Climate change occurring 10 times faster than at any time in past 65 million years

Aug 01, 2013
Top: The change in annual temperature projected for the late 21st century using simulations from 27 global climate models. The change is calculated as the 2081-2100 mean minus the 1986-2005 mean. Bottom: The velocity of climate change required to maintain the current annual temperature should the late-21st-century climate change occur. The velocity is calculated for each location by identifying the closest location in the future climate that has the same annual temperature as the starting location has in the present climate. Credit: Noah Diffenbaugh

The planet is undergoing one of the largest changes in climate since the dinosaurs went extinct. But what might be even more troubling for humans, plants and animals is the speed of the change. Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.

If the trend continues at its current rapid pace, it will place significant stress on around the world, and many species will need to make behavioral, evolutionary or geographic to survive.

Although some of the changes the planet will experience in the next few decades are already "baked into the system," how different the climate looks at the end of the 21st century will depend largely on how humans respond.

The findings come from a review of by Noah Diffenbaugh, an associate professor of environmental Earth system science, and Chris Field, a professor of biology and of environmental Earth system science and the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution. The work is part of a special report on in the current issue of Science.

Diffenbaugh and Field, both senior fellows at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, conducted the targeted but broad review of scientific literature on aspects of climate change that can affect ecosystems, and investigated how recent observations and projections for the next century compare to past events in Earth's history.

For instance, the planet experienced a 5 degree Celsius hike in temperature 20,000 years ago, as Earth emerged from the . This is a change comparable to the high-end of the projections for warming over the 20th and 21st centuries.

The shows that, 20,000 years ago, as the ice sheet that covered much of North America receded northward, recolonized areas that had been under ice. As the climate continued to warm, those plants and animals moved northward, to cooler climes.

"We know from past changes that ecosystems have responded to a few degrees of global temperature change over thousands of years," said Diffenbaugh. "But the unprecedented trajectory that we're on now is forcing that change to occur over decades. That's orders of magnitude faster, and we're already seeing that some species are challenged by that rate of change."

Some of the strongest evidence for how the global climate system responds to high levels of carbon dioxide comes from paleoclimate studies. Fifty-five million years ago, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was elevated to a level comparable to today. The Arctic Ocean did not have ice in the summer, and nearby land was warm enough to support alligators and palm trees.

"There are two key differences for ecosystems in the coming decades compared with the geologic past," Diffenbaugh said. "One is the rapid pace of modern climate change. The other is that today there are multiple human stressors that were not present 55 million years ago, such as urbanization and air and water pollution."

Record-setting heat

Diffenbaugh and Field also reviewed results from two-dozen climate models to describe possible climate outcomes from present day to the end of the century. In general, extreme weather events, such as heat waves and heavy rainfall, are expected to become more severe and more frequent.

For example, the researchers note that, with continued emissions of greenhouse gases at the high end of the scenarios, annual temperatures over North America, Europe and East Asia will increase 2-4 degrees C by 2046-2065. With that amount of warming, the hottest summer of the last 20 years is expected to occur every other year, or even more frequently.

By the end of the century, should the current emissions of greenhouse gases remain unchecked, temperatures over the northern hemisphere will tip 5-6 degrees C warmer than today's averages. In this case, the hottest summer of the last 20 years becomes the new annual norm.

"It's not easy to intuit the exact impact from annual temperatures warming by 6 C," Diffenbaugh said. "But this would present a novel climate for most land areas. Given the impacts those kinds of seasons currently have on terrestrial forests, agriculture and human health, we'll likely see substantial stress from severely hot conditions."

The scientists also projected the velocity of climate change, defined as the distance per year that species of plants and animals would need to migrate to live in annual temperatures similar to current conditions. Around the world, including much of the United States, species face needing to move toward the poles or higher in the mountains by at least one kilometer per year. Many parts of the world face much larger changes.

The human element

Some climate changes will be unavoidable, because humans have already emitted greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the atmosphere and oceans have already been heated.

"There is already some inertia in place," Diffenbaugh said. "If every new power plant or factory in the world produced zero emissions, we'd still see impact from the existing infrastructure, and from gases already released."

The more dramatic changes that could occur by the end of the century, however, are not written in stone. There are many human variables at play that could slow the pace and magnitude of change – or accelerate it.

Consider the 2.5 billion people who lack access to modern energy resources. This energy poverty means they lack fundamental benefits for illumination, cooking and transportation, and they're more susceptible to extreme weather disasters. Increased energy access will improve their quality of life – and in some cases their chances of survival – but will increase global energy consumption and possibly hasten warming.

Diffenbaugh said that the range of climate projections offered in the report can inform decision-makers about the risks that different levels of climate change pose for ecosystems.

"There's no question that a in which every summer is hotter than the hottest of the last 20 years poses real risks for ecosystems across the globe," Diffenbaugh said. "However, there are opportunities to decrease those risks, while also ensuring access to the benefits of energy consumption."

Explore further: Tens of thousands expected at New York climate march

More information: "Changes in Ecologically Critical Terrestrial Climate Conditions," by N.S. Diffenbaugh et al Science, 2013.

Related Stories

Dire outlook despite global warming 'pause': study

May 19, 2013

A global warming "pause" over the past decade may invalidate the harshest climate change predictions for the next 50 to 100 years, a study said Sunday—though levels remain in the danger zone.

What can plants reveal about global climate change?

Jul 26, 2013

Recently, climate change, including global warming, has been a "hot" news item as many regions of the world have experienced increasingly intense weather patterns, such as powerful hurricanes and extended floods or droughts. ...

Say goodbye to cool summers: climate study

Jun 10, 2011

By 2050, the coolest summers in the tropics and parts of the northern hemisphere will still be hotter than the most scorching summers since the mid-20th century if global warming continues apace, according ...

