World temps maintain the heat of global warming

Climategate v2. CAGW is a fraud.

Climategate v2. CAGW is a fraud.

They have numbers, statistics, measurements, simulations and expertise.

You have a gut feeling.

They win. You lose.

and faith! You forgot about faith, AP.

"Climate change is real"
Of course it is. It has been happening for millions of years.

The science is solid and proves unequivocally that the world is warming...

Oh yeah? Prove it. Oh wait... They can't. They "lost" the station data, and can't back up any of their assertions.

@antialias_physorg said:

They have numbers, statistics, measurements, simulations and expertise.

Actually, they don't have the numbers, the statistics are meaningless without them, ditto the "measurements", their simulations are worthless (but hey - don't take my word for that - how about their own internal disputes?) and at this point their "expertise" should be considered laughable and/or criminal fraud.

However, in the end you are probably right about one thing... "They win. You lose." But not because they deserve to win, oh no, but because their fraud reaches the highest levels of government so they'll probably never have justice done to them.

Sad, really.

This was written nearly three years ago, and is sadly still very true: http://www.number...ying.htm

Shelley...The US has 300,000,000 people. In 2008 they had 256,000,000 passenger vehicles on the road. 80% of the population is able to enjoy a hot shower at the end of the day....everyday. Do you think the earth can handle China, India and Africa having the same per capita numbers? Not just with CO2, but particulate pollution, the food and water demands, raw material requirments...finding ways to reduce each persons carbon foot print translates into better overall management of resources both renewable and non....

"Warmest on record"? What record? Does it go back to the Medieval Warming Period? The Roman warming? The Minoan? Does it look at the last 10,000 years, to see that we are cooler now than 80-90% of the time since the last ice age? I call BS. This is pure deceptive politics, not science.

@rubberman asked:

Do you think the earth can handle China, India and Africa having the same per capita numbers?

Yes. But only under certain circumstances which are not "earth" determined, per se. The Earth, believe it or not, and I suspect you probably won't, isn't the inate limiter we've all been lead to believe. It is finite, yes, but FAR more bountiful than we're currently exploiting (and I'm using "exploiting" in a good way here).

Sadly, the reasons for this are political, and if you had asked the same question with this phrase appended: "... and with our current political climate?" then my answer would be "No, probably not, but that's not the Earth's fault, nor a manifestation of its finiteness."

@rubberman also said:

finding ways to reduce each persons carbon foot print translates into better overall management of resources both renewable and non.

I disagree. And I'm not saying you're lying, I'm saying you're incorrect. And please understand that I'm not advocating the opposite either. I don't think we should go around polluting as much as we can, or burning down the forests just to watch the pretty sparks.

But "reducing your carbon footprint" shouldn't even be on the radar. It is pointless. It is smoke and mirrors covering a hideous agenda. MUCH better that we not waste resources for the simple reason that doing so is WASTEFUL.

We will naturally have arguments over what is wasteful behavior and what isn't, as well as whether or not it is anybody's business if someone else is wasteful with THEIR OWN resources, but we don't need the fantasy fear of Global Warming, promoted by frauds, to remind sound minds that not being a wastrel is a good thing.

We will naturally have arguments over what is wasteful behavior and what isn't, as well as whether or not it is anybody's business if someone else is wasteful with THEIR OWN resources,

Precisely, THEIR OWN resources whose value is determined by free market forces.

Again, referencing when @rubberman asked:

Do you think the earth can handle China, India and Africa having the same per capita numbers?

Are you suggesting that in regards to China, India and Africa we should put our efforts towards denying them the benefits of modern civilization - to "keep them down" in other words - just to maybe, possibly, if some of our models are correct, spare ourselves a couple of degrees change over the next century? That would be pretty low of you.

However, I doubt that's actually your position.

If I'm right and it isn't, and since a chain of reasoning can take you to that destination, I'd politely suggest you rethink your position all the way through to its logical end.

Otherwise it sounds pretty tribal, in an "us vs. those jerks on the other side of the river" kind of way.

But "reducing your carbon footprint" shouldn't even be on the radar. It is pointless. It is smoke and mirrors covering a hideous agenda. MUCH better that we not waste resources for the simple reason that doing so is WASTEFUL.

