Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[RollingThunder]

"You anti-science deniers"?

Yeah, twit, that describes you and the slackjawedidiot and the other denier cultists very well. You have no apparent knowledge of science and you reject the testimony of real scientists. You are brainwashed dupes of the fossil fuel industry. You are totally unable to back up your ridiculous statements with any scientific evidence. Even worse, you mistake lame pseudo-science from some denier cult propaganda outlet for actual science. You make it very obvious that, scientifically, none of you know your ass from a hole in the ground. It is very funny to watch a couple of retards like you and ol' slackjawed trade compliments and conspiracy therories while adding nothing whatsoever of substance to the debate.

Please post one repeatable laboratory experiment demonstrating how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures, acidifies the oceans and causes "unstable climate"

OK mr. retardo, here ya go. Not that this will do any good for a fourth grade dropout like you.

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller (2004)

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008)

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].” [Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004) “Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.”

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.”

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002) “Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.”

Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas – Teboul et al. (1995) “Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10–470 cm−1 are compared.”

The HITRAN database: 1986 edition – Rothman et al. (1987) “A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.”

Rotational structure in the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide dimers – Miller & Watts (1984) “High-resolution infrared predissociation spectra have been measured for dilute mixtures of CO2 and N2O in helium. Rotational fine structure is clearly resolved for both (CO2)2 and (N2O)2, the linewidths being instrument-limited. This establishes that predissociation lifetimes are longer than approximately 50 ns.”

Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide – Tubbs & Williams (1972) “An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters γ0 for lines in the R branch of the ν3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of γ0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section σ.”

Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases – Burch et al. (1970) “From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.”

Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines – Burch et al. (1969) “The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm−1. … New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.”

High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 – Ludwig et al. (1966) “Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2 were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.”

Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 μ band of CO2 – Winters et al. (1964) “Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm−1 to 2575 cm−1.”

Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ – Davies (1964)

Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.”

Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “Total absorptance… has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm−1.”

Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths – Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) “The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.”

The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide – Martin & Barker (1932) “The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental ν1 appears only in combination bands, but ν2 at 15μ and ν3 at 4.3μ absorb intensely.”

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red – Barker (1922) “Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 μ. – New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 μ region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 μ and 2.767 μ. The 4.3 μ band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 μ. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 μ region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a “head” in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 μ band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre – Ångström (1900)

Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum – Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) “Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near λ = 14.7 μ. … The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 μ to 16 μ, with the maximum at 14.7 μ.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

On the absorption of dark heat-rays by gases and vapours – Lecher & Pernter (1881) Svante Arrhenius wrote in his famous 1897 paper: “Tyndall held the opinion that the water-vapour has the greatest influence, whilst other authors, for instance Lecher and Pernter, are inclined to think that the carbonic acid plays the more important part.”.

The Bakerian Lecture – On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction – Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text]

 

[gslack]

Spamming the same 2 or 3 studies using altered link descriptions is dishonest as well as misleading troll.....

The first one is to an OOPS! page.. I warned you before about hotlinking.. People don't like their bandwidth sucked by a leeching forum spammer.. Keep it up and your service provider will take issue..

The next 4 go to the exact same page...

And the rest all go to the same 2-3 places all of them stating nothing that addresses the question he asked you...

okay so tell me what activist group is feeding you this shit? Please inform me so I can take issue with them directly for using scientific papers (or abstracts of them) to make false claims... This has been scripted for you we both know it.. I recognize an automated scripting job when I see it, its my job to spot shit just like this. You either had it handed to you or used a service to get it for you...

Best to tell me tool, you know I am anal enough to find out on my own....

 

[Si modo]

Yeah, twit, that describes you and the slackjawedidiot and the other denier cultists very well. You have no apparent knowledge of science and you reject the testimony of real scientists. You are brainwashed dupes of the fossil fuel industry. You are totally unable to back up your ridiculous statements with any scientific evidence. Even worse, you mistake lame pseudo-science from some denier cult propaganda outlet for actual science. You make it very obvious that, scientifically, none of you know your ass from a hole in the ground. It is very funny to watch a couple of retards like you and ol' slackjawed trade compliments and conspiracy therories while adding nothing whatsoever of substance to the debate.

