red above. 
Oh.........it'll still be debated in the nether-reaches of the internet..........but no place else.


----------



## wirebender (Jan 18, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > in typical fashion rocks, you failed again.  You didn't answer my question and there is no answer to the question at the site.
> ...



Shown to be an idiot and the best you can do is laugh like a monkey in a tree?  Typical.


----------



## wirebender (Jan 18, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> Hey, Kaptain Kool-Aid, red means warming! It is Southwestern Europe that shows cooling! CON$ervative know-it-alls can't even read a chart!



Exactly Gomer.  Once again, do you notice the biggest red dots claiming warming in the areas of the arctic where there are very few stations?  

Hell, it's no wonder that the obvious fraud doesn't raise any flags for you.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 19, 2012)

wirebender said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, Kaptain Kool-Aid, red means warming! It is Southwestern Europe that shows cooling! CON$ervative know-it-alls can't even read a chart!
> ...


Exactly pinhead, and did you notice there were also the FEWEST dots in the Arctic also????


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 19, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Still, the stubborn fact remains, that although satellites can observe the temperature, they STILL can't tell us the CAUSE of any temperature increase.
> ...




That's because its clear by your questions you haven't bothered to do any research on your own. 

Start here:

Google Scholar


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







Yes, the fewest and the hottest.  The weather stations are probably sighted in front of the heater exhaust.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 19, 2012)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...




Oh, yeah, that's the way they set up most weather stations, because the weatherman just loves giving you the wrong temperature.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 19, 2012)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...


Prove it or


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 19, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Home

There you go, at least for the US on how off kilter our surface stations are.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 19, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


"Off kilter" surface stations are removed from the data set, but dishonest deniers leave that fact out. For example, the Marysville, Ca station shown in your link was removed from the data set in 2007, but your link pretends the station is still active. Of course, when "off kilter" stations are removed from the data set, deniers then bitch about the reduced number of stations.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


Marysville       Years   


  1904 - 2007


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 19, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Well then, I guess there is almost no surface station data included for the lower 48 states then with the amount that are off.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 19, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Your link has already been discredited by their Marysville, Ca. crap, re-posting their bullshit does not make it suddenly credible.


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







I guess you don't keep up with GAO reports huh?  It seems that yes indeed, the weather stations are sighted in violation of regulations all over the damned place.  In front of air conditioner unit exhausts (where it's really hot), in the middle of the tarmac at airports (where you get the benefit of all that blacktop warming) etc. etc. etc.

As a physicist you certainly realise that accurate data measurement is critical to any scientific endeavor, yet when it comes to climatology all of the normal protocols go right out the window...why is that?

Why do you condone it?  If you're a legit scientist?


"In choosing USHCN stations from a larger set of existing weather-monitoring stations, NOAA placed a high priority on achieving a relatively uniform geographic distribution of stations across the contiguous 48 states. NOAA balanced geographic distribution with other factors, including a desire for a long history of temperature records, limited periods of missing data, and stability of a station's location and other measurement conditions, since changes in such conditions can cause temperature shifts unrelated to climate trends. NOAA had to make certain exceptions, such as including many stations that had incomplete temperature records. In general, the extent to which the stations met NOAA's siting standards played a limited role in the designation process, in part because NOAA officials considered other factors, such as geographic distribution and a long history of records, to be more important. USHCN stations meet NOAA's siting standards and management requirements to varying degrees. According to GAO's survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records. NOAA officials told GAO that it is important to annually visit stations and keep records up to date, including siting conditions, so that NOAA and other users of the data know the conditions under which they were recorded. NOAA officials identified a variety of challenges that contribute to some stations not adhering to siting standards and management requirements, including the use of temperature-measuring equipment that is connected by a cable to an indoor readout device--which can require installing equipment closer to buildings than specified in the siting standards. NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards and the requirement to update station records, and it does not have an agencywide policy regarding stations that do not meet its siting standards. Performance management guidelines call for using performance information to assess program results. NOAA's information systems, however, are not designed to centrally track whether stations in the USHCN meet its siting standards or the requirement to update station records. Without centrally available information, NOAA cannot easily measure the performance of the USHCN in meeting siting standards and management requirements. Furthermore, federal internal control standards call for agencies to document their policies and procedures to help managers achieve desired results. NOAA has not developed an agencywide policy, however, that clarifies for agency staff whether stations that do not adhere to siting standards should remain open because the continuity of the data is important, or should be moved or closed. As a result, weather forecast offices do not have a basis for making consistent decisions to address stations that do not meet the siting standards. GAO recommends that NOAA enhance its information systems to centrally capture information useful in managing the USHCN and develop a policy on how to address stations that do not meet its siting standards. NOAA agreed with GAO's recommendations."





U.S. GAO - Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







Check out the GAO report a few posts down.......


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







The GAO did a extensive review of their information and found it credible enough to direct NOAA to fix the wether station siting.

U.S. GAO - Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network


----------



## wirebender (Jan 19, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Oh, yeah, that's the way they set up most weather stations, because the weatherman just loves giving you the wrong temperature.




You know, don't you that there is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows just that.  Very poor placement of data collection stations.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 22, 2012)

Boy, you retards sure do love to beat a dead horse. LOL. Did you block out all memory of this very recent independent study led by AGW doubter Dr. Richard Muller and partly funded by the Koch brothers?

*Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project is an effort to resolve criticism of the current records of the Earth's surface temperatures by preparing an open database and analysis of these temperatures and temperature trends, to be available online, with all calculations, methods and results also to be freely available online. BEST's stated aim is a "transparent approach, based on data analysis."[1] "Our results will include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record."[2]

BEST founder Richard A. Muller told The Guardian "...we are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious," "...we are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find. We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close."[3]

The BEST project is funded by unrestricted educational grants totalling (as of March 2011) about $635,000. Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER)[4], and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how BEST conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

The team's preliminary findings, data sets and programs were made available to the public in October 2011. The study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911 °C, and their results mirrors those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that The urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[7][8][9][10]

Initial results

After completing the analysis of the full land temperature data set, consisting of more than 1.6 billion temperature measurements dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world, and originated from more than 39,000 temperature stations worldwide, the group submitted four papers for peer-review and publication in scientific journals. The Berkeley Earth study did not assess temperature changes in the oceans, nor tried to assess how much of the observed warming is due to human action.[9] The Berkeley Earth team also released the preliminary findings to the public on October 20, 2011 in order to promote additional scrutiny. The data sets and programs used to analyzed the information, and the papers undergoing peer review were also made available to the public.[7][8][9]

The Berkeley Earth study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The team's initial conclusions are the following:[7][8][9][10]

* The urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre and NASA's GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. The team found that the urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise, as the planet's urban regions amount to less than 1% of the land area. The study also found that while stations considered "poor" might be less accurate, they recorded the same average warming trend.
    * Global temperatures closely matched previous studies from NASA GISS, NOAA and the Hadley Centre, that have found global warming trends. The Berkely Earth group estimates that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911°C, just 2% less than NOAAs estimate. The team scientific director stated that "...this confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."[7]
    * About 1/3 of temperature sites around the world reported global cooling over the past 70 years (including much of the United States and northern Europe). But 2/3 of the sites show warming. Individual temperature histories reported from a single location are frequently noisy and/or unreliable, and it is always necessary to compare and combine many records to understand the true pattern of global warming.
    * The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) has played a larger role than previously thought. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is generally thought to be the main reason for inter-annual warming or cooling, but the Berkeley Earth team's analysis found that the global temperature correlates more closely with the state of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index, which is a measure of sea surface temperature in the north Atlantic.

The BEST analysis uses a new methodology and was tested against much of the same data as NOAA and NASA. The group uses an algorithm that attaches an automatic weighting to every data point, according to its consistency with comparable readings. The team claims this approach allows the inclusion of outlandish readings without distorting the result and standard statistical techniques were used to remove outliers. The methodology also avoids traditional procedures that require long, continuous data segments, thus accommodating for short sequences, such as those provided by temporary weather stations. This innovation allowed the group to compile an earlier record than its predecessors, starting from 1800, but with a high degree of uncertainty because at the time there were only two weather stations in America, just a few in Europe and one in Asia.[8][13]*


***


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

wirebender said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, yeah, that's the way they set up most weather stations, because the weatherman just loves giving you the wrong temperature.
> ...



Yet, you aren't able to name it. Its amazing that you could read and understand it yet be entirely incapable of referencing even the name of a single author.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 22, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Riiiiiight Senor Double-Standard.  And why, pray tell, do you keep posting YOUR discredited crap?


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








Ask and ye shall receive....enjoy the read...it is quite enlightening.


http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...





> That paper concludes that site placement affects the accuracy of minimum and maximum temperature trends (first bold below) , but not the accuracy of trends in the average temperature (second bold). Says so in the conclusion.
> 
> [65] Overall, this study demonstrates that station exposure
> does impact USHCNv2 temperatures. The temperatures
> ...



See? Did you read the conclusion?


Heck, did you even read the abstract?


> Homogeneity adjustments tend to reduce trend differences, but statistically
> significant differences remain for all *but average temperature trends*.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...






yes I did.  And did you notice the verbiage about better siting is needed?  And did you bother to look at the GAO report I posted for you?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yeah, not really sure how that affects conclusions about average global temperature. 



> And did you bother to look at the GAO report I posted for you?


Didn't see the post.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...






Take a look at post 128 of this thread.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




K. Where does it say conclusions about the rise of global average temperatures are in question?


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 22, 2012)

westwall said:


> And did you bother to look at the GAO report I posted for you?


What scientific organization is the GAO? Oh that's right, they are GOP controlled government agency, and CON$ tell us that any government agency is corrupt.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...






It doesn't.  It merely states that because the siting is so poor for the majority of weather stations no real conclusion can be reached vis avis average temps because we don't have an accurate enough data set.

No determination can thus be made, so there is nothing to counter the average rise of temperature globally (which isn't truly an issue, we in the earth sciences have long said that the planet is warming up from the LIA, it just takes a real long time to get back to what the temp was before the LIA set in, it could take a 1,000 years to get back to that level) the argument is not is the planet warming up (it was, fortunately) but whether man has a part in the warming.

So far no empirical evidence has been forthcoming to support the theory of AGW.  Plenty of empirical data exists to suport the natural cycle of planetary warming theory however.  Plenty of it!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I don't see where it says that.





> So far no empirical evidence has been forthcoming to support the theory of AGW.



Now that's just fucking ignorant. Wow, let's just ignore the satellite record completely, for one thing. Or the known physical attributes of gaseous CO2 - fuck that, it doesn't matter. No empircal evidence - because you say so.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...






Then enlighten us with some...and remember computer models are not data, no matter how many times you run the program.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Direct surface measurement is well correlated with satellite measurement.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







Yeah so?  Where is the evidence that man is the proximal cause?  Or do you believe correlation equals causation?  There is abundant evidence that it was warmer in the near history (ie the MWP and the RWP) with absolutely ZERO human input.  what makes today different then then?  The solar output today is very close to what it was 1500 years ago and the temps are remarkably similar to what it was then as well.  In fact that graph correlates far, far better then the CO2 graphs you guys like to point to.

You're going to have to do a hell of a lot better then that dude.  I mean really, if you are truly a PhD physicist I expect far better then this poor attempt.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Nobody can see where it says that except for the brainwashed denier cultists, like the walleyedretard, who see everything through the distorting kaleidoscope of their deranged political ideology. They have these myths, like this one about the station placement changing the observed temperature trends, that are impervious to evidence or facts.

Hey, walleyedretard, are you really going to try to just ignore the conclusions of the BEST study that I posted earlier? LOLOLOL.



RollingThunder said:


> Boy, you retards sure do love to beat a dead horse. LOL. Did you block out all memory of this very recent independent study led by AGW doubter Dr. Richard Muller and partly funded by the Koch brothers?
> 
> *Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







What BEST conclusion?  Their papers havn't passed peer review yet.  News releases are not the report, or are you completely unaware of the scientific process?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...















> Or do you believe correlation equals causation?


Uhhh, I dunno,. what do most people say? Can I read abiout this on someone's blog?



> There is abundant evidence that it was warmer in the near history (ie the MWP and the RWP) with absolutely ZERO human input.



A lot of people say there is abundant evidence of this, yes, you are right. Lots of folks say there is zero evidence of AGW. That feels right to me, lets go with it. Fuck al hockey stick gore and his SUV and methane farts, fucking hypocrite.




> what makes today different then then?  The solar output today is very close to what it was 1500 years ago and the temps are remarkably similar to what it was then as well.  In fact that graph correlates far, far better then the CO2 graphs you guys like to point to.



THAT graph does. I've never seen it. But I'm sure you're right. I"ve heard lots of other people - some of whom have their own blogs - talk about graphs a lot, like you do, and they've come to basically the same conclusions. 



> You're going to have to do a hell of a lot better then that dude.  I mean really, if you are truly a PhD physicist I expect far better then this poor attempt.




I'm sorry, I didn't mean to disagree with you. It was really all a joke. You've clearly got all the evidence on your side. So many people - some of who have blogs - agree with you and they talk about evidence a lot, as well, so we know they must have lots of it - why talk about it so much otherwise !!!


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







It's a shame you're turning into a troll again.  I had hopes for you.  C'ya later spidey toober.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 23, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 23, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


You're such a hoot, walleyed. What are you going to say when their papers do pass peer review and get published? What excuse will you use then to avoid giving up your idiotic myths and dogmas?

*Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature

Resources

Berkeley Earth Analysis of Full Data Set (October 2011)

The Berkeley Earth team has completed the analysis of the full data set, and summary charts are available here. The Berkeley Earth team has already started to benefit from feedback from our peers, so these figures are more up-to-date than the figures in our papers submitted for peer review (see below).


