how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[orogenicman]

Hell no. The person who released this evidence of the corruption ENDEMIC in the climatological field, it's patent corruption of the peer review process, and it's wholesale fraud is in the finest traditions of the WHISTLEBLOWING tradition. It wasn't hacked as you very well know, it was RELEASED by an insider who had had enough of the fraud.

You pathetic assholes have your panties in a bunch because you GOT CAUGHT LYING...and instead of addressing the fraud you instead attack the whistleblower.

Fuck you. And fuck your fraudulent, unethical, selves. You deserve every negative consequence from your perversion of the scientific method and science in general. I despise pricks like you who have set the scientific community back decades because of your criminal enterprise.

Science has been going on for a long time with no help from the likes of you. To propose that climate science is the lone exception to the ethics that all science requires is bizarre to say the least.

Climatology is the modern version of Lysenkoism.

Oh dear. It seems you've been staring at your own reflection in the mirror for far too long.

 

[PMZ]

'Climatology is the modern version of Lysenkoism.'

Climatology is science and therefore well beyond your reach. Stick to Roller derby.

 

[westwall]

I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that necessarily includes knowing what the charges are against oneself. Don't you?

He fully confessed to his criminal behavior.

If it is criminal behavior we are talking about,. what are the charges? When will he appear in court?

That's a good question. My guess is it is similar to Holders decision to let the NBPP go after their clear violation of voting laws.

Below is the Heartland Int. legal brief.

Criminal Referral of Dr. Peter H. Gleick Talking Points | Heartland Institute

 

[westwall]

Science has been going on for a long time with no help from the likes of you. To propose that climate science is the lone exception to the ethics that all science requires is bizarre to say the least.

Climatology is the modern version of Lysenkoism.

Oh dear. It seems you've been staring at your own reflection in the mirror for far too long.

I just watched a hitman get hit by a piano on Comedy Central....that's what your posts remind me of! Thanks for the laugh!

 

[flacaltenn]

He fully confessed to his criminal behavior.

If it is criminal behavior we are talking about,. what are the charges? When will he appear in court?

That's a good question. My guess is it is similar to Holders decision to let the NBPP go after their clear violation of voting laws.

Below is the Heartland Int. legal brief.

Criminal Referral of Dr. Peter H. Gleick Talking Points | Heartland Institute

We're asking THIS govt to prosecute Gleick?? The same govt that just 2 months ago had their EPA acknowledge leaking confidential business information on farmers to far left-wing agitators???

Senators Call Out the EPA For Leaking Private Info of Farmers to Radical Environmental Groups - Katie Pavlich

Good luck with that..

 

[PMZ]

Certainly the biggest scientific realization of the 20th century was that matter and energy are different states of the same stuff. Matter can become energy and visa versa.

Nobody would think of arguing that if you add more matter to a container than you take away there will be an increase of matter in the container. Same with energy.

If you add more energy to a system than you take away, the system will become more energetic, read warmer.

 

[PMZ]

It's certainly true that while the science of AGW is settled, the politics are not.

However, nobody in a position to contribute to solving the problem is interested in denial politics. There is too much opportunity in the solving of the problem.

Therefore, the net result of all of this noise is merely conservatism falling further behind.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[gslack]

PMZ- Whenever you say something stupid one of two things happens.. Either you quickly bury it by posting to yourself over and again, stating whatever you find that may sound scientific, no mattter how irrelevant it may be to the subject. Or we get some other posters trying todefend your silly nonsense...

ROFL, dude you are a smorgasbord of bullshit..

 

[IanC]

I consider any and all hacking for any purpose to be unethical, and illegal. And by the way, so does the law.

Do you think Gleick should have been punished for his crime?

I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that necessarily includes knowing what the charges are against oneself. Don't you?

Gleick admitted to fraudulently acquiring Heartland documents. He stopped short of admitting that he was the author of the forged (and most controversial and slanderous) document. The justice Dept did not charge him and the only fallout from the affair was that his name was withdrawn from consideration for chair of the ethics committee of the AGU. Hardly even a slap on the wrist.

 

[IanC]

There is nothing at all sketchy about the behavior of GHGs nor their increasing concentration in our atmosphere. And the result of previous times in earth's history when they were there.

You are very much like konradv, in as much that you have taken one piece of information and have given it far too much importance. The co2 effect is real but much smaller than you think.

The IPCC often uses legitimate science but the directio and conclusions it comes to are not the only ones consistent with the evidence.

