Why is climate science political?

[skookerasbil]

Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than Hansen you fool.

Retarded dogs could cheat you at cards, walleyed, you poor deluded cretin.

And of course, as usual, you're completely clueless about the real world. Your denier cult myths, like the ones about Dr. Hansen's work, are, as always, utter BS. Most of the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made have come to pass or are happening now. He is an eminent scientist, honored and respected by his peers.

James Hansen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honors and awards

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72]

In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[73]

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[73] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[74]

Hansen won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy "Sophie's World",[75] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."

Why not post his prediction from 30 years ago that accurately predicts today's climate based on his theories regarding the growth of CO2?

Off topic s0n.............changing the subject is like a tick for the environmental nutters.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Retarded dogs could cheat you at cards, walleyed, you poor deluded cretin.

And of course, as usual, you're completely clueless about the real world. Your denier cult myths, like the ones about Dr. Hansen's work, are, as always, utter BS. Most of the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made have come to pass or are happening now. He is an eminent scientist, honored and respected by his peers.

James Hansen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honors and awards

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72]

In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[73]

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[73] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[74]

Hansen won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy "Sophie's World",[75] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."

Why not post his prediction from 30 years ago that accurately predicts today's climate based on his theories regarding the growth of CO2?

Okey-dokey, code4stupid, here ya go.

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Science, vol. 213, 1981, pp. 957-966. DOI

Fig.6 (from the paper) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s, but Hansen and his colleagues confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. Their graph assumes that that the world would start taking some actions to deal with this situation starting in the late 1990s, so they modeled the results of several different energy-use scenarios.

Looking back at the actual temperature record since 1981 (in red) reveals that Hansen slightly underestimated the rise in temperatures.

In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s,

Impossible! CO2 was higher in 1981 than in the early 1940s!

 

[Old Rocks]

Why not post his prediction from 30 years ago that accurately predicts today's climate based on his theories regarding the growth of CO2?

Okey-dokey, code4stupid, here ya go.

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Science, vol. 213, 1981, pp. 957-966. DOI

Fig.6 (from the paper) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s, but Hansen and his colleagues confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. Their graph assumes that that the world would start taking some actions to deal with this situation starting in the late 1990s, so they modeled the results of several different energy-use scenarios.

Looking back at the actual temperature record since 1981 (in red) reveals that Hansen slightly underestimated the rise in temperatures.

In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s,

Impossible! CO2 was higher in 1981 than in the early 1940s!

Now if you were not such a willfully ignorant ass, you would know that cause of that. Referance Hansen's Faustian Bargain.

 

[RollingThunder]

Why not post his prediction from 30 years ago that accurately predicts today's climate based on his theories regarding the growth of CO2?

Okey-dokey, code4stupid, here ya go.

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Science, vol. 213, 1981, pp. 957-966. DOI

Fig.6 (from the paper) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s, but Hansen and his colleagues confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. Their graph assumes that that the world would start taking some actions to deal with this situation starting in the late 1990s, so they modeled the results of several different energy-use scenarios.

Looking back at the actual temperature record since 1981 (in red) reveals that Hansen slightly underestimated the rise in temperatures.

Sooooo CO2 has more than doubled his prediction and the temps havn't reached even his lowest guestimate.

Nooooo clueless retard, temperatures have exceeded his upper prediction. That's the line in red on the second graph. True to form, you once again get everything bass ackwards.

In fact he's 300% off on his guess.

In fact, he underestimated the current warming by 30%. It is a wonder that you can even tie your shoes, walleyedretard. Maybe you wear loafers.

And you think that's good?

Yes, Dr. Hansen's track record on climate change predictions is quite good.

How do you explain that?

The same way I explain all of your worthless, mistaken, lying posts - you are a clueless, ignorant, flaming retard and you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground. Or possibly, alternatively, you're a paid agent of disinformation getting a check from Exxon to spread propaganda and lies.

 

[Oddball]

From which college did Hansen get his degree in climatology?

Where did you get your degree in stupidity?

