Climate models make too hot forecasts of global warming

Jul 29, 2011 By Daniel Horton

Data from NASA's Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth's atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to "believe."

The result is that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Center at The .

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

In research published this week in the journal Remote Sensing, Spencer and UAHuntsville's Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

"The suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks.

Instead, the shows the starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

"At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained," Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth's changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

"There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that," Spencer said. "The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations."

For this experiment, the UAHuntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA's .

The six were chosen from those used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on . The UAHuntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

Explore further: Earthquakes occur in 4 parts of Alaska

Provided by University of Alabama

3.9 /5 (33 votes)

Related Stories

Water vapor confirmed as major player in climate change

Nov 17, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated ...

Mystery Climate Mechanism May Counteract Global Warming

Apr 12, 2005

A new study by two physicists at the University of Rochester suggests there is a mechanism at work in the Earth’s atmosphere that may blunt the influence of global warming, and that this mechanism is not accounted for in ...

Recommended for you

Tropical Storm Genevieve forms in Eastern Pacific

Jul 25, 2014

The seventh tropical depression of the Eastern Pacific Ocean formed and quickly ramped up to a tropical storm named "Genevieve." NOAA's GOES-West satellite captured an infrared image of the newborn storm ...

NASA maps Typhoon Matmo's Taiwan deluge

Jul 25, 2014

When Typhoon Matmo crossed over the island nation of Taiwan it left tremendous amounts of rainfall in its wake. NASA used data from the TRMM satellite to calculate just how much rain fell over the nation.

User comments : 161

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3432682
2.3 / 5 (37) Jul 29, 2011
The forecasts of higher temperatures were wrong. The models are wrong. Great news for Earth.
emsquared
3.1 / 5 (35) Jul 29, 2011
What a good article. What good science.

"There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for [which piece of Earth's changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases]"

I still don't doubt that we have some effect, however I definitely feel quite vindicated in my skepticism of the IPCC's computer models. Cheers to NASA for their objectivity. I'm actually pretty excited to see what revised models look like. Presumably we'll be closer to a realistic scenario.
SteveL
4 / 5 (26) Jul 29, 2011
The earth doesn't care. It has survived and will survive far more than we mere humans can. This is some good news for us. Let's just hope that this doesn't give cause for people to think we no longer need to reduce our demand on this planet and its resources. Sustainability is still an issue for long-term human habitation of this planet. This may simply mean we have a bit more time from a climate perspective, we can get out of panic mode and let logic and reason dictate our persuit of sustainability.
plaasjaapie
2.1 / 5 (45) Jul 29, 2011
FINALLY! Some proper science for change instead of bloody warmist theology. Bravo!
AT210
2 / 5 (42) Jul 29, 2011
CO2 was also blamed for the planet getting cooler back in the 1970s. This whole AGW fiasco is nothing but pure nonsense.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
3.5 / 5 (28) Jul 29, 2011
Bravo!


I'm happy too. So now can the denialists stop trashing satellite observations?
Waterdog
3.5 / 5 (30) Jul 29, 2011
While I applaud the excellent science done here, I am also very aware of how much warmer it has become in the last couple of decades. The temperature may not rise as quickly as some models have predicted but that doesn't change the empirical data that the Artic ice is melting and the last few years have been some of the hotest on record.
Quarl
4.3 / 5 (27) Jul 29, 2011
Simply because our effect is smaller than initially believed does not mean that we have no effect. Resources on this planet are finite but I fear that this will convince naysayers that we can continue to use them at the present breakneck speed. As long as they get money today, who cares about tomorrow?
sstritt
Jul 29, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
plaasjaapie
2.2 / 5 (26) Jul 29, 2011
The problem with "sustainability" is that it presumes a fixed source of inputs. It completely ignores innovation. If we had picked up the sustainability argument back in the middle ages we'd still be figuring out how to run on a society that used wood as a thermal energy source.
Gustav
2 / 5 (27) Jul 29, 2011
What Spencer and Brasswell's paper amounts to is the sound observational refutation of the catastrophic AGW theory, which was based on deeply flawed, incomplete and unphysical computer models and a lot of quackery and politicking. People, of course, do affect the Earth's climate in many ways (and so do termites and plankton), primarily by deforestation, paving, cities, agriculture, but not by CO2 emissions. People will continue to mine and burn coal and oil, because there is no good reason not to. Our real goal should be to build lasting prosperity around the world and to eliminate acts of vandalism against nature. Only rich, highly developed societies can do so.
emsquared
1.9 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2011
Yes, sustainability is an issue and we most certainly over-consume resources and what is happening with the oceans is a massive concern, however it becomes more evident as we gather more data, that we are less and less a factor in climate change.

There is reason after reason, and obstacle after obstacle that we can approach sustainability and environmental quality issues from that have nothing to do with climate change. Why are all of your concepts of our problems so inextricably linked to the climate and carbon? As Steve indicated, the Earth and life on earth will persist through any change in climate. That we are here today is evidence of that.

Start worrying about the direct threats to these things. Combat the problems you see directly, through the way you live primarily and the things you talk about to people. Let your friends know that it's not cool to buy a new phone every 6 mos. Don't sit back and say, it's up to power industry to change.

It's you, and everyone you know, FFS!
that_guy
3.6 / 5 (18) Jul 29, 2011
I'm surprised how civil this conversation has been thus far.

I'd like to point out that the trends do point towards global warming, but this whole, "the sky is falling" attitude has been aggravating.

That doesn't mean that we should stick our heads in the sand though. We should still work towards sustainability, efficiency, and get ourselves off oil supplied by dictators no doubt.

Based on solar activity (It looks a lot like the beginning of the maunder minimum), it looks like global warming may be offset for the next few decades but we'll likely see some kind of bump down the road here.
TheWalrus
3.7 / 5 (22) Jul 29, 2011
Gustav said: "People, of course, do affect the Earth's climate in many ways (and so do termites and plankton), primarily by deforestation, paving, cities, agriculture, but not by CO2 emissions."

Really? Why? It is easily provable that CO2 does trap heat. This fact is not in dispute among serious people. So the burden is on you to explain why CO2 magically loses the ability to trap heat when it comes from fossil fuel.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (25) Jul 29, 2011
Have any of you bothered to read the paper? It looks at the temporal shift of the forcing functions. From the paper the conclusion is:

"It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."

As you can see from the conclusion it is considered an open problem. Also, the authors are from the UAB Huntsville, not NASA, they are just using NASA data. Spencer runs his own web site that is devoted to attacking AGW. His observations are not new. If you go to his site you will see he has been proposing this since 2007. He finally got a journal to publish his theory, but it is still controversial. Please read the paper, look at some of the reviews of his methods, then draw your own conclusions. Don't take a summary that came from a Forbes article (yes, that is where the publicity came from).
Y8Q412VBZP21010
4.2 / 5 (25) Jul 29, 2011
According to Wikipedia, Spencer is also a creationist.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
4.6 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2011
Wikipedia not being always entirely trustworthy, I did some more poking around on Spencer's purported creationist background. On checking, he's quite upfront about it:

http://theevoluti...ony2.php

-- and does not conceal that his thinking on the matter is heavily influenced by scripture. This website appears to be the same as a tract with the catchy title of THE EVOLUTION CRISIS available on Amazon.com ... no description, no reviews, ranked below 3.3 million on the Amazon sales charts.
emsquared
2.2 / 5 (18) Jul 29, 2011
...explain why CO2 magically loses the ability to trap heat when it comes from fossil fuel.

As you said, no serious person says this. Reducto ad absurdem is not a Harry Potter spell, it is an invalid debate tactic, Walrus.

The crux of the biscuit is "how big of a factor is our CO2, in enviro-quality and sustainability"? If this can't be determined with accuracy, we cannot know if what we're doing has a significant impact (my fear is it will not), so we should approach the problem from angles where there is certainty. Which there are hundreds if not thousands of things that could be done starting today that we know with 100% certainty will make a instant direct positive impact on our sustainability and environmental quality.

People don't like to hear this of course, because it means changing our culture, changing the way we live, the way we raise our kids. It doesn't allow them to say, I bought an electric car, I'm sustainable! or I bought carbon-offsets, I'm helping the world!
TheWalrus
5 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2011
emsquared:

You might want to look up the definition of "reductio ad absurdum." I did not resort to that fallacy (and I spelled it properly).