You think that I and other skeptics are trying to'trick you' but you haveto invent implausible reasons for our actions. The vast majority of skeptics not only get no recompense but actually pay a price for their position.

My problem with you is that you advertise yourself as non-objective. Inclined to disbelieve the science rather than trust science to find the truth. I don't believe that there is any value to science from non-objective people.

Plus you have not been able to in any way refute the most basic science of the conservation of energy. When more energy comes in to any system than goes out it has to warm. You seem to believe that energy in fact can be destroyed.

I have never said energy is being destroyed. Give your head a shake. I have always said as one route is being choked off by CO2 other routes take up the excess and carry the energy past the near surface bottleneck. Some increase in surface temperature is bound to happen as the equilibrium is changed, but much less than the full amount restricted by CO2. Simply consider the escape of energy from a planet with no atmosphere, to one with an atmosphere, to one with non-water GHGs, to one with water. The equilibrium goes from 100% radiation and little heat sink, to a large heat sink with conduction convection evapotranspiration and only a small percentage of radiation at near surface altitudes. The greenhouse gases were already working at almost the same capacity before we burned the first fossil fuel. CO2 only interacts with 8% of surface BB radiation but it was already at a high enough concentration to tatally disperse that radiation in 10 meters. So what if it only takes 9.9 meters now. The energy is taken to the cloud tops mostly by other means of transport where the density of the atmosphere allows much easier egress of radiation.

 

[gslack]

You are very much like konradv, in as much that you have taken one piece of information and have given it far too much importance. The co2 effect is real but much smaller than you think.

The IPCC often uses legitimate science but the directio and conclusions it comes to are not the only ones consistent with the evidence.

You think that I and other skeptics are trying to'trick you' but you haveto invent implausible reasons for our actions. The vast majority of skeptics not only get no recompense but actually pay a price for their position.

My problem with you is that you advertise yourself as non-objective. Inclined to disbelieve the science rather than trust science to find the truth. I don't believe that there is any value to science from non-objective people.

Plus you have not been able to in any way refute the most basic science of the conservation of energy. When more energy comes in to any system than goes out it has to warm. You seem to believe that energy in fact can be destroyed.

I have never said energy is being destroyed. Give your head a shake. I have always said as one route is being choked off by CO2 other routes take up the excess and carry the energy past the near surface bottleneck. Some increase in surface temperature is bound to happen as the equilibrium is changed, but much less than the full amount restricted by CO2. Simply consider the escape of energy from a planet with no atmosphere, to one with an atmosphere, to one with non-water GHGs, to one with water. The equilibrium goes from 100% radiation and little heat sink, to a large heat sink with conduction convection evapotranspiration and only a small percentage of radiation at near surface altitudes. The greenhouse gases were already working at almost the same capacity before we burned the first fossil fuel. CO2 only interacts with 8% of surface BB radiation but it was already at a high enough concentration to tatally disperse that radiation in 10 meters. So what if it only takes 9.9 meters now. The energy is taken to the cloud tops mostly by other means of transport where the density of the atmosphere allows much easier egress of radiation.

ROFL, the dude just tried to re-write the law of conservation of energy,and now he's embarrassed.. So he's going to try and pretend someone else said it...And in true weasel fashion,he figures since you didn't correct him, you don't know any better...

 

[gslack]

Certainly the biggest scientific realization of the 20th century was that matter and energy are different states of the same stuff. Matter can become energy and visa versa.

Nobody would think of arguing that if you add more matter to a container than you take away there will be an increase of matter in the container. Same with energy.

If you add more energy to a system than you take away, the system will become more energetic, read warmer.

LOL, stoner, you just contradicted yourself..

 

[orogenicman]

Do you think Gleick should have been punished for his crime?

I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that necessarily includes knowing what the charges are against oneself. Don't you?

Gleick admitted to fraudulently acquiring Heartland documents. He stopped short of admitting that he was the author of the forged (and most controversial and slanderous) document. The justice Dept did not charge him and the only fallout from the affair was that his name was withdrawn from consideration for chair of the ethics committee of the AGU. Hardly even a slap on the wrist.

He admitted to acquiring them - he did not admit to fraud. So, to summarize, there were no charges, and so no reason whatsoever to call the man guilty of anything (clue - you don't get to make up your own laws, much less be a self-proclaimed judge and jury).

On the other hand, the cowards who hacked the CRU servers have never come forward, probably because they know they violated a ton of national and international laws, and know they would be prosecuted.