Recommended for you

Green dream: Can UN summit revive climate issue?

10 hours ago

Five years ago, the environment movement was in its heyday as politicians, actors, rock stars and protestors demanded a looming UN summit brake the juggernaut of climate change.

Rio's Olympic golf course in legal bunker

Sep 18, 2014

The return of golf to the Olympics after what will be 112 years by the time Rio hosts South America's first Games in 2016 comes amid accusations environmental laws were got round to build the facility in ...

User comments : 235

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

julianpenrod
1.2 / 5 (44) Aug 01, 2013
The fact is, though, the rate of change is also far faster than can be expected by simply an accumulation of carbon dioxide in the air. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is no more than a few percent higher than before 2000, but the changes over the past decade and a half have been striking, from the worst hurricane season on record; tornadoes occurring where they were previously unknown, like Brooklyn; the largest year-to-year drop in Arctic sea ice; the Northwest Passage opening for the first time in history; the new cloud species undulatus asperatus developing. Climate change is caused by chemtrails, the program of doping the air with weather control chemicals in non dissipating vapor trails. It began around 1950, when tornado numbers stopped being constant and started climbing and the lats new cloud species, cirrus intortus, was acknowledged; in 1997, the atmosphere became saturated with chemicals and new additions precipitated out.
Telekinetic
2.1 / 5 (27) Aug 01, 2013
It's not entirely the chemtrails, julianpenrod, it's also the energy-sapping wind generators- everyone knows that.
DruidDrudge
2 / 5 (25) Aug 01, 2013
"the Northwest Passage opening for the first time in history"
Amundsen, St. Roche, Lindblad cruise lines are just a few examples of "first time in history".. again!

"tornadoes occurring where they were previously unknown, like Brooklyn"
84 hurricanes in New York since the 17th century, the stongest in 1938
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (21) Aug 01, 2013
@jp,

I apologize if I have mistaken your post as being serious and 1-ranking it.

You may have intended it as sarcasm, in which case I would have up-ranked it.

On the other hand, if you were, in fact, being serious, then pissoff- a 1-rank was better than you deserved.

Just so we're clear.
Minnaloushe
1.8 / 5 (36) Aug 01, 2013
Outstanding!
And so, SO surprising!
A once-in-65-million-year crisis just in time for academics to use in furthering global communism! What are the odds?
Gmr
3.3 / 5 (33) Aug 01, 2013
Oh this will be fun.

And here they come, out of the woodwork, the commie fearing folks commenting in a public forum on a medium funded by public money and sustained through cooperative actions by multiple governments.

Yet they fear communism.
the_chemist_of_discord
3.7 / 5 (22) Aug 01, 2013
It's a technical issue, Minny, not a political one. Global communism, huh? Got your scientific education from Glen Beck, I see.
Jim Steele
1.7 / 5 (31) Aug 01, 2013
Odd to state "There's no question that a climate in which every summer is hotter than the hottest of the last 20 years poses real risks for ecosystems across the globe," when the midwest experienced an unusually cold July. And most of the USA has exhibited a cooling trend in maximum temperatures since the 1930's. Visit the US Historical Climate Network . For example see Yosemite:

http://cdiac.ornl...ear=2012

Most of the rising statistics are caused by minimum temperatures which are grossly affected by landscapes changes and urbanization.
shavera
4.2 / 5 (24) Aug 01, 2013
Global patterns in climate are warming, even if specific locales may be cooling. For instance warming may change the pattern of the jet stream, allowing colder arctic air further south than usual, which while certain locations (like the northern US) might be cooler, the overall effect is warmer.
Dug
1.9 / 5 (22) Aug 01, 2013
I'm guessing some woolie mammoths might disagree with how fast the climate is changing.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (38) Aug 01, 2013
"Climate change occurring 10 times faster than at any time in past 65 million years"

This is a great headline calculated to keep the people ignorant and scared.

Read just a little more and you find that this is nothing more than a prediction based on 27 models, none of which have been proven to be correct.

This is nothing but more propaganda from the Ministry of Truth.
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (18) Aug 01, 2013
Outstanding!
And so, SO surprising!
A once-in-65-million-year crisis just in time for academics to use in furthering global communism! What are the odds?

Nuclear bombs exploded in Japan for the first time in Earth's history, just in time to end the war in the Pacific! What are the odds?
Water_Prophet
1.9 / 5 (25) Aug 01, 2013
The answer is that melting glaciers, the holy stabilizers of our blessed planet, have receded farther and farther from our dwellings. Recant and reduce your burning of fossil fuels.
DADDYBEAR
1.4 / 5 (30) Aug 01, 2013
I am sorry to disagree but the scare of Global Warming is nothing new to our world. As to it occuring 10 times faster then 65 million years is a laugh. The earth has and will go through many cycles of hot and cold and a lot sooner then 65 million years. We are "yes" in a cycle that is both warming and cooling off. It is a quandry but the reason is that we are about to have a pole shift and the earth is about to change in a very dramatic way. You can choose to believe it or not as they say but things are happening fast and it will be very soon that Al Gore and the rest who scare old ladies and the ill informed into thinking it is man that is causing this will have to come up with a new story if they survive. There really is a planet coming into our systen ( Has arrived) that has done so evey few thousand years and we are in for a heck of a ride. Why do you think they are storing seeds from all over the world? Just for fun or do they know something you don't? Check it out for yourself.
Gmr
3 / 5 (30) Aug 01, 2013

Wow - global warming denialism cross bred with Nibiru acolytes to foment foaming festering offspring festooning the forum!

I said it before : I love and hate this site.
verkle
2.1 / 5 (29) Aug 01, 2013
Hyped Headline: "Climate change occurring 10 times faster than at any time in past 65 million years"

Article Statement: "climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change over the next century [100 years from now] will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years."

