Know-it-all Liberal Pinheads

[SSDD]

Matthew, Westwall, EdtheCynic,

Can anyone explain how AGW could have ended when the satellite ToA data show it is still increasing?

Satellite data show LW escaping at the TOA is increasing, not decreasing as the AGW hypothesis predicts. Your extra energy that is supposedly heating the deep oceans is leaving the atmosphere...

 

[Old Rocks]

Matthew, Westwall, EdtheCynic,

Can anyone explain how AGW could have ended when the satellite ToA data show it is still increasing?

Satellite data show LW escaping at the TOA is increasing, not decreasing as the AGW hypothesis predicts. Your extra energy that is supposedly heating the deep oceans is leaving the atmosphere...

Really? But the glaciers and ice caps just keep melting. And we have a neutral ENSO, a low TSI, but January was warmer than any month prior to 1998 by the satellite data. And that is from UAH. So why does this heat that is leaving the atmosphere continue to stick around here on earth and warm things up?

 

[Old Rocks]

Not really, scientists call this period that we happen to be living in an "interglacial" for a reason.

Yeah, because it is the period in between Ice Ages and therefore not an Ice Age!

Yes, but the planet is STILL considerably cooler than it has been for over 75% of its history. That implies that the planet is currently a tad bit warmer than ice age temps, but hovering at the fine edge. Empirical evidence supports this hypothesis.

So what? We have existed as a population of 7 billion for only a few years now. A population that depends on stable weather for the crops that feed it. And that weather is being destabalized by the emission of GHGs from fossil fuels and industrial processes.

You keep bringing up the fact that the earth has been warmer, as if that implies that a rapid warming would have no adverse effects. We have seen several periods of rapid warming in the geological history of this planet. These coincided with periods of extinction. So the history of the planet implies that rapid warming is not a good thing.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK.

Now, what about this fake 97% number?

I heard it was from a bunch of scientists who self-selected to answer a questionnaire, and that none of those who didn't answer it were considered in the total percentage.

Do you have some more info to flesh that out?

You state that 97% is fake? Care to provide a credible link demonstrating that?

In the meantime, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

Climate Change: Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

Climate scientists scarce in study | National Post

The 97% number is 100% fraudulent.

I gave you the National Academy of Sciences paper on the issue, you give me a rightwingnut think tank pundit. Your source is 100% fraudelent.

Lawrence Solomon - SourceWatch

Solomon writes in his book "The Deniers" that "As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." Richard Littlemore criticized Solomon for not making clear that the people profiled in the book believe that humans cause global warming, "they just argue about tiny bits of science that even the IPCC admits remain unsettled. ... Neither does Solomon acknowledge the complaints that he has received (and rebuffed) from legitimate scientists whose work he has misrepresented." [4]

 

[Old Rocks]

Not really, scientists call this period that we happen to be living in an "interglacial" for a reason.

Yeah, because it is the period in between Ice Ages and therefore not an Ice Age!

You sound like a creationist arguing irreducible complexity disproves evolution. You have no clue what you're talking about. None whatsoever. None.

The Earth is in what is called the Quaternary ice age. This ice age has been going on for roughly 2.5 million years. An ice age is a period of reduced temperatures creating and maintaining permanent ice sheets across the surface of the planet. The current existence of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets establishes that the Earth is currently in an ice age.

Ice ages are divided into two basic phases. One is called a glacial period, the other is called an interglacial period. These are alternating periods of time of relatively cooler and warmer temperatures. Currently, the Earth is in an interglacial period within the Quaternary ice age, one that has lasted for the past 10ish to 15ish thousand years.

What many people who profess AGW beliefs either don't know, or have long forgotten, is that one of the number one idea (which is now known to be false) from which the idea of man-made global warming beliefs came to exist was the belief that the earth was due for the next glacial period pretty much any day. This was thought because many scientists at the time believed that glacials and interglacials operated on a fairly regular 10,000 year cycle. Scientists now realize this is not the case, and expect the current interglacial will last another 50,000 years. Oh, and before you embarrass yourself by saying something else ridiculous, that estimate is without any consideration for humans potentially impacting the climate over that time period.

50,000 years? Link? Someone with a trace of credibility, please. Because it sure doesn't look that way here;
http://www.climategeology.ethz.ch/education/climatehistory/last_million_years_Saul_Turi.pdf

 

[SwimExpert]

50,000 years? Link? Someone with a trace of credibility, please. Because it sure doesn't look that way here;
http://www.climategeology.ethz.ch/education/climatehistory/last_million_years_Saul_Turi.pdf

I don't know what to be baffled at more. Your use of a god damned power point presentation for "credible" evidence, or the fact that you aren't aware of what I'm talking about when you are supposed to be some kind of expert. Or that your friend Abby hasn't jumped in and confirmed what I have said, and tried to twist it around to support his premises.