Papers Submitted for Peer Review (October 2011)

The Berkeley Earth team has now submitted four papers for peer review. We are making these preliminary results public, together with our programs and data set, in order to invite additional scrutiny. The four papers are:

   1. Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process
2. Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average
3. Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the United States
4. Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures

- Submitted for publication in JGR Atmospheres


Berkeley Earth Land Temperature Anomaly Video (October 2011)

The Berkeley Earth team has also put together a video representation of our analysis of global land-surface temperature from 1800 to the present, available here.


Berkeley Earth Data Set (October 2011)

The Berkeley Earth data set is now publicly available here.


Berkeley Earth Analysis Programs (October 2011)

The Berkeley Earth analysis programs are now publicly available here.


Two Page Summary of Findings (October 2011)

A two page summary of the main findings is available here.


Richard Muller's testimony before congress (March 2011)

Dr. Richard Muller, chair of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, was asked to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee of Science, Space and Technology at their hearing on climate change on 31 March, 2011.

A copy of Richard's testimony is available here.


Berkeley Earth Summary Document (September 2010)

A short summary of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project is available here.


Reuse Policy
The authors of the material available on the Berkeley Earth website (Home|BerkeleyEarth.org) grant permission (free of charge) to authors, readers and third parties to reproduce their materials as part of another publication or entity with proper sourcing to Berkeley Earth and by additionally providing a link to the Berkeley Earth website (Home|BerkeleyEarth.org).
*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 23, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





The peer review process is rigged for big government hockey stick lovers.

The REAL peer review happens on peoples blogs and web sites throughout the world - and in small research think tanks with one or two scientists that publish exclusively on their think tanks website.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







It's a shame you're not clever enough to at least make this funny.  Fail.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 23, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Actually, walleyed, it is you who makes this funny by doing it for real. It is even funnier that you're too dense to realize when you're being mocked.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...










And actually.......the so-called "retards" you refer to...........are not.

In fact, the nutters are getting their clocks cleaned out in the real world.....not even debatable!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 23, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You live in your own little retarded fantasy world, kooker, and you lost all connection with reality long ago.


----------



## code1211 (Jan 23, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...





Take a look at your graph of the level of CO2 and note when the CO2 starts to increase.

Take a look at the graph of proxy temps in the link below.  You will note the that the first glimmers of warming show up in about 1575.  The rest swing in by about 1650.  Now, note when the CO2 starts to rise in your graph.  The real increase in CO2 seems to be closer to about 1800 to 1850.

If you are saying that increasing CO2 causes increases warming, you are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 23, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOLOLOL......oh, code4stupid, your silly logic is soooo retarded and you must pull your backward "_facts_(?)" out of your ass. I thought all of you denier cultists were obsessed with the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. You say warming started "_in about 1575_" but that is actually about the start of the Little Ice Age. You say it got going "_by about 1650_" but that is the coldest middle part of the Little Ice Age. Even the temperature chart you linked to shows that. Here's another one that might make it clearer to you.






The Little Ice Age (LIA) was caused by some combination of natural factors (discussed below) and affected some parts of the world more than others. After the mid 1800's the temperature patterns were returning to the normal range the world had mostly been in for the previous six thousand years. Some scientists think that mankind's activities, like deforestation, had already been affecting the climate for centuries but in the 1800's we began to really pump long sequestered fossil CO2 into the atmosphere at ever higher rates and began the abrupt and accelerating global warming trend that has been observed since.

*Little Ice Age*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[6] 

Causes

Solar activity

There is still a very poor understanding of the correlation between low sunspot activity and cooling temperatures.[58][59] During the period 16451715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550.[60] Other indicators of low solar activity during this period are levels of the isotopes carbon-14 and beryllium-10.[61]


Volcanic activity

Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world experienced heightened volcanic activity.[62] When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur in the form of sulfur dioxide gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching Earth's surface. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without a Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe. Other volcanoes that erupted during the era and may have contributed to the cooling include Billy Mitchell (ca. 1580), Mount Parker (1641), Long Island (Papua New Guinea) (ca. 1660), and Huaynaputina (1600).[15]


Ocean Conveyor slowdown

Another possibility is that there was a slowing of thermohaline circulation.[24][63][64] The circulation could have been interrupted by the introduction of a large amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic, possibly caused by a period of warming before the Little Ice Age known as the Medieval Warm Period.[65][66][67] There is some concern that a shutdown of thermohaline circulation could happen again as a result of the present warming period.[68][69]


Decreased human populations

Some researchers have proposed that human influences on climate began earlier than is normally supposed and that major population declines in Eurasia and the Americas reduced this impact, leading to a cooling trend. William Ruddiman has proposed that somewhat reduced populations of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during and after the Black Death caused a decrease in agricultural activity. He suggests reforestation took place, allowing more carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere, which may have been a factor in the cooling noted during the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further hypothesizes that a reduced population in the Americas after European contact in the early 16th century could have had a similar effect.[70][71] A 2008 study of sediment cores and soil samples further suggests that carbon dioxide uptake via reforestation in the Americas could have contributed to the Little Ice Age.[72] Faust, Gnecco, Mannstein and Stamm (2005) supported depopulation in the Americas as a factor, asserting that humans had cleared considerable amounts of forests to support agriculture in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans brought on a population collapse.[73] The authors link the subsequent depopulation to a drop in carbon dioxide levels observed at Law Dome, Antarctica.[73]*


----------



## code1211 (Jan 23, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...





So explain why the warming pre dates the industrial revolution.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2012)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...







That's what the scriptures say.  The High Priests are adamant that the future creates the past.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 24, 2012)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



That's easy. It doesn't.

"*NASA defines the term [Little Ice Age] as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.*"

*Industrial Revolution*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*The First Industrial Revolution, which began in the 18th century, merged into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1850, when technological and economic progress gained momentum with the development of steam-powered ships, railways, and later in the 19th century with the internal combustion engine and electrical power generation. The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[8] while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[9]*


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 24, 2012)

westwall said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > So explain why the warming pre dates the industrial revolution.
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOL.....oh walleyedretard, the myths of your cult are sooooo funny....and soooo completely insane.....


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 24, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...









Forum newcomers interested in this topic..............

Go and google "Global Warming" AND "Failing" and you will find *SCORES*
 of links illustrating how the conventional wisdom on warming is hainvg ZERO impact on public policy, thus proving my assertion that.............

* THE SCIENCE DOESNT MATTER IN 2012.*

MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY LINKS..............LIKE THIS..............Media campaign to silence global warming skeptics failing







Oh.......and for the curious..........also google "Global Warming" AND "Winning"...............see what you come up with!!



Yuk.......yuk..........!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 24, 2012)

Ummm...........plan on seeing *alot* of this guy Thunder!!!!!







He'll be blowing up every single one of your fake science posts...........


Call him.................

*Harry*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 24, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Nobody is arguing that future causes past you blithering idiot.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 25, 2012)




----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 26, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


>





> According to a Gallup poll in 1999, 18% believed that the earth was the center of the universe.



New Poll Gauges Americans' General Knowledge Levels


So I think we've confirmed that 18% of that 60% are total morons, leaving at most 42% that aren't completely stupid.

Oh, but wait one in three Americans believe in Ghosts
Boo! One in three people believes in ghosts - Health - Behavior - msnbc.com


----------



## westwall (Jan 26, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







No, but you're arguing correlation equals causation.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 26, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



I never made that argument, sorry. 

We already know that adding Co2 to the atmosphere causes more Co2 to be in the atmosphere.


----------



## westwall (Jan 26, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







A physicist huh.  You claim that the rise in CO2 is the proximal cause of the increase in temperature.  You show cute graphs to support that contention.  Your cute graphs don't bother to explain if the CO2 is derived from man or not.  Ice core data (real data, not computer models like you love) shows multi hundred year lags from warming onset to CO2 increases.

We are currently living within one of those windows.  It has been 800 years since the last major warming period.  We are solidly at the upper time limit for CO2 increases based on that cause.

There you go.  Correlation that doesn't involve man at all.  See how science is done?  Now go test both hypotheses and become famous.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Look, you senile old man, he most certainly is not. What he is showing is the causation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 26, 2012)




----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



There you go again. Flap yapping an obvious lie with a straight face. 

Walleyes, in the last interglacial, it was warmer, with the sea level at least 20 feet higher than today. At only 300 ppm of CO2 and under 800 ppb of CH4. With far less NxOs and no industrial gases that have no natural analog. We have not been at 390 ppb of CO2 for over 15 million years. Same for over 1800 ppb of CH3. 

We also know how much CO2 we have put into the atmosphere. And, were it not for the oceans obsorbing a large proportion of that anthropogenic CO2, the percentage that we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere, 40%, would be far higher.

Why the CO2 increase is man made (part 1) | Watts Up With That?

The net result of all these exchanges is some 4 GtC sink rate of the natural flows, which is variable: the variability of the natural sink capacity is mostly related to (ocean) temperature changes, but that has little influence on the trend itself, as most of the variability averages out over the years. Only a more permanent temperature increase/decrease should show a more permanent change in CO2 level. The Vostok ice core record shows that a temperature change of about 1°C gives a change in CO2 level of about 8 ppmv over very long term. That indicates an about 8 ppmv increase for the warming since the LIA, less than 10% of the observed increase.

As one can see in Fig. 3 below, there is a variability of +/- 1 ppmv (2 GtC) around the trend over the past 50 years, while the trend itself is about 55% of the emissions, currently around 2 ppmv (4 GtC) per year (land use changes not included, as these are far more uncertain, in that case the trend is about 45% of the emissions + land use changes).


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


>



LOL. And over a dozen scientific studies since the first graph has confirmed that the hockey stick is real. Just as real as Frankyboys retardation.

Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 26, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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



Let's see how much Global Warming there'll be in the year 2047, Vanna


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2012)

Frank,

Let's see how much Global Warming there'll be in the year 2047, Vanna
...........................................................................................................

Well, since at that time I will be 104 years old, I will be glad to check it out for you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2012)

Better yet, let's simply check out the condition of the Arctic Sea Ice in August of 2020.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 26, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The "cute" graph, as you call it, at issue is this one:






I never claimed this data lone supports the conclusion that Co2 is the cause of the recent temperature increase. I have claimed that this graph represents conclusive evidence that the recent upward trend in atmospheric Co2 levels is caused mostly by man. Do you disagree?


> Your cute graphs don't bother to explain if the CO2 is derived from man or not.  Ice core data (real data, not computer models like you love) shows multi hundred year lags from warming onset to CO2 increases.


That's because in the past Co2 increases have been caused by warmer temperatures brought about because of Milankovitch cycles and possibly other factors,

I fail to see your point.



> We are currently living within one of those windows.  It has been 800 years since the last major warming period.  We are solidly at the upper time limit for CO2 increases based on that cause.


Yes, but we have data which conclusively indicates the current rapid rise in atmospheric Co2 is caused by man. Its in the graph above. Its very simple. All of a sudden, in less than 200 years, man put about 1200 gigatons into the atmosphere. In the same period, atmospheric Co2 has risen 800 gigatons.

 The conclusion that that 800 gigaton increase would still be there even if man had not added 1200 gigatons - which appears to be what you are saying - is not supported by logic or common sense. Your contention that a warming peak several hundred years ago could somehow cause the _sudden, rapid_ rise of Co2 levels as seen in the above graph - instead of the sudden, rapid rise of man producing more than enough Co2 to account for the increase -  is frankly, absurd, and it tells us just how much of a mental retard you are.



> There you go.  Correlation that doesn't involve man at all.  See how science is done?  Now go test both hypotheses and become famous.


I see how you do science, yes. Which is horrible. It involves completely ignoring data which does not lead to the conclusion you want. *You say that correlation does not equal causation yet you haven't even speculated at the causal link between a warming episode hundreds of years ago and the rapid rise of Co2 now - you ASSUME one exists because of correlation.*


----------



## westwall (Jan 26, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








Sooooo what you're telling us is, it was warmer back then, even though there was no corresponding high level of CO2 *OR* methane.  Additionally there were no people around to blame for the warming.  So riddle me this batman...what caused the warming back then?

I'll bet you large amounts of cash that the same thing that caused the warming then is the same thing causing the warming now.


----------



## westwall (Jan 26, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







Absurd to you.  However that is EXACTLY what the Vostock ice cores show us.  Hundreds of years of nothing and then a sudden spike of CO2 hundreds of years after the warming.


----------



## code1211 (Jan 27, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...





I'm sorry.  It was my understanding that you are asserting that the rise in CO2 is what is causing the warming.

Have I misunderstood what you are saying?


----------



## code1211 (Jan 27, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




All we have to work with are the proxies.  If you are going to assert something that is not supported by the data at hand, then please present other data that supports your assertion.  The warming after the coldest part of the LIA starts before 1600.

While the cooler temperatures persisted, the warming had begun centuries before the increase of CO2.

You have been challenged to explain why the initial warming occurred absent increased CO2 and to explain why, if that cause was sufficient to stop cooling of the LIA, why that cause is not sufficient to continue the warming which seems to have continued until shortly before our current decade.

Your case depends on CO2 being, if not the only then certainly, the prime mover in climate change and it seems that the climate changes just fine without it.

Prove your case.


----------



## code1211 (Jan 27, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...






If CO2 is the cause of the warming and the warming started 200 years before the increase in CO2, then you are arguing that a cause in 1800 had an effect in 1600.

Was the blithering idiot writing or reading?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 28, 2012)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


Woooooeee....hold the presses....big news flash.....NASA scientists, along with the rest of them, identify the Little Ice Age as happening from 1550 to 1850 but code4stupid says different so we've got to change the textbooks....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....








code1211 said:


> While the cooler temperatures persisted, the warming had begun centuries before the increase of CO2.