Please post one repeatable laboratory experiment demonstrating how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures, acidifies the oceans and causes "unstable climate"

OK mr. retardo, here ya go. Not that this will do any good for a fourth grade dropout like you.

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller (2004)

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008)

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].” [Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004) “Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.”

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.”

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002) “Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.”

Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas – Teboul et al. (1995) “Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10–470 cm−1 are compared.”

The HITRAN database: 1986 edition – Rothman et al. (1987) “A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.”

Rotational structure in the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide dimers – Miller & Watts (1984) “High-resolution infrared predissociation spectra have been measured for dilute mixtures of CO2 and N2O in helium. Rotational fine structure is clearly resolved for both (CO2)2 and (N2O)2, the linewidths being instrument-limited. This establishes that predissociation lifetimes are longer than approximately 50 ns.”

Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide – Tubbs & Williams (1972) “An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters γ0 for lines in the R branch of the ν3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of γ0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section σ.”

Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases – Burch et al. (1970) “From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.”

Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines – Burch et al. (1969) “The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm−1. … New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.”

High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 – Ludwig et al. (1966) “Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2 were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.”

Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 μ band of CO2 – Winters et al. (1964) “Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm−1 to 2575 cm−1.”

Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ – Davies (1964)

Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.”

Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “Total absorptance… has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm−1.”

Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths – Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) “The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.”

The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide – Martin & Barker (1932) “The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental ν1 appears only in combination bands, but ν2 at 15μ and ν3 at 4.3μ absorb intensely.”

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red – Barker (1922) “Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 μ. – New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 μ region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 μ and 2.767 μ. The 4.3 μ band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 μ. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 μ region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a “head” in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 μ band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre – Ångström (1900)

Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum – Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) “Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near λ = 14.7 μ. … The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 μ to 16 μ, with the maximum at 14.7 μ.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

On the absorption of dark heat-rays by gases and vapours – Lecher & Pernter (1881) Svante Arrhenius wrote in his famous 1897 paper: “Tyndall held the opinion that the water-vapour has the greatest influence, whilst other authors, for instance Lecher and Pernter, are inclined to think that the carbonic acid plays the more important part.”.

The Bakerian Lecture – On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction – Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text]

All those links go to what anyone could find in a spectroscopy textbook.

But, that did nothing to answer the poster's question.

Answering a question you made up on your own does not answer the actual question.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.

Muller et. al. thought that data from weather stations used for previous studies may have been off because those located close to cities would record artificially warm temperatures. So the Berkeley Earth Project used new methods to re-analyze data from 40,000 weather stations. And guess what? The resulting graph looks almost exactly the same as the graphs from previous studies.

Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

Oops

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Express Yourself :: Global warming is over, says expert

Not so simple, is it.

 

[RollingThunder]

Spamming the same 2 or 3 studies using altered link descriptions is dishonest as well as misleading troll.....

The first one is to an OOPS! page.. I warned you before about hotlinking.. People don't like their bandwidth sucked by a leeching forum spammer.. Keep it up and your service provider will take issue..

The next 4 go to the exact same page...

And the rest all go to the same 2-3 places all of them stating nothing that addresses the question he asked you...

okay so tell me what activist group is feeding you this shit? Please inform me so I can take issue with them directly for using scientific papers (or abstracts of them) to make false claims... This has been scripted for you we both know it.. I recognize an automated scripting job when I see it, its my job to spot shit just like this. You either had it handed to you or used a service to get it for you...

Best to tell me tool, you know I am anal enough to find out on my own....

LOLOLOL....more of your gibbering insanity.

 

[daveman]

Yes, it does.

That statement doesn't mention warming.

Warming being cause by CO2 is a matter of faith for AGW cultists, but it is not supported by reality.

No, it's a matter of scientists understanding what happens when greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere. As the quote says, the process is well understood. This causes climate instability. We see tremendous effects in the polar regions right now.

And yet, oddly, the statement you claim explains the role of man-produced CO2 in global warming...doesn't.