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[2]

[edit] Research and publications

As a college student at the University of Iowa, Hansen was attracted to science and the research done by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. A decade later, his focus shifted to planetary research that involved trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change. His other interests include the development of global circulation models to help understand the observed climate trends, and diagnosing human impacts on climate.[3]
................................................................................................................
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Hansen published several papers on the planet Venus following his Ph.D. dissertation. Venus has a high brightness temperature in the radio frequencies compared to the infrared. Hansen proposed that the hot surface was the result of aerosols trapping the internal energy of the planet.[4] More recent studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[5]
........................................................................................................................
Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72

So.....

What you're saying is that he has no credentials to support his expertise in Climatology.

Gee...Must need a degree in stupidity to figure out that one!

 

[Bfgrn]

If it is a proven technology, then guaranteeing a loan would be a prudent thing for the benefitting local government to do.

Allocatting billions to be squandered at the Federal level is an exercise in pay offs, graft and corruption.

The closer the subsidizers are to the subsidized, the lower the chances that corruption will occur.

BULLSHIT! The coal industry has OWNED local, county and state judges for generations. Where do you think the term 'company town' came from?

The relative freedom of the West Virginia miners was quickly overshadowed as industries began to exhibit more and more control over the region. Soon company towns dominated the coalfields, and miners had no choice but to live in them. Every aspect of a miner’s life was controlled by what existed for him in the operator-owned town. Only paid in company script, miners had no choice but to shop at the company store, which greatly inflated prices in order to compensate for wage increases. Towns were unsanitary and lacked any kind of central political structure. Important information on voting and politics were withheld from miners, and the company post-master routinely scrutinized thier mail. Operators controlled every aspect of the town and ruled unjustly and often times violently. When population and discontent began to rise in company towns, operators installed private police-like guards who patrolled the streets and instituted their own brand of martial law.

Is this a story of the good ol' days or is this happening right now?

Did You Know?

• 50% of the counties in Central Appalachia have only one hospital and about 1 in 5 do not have a hospital at all

• On average, 20% of the people in the region live below the poverty line (the current national poverty rate for a family of four is $20,650 a year, i.e. $1,720 a month)

• The first shipment of coal out of Central Appalachia was in 1892 from Dickenson County, in Southwest Virginia; today one coal company owns approximately 40% of the land and between 60%-80% of all of the mineral rights in the county

• 80% of all Central Appalachian counties are rural, and over half of the region's population lives in these rural counties

• Extraction abuses by the coal industry, especially through mountain top removal, has destroyed more than 1,000,000 acres of forests, 500 mountains, and buried over 1,000 miles of streams in the Appalachian region

• Kentucky ranks 50th in the Nation for the number of adults who cannot read

• In Eastern Kentucky, where 60% of counties are consistently poor, the A.T. Massey company operated coal mines through 18 subsidiaries, and reported an operating profit in 2000 of $147 million with revenues of $1.1 billion

• Remote parts of Southwest Virginia are now sites of many prisons, Red Onion and Wallens Ridge - both super maximum security prisons; inmates are shipped here from across the nation and from as far away as Hawaii and urban cities in the Northeast

• In Hancock County, Tennessee the average income for a family of 4 is $14,000 a year, which is 47% of the national figure

• 1/3 of all of West Virginia's children are born into poverty

• In Logan County, West Virginia 40% of residents do not have safe drinking water

Central Appalachia is a place of great contradictions. The beauty of the oldest mountain range in North America with lush mountains, old growth forests, small towns and isolated mountain communities is juxtaposed with long-term poverty, out-migration, lack of health care, inadequate educational systems, and political corruption.

The coal, timber, oil, gas, and water contained within the Appalachian mountains are resources that have historically influenced the social economic and political characteristics of the region. Companies have profited greatly from the natural resources at the expense of exploiting our people and destroying the environment leaving generations in decades-long, structural poverty. It is a cruel irony that a region so rich in natural resources is home to many of the poorest people in the United States.

Originally home to indigenous peoples such as the Cherokee and Creek Nations, the rich coalfields of Eastern Kentucky, Southwest Virginia, East Tennessee, and West Virginia are now home to 6 million people, over half of whom live in rural areas, with some counties having less than 25,000 residents.
The coal and other resources generate revenues into the billions of dollars, but these huge profits go to companies in other states and counties not in Central Appalachian. Appalachian counties are left with little or no tax base to help fund schools, health care, or job creation.