It warmed a little and then it cooled a little. That does not establish a trend, nitwit.

"*NASA defines the term [Little Ice Age] as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.*"






code1211 said:


> You have been challenged to explain why the initial warming occurred absent increased CO2 and to explain why, if that cause was sufficient to stop cooling of the LIA, why that cause is not sufficient to continue the warming which seems to have continued until shortly before our current decade.
> 
> Your case depends on CO2 being, if not the only then certainly, the prime mover in climate change and it seems that the climate changes just fine without it.
> 
> Prove your case.



You seem to want to ignore the question of what caused the cooling after the Medieval Warm Period. The material I posted discussed the possible natural causes, such as the period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum and an increase in volcanic activity that put a lot of dust and other particles in the upper atmosphere. As these natural factors changed, the affected portions of the world began to get warmer again  naturally but all of that was within the bounds of normal variation. Since 1850, the Earth has started on an trend of rapidly rising temperatures that is outside the bounds of normal variation and is scientifically linked to the rising CO2 levels mankind has created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

One of your denier cult straw-man arguments is that scientists assert that CO2 is the only mover in climate change but that is just ignorant stupidity on your part. Climate scientists are well aware that there are a number of natural factors that influence the Earth's climate patterns. They have found though that none of these natural factors can be responsible for the current abrupt warming trend and that the increased CO2 levels are the main factor driving the current warming and climate changes.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 28, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...










Only waiting 3 months now s0n!!!! Still cant illustrate with a single link how the "consensus" is mattering.


----------



## code1211 (Jan 28, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 29, 2012)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to want to ignore the question of what caused the cooling after the Medieval Warm Period. The material I posted discussed the possible natural causes, such as the period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum and an increase in volcanic activity that put a lot of dust and other particles in the upper atmosphere. As these natural factors changed, the affected portions of the world began to get warmer again  naturally but all of that was within the bounds of normal variation. Since 1850, the Earth has started on an trend of rapidly rising temperatures that is outside the bounds of normal variation and is scientifically linked to the rising CO2 levels mankind has created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation.
> ...


No I don't, nitwit, and neither do the vast majority of scientists in the world who understand this way better than you do and who agree with conclusions of the climate scientists. There is actually an enormous amount of supporting evidence but you've got your head shoved too far up the rightwingnut denier cult willy-hole to be able to see that.







code1211 said:


> It is wise to note that the warming from the year zero to the year 1000 outpaced the warming from the year 1001 to the year 2000.


Total bullshit, code4stupid. Do you just pull this crazy nonsense out of your ass or did you parrot it off some denier cult blog?

*Paleoclimatic Data for the Last 2000 Years
NOAA*

*Summary of Proxy Temperature Studies
Scientific References of Studies

Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time.

The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions:

   * Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.
   * The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.
*




code1211 said:


> There is a warming trend in progress that seems to operate independently of the amount of CO2 in the air.


That may be one of your moronic denier cult myths but it has no scientific support.








code1211 said:


> I...have asserted numerous times that all of the various factors impacting climate will impact climate.


LOLOLOLOL....I guess it's would be too much to expect a clueless brainwashed dupe like you to know the meaning of the term 'tautology'.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...












For the uninformed, Skooks here, asked Rolling Thunder to come up with a single link illustrating to us how all the "consensus" science is mattering in the real world of public policy. Asked the cheesedick three months ago..........but...........ooooooooooooooooooooooooooops. No links..........but still, the science temperature-glacier-CO2 BS that has become a mere hobby in the nether regions of the internet.

So Uncle Harry here is going to be making many appearances after his gay posts


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 29, 2012)

Links to prove otherwise???


----------



## code1211 (Jan 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Nobody could read your posts without understanding the meaning of repetition.  The way I used the words repeated the words, but not the meaning.  A bit too complex for you to discern?  

The English language is pretty complex.  

You are reposting the same tired cut and paste articles and not addressing what I am saying.

When you have something new to add that is like a response to the data that is presented, let me know.

Keep laughing.  It's what you're good at.


----------



## konradv (Jan 29, 2012)

code1211 said:


> If you are campaigning to change society based on a theory that you are trying to prove, it is up to you to prove your case.
> 
> Prove it.



A results in B.  A is increasing.  Therefore, B will increase.  QED


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 29, 2012)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > If you are campaigning to change society based on a theory that you are trying to prove, it is up to you to prove your case.
> ...




BUT NOBODY CARES!!!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 29, 2012)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > If you are campaigning to change society based on a theory that you are trying to prove, it is up to you to prove your case.
> ...



You have yet to demonstrate the first premise.  Furthermore, your claim is an example of the _post hoc, ergo propter hoc_ fallacy, not to mention begging the question.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 29, 2012)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



You poor deluded retard, you haven't "_presented_" any "_data_", just idiotic misinformation and lies that you pulled out of your butt.

You claimed that it had warmed more from 1AD to 1000AD than it has from 1000AD to the present, which is completely wrong. I presented the scientific information from NOAA that demolishes your moronic claim.

You still can't comprehend the meaning of 'tautology', apparently. Not too surprising, given what an idiot you obviously are. Saying that "_all of the various factors impacting climate will impact climate_" is like saying that 'all of the cars traveling to Cleveland will travel to Cleveland'.


----------



## code1211 (Jan 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Then prove your case.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 29, 2012)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > You claimed that it had warmed more from 1AD to 1000AD than it has from 1000AD to the present, which is completely wrong. I presented the scientific information from NOAA that demolishes your moronic claim.
> ...



I did. You're unfortunately just too stupid to see it.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 30, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



No, I'm not.

You are.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 30, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




And this means the warming _causes_ the Co2 to increase hundreds of years later?

I thought you said correlation does not mean causation?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 30, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...




Ultimately, yes, but we cannot conclude that based solely on the graph of man made Co2 emissions and atmospheric Co2 content (in fact, we can say nothing about temperature, its causes or effects, based on that graph).


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 30, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



I am not arguing that.


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







I didn't.  I merely pointed out that your hypothesis that CO2 caused a corresponding temperature rise has a serious flaw in it.   How CO2 causes the temp to rise when it doesn't begin to accumulate till hundreds of years after the temp rise is a bit difficult.  

Maybe time travel is involved?


----------



## code1211 (Jan 30, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Perhaps you're not explaining it correctly.

Einstein said that you don't really understand anything unless you can explain it to your grandmother.


----------



## code1211 (Jan 30, 2012)

oohpoopahdoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > oohpoopahdoo said:
> ...




10-4.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 30, 2012)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



OK....I'll explain it to you, code4stupid.

You're a brainwashed, deluded retard so you are never going to be able to understand what is going on.

I think that about covers it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 30, 2012)

westwall said:


> I didn't.  I merely pointed out that your hypothesis that CO2 caused a corresponding temperature rise has a serious flaw in it.   How CO2 causes the temp to rise when it doesn't begin to accumulate till hundreds of years after the temp rise is a bit difficult.
> 
> Maybe time travel is involved?



OohPooPahDoo is too slow on the uptake to follow your argument.

He suspects he's wandering into dangerous territory, but he doesn't really know what the danger is.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 30, 2012)

code1211 said:


> oohpoopahdoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Actually, he is arguing that.  He just doesn't want to admit it.


----------



## code1211 (Jan 30, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Still don't get it.

Please try again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 30, 2012)

gigaqtons?  eeek!  We're adding gigatons of deadly CO2??!!! Eeek!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 30, 2012)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 30, 2012)

westwall said:


> I merely pointed out that your hypothesis that CO2 caused a corresponding temperature rise has a serious flaw in it.   How CO2 causes the temp to rise when it doesn't begin to accumulate till hundreds of years after the temp rise is a bit difficult.  Maybe time travel is involved?



You sure must have fun fighting your straw-man. You seem to take great delight in 'winning' against positions that no one actually holds.

Of course, in the real world scientists say that natural factors (like the Milankovitch cycles that move the Earth's climate into periods of glaciation and out again into inter-glacial periods like our own) are what causes an initial warming which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere which in turn causes further warming. The natural cycles aren't strong enough to account for the amount of warming that is seen in the geological records and the increased (and increasing for some time) CO2 over those time periods is the only factor that can account for the additional warming. In those cases, CO2 was more of a 'feedback' that reinforced the warming trend started by orbital variations or whatever. Currently, the 40% increased CO2 levels brought about by mankind's burning of several hundred gigatons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere are more of a 'forcing' that is directly causing the current abrupt global warming. There are no identifiable 'natural cycles' that can be scientifically linked to the current abrupt warming trends.


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I merely pointed out that your hypothesis that CO2 caused a corresponding temperature rise has a serious flaw in it.   How CO2 causes the temp to rise when it doesn't begin to accumulate till hundreds of years after the temp rise is a bit difficult.  Maybe time travel is involved?
> ...







Silly person you are too funny.  For the last 10 years the sceptics have been saying that nothing occuring is outside of normal variability.  You clowns have bent yourselves into pretzels trying to claim that AGW will cause less snow in winter, then you bent yourselves into more pretzels claiming you never said that.

Basically you deluded dingbat 'tard, you have your head so far up your rectum you can't see.  If you could see you would realise that the temps have been flat for a decade.  DESPITE a rapid increase in CO2 levels.  In defiance of your deluded, cult, 'tard religion.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 31, 2012)

Hey West..........ask me if I didnt split my sides laughing when I saw this on DRUDGE this am???


*"80 degrees below zero in Alaska last night"*


Bitter cold records broken in Alaska &#8211; all time coldest record nearly broken, but Murphy&#8217;s Law intervenes | Watts Up With That?








I guess CO2 doesnt go near Alaska!!!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 31, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey West..........ask me if I didnt split my sides laughing when I saw this on DRUDGE this am???
> 
> 
> *"80 degrees below zero in Alaska last night"*
> ...



You know what they're going to say, don't you?

I can see it already:

"That's just weather!"


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 31, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The last ten years have been warmer than any decade prior to that since we have kept accurate weather records. And the decade prior to that was the same. As was the decade prior to that. But that is just natural variability. You 'skeptics' are selling ocean front property in North Dakota.

The claim was not less snow in the winter, the claim was 'wilder and wilder swings in the weather, with an overall increase in temperature'. And that is exactly what we have been seeing. A five fold increase in the cost of extreme weather events according to both Swiss Re and Munich Re.

When we get a strong El Nino, and the tempertures hit new high records, you lying bastards will then claim everything thereafter is coolinig until the next high. In spite of the fact that the average temperatures will be far above the old averages. From 1998 to present, 75% of the time the running average was above any prior high point in the running average before 1998. And you are claiming that represents a cooling. Only the dumbest fall for that kind of idiocy. But, you have Frankyboy and Pattycake as peer level intellects, so go for it, Walleyes.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 31, 2012)

grand minimum might be a bitch Ray....................

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online



point is.........nobody knows about any of this stuff with any degree of certitude. IDK....for some, computer models are the end all and be all............but not to me. They cant even come close to predicting where the hell tomorrows arriving hurricane is heading. Cant launch into spending 76 trillion based upon that...........


----------



## konradv (Jan 31, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> grand minimum might be a bitch Ray....................
> 
> Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online
> 
> point is.........nobody knows about any of this stuff with any degree of certitude. IDK....for some, computer models are the end all and be all............but not to me. They cant even come close to predicting where the hell tomorrows arriving hurricane is heading. Cant launch into spending 76 trillion based upon that...........



If it's the "when" and "how bad", those ARE points of contention, not the "if".  Trouble is you seem to think this is a political question and pull a number like 76 trillion out of your ass!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 31, 2012)

We had a minimum TSI in 2008. Neither the Thames nor the Columbia froze over. The Thames is in far greater danger of freezing over from the affects of the amount of freshwater entering the Arctic Ocean than from a low TSI. The forcing of a TSI like that of the LIA is far less than the present forcing from the increase in atmospheric GHGs.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 31, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> We had a minimum TSI in 2008. Neither the Thames nor the Columbia froze over. The Thames is in far greater danger of freezing over from the affects of the amount of freshwater entering the Arctic Ocean than from a low TSI. The forcing of a TSI like that of the LIA is far less than the present forcing from the increase in atmospheric GHGs.



What colleges and universities and laboratories need to do is _force_ you fuckers into the lab and either show us how CO2 does any, much less ALL that you claim it does, then when you fail, kick you to the curb next to Venkman and Spengler


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey West..........ask me if I didnt split my sides laughing when I saw this on DRUDGE this am???
> 
> 
> *"80 degrees below zero in Alaska last night"*
> ...







What I find particularly amusing is the Arctic is constantly being referred to as the "canary in the coal mine".  All the evil warming will occur in the Arctic before _anywhere_ else (it helps that theres almost no thermometers up there too) and then we see this sort of thing.

Too funny.


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Yap, yap, yap, that is a lie perpetrated by Hansen and Co. altering the historical temperature record...but thanks for playing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 31, 2012)

Sure, you lying bastard.

Video|BerkeleyEarth.org: study


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 31, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHZzACcYJRo]Land Temperature Anomaly Video - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 31, 2012)

*Obama steers clear of climate change talk in speech*

 By Andrew Restuccia - 01/24/12 09:38 PM ET 

President Obama&#8217;s State of the Union address outlines a series of energy proposals aimed at promoting renewable energy, but steers clear of a broad call to tackle climate change.

Obama steers clear of climate change talk in speech - The Hill's E2-Wire


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 31, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > We had a minimum TSI in 2008. Neither the Thames nor the Columbia froze over. The Thames is in far greater danger of freezing over from the affects of the amount of freshwater entering the Arctic Ocean than from a low TSI. The forcing of a TSI like that of the LIA is far less than the present forcing from the increase in atmospheric GHGs.
> ...