Gustav stated categorically that CO2 from fossil fuels does not affect the climate. I asked for proof of that claim (which is itself absurd).
So I asked why, when it's easy to prove that CO2 traps heat, does Gustav make this remarkable assertion.

Your comment failed to address this very reasonable proposal (that he offer proof).

Lastly, the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.

It doesn't (make sense), and you can't (defend it), I won't (buy it), and it don't (stand to reason) it hasn't (been proven), it isn't (a sound theory), it even ain't (worth taking seriously), and it shouldn't (be taken seriously)
it couldn't (have anything to do with Spencer's slipshod methodology, could it?)

Take a look:

http://blogs.disc...larmism/
PPihkala
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2011
I don't know what value this study has, but I do know that mankind currently put out CO2 in ever faster rate. And it is proven that this pollution has adverse effects to climate because it promotes more heat trapment. It also is acidifying the oceans, which by itself should prompt stopping this trend. Biggest problem seems to be that fossil energy is still too cheap to be replaced by more sustainable alternatives. That is partly because humans have not assigned price to pollution caused diseases and environmental degradation. I hope that new technology like Rossi E-Cat will provide a way to stop this fossil fuel madness.
jamesrm
4.5 / 5 (17) Jul 29, 2011
Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[22]

The declaration states:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems created by Gods intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Religious nutjob from University of Alabama doesn't believe in global warming, no news in this article.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2011
Take a look ...


Tanks for da link. Good old cranky Phil Plait.
emsquared
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2011
I did not resort to that fallacy (and I spelled it properly).

Boy, since what I typed was obviously incomprehensible I'll make sure to get it right next time.
Gustav stated categorically that CO2 from fossil fuels does not affect the climate. I asked for proof of that claim (which is itself absurd).

No, you implied that he was saying CO2 magically loses it's heat retention abilities from fossil fuels. When actually his words were quite valid and pertinent when you take into account his use of "primarily". Reading comprehension, ftw!

You were just trying to impose an extreme statement upon him which he did not make; reducto patronum leviosah.
joefarah
1.8 / 5 (21) Jul 29, 2011
OK. Somebody is in BIG TROUBLE. This article was not supposed to be released. Do the idiots who released it know what this could do to the IPCC and to the funding channels for Global Warming? We're talking $billions and $billions. The agreement was that this article was to be kept under wraps until the changes to the models were made along side the offsetting "new" factors. I want to know who gave the authority to release this data/paper. Obama will not be happy. Especially with the next conference well into planning. Canada was supposed to ... aw never mind!
TheWalrus
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2011
emsquared:

Man, how can two people read the same thing and interpret it so differently? To quote Gustav:

"People, of course, do affect the Earth's climate in many ways (and so do termites and plankton), primarily by deforestation, paving, cities, agriculture, but not by CO2 emissions."

Let me shorten that: "People... affect the Earth's climate... but not by CO2 emissions."

I'll grant that my use of the word "magically" was kind of snarky, but Gustav's meaning could not be clearer: Man's CO2 emissions do not affect the climate.

Since it is settled science that CO2 does, indeed, trap heat in the atmosphere, I assume Gustav has some explanation for why CO2 from fossil fuels does not afffect the climate. Such a disappearing act of CO2's heat-trapping properties seems magical to me. But then, maybe Gustav has "sufficiently advanced technology" that is indistinguishable from magic.

Look. My point is that Gustav has no basis for his claim, and the burden of proof is on him.
TheWalrus
4.5 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2011
Gustav said: "What Spencer and Brasswell's paper amounts to is the sound observational refutation of the catastrophic AGW theory, which was based on deeply flawed, incomplete and unphysical computer models and a lot of quackery and politicking."

Not so. I'm glad you've found something that conforms to your confirmation bias, but the science is sloppy, Spencer is a right-wing Creationist crackpot, and the data does not say what he says it says. Here, take a look at what another science Web site says:

http://blogs.disc...larmism/
jamesrm
4.3 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2011
He is linked to the Heartland Institute That shills for Philip Morris too
emsquared
1.4 / 5 (14) Jul 29, 2011
"People, of course, do affect the Earth's climate in many ways (and so do termites and plankton), primarily by deforestation, paving, cities, agriculture, but not [primarily] by CO2 emissions."
...would be how I read it. I blame the oxford comma.
Gustav
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2011
Why human emissions of CO2 do not affect the climate? The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is less than 390ppmv. This makes it a trace gas. There just isn't enough of it to make much difference. This is the first reason. The second reason is that every substance that absorbs light also reflects it. It's a simple corollary of Maxwell equations. So, the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere not only absorbs a certain amount of infrared radiation, it also reflects it. This also applies to the incident radiation from the sun. This is the basic reason why the "greenhouse effect", when tested by Robert Williams Wood in 1909, didn't work. On the contrary, the ground in the box that was covered with IR absorbing glass was cooler than the ground in the box covered with salt sheets (which do not absorb IR). This experiment has recently been repeated and confirmed by Nasif Nahle. Well.. I'm about to run out of "characters left", so I'll leave it at that. There are more reasons...
Gustav
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2011
To answer another correspondent, TheWalrus: what does Spencer and Braswell paper demonstrate? This is shown most clearly in their Figure 3, page 7: a huge discrepancy between the satellite observations and the IPCC models. The argument that Spencer cannot be right because he is a "right-wing Creationist" is a fallacy, because it is not relevant. Do you imply that the reviewers of the paper, the editor and the publisher are "right-wing Creationists" too?
Y8Q412VBZP21010
4.3 / 5 (17) Jul 29, 2011
The argument that Spencer cannot be right because he is a "right-wing Creationist" is a fallacy, because it is not relevant.


Oh, his creationism hasn't got anything to do with the specifics of his case. It's just a question of how much credence might be placed in the work of someone who also believes in creationism; babies are delivered by the stork; and Mickey Mouse lives at the North Pole with his elves. Having plenty of other things to investigate and not enough time to do it, that would push the matter off my queue without further consideration.
Gustav
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2011
User Y8Q412VBZP21010 opined: "It's just a question of how much credence might be placed in the work of someone who also believes in creationism..." This question was answered in positive by the paper's reviewers and the journal's editors. Spencer's religious beliefs are as irrelevant here as are those of Abdul Salam, or Isaac Newton, or Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2011
Spencer's religious beliefs are as irrelevant here as are those of Abdul Salam, or Isaac Newton, or Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.


That depends. If you're contesting the paper, you have to make a case on the basis of its statements and the eccentricities of the author are irrelevant.

If, on the other hand, if one doesn't have any particular axe to grind on the matter, and is sorting through the flood of information that pours out from the world on a daily basis -- at a rate far greater than can possibly be absorbed -- to determine what deserves further consideration ... it establishes that the particular item goes into the circular file instead of the in-box.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (19) Jul 29, 2011
Andrew Dessler seems to have summed the goal of this publication up well in a comment published on Climate Progress:

[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take [Roy Spencer] seriously anymore (hes been wrong too many times). Rather, hes writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions which is what Roy wants.

http://thinkprogr...e-282584
Y8Q412VBZP21010
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2011
Spencer's religious beliefs are as irrelevant here
...


Oh, I almost forgot ... I have no real objections to creationism as a religious belief. It's silly of course, but if someone says they don't buy evo science, they have a perfect right, not a thing I can say about it. I wouldn't find it worth my bother.

The problem is that creationists assert science endorses their position, when right or wrong the scientific community overwhelmingly rejects it, indeed regards creationism with loud derision and contempt.

Creationists might as well claim that Mexicans speak French instead of Spanish; they clearly do not, and the only way to argue that they do is through absurd and unscrupulous mangling of the facts.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2011
Gustav: You said: "This makes it a trace gas. There just isn't enough of it to make much difference. This is the first reason. The second reason is that every substance that absorbs light also reflects it. It's a simple corollary of Maxwell equations." Wow, where do I start.