Editors---please be more careful when hyping these kind of stories. Especially when it is based on unscientific models (these models have not been proven yet).

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Shelgeyr
1.9 / 5 (36) Aug 01, 2013
Oh this will be fun. And here they come, out of the woodwork, the commie fearing folks commenting in a public forum on a medium funded by public money and sustained through cooperative actions by multiple governments. Yet they fear communism.


Let me guess - you don't fear communism? Failed history, did you? Or - I must admit, given the state of higher education today - passed "History" with flying colors while learning nothing but leftist propaganda?
gregor1
2 / 5 (35) Aug 01, 2013
Somehow they chose to ignore the Younger Dryas at the end of which the temperature rose by something like 10 degrees C in 10 years. Are they seriously suggesting a rise of 100 degrees in ten years? This report is garbage.
Gmr
3.5 / 5 (22) Aug 01, 2013
Let me guess - you don't fear communism? Failed history, did you? Or - I must admit, given the state of higher education today - passed "History" with flying colors while learning nothing but leftist propaganda?

Quite far from it, actually - but I'm not the one making asinine blanket panic statements as if the sky were falling.

Communism is quite far from socialism which is still a ways from what we have in the United States.

Oh, wait - you weren't looking for a cogent, thoughtful reply. You were looking for a frothing straw-man to tilt at. Well, you'll assume what you will, facts be damned.
Shelgeyr
1.9 / 5 (32) Aug 01, 2013
Climate change occurring 10 times faster than at any time in past 65 million years


The title is complete BS. Complete speculative BS at that.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (30) Aug 01, 2013
(1) Michael Mann's hockey stick swings upwards way back in the 1800s, way before the postwar boom in CO2 output, and way before the IPCC claims a CO2 signal can be distinguished in the latest warming swing since the 70s. To support his hockey stick, this year he celebrated the worst case of hockey stick fraud ever published in a major journal, Marcott's use of re-dating of scattered proxy data in order to create a hockey stick blade that wasn't present in the input data, but was created by spurious data drop off at the end:

http://s17.postim...tick.jpg

(2) Our high CO2 era suffers from a complete inability to alter the boring natural linear trends in temperature and sea level revealed by the vast majority of single site thermometer and tide gauge records:

http://s24.postim...nous.gif
http://s23.postim...andy.gif
http://hcd-1.imgb...75418005
MikeDownUnda
1.7 / 5 (24) Aug 02, 2013
So this headline refers to model predictions not physical measurement obtained ?

Specifically the 'velocity' depends upon hypothecated distal data points ?

So I could come up with my own model ( predicting a cooler late 21st century ) being just as unvalidated by measurement as these quoted 27 - and get the opposite headline ?

This is a science website, right ?

[ Oh dear. I just signed up to Phys.Org today. Have to refresh that decision. ]

Mike
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (27) Aug 02, 2013
So this headline refers to model predictions not physical measurement obtained ?

Specifically the 'velocity' depends upon hypothecated distal data points ?

So I could come up with my own model ( predicting a cooler late 21st century ) being just as unvalidated by measurement as these quoted 27 - and get the opposite headline ?

This is a science website, right ?

[ Oh dear. I just signed up to Phys.Org today. Have to refresh that decision. ]

Mike

Please do.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (25) Aug 02, 2013
Oh this will be fun. And here they come, out of the woodwork, the commie fearing folks commenting in a public forum on a medium funded by public money and sustained through cooperative actions by multiple governments. Yet they fear communism.


Let me guess - you don't fear communism? Failed history, did you? Or - I must admit, given the state of higher education today - passed "History" with flying colors while learning nothing but leftist propaganda?

Anonymous alcoholics? Study finds web trolls get a feeling of abandon similar to drunks

Read more: http://www.news.c...ampiWlI0
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (31) Aug 02, 2013
Mike, skepticism of any sort makes Global Warming enthusiasts gnash their teeth, wring their hands and spit hellfire:

http://tinypic.co...&s=5

That they confuse being exposed as the dupes of charlatans with merely being trolled allows them to see whistleblowers as part of an evil conspiracy that they all believe is an "oil money" fueled "disinformation campaign." The greenie PR firms that run their favorite blogs promote conspiracy theory books that all make this claim.

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in Carbon (Organic) Chemistry (UofMN/Columbia/Harvard), with lab work on genetics, organometallics, and microfabrication (with lots of time in M.I.T. labs and the Harvard physics dept. during collaborations). My old lab mate served as Dept. of Chemistry chairman at Columbia, up the street. There was a future president of the Am. Chem. Soc. (Breslow) and a future chemistry Nobelist (Marty Chalfie) on my Ph.D. committee, prior to my winning the "top student" award that year.
Gmr
2.9 / 5 (21) Aug 02, 2013
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in Carbon (Organic) Chemistry (UofMN/Columbia/Harvard), with lab work on genetics, organometallics, and microfabrication (with lots of time in M.I.T. labs and the Harvard physics dept. during collaborations). My old lab mate served as Dept. of Chemistry chairman at Columbia, up the street. There was a future president of the Am. Chem. Soc. (Breslow) and a future chemistry Nobelist (Marty Chalfie) on my Ph.D. committee, prior to my winning the "top student" award that year


*Yawn* - Oh, sorry - you were looking for impressed ooohs and aaahs. Well, my doctor spent a lot of years in medical school - probably more than you in academia, and he can make me feel better.

And he has exactly as much experience in climate science! Fancy that!

I'll take his opinion over yours, though - just based on his fancier credentials and more humanitarian concerns.
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2013
CLIMATE CHANGE OCCURING 10 TIMES FASTER THAN AT ANY TIME IN PAST 65 MILLION YEARS

So find the period of time where the fastest rise occurred in climate change during the past 65 million years, and multiply that by 10, and that is what we have in-store for us. What a pickle we put ourselves into.