You've been shown the lab experiments that support the reality of the Greenhouse Effect many times, freakie-boy, but you're too retarded to admit it.



RollingThunder said:


> Anti-science reality deniers like you, frankie-boy, are always so confused and clueless.
> 
> I can't be bothered to copy all of the links and insert them so you'll just have to go to the original site to check the links.
> 
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 31, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Way short on info s0n...............



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o]Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## code1211 (Jan 31, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I merely pointed out that your hypothesis that CO2 caused a corresponding temperature rise has a serious flaw in it.   How CO2 causes the temp to rise when it doesn't begin to accumulate till hundreds of years after the temp rise is a bit difficult.  Maybe time travel is involved?
> ...





I think I'm starting to understand your position.  You don't have a clue, so you have picked one cause and decided that must be it.

interesting approach.


----------



## code1211 (Jan 31, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Lots of data from Hadcrut and NOAA in the link below and it's hard to make a compelling case for runaway warming due to any cause.

However, we know for certain that CO2 was increasing at a pretty stable rate over this period and yet the climate did not.

Interesting.

Temperature Trends « Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 31, 2012)

code1211 said:


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



LOLOLOLOLOL.....you are just too funny, code4stupid......graphs of the satellite measurements of the temperatures three miles up into the atmosphere as presented on a denier cult blog explain everything, do they? LOLOLOLOL.....you are sooooo retarded.....

Here's the actual temperature trends from the real climate scientists at NASA.











*Global Temperature in 2011, Trends, and Prospects*
18 January 2012


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








No, dear delusional dingbat, those are Ideal Gas Law experiments.  They have NOTHING to do with GHG experiments.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 1, 2012)

Matthew said:


> 2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record
> January 4th, 2012 at 10:16 pm by Jim Spencer under Weather
> 2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record | KXAN.com Blogs
> Global Temperature Report: December 2011



So which set of tampered, adjusted, and fixed, data is this ultimately based on?


----------



## wirebender (Feb 1, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> You've been shown the lab experiments that support the reality of the Greenhouse Effect many times, freakie-boy, but you're too retarded to admit it.



You guys are big on claming to have shown the evidence, but a search for said evidence reveals that it has never been posted.  Perhaps that is because it doesn't exist.

Which lab experiments are you claiming have been shown that support the reality of the so called greenhouse effect.

I am going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction that you won't be able to show any such experiment and will, instead, resort to impotent name calling.


----------



## konradv (Feb 1, 2012)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > You've been shown the lab experiments that support the reality of the Greenhouse Effect many times, freakie-boy, but you're too retarded to admit it.
> ...



When I put CO2 into a spectrophotometer, it absorbs IR.  When I add more, it absorbs more.  QED


----------



## wirebender (Feb 1, 2012)

konradv said:


> When I put CO2 into a spectrophotometer, it absorbs IR.  When I add more, it absorbs more.  QED



Poor konradv.  You really should have paid more attention in science class, or perhaps you should have taken some science classes.  CO2 has both absorption and emission spectra.  The emission spectrum of CO2 is the exact opposite of its absorption spectra.  QED, it emits exactly as much IR as it absorbs.  Add more IR and it absorbs more but emits exactly the same amount as it absorbs.  It can not, and does not retain heat.  

CO2 serves to scatter IR, not concentrate it.  Scattering produces a cooling effect, not a warming one.


----------



## konradv (Feb 1, 2012)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > When I put CO2 into a spectrophotometer, it absorbs IR.  When I add more, it absorbs more.  QED
> ...



Never said CO2 retains heat.  I said it takes those absorbed photons and re-emits them, statisically 50% would return to earth.  You seem to misunderstand heat.  If a CO2 molecule absorbs and re-emits IR, there's no heat involved.  That only occurs when IR energy is retained and the molecule vibrates(heat).  I hope that helps with your understanding of the topic.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2012)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







And if there was a measured decrease in long wave IR being emitted to space you might have a point.  As there is none, you don't.


----------



## konradv (Feb 1, 2012)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



How do you prove there's no measured decrease?  Since we know CO2 absorbs IR and we know it's been increasing, either the measurements are flawed or we haven't been taking space data long enough.  Either way, your statement is a long way from being proven and it certainly doesn't meet the logic test.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2012)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






There's these little things called satellites and they take pictures of the planet and do all sorts of cool things (said in a valley girl accent) and to date they have not measured a decrease in long wave IR emission from the planet.

Sounds like a serious problem to me..but then I actually think about things and don't just repeat what my handlers wish me too.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 1, 2012)

konradv said:


> Never said CO2 retains heat.  I said it takes those absorbed photons and re-emits them, statisically 50% would return to earth.



Again, you should have paid more attention in science class.  Describe how energy might flow in two directions along any single vector.  Do you believe you could connect a wire between a car battery and an AAA battery and actually get energy from the AAA battery into the car battery?  



konradv said:


> You seem to misunderstand heat.  If a CO2 molecule absorbs and re-emits IR, there's no heat involved.  That only occurs when IR energy is retained and the molecule vibrates(heat).  I hope that helps with your understanding of the topic.



Don't kid yourself konradv.  You don't even grasp the basics.  I would be interested in hearing, in your own words, what part you believe a vibrating CO2 molecule plays in anthropogenic global warming.  

You really shouldn't be using buzzwords if you don't understand the concepts they are intended to express.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 1, 2012)

konradv said:


> How do you prove there's no measured decrease?  Since we know CO2 absorbs IR and we know it's been increasing, either the measurements are flawed or we haven't been taking space data long enough.  Either way, your statement is a long way from being proven and it certainly doesn't meet the logic test.



And here, yet again, you expose your extrordinary ignorance of the topic.  You really don't know how one might measure the amount of LW radiation leaving the atmosphere?

Here konradv, I have posted this all before, but I will post it again.  The data cover a period from 1970 to 2006.  During that 38 year interval, atmospheric CO2 increased considerably.  Rather than type the whole thing out again, I will simply cut and paste it from the original.

_If AGW theory were correct and increasing atmospheric CO2 caused warming, it would happen because the increased CO2 would capture more long wave radiation in the 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometer wavelengths. That means that if one took a snapshot of the outgoing long wave radiation in say 1970 and another snapshot of the outgoing long wave radiation at a later date when more atmospheric CO2 was present, less outgoing long wave radiation in the 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometer wavelenghts would prove the basis of AGW theory. An equal or greater amount of outgoing longwave radiation in those wavelengths would disprove the basis for AGW theory as it would indicate that even though more atmospheric CO2 were present, no more long wave radiation was being absorbed by that increased CO2. Well, guess what?


Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions. _







_The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. All found on the far left side of the graph. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data._











_Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2._


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 1, 2012)

T-Shirt weather in New York today.....February 1st.........FTMFW!!!


Global Warming FTMFW!!!!!!!!!


Meanwhile, my mechanic who comes from Turkey says they are getting some sick-ass snow there..............cities are paralyzed. He said they never get snow like that............so I googled it and sure enough!!!

Heavy snow, blizzards wreak havoc in

Wonder if they side with the k00ks today???????


----------



## code1211 (Feb 1, 2012)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






The way you are setting this up, you seem to rely on an infinite amount of IR energy and the GH effect of CO2 is also infinite.

The amount, while great, is measurable and therefore finite.

An ever increasing amount of CO2 will only reflect an amount that is continually decreasing as a function of the CO2.  The first 20 ppm reflects much more per part than another 20 ppm added to the long end of 360 ppm.

The function of each CO2 molecule as a GHG decreases in potency as the amount of CO2 in the air increases.

Also, you seem to be describing a molecular level albedo as opposed to the GH effect of reflecting the heat back to the surface.  Am I understanding you correctly?


----------



## code1211 (Feb 1, 2012)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



<snip>
The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3° C. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. So roughly, if the heating effect was a linear relationship, each 100 ppm contributes 1° C. With the atmospheric concentration rising by 2 ppm annually, it would go up by 100 ppm every 50 years and we would all fry as per the IPCC predictions.

But the relationship isnt linear, it is logarithmic. In 2006, Willis Eschenbach posted this graph on Climate Audit showing the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration:
<snip>



The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide | Watts Up With That?


----------



## wirebender (Feb 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> <snip>
> The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C.



The average temeprature of the atmosphere is -20 degrees.  How does wrapping a mass of air with an average temperature of -20 degrees around a sphere with an average temperature of -15 degrees result in a temperature increase of 30 degrees?  I would be intrested in hearing the physics to explain such a phenomenon.

Not trying to give you a hard time, but when I see statements like that, I feel the need to ask for a rational explanation.


----------



## konradv (Feb 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



The molecular level IS the GH effect.  Photons aren't reflected like earth's albedo, but absorbed and and re-emitted.  The term GH is an analogy and doesn't work like a real GH.  You could just as easily say "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect".  BTW, heat(molecular motion) but photons which deliver the energy to cause motion.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 2, 2012)

konradv said:


> [
> The molecular level IS the GH effect.  Photons aren't reflected like earth's albedo, but absorbed and and re-emitted.  The term GH is an analogy and doesn't work like a real GH.  You could just as easily say "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect".  BTW, heat(molecular motion) but photons which deliver the energy to cause motion.



I have already shown you konradv, that when you put a blanket over a body, the surface temperature of the body decreases wherever the blanket touches, just like the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts.  And there is no pot lid over an open atmosphere.  There is no lid over the atmosphere, and no blanket over the atmosphere.  Show some evidence of a greenhouse effect in an open atmosphere where it counts.  The satellite record I provide above shows pretty clearly that so called greenhouse gasses are not reducing the amount of outgoing LW radiation to space as the greenhouse hypothesis predicts.


----------



## IanC (Feb 2, 2012)

Old Rocks, Rolling Thunder, konradv and many others just dont get it. if the temps arent rising (despite the concerted efforts to manipulate the data) then it isnt _warming!_ it may be _warm._ but until it goes up or down it isnt warming or cooling.

for instance, if temps rose 0.3C from 1990-2000, that is warming. the deception comes in when you add the 0.3C increase from 1990-2000, to the no change from 2000-2010, and still say the warming trend is 'accelerating'!!!  if I grew 4 feet from birth to 15yrs, and stayed the same since, the slope of the trend line is still positive. using climate science statistics, Im still growing, even though I am not


----------



## IanC (Feb 2, 2012)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



wirebender, you are just as crazed as the CAGW true believers. a blanket significantly lowers the escape of heat from the body which means it takes less energy to keep the core at 37C. the energy from the sun is very constant so if something chokes off the escape of radiation then the same amount of energy from the sun can heat the surface to a higher temperature. you argue insignificant points and refuse to listen when they are refuted. the next time it is really cold in your area talk off your clothes to warm up and go outside for a sleep. with any luck we wont have to listen to your BS anymore.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 2, 2012)

IanC said:


> wirebender, you are just as crazed as the CAGW true believers. a blanket significantly lowers the escape of heat from the body which means it takes less energy to keep the core at 37C. the energy from the sun is very constant so if something chokes off the escape of radiation then the same amount of energy from the sun can heat the surface to a higher temperature. you argue insignificant points and refuse to listen when they are refuted. the next time it is really cold in your area talk off your clothes to warm up and go outside for a sleep. with any luck we wont have to listen to your BS anymore.



Unlike you, ian, I respect the laws of nature.  The second law predicts that when a cooler blanket is placed over a warmer body, energy transfers from the warmer body to the cooler blanket.  An infrared camera will demonstrate this and all you have to do is look.  The surface temperature of the body drops wherever the blanket touches.  The atmosphere can not be analogized as a blanket because there is no restriction of convection or conduction in the open atmosphere by so called greenhouse gasses.  You keep demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of physics.

You have been shown the math and your faith keeps you from seeing the truth.  Unfortunate.


----------



## konradv (Feb 2, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender, you are just as crazed as the CAGW true believers. a blanket significantly lowers the escape of heat from the body which means it takes less energy to keep the core at 37C. the energy from the sun is very constant so if something chokes off the escape of radiation then the same amount of energy from the sun can heat the surface to a higher temperature. you argue insignificant points and refuse to listen when they are refuted. the next time it is really cold in your area talk off your clothes to warm up and go outside for a sleep. with any luck we wont have to listen to your BS anymore.
> ...



True, but heat will transfer much more slowly with the blanket there.  If the blanket is cooler, fine, you're still warmer than without it.


----------



## konradv (Feb 2, 2012)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks, Rolling Thunder, konradv and many others just dont get it. if the temps arent rising (despite the concerted efforts to manipulate the data) then it isnt _warming!_ it may be _warm._ but until it goes up or down it isnt warming or cooling.
> 
> for instance, if temps rose 0.3C from 1990-2000, that is warming. the deception comes in when you add the 0.3C increase from 1990-2000, to the no change from 2000-2010, and still say the warming trend is 'accelerating'!!!  if I grew 4 feet from birth to 15yrs, and stayed the same since, the slope of the trend line is still positive. using climate science statistics, Im still growing, even though I am not



You're talking about a short period of time in order to make your point.  Who ever said the warming would be constant?  I think you're taking the deniers' "they don't take into account natural cycles" meme and giving it too much credence.  This seems like another case of "they only count when I want them to count".


----------



## westwall (Feb 2, 2012)

konradv said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks, Rolling Thunder, konradv and many others just dont get it. if the temps arent rising (despite the concerted efforts to manipulate the data) then it isnt _warming!_ it may be _warm._ but until it goes up or down it isnt warming or cooling.
> ...










  Natural cycles is ALL WE TALK ABOUT!  It's you silly people who invested these magical powers into the CO2 molecule.  You are the ones who claim that so long as CO2 increases there can be nothing but a warming.  It's YOU who claimed that natural cycles were no longer in play.