First, you are incorrect about every substance that absorbs light also reflects it. That is magnificantly nonsense. That would mean that a mirror would be a good absorber. Instead, you can either talk about black body radiation for a substance at a particular temperature where the emission at a particular wavelength has to equal the absorption at that wavelength or you can talk about quantum mechanical absorption and emission of atoms or molecules which can be at different energy levels and intensities depending on the electronic transitions. You have confused your basic physics on emission, reflection, and absorption. (continued due to the low character limit)
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2011
Continued for Gustav: Second, you mention that CO2 is a trace gas and therfor cannot matter. Let's look at that statement using some logic. What is the rest of the atmosphere composed of? Predominantly N2, O2, and Ar. Can you tell me how much infrared energy those gases absorb?

The answer is almost none. So, if they are transparent to IR (which they are) and you remove them from the mix (which if you understand physics would be necessary to understand how IR is absorbed and emitted) then that means you have removed what amount of the atmosphere from active participation with IR? Looking at a dry atmosphere (because water vapor is variable and we will get to that in a bit because I know you will jump on it) we have about 78.08% N2, about 20.95% O2, and about 0.93% Ar which is about 99.96% of the dry atmosphere. Oops, what does that leave to absorb IR? It looks like the CO2 is not a trace gas when it comes to absorbtion or emission of IR, it is the predominant dry gas. Cont.
thermodynamics
4.8 / 5 (19) Jul 29, 2011
Continued again: Gustav: I can hear you screaming already. You forgot the most important greenhouse gas of them all. You left water vapor out! Yes, I agree that water vapor is the most important GHG of them all. However, it is a dependent variable in the equations, not an independent variable. The reason is that water can condense while all of the other gases cannot. So, water vapor is dependent on temperature, winds, insollation, evaporation, and condensation. So, what you have to do is to compute the state of the atmospher in contact with water and determine the transport to decide how much is there. We don't have to do that with CO2 because we know how much we are pumping out and how it is changing the atmospheric content. So, you claim that CO2 is a trace gas (which I would agree with) but you fail to note that it is the major, non-condensing, gas that interacts with IR. Go take a physics class.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2011
Oh, I almost forgot ... I have no real objections to creationism as a religious belief. It's silly of course, but if someone says they don't buy evo science, they have a perfect right, not a thing I can say about it. I wouldn't find it worth my bother.
Creationists threaten legitimate scientific inquiry. French-speaking mexicans do not. As such, creationism should be opposed wherever it exerts itself.

You seem to know a lot of science and so should be well aware of this. Unless you are not being forthcoming in the reasons behind your muted defense of this distinctly anti-science cabal.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2011
Unless you are not being forthcoming in the reasons behind your muted defense of this distinctly anti-science cabal.


Eh? I said that if someone simply claimed they didn't buy evolution, there wasn't anything I could say about it other than it was silly. People are entitled to believe whatever silly things they like and it is not my job to fix them.

The problem is that they claim that science supports creationism, which it flatly does not. And I have never met one, not one, creationist who did not make
this claim.

I am simply identifying the nature of my objection to creationism; since this objection applies to every single creationist I ever met, I could only be accused of being tolerant to a sort of creationism that exists in some parallel universe that I haven't visited yet.

Y8Q412VBZP21010
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2011
PS: Gustav was claiming I objected to Spencer's religious beliefs. I do not know much in particular about Spencer's religious beliefs and have no interest in finding out.

By establishing himself as a creationist, however, Spencer has accepted he is willing, even determined to mangle facts in an absurd and unscrupulous way. It would be sensible to assume he retains the same willingness in his approach to climate science.
Code_Warrior
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2011
I don't know anything about this Spencer guy and I don't know much about climate models, but it seems to me that the next step would be for others to independently examine the same data and determine the validity of his findings.

The important thing is that we improve our climate models because policy decisions need to be made and the cost of being wrong is extremely high. On the one hand, if the warming predictions are correct and we damage the planet due to wrong policy decisions, then that cost is incalculable. On the other hand, if we spend a portion of the world's GDP on efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and it turns out that the impact of CO2 is negligible, then how many people could have been helped by the money spent to reduce CO2 emissions and how many developing countries had economic growth stifled because they were denied access to cheaper energy?

All I know is that it is very important to make the right policy decisions. To do that we need accurate climate models.
hush1
1 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2011
Good thread for my learning curve.
@Y
Yes.
"...and is sorting through the flood of information that pours out from the world on a daily basis -- at a rate far greater than can possibly be absorbed -- to determine what deserves further consideration ... it establishes that the particular item goes into the circular file instead of the in-box."


Find a way to somehow liberate the climate model builders.
Let the model that reflects reality best, prevail.
The model that reflects science and nothing else.
When reality certifies prediction we are ready...
for clinical solution trials on the real deal.

And yes, not 'just' climate, we can improve anything we chose and question.

All of you have seen the sleigh of hand, not only from among yourselves here, everywhere.
barakn
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2011
This experiment has recently been repeated and confirmed by Nasif Nahle.
Did someone really just mention Nasif Nahle? Hahahahahahahaha. Heh. Nasif is a mediocre biologist who understands virtually no physics. When I pointed a number of serious flaws (including trying to use a corrupted version of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law as a formula for convection) in a paper of his, http://www.physfo...=320720, his response was to pretend that the problems didn't exist. He also claimed his paper was peer-reviewed .... on an open internet forum. If you're trying to undermine your credibility, please - by all means - keep citing that source.
Parsec
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2011
What Spencer and Brasswell's paper amounts to is the sound observational refutation of the catastrophic AGW theory, which was based on deeply flawed, incomplete and unphysical computer models and a lot of quackery and politicking. People, of course, do affect the Earth's climate in many ways (and so do termites and plankton), primarily by deforestation, paving, cities, agriculture, but not by CO2 emissions. People will continue to mine and burn coal and oil, because there is no good reason not to. Our real goal should be to build lasting prosperity around the world and to eliminate acts of vandalism against nature. Only rich, highly developed societies can do so.

Data trumps models every time. Its getting warmer. Deal with it.
Skepticus
3.6 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2011
Republicans, great news! all our efforts for promoting and maintaining copious consumpion, control of the towel heads's oil by wars can keep going ahead full steam! God has given us the proof we have been waiting for: all our doings are God's works, and all that oil burning efects are bullshit. Get rid of the technocratic/socialist Obama for his vision of ME which wil harm our quest for cheap oil, his fuel efficiency proposal, Put gas-burning V8s, incandescent lightbulbs, minimum tax for the rich and corporations in Amerian constittution as inalienable rights. Our great country is found on subjugation of Red Indians, exploitation of African slaves, and control of the towel heads's oil, so let the greatness continue! It is our manifest destiny to screw everyone on this planet for our enjoyment, hallelujah!
bawinn
5 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2011
So all it takes is one paper in a journal that doesn't deal with climate change and we are willing to discard decades of previous science? What happens when the next paper comes out? Will you all run over to the other side of the boat? Or are you selective in which papers you choose to believe?
maxcypher
5 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2011
I remember a physorg (re-published) article in which psychologists studied the general public's reaction to scientific articles. It concluded that people discredit the scientists' competence & integrity when the research contradicts previously held beliefs and (correspondingly) lauds the "great science" of research that supports said beliefs. Vitriolic comments (about that article) ensued, i.e., readers reacted to the article in just the way the psychologists described. Priceless.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2011
People are entitled to believe whatever silly things they like and it is not my job to fix them.
There is a great deal of difference between 'silly' and 'dangerous'. You may choose not to make the distinction but you should be aware that this can be a reckless attitude indeed.
The problem is that they claim that science supports creationism, which it flatly does not. And I have never met one, not one, creationist who did not make this claim.
No, most of them claim that science supports evolution, which is not creationism, and is thus the devils work. And so it should not be taught in schools nor funded with public money whenever it disputes scripture.

This is what you are claiming is merely 'silly'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2011
It is our manifest destiny to screw everyone on this planet for our enjoyment, hallelujah!
-Only so we dont get screwed first. Please do keep that in mind.

If the west falls, the world descends into irreparable chaos. Obviously. Your mom would have to wear a burqa. Would she like that?
Y8Q412VBZP21010
5 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2011
No, most of them claim that science supports evolution, which is not creationism, and is thus the devils work.


No, it's a little bit weirder than that. While it is true that creationists lowball science at every opportunity, when asked if they are antiscience they will loudly deny it and just say: "Evolution is BAD SCIENCE!"