I'll tell you what....I'll give you a link, just as soon as you and Abby both confess that you don't have the credentials that you claim to have. You're asking me for a link for something that pretty basic and is very well known.

 

[SwimExpert]

A population that depends on stable weather for the crops that feed it.

Weather has never been "stable." Disaster due to the uncontrollable and often unpredictable raw and overwhelming power of Mother Nature has been perhaps the only single consistent fact of human existence since the first human fashioned the first invention in history.

 

[Meister]

Yeah, because it is the period in between Ice Ages and therefore not an Ice Age!

Yes, but the planet is STILL considerably cooler than it has been for over 75% of its history. That implies that the planet is currently a tad bit warmer than ice age temps, but hovering at the fine edge. Empirical evidence supports this hypothesis.

So what? We have existed as a population of 7 billion for only a few years now. A population that depends on stable weather for the crops that feed it. And that weather is being destabalized by the emission of GHGs from fossil fuels and industrial processes.

You keep bringing up the fact that the earth has been warmer, as if that implies that a rapid warming would have no adverse effects. We have seen several periods of rapid warming in the geological history of this planet. These coincided with periods of extinction. So the history of the planet implies that rapid warming is not a good thing.

The Earth's weather isn't being destabalized by us, rockz.
FYI, most of the mass extinctions came from the Earth's cooling not warming.
You couldn't even get that right.....you're a political tool, rockz, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Truthmatters]

the right just hates sciencey stuff

 

[Meister]

the right just hates sciencey stuff

The right hates yarns, TDM.

 

[SSDD]

Matthew, Westwall, EdtheCynic,

Can anyone explain how AGW could have ended when the satellite ToA data show it is still increasing?

Satellite data show LW escaping at the TOA is increasing, not decreasing as the AGW hypothesis predicts. Your extra energy that is supposedly heating the deep oceans is leaving the atmosphere...

Really? But the glaciers and ice caps just keep melting. And we have a neutral ENSO, a low TSI, but January was warmer than any month prior to 1998 by the satellite data. And that is from UAH. So why does this heat that is leaving the atmosphere continue to stick around here on earth and warm things up?

The fact remains that satellites show LW leaving the ToA increasing...AGW hypothesis doesn't explain the climate...think of something else.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You state that 97% is fake? Care to provide a credible link demonstrating that?

In the meantime, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

Climate Change: Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

Climate scientists scarce in study | National Post

The 97% number is 100% fraudulent.

I gave you the National Academy of Sciences paper on the issue, you give me a rightwingnut think tank pundit. Your source is 100% fraudelent.

Lawrence Solomon - SourceWatch

Solomon writes in his book "The Deniers" that "As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." Richard Littlemore criticized Solomon for not making clear that the people profiled in the book believe that humans cause global warming, "they just argue about tiny bits of science that even the IPCC admits remain unsettled. ... Neither does Solomon acknowledge the complaints that he has received (and rebuffed) from legitimate scientists whose work he has misrepresented." [4]

So lies are OK as long as you accept the source of the lies.

Gotcha.

 

[Meister]

Climate scientists scarce in study | National Post

The 97% number is 100% fraudulent.

I gave you the National Academy of Sciences paper on the issue, you give me a rightwingnut think tank pundit. Your source is 100% fraudelent.

Lawrence Solomon - SourceWatch

Solomon writes in his book "The Deniers" that "As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." Richard Littlemore criticized Solomon for not making clear that the people profiled in the book believe that humans cause global warming, "they just argue about tiny bits of science that even the IPCC admits remain unsettled. ... Neither does Solomon acknowledge the complaints that he has received (and rebuffed) from legitimate scientists whose work he has misrepresented." [4]

So lies are OK as long as you accept the source of the lies.

Gotcha.

Yup, as long as it's what he believes.
With all of rockz's anti polluting mantra you would never know that he works at a steel mill would you?

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate scientists scarce in study | National Post

The 97% number is 100% fraudulent.

I gave you the National Academy of Sciences paper on the issue, you give me a rightwingnut think tank pundit. Your source is 100% fraudelent.

Lawrence Solomon - SourceWatch

Solomon writes in his book "The Deniers" that "As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." Richard Littlemore criticized Solomon for not making clear that the people profiled in the book believe that humans cause global warming, "they just argue about tiny bits of science that even the IPCC admits remain unsettled. ... Neither does Solomon acknowledge the complaints that he has received (and rebuffed) from legitimate scientists whose work he has misrepresented." [4]

So lies are OK as long as you accept the source of the lies.