Sheesh, keep your lies straight konny!


----------



## code1211 (Feb 2, 2012)

wirebender said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > <snip>
> ...





This is the Greenhouse Effect.


----------



## IanC (Feb 3, 2012)

code1211 said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



wirebender conveniently forgets that a -20C atmosphere is a lot warmer than a -270C outer space. he also is confused that it is not the atmosphere that warms the planet, it is the sun. all the atmosphere does is reduce the energy loss to cold space which changes the equilibrium temperature at the surface or any level that you wish to define.

konradv is too tightly focussed on CO2. he thinks adding CO2 can be seen in isolation but in reality there are many factors that interact with each other in a stasis fashion that keeps the earth in a tight range of temperatures. apparently the sun varies less than 1% but the dip in output during the Maunder Minimum sent the earth into the LIA. why then was the earth warmer than today 2 billion years ago when the output was  ~15% less?


----------



## IanC (Feb 3, 2012)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



hahahaha. no kidding. they take one easily measured component of the climate system and treat it like it is the control knob even though it probably has negligable effect, especially at these concentrations. if it was going from 10ppm to 50ppm that would make a sizable difference, of course we wouldnt be here because there wouldnt be plants to feed animals at those concentrations but it would be much more important in that range.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 3, 2012)

konradv said:


> True, but heat will transfer much more slowly with the blanket there.  If the blanket is cooler, fine, you're still warmer than without it.



That is because the blanket, like the glass walls of a greenhouse block convection and conduction, not because it is possible to transfer energy from a cooler object to a warmer object.  There is nothing in the atmosphere blocking convection and conduction.  

In fact, konradv, the energy budgets so often talked about when discussing the AGW hypothesis are restricted to radiation.  They do not even take convection and conduction into consideration.  Radiation accounts for roughly 7 percent of the energy movement within the earth's system.  The forces that account for a full 93% of the movement of energy within the earths system are completely disregarded.  

Tell me konradv, how much of reality do you believe the models upon which AGW alarmism are based actually represent?  Could it possibly be 7% or less?


----------



## wirebender (Feb 3, 2012)

code1211 said:


> This is the Greenhouse Effect.



Describe the physics by which you believe wrapping a -15 degree object in a -20 degree blanket results in a 30 degree temperature rise.  Simply stating that it is the greenhouse effect doesn't carry much weight.  Jump in your freezer and see how much of a greenhouse effect your 36 degree body generates in the 17 degree freezer.


You will be starting off with a considerably warmer temperature than the blackbody temperature of the earth and the atmosphere in the freezer is not nearly as cold as the average temperature of the atmosphere.  My bet is that you don't manage any greenhouse effect at all.

If you survive, let me know how it worked out for you.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 3, 2012)

IanC said:


> wirebender conveniently forgets that a -20C atmosphere is a lot warmer than a -270C outer space. he also is confused that it is not the atmosphere that warms the planet, it is the sun. all the atmosphere does is reduce the energy loss to cold space which changes the equilibrium temperature at the surface or any level that you wish to define.



I don't forget any of that ian.  I also don't attempt to get around the laws of physics in an effort to transfer heat from cool objects to warm objects, and I don't buy into the myth of gross energy transfers in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## IanC (Feb 3, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender, you are just as crazed as the CAGW true believers. a blanket significantly lowers the escape of heat from the body which means it takes less energy to keep the core at 37C. the energy from the sun is very constant so if something chokes off the escape of radiation then the same amount of energy from the sun can heat the surface to a higher temperature. you argue insignificant points and refuse to listen when they are refuted. the next time it is really cold in your area talk off your clothes to warm up and go outside for a sleep. with any luck we wont have to listen to your BS anymore.
> ...



wirebender- all you have is tortured and distorted attempts at logic that ignore realities. 

example-   a light bulb comes to equilibrium temperature when the glass bulb is radiating away the same amount of energy as it is receiving from the filament. if you toss a blanket on the bulb it will initially drop the temperature of the bulb but then the temp will continue to rise until the outside of the blanket is radiating away the same amount of energy that the filament is emitting. unfortunately a blanket is not a good conductor of heat so the _inside_ of the blanket need to get very hot to transmit enough energy to get the outside warm enough. typically hot enough to start a fire. so your initial, transient drop in temp is followed by a steady increase until equilibrium is reached or a fire starts.

the human body does not have a fixed energy output except for the basal metabolic rate. if the core is 37C it is happy, if the core is cooler then the body takes steps to produce more heat from burning fuel and reducing blood flow to extremities, if it is warmer then more blood is sent to the extremities where sweat is released to make use of the heat transfer of water phase change. when you add a blanket to a human body there may be an initial trnasient temp drop at the skin but the overall heat loss diminishes and the body uses less fuel to maintain its favoured temperature range. 

the earth does have a relatively fixed energy input from the sun. the surface/atmosphere also uses water phase change to control temperatures in a desired range. evaporation, clouds, types of clouds, convection due to water making the air lighter, etc all move energy from the surface to space. the energy moved in just a single thunderstorm is huge, many many orders of magnitude higher than radiative effects in the same time frame.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender, you are just as crazed as the CAGW true believers. a blanket significantly lowers the escape of heat from the body which means it takes less energy to keep the core at 37C. the energy from the sun is very constant so if something chokes off the escape of radiation then the same amount of energy from the sun can heat the surface to a higher temperature. you argue insignificant points and refuse to listen when they are refuted. the next time it is really cold in your area talk off your clothes to warm up and go outside for a sleep. with any luck we wont have to listen to your BS anymore.
> ...


You may respect the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but you don't understand it. The first 5 words are "In a closed thermodynamic system" but the atmosphere is not a closed thermodynamic system so the second Law can not and does not apply.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 3, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> You may respect the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but you don't understand it. The first 5 words are "In a closed thermodynamic system" but the atmosphere is not a closed thermodynamic system so the second Law can not and does not apply.



Where are you getting your laws?  Where are you reading that the laws of physics only apply to closed systems? 

The Clausius statement reads as follows:

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.

The Kelvin statement reads as follows:

No process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and its complete conversion into work.

The idea that the laws of nature only apply to certain situations is patently rediculous.  
They are laws of nature, not laws of systems.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 3, 2012)

IanC said:


> example-   a light bulb comes to equilibrium temperature when the glass bulb is radiating away the same amount of energy as it is receiving from the filament. if you toss a blanket on the bulb it will initially drop the temperature of the bulb but then the temp will continue to rise until the outside of the blanket is radiating away the same amount of energy that the filament is emitting. unfortunately a blanket is not a good conductor of heat so the _inside_ of the blanket need to get very hot to transmit enough energy to get the outside warm enough. typically hot enough to start a fire. so your initial, transient drop in temp is followed by a steady increase until equilibrium is reached or a fire starts.



Again, the result of blocking convection and conduction.  Your problem is that you are attempting to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics as applied to radiation.  Your blanket analogy doesn't work in the atmosphere.

You have been shown the math but your faith is stronger.  Sad, but alas, it is the state of things.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Feb 3, 2012)

wirebender said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the Greenhouse Effect.
> ...




The temperature of the radiation from the sun is thousands of Kelvin.


----------



## code1211 (Feb 3, 2012)

wirebender said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the Greenhouse Effect.
> ...





Since we know for certain that the temperature at the Earth's surface is considerably warmer than the -20 degrees you cite, we know that you are either not in touch with the reality of the situation or are simply being arbitrary.

The average temperature of the blanket is meaningless since the part of the blanket touching the Earth is about 70 degrees warmer than the temperature you have cited if f or about 35 if c.

The incoming energy from the Sun is the variable you have omitted in your consideration.  Unlike the analogy to the cold blanket on a cold body, the source of the heat is not from beneath the blanket but rather from above.

In a very real sense, while the "blanket" does spread and retain the heat nicely, it also reflects some and homogenizes it throughout the surface area affected by all the other climate impacts, too.

A quick check of the surface temperature of Mercury reveals that on average, it's not a bad place, but the sunny portions and the dark portions are pretty horrible.

No blanket there at all and the warm side is hot enough to melt lead.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2012)

OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2012)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



A23A


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







And the Lord spaketh, and his High Priests did convey His Word to the savages and they did give unto Him all their possessions...and it was good....for the High Priests


----------



## wirebender (Feb 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> The temperature of the radiation from the sun is thousands of Kelvin.



True.  Which prompts me to ask you why the energy budget upon which AGW alarmism is based says that only 342 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches the top of the atmosphere and of that only 168 watts per square meter reach the surface.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 4, 2012)

code1211 said:


> [
> No blanket there at all and the warm side is hot enough to melt lead.



So you are saying that the atmosphere is a source of cooling rather than warming.  Somehow that doesn't jibe with the hypothesis of AGW alarmis.  I agree with you that the atmosphere keeps us cool.  Look at the moon.  Roughly the same amount of incoming solar energy but no atmosphere.  Very hot in the daylight.  We would be just as hot if we had no atmosphere.  Good observation, poor application of the observation to the claims of AGW alarmists.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?



Read for comprehension rocks.  He just compared earth with mercury.  Mercury has no atmosphere to speak of and is very hot in the daytime.  Our moon has no atmosphere to speak of and is also very hot in the daytime.  We have an atmosphere and are relatively cool in the daytime.  It is clear that it is our atmosphere that is keeping us cool.

GHG's other than water vapor have no capacity to hold energy within the atmosphere.  Feel free to describe the mechanism by which you believe it can happen and name a physical law that supports and predicts the mechanism.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> And the Lord spaketh, and his High Priests did convey His Word to the savages and they did give unto Him all their possessions...and it was good....for the High Priests



Good one.  I blew my morning beverage out my nose.  Interesting that he would hold up anything from penn state as proof of anything considering the, uh um, legal problems they are having concerning climate science these days.

I guess it falls under the same headding as catholics defending child molesting priests.  When the faith is strong, one simply can't bring one to disparage the messenger.


----------



## code1211 (Feb 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?





As always, half a truth is better than none.  GHG, as I understand the effect does warm the Earth.  Without them, the planet would be a frozen globe with no life.  No CO2 means no carbon and no carbon based life.

The difference in what you inferred and in what i implied is the degree.

As I understand it, CO2 is but one of many factors affecting our current climate.  Additions seem to have a pretty weak effect at that at the current concentrations.

Add more and the change is hardly noticeable.  Take it all away and it's fatal.

Where's the part where I said that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?  That's your position as I understand it.


----------



## code1211 (Feb 4, 2012)

wirebender said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




You are being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.

Hot in the Sun light and very cold in the dark.


----------



## konradv (Feb 4, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?
> ...



Kind of light on hard facts to be calling the effects of added CO2 "weak" and "hard noticeable".  Given a 35% +/- increase in CO2 over historical averages, that would be an additional 13% of "forcing" on a logrithmic scale.  'Hardly insignificant' would be more like it.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Feb 4, 2012)

Ocean Currents and Climate

Article for the curious.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2012)

wirebender said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And the Lord spaketh, and his High Priests did convey His Word to the savages and they did give unto Him all their possessions...and it was good....for the High Priests
> ...







Sorry for the beverage loss....cultists are rather single minded.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2012)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






The problem dear konny is the "forcings" only seem to work in computer models.  The real world seems to not pay so much attention to them.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Ocean Currents and Climate
> 
> Article for the curious.







Ancient history and now superceded by improved science.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Feb 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Ocean Currents and Climate
> ...



And of course you've read my link, so, post the new and improved version so I may become up to date.


----------



## westwall (Feb 5, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...








Far too long and involved.  Start here, plenty to get you started.  Not all of it is accurate but there is a ton of info you've never seen.


Climate Depot


----------



## Middleoftheroad (Feb 5, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?
> ...



How about Venus?  That goes 100% against what you said.  No water vapor, almost completely GHG's (95% CO2).  Venus despite being twice as far from the sun as Mercury is actually hotter then Mercury.  But didn't you say atmosphere's keep planets cool?
" The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).[38] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of &#8722;220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C,[39] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. The surface of Venus is often said to resemble the mythical Hell."

Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## konradv (Feb 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Whenever the 35% figure is mentioned, why does someone always say "but the increases aren't arithmetic, but logarithmic"?  If they don't really work, why do the skeptics keep bringing it up?  Seems like whenever you're caught in double-talk, you move the goal posts.  It's hardly what I'd call dispassionate, scientific discourse!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



*A blog from an asshole without any science expertise at all. So typical of what Walleyes posts for evidence. Yet, when someone posts something from the American Geophysical Union, he states that is is untrue. Some geologist.*

Marc Morano - SourceWatch

Marc Morano, who has no climate science expertise, runs the anti-climate-science website ClimateDepot.com for the anti-regulation Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which lists him as Director of Communications


----------



## code1211 (Feb 5, 2012)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





That is the very base of what we are discussing, isn't it?  

The first 20 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere caused, it is generally accepted, an increase in the climate's temperature of about 30 degrees c.

The succeeding increases of each increment of 20 ppm have had dramatically reduced effects.  In truth, it requires twice the increase of the previous increment to produce the same warming again.

The post Industrial Revolution incremental increases have shown 5 jumps of the base increment of 20 ppm.

According to your implications, we should now be at a temperature of 5x30 degrees higher than the temperature levels of the pre-Industrial Revolution.  This assumes that the the warming effect of CO2 is unchanged at higher concentrations.  

That would mean a Global average temperature of about 206 degrees f.  If we are to accept the assertion that a small amount of CO2 produced the initial warming, and that is the basis of the AGW story, then simple observation reveals that the GH effect of CO2 diminishes in higher concentrations.

The winter in Indy has been mild, but the water in the White River is not even close to the boiling point.