Howhot
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 02, 2013
while learning nothing but leftist propaganda?
Big words coming from a rightwing stooge parroting the AM radio propagandist.
Howhot
3.1 / 5 (13) Aug 02, 2013
Jim Steele;
Odd to state "There's no question that a climate in which every summer is hotter than the hottest of the last 20 years poses real risks for ecosystems across the globe," when the midwest experienced an unusually cold July.


ENJOY IT WHILE IT LAST DUDE!
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (27) Aug 02, 2013
gmr: I'm not here to convince or impress Charlie's Angels of Climatology, but to expose you as being unthinking dupes who indeed are not impressed by reason or hard science credentials, like most people thankfully are.

http://s8.postimg...gels.jpg
http://www.youtub...zLzj-3XY
SteveS
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 02, 2013
Nik

In many of your posts you accuse people with credentials far more impressive than your own of being liars and frauds.

but to expose you as being unthinking dupes who indeed are not impressed by reason or hard science credentials, like most people thankfully are.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (16) Aug 02, 2013
gmr: I'm not here to convince or impress Charlie's Angels of Climatology, but to expose you as being unthinking dupes who indeed are not impressed by reason or hard science credentials, like most people thankfully are.

http://s8.postimg...gels.jpg


No, NikNikfromDickCity, you are here to display your total lack of understanding and laughable scientific illiteracy, in addition to your agenda-driven and aggressive ignorance.

Better and smarter people than you have failed in their quest to debunk AGW. Some of them were even actual Skeptics. A couple of the latter group have even felt compelled by the facts to acknowledge that AGW is real and ongoing.

But --as I said-- better and smarter.

NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (28) Aug 02, 2013
Nik

In many of your posts you accuse people with credentials far more impressive than your own of being liars and frauds.


Indeed I do! The revelation required to understand my point is that it is exactly these climate "scientists" who mostly have mathematical instead of hard science backgrounds who understand best how statistics should be used in proper analysis, so when the bulk of the papers central to the Hockey Stick team argument in favor of alarmism turn out to be based on bad math, I cry foul.
NikFromNYC
2.1 / 5 (29) Aug 02, 2013
Caliban:

I'm not trying to debunk AGW. I'm putting pressure on climatology as a science to rid itself of charlatans who threaten to deface the whole reputation of science by basing their funding on the lying with statistics of a small group of peer review pal insiders.

Who is morally superior, the altruistic whistleblower or those who sneer at him?

Headlines scream that Global Warming is suddenly accelerating, but today, Antarctica just set a record for sea ice area since satellite records began in 1979:

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

...and that's my message. The data argues for me. Your meltdown is just icing on the cake since it helps inform the public that your side of the debate is just ugly authoritarianism and paranoid slander.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 02, 2013
There's no question that a climate in which every summer is hotter than the hottest of the last 20 years poses real risks for ecosystems across the globe," when the midwest experienced an unusually cold July

Weather. Climate. Learn the difference before commenting on climate science. You'll show your lack of education to a much lesser degree.

I am sorry to disagree but the scare of Global Warming is nothing new to our world. As to it occuring 10 times faster then 65 million years is a laugh.

And you laugh based on what data? I see that you disagree - but when your reasons for disagreeing are absent then don't expecvt anyone to agree with you (and expect people to find your lack of being a reasonable human being - in the very sense of the word - to be a little bit frightening)

Let me guess - you don't fear communism? Failed history, did you?

Plenty of capitalist nations that were (and are) just as nasty. Your point?
SteveS
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 02, 2013

Indeed I do! The revelation required to understand my point is that it is exactly these climate "scientists" who mostly have mathematical instead of hard science backgrounds who understand best how statistics should be used in proper analysis, so when the bulk of the papers central to the Hockey Stick team argument in favor of alarmism turn out to be based on bad math, I cry foul.


So your Phd in organic chemistry makes you better qualified to spot bad math than somebody with qualifications in mathematics?

Are you better qualified than these people?

http://berkeleyearth.org/team
beleg
1 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2013
Those hypotheticals who have gone before us failed global climate engineering too.
Trial and error on one sample planet can't be statistically significant.

beleg
1 / 5 (14) Aug 02, 2013
Phd. Poo hard drives. Opens doors to academia. To air out the stench.
ThomasQuinn
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 02, 2013
It seems that there are a number of people here who are incapable of grasping the difference between "critical thinking" / "sketpicism" on the one hand, and "negationism" / "denial" on the other.
geokstr
1.6 / 5 (26) Aug 02, 2013

Plenty of capitalist nations that were (and are) just as nasty. Your point?

Please explain that to the 100 million poor bastards, citizens of their own nations, that were deliberately starved, shot or disappeared to be worked to death in the gulags, for the heinous offense of the thoughtcrime of failing to agree with the Collective. (These are not the casualties of war, but are deliberate murders.)

Capitalism is just an economic system, a fantastically effective method of information dissemination. It is used by most nations on earth, to one extent or another.

Marxism, on the other hand, is a political fantasy that just requires the extermination of anyone who disagrees to reach a utopia that unfortunately never arrives. It seeks to "fundamentally transform" human nature, which you would think that the self-proclaimed scientifically literate would understand is impossible.

Leftism is just another religion, and a particularly virulent one.
djr
3.5 / 5 (16) Aug 02, 2013
Nik: "I'm not here to convince or impress Charlie's Angels of Climatology, but to expose you as being unthinking dupes who indeed are not impressed by reason or hard science credentials, like most people thankfully are."