What exactly is the difference between 'not being wasteful' and 'reducing your carbon footprint'? Not being wasteful IS a method of reducing your carbon footprint.

The point here is that the buffer systems on Earth (atmosphere, oceans, biomass) aren't limitless. Once they are full then any additional input will have immediate and much more drastic results.

Put start filling reservoir with a pipe that comes out the top. As long as the reservoir keeps filling up you don't notice much except air escaping the output hose. But once it's full you get sprayed. Massively.

All data indicates that the Earth's buffer systems are nearing overflow capacity.

Otherwise it sounds pretty tribal, in an "us vs. those jerks on the other side of the river" kind of way.

That is the socialist mentality. The size of the 'pie' is fixed and cannot grow.

@antialias_physorg asked:

What exactly is the difference between 'not being wasteful' and 'reducing your carbon footprint'? Not being wasteful IS a method of reducing your carbon footprint.

They're not the same thing at all, although of course they can overlap, especially in a limited view. However, circumstances exist where "not being wasteful" would equate with having a larger carbon footprint - like where the savings from not being wasteful with energy (let's say you updated your old factory furnaces for example) let you afford to expand your production line and produce more goods, resulting in increased profits, some of which are plowed back into further facility upgrades, ultimately resulting in a vastly increased footprint from a larger and growing company who is more efficient with the energy they use than they had previously been. Oh, and they produce more jobs and taxes too. So "footprint", if on the priority list at all, should be pretty low on the list.

@antialias_physorg stated:

All data indicates that the Earth's buffer systems are nearing overflow capacity.

Careful with that "all" there... because that just isn't true. Some data indicate that, yes. Other data counter that argument.

Just one example out of I have no idea how many: We still have rocky "young" mountain ranges all over the planet, and "chemical weathering" apparently sinks an awful lot of carbon. As far as I can tell, the quantity is very much in dispute, and is hard to gauge, but it isn't incidental.

Your reservoir metaphor isn't relevant because you have no idea what the degree of basement fracturing there is, how many subterranean outlets exist, how many springs the reservoir feeds, or whether the flow from those springs will increase as the surrounding towns only ever seem to increase their draw. Nor whether the overflow result you stated (getting massively sprayed) is A) what would actually happen, or B) such a bad thing.

Just one example out of I have no idea how many: We still have rocky "young" mountain ranges all over the planet, and "chemical weathering" apparently sinks an awful lot of carbon.

You seem to be referring to carbonation. Note that this process slows down with rising temperatures - so it isn't a buffer system.
Even if it were a to matter in any significant way, then we would be seeing less action in all the other buffer systems - but we aren't.

Well Shel, I didn't mean to make it sound like an us vs them situation. It was an attempt to point out the numbers involved. The two countries and one continent I named encompass over half of the worlds population and are in the early stages of Industrial and infra-structure development (compared to North America)Granted China has come as far in the last 25 years as we did in the last 60, they still have 10 more years of catching up to, India 15-20. The earth IS finite in it's resources and it's ability to absorb the ecological blow we've been delivering as an industrialized species, now the countries with the highest populations are STARTING to attempt to live how we do. I also beleive that AGW is real but that is a circular debate on this forum so, if Physorg is still operating in 2040 and were both around, one of us will get to say I told ya so. Other environmental stresses will catch up with us as a race long before AGW does the damage it's capable of doing.

Otherwise it sounds pretty tribal, in an "us vs. those jerks on the other side of the river" kind of way.

@ryggesogn2 That is the socialist mentality. The size of the 'pie' is fixed and cannot grow.

Not socialism. Sociology.

Precisely, THEIR OWN resources whose value is determined by free market forces.

No the "free market forces" aka loansharking imperialists determine a PRICE, not a value. For example the helium in your party balloons is worth a $100 to society and science as they are irreplaceable, in a single reservoir. The trees and plants in the rainforest could cure cancer but they are burned for the PRICE of firewood or worse for rangeland. The value of people in Africa is uncountable they are PRICED out of existence.

Apparently the Deinailist Tard couldn't make it to the first sentence in the article..