 

[daveman]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes...

Well Dupe, you've sunk to parroting CF's bullshit, but you've gone even lower. You don't provide a link to the whole quote like CF does. Shame on you!

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

I notice how you leave out the statistical error bands that completely cover the .12 rise, which means that if there is warming it is so small as to be unmeasurable. Nice to see you are so invested in being honest there silly person.

Note, too, what Jones says: "The positive trend is quite close to the significance level."

The trend is close to the significance level...but it's not significant yet.

And the cultists claim this is a fact. All it is is wishful thinking.

 

[daveman]

…(I’ve never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).


Grant money and power.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....

Spoken like a true anti-science retard who is totally clueless about science and scientists. Way too clueless to understand that not everybody is driven by the same base obsessions that drive him.

BTW toadster, do you even understand that "grant money" doesn't go into the scientists' pockets but rather it is used for their research and it is fully accounted for?

Please try to show us some scientists who have gained "power". Bwaahaahaa....

You are a real nutjob, toadster.

Sooooo, no real response to having your little "trick to hide the decline" myth debunked???? As usual.

NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | Fox News

Yeah, no profit motive there, huh?

 

[daveman]

That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.

So what is the reason for the increased levels of CO2?

Mankind, most likely.

Say, you guys ever going to get around to proving that CO2 levels, whose increase lags behind temp increases, cause temp increases? Or do you expect the rest of us to take it on faith like you are?

Priceless.

Why?

Because it's like something out of children's movie-where the bratty kid claims that they can fly, but they just don't want to right now.

You do realize, don't you, that the graph she posted showed a correlation between global temperatures and what the Post office charges for stamps, right?

No, I don't think you do. You just keep pretending that her refusal to write a theory to account for that is significant.

 

[daveman]

Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.

"Hide the decline" is math talk for math that's well over my head, and even further over the denier's heads.

It's easy to be exonerated when you are the prosecutor and judge in your own case. But you knew that allready didn't you.

I wonder if these bozos would have believed Richard Nixon if he'd personally conducted the Watergate investigation.

 

[Si modo]

That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.

So what is the reason for the increased levels of CO2?

Mankind, most likely.

Say, you guys ever going to get around to proving that CO2 levels, whose increase lags behind temp increases, cause temp increases? Or do you expect the rest of us to take it on faith like you are?

Why?

Because it's like something out of children's movie-where the bratty kid claims that they can fly, but they just don't want to right now.

You do realize, don't you, that the graph she posted showed a correlation between global temperatures and what the Post office charges for stamps, right?

No, I don't think you do. You just keep pretending that her refusal to write a theory to account for that is significant.

Pretty funny shit, huh?

I even started a thread in the Flame Zone about it.

Del came up with a pretty funny one.

 

[daveman]

Wharrrrrrgggggbbbbblllle.

Obviously, you cannot even talk about science. Your input is useless.

I've got your lame self beat.

"I win, I win!"?

That's your idea of contribution to a scientific discussion?

Give him a break. It's all he's got.

 

[daveman]

So what is the reason for the increased levels of CO2?

Mankind, most likely.

Say, you guys ever going to get around to proving that CO2 levels, whose increase lags behind temp increases, cause temp increases? Or do you expect the rest of us to take it on faith like you are?

Because it's like something out of children's movie-where the bratty kid claims that they can fly, but they just don't want to right now.

You do realize, don't you, that the graph she posted showed a correlation between global temperatures and what the Post office charges for stamps, right?

No, I don't think you do. You just keep pretending that her refusal to write a theory to account for that is significant.

Pretty funny shit, huh?

I even started a thread in the Flame Zone about it.

Del came up with a pretty funny one.

You hush. SAT won. I read it on the internet.

 

[Si modo]

Mankind, most likely.

Say, you guys ever going to get around to proving that CO2 levels, whose increase lags behind temp increases, cause temp increases? Or do you expect the rest of us to take it on faith like you are?

You do realize, don't you, that the graph she posted showed a correlation between global temperatures and what the Post office charges for stamps, right?

