97% of Warmer posts are total crap

[Ernie S.]

They've massaged the data so many times they've lost the original data set.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

So far after asking time and time again for the AGW cultists to post one link with datasets and source code, they still have not posted it.

You figure with all this over whelming "science" that they could post at least one link with the requested info.

Maybe they are afraid to Google "Harry_Read_Me".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate Change Statement Review

Climate Change Statement Review
Supporting Documents
Charge to the POPA Subcommittee to Review Climate Change Statement
Framing Document for Workshop
Complete Transcript of Workshop
APS Climate Change Statement Workshop Expert Bios
Related Information
2007 APS Climate Change Statement
Panel on Public Affairs
POPA 2014 Energy & Environment Subcommittee
The American Physical Society formally reviews its statements every five years. In accordance with that process, the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) formed a Subcommittee to review its Climate Change Statement. The members of the Subcommittee are: Steven Koonin (chair), Phillip Coyle, Scott Kemp, Tim Meyer, Robert Rosner and Susan Seestrom. The Charge to the Subcommittee was approved by POPA and the APS Executive Board and is included in the Supporting Documents links.
As part of the POPA-approved process, on January 8, 2014 the Subcommittee convened a workshop with six climate experts. The Subcommittee used that meeting to delve more deeply into aspects of the IPCC consensus view of the physical basis of climate science. In doing so, it hoped to illuminate for itself, for the APS membership, and for the broader public both the certainties and boundaries of current climate science understanding. The framing document, expert bios, and the complete transcript for the workshop are included in the Supporting Documents links.
The workshop was the first step in a deliberative process. As a membership organization of over 50,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous scientific standards in developing all its statements. If the Subcommittee recommends updating the existing APS Climate Change Statement, then, consistent with APS by-laws, all APS members will be given an opportunity to review the statement and provide input during a comment period.

IPCC "We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy"

Now that's how science is done, amiright AGWCult?

We'll see if the new people on the APS Board will accept "Can I get an 'Amen!'?" as "rigorous scientific standard"

I just saw that conspiracy on a YouTube video. It explains a lot. Climate change is not a global conspiracy to create a New World Order. It makes for great videos though. You should check out the one on the President and the UFOs.

Except the IPCC said their policy is to use "Global Warming Climate Change Disruption" to redistribute wealth

 

[HelenaHandbag]

IPCC "We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy"

Now that's how science is done, amiright AGWCult?

We'll see if the new people on the APS Board will accept "Can I get an 'Amen!'?" as "rigorous scientific standard"

I just saw that conspiracy on a YouTube video. It explains a lot. Climate change is not a global conspiracy to create a New World Order. It makes for great videos though. You should check out the one on the President and the UFOs.

Except the IPCC said their policy is to use "Global Warming Climate Change Disruption" to redistribute wealth

Like Agenda 21, it is not a conspiracy when they are doing it out in the open!

 

[ScienceRocks]

You do realize that most of our data comes from the noaa, NASA and major institutions of science? Where does yours come from?

 

[Old Rocks]

1. CO2 does not drive the climate
2. Science is not done by Consensus, you're thinking of "Project Runway"
3. Global Warming Petition Project 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
4. The Warmer have been caught with their thumb on the scale so many times their "facts" must be in dispute
5. THEY HAVE FAILED TO PRODUCE ONE SINGLE EXPERIMENT THAT SHOWS A TEMPERATURE INCREASE FROM ADDING 100, 200, 400ppM OF CO2.

6. Water is a green house gas, and the atmosphere contains much more of it than CO2, yet the Warmers don't call for bans on water...(yet).

OK, so you wish to prove that you are just as stupid as the rest of the deniers here. The amount of water in the atmosphere is temperature dependent. And the water has a residence time of less than ten days. CO2 has a residence time figured in centuries. In other words, the amount of H2O in the air is a variable dependent on the amount of heat created in the atmosphere by the GHG's.