"The 13 hottest years on the books all have occurred in the last 15 years"

"Climategate v2. CAGW is a fraud." - LVTardboy

I don't get it, does it matter that much either way how it happened? It is here and it effects US ALL. Like we are not going to take the needed steps to fix it and reign in ALL causes? I doubt we will stand by, this is our species we are ultimately talking about. So whether it is us or a natural cycle in the earths climate something needs to be done. If any thing i would like clean and carcinogen free air and water.

Per http://www.guardi...ice-melt August artic sea ice is down about 40% in the last 30 years.

Arctic sea ice is still 700,000 kilometers low for this time of year.

Volume is crashing.

@R2,

That is the socialist mentality. The size of the 'pie' is fixed and cannot grow.

Apparently the pie does grow if your a bank. See this: http://www.youtub...b0UFhKEc

Sorry off topic.

This discussion about politics sounds more like wishfull thinking to me.

Since the pie is the earth, and the last time I looked, the earth isn't growing, all rational, thinking people must conclude that the pie isn't growing.

How fast is the planet growing in your confused Libertarian/Randite universe?

"That is the socialist mentality. The size of the 'pie' is fixed and cannot grow." - RyggTard

"Are you suggesting that in regards to China, India and Africa we should put our efforts towards denying them the benefits of modern civilization" - Shelgeyr

Since what you deem modern civilization to be is scientifically unsustainable, the answer would have to be yes wouldn't it.

To answer no would mean mass death as the natural limits imposed by nature ensure that consumption returns to levels of sustainability.

So the choice is not between modern civilization and otherwise. The choice is between living within your means, or environmental bankruptcy.

It is no coincidence that the same conservative Political mindset that has chosen to bankrupt it's own Nation through conservative borrow and spend practices, also is selecting to environmentally bankrupt future generations through levels of consumption that are environmentally unsustainable.

"THEIR OWN resources whose value is determined by free market forces." - RyggTard

"Free market" is a code phrase for unregulated graft and corruption.

That is why fascist Libertarian/Randites spend their days promoting it.

The following graphic proves you to be a liar.

http://www.eh-res...ions.jpg

"Does it look at the last 10,000 years, to see that we are cooler now than 80-90% of the time since the last ice age?" - 3432682

Your link has absolutely zero scientific content, and absolutely any factual content.

It does nothing more than express a faith that the science is wrong that is no different than the faith of any other fact free QuackTard Denialist.

"This was written nearly three years ago, and is sadly still very true" - Shelgeyr

Your ignorance of science is quite spectacular.

Denialists demand proof ignorant of the fact that science never provides proof of anything.

Science isn't in the proof business, and never has been.

So your demand is either pure ignorance or pure deception.

Which is it?

"Oh yeah? Prove it. Oh wait... They can't." - Shelgeyr

Ya, it's all a conspiracy against you.

A conspiracy consisting of 98% of all of the worlds scientists, NASA, the NOAA, CRU, JAXA the IPCC, the Royal Society, the Chemical Society, and virtually every other science organization.

Is is only the American Republican party that is not part of the conspiracy against you.

Moron.

""They win. You lose." But not because they deserve to win, oh no, but because their fraud reaches the highest levels of government so they'll probably never have justice done to them." - Shelgeyr

http://karws.gso....yle.html

"The Paranoid Style in American Politics" by Richard Hofstadter

"Paranoid writing begins with certain broad defensible judgments. There was something to be said for the anti-Masons. After all, a secret society composed of influential men bound by special obligations could conceivable pose some kind of threat to the civil order in which they were suspended. There was also something to be said for the Protestant principles of individuality and freedom, as well as for the nativist desire to develop in North America a homogeneous civilization. Again, in our time an actual laxity in security allowed some Communists to find a place in governmental circles, and innumerable decisions of World War II and the Cold War could be faulted."

World temps maintain heat of global warming

The public is becoming increasingly aware that government science has been molded into a tool of propaganda for misuse by world leaders.