 

[gslack]

I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that necessarily includes knowing what the charges are against oneself. Don't you?

Gleick admitted to fraudulently acquiring Heartland documents. He stopped short of admitting that he was the author of the forged (and most controversial and slanderous) document. The justice Dept did not charge him and the only fallout from the affair was that his name was withdrawn from consideration for chair of the ethics committee of the AGU. Hardly even a slap on the wrist.

He admitted to acquiring them - he did not admit to fraud. So, to summarize, there were no charges, and so no reason whatsoever to call the man guilty of anything (clue - you don't get to make up your own laws, much less be a self-proclaimed judge and jury).

On the other hand, the cowards who hacked the CRU servers have never come forward, probably because they know they violated a ton of national and international laws, and know they would be prosecuted.

If he admitted to fraudulently getting them, than it is fraudulent, hence fraud..

You warmers make a new definition for a term every time you need it..

 

[westwall]

Gleick admitted to fraudulently acquiring Heartland documents. He stopped short of admitting that he was the author of the forged (and most controversial and slanderous) document. The justice Dept did not charge him and the only fallout from the affair was that his name was withdrawn from consideration for chair of the ethics committee of the AGU. Hardly even a slap on the wrist.

He admitted to acquiring them - he did not admit to fraud. So, to summarize, there were no charges, and so no reason whatsoever to call the man guilty of anything (clue - you don't get to make up your own laws, much less be a self-proclaimed judge and jury).

On the other hand, the cowards who hacked the CRU servers have never come forward, probably because they know they violated a ton of national and international laws, and know they would be prosecuted.

If he admitted to fraudulently getting them, than it is fraudulent, hence fraud..

You warmers make a new definition for a term every time you need it..

I guess it depends on what your definition of is...is.... These unethical pricks bring new meaning to the term scumbag.

 

[orogenicman]

He admitted to acquiring them - he did not admit to fraud. So, to summarize, there were no charges, and so no reason whatsoever to call the man guilty of anything (clue - you don't get to make up your own laws, much less be a self-proclaimed judge and jury).

On the other hand, the cowards who hacked the CRU servers have never come forward, probably because they know they violated a ton of national and international laws, and know they would be prosecuted.

If he admitted to fraudulently getting them, than it is fraudulent, hence fraud..

You warmers make a new definition for a term every time you need it..

I guess it depends on what your definition of is...is.... These unethical pricks bring new meaning to the term scumbag.

Right. Because you would never call someone who hacks into secure government servers to be unethical pricks or scumbags. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[PMZ]

You are very much like konradv, in as much that you have taken one piece of information and have given it far too much importance. The co2 effect is real but much smaller than you think.

The IPCC often uses legitimate science but the directio and conclusions it comes to are not the only ones consistent with the evidence.

You think that I and other skeptics are trying to'trick you' but you haveto invent implausible reasons for our actions. The vast majority of skeptics not only get no recompense but actually pay a price for their position.

My problem with you is that you advertise yourself as non-objective. Inclined to disbelieve the science rather than trust science to find the truth. I don't believe that there is any value to science from non-objective people.

Plus you have not been able to in any way refute the most basic science of the conservation of energy. When more energy comes in to any system than goes out it has to warm. You seem to believe that energy in fact can be destroyed.

I have never said energy is being destroyed. Give your head a shake. I have always said as one route is being choked off by CO2 other routes take up the excess and carry the energy past the near surface bottleneck. Some increase in surface temperature is bound to happen as the equilibrium is changed, but much less than the full amount restricted by CO2. Simply consider the escape of energy from a planet with no atmosphere, to one with an atmosphere, to one with non-water GHGs, to one with water. The equilibrium goes from 100% radiation and little heat sink, to a large heat sink with conduction convection evapotranspiration and only a small percentage of radiation at near surface altitudes. The greenhouse gases were already working at almost the same capacity before we burned the first fossil fuel. CO2 only interacts with 8% of surface BB radiation but it was already at a high enough concentration to tatally disperse that radiation in 10 meters. So what if it only takes 9.9 meters now. The energy is taken to the cloud tops mostly by other means of transport where the density of the atmosphere allows much easier egress of radiation.

I think that your problem is that your non-objective perspective is trying to force fit unnecessary complexity into the problem.

There is the big picture and there are the details. Both have to be satisfied.

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur.

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat.

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting.

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation, they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved.

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now.

That's the state of science now.