And nobody is calling for a ban on GHGs in the atmosphere. What they are calling for is to stop increasing the amount of GHGs. Without some GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen over down to the equator. This was demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820's. If you people demonstrated some minor knowledge of science, you would not be so intellectually contemptable.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You do realize that most of our data comes from the noaa, NASA and major institutions of science? Where does yours come from?

"Our" data?

You speak as someone rooting for his favorite sports team.

 

[westwall]

You do realize that most of our data comes from the noaa, NASA and major institutions of science? Where does yours come from?

Which "data" are you using? The historical data set? Or the altered sets?

 

[westwall]

1. CO2 does not drive the climate
2. Science is not done by Consensus, you're thinking of "Project Runway"
3. Global Warming Petition Project 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
4. The Warmer have been caught with their thumb on the scale so many times their "facts" must be in dispute
5. THEY HAVE FAILED TO PRODUCE ONE SINGLE EXPERIMENT THAT SHOWS A TEMPERATURE INCREASE FROM ADDING 100, 200, 400ppM OF CO2.

6. Water is a green house gas, and the atmosphere contains much more of it than CO2, yet the Warmers don't call for bans on water...(yet).

OK, so you wish to prove that you are just as stupid as the rest of the deniers here. The amount of water in the atmosphere is temperature dependent. And the water has a residence time of less than ten days. CO2 has a residence time figured in centuries. In other words, the amount of H2O in the air is a variable dependent on the amount of heat created in the atmosphere by the GHG's.

And nobody is calling for a ban on GHGs in the atmosphere. What they are calling for is to stop increasing the amount of GHGs. Without some GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen over down to the equator. This was demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820's. If you people demonstrated some minor knowledge of science, you would not be so intellectually contemptable.

Bullcrap, CO2 residence time is 15 to 16 years. H2O vapor is continuously replenished and is dependent on temperature. Water vapor is THE dominant GHG and the latest theory is that dependent on conditions and time, it alters between a negative AND a positive forcer.

Here is the IPCC's working table where they state that CO2 has a residence time of % to 200 years You've GOT to love that level of precision!


http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm


Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C
IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy

The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC, corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) which occurred in the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2, have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years

 

[ScienceRocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcVwLrAavyA]Discovery Channel - Global Warming, What You Need To Know, with Tom Brokaw - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NoNukes]

97 per cent of Crusader Frank's threads are pure crap. And that number is being kind.

 

[Old Rocks]

6. Water is a green house gas, and the atmosphere contains much more of it than CO2, yet the Warmers don't call for bans on water...(yet).

OK, so you wish to prove that you are just as stupid as the rest of the deniers here. The amount of water in the atmosphere is temperature dependent. And the water has a residence time of less than ten days. CO2 has a residence time figured in centuries. In other words, the amount of H2O in the air is a variable dependent on the amount of heat created in the atmosphere by the GHG's.

And nobody is calling for a ban on GHGs in the atmosphere. What they are calling for is to stop increasing the amount of GHGs. Without some GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen over down to the equator. This was demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820's. If you people demonstrated some minor knowledge of science, you would not be so intellectually contemptable.

Bullcrap, CO2 residence time is 15 to 16 years. H2O vapor is continuously replenished and is dependent on temperature. Water vapor is THE dominant GHG and the latest theory is that dependent on conditions and time, it alters between a negative AND a positive forcer.

Here is the IPCC's working table where they state that CO2 has a residence time of % to 200 years You've GOT to love that level of precision!


http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm


Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C
IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy

The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC, corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) which occurred in the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2, have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years

And in spite of all those fancy words on your part, we have gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm of CO2 in the last 180 years. A mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years means that 1/2 within the atmosphere will be gone in 30 years, half of that in another thirty years, and so on. A half life series. But, of course, since we are continually adding more, we will continue to see an increase in the GHGs within the atmosphere. Until we kick off some serious feedbacks.