They create their own fake science organizations and journals and pile up degrees to sound "sciency". If they didn't, how could they press for creationism in public school science classes? It would be GAME OVER immediately in an Exclusion Clause case if they said it was just about religion.

I simply refuse to allow to argue about religion. With so much fake science there, what would the point be?

And it is silly to interpret this mindset as being soft on creationism. No creationist who has dealt with me would agree that I'm soft on them. They usually call me names.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
5 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2011
I may add, Otto1923, that if you don't believe me, try posting on PHYSORG to ask the creationists here if they agree that creationism is completely about religion and has no support in the sciences.

You may get some agreement, but I would suspect they would all be joking.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2011
I simply refuse to allow to argue about religion. With so much fake science there, what would the point be?
Because religionists want to replace real science with the fake stuff. Which must be opposed at every turn.
I may add, Otto1923, that if you don't believe me, try posting on PHYSORG
I post here a lot noob.
to ask the creationists here if they agree that creationism is completely about religion and has no support in the sciences.
Many claim that scripture is science and there is no need for any other. I object to your cavalier attitude toward this, on a website devoted to science.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2011
Because religionists want to replace real science with the fake stuff. Which must be opposed at every turn.


That's the point -- it's fake science and a worthy target. As far as their religion goes, I don't know anything about it, and have no interest in finding out.

You can complain as much as you like, but I have to keep on saying that if someone says they just don't like evolution because of their religion, other than saying it's silly I couldn't think of what else to say. I can't.

Now they start trotting out the fake science, that gives me plenty to say.

brianweymes
4 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2011
Realclimate.org has a skeptical summary of the paper. Interesting when a study is published challenging some part of the climate change paradigm, so many here reject it out of hand if it says we're underestimating global warming and the dangers thereof, but when we're overestimating it and the dangers are less than they are, people applaud it as great science. I suspect this paper is flawed in some way and will eventually be shown incorrect, but even if it's not it's still one paper challenging the thousands of others that support the current understanding.

Funny to forget there are three sides: The majority consensus that warming is anthropogenic and a serious threat to civilization, the extreme minority (less than 3%) who say warming is not anthropogenic and the dangers are overblown, and the sizable, growing minority who say that things are far worse than the IPCC predicted. The "moderate" position here is the consensus.
Gustav
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2011
To answer briefly the reader who calls him(her)self "thermodynamics": reflection and absorption properties are bound together in the theory of the refractive index. The complex part is responsible for absorption, the real part for reflection and refraction. The two are bound by the dispersion relation: the real part of the index is given in terms of the integral over the imaginary part. Regarding the composition of the atmosphere, the main absorber of infrared is water vapour, not CO2. The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere reaches 4% over the oceans. The CO2 concentration, at 390ppmv is miniscule in comparison and so is its infrared effect.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
5 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2011
Regarding the composition of the atmosphere, the main absorber of infrared is water vapour, not CO2. ... The CO2 concentration, at 390ppmv is miniscule in comparison and so is its infrared effect.


Everybody knows that water is the primary greenhouse gas. The thing is that local humidity can can change overnight, from dry to steamy; globally, water vapor concentration is a function of temperature.

CO2 concentrations do not change in this way at all.
Estimates of the effect of CO2 on global greenhouse effects range from about 10% to 25% of the total.
That means that CO2 on a mass basis is far more effective as a greenhouse gas than water vapor.

Still, by itself that wouldn't amount to much. The interesting question is how much a rise in temperature via CO2 is increased by a related rise in global humidity. That's where the controversy actually begins. Add in the effects of clouds and so on and it gets even harder to figure out.
Bog_Mire
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2011
Gustav, seriously I wish your word salad was magically the scientific reality and we could all relax. Alas it is not, and frauds such as Spencer and co are making me very worried for my kids futures. Thermodynamic's explanation is concise, sound and factual (big thanks) and politely offered you an easy to read description of your misconceived understandings. Yet you choose to ignore his great offerings.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
Looking back through the comments I'm very pleased to note that the rankings are a pretty accurate reflection of their merit. Just a year or so ago things were not nearly so clean cut.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2011
Even the humor has had the merit deserved through out all time.
jsn3604
2.1 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2011
Now hopefully our economy won't be forced on Al Gore's "carbon credit" money scamming scheme.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2011
Looking back through the comments I'm very pleased to note that the rankings are a pretty accurate reflection of their merit. Just a year or so ago things were not nearly so clean cut.


Physorg necessarily attracts people who are interested in science. It also attracts an element of antiscience trolls, but they are heavily outnumbered, forced to make loud noises to amplify their presence.

I don't regard climate skepticism as inherently irrational, and indeed some of the contrarian climate scientists have gone on record as telling the mass to stop all the ranting about "conspiracy". However, the mass includes a hefty element of obvious science-bashers: "Geez, these people sound like creationists!"

"That's because a lot of them ARE creationists!"
_nigmatic10
1 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
Maybe Climategate had an impact on the preceived trollism.
AlexJ
5 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2011
It's funny how these nonsensical reports often get quickly released into the media with nary an input from other researchers, and then when the damage is done we see that is was B.S.:
http://thinkprogr...spencer/

Apparently this isn't the first time such denial fodder has been discredited. You'd think we'd be careful of a paper released by someone accused by other scientists of "shameless cookery", and submitting a paper jointly with Christy containing "serial errors" in data analysis.
Noein
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2011
My deep religious faith in global warming denialism has been bolstered by Spencer's latest gospel. Praise be to our lord and savior, Big Oil. I hate the government and love the corporations.
ted208
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2011
My oh my the Warmest Trolls have descended like locus.
Attacking every thing but the science is fodder for the warmist!

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted.

The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
ted208
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 31, 2011
A sign of desperation!

Warmist Trolls always brings these old chestnuts and old worn out cherry picked remarks:

How that gets translated into "New Study Trashes Global Warming" is beyond me.

Simple: The author of the article is a well-funded climate denier working for the Heartland Institute.

He is a creationist.

And the same folks who tried to convince people that there was no link between second hand smoke exposure and cancer.

Get over it!

These attacks no longer strengthens you weak defense of the CAGW theory/lie you score no points by regurgitating the same old worn out crap!
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2011
Ted your two posts are so badly written I can't tell where you were going with them. BUT by looking who gave you high or low ranks for previous posts I think you intended to go an anti-science rant. Nothing else gets consistent fives from Oliver and ones from Thermodynamics.

I would be embarrassed to get fives from Oliver. Getting ones from him means I was right.

I gave you a one for the first and four for the second but I suspect that in that second post you didn't say what you intended. Can't be sure on that but the two posts are contradictory.

Ethelred
Howhot
3.8 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2011
OMG, Teddy two shoes admits defeat. The warmest trolls (like me) win. Yeah.

I didn't want to say anything, but when I read this article, I thought to myself, "Self, the scientific claims are anti-warming, I will bet this is a bogus paper, and the investigators is somehow right wing". Humm, I guess I was correct.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2011
Ted208: Thank you for the comments:
Warmist Trolls always brings these old chestnuts and old worn out cherry picked remarks:

How that gets translated into "New Study Trashes Global Warming" is beyond me.

Simple: The author of the article is a well-funded climate denier working for the Heartland Institute.

He is a creationist.

And the same folks who tried to convince people that there was no link between second hand smoke exposure and cancer.

So, you are making our argument for us. We really only have to let you make our points.

1) Yes, he is a goofy creationist.
2) Yes, he works for the Heartland Institute and they do deny the link between smoking and lung cancer.
3) His hypothesis has already been debunked.
4) His model is simplistic.

How can you recognize these points and defend this paper? Is it just that you are that gullible or are you just disingenuous? I would bet on the disingenuous.
JadedIdealist
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2011
Can I recommend anybody who hasn't watched the TV series to watch "Earth Story", in one episode they cover the geological evidence of past climate (ice ages etc), and look at what controlled it.
Geology the science that told us that the earth was very old, when lord Kelvin was insisting it wasn't.
Not models, Actual real data - just look.
3432682
1.7 / 5 (15) Aug 01, 2011
Funny how some comments attack the author, but cannot dispute the facts. Earth is not warming as much as predicted. The AGW theory predictions are not validated by reality. The theories are therefore wrong. Reality wins every time, despite politics.
dutchman
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2011
Whether you believe in climate change (the PC term for "global warming") or not, facts are facts. The fact is that the polar icecaps are melting, the weather has been getting more and more extreme - everywhere. And no amount of wishful thinking or bogus catchphrases like "Clean Coal," will change those facts.