The impact of the addition of 5 increments of the 20 ppm increase has been about 0.7 degrees c. since 1850.  Do all the math you like.  The warming you say should be happening is not happening.

What has happened to the other 149.3 degrees f. of warming that we might expect if CO2's impact were not constantly weakening at the higher concentrations?


----------



## code1211 (Feb 5, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Ocean Currents and Climate
> 
> Article for the curious.





The warming oceans have been the crutch of the AGW Crowd for some years now.  The Argo Array of buoys have been bobbing up and down in the ocean taking the temps world wide and the result has been to reveal the the warming has been

Wait for it...

Wait...

Cooling!

Not _much_ cooling, but cooling is not warming.  Another of the predicted result of the AGW Crowd crashes and burns.  If it weren't for the burning predictions of their experts, the Warmers would be without any warmth at all.

The explanation is that cooling means "less rapid warming".  

I wonder what losing means...


<snip>
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
<snip>

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR


----------



## code1211 (Feb 5, 2012)

Middleoftheroad said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Atmosphere does have an impact on the temperature.  There can be no doubt about that.

Venus and Earth are so different from one another that comparisons are deception without ample disclaimers.  Consider that a bend in the orbit of our little planet of 3 degrees from circular to oblique results in an ice age.  Back to Circular and we are where we are now.

Our existence depends on a very narrow ideal of about a 5 degree swing from cool to warm.

Now, adjust that 3 degree wiggle in the orbit to the degree that the distance from the Sun is about 2/3 of the distance we currently enjoy and the warming effect is multiplied.  Really multiplied.

It would be interesting if the two planets were in more similar orbits, but that would probably mean disaster as we crashed into each other.


The Solar System


----------



## wirebender (Feb 5, 2012)

Middleoftheroad said:


> How about Venus?  That goes 100% against what you said.  No water vapor, almost completely GHG's (95% CO2).  Venus despite being twice as far from the sun as Mercury is actually hotter then Mercury.  But didn't you say atmosphere's keep planets cool?
> " The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).[38] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of &#8722;220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C,[39] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. The surface of Venus is often said to resemble the mythical Hell."



Venus?  Are you kidding.  The atmosphere of venus is more than 90 times that of earth.   Does PV=nRT mean anything to you?  Of course if you travel up into the atmosphere of venus to a level where the atmospheric pressure is the same as that of earth, oddly enough, the temperature is almost identical to our own even though it is composed mostly of so called greenhouse gasses.

In short, there is no greenouse effect on venus, there is proof, however, that the ideal gas laws are correct.

Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]


----------



## wirebender (Feb 5, 2012)

code1211 said:


> You are being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
> 
> Hot in the Sun light and very cold in the dark.



Of course not.  The difference in the night time temperatures can be easily explained by water vapor in the atmosphere.  Look at a coastal area and a desert along the same lattitude.  Both will have roughly the same atmospheric CO2 content but the water vapor content will be quite different.  The coastal area will be considerably cooler during the day than the desert because of the water vapor.  At night, the desert will cool off much more quickly than the coastal area.  Again, due to the presence of water vapor.

The fact is that the atmosphere keeps us cool during the day and the water vapor present in the atmosphere and its capacity to absorb and actually hold heat (unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses) prevents a quick cool down of the night time side of the earth.


----------



## IanC (Feb 5, 2012)

konradv-  I dont think you have this whole log thing straight in your head. we have gone from 280ppm to almost 400ppm, about a 40% rise, therefore we should have seen about 55-65% of the increase due to doubling the CO2 to 560ppm. physics says ~1C per doubling so we should have seen 0.6C increase. the IPCC says 2-5C with a best guesstimate of 3C. 60% of 3C is 1.8C. which is a more reasonable account of what has happened? personally I think the earth has homeostatic systems that will reduce the 1C per doubling that physics predict but I find the IPCC figure of 3C per doubling to be farfetched


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 5, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Ocean Currents and Climate
> ...


Wait for it...

Wait...

BULLSHIT!

You gotta love deniers, the way they cling to erroneous data. Like using very old ARGO data from when the buoys were giving false depth readings. Notice the source they cite is from 2008!!! 

Here is the chart of the ARGO data after the defective buoys were removed.

Global Change Analysis


----------



## Wry Catcher (Feb 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Are you serious?


----------



## code1211 (Feb 5, 2012)

wirebender said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > You are being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
> ...





As I said above...


----------



## code1211 (Feb 5, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...





Out of deference to your political bent, I quoted NPR.  Care to take a look at that?


----------



## westwall (Feb 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...







And you reference blogs put forth by assholes who's very livelihood is predicated upon keeping the Public Money flowing to them.  You fail.


----------



## westwall (Feb 5, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...





Quite serious.  It is a clearing house of relevant studies and news reports.  As I said, some is pure crap, but there are links to serious peer reviewed studies that call everything the AGW supporters claim into question.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 5, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Ocean Currents and Climate
> 
> Article for the curious.



"They noted that a warmer ocean would tend to evaporate more of its carbon dioxide gas ( CO2) and also water vapor into the air, whereas a colder ocean would tend to absorb both gases. "

Did you actually read the article?


----------



## westwall (Feb 5, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Ocean Currents and Climate
> ...







No, they never do.  They look at one line that seems to support what they are saying and then run with it.  olfraud does it all the time.


----------



## Valerie (Feb 5, 2012)

Situation 'tragic' as winter weather blankets Europe - CNN.com


----------



## Middleoftheroad (Feb 5, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Middleoftheroad said:
> 
> 
> > How about Venus?  That goes 100% against what you said.  No water vapor, almost completely GHG's (95% CO2).  Venus despite being twice as far from the sun as Mercury is actually hotter then Mercury.  But didn't you say atmosphere's keep planets cool?
> ...


[/QUOTE]

So just to make sure we are on the same page.
You are saying that atmosphere cools down a planet, but more atmosphere heats it up.
And water vapor is the only GHG that keeps heat in, and also that all gases keep heat in.
Nope I don't see any contradictions between your two posts.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2012)

wirebender is like that. he often holds two mutually exclusive ideas in his head at the same time. sometimes three


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 7, 2012)

If they stayed in his head, he would not look the fool he does when he pulls them out and demonstrates how to contradict your own arguement in two paragraphs.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 7, 2012)

The solar flares are going to roast us you fools!

Faithers make me smile.


----------



## code1211 (Feb 7, 2012)

wirebender said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > You are being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
> ...





I grew up living on the shore of Lake Superior and nobody understand the effect of cooler water on land temperature than folks who grew up there.

Wind from the west?  Warm.  Blows right our of the Dakotas where it heats up like a hot breath.

Wind from the east?  Cold.  Blows right off the lake which cools it to the prevailing temperate which never strays far from freezing 20 feet down.

You are making the same mistake as the CO2 is everything crowd.  No one cause is the prime mover of climate unless that cause is the Sun.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 7, 2012)

In the long term, just two drivers of temperature on the surface of the Earth at present. The amount of energy we recieve from the sun, and the amount we retain. 

The first is determined by the sun. The second, by the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. We have added 40% more CO2, 150% CH4, and industrial chemicals which have no natural analogs, many of which are thousands of times as powerfull of a GHG as CO2.

To state that we are not having an affect on the temperature of the Earth, and thereby the climate, is to be deaf, blind, and dumb.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 8, 2012)

Middleoftheroad said:


> So just to make sure we are on the same page.
> You are saying that atmosphere cools down a planet, but more atmosphere heats it up.
> And water vapor is the only GHG that keeps heat in, and also that all gases keep heat in.
> Nope I don't see any contradictions between your two posts.



The ideal gas laws predict that the more dense an atmosphere is and therefore the more atmospheric pressure is present, the warmer said atmosphere will be.  Venus is hot because its atmosphere is 90 times more dense than that of earth, not because it is composed of so called greenhouse gasses.  

Look at planets like jupiter and saturn.  The atmospheres are mostly hydrogen and helium and yet, deep down in those atmospheres they are warm.  Not because of greenhouse gasses but because of pressure.

Again, look at the atmosphere of venus at an altitude at which the atmospheric pressure is equal to 1 bar of earth pressure.  You will find that the temperature is almost the same as ours even though it is composed almost enetirely of so called greenhouse gasses.

And yes, water vapor is the only gas within our atmosphere that has the capacity to absorb, and hold heat.  It has to do with the fact that water is the only substance known to science that can change to all its phases in the open atmosphere.

Any contradictions you believe that you see is due to a lack of knowledge on your part.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 8, 2012)

IanC said:


> wirebender is like that. he often holds two mutually exclusive ideas in his head at the same time. sometimes three



My but don't you become a pissy little girl and hold a grudge for a long time when you get schooled?  Are you going to deny the ideal gas laws now as well and argue that a denser atmosphere won't be warmer than an atmosphere composed of the same gases that is less dense?


----------



## wirebender (Feb 8, 2012)

code1211 said:


> You are making the same mistake as the CO2 is everything crowd.  No one cause is the prime mover of climate unless that cause is the Sun.



Remove the water vapor from the air and the whole picture changes.  Water vapor is demonstrably  the only gas in the atmosphere that can cause a temperature change.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> In the long term, just two drivers of temperature on the surface of the Earth at present. The amount of energy we recieve from the sun, and the amount we retain.
> 
> The first is determined by the sun. The second, by the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. We have added 40% more CO2, 150% CH4, and industrial chemicals which have no natural analogs, many of which are thousands of times as powerfull of a GHG as CO2.
> 
> To state that we are not having an affect on the temperature of the Earth, and thereby the climate, is to be deaf, blind, and dumb.



Show me one repeatble experiment that proves your greenhouse gas claim rocks.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 8, 2012)

Uh oh.  You'd think the warmest decade on record would have done SOMETHING about this!

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows | Environment | The Guardian

Or this....

Earth's Polar Ice Melting Less Than Thought - US News and World Report

Ecofascist spin on how this is either not true, misunderstood or oil company shill lies in...

5...
4...
3...
2...
1...


----------



## code1211 (Feb 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> In the long term, just two drivers of temperature on the surface of the Earth at present. The amount of energy we recieve from the sun, and the amount we retain.
> 
> The first is determined by the sun. The second, by the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. We have added 40% more CO2, 150% CH4, and industrial chemicals which have no natural analogs, many of which are thousands of times as powerfull of a GHG as CO2.
> 
> To state that we are not having an affect on the temperature of the Earth, and thereby the climate, is to be deaf, blind, and dumb.





To state that CO2 is prime terrestrial driver of climate is to be deaf, blind and dumb.

But only as far as the evidence is concerned.


----------



## code1211 (Feb 8, 2012)

wirebender said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > You are making the same mistake as the CO2 is everything crowd.  No one cause is the prime mover of climate unless that cause is the Sun.
> ...





That may be true and probably is, but the example you cited about the shoreline was not a logical conclusion given the data.

I have personally been on the shore of the big lake when the wind changed direction and experienced a drop in temperature of about 30 degrees in 30 minutes.

I live in Indianapolis and my brother lives in Long Beech.  50 degree in Long Beach feels cooler than 50 degrees in Indianapolis.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 8, 2012)

code1211 said:


> That may be true and probably is, but the example you cited about the shoreline was not a logical conclusion given the data.



Of course it is as the only thing changing is the amount of water vapor in the air.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 8, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Uh oh.  You'd think the warmest decade on record would have done SOMETHING about this!
> 
> The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows | Environment | The Guardian
> 
> ...



...because of Global Warming


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 8, 2012)




----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 8, 2012)

edthecynic said:


>


Thanks for proving once again (through Dimwit Trudeau) that this is a religious argument, not scientific.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 8, 2012)

Sounds like the satellites are malfunctioning.  Only the ninth warmest in satellite history?


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 8, 2012)

*The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows*

Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less then previously estimated, but lead scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern

Damian Carrington 
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 February 2012 13.10 EST


The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows | Environment | The Guardian








Hey Westwall............look who's back!!!! ^^^^

I told you........guy is making almost daily appearances these days!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2012)

Poor Fritzy, not a single scientific fact to back his opinion with, just has to resort to mindless flapyap.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows
> 
> Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less then previously estimated, but lead scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern
>  In pictures: the best images of the earth from space
> ...



Yet a USGS photo study showed that there has been a loss. So we have to good studies showing opposite conclusions. The stuff good science is made of. In the resolution of the contradiction, we will learn more about this very important region.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Poor Fritzy, not a single scientific fact to back his opinion with, just has to resort to mindless flapyap.



He was just trying to reach you on your level.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2012)

And when are you going to post something other than drivel?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 8, 2012)

January was one of the coldest January's globally in the past 2 and a half decades! Holy shit!!!

If things are still going down hill in 5 years. I'd put global warming a sleep!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 8, 2012)

matthew said:


> january was one of the coldest january's globally in the past 2 and a half decades! Holy shit!!!
> 
> If things are still going down hill in 5 years. I'd put global warming a sleep!





*consensus fail*


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> And when are you going to post something other than drivel?



That is what your Faither threads are is drivel.  You're just reaping what you sowed.


----------



## westwall (Feb 8, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> *The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows*
> 
> Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less then previously estimated, but lead scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern
> 
> ...







Yes, it seems that every time a AGW position is tested it fails.  Not a very good track record.  I think they are batting around .009, not very good in the realms of science and catastrophic in baseball!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 8, 2012)

westwall said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > *The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows*
> ...



Ive been follwing this stuff for close to 15 years West..........and for awhile in the mid 2000's, things were looking bleak.


*But not anymore.............*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



I like warm weather. Chicago sucked with a mile of ice on top of it.
That might be the only way to end the corruption here.......hmmmmmm.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 8, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> *The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows*
> 
> Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less then previously estimated, but lead scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern
> 
> ...