 

[westwall]

OK, so you wish to prove that you are just as stupid as the rest of the deniers here. The amount of water in the atmosphere is temperature dependent. And the water has a residence time of less than ten days. CO2 has a residence time figured in centuries. In other words, the amount of H2O in the air is a variable dependent on the amount of heat created in the atmosphere by the GHG's.

And nobody is calling for a ban on GHGs in the atmosphere. What they are calling for is to stop increasing the amount of GHGs. Without some GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen over down to the equator. This was demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820's. If you people demonstrated some minor knowledge of science, you would not be so intellectually contemptable.

Bullcrap, CO2 residence time is 15 to 16 years. H2O vapor is continuously replenished and is dependent on temperature. Water vapor is THE dominant GHG and the latest theory is that dependent on conditions and time, it alters between a negative AND a positive forcer.

Here is the IPCC's working table where they state that CO2 has a residence time of % to 200 years You've GOT to love that level of precision!


http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm


Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C
IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy

The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC, corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) which occurred in the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2, have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years

And in spite of all those fancy words on your part, we have gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm of CO2 in the last 180 years. A mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years means that 1/2 within the atmosphere will be gone in 30 years, half of that in another thirty years, and so on. A half life series. But, of course, since we are continually adding more, we will continue to see an increase in the GHGs within the atmosphere. Until we kick off some serious feedbacks.

Yeah? So? The Vostock ice core data shows an up to 800 year lag in global temp rise to the subsequent CO2 rise. 800 years ago we enjoyed the MWP, the CO2 rise we are witnessing now is most likely attributable to THAT event. As the oceans warm, they hold less CO2 and the resulting rise in CO2 is what we are experiencing now.

There is far more empirical data to support the paragraph above, than ANY crap you have spewed out.

 

[Crick]

Why would that matter? At no time in the past did anything like humans produce CO2 that way humans have produced CO2. In that regard, the Vostok cores and any other paleological records are irrelevant. The current conditions have never before occurred.

Are you attempting to reject the fact that CO2 causes warming?

 

[westwall]

Why would that matter? At no time in the past did anything like humans produce CO2 that way humans have produced CO2. In that regard, the Vostok cores and any other paleological records are irrelevant. The current conditions have never before occurred.

Are you attempting to reject the fact that CO2 causes warming?

No, they're not. THEY are evidence. Empirical data that your "theory" lacks. Furthermore, those facts, destroy your "theory" utterly, and finally.

 

[Crick]

Why would that matter? At no time in the past did anything like humans produce CO2 that way humans have produced CO2. In that regard, the Vostok cores and any other paleological records are irrelevant. The current conditions have never before occurred.

Are you attempting to reject the fact that CO2 causes warming?

No, they're not. THEY are evidence. Empirical data that your "theory" lacks. Furthermore, those facts, destroy your "theory" utterly, and finally.

They do no such thing. As I said, they're irrelevant. You've presented nothing to counter that point. Man made global warming has a mountain of evidence. And since it has all come into existence since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and most of it in the last few decades, it's accuracy, resolution and validity are orders of magnitude greater than the qualities of the evidence we have for the climate of millions of years ago.

Humans produced the CO2 that is warming the climate. That has never happened before. Therefore, there is nothing in the ancient records that can possibly refute what we have observed that human-sourced CO2 to be doing.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Ah yes, the old post hoc ergo propter hoc.

That one never ceases to wow the low information set.

 

[Old Rocks]

In the geological record, rapid increases in GHGs has always resulted in rapid increases in temperature. Now the physics of this does not care whether the increase is caused by Trapp volcanics impigning on coal seams, or mankind burning fossil fuels. Add GHGs to the atmosphere, and you get temperature increase. And if that temperature increase is rapid enough, you get an extinction event.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Still blowing off the Vostok ice, I see.

 

[Crick]

You are the one blowing off the paleoclimatic record. The work of Marcott and Shakun have definitively shown that CO2, once atmospheric levels have been increased by whatever means, causes warming by trapping infrared.