All this while the atmospheric CO2 level has been drastically on the increase since the start of the industrial revolution. And all this while industrial attempts in the US to squelch the basic concepts as well as any discussion about the consequences of climate change are constant and pervasive.
emsquared
1 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2011
The AGW fiddle plays on and nothing gets done. We sure do feel good about ourselves though, don't we?
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (10) Aug 02, 2011
The AGW theory predictions are not validated by reality.

And your theory of why just about all 50 states have broken heat records this summer is what? Rightwing hot air? I've seen the computer models, and the are doing a very good job predicting these record breaking temps. To hell with the debt, save the planet from a Venus heat disaster.

If the rightwing has lied about AGW (man made global warming) then how man other things has the right lied to you about?
emsquared
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 02, 2011
And your theory of why just about all 50 states have broken heat records this summer is what?

Dude, as I'm sure you've said yourself when morons are like, "How do you explain skiing in July?", weather does not = climate. Also, heat islands are a bitch, huh?

Tell me, Howhot, how has your belief in AGW theory driven you to make changes in your life towards bettering that? And remember, there's nothing more pathetic then someone who lies on the internet.
Howhot
4 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2011
EM^2m: The point of that argument goes like this; So it's snowing in Chile in July; where is your global warming? It's funny how nimrods like 34xxx are of that class. So I'm just rubbing it in (turning up the heat) on ignorant, stupid anti-global warming claims. This article is just perfect bait to bring out the nut cases.

So em^2, about the heat island effect, its normal with cities to be a degree or two warmer than surrounding non-urbanized land. But KC, Kansas was 110F today. It will be the same for all of Aug too (my prediction). How do you explain such a long weather effect. It's exactly what Al Gore warned everyone about in an "Inconvenient Truth". It's an effect of global warming.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2011
EM^2m: You asked what I've done personally to combat AGW. I'm just one in 7 billion mind you, but I bought a hybrid, put solar panels on the roof (enough to run the fridge), and let a small spot of yard go to wild. That about it. All about the cost of a Home improvement loan. Fortunately government standards help force us to better (and smaller) CO2 footprints.

emsquared
1 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2011
a degree or two warmer

From EPA 1.8 - 5.4 F warmer, for a city of 1MM ( 12 at night). Smaller cities have a smaller range, but still a very significant effect.
http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/

I'm just one in 7 billion mind you, but I bought a hybrid, put solar panels on the roof (enough to run the fridge), and let a small spot of yard go to wild.

Good on you for doing something, howhot. I say that with all seriousness, I hope it's true.

However, "just 1 in 7 billion" is a very AGW-theory stance. It's industry that has to change right? They're the big sources? They're the ones that are evil, not caring about resource consumption, right? Nevermind that they're just responding to society's desire for things, nevermind they're the symptom.

Nevermind the, usually, functional vehicles that at worst become waste, land-fill, after a hybrid's bought, or that those solar panels don't actually power anything in your house, and demonstrably do not result in less coal burnt.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2011
em^2; Well if your suggesting we need radical change to energy production; and I mean really industrial scale clean and green energy; I'm all for it. I also am a big proponent of recycling. We practice it religiously.

The heat island effect of urban development has been know for a while, and is dealt with in the global warmring models. It is the 2011 don't you think. Urbanization and industrialization are the main users of carbon high energy so, if 10 to 20% reductions are made in there, it can be global. My solar panels will last me 30 years (barring some freak weather event) and provide me with 600W usable. That is HUGE! There is not a bad place for solar in the lower 50 states; there are only better places. The costs, efficiencies, and technologies are all pretty decent now that it's do-able for many people.

Crunch through all of the numbers and the less fossil fuels we use; the better mankind (and the ecosystem) will be.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (11) Aug 04, 2011
. I also am a big proponent of recycling. We practice it religiously.

How rational!

"But if recycling household trash makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy, why does it have to be compulsory? Mandatory recycling programs force people to squander valuable resources in a quixotic quest to save what they would sensibly discard, writes Clemson University economist Daniel K. Benjamin. On balance, recycling programs lower our wealth. Now whose idea of exciting is that?"
http://danieljmit...ng-scam/
SteveL
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2011
I recycle approx 90% of my household waste and have been for nearly 20 years. For me it only takes a slight side trip on my way home from work of about 1 mile once every month or so to take in my recycling. Of course many are not so fortunate to be as close as I am, then again some communties do collections so it can be just as far as your curb.

Another important option is reducing your incoming waste. I've been getting my news online for many years now - so I don't get a newspaper or any magazines delivered. I rarely make seperate trips into town. If I need something I usually get it on my way home from work - reducing fuel consumption.

With a bit of planning and slight changes in the way we do things we can all help a little.
Sin_Amos
5 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2011
Yeah, how many extinctions has man been responsible for? Start there, then work backwards. Causal realities are easy to deny when those that do the work have pie in their eye. WE, repeat with me, WE HUMANS impact all ENVIRONMENTS ON THE GLOBAL SCALE. WE are a VIRUS to the SYSTEM, which is fine, up until you crash the system, which is when we go extinct and other lifeforms take over. The earth will go on without us, but if we want to be here, I suggest we be as harmonious as we can be.
badger1966
5 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2011
Apparently this gutter Spenser is a whack job, paid for by Exxon (surprise) and a creationist, therefore a non-scientist also. Facts here: mblogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/
Cave_Man
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2011
And it is proven that this pollution has adverse effects to climate because it promotes more heat trapment. It also is acidifying the oceans, which by itself should prompt stopping this trend. Biggest problem seems to be that fossil energy is still too cheap to be replaced by more sustainable alternatives. That is partly because humans have not assigned price to pollution caused diseases and environmental degradation. I hope that new technology like Rossi E-Cat will provide a way to stop this fossil fuel madness.


Despite the poor english skills this is the smartest guy here, if we assigned cost to all the factors like how much we spend on transporting oil, and all the loss in dealing with the oil to make it a useable commodity I think we would find we are in the hole so to speak. Especially in terms of disease and human health. See how toxic acetaldehyde is and look up what burning ethanol makes...........HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2011
"Daniel K. Benjamin" - RyggTard

Daniel K. Benjamin is a Libertarian Whack Tard.. Just like you Jungle boy.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2011
"Earth is not warming as much as predicted." - 3432682

Actually the global climate has been warming faster than predicted.

Can't you even get the basic facts right? Tard boy.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2011
"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted." - Ted

Sorry Ted. Nothing like that has been observed. The total energy flux of the earth is so close to zero that the difference can not be directly observed.

What is observed is a difference between what should be observed based on the results of an average set of Global climate models and one unrealistic toy model of the atmosphere that was produced by a Denialist crank who works for the Conservative Heartland Propaganda group.

Reality certainly is different than the denialist view of the world isn't it?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2011
"It's funny how these nonsensical reports often get quickly released into the media with nary an input from other researchers.." - Alex

It is called the Republican Echo Chamber. One Republican Liar tells a whopper and it is reported as gospel by one after another Conservative Propaganda group, in the hope that the lie will become accepted truth.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Bob666
5 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2011
A model is a model, a simple construct to represent something with varying levels of fidelity. Ohms Law is a model. It falls apart at extremely high and low temperatures. It works at normal working temperature. All model are wrong. Some models are useful. One has to know when and the results are useful, and when they are not. The current set of models include more effects than the older models. How many remember the Nuclear Winter Model. You know the one that assumed a single layer atmosphere, no winds, and no rotation.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2011
Actually the global climate has been warming faster than predicted.


TRUTH. Deniers just put your hands of your eyes and sing "LA-LA-LA-LA!!! I Did not read that.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2011
Vendi is right. What should be happening is the conservatives agree there is a massive global warming problem to solve, and using "CAP-N-TRADE" and other conservative ideas to force reductions of CO2 emissions. But NOOOOO. Instead we have idiots.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 07, 2011
The 'progressives' are implementing their solution, destroy the economy.
Less coal needs to be burned, fewer cars on the road....
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2011
Progressives did not destroy the worlds economy. Robber financiars did that. No matter how many times you lie about it Oh Lord High Captain of the SPS Atlas Jerked.