LOLOLOL......oh kookster, you funny little retard, do you ever actually read what you post or  do you just cut and paste from denier cult blogs without even trying to understand what is actually being said? LOLOL.

The scientists say that the highest mountains in the Himalayas seem to be accumulating more ice from increased snowfall, rather than losing ice mass as much as was previously estimated. They also said this other stuff that you must want to ignore:

(excerpts from your linked article)

*However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern. "Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before." His team's study, published in the journal Nature, concludes that between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater overall are added to the world's oceans each year. This is raising sea level by about 1.5mm a year, the team reports, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges  sometimes dubbed the "third pole"  are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate. Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said:: "The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth's ice  permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers  are going in the same direction."*


***


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 9, 2012)

Talk about cult cut and paste, Rolling Thunder is a serious contender.  Problem with you doom and gloomers is, your predictions never come true.


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 9, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > *The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows*
> ...



So, tell me. If polar ice is melting, how come the sea level is decreasing?

Explain that for us OK?


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 9, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> So, tell me. If polar ice is melting, how come the sea level is decreasing?
> 
> Explain that for us OK?



Whale bellysmackers.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Because it is not. Because you are either believing obese junkies on the radio, or undergreed, ex-TV weathermen.

Sea Level Trends


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Feb 9, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



the switch from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific.








> So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it--the ocean. Each year, huge amounts of water are evaporated from the ocean. While most of it falls right back into the ocean as rain, some of it falls over land. "This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year," says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Boening and colleagues presented these results recently at the annual Grace Science Team Meeting in Austin, Texas.


http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262


----------



## code1211 (Feb 9, 2012)

wirebender said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > That may be true and probably is, but the example you cited about the shoreline was not a logical conclusion given the data.
> ...





Not true.

One of the pre-Columbian civilizations that lived in the high mountains farmed and did so with what was regarded as a very strange type of irrigation.  Raised beds in which the crops were planted surrounded by moats of water.

It turns out that the moats of water observed heat during the day and radiated it during the night.  This prevented the crops from freezing as the temperature dropped during the night in the high, dry cold of the mountains.

Water warms more slowly than the land and retains and radiates the heat.  Talking about liquid water.  Liquid water can act on the air without becoming water vapor.

No single cause is responsible for climate unless that cause is the Sun.


----------



## code1211 (Feb 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Please link to an article with pictures of any continental coastline with photos from about 1850 and photos of today to show the encroaching seas.

At the rate of rise you espouse, the rise of the sea level should have been 1 foot vertical.

I would be interested in seeing the effect of the 1 foot rise in Miami, Houston, London, Rio, or any other major coastal city with documented coastal regions.

I'll wait.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 9, 2012)

Your discounting fog machines code1211.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2012)

code1211 said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Hmm.....   So the normal GHGs have no effect? CO2 does nothing? 

A23A

Actually, as you well know, Code, there are two driving factors on long term climate, energy recieved from the sun, and energy retained. But you are not paid to bring that up.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



A less intelligent reply than usual, Code. But we do have tidal gauge records back to 1850 or even further.


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Not according to what I read. I'll go with my source. Your's have proven unreliable, dishonest and prejudiced.


----------



## westwall (Feb 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Ooohhh, so now all of a sudden cycles matter.  Interesting how you ignored natural variability for two decades and now that the cult is collapsing you suddenly remember natural cycles.  You're too late, your ship sank.


----------



## westwall (Feb 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...







Ummmm, where's the retained energy?  Energy doesn't just magically hang around it MUST be doing something.


----------



## code1211 (Feb 9, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Your discounting fog machines code1211.





I don't follow...


----------



## code1211 (Feb 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...





I think that anyone who read that would have noted that i said that there are many factors that affect climate and the prime driver of climate is the Sun.


----------



## code1211 (Feb 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






There are also photographs of that time.  Show photographic evidence of your claims.

I found photographs of the shoreline of Coney island that show that, if there was a change in the level of the ocean on the shore, it had receded.  

Show photographs that demonstrate your claim.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 9, 2012)

code1211 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Your discounting fog machines code1211.
> ...



Just as well really.  Your brain is in a better place.


----------



## Middleoftheroad (Feb 10, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Middleoftheroad said:
> 
> 
> > So just to make sure we are on the same page.
> ...



So I guess the question becomes, why is the atmosphere so dense on Venus?  Is it because Venus is 20% smaller then earth, and has less gravity to hold in an atmosphere?  Nope that obviously can't be it.  Or maybe its because CO2 weighs more then Oxygen, Hydrogen and Nitrogen?
What happens when you have an over abundance of CO2 is you find that the CO2 collects in the lower atmosphere, and since it weighs so much that it actually compresses itself making the air very dense.  What you also see is that it forces up the rest of the Oxygen and lighter gases, such as Nitrogen.  What you end up with is a lower atmosphere that is very dense and mainly CO2, and an upper atmosphere that is mainly Oxygen and Nitrogen.
Remember your example of the temperature at 60km being the same as on earth where the pressure is the same?  Well guess what?  The gases are also very similar, its 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen, and look at that!  Almost no GHGs to speak of.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Feb 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



No, not all of a sudden.



> Interesting how you ignored natural variability for two decades and now that the cult is collapsing you suddenly remember natural cycles.



No one has ignored natural variability for two decades.



> You're too late, your ship sank



There are no seafaring vessels involved in this discussion.


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








Then show me a single peer reviewed paper made by the AGW supporters in the 20 years before this one, where natural variability was even mentioned much less acknowledged, as a possible source of the warming trend of the 80's and 90's.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



FAQ 2.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences? 

Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earths atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out- going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earths energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions. 


Greenhouse Gases


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Feb 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


\
solar variability global warming - Google Scholar

Top hit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 13, 2012)

Good find, nice to see someone else researching the science on the subject instead of just flapping yap.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 13, 2012)

Looks like cooling to me.  Only the ninth warmest?  The hockey stick has a big chunk out of it right now.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 13, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Water warms more slowly than the land and retains and radiates the heat.  Talking about liquid water.  Liquid water can act on the air without becoming water vapor.




Actually, it can't.  If it is open water, then it is becoming water vapor.  I use drums of water stacked up on each other and bermed with earth facing south to heat my barn.  It radiates heat at night but in the same way heated rocks, or any other heated material would radiate.  The system you describe operates because of water's capacity to become vapor at practically any temperature above freezing.



code1211 said:


> No single cause is responsible for climate unless that cause is the Sun.



There is one type of molecule in the atmosphere that can actually trap, and retain heat.  That molecule is water vapor.  The "trapping" mechanism that warmers like to talk about isn't the so called greenhouse effect claimed by climate science.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 13, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmm.....   So the normal GHGs have no effect? CO2 does nothing?



So you finally get it.  CO2 does nothing because it has no mechanism by which do do anything that might result in warming.  It absorbs and disperses IR radiated from the earth.  If anything, the dispersion is a cooling mechanism, not a warming one.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Feb 13, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm.....   So the normal GHGs have no effect? CO2 does nothing?
> ...



That makes no sense.


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







A quote from your source.


"The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in todays atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes." 


In other words, FAIL.


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







Ummmm, I said from one of your AGW supporters.  Did I not?  There are plenty of papers attributing warming to natural cycles from _sceptics and unafiliated_ scientists.  How about from the warmist side?


----------



## wirebender (Feb 13, 2012)

Middleoftheroad said:


> So I guess the question becomes, why is the atmosphere so dense on Venus?  Is it because Venus is 20% smaller then earth, and has less gravity to hold in an atmosphere?  Nope that obviously can't be it.  Or maybe its because CO2 weighs more then Oxygen, Hydrogen and Nitrogen?



If the weight of CO2 is what keeps it in place, then how do gas giants form?  Saturn and Jupiter, for example, are almost entirely hydrogen and helium, the lightest of all the gasses and yet, there they are, not floating away.



Middleoftheroad said:


> What happens when you have an over abundance of CO2 is you find that the CO2 collects in the lower atmosphere, and since it weighs so much that it actually compresses itself making the air very dense.



Are you working on intuition, or did you actually read this malarky somewhere?  Check out the composition of the atmosphere on venus.  It isn't in layers, it is distributed pretty evenly throughout the column.  The same is true for the gas giants, and everywhere else.  




Middleoftheroad said:


> What you also see is that it forces up the rest of the Oxygen and lighter gases, such as Nitrogen.  What you end up with is a lower atmosphere that is very dense and mainly CO2, and an upper atmosphere that is mainly Oxygen and Nitrogen.



The atmosphere of venus is 96.5% CO2 and 3.5% nitrogen  Were is this oxygen nitrogen atmosphere you claim exists?



Middleoftheroad said:


> Remember your example of the temperature at 60km being the same as on earth where the pressure is the same?  Well guess what?  The gases are also very similar, its 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen, and look at that!  Almost no GHGs to speak of.



There isn't enough oxygen on venus to even list it as a trace gas, much less enough to say that the atmosphere at 1 bar is anything like that of earth.  Where do you get this stuff?


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Middleoftheroad said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess the question becomes, why is the atmosphere so dense on Venus?  Is it because Venus is 20% smaller then earth, and has less gravity to hold in an atmosphere?  Nope that obviously can't be it.  Or maybe its because CO2 weighs more then Oxygen, Hydrogen and Nitrogen?
> ...






Mostly from his keester.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Feb 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Did you read the fucking abstract?



> In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature
> increase that has taken place since then,




What is the "warmist" side exactly?


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 13, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Looks like cooling to me.  Only the ninth warmest?  The hockey stick has a big chunk out of it right now.



You still wouldn't know the first thing about the 'hockey stick' if it was up your dumb ass, you clueless retard.

Apparently worth repeating - from post #2 of this thread.
*"Looking at every consecutive twelve month period on record and comparing it every other 12 month period on record, the very recent period from June 2009 to May 2010 was, in fact, the warmest 'year' on record since widespread record keeping began in the late 1800's. The first half of 2010 was so hot that only the beginning of a new La Nina period in mid 2010 kept the year from being the hottest year on record by a large margin rather than just ending up being tied with 2005 as the formal 'hottest year on record'."*


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 13, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like cooling to me.  Only the ninth warmest?  The hockey stick has a big chunk out of it right now.
> ...



Though I doubt 2011 was even the ninth warmest, it still flies in the face of CO2 Faither claims we are influencing an atomospheric warm up.  Please, it will amuse me to hear your explanation of how we are in a period of consecutive warming periods.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 13, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Your comments are so stupid and clueless, they're totally meaningless.


----------



## code1211 (Feb 13, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...




Once again, adapting the facts to the conclusion.  the stem engine as re-invented by james Watt is what allowed the advent of the industrial Revolution which didn't really gather steam, pun intended, until several years later.

The future cannot cause the past.

Steam Engine History

Most notable was Watt's 1769 patent for a separate condenser connected to a cylinder by a valve. Unlike Newcomen's engine, Watt's design had a condenser that could be cool while the cylinder was hot. Watt's engine soon became the dominant design for all modern steam engines and helped bring about the Industrial Revolution.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 13, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Avoided the question I see.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 13, 2012)

code1211 said:


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



Ah, code4stupid, here you are, once again, clueless, confused and ignorant. What is it about you retards that makes you want to share your ignorance and misinformation with everybody else? So foolishly sure that you're right and the experts are all wrong. LOL. So ignorant of history but so moronically sure that you and only you know that the steam engine just must have been only thing in the world driving the increased use of coal in the 18th century. LOL. Your are such a hoot, little retard.

*Industrial Revolution*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*The Industrial Revolution was a period from 1750 to 1850 where changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and technology had a profound effect on the social, economic and cultural conditions of the times. It began in the United Kingdom, then subsequently spread throughout Western Europe, North America, Japan, and eventually the rest of the world.*


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 13, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Ah, code4stupid, here you are, once again, clueless, confused and ignorant. What is it about you retards that makes you want to share your ignorance and misinformation with everybody else? So foolishly sure that you're right and the experts are all wrong. LOL. So ignorant of history but so moronically sure that you and only know that the steam engine was the only thing in the world driving the increased use of coal in the 18th century. LOL. Your are such a hoot, little retard.
> 
> *Industrial Revolution*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> *The Industrial Revolution was a period from 1750 to 1850 where changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and technology had a profound effect on the social, economic and cultural conditions of the times. It began in the United Kingdom, then subsequently spread throughout Western Europe, North America, Japan, and eventually the rest of the world.*



The use of internal combustion engines was the major contributor to CO2 releases for manufacturing, mining, transportation and technology.  Another RT fail.


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...






You're not good on reading comprehension are you.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 13, 2012)

I see the chicken littles have their history shoehorns and are desperately trying to fit it into their faith.

KommieKonnie's lame 'threadkilling' attempt at insult in 

3...2...1...


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 13, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm.....   So the normal GHGs have no effect? CO2 does nothing?
> ...



Real scientists of world wide reputation state otherwise. 

http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Minschwaner_1998.pdf

But of course we should just put our faith in some unknown internet message board poster.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 13, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> I see the chicken littles have their history shoehorns and are desperately trying to fit it into their faith.
> 
> KommieKonnie's lame 'threadkilling' attempt at insult in
> 
> 3...2...1...



I see Fritzy is still practising brainless yap-yap.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOL.  So post something from a real scientific journal that states otherwise.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 13, 2012)

Walleyes, you threw out the challenge, and it was immediatly answered with two such articles as you claimed did not exist. Not only that, Ooh Pahs had numerous other articles listed. The ball is in your court. Some article that made a real scientific journal, like Science, Nature, or even Geology.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 13, 2012)

The Earth cooled in 2011.  CO2 gas does not explain that.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 13, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> The Earth cooled in 2011.  CO2 gas does not explain that.