More and more scientists are speaking out, e.g., Professor David H. Douglass of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester:

www.pas.rochester...shed.pdf

www.thegwpf.org/i...orms.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

http://ngm.nation...dex.html

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

Dissent will not be squashed by passage of the National Defense Authorization Act bill that the US Senate is set to vote on today or later this week:

http://www.infowa...he-ndaa/

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09

The National Defense Authorization Act:

"requires the military to dedicate a significant number of personnel to capturing and holding terrorism suspects in some cases indefinitely even those apprehended on U.S. soil. And they authorize the military to do so regardless of an accused terrorists citizenship, even if he or she is an American captured in a U.S. city."

That may be used against scientists who criticized world leaders and leaders of the scientific community for joining forces with the climate scientists that fudged global temperature data.

See today's news in:

1. Slate:

www.slate.com/art...ns_.html

2. Canadian Free Press:

www.canadafreepre...le/42805

3. Huffington Post:

www.huffingtonpos...166.html

Earths climate changes because Earth's heat source is unstable and has always changed.

www.pas.rochester...shed.pdf

www.thegwpf.org/i...orms.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

http://ngm.nation...dex.html

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

For four decades government scientists hid or ignored experimental data and observations in order to promote the illusion that CO2 caused climate change:

Deep roots of the global climate scandal (1971-2011)

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

That propaganda was designed to unite nations against an imaginary common enemy - global climate change - and to equalize the standard of those living under a one world government.

Yeah you Omatard. However the solar activity has been decreasing while temperatures have been increasing. Explain that tard. Otherwise keep your mouth shut.

Vendicar_Decarian: ...http://www.eh-res...ions.jpg

Note the slope of the latest point on this graph is so high you can't even see it on this chart.

at this point their "expertise" should be considered laughable and/or criminal fraud

You're an idiot.

Do you know how good the NWS and our universities have become at modeling weather and climate?

Instruments are triple redundant, and we have infrared satellites to help calibrate and adjust for urban heat island effects, if anything else fails.

That propaganda was designed to unite nations against an imaginary common enemy - global climate change

I guess all the lowly farmers are in on the conspiracy, right? After all, growing seasons have changed noticeably around the world.

If there's a conspiracy, at least 10% of the world population must be in on it.

@Nanobanano said:

Do you know how good the NWS and our universities have become at modeling weather and climate?

Yes, actually. "Piss poor" comes to mind.

They're so good at it that they have to lie, cover up, threaten, and conspire in order to maintain their epic fraud.

Instruments are triple redundant, and we have infrared satellites to help calibrate and adjust for urban heat island effects, if anything else fails.

Really? What great news! Perhaps they'll release the station data then. We've been waiting a long, long time after all. In the meantime, why should anyone accept that their calibrations and adjustments are anything other than biased to support their fraud?

The lowly farmers are not part of the conspiracy - they're a victim of it. See also "Delta Smelt".

If there's a conspiracy, at least 10% of the world population must be in on it.

Really? Please show the data behind this statement.

Shelgeyr:

Farmers plant crops earlier and later in the seasons respectively than ever before, proving the climate has in fact changed.

Has anyone ever heard of "HAARP" and "weather modification"???

sincedutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/want-to-know-about-haarp-vlf-uhf-and-weather-modification-want-to-prove-it-to-a-non-believer-here-you-go/

sustainability. responsibility. and opportunity.

regardless of the true answer to whether global warming is occurring above natures normal cycling, due to human pollution, why dont you geniuses argue why we shouldnt be sensible and acting according to the worst case scenario. To make use of the opportunity of emerging green technologies, innovation and political alignment. To act responsibly, aiming for sustainability and equality for ALL living things.

Nanobanano: If you think that my position is that the climate never ever changes, and/or that it has been consistent throughout all of history, then you are mistaken and (I hope) nothing I've written would actually lead one to that conclusion.

HOWEVER, this thread is about "Global Warming", and it is safe to say they're specifically pushing AGW since up near the beginning of the article it says:

"The science is solid and proves unequivocally that the world is warming," Lengoasa said. Human activity was a significant contributor to this trend, he said."

AGW is fraud, hopefully prosecuted criminal fraud (one can dream), and much of this site is a warmist echo chamber.