Ethelred
SteveL
3.6 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2011
@Vendicar - Although not a Republican, I am basically a conservative. As a conservative I find it disingenuous to label all members of any political group of my fellow citizens who may or may not agree with my political philosophy as bad or as liars. In my experience I have found that every political party has its own minority of nut jobs that need to be watched closely, but this in no means includes all members of any group. I don't align myself with any political party. In my studies of human history I have found that a society that is too liberal can be just as self-destructive as one that is too conservative. Both need to be watched. When it comes to voting this puts the burden of research on me as I never plan to vote a party line.

A leading Democrat once suggested that we "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." I think that philosphy is as an important an idea as has come from the mind of man in the last 50 years.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2011
Unfortunately SteveL I think conservatism has died on the vine. Extremism by the right is the new norm.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2011
Followup; and the worst part is, economic conservatism is lunacy. Look at where it has gotten us.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2011
Followup; and the worst part is, economic conservatism is lunacy. Look at where it has gotten us.

What economic conservatism? How is TRILLIONS in govt spending on bailing out banks, car companies and unions conservative?
Sounds more like the 'progressive' prescription for a socialist coup.

Here is an example of some conservative economic policies and their results:
http://dailycalle...rowth/2/

Of course these policies have been advocated by Austrian economists for decades.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2011
Progressives did not destroy the worlds economy.

'Progressives' created the Federal Reserve at the request of banks.
"The financial elites of this country, notably the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb interests, were responsible for putting through the Federal Reserve System as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation's banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion, without suffering quick retribution from depositors or noteholders demanding cash.

Recent researchers, however, have also highlighted the vital supporting role of the growing number of technocratic experts and academics, who were happy to lend the patina of their allegedly scientific expertise to the elite's drive for a central bank."
http://mises.org/daily/3823
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2011
'Progressives' created the Federal Reserve at the request of banks.
And Right Wing Radicals sabotaged it by refusing to do the regulation that was required of them.

Of course you know all about shirking duty while in office. You admited you post while at work. Of course you don't admit that work is an elected office and the people that elected you don't know you are here sneering at them for by telling lies about progressives.

Ethelred
SteveL
not rated yet Aug 09, 2011
Followup; and the worst part is, economic conservatism is lunacy. Look at where it has gotten us.
Economic conservatism (in the USA) went away when the financial industry was deregulated by a Republican bill that passed overwhelmingly by both parties and was signed into law by Mr. Clinton. The lack of "appropriate" regulation is what got us into this mess. Opening up the local banks to interstate commerce I agreed with, reducing the standards concerning the ability to pay back loans I did not. I also don't agree with the present 7-day waiting period on mortgage loans. Regulation has to be smart, and regulators (politicians) need to be smarter. Certain regulation is needed to prevent abuse and wholesale loss of control of the industry (FY 2004 - 2006), but we don't need excessive regulation that puts too much of a burden on families, and stifles business.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2011
"The lack of "appropriate" regulation is what got us into this mess". Actually it was the "repeal" of good regulation that caused the mess (ie. the Glass-Steagall act). Thank the raging Newt "impeach Clinton" congress for that one. All Clinton was trying to do was open up the housing ownership. It was the merger of Investment companies with banks that created the investment banks and the super massive potential to fail; which they did in 2008. All of the bail-out banks leveraged all of the mortgages 20 to 30 times.

The best tutorial I've seen on how the big crash came is on the "Kahn Academy" in the economics section. If you've never seen the Kahn Academy, its worth a visit.

http://www.khanacademy.org/



Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2011
Well back to the subject. The author of this anti-global-warming story has been shown to be a rightwing crank trying to do his best at Social Engineering climate change to fit the "nothing is happening" model.

SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2011
Well back to the subject. The author of this anti-global-warming story has been shown to be a rightwing crank trying to do his best at Social Engineering climate change to fit the "nothing is happening" model.
Some other research group needs to look at this same data. Until it's been verified and the net effect is determined, this is just one study and obviously of little worth. I don't care about his background. Everyone has their causes and people tend to be a bit myopic when they don't like the source. I just want to know if the data and the conclusions are valid.
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2011
I would agree with you SteveL except the observed facts just don't jive with everything the guy says. If you start looking closely at all of the environmental changes that are happening, the only conclusion is; we are heading towards another great mass extinction in 100-500 year time frame. IT IS THAT SERIOUS.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2011
we are heading towards another great mass extinction in 100-500 year time frame. IT IS THAT SERIOUS.

And someone asked me to justify why AGW is a religion.
Thanks hottie.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2011
R2, your a nut case anyway. See you don't have science backing what you say.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2011
How does your 'science' predict mass extinctions in 100 years?
Your 'science' is no different than the 'science' used by those who calculated the end of the earth based upon their interpretation of the Bible.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2011
R2; I'm going to follow up just so you understand why this is important. First; there is not debate about Global Warming. The Earths global average temperature is rising and rising exponentially. It is a subtle rise now (even with all of the extreme temps), only it gets far worst in the future.

That is not religion, those are prediction by computers. Many different computers all saying the same thing. This article we are debating is just arguing that one of the parameters that would flatten out the "hockey stick" (the Radiative forcing parameter) allows more trapped heat to escape Earth than what models are using.

The author is just wrong as I suspected when I first read the title of his paper. He is just a failed science minor, with a major in religion.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2011
That is not religion, those are prediction by computers.

Ever hear of garbage in, garbage out?
A computer is only is good as the model and data HUMANS feed it.
So hottie's god is a computer.
Maybe you should read a book entitled Models of Doom.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2011
R2. I know what I'm saying probably has you mad as hornets, but chill. The only thing I'm trying to say is this message "The global warming issue is much worst than you imagine". IT'S A FACT JACK.

The 100 year estimate is based on everything that I've see and read. Look for the Cutthroat trout article and read it. The are pretty much predicting the extinction of the CT trout in 70 years. Tuna and Bullfish populations are way down, and a never ending drought just hammers Texas.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2011
R2, "So hottie's god is a computer.", that really is deep.

Regardless, the 100 year estimate is when things start getting really nasty with the human population vs food production vs energy production. If things don't change now, they all collide like a three-way freight train.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2011
RyggTard... I asked two questions (among many) and you have continued to refuse to answer them.

Here they are again...

---
So you would agree then that children have the same rights as adults. They are part of your "all" category aren't they? Or are rights not universal for all people in contradiction of your Randite ideology?

I take it that you believe - as do all other Libertarian/Randites that laws against drug use, prostitution and so called "victim-less" crimes are also illegitimate and should be abolished?
---

I continue to await your answer.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2011
"Ever hear of garbage in, garbage out?" - RyggTard

Yup. It nicely sums up Ayn Rand's psychopath political ideology.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2011
Regardless, the 100 year estimate is when things start getting really nasty with the human population vs food production vs energy production. If things don't change now, they all collide like a three-way freight train.

That's what Ehrlich and the Club of Rome said 40 years ago.
Of course the 'change' that has been demonstrated to really work is LESS govt control of economies. But that doesn't fit into the socialist planner's handbook so people like hottie and VD demand MORE govt restrictions.
Socialism is causing starvation in DPRK, Zimbabwe and Cuba. At least Cuba understands that market forces can help. They have allowed locals to raise and sell their food, just as the USSR had to do in its final days.
As for fish, I don't eat much fish, but I see all kinds of farm raised fish in the markets.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2011
"What economic conservatism? How is TRILLIONS in govt spending on bailing out banks, car companies and unions conservative?" - RyggTard.

Conservatives are what Conservatives do.

"Borrowing a trillion dollars plus was the greatest thing we ever did." - Reagan Budget Advisor.

Was Reagan not a Conservative Tard Boy?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2011
"That's what Ehrlich and the Club of Rome said 40 years ago." - RyggTard

And he was right on the money.

"Of course the 'change' that has been demonstrated to really work is LESS govt control of economies." - RyggTard

Less Government control in the U.S. economy has produced among other disasters, the greatest Recession since the last depression. Has cost the American people Trillions of Dollars, and after 3 years, the U.S. economy still hasn't recovered.