LOLOLOL....yeah, it "_cooled_"....a tiny bit relative to some other very recent years that were a bit hotter....but 2011 was still 'hotter' than about 150 of the last 160 years that they've kept temperature records. Only desperate denier cultists would be silly enough to call that "_cooling_".

Moreover, "_CO2 gas does not_" *have to* "_explain__ that_" slight dip in temperatures this last year. It is only you duped denier cultists who fantasize that climate scientists don't take into account all of the other factors that influence the Earth's climate, like the recent solar minimum and the strong La Ninas that brought colder water to the surface of the Pacific. As the sun moves towards a new solar maximum and an El Nino inevitably cycles through in the next few years, the still continuing anthropogenic global warming that has been slightly masked since mid-2010 will combine with those factors I just mentioned and cause the world to see some new record world average temperatures.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The Earth cooled in 2011.  CO2 gas does not explain that.
> ...






Warmer only because Hansen has been falsifying the historical temperature record, which a denial cult retard like you should figure out.  You're just too dumb to do so.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


Oh walleyed, your idiotic, evidence-free conspiracy theories are just further confirmation of your tinfoil-hat wearing proclivities, general derangement and continuing mental breakdown. I suppose you also think "_Hansen_" is running around the Arctic with a hair dryer melting all those gigatons of ice just to fool us all. LOLOLOLOL.....you are such a retard...


----------



## IanC (Feb 14, 2012)

westwall-   I think you are being very unfair to Hansen!

he is not the only one who has been jiggering the figures. Hansen was only going along with the others because of peer pressure.

Phil Jones was the ringleader. once everybody else found out that you could get away with anything, and if asked you just say the dog ate my homework, then it was easy to put up any figures that were favourable with the task of producing more grant money.


----------



## IanC (Feb 14, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



rt-  I understand being loyal to an idea, a piece of your worldview, something that you  measured the evidence for and came down on one side to the exclusion of the other side. unfortunately for many people that decision was made 10, 15, 20 years ago when the case for global warming due to CO2 appeared much stronger than today.

but what are the pillars of evidence that convinced you? are they still legitimate today?

warming-  yes, but the figures are in some doubt because of all the adjustments made in arbitrary fashion, mostly away from prying eyes. but there has still been some warming. would it matter to you if it was 0.5, 0.75 or 1.0C over the last 100 years?

CO2-  yes there is a mechanism that leads to warming when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases. 1.0-1.2C per doubling. is that small amount the cause of your dismay? 

those two things are agreed upon by most people but they certainly dont lead to catastrophe.

things meant to scare us-  
temperatures warmest ever via the Hockey Stick graph. the methodology and conclusions are bogus. anyone who has actually looked at the criticisms wouldnt touch it with a ten foot pole.

glacier and ice cap melt, they have been melting for a long time, since the LIA. when it is warm they melt and when it is cold they reform. havent you read the old newspaper articles lamenting the loss of glaciers....from the 1920's and before?

sea level rise, it has been pretty constant since we started measuring it, and its still pretty constant. unfortunately predictions of doom make the media headlines and reasonable accounts of business as usual dont. the same seems to go for science journals, which print exaggerated conclusions from very weak evidence.

habitat change, flora and fauna extinctions, weather weirding, etc. conditions have always changed, thats why we have the theory of evolution. weather is always bad for some, somewhere on the planet but it is only in this age of instant news that we know about it. hurricanes and cyclones are down but you wouldnt know it by listening to clowns like Al Gore.



the scary part of this whole thing to me is the tremendous hit to the respectability of science  that CAGW has caused. climate science has burned off the banked authority of scientific endeavour by twisting and distorting cherry picked data and then using science societies and their figureheads to politicize the arguments.

I can understand how you came to believe in CAGW. what I cant understand is how you hold on to the fervent belief now that it is crumbling down on your head.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 14, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The Earth cooled in 2011.  CO2 gas does not explain that.
> ...



Actually your theory DOES have to explain the change.  Surely if CO2 and humans are such big factors in global temperature, a clear and proveable answer can be given.  Further, it should have been forecastable and this year should be predicted as well.  Of course, you can't do that because there is no connection.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I can't help but notice, rocks, that they don't mention a single law of physics that either supports, or predicts their hypothesis.  Oddly enough, none of them do.  If any law of physics supported, or predicted their claims, it would be the first thing they tout.

I also couldn't help but notice that they didn't mention any actual observed data.  Considering the subject matter, why do you suppose that might be?

As to who states what, in the interest of honesty, perhaps you should add the caveat that scientists of world wide reputation who depend on grant money state otherwise.


----------



## wirebender (Feb 15, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Actually your theory DOES have to explain the change.



Hypothesis, not theory.  The claims of climate science have never been legitimately raised to the level of a theory.  AGW is, and shall forever remain a mere hypothesis, and a piss poor one at that.

_Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena._

The claims of climate science have been devised to explain a set of phenomena, but they have not been tested by even the first observable, repeatable experiment, and their predictive power is, unfortunately, obvious for those who devised them.  AGW most certainly doesn't rise to the level of theory.  Lets look at what constitutes a hpyothesis.

_Hypothesis - A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability. _

Well, it does make generalizations about the climate but after all these years, I don't see any movement towards putting together any experiments at all that will confirm the most basic tenets of the claims.  The most basic claims are simply assumed to be true.  No experimentation has ever been done to prove them.  It is all based on a quaint 19th century experiment that was promply disproven.  So you see, even by the definition of a lowly hypothesis, the claims of climate science really don't cut the mustard.  It might be called a hypothesis, but it is a poor one indeed.

Hell, even the warmers here, and most every where else don't believe the actual claims and have strayed from the reservation in search of a more plausible mechanism by which CO2 might warm the earth.  Those who claim that CO2 can trap heat within the atmosphere, or "slow down" the escape of heat out into space, are not stating the hypothesis of AGW.  They have rejected the actual hypothesis as surely as I have and have invented their own, or are repeating claims invented as a substitute for the ludicrous claims made by the actual hypothesis.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Feb 15, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




I gave you exactly what you wanted.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Feb 15, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> The Earth cooled in 2011.  CO2 gas does not explain that.



Then you explain it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 15, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOL....yeah, it "_cooled_"....a tiny bit relative to some other very recent years that were a bit hotter....but 2011 was still 'hotter' than about 150 of the last 160 years that they've kept temperature records. Only desperate denier cultists would be silly enough to call that "_cooling_".



That's just another way of saying that for the last 14 years temperatures have been flat or declining.  Every one of the years warmer than 2011 occurred after 1998.  

If you actually had the facts on your side, you wouldn't be trying so hard to spin them.



RollingThunder said:


> Moreover, "_CO2 gas does not_" *have to* "_explain__ that_" slight dip in temperatures this last year. It is only you duped denier cultists who fantasize that climate scientists don't take into account all of the other factors that influence the Earth's climate, like the recent solar minimum and the strong La Ninas that brought colder water to the surface of the Pacific. As the sun moves towards a new solar maximum and an El Nino inevitably cycles through in the next few years, the still continuing anthropogenic global warming that has been slightly masked since mid-2010 will combine with those factors I just mentioned and cause the world to see some new record world average temperatures.




What climate scientists don't take into account is the fact that for the last 14 years, the Earth hasn't been warming.  It has been cooling.  Every time warmist nutburgers make a prediction about the climate, nature makes them look like fools.  All your hero Dr Hansen's predictions have turned out to be drastically wrong.  He's a disgrace who should be locked up for fraud.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 15, 2012)

Sceptics = thread domination!!!!


Bripat.........Wire.............Ian............West................


Just total domination...........and these meatheads dont mind coming back day after day and getting schooled.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Oh my, so Dr. Hansen has been falsifying all those satellite temperatures kept by all the nations with weather satellites in orbit? Falsifying ground temperature readings from the governments of the nations around the world? 

Talk about dumb lies. You are getting increasingly senile, Walleyes. More and more you make claims that are patently ridiculous.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOL....yeah, it "_cooled_"....a tiny bit relative to some other very recent years that were a bit hotter....but 2011 was still 'hotter' than about 150 of the last 160 years that they've kept temperature records. Only desperate denier cultists would be silly enough to call that "_cooling_".
> ...



Well, let's see. The three warmest years on record. 1998, 2005, and 2010. 

As far as nature making someone look like a fool, the weather disasters of the past two years have confirmed the predictions of the scientists. And willfully ignorant assholes like you continue to flap-yap that nothing is happening. 

And here is the real record of temperature and weather;

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2011 Annual Analysis


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






You might want to look at who actually runs those satellites some day olfraud.  Well, come to think of it, no you wouldn't.  You don't look at anything but scripture lest ye be damned to hell.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 15, 2012)

Stop bringing up Hell westwall, you know the Earth is warmer.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> stop bringing up hell westwall, you know the earth is warmer.






must spread more rep around!  Aarghhh!


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> must spread more rep around!  Aarghhh!



LOL.....oh, walleyed, everybody knows that your actual motto is "_must spread more bullshit, lies and misinformation around_".

Since your own 'reputation' is that of being a clueless, confused, lying retard, it is hard to see how you could give anyone else any positive "_rep_". More like the kiss of death.

And so, getting back on topic, let's not forget the fact that if you look at every consecutive twelve month period on record and compare it every other 12 month period on record, you find that the very recent period from June 2009 to May 2010 was, in fact, the warmest 'year' on record since widespread record keeping began in the late 1800's. 

As the sun's activity moves from a recent minimum towards a new maximum and as the ENSO cycle moves into a new El Nino phase, the ongoing anthropogenic global warming will push world average temperatures into new record highs in the next few years.

Some AGW denier cultists' brains may explode when their cherished myth of a 'cooling Earth' is so clearly revealed to be a retarded bit of insanity.


----------



## westwall (Feb 16, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > must spread more rep around!  Aarghhh!
> ...







Oh, poor blunder.  You know if you actually spoke without expletives someone might actually take you serious.  But you are so silly and incapable of actual thought you simply revert to form and lose people to the sceptic side every time you open your trap.  And we thank you for that!


----------



## starcraftzzz (Feb 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> Oh, poor blunder.  You know if you actually spoke without expletives someone might actually take you serious.  But you are so silly and incapable of actual thought you simply revert to form and lose people to the sceptic side every time you open your trap.  And we thank you for that!


Does everyone else notice that not a  single post of westwals ever contains anything other then insults and stupidity?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 16, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, poor blunder.  You know if you actually spoke without expletives someone might actually take you serious.  But you are so silly and incapable of actual thought you simply revert to form and lose people to the sceptic side every time you open your trap.  And we thank you for that!
> ...


Then you've not been here long enough.  He's done a yeoman's work shutting the chicken little chorus' "concensus science" down.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 16, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOL.....but BigFart, you only say that because you're _at least_ as clueless, ignorant and retarded as ol' Walleyed.

Walleyed's moronic, anti-science nonsense generally gets immediately debunked with actual scientific evidence as soon as he posts it. The only people who can't see that are the other brainwashed denier cult imbeciles.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 16, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Careful RT, you'll tick me off enough to read ALL of your sources and rip them from one oend to the other.  Those that have been here a while have seen me do it before.  I just use you guys for entertainment value now.  You should be glad.  I'm Hell on Faithers.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 16, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...





Who are also winning!!!


President Obama's green losing streak - Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com

Green profit crash deters new CEO recruiting | The News Journal | delawareonline.com

Why Is the US Losing the Green Race? - Energy and the Environment - AEI

Poll: Alternative energy funding loses support - The Denver Post

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/08/public-carbon-trading-dead-in-the-usa/

Alternative Energy - Why do we Need it?

http://commonamericanjournal.com/?p=21352



Losers always make the attacks personal..........because it sucks to always be losing.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 16, 2012)

Climate change: Does a small temperature rise actually matter? | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Schooling the k00ks = a hoot every second!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 16, 2012)

Hey Thunder.........by the way..............going on almost 4 months now.............


----------



## starcraftzzz (Feb 16, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Climate change: Does a small temperature rise actually matter? | Environment | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> Schooling the k00ks = a hoot every second!!!



ONly retards like you think flooding drought and hurricanes dont matter


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change: Does a small temperature rise actually matter? | Environment | guardian.co.uk
> ...



If we stop using fossil fuels, drought, floods and hurricanes will cease?


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 16, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



No, but we will have more of a problem with locusts and frogs...


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 17, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



ROTFLMAO.......oh lord, saveexxon, you are so unbelievably deluded. Let me clear up your confusion. *YOU ARE A CLUELESS RETARD!!!* You couldn't refute an actual scientific "_source_" if your life depended on it. All you ever actually do is a sort of mental masturbation in your own little fantasy world that has no connection to reality. In terms of the debates on this forum, you bring nothing of substance whatsoever. You are a bad joke on yourself.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 17, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change: Does a small temperature rise actually matter? | Environment | guardian.co.uk
> ...







Oh...........thats right............how stupid of me!! Weather events like droughts, floods and hurricanes only started after 1998.


What I find most fascinting about this forum is wondering how people with epic levels of naive can actually navigate in the real world?? Its fcuking fascinating!!


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 17, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



A lot of them drive cars.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 17, 2012)

Quick questions for the Faithers.  Do you have a lawn?  Do you have a lawn mower?  Is it electric?  If its not electric why?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 17, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Quick questions for the Faithers.  Do you have a lawn?  Do you have a lawn mower?  Is it electric?  If its not electric why?


if they really cared, it'd be a push mower or zeriscaped (using native plants and let to run wild)


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 17, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Quick questions for the Faithers.  Do you have a lawn?  Do you have a lawn mower?  Is it electric?  If its not electric why?
> ...


----------



## FactFinder (Feb 17, 2012)

*2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record *

I just wish it was #1. I would surely like a few degrees warmer.


----------