I'm certainly respectful of hard science credentials. This is why I am willing to defer to the vast majority of folks in the science community who express concern about climate change, and more specifically - the vast majority of climate scientists - who are saying 'Huston we have a problem - we need to be paying attention.' It is interesting how Nik consistently demands respect for nik's credentials - but is comfortable dismissing the concerns of the majority opinion of climate science, and the preponderance of evidence.

runrig
3.1 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2013
error
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (15) Aug 02, 2013
but is comfortable dismissing the concerns of the majority opinion of climate science, and the preponderance of evidence.

Which is sorta weird. You'd suspect that having credentials in climate science count more when discussing climate science as compared to credentials in chemistry (which Nik doesn't have, BTW, as he continually flubbs even the most basic chmistry issues in the discussion sections. He's making that up.)
MR166
1.7 / 5 (24) Aug 02, 2013
The real problem is that many of these "scientists" do have impressive credentials but lack ethics and morals. They have no problem promoting the political agenda of the highest bidder, which in most cases is the UN or a government. Government grant monies have corrupted climate science to the point of it being as believable as Astrology.
GuruShabu
1.9 / 5 (23) Aug 02, 2013
Climate change - not global waring any more - is making people behave badly!
It is turning good people into bad guys!
It causes wars!
http://www.nation...14289484
And this is pure science...not alarmism.
You better believe! or else...
GuruShabu
1.5 / 5 (23) Aug 02, 2013
Climate change - not global waring any more - is making people behave badly!
It is turning good people into bad guys!
It causes wars!
http://www.nation...14289484
And this is pure science...not alarmism.
You better believe! or else...
djr
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 02, 2013
"Government grant monies have corrupted climate science to the point of it being as believable as Astrology."

Well of course we disagree. Your conspiracy theory would require collusion on such a scale - it is the creation of very delusional people in my view. Of course time will tell. If we get to the end of the century - and there is no warming - science will be in the gutter. I have no concern that this will happen. The evidence is overwhelming even today. Nik cherry picks. He finds data on Antarctic ice extent - but does not look at the whole picture - ie: ice balance. He does not look at the glaciers, or the ocean temps, etc. When your view is contradicted by the preponderance of evidence - you have a problem.

antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 02, 2013
The real problem is that many of these "scientists" do have impressive credentials but lack ethics and morals.

Proof? That is a pretty serious accusation. Especially coming from somone who is in no place to judge (i.e. someone who lacks ANY credentials - impressive or otherwise - in the field or any other)
They have no problem promoting the political agenda of the highest bidder

Proof? That is a pretty serious accusation.
Government grant monies have corrupted climate science to the point of it being as believable as Astrology.

You are aware that the salary of a scientist is in no way connected to the amount of money a government throws at a subject? And that a scientist can't just decide to switch over to climate science? Because -you know- in order to do any relevant work in any particular field of science takes quite a few years of training/learning (i.e. if you don't have the skills you can't switch over at all).
MR166
1.5 / 5 (23) Aug 02, 2013
"You are aware that the salary of a scientist is in no way connected to the amount of money a government throws at a subject?"

So, let me get this right, universities do not really care about grant money and the number and value of the grants that one obtains has no bearing on one's status with that institution.
SteveS
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2013
You'd suspect that having credentials in climate science count more when discussing climate science as compared to credentials in chemistry (which Nik doesn't have, BTW, as he continually flubbs even the most basic chmistry issues in the discussion sections. He's making that up.)


To be fair to him Nik does have a Phd in organic chemistry from Columbia, did post doctoral work at Harvard, and co-authored a few papers in the 90s.
GuruShabu
1.7 / 5 (22) Aug 02, 2013
Feeling a bit violent? Maybe it's hot outside
http://www.smh.co...336.html
When I was a kid, I was told countries within the temperate hot zones had populations that were lazy, did not like to work because of the hot weather. We could not find a single developed country in that part of the globe for this reason.
Now, we are told the heat make them violent...
And we cannot say this is corrupted science?
This looks like Goebbels propaganda.
Worst of all is that all those "studies" not even mention they are pure models not actual measurement or real data!
And again this is not considered dodgy science?
Gmr
2.8 / 5 (20) Aug 02, 2013
The real problem is that many of these "scientists" do have impressive credentials but lack ethics and morals. They have no problem promoting the political agenda of the highest bidder, which in most cases is the UN or a government. Government grant monies have corrupted climate science to the point of it being as believable as Astrology.


Uh huh. You do realize that global warming is a problem. If you care about the problem, come up with a solution that fits your political bent rather than trying to make the problem go away. Cap and trade creates a market based solution. What about heat based capacitors firing tuned lasers at transparent atmospheric frequencies to dump energy back to space?

In other words, stop complaining that your leg isnt broken because you don't like crutches.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (22) Aug 02, 2013
You'd suspect that having credentials in climate science count more when discussing climate science as compared to credentials in chemistry (which Nik doesn't have, BTW, as he continually flubbs even the most basic chmistry issues in the discussion sections. He's making that up.)


To be fair to him Nik does have a Phd in organic chemistry from Columbia, did post doctoral work at Harvard, and co-authored a few papers in the 90s.

So these organic chemistry papers will have NIKfromNYC as author? Let's see that.
Neinsense99
2.3 / 5 (21) Aug 02, 2013
Climate change - not global waring any more - is making people behave badly!
It is turning good people into bad guys!
It causes wars!
http://www.nation...14289484
And this is pure science...not alarmism.
You better believe! or else...

You posted a comment with a glaring typo -- twice.
axemaster
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 02, 2013
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in Carbon (Organic) Chemistry (UofMN/Columbia/Harvard), with lab work on genetics, organometallics, and microfabrication (with lots of time in M.I.T. labs and the Harvard physics dept. during collaborations). My old lab mate served as Dept. of Chemistry chairman at Columbia, up the street. There was a future president of the Am. Chem. Soc. (Breslow) and a future chemistry Nobelist (Marty Chalfie) on my Ph.D. committee, prior to my winning the "top student" award that year.