As for crops, I have the totality of the USA grain data available from the USDA from the links below (and many similar crop-specific pages on these sites):

http://www.usda.g..._REPORTS

http://usda.mannl...tID=1293

Meanwhile the great lakes are drying up as temps increase. See http://www.scienc...3533.htm
So maybe ocean levels will not increase as much as people think as they dry up and saturate the atmosphere, at least after the artic ice melts.

See ya in the zoo, Mr. Polar Bear. Or maybe in the museum.

Meanwhile the great lakes are drying up as temps increase. See http://www.scienc...3533.htm
So maybe ocean levels will not increase as much as people think as they dry up and saturate the atmosphere, at least after the artic ice melts.

Only to a certain extent, as theere are negative feedbacks to the amount of moisture teh atmosphere can hold at reasonable temperatures...

That is, macroscopic life itself begins to be threatened quite a bit before it could ever get tremendously more average humidity, convection, or water vapor than they have now.

If you doubled average convection you'd increase atmospheric pressure maybe a millibar or two thanks to the extra mass of water in the atmosphere, but it takes about a 13.5f increase in SST to double the average convection on the planet.

Meanwhile, doubling the average convection would not entirely offset the change in albedo from ice melting in the poles at such temps...

For example, if greenland melts entirely, you're looking at 23ft of sea level rise.

33ft of water = 1 atmosphere, that is, at 33ft below water you experience 2 atmosphere's pressure, so every 33ft of water adds 1 atmosphere pressure.

therefore, every INCH of ocean that evaporated in such a scenario would be equivalent to about 2 millibars of pressure increase world wide.

And um, better hope evaporation don't get enough to offset sea level rise from melting, because that would nearly double atmospheric pressure, and I believe temps would be incredibly high, like as high as the water in your hot water heater. Heat of Vaporization is 7 times greater than heat of fusion of water...

Shelgeyr - you keep saying the same thing over and over "AGW is fraud" Did u read this sentence- "2011 is currently tied for the 10th hottest since records began in 1850 and Arctic sea ice has shrunk to record-low volumes this year?" Exactly what are you saying when you claim AGW is a fraud? Are the ice sheets not melting, and they are lying about the data? Are the temperatures really not rising, and they are making up the data? Would this not be very easy to disprove? Sometimes subsets of science manipulate experimental data (eg - tobacco industry experiments). The fraudsters get caught very quickly - and roasted by the process of science. Do you really live in such an upside down world - that you believe almost all of the climate science community is conducting a mass fraud - and nobody can disprove it? Please show us your data sets. Otherwise - I respectfully call you and idiot - who is acting with a blatant political agenda.

Since the pie is the earth, and the last time I looked, the earth isn't growing, all rational, thinking people must conclude that the pie isn't growing.

How fast is the planet growing in your confused Libertarian/Randite universe?

"That is the socialist mentality. The size of the 'pie' is fixed and cannot grow." - RyggTard

Actually, while I believe firmly in AGW and disagree with 95% of the denialist mentality, I do think its an over simplification to say that because the earth is essentially a closed system that this means the size of the "pie" is fixed. Most resources are essentially boundless if you don't count the energy and technology (or pollution produced) in extracting them. For example, almost all rock contains iron, but extracting it is very expensive unless the rock is iron ore with a large amount of iron. The cost simply goes up as the percentage of iron in the ore decreases, but the actual amount of lower grade ore increases by a power law.

cont.

This is true for almost all resources, including oil. In the case of oil, we have the technology to produce it, at a relative high cost, from biomass, so that resource is essentially boundless.

Parsec is incestuous child rapist omatumr.

omatumr, Member since: September 24, 2007, 11:57 am
http://www.physor...omatumr/
Parsec, Member since: September 24, 2007, 11:58 am
http://www.physor.../Parsec/

@dir said to me:

Did u read this sentence- "2011 is currently tied for the 10th hottest...

Of course. But pro-AGW climatologists have provided us with too many reasons to list here to NOT take what they say at face value. Just because they said it doesn't make it true. That's part-'n-parcel with the wholesale "fraud" thing. It strikes me as odd when I say their AGW claims are fraudulent, your response is "but they SAID it was the 10th hottest...etc." That's not a rebuttal. Their data sucketh mightily, and they've admitted it internally.

... that you believe almost all of the climate science community is conducting a mass fraud...