That is what you get from the Libertarian/Randite economics of Alan Greenspan - chief disciple and close confidant to Ayn Rand - well, before she became a welfare queen.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2011
"Ever hear of garbage in, garbage out?" - RyggTard

Yup, that phrase pretty much encapsulates you and your Randite Political Liedeology.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2011
RyggTard... I asked two questions (among many) and you have continued to refuse to answer them.

Here they are again...

---
So you would agree then that children have the same rights as adults. They are part of your "all" category aren't they? Or are rights not universal for all people in contradiction of your Randite ideology?

I take it that you believe - as do all other Libertarian/Randites that laws against drug use, prostitution and so called "victim-less" crimes are also illegitimate and should be abolished?
---

I continue to await your answer.
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2011
Socialism is causing starvation in DPRK, Zimbabwe and Cuba. At least Cuba understands that market forces can help. They have allowed locals to raise and sell their food, just as the USSR had to do in its final days.
I'm no fan of socialism, but I've got to point out here that the stupid trade embargo by the US and its allies just may have something to do with the economic situation in Cuba.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2011
trade embargo by the US and its allies just may have something to do with the economic situation in Cuba.

The communist dictator that confiscated private property had nothing to do with it?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2011
"The communist dictator that confiscated private property had nothing to do with it?" - RyggTard

A little, but nothing compared to the U.S. Embargo against Cuba that it partly succeeded in forcing the rest of the world to establish as well.

Fortunately, that Embargo was enough of a failure.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2011
RyggTard... I asked two questions (among many) and you have continued to refuse to answer them.

Here they are again...

---
So you would agree then that children have the same rights as adults. They are part of your "all" category aren't they? Or are rights not universal for all people in contradiction of your Randite ideology?

I take it that you believe - as do all other Libertarian/Randites that laws against drug use, prostitution and so called "victim-less" crimes are also illegitimate and should be abolished?
---

I continue to await your answer.
SteveL
not rated yet Aug 19, 2011
Vendicar - Perhaps if you didn't insult him "RyggTard" with every post he may be a bit more responsive?

Just because someone walks and lives to the beat of a different drummer (Thank you Mr. Thoreau) doesn't mean they aren't without human value and deserving of a bit of respect. Or is respect for others simply out of fashion when no one can pop you in the nose for being rude via the internet?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2011
"A man herding reindeer in Russia's Arctic found the perfectly-preserved, 40,000-year-old body of a baby woolly mammoth."
http://www.nbcnew...788.html
40,000 years ago was warmer than it is today.
Why?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2011
Economic embargo are effective with countries that have some level of respect for private property and are not being subsidized by a socialist state. It worked in RSA.
Cuba was subsidized by the USSR for decades, DPRK is subsidized by PRC in efforts to oppose the USA, liberty and prosperity.
After the USSR collapse, Cuba has had to 'resort' free market acts to survive. How horrible. They have had fire many govt workers and have allowed their serfs to buy property for the first time.
Seems like the embargo is helping Cuba return to the world economy and end communism. That is a bad thing to some here and in US like Sean Penn....
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2011
40,000 years ago was warmer than it is today.
Why?
Wherever did you get that idea?

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2011
Vendicar - Perhaps if you didn't insult him "RyggTard" with every post he may be a bit more responsive?
No. He responds to most of VD's posts. He has a history of ignoring posts he can't answer and still maintain his RightWingNutRetainerClipTM stance. If he answers VD's question he will either have to show that some government is needed or he will have to support the stupid idea that children should be treated as adults in all ways. So he ignores it. He ignores a lot of hard questions.

deserving of a bit of respect.
How does constant lies and evasions deserve respect? IF Marjon actually was only living a different and honest life you would have a point. This is not the case.

Do you respect trolls? For that matter do you respect Vendicar? Just because VD makes many rational posts that does not excuse his advocacy of killing all conservatives. Neither of them deserve respect.

Ethelred
Skepticus_Rex
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2011
Wherever did you get that idea?

I think he might have gotten the idea from this portion of the article to which he linked:
The creature's carcass was sticking up out of the permafrost, local officials said.

Now, we know what permafrost is. If the mammoth was sticking out of it, it means that part of the carcase is submerged in it. Therefore, it was not permafrost when the carcase ended up stuck in it. Since it is permafrost now, it must have been warmer when the mammoth got stuck in it, before it became permafrost.

I don't know for sure. Just a guess. Sounds logical, though. Capice? :)
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2011
A seal digs a hole in the ice, and dives into the water below; or, a lake fisherman does likewise, and drops in his line, hook and bait.

Later both find that the hole is no more, that it's been replaced by ice.

Did it necessarily get colder?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2011
Ice is not exactly the same as permafrost, even though it is ice that makes the permafrost as hards as it is. It is called "permafrost" for a reason.

In the case of permafost, the stuff softens when it is warmer. That is what is causing problems with infrastructure. It has warmed and some of the permafrost is melting and softening. Given that permafrost is filled with stuff that only would have gotten inside of it when it was warmer, it was warmer when the stuff got in there in the first place.

I'd also suggest taking a look at the GISP 2 data and running it through a spreadsheet or your favorite modeling program. According to that data, it actually *was* warmer in the Arctic 40,000 years ago than it is today.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2011
And, I mean all of the data (and the raw data, not the munged and averaged data), not just that which is limited to the last 20,000 years. But, even if you did take the limited dataset, it still will show that much of that period was warmer than today, with a few exceptions. Even with all our rises in temperature the Arctic still was warmer than it now is today. That could change but only time will tell.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2011
Did you miss the implied reference to the phase change of the encapsulating material, as distinctly difference from the temperature change of the surrounds; or, did you just ignore that?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2011
There is nothing about that in the article. What, exactly, are you implying? Mind rephrasing? No offense intended but the way you have written your above comment is in the manner of a person who uses English as a second language.

As to the body of the mammoth itself, also information not given in detail in the article, I read something that stated that the stomach of the mammoth contained flowering plants. Of what type I do not know. However, I intend to find out. What significance the fact regarding flowering plants in its gut portends, I also do not know at present. I intend to find out more.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2011
Concerning Lubya, I found a report in National Geographic Magazine that gives details regarding the death of the mammoth. The scientists studying the remains are not yet agreed as to whether the mammoth died from drowning or from asphyxiation from mud and silt. In any case, there was a thick plug of sand and silt in her trunk. She either drowned in very muddy water or in soft mud in an area that would later become permafrost.

Given that the area was thawed and muddy indicates that at the time of the mammoth's death conditions were warmer there than today. Only recently has it warmed enough to have the carcase exposed in surrounding permafrost to be seen again after 40,000 years.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2011
If mammoths were much like Elephants are today they could easily have created wallows by marching and digging around. Just as happened to troops in all ages when attempting to wage war on Russian roads in the winter. Move enough troops or mammoths over permafrost an the mechanical action will thaw out the land.

Ethelred
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2011
According to the article, the place where the mammoth died may have been a river. The remains were said by another article to have been found "on a sandbar beside the Yuribey River." Another article claims "on a sandbar in the Yuribey River."

But, who really knows??? But, it must be anything other than 'warmer-than-today,' though, eh? Feel free to one-rank accordingly. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2011
Elephant wallow in mud to cool themselves, and the mud provides some relief from insects.
Why would a hairy elephant in a cool climate need to wallow in cold, wet mud?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2011
That is true. Elephants do create wallows to help themselves cool down. So, either way we look at it, the climate had to have been warmer than the present. No wonder AGW/AGCC adherents want this information to go away or to receive less attention to this aspect of the find... :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2011
A little, but nothing compared to the U.S. Embargo against Cuba that it partly succeeded in forcing the rest of the world to establish as well.
Economic embargos are another tool used to stress populations and reduce the birth rate. This is why communism was established on this catholic island to begin with.

Because of communist martial law, the destruction of the religionist culture, and continued shortages, the island has remained stable for generations. Whereas instability there would have endangered the whole region as well as oil production in the gulf.

The kennedys wanted to end communism in cuba, which is probably what got them killed.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2011
But, who really knows??? But, it must be anything other than 'warmer-than-today,' though, eh? Feel free to one-rank accordingly. :)
40,000 years ago was pretty solidly during most recent Ice Age. So yes it had to be colder on average in the north. Hard to have vast continental glaciers otherwise. For some reason parts of Siberia were not covered in glaciers. And yes I checked up this before the previous post. No ones memory is perfect.