Entrenched, corrupt local governments and lagging public policy have not generated sustainable economic alternatives in our region. Low-wealth individuals, women and people of color are often discouraged or excluded from civic activism. New job creation tends to be in the form of low-wage jobs, and at the same time, globalization has moved thousands of jobs from the region. Low-income communities have difficulty attracting new business. Geographic isolation and the lack of role models, entrepreneurial skills and access to start-up funds often frustrate individuals, communities and grass-roots groups poised to work to make significant positive change.

 

[skookerasbil]

OK..........enough distraction..................

Back to Realville s0ns.....................


Apocalypse Fatigue: Losing the Public on Climate Change by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger: Yale Environment 360

 

[Saigon]

Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.

Just a bunch of people wanting to tax poor Ian. Damn, I did not take you for one of the fruitloops.

My thoughts exactly.

Denying physical evidence that many of us have seen with our own eyes is not a very rational defence.

 

[Oddball]

Did someone mention physical evidence?

Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro

TANZANIA (eTN ) - Constituting the highest mountain in Africa, Mount Kilimanjaro is slowly building up its snow cover, allaying the fears of prominent scientists who had predicted witnessing the eminence lose its famous white hat. The drifts are slowly thickening on the top point of this summit, giving new hopes to Mount Kilimanjaro environmental watchdogs and tourists that the peak may not lose its beautiful snowy cap, as scientific experts have long been warning.

Most tourist-attractive site in Tanzania Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro - eTurboNews.com

 

[Saigon]

Oddball -

And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?

Kilimanjro doesn't even have glaciers, genius!

As you must be aware - 97% of the world's glaciers (and 99% of Alaskan glaciers) are in retreat.

Some 1% are growing.

So, yes, if you spend another hour looking, you will find evidence that backs your cause, and you can prevent it as evidence that everything is fine.

 

[Saigon]

And here is the real story on Kilimanjaro...

While the retreat of glaciers and mountaintop ice in the mid-latitudes -- where much of the world's human population lives -- is definitely linked to global climate change, the same cannot be said of Kilimanjaro, the researchers wrote in the July-August edition of American Scientist magazine.

Kilimanjaro's icy top, which provided the title for an iconic short story by Ernest Hemingway, has been waning for more than a century, according to Philip Mote of the University of Washington in the United States and Georg Kaser of the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

Most of the retreat occurred before 1953, nearly two decades before any conclusive evidence of atmospheric warming was available, they wrote.

"It is certainly possible that the icecap has come and gone many times over hundreds of thousands of years," Mote, a climatologist, said in a statement.

Unlike mid-latitude glaciers, which are warmed and melted by surrounding air in the summer, the disappearance of Kilimanjaro's ice is driven by solar radiation, since the air around it is rarely above freezing, they wrote.

"But for temperate glaciers, there is ample evidence that they are shrinking, in part because of warming from greenhouse gases."

Kilimanjaro's shrinking snow not sign of warming | Reuters

 

[wirebender]

"But for temperate glaciers, there is ample evidence that they are shrinking, in part because of warming from greenhouse gases."

Do you make wine with all those cherrys you pick?

As for temperate glaciers, their melting is nothing new as evidenced by the number of archaeological finds their retreat is uncovering. When you guys can point to something going on within the climate that is outside of the boundries of natural variation, or even beginning to approach the boundries of natural variation, then you will have some basis for "starting to wonder" if maybe the activities of man are responsible. Thus far, however, there is absolutely nothing happeing within the climate that is in any way unusual or unprecedented. The only thing happening at present related to climate that is unusual is the amount of fraud going on within the scientific community where climate pseudoscience is concerned.

And I have asked you before to describe a mechanism by which so called greenhouse gasses might cause warming that doesn't violate a law of physics. I note that you haven't answered obviously because there is no such explanation that doesn't violate a law of physics. Don't you find that odd?

 

[Oddball]

Oddball -

And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?

Kilimanjro doesn't even have glaciers, genius!

As you must be aware - 97% of the world's glaciers (and 99% of Alaskan glaciers) are in retreat.

Some 1% are growing.