Strange, I'm working at MIT right now. It's hard to imagine a person like you actually managing to survive here for long.

EDIT: Oh look, Walter Lewin just returned some equipment he borrowed from our lab. He was teaching kinematics to kids in South Africa over Skype. He also has an alarming booming voice.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (31) Aug 02, 2013
As the real world exposes the last 2 decades of AGW Alarmist propaganda for the lies they were, the cult must now fabricate even more preposterous lies to keep the chicken littles in their ignorance.
Climate "Science" where fiction is fed as fact to the chicken littles.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (25) Aug 02, 2013
Antigoracle wrote:
As the real world exposes the last 2 decades of AGW Alarmist propaganda for the lies they were, the cult must now fabricate even more preposterous lies to keep the chicken littles in their ignorance.
Climate "Science" where fiction is fed as fact to the chicken littles.

See story about Northwestern University study: Anonymous alcoholics? Study finds web trolls get a feeling of abandon similar to drunks

Read more: http://www.news.c...ap1eLJMP
Gustav
2.3 / 5 (19) Aug 02, 2013
Another batch of nonsense from warm-mongers. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of any increase in frequency or intensity of severe weather events. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of the world becoming warmer in the past 16 years, and none of the world warming up in excess of the normal recovery from the Little Ice Age prior to that. No evidence whatsoever of unusual sea level rise either. If anything, it appears the sea level rise to have slowed down markedly in the recent years, compared to whatever imperfect data we have from the early 20th century. Real science says clearly: there is no "climate change" above and beyond the normal climate drift that is always present.
axemaster
3.6 / 5 (18) Aug 02, 2013
Another batch of nonsense from warm-mongers. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of any increase in frequency or intensity of severe weather events. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of the world becoming warmer in the past 16 years, and none of the world warming up in excess of the normal recovery from the Little Ice Age prior to that. No evidence whatsoever of unusual sea level rise either. If anything, it appears the sea level rise to have slowed down markedly in the recent years, compared to whatever imperfect data we have from the early 20th century. Real science says clearly: there is no "climate change" above and beyond the normal climate drift that is always present.


There's no way you actually think anything you just said is true. I refuse to believe that someone that ignorant / delusional exists. You're so far out there that even most denialists are mainstream by comparison.
CapnKirk
3.7 / 5 (10) Aug 02, 2013
I just want to say... CO2 is NOT the ONLY greenhouse gas that we have to worry for the atmosphere. Methane, CH4, will most likely be our current atmosphere's killer. Governments and companies want use to believe that natural gas is our best option for energy right now. Hydraulic Fracturing is producing greater methane leakage into the atmosphere every day with millions more wells being drilled throughout the world.
Just think about it.
GuruShabu
1.8 / 5 (26) Aug 02, 2013
I just want to say... CO2 is NOT the ONLY greenhouse gas that we have to worry for the atmosphere. Methane, CH4, will most likely be our current atmosphere's killer. Governments and companies want use to believe that natural gas is our best option for energy right now. Hydraulic Fracturing is producing greater methane leakage into the atmosphere every day with millions more wells being drilled throughout the world.
Just think about it.

THE greatest contributor green house gas is water vapour.
Yes, methane is 60 times stronger green house gas than CO2 but both do nothing compared to the very welcome greenhouse effect caused by water vapour in the atmosphere.
The panic promoters however, do not put this into their models as you cannot charge $$$ water vapour.
It is just greed motivated and ignorance that allows people produce so much BS about the weather.
joefarah
1.9 / 5 (23) Aug 02, 2013
Show me the data for the century 38,565,232 B.C. - 38,565,132 B.C. to prove the assertion in the headline. I want to know how much the climate changed in that century please. Given the claim, and this is a science site, the data must be available down to that granularity, the same granularity you are comparing against.
axemaster
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 02, 2013
THE greatest contributor green house gas is water vapour.
Yes, methane is 60 times stronger green house gas than CO2 but both do nothing compared to the very welcome greenhouse effect caused by water vapour in the atmosphere.
The panic promoters however, do not put this into their models as you cannot charge $$$ water vapour.
It is just greed motivated and ignorance that allows people produce so much BS about the weather.

The amount of water vapor is controlled by the amount of CO2 and methane. Water vapor is accounted for in models.

A good analogy is the negative dynamic resistance of a plasma arc. By itself it has an indeterminate and exponentially decreasing value since it decreases with increasing current. However in reality it is stabilized by external resistance and very rapidly approaches a nonzero value. Basically the same thing happens in the water vapor / CO2 system on Earth.
freeiam
1.5 / 5 (22) Aug 02, 2013

Indeed I do! The revelation required to understand my point is that it is exactly these climate "scientists" who mostly have mathematical instead of hard science backgrounds who understand best how statistics should be used in proper analysis, so when the bulk of the papers central to the Hockey Stick team argument in favor of alarmism turn out to be based on bad math, I cry foul.


So your Phd in organic chemistry makes you better qualified to spot bad math than somebody with qualifications in mathematics?

Are you better qualified than these people?

http://berkeleyearth.org/team


Who cares. Facts and logic work all the time.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 02, 2013
The panic promoters however, do not put this into their models as you cannot charge $$$ water vapour.


Of course they do ( why would you possibly think they didn't? ) .... From:
http://www.ipcc.c...4-2.html

"Water vapour is a key climate variable. In the lower troposphere, condensation of water vapour into precipitation provides latent heating which dominates the structure of tropospheric diabatic heating (Trenberth and Stepaniak, 2003a,b). Water vapour is also the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997), and provides the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change (Held and Soden, 2000)".

Oh - and Methane is 25x more powerful a GHG than CO2 - NOT 60x.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 02, 2013

Are you better qualified than these people?

http://berkeleyearth.org/team


Who cares. Facts and logic work all the time.