There might have been a few years now and then that were fairly warm but considering just how bloody many frozen mammoths, in former ponds/mud holes, have been found I suspect my idea may explain it. Never seen it before and I came up with it pretty much as I was writing. Could be crap but it does fit.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2011
and the mud provides some relief from insects.
I take you are unaware of the monster mosquitoes that infest permafrost, such as in Alaska. They drive a lot of the northern wildlife nuts in the summer. The ones in the Sierra Nevadas drove me nuts one early July. NEVER going backpacking in the Sierras in July again.

Why would a hairy elephant in a cool climate need to wallow in cold, wet mud?
Water as well as the mosquitoes, black flies, salmon flies and whatever flying insectile horrors infested the permafrost 40KY ago. And on a warm mid summer day Mammoths could easily had a heat problem.

Plus there is that matter of good preservation. They got cold fast after dying.

Skepticus_Rex
So, either way we look at it, the climate had to have been warmer than the present.
Elephantshit. Mammoths were huge and hairy. It didn't have to be very warm for them to get hot. Or bugged or in need of drinking water.

It was a bloody ice age and nearly 30KY before the thaw.

Ethelred
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2011
Yes, Ethelred, your idea is crap. None of these baby mammoths died in wallows. They either were drowned and/or asphixiated in deep mud and/or heavily muddy water, deep enough to cover them.

And, then, there is the matter of Dima, the baby, male mammoth. Samples were taken of the contents of the gut and the immediately surrounding silt around the carcass. Flora and remains of some insectal fauna were found in the colon. Want to know what they found? The region where Dima died was originally "forest steppe." The land now is tundra. Dima died by mud asphixiation in deep mud where it now is permafrost. Temperatures in the area as of right now, around the same time of year and season when Dima died (late summer/early autumn)? 0 degrees celsius. (There happens to be a temperature station nearby).

It is kind of hard to have deep, muddy, acidic soils when temps are around that low. So, yes, around this time of year, 40000 years ago, it was warmer in spite of the glaciation of N. America.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2011
By the way, as I typed the above I heard and went out to watch a relatively large flock of migratory geese flying south for the winter. A careful look revealed a species that normally flies south through these parts in early October. They're earlier than usual.

This typically means that we could be in for a colder winter than usual. Just thought I would bring that up for the hell of it, while on the subject of cooler weather at the present. :)
Bog_Mire
1 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2011
1 goose in August . . .
. . .
Howhot
not rated yet Aug 30, 2011
SkepR, You must be seeing things, like what a normal flock of geese does; puddle hop. I haven't seen the big migration here yet.

So why would you lie and claim "we could be in for a colder winter than usual." when you know that is a BS claim. Does it support your anti-global warming position? No what it does is expose your FU anti-enviromental agenda to everyone that reads your junk.

You sir are one of world's POS. AH.

Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2011
None of these baby mammoths died in wallows. They either were drowned and/or asphixiated in deep mud and/or heavily muddy water, deep enough to cover them.
That IS a wallow. So it isn't crap.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2011
http://www.bbc.co...14768574

Why does would an unbiased environmental journalist need to comment about Roy Spencer's religion or political affiliation?

Does he mean to imply that AGWism is the only true religion? Or, as Lenin stated, communist party members must be atheist. To believe AGW then one must be a socialist and atheist?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 02, 2011
What a surprise, Michael Mann supports Obama:
"MANN, MICHAEL
BOALSBURG, PA 16827
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY/PROFESSOR

COAKLEY, MARTHA
VIA MARTHA COAKLEY FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
01/16/2010 200.00 10020152191

DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
10/08/2010 225.00 10931723833

OBAMA, BARACK
VIA OBAMA FOR AMERICA
08/14/2008 250.00 28933220326
09/27/2008 250.00 28933838902
10/05/2008 350.00 28992996796
"
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2011
That IS a wallow. So it isn't crap.

Ethelred


Well, then, you are full of crap. I looked at data from the location. No wallow is that deep. I suggest that you get your hands on some more information. Fact is, the mothers could not rescue their young from these where these mammoth young died. That is not the case with actual wallows.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2011
Howhot,

I was going to respond to you but realized that your comments just aren't worth the effort of a fuller response. Still thinking this earth will be another Venus? :)
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2011
Climate models make too hot forecasts of global warming
Hotter than in Texas?

the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.
I'm somehow not convinced...

http://gnosis9.ne...hled.png
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2011
Well, then, you are full of crap.
Nonsense.

I looked at data from the location. No wallow is that deep.
Really and how deep was it and do you have a link?

I suggest that you get your hands on some more information.
You claim to have found it. Perhaps you should have linked to it.

Fact is, the mothers could not rescue their young from these where these mammoth young died.
And you personally interviewed the mothers or at least checked their footprints?

How about that link?

That is not the case with actual wallows.
Which wallows are you comparing with? Was all that information from African Wallows or was it European wallows? In particular was any of that from tundra which is considerably different from the African Savanah.

How about that link?

Ethelred
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2011
Your mind is made up. I'm not going to bother. Go get your own data and do your own homework. Do take a picture of your face and post it somewhere when you do, however. :)
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2011
So then you just made it. That is the most frequent reason that people don't support themselves. I said I was speculating. You claimed you

I looked at data from the location
thus you should be able to give a link to that data.

If you refuse to do so it is unreasonable to assume that there is anything available to have 'looked at'.

I thank you for your troll like resignation from this discussion.

Ethelred
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2011
I'm too busy to do your home work for you. I am lucky I even had time to post at all. I am in the process of reinstalling Scientific Linux machines, along with trying to sort out a number of dependency issues with several of the programs that are to be used. I have neither the time nor inclination nor patience to lend an assist to a retail worker.

Go do your own homework. And, by the way, not everything I looked at is on the internet. Sucks to be you, eh? :)
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2011
You claim you found it. Funny how you can't produce it.

I am lucky I even had time to post at all.
You had time to make six posts AND 'looked at data'.

I am lucky I even had time to post at all.
But you have the time to be a troll. Funny about that.

Go do your own homework.
Post something that supports your claim. You claimed it, support it.

And, by the way, not everything I looked at is on the internet.
Gosh and I thought everything that exists is on the NET. So what is stopping you from even mentioning the source? The lack of one?

Sucks to be you, eh? :)
No. It sucks to be a troll. All green and scaly and unable to find anything to support itself.

Sure must be annoying to find out that your bluff got called.

Ethelred
SteveL
not rated yet Sep 12, 2011
"Ethelred the Troll Hunter" - coming to a web site near you. Someone check World of Warcraft and see if the name is taken...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2011
You had time to make six posts AND 'looked at data'.
But ethelred the man is a crack Scientific Linux machine reinstaller AND a program dependency issue resolution multitasker specialist.

Please show some little respect won't you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 12, 2011
-Dude must make a FORTUNE. Im sure hes worth it.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2011
Someone check World of Warcraft and see if the name is taken...
It is too late for that.

Ah ben hunt'n n killun them thar Trolls fur ten yars. Ah killed lots a them on the old Maximum PC Commport. Coarse sum a them tended tuh get reincarnated a lot. Kinda lak zefyr duz heauh.

But ethelred the man is a crack Scientific Linux machine reinstaller AND a program dependency issue resolution multitasker specialist.
Well maybe he is BUT we have no reason to believe it. Very few people are using their real name here. And most of those that do are either clueless newbies that don't understand it's a bad idea or they are Cranks pushing nonsense.

Ethelred Hardrede

And even when I add the Hardrede some Trolls still think its based on ETHEL and I am some timmering girl to be shocked with naughty language.

Those uns r specially fun ta slay. I wants mur a thum. Why aint they on this sait.

Ethelred
Howhot
5 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2011
Well, guys don't put down Linux just because the driver is off his marbles. Linux user here!

Your bird observation is just that, and observation of bird behavior. Nothing more. I've seen just the opposite, with later and later arrivals. It's dependent on water being available. Geese after all are WATER FOUL. So are my observations of their late arrival caused by AGW, or are your observations of early arrival anti-AGW.

Well, bottom line is that the proof of AGW happening is far more robust (like almost a certainty) than your anti-AGW nonsense.

You need a major rethink in your science views my friend.