No, I don't think you do. You just keep pretending that her refusal to write a theory to account for that is significant.

Pretty funny shit, huh?

I even started a thread in the Flame Zone about it.

Del came up with a pretty funny one.

You hush. SAT won. I read it on the internet.

I came thiiiiiiiiiis close to posting this pic after I read that:

 

[daveman]

Pretty funny shit, huh?

I even started a thread in the Flame Zone about it.

Del came up with a pretty funny one.

You hush. SAT won. I read it on the internet.

I came thiiiiiiiiiis close to posting this pic after I read that:

 

[RollingThunder]

Well Dupe, you've sunk to parroting CF's bullshit, but you've gone even lower. You don't provide a link to the whole quote like CF does. Shame on you!

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

I notice how you leave out the statistical error bands that completely cover the .12 rise, which means that if there is warming it is so small as to be unmeasurable. Nice to see you are so invested in being honest there silly person.

Note, too, what Jones says: "The positive trend is quite close to the significance level."

The trend is close to the significance level...but it's not significant yet.

And the cultists claim this is a fact. All it is is wishful thinking.

And another forum retard speaks up with the usual debunked drivel.

Too bad anti-science denier cult retards like you have no idea what 'statistically significant' actually means.

But, at this point in time, that is not all that important since your denier cult taking point just got blown out of the water. It was specious before because you didn't understand what the terms mean but now.......LOLOLOL

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
By Richard Black Environment correspondent
BBC News
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not "statistically significant" - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

BBC © 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[Si modo]

It STILL quotes non-science as science?

OMG.

Too funny.

 

[daveman]

I notice how you leave out the statistical error bands that completely cover the .12 rise, which means that if there is warming it is so small as to be unmeasurable. Nice to see you are so invested in being honest there silly person.

Note, too, what Jones says: "The positive trend is quite close to the significance level."

The trend is close to the significance level...but it's not significant yet.

And the cultists claim this is a fact. All it is is wishful thinking.

And another forum retard speaks up with the usual debunked drivel.

Too bad anti-science denier cult retards like you have no idea what 'statistically significant' actually means.

But, at this point in time, that is not all that important since your denier cult taking point just got blown out of the water. It was specious before because you didn't understand what the terms mean but now.......LOLOLOL

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
By Richard Black Environment correspondent
BBC News
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not "statistically significant" - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

BBC © 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Is he using real data, or his usual cherry-picked and massaged horseshit?

 

[SAT]

Oceans have always been with us, and yet we see a dramatic increase in CO2. What causes that?

How does someone get millions in their pocket from a "university grant"?

Surely you'll let us know how "university grants" work, right?

Literate posters will recognize sarcasm when they see it.

Irrespective your desperate attempts to soil discussion, answer the question: How do you think someone gets millions "in their pocket" from "university grants"?

How do you think that works?

Literate posters will recognize sarcasm when they see it.

EDIT: By the way, the words you used "Anti-science deniers" would make us deniers of anti-science. Meaning you must agree that yours is anti-sceince since we disagree with it... Hence the laughter and mocking... A mind is a terrible thing to waste..

"Anti-science" is the adjective.

Adjective - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deniers is the noun.

Noun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the state of knowledge on global warming from the EPA.

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

 

[Si modo]

Oceans have always been with us, and yet we see a dramatic increase in CO2. What causes that?

Literate posters will recognize sarcasm when they see it.

Irrespective your desperate attempts to soil discussion, answer the question: How do you think someone gets millions "in their pocket" from "university grants"?

How do you think that works?

Literate posters will recognize sarcasm when they see it.

EDIT: By the way, the words you used "Anti-science deniers" would make us deniers of anti-science. Meaning you must agree that yours is anti-sceince since we disagree with it... Hence the laughter and mocking... A mind is a terrible thing to waste..

"Anti-science" is the adjective.

Adjective - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deniers is the noun.

Noun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the state of knowledge on global warming from the EPA.

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

Yet, where is the science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming?

Same question. It's an important one, too.

If the science is there, then let's see it.

Otherwise it's just pissing in the ocean. Or, more accurately, a belief.