The most highly lauded, the "best and the brightest" of them certainly are.

I respectfully call you and idiot...

Man, feel free! It is sometimes even true, but not in this case. And yes, I admit I have a blatant political agenda partially based on opposition to socialism, and the use of faux-science to justify it.

Shelgyre says "AGW is fraud" REALLY? Sounds like a lying idiot pro-nut case right-winger all over again. Oh, there is that "socialism" word again. I claim AGW to be true and scientifically established as fact. Prove otherwise ya idiot lying stack of propaganda crap. MIKE CHECK this SOB.

I have a blatant political agenda partially based on opposition to socialism, and the use of faux-science to justify it.

So your agenda is to discredit AGW becasue it is fake science used to promote socialism. Interesting thought. Thanks.

Wow, Howhot, please don't be so shy! Tell us how you really feel!

And Seeker2, it isn't me who had to do anything to discredit AGW - its proponents have taken care of that all by themselves.

Strangely enough, I didn't make it a political issue. While I'm not denying that it definitely IS one, the efforts to politicize the issue began with those pushing the issue along with their horrific "remedies" for it. Well, we all know that it takes two to tango, so if a group wants to push a political agenda you don't like, and you don't go along with it, your "not going along with it" by default is also a political agenda.

Speaking of AGW politics, I was very pleased to see this:
www.humanevents.c...id=47996

And Seeker2, it isn't me who had to do anything to discredit AGW - its proponents have taken care of that all by themselves.

Shame on its proponents. Now we just have to watch as the artic melts.

@Seeker2 said:

Now we just have to watch as the artic(sic) melts.

Did you notice what you did there? If AGW is legit, why does it need to make over-the-top alarmist claims? I mean unless you've discovered the fountain of youth or the like, not only will you not be around to watch the arctic melt, but probably neither will your great-great-great-great-grandchildren. And that's if it is happening at all. Because if it is happening at all, it is a ssssssllllllooooowwwwww process.

Now, I'm not normally picky about spelling (that whole "rocks/glass house" thing). But if you're going to make an over-the-top alarmist claim about a certain area, you should probably get the spelling of that area's name correct or it just looks juvenile.

not only will you not be around to watch the arctic melt

So where have you been? The ice has melted 40% in the last 30 years. No problem finding spelling errors or typos but not too good on checking out the facts.

Has anyone been to Glacier Mountain National Park lately? Is there still any glacier there?

The ice has melted 40% in the last 30 years?

You seriously believe that? You're going to plant your flag on that supposed datum? You're really calling that a "fact"?

Wow.

So check it out and get back to me. Could have only been 35% in the last 30 years. Sorry.

Sorry, I'm afraid the burden of your ridiculous claim is on you.

If I had said something like "Antarctica was formed by electric discharge deposition of materials similarly excavated from the Arctic..." then the burden would have been on me. But that would be one hell of a claim.

Sorry, I'm afraid the burden of your ridiculous claim is on you.

Not my claim. I just now how to process information. You apparently don't. The burden of your ridicule is on you.

For example I visited a freighter museum in Cleveland. Those old sailors claim the water levels are so low they can't take on a full load of cargo anymore.

Per http://www.guardi...ice-melt
"August artic sea ice is down about 40% in the last 30 years."
Great posts by Nanobanano at http://www.physor...ock.html
"an extra 100 billion tons of ice ...10 years to complete meltdown"

Really??? A Guardian article is your source?

From @Seeker2's link:

Reports focus on the possibility a record minimum for Arctic sea ice...

"...on the possibility..."

You're getting tiresome, as are all the climate alarmists. We ask for proof - admittedly knowing you have none - but watching you squirm to try to defend your advocacy has limited entertainment value.

Your ecological academic bright lights have been caught in outright repeated fraud. And no amount of subsequent references to alarmist articles from biased sources can help you bolster your position. You've lost.

You know who you should really be upset with? I mean, if you truly believe in AGW? You should be enraged at these "top climatologists" because they couldn't have done more damage to your cause if they had secretly been "denialist" saboteurs.

Cheers!

We ask for proof

Proofs require assumptions. We only offer evidence. Yes, cheers.

For example see http://www.physor...rld.html