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled.

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong.

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis.

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit.

If I were you, I'd be very careful in those waters.

 

[IanC]

I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that necessarily includes knowing what the charges are against oneself. Don't you?

Gleick admitted to fraudulently acquiring Heartland documents. He stopped short of admitting that he was the author of the forged (and most controversial and slanderous) document. The justice Dept did not charge him and the only fallout from the affair was that his name was withdrawn from consideration for chair of the ethics committee of the AGU. Hardly even a slap on the wrist.

He admitted to acquiring them - he did not admit to fraud. So, to summarize, there were no charges, and so no reason whatsoever to call the man guilty of anything (clue - you don't get to make up your own laws, much less be a self-proclaimed judge and jury).

On the other hand, the cowards who hacked the CRU servers have never come forward, probably because they know they violated a ton of national and international laws, and know they would be prosecuted.

I guess we will just have to agree that we disagree then. Gleick admitted to acquiring the documents via means that fit the law on fraud. Not being prosecuted does not mean innocent, and I feel that the climate science community gave itself another ethical black eye by handwaving away an obvious transgression.

I believe that the climategate emails were released by an insider, perhaps even someone like Briffa with the help of a tech savy student. He was in very bad health and perhaps his conscious got to him.

While the actions of the whistleblower were illegal, it is hard not to believe that the overall consequences are positive. I imagine the Harry_read_me files brought some much needed attention to the hadcru data files and programs.

 

[orogenicman]

Gleick admitted to fraudulently acquiring Heartland documents. He stopped short of admitting that he was the author of the forged (and most controversial and slanderous) document. The justice Dept did not charge him and the only fallout from the affair was that his name was withdrawn from consideration for chair of the ethics committee of the AGU. Hardly even a slap on the wrist.

He admitted to acquiring them - he did not admit to fraud. So, to summarize, there were no charges, and so no reason whatsoever to call the man guilty of anything (clue - you don't get to make up your own laws, much less be a self-proclaimed judge and jury).

On the other hand, the cowards who hacked the CRU servers have never come forward, probably because they know they violated a ton of national and international laws, and know they would be prosecuted.

I guess we will just have to agree that we disagree then. Gleick admitted to acquiring the documents via means that fit the law on fraud. Not being prosecuted does not mean innocent, and I feel that the climate science community gave itself another ethical black eye by handwaving away an obvious transgression.

In the eyes of the law, that's EXACTLY what it means.

 

[IanC]

My problem with you is that you advertise yourself as non-objective. Inclined to disbelieve the science rather than trust science to find the truth. I don't believe that there is any value to science from non-objective people.

Plus you have not been able to in any way refute the most basic science of the conservation of energy. When more energy comes in to any system than goes out it has to warm. You seem to believe that energy in fact can be destroyed.

I have never said energy is being destroyed. Give your head a shake. I have always said as one route is being choked off by CO2 other routes take up the excess and carry the energy past the near surface bottleneck. Some increase in surface temperature is bound to happen as the equilibrium is changed, but much less than the full amount restricted by CO2. Simply consider the escape of energy from a planet with no atmosphere, to one with an atmosphere, to one with non-water GHGs, to one with water. The equilibrium goes from 100% radiation and little heat sink, to a large heat sink with conduction convection evapotranspiration and only a small percentage of radiation at near surface altitudes. The greenhouse gases were already working at almost the same capacity before we burned the first fossil fuel. CO2 only interacts with 8% of surface BB radiation but it was already at a high enough concentration to tatally disperse that radiation in 10 meters. So what if it only takes 9.9 meters now. The energy is taken to the cloud tops mostly by other means of transport where the density of the atmosphere allows much easier egress of radiation.

I think that your problem is that your non-objective perspective is trying to force fit unnecessary complexity into the problem.

There is the big picture and there are the details. Both have to be satisfied.

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur.

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat.

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting.

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation, they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved.

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now.

That's the state of science now.

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled.

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong.

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis.

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit.

If I were you, I'd be very careful in those waters.

Another case of 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium. I believe it has homeostatic mechanisms that buffer changing conditions, you think we are perched on the precipice waiting to fall off.

My politics are usually left wing, bordering on socialist, but tempered by rational thought on programs that give little or no benefit for the expense.

My scientific bent is towards being sceptical of just about everything until it has been demonstrated to be likely. CAGW does not meet my requirements but the general case of CO2 changing the radiation balance does.

We shall see who is right eventually.