Gotcha.

When you're dealing with warmer zealots, you soon realize that they prefer to RUN to research WHO it is that said something, rather than STROLL thru the science to determine whether it's true or not. They are really not invested in having a FULL understanding of both sides of the debate --- all they need is a convienient piece of juicy gossip to cling to as an excuse NOT to listen or NOT to debate the issue..

GoldiRock's "gossip" excuse above is a prime example.. It allows him to scream "utter bullshit" because SOMEONE had a dispute over writing styles in a book..

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I gave you the National Academy of Sciences paper on the issue, you give me a rightwingnut think tank pundit. Your source is 100% fraudelent.

Lawrence Solomon - SourceWatch

Solomon writes in his book "The Deniers" that "As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." Richard Littlemore criticized Solomon for not making clear that the people profiled in the book believe that humans cause global warming, "they just argue about tiny bits of science that even the IPCC admits remain unsettled. ... Neither does Solomon acknowledge the complaints that he has received (and rebuffed) from legitimate scientists whose work he has misrepresented." [4]

So lies are OK as long as you accept the source of the lies.

Gotcha.

Yup, as long as it's what he believes.
With all of rockz's anti polluting mantra you would never know that he works at a steel mill would you?

Wow.

I have said, referring to ex-smokers who rag on people who still smoke, there's nothing worse than a reformed whore, but he's not even reformed!

 

[Abraham3]

That worthless nitpicking is EXACTLY what evolutionary biologists were treated to by the Intelligent Design/divine creation bunch. Every internal discussion or disagreement between evolutionary biologists (like between continuous and punctuated equilibria) was thrown up as if the world's scientists were rejecting evolution en masse.

Deniers have the same mission against the same foe. Not too surprising that they try to use the same tactics. What else do they actually have?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

That worthless nitpicking is EXACTLY what evolutionary biologists were treated to by the Intelligent Design/divine creation bunch. Every internal discussion or disagreement between evolutionary biologists (like between continuous and punctuated equilibria) was thrown up as if the world's scientists were rejecting evolution en masse.

Deniers have the same mission against the same foe. Not too surprising that they try to use the same tactics. What else do they actually have?

Getting busted on faking the numbers and the failure of every one of your models to be correct is now nitpicking?

Is this what a death rattle sounds like?

 

[Abraham3]

No. It is what facts sound like to someone trying to pass off complete bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

The American Institute of Physics is the single largest Scientific Society in the world, a Society of Societies;

Member societies[edit]

Acoustical Society of America
American Association of Physicists in Medicine
American Association of Physics Teachers
American Astronomical Society
American Crystallographic Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Vacuum Society
Optical Society
Society of Rheology
Affiliated societies[edit]

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Section on Physics
American Chemical Society, Division of Physical Chemistry
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
American Nuclear Society
American Society of Civil Engineers
ASM International
Astronomical Society of the Pacific
Biomedical Engineering Society
Council on Undergraduate Research, Physics & Astronomy Division
Electrochemical Society
Geological Society of America
IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society
International Association of Mathematical Physics
International Union of Crystallography
International Centre for Diffraction Data
Laser Institute of America
Materials Research Society
Microscopy Society of America
National Society of Black Physicists
Polymer Processing Society
Society for Applied Spectroscopy
SPIE
List of publications

American Institute of Physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this is their site on the issue and history of the science of global warming;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

And all you people have in answer to this is flap yap about worldwide scientfic conspiracies and other wingnut nonsense.

 

[Meister]

The American Institute of Physics is the single largest Scientific Society in the world, a Society of Societies;

Member societies[edit]

Acoustical Society of America
American Association of Physicists in Medicine
American Association of Physics Teachers
American Astronomical Society
American Crystallographic Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Vacuum Society
Optical Society
Society of Rheology
Affiliated societies[edit]

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Section on Physics
American Chemical Society, Division of Physical Chemistry
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
American Nuclear Society
American Society of Civil Engineers
ASM International
Astronomical Society of the Pacific
Biomedical Engineering Society
Council on Undergraduate Research, Physics & Astronomy Division
Electrochemical Society
Geological Society of America
IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society
International Association of Mathematical Physics
International Union of Crystallography
International Centre for Diffraction Data
Laser Institute of America
Materials Research Society
Microscopy Society of America
National Society of Black Physicists
Polymer Processing Society
Society for Applied Spectroscopy
SPIE
List of publications

American Institute of Physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this is their site on the issue and history of the science of global warming;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

And all you people have in answer to this is flap yap about worldwide scientfic conspiracies and other wingnut nonsense.

Another broken record from rockz.
They still can't get what they want without manipulating the numbers.