Why do we bother to go to school/university then?
By that definition, you just have to be savvy and you're magically omniscient.

The reason is because we need to learn from people who know most.
Hence teachers and experts.
As Newton said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"

That is knowledge gets passed on and is built upon.

By your definition our current/coming experts would be standing on the shoulders of "height challenged people".
And spiraling downhill as a result.

runrig
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 02, 2013

It is just greed motivated and ignorance that allows people produce so much BS about the weather.


Slight tweak needed there in reality.
It is just ideology motivated and ignorance that allows people (to) produce so much BS in denial of climate science.
djr
3.9 / 5 (19) Aug 02, 2013
Gustav: " There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of the world becoming warmer in the past 16 years"

You are wrong. There is a preponderance of evidence showing that over the past 150 years, the climate has warmed - and that warming has continued over the past 16 years. Go check - that warming is clear in the record of ice sheets, glaciers, ocean temps, ocean levels, and atmospheric temps. Yes - Nik can cherry pick data - and show that the antarctic ice extent has grown. What Nik conveniently overlooks is that the Antarctic is in fact warming, and the ice mass is reducing. Yes you can see a plateau in surface temps - but that is just one part of the big picture. Stop cherrypicking.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (29) Aug 02, 2013
"You are wrong. There is a preponderance of evidence showing that over the past 150 years, the climate has warmed - and that warming has continued over the past 16 years. ...."

DJR there is absolutely no doubt that the Earth is warming. A mere 18K years ago glaciers covered much of North America. The debate is about the 3% of the total CO2 that man contributes and whether or not this is a significant contribution to the warming trend.

Even the most zealot of warmists do not think that warming before the 1940s was caused by man.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 02, 2013

As Newton said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"

That is knowledge gets passed on and is built upon.

By your definition our current/coming experts would be standing on the shoulders of "height challenged people".



Newton was quoting someone else when he wrote that to Robert Hooke. It is considered a veiled insult to Hooke, who was actually "height challenged".
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2013
Newton was quoting someone else when he wrote that to Robert Hooke. It is considered a veiled insult to Hooke, who was actually "height challenged".


I was waiting for that Claudius ... however... From Wiki

"This has recently[when?] been interpreted by a few writers as a sarcastic remark directed at Hooke's appearance. Although Hooke was not of particularly short stature, he was of slight build and had been afflicted from his youth with a severe kyphosis. However, at this time Hooke and Newton were on good terms and had exchanged many letters in tones of mutual regard. Only later, when Robert Hooke criticized some of Newton's ideas regarding optics, Newton was so offended that he withdrew from public debate, and the two men remained enemies until Hooke's death.
djr
3.7 / 5 (15) Aug 02, 2013
Even the most zealot of warmists do not think that warming before the 1940s was caused by man.

Really - I was not aware of that. Could you support your assertion - and also tell us what the cause of the pre 1940's warming was? I think the candidates would be - milankovich cycles, increased solar output - reduced atmospheric particulate matter - natural green house gases. Please enlighten us.

"DJR there is absolutely no doubt that the Earth is warming"

You might want to discuss that with Uba, and Nik, Gustav, and others - they disagree with you.

freeiam
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 02, 2013

Are you better qualified than these people?

http://berkeleyearth.org/team


Who cares. Facts and logic work all the time.


Why do we bother to go to school/university then?


Some of the best minds didn't need that. Maybe most of them.
One of them was Einstein. Are you familiar with the word autodidact?

...
As Newton said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"

That's really funny. Don't you know that Newton was sarcastic when he said that?

By your definition our current/coming experts would be standing on the shoulders of "height challenged people".

I don't know how you inferred that.
The Internet is a huge amplifier of knowledge and the knowledge monopoly of learning institutions will be made mostly irrelevant by it.

You 'misunderstood' my main point: a valid proof derived via logic from valid facts can be made by anyone and doesn't magically become invalid if your not from the inner clique.
Caliban
2.7 / 5 (15) Aug 02, 2013
Caliban:

I'm not trying to debunk AGW. I'm putting pressure on climatology as a science to rid itself of charlatans who threaten to deface the whole reputation of science[...].

Who is morally superior, the altruistic whistleblower or those who sneer at him?

Headlines scream that Global Warming is suddenly accelerating, but today, Antarctica just set a record for sea ice area since satellite records began in 1979:[...] The data argues for me. Your meltdown is just icing on the cake since it helps [...]


Again:

No, NikNikfromDickCity, you are here to display your total lack of understanding and laughable scientific illiteracy, in addition to your agenda-driven and aggressive ignorance.

Better and smarter people than you have failed in their quest to debunk AGW. Some of them were even actual Skeptics. A couple of the latter group have even felt compelled by the facts to acknowledge that AGW is real and ongoing.

But --as I said-- better and smarter.

freeiam
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 02, 2013
The real problem is that many of these "scientists" do have impressive credentials but lack ethics and morals.

Proof? That is a pretty serious accusation. Especially coming from somone who is in no place to judge (i.e. someone who lacks ANY credentials - impressive or otherwise - in the field or any other)
They have no problem promoting the political agenda of the highest bidder

Proof? That is a pretty serious accusation.
Government grant monies have corrupted climate science to the point of it being as believable as Astrology.
...

I sympathize with MR166s statements. You demand proof, maybe I can give a hint of it.
Scientist need the plasticity of the brain of a child to be able to grasp new concepts quickly, children in general lack morals (they have to be told) and social skills commonly associated with the typical scientist.
But I am sure some scientist are morally and ethically correct.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (12) Aug 02, 2013
The Internet is a huge amplifier of knowledge

Unfortunately that helps only little with learning (reading is not the same thing as learning) - and not at all with understanding (which is arguably the most important part). And for THAT schools and universities are indispensable.