So, yes, if you spend another hour looking, you will find evidence that backs your cause, and you can prevent it as evidence that everything is fine.

It's relevant because hand wringers like you have been bellyaching for years about the snows from Kilimanjaro allegedly disappearing.

But, of course, if you spend another hour looking, you will find evidence that backs your cause, and you can present it as evidence that everything is going to hell in a bucket.

 

[Katzndogz]

Science becomes political when the research into that science is funded by the government. The science must adjust itself to the government's predetermined outcome and is essential to obtaining more government funding.

 

[bobgnote]

Meanwhile, the reason climate change is political is wingnuts, Christians, prison industry, petroleum industry, war industry, and retards are all lined up, claiming it doesn't exist or human activity is not responsible, in order to duck re-greening responsibility, by humans.

We re-green or the planet goes to shit. Acidification and warming are both accelerating. At this point, no matter, whether humans cause part, most, or all of the CO2, or they influenced it since the start of the industrial revolution, and the cumulative stewardship data is just not that good, so wingnuts keep ranting against mounting marginal evidence.

Acidification will take out the oceanic food chain, bees die, the Oglalla acquifier fails, pollution and any other disaster takes out the US breadbasket, and the wingnutskis get to think, hard! While wingnuts are trying to think, along comes a couple of big storms and rising seas, and people have to move, from coastal cities. This may take less than 100 years, to accrue.

Wingnutskis won't be able to fly in the face, of all this. Guilty or not, humanity has to move on all this, or eat shitsky, wingnutski! Go home to Russia, sell oil, snarf Putin!

 

[Old Rocks]

Where did you get your degree in stupidity?

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[2]

[edit] Research and publications

As a college student at the University of Iowa, Hansen was attracted to science and the research done by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. A decade later, his focus shifted to planetary research that involved trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change. His other interests include the development of global circulation models to help understand the observed climate trends, and diagnosing human impacts on climate.[3]
................................................................................................................
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Hansen published several papers on the planet Venus following his Ph.D. dissertation. Venus has a high brightness temperature in the radio frequencies compared to the infrared. Hansen proposed that the hot surface was the result of aerosols trapping the internal energy of the planet.[4] More recent studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[5]
........................................................................................................................
Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72

So.....

What you're saying is that he has no credentials to support his expertise in Climatology.

Gee...Must need a degree in stupidity to figure out that one!

The world's leading atmospheric physicist has no expertise in climatology? Lordy, lordy, one of you is dumb as a rock, and the other is lying for employment.

 

[Old Rocks]

"But for temperate glaciers, there is ample evidence that they are shrinking, in part because of warming from greenhouse gases."

Do you make wine with all those cherrys you pick?

As for temperate glaciers, their melting is nothing new as evidenced by the number of archaeological finds their retreat is uncovering. When you guys can point to something going on within the climate that is outside of the boundries of natural variation, or even beginning to approach the boundries of natural variation, then you will have some basis for "starting to wonder" if maybe the activities of man are responsible. Thus far, however, there is absolutely nothing happeing within the climate that is in any way unusual or unprecedented. The only thing happening at present related to climate that is unusual is the amount of fraud going on within the scientific community where climate pseudoscience is concerned.

And I have asked you before to describe a mechanism by which so called greenhouse gasses might cause warming that doesn't violate a law of physics. I note that you haven't answered obviously because there is no such explanation that doesn't violate a law of physics. Don't you find that odd?

LOL. The fairy tell King repeats his endless 'challenge', even though it has been answered many times. And believes that spouting math that he doesn't understand, and no one else can make heads nor tails of, disproves all of the physicists in the world.

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[RollingThunder]

"But for temperate glaciers, there is ample evidence that they are shrinking, in part because of warming from greenhouse gases."

Do you make wine with all those cherrys(sic) you pick?

LOLOLOLOL......97% of the world's glaciers are losing ice mass and you call that cherry-picking? How did you get to be such an imbecile, wiredup&bent? Did you get dropped on your head a lot when you were a baby?

As for temperate glaciers, their melting is nothing new as evidenced by the number of archaeological finds their retreat is uncovering. When you guys can point to something going on within the climate that is outside of the boundries of natural variation, or even beginning to approach the boundries(sic) of natural variation, then you will have some basis for "starting to wonder" if maybe the activities of man are responsible. Thus far, however, there is absolutely nothing happeing(sic) within the climate that is in any way unusual or unprecedented. The only thing happening at present related to climate that is unusual is the amount of fraud going on within the scientific community where climate pseudoscience is concerned.

You live in your own little private fantasy world, wiredup&bentover, and it is an insane world at that. You are wrong about everything, of course and as usual for you. You're too stupid to understand that almost all of the "archaeological finds" you mention consist of stuff that was laid down on the existing glacier and then wound up on the ground when the glacier melted. No retardo, the glaciers have not melted away before in human history like they are now. Here's a good example. There are hundreds of others I could cite.

Bolivia's Chacaltaya glacier is gone

BY JOHN ENDERS
Special to The Miami Herald
May. 04, 2009
(excerpts)

If anyone needs a reminder of the on-the-ground impacts of global climate change, come to the Andes mountains in Bolivia. At 17,388 feet above sea level, Chacaltaya, an 18,000 year-old glacier that delighted thousands of visitors for decades, is gone, completely melted away as of some sad, undetermined moment early this year. ''Chacaltaya has disappeared. It no longer exists,'' said Dr. Edson Ramirez, head of an international team of scientists that has studied the glacier since 1991. Chacaltaya (the name in Aymara means ''cold road'') began melting in the mid-1980s. Ramirez, the assistant director of the Institute of Hydraulics and Hydrology at the Universidad Mayor de San Andres in nearby La Paz, documented its disappearance in March. Ten years ago Ramirez and his team of researchers concluded that the glacier would survive until 2015. But the rate of thaw increased threefold in the last decade, according to their studies. He believes the disappearance of Chacaltaya is an indication of the potent effects at higher elevations of the interaction of greenhouse gas accumulation and an increase in average global temperatures.

And he thinks other glaciers in the region also may be melting at a rate faster than previously known. Illimani, the colossal 21,200-foot mountain that looms over the city of La Paz and has served as the backdrop for postcard-perfect pictures since film was invented, is the home to several glaciers. They likely will melt completely within 30 years, he said. ''It's very probable that other glaciers are disappearing faster than we thought,'' he said. Researchers fear that Chacaltaya's fate will be shared by other glaciers in other areas of Bolivia, and in Peru and Ecuador as well, he said. ...the death of the glacier and what that means for the people of the Andean cordillera. On the western, mostly arid side of the Andes, millions of people depend on rain, snow run-off and melting glaciers like Chacaltaya, Illimani and Huayna Potosifor their water. This year, for the first time, the amount of water flowing out of reservoirs serving nearly 2.5 million people in La Paz and its adjacent city, El Alto, will exceed the amount of water flowing into them.

© 2009 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.

(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.)

And I have asked you before to describe a mechanism by which so called greenhouse gasses might cause warming that doesn't violate a law of physics. I note that you haven't answered obviously because there is no such explanation that doesn't violate a law of physics. Don't you find that odd?

No, retardo, you've asked many times and you've been shown the answers many times. You are just too stupid and clueless to comprehend the answers. You wouldn't know a "law of physics" if one bit you.

 

[IanC]

I fail to see how glacier retreat is evidence of AGW. they have been retreating since the end of the LIA.

has someone estimated at what temperature they would become stable? would we and our agriculture be happy if it was cold enough to stop glaciers from melting?

 

[Big Fitz]

Oddball -

And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?

Kilimanjro doesn't even have glaciers, genius!

As you must be aware - 97% of the world's glaciers (and 99% of Alaskan glaciers) are in retreat.

Some 1% are growing.

So, yes, if you spend another hour looking, you will find evidence that backs your cause, and you can prevent it as evidence that everything is fine.

Of course that ignores the fact the IPCC has stated none of that data has been scientifically verified by them, and was based on anecdotal evidence from an ecofascist advocate based on anecdotal statements from Ice Climbing guides based on the drop off of business.

Yep. Trustworth as shit.

Some are in retreat, others are growing. 97%? Horseshit.

Oh and that "answer" you've been avoiding? Can I get an ETA on it's arrival, or are you gonna keep on running away, Sir Robin?