Anyone who has gone to a university will agree on this: you don't so much learn facts (the facts in most scientific fields are outdated, in any case, by the time you graduate) but you learn how to think, how to reason, how to understand, and how to go about rectifying the situation when you can't understand something on your own.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2013
Some of the best minds didn't need that. Maybe most of them.
One of them was Einstein. Are you familiar with the word autodidact?

You are aware of the accusation of Einsteins's plagarism?
The very early ones yes - but certainly not now.
As Newton said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"

....Don't you know that Newton was sarcastic when he said that?

I do know that - but I think not - As my previous post provides comment for.
By your definition our current/coming experts would be standing on the shoulders of "height challenged people"

I don't know how you inferred that.

I inferred that by common sense. We learn things from people who "know".
The Internet is a huge amplifier of knowledge and the knowledge monopoly of learning institutions will be made mostly irrelevant by it.

The internet ( unfortunately) makes people think they are experts via a quick Google.
djr
3.7 / 5 (10) Aug 02, 2013
"The internet ( unfortunately) makes people think they are experts via a quick Google."

But but I love Google. Here is how it works. I want to refute something someone says - I google the issue - then I pick out all the hits that support my position - and ignore all the others.

But really - the internet is an amazing tool - it is just tough to know how to filter the mass of information. My doc gave me a list of web sites - told me that if I want to research a topic - she encourages that - but really encourages me to default back to the established science sites - cos there sure is a lot of bull shit out there. It seems many of the folks on this site have a problem with established science - and would encourage us to go to www.reikihealing.com, or maybe www.homeopathy.com I understand that minute quantities of spider venom will cure all kinds of ailments?
Claudius
2 / 5 (26) Aug 02, 2013
It seems many of the folks on this site have a problem with established science - and would encourage us to go to http://www.reikihealing.com, I understand that minute quantities of spider venom will cure all kinds of ailments?


While this may be true for some, for many others the problem is with scientific credulousness. In other words, if an authority proclaims a finding, it is accepted without thought or analysis. After all, they are scientists, aren't they, so they must know what they are talking about.

Others who still have the facility of critical thought have questions about some scientific pronouncements. Unfortunately, the credulous types find this unacceptable, and tend to associate skeptics with unscientific beliefs. This is reactionary, and it is a fallacy to claim skeptics are unscientific, as without skepticism, there would be no science.

Also, "established science" is an oxymoron, as scientific knowledge is constantly changing.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2013
While this may be true for some, for many others the problem is with scientific credulousness. In other words, if an authority proclaims a finding, it is accepted without thought or analysis. After all, they are scientists, aren't they, so they must know what they are talking about. Also, "established science" is an oxymoron, as scientific knowledge is constantly changing.


Like I said earlier Claudius, in the absence of "ones" own expertise then deferring to the "expert" is just common sense. ( they are likely to be correct by the balance of probability).
"critical thought" is fine but it doesn't trump expertise, as that contains critical thought as well as knowledge of the subject.
Arriving at a conclusion and Googling for evidence to support it is not "scientific" and is evidenced by many on here.
Established science is the same as it ever was - in a constant state of flux, ready to be surplanted by the next best theory to match the evidence. The current one fits just fine.

djr
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 02, 2013
"Others who still have the facility of critical thought have questions about some scientific pronouncements."

And you are not alone in having the facility of critical thought. However - as a skeptic - who also believes in critical thinking - I also respect the scientific process. You are of course free to think what ever you want. The problem comes when you declare your critical thinking superior to the critical thinking of tens of thousands of highly trained scientists. Now you have an issue. You definitely better have some solid data to support your critical thinking. Alleging a conspiracy of the science community is really problematic - my critical thinking alarms really go off when I hear that one.
Shelgeyr
1.7 / 5 (23) Aug 02, 2013
while learning nothing but leftist propaganda?
Big words coming from a rightwing stooge parroting the AM radio propagandist.

Yawn. How did I ever forget "Howhot"? (Answer: Easily)

Just FYI, not that I can assume either of us actually care, but I can't recall the last time I had a chance to listen to "the AM radio propagandist" (any of them, since I don't know which one you're referring to). Daytime hours are tight. But seriously, how could I possibly be "parroting" them (which implies thoughtless recitation) when the only reason I ever used to listen to any of them was that they generally agreed with ME?

It may burst your philosophical bubble, but many of us "climate change deniers" (an inaccurate term en excelsis) know what we're talking about and expressly do NOT just accept without verification what the powers that be hand down. Unlike certain others I could name.

Wait, who was I responding to again? Oh well, it may come to me one day...
Howhot
2.8 / 5 (15) Aug 02, 2013
Others who still have the facility of critical thought have questions about some scientific pronouncements. Unfortunately, the credulous types find this unacceptable, and tend to associate skeptics with unscientific beliefs. This is reactionary, and it is a fallacy to claim skeptics are unscientific, as without skepticism, there would be no science.

There is very good reason to be critical of the climate change skeptics, because most climate change skeptics are not. They are deniers with a political agenda and will say or argue invalid points to push that agenda.

Thats why you deniers are so so trivial and swatted like flies with low rankings. You don't have an argument to make, you have instead a political brownie points to make your mostly rightwing kooky friends.
Howhot
2.8 / 5 (17) Aug 02, 2013
while learning nothing but leftist propaganda?
Big words coming from a rightwing stooge parroting the AM radio propagandist.

Yawn. How did I ever forget "Howhot"? (Answer: Easily)

It looks like it got to you. So, your here to just stand up to the "mighty lefty HOWHOT" and claim to be someone who actually knows climate science. You can may pull the wool over your mother's eyes, but so far, I've yet to hear you speak in a sane manor about anything climate change related. This past June was the 5 hottest global average temperature for all of earth, EVER RECORDED. What's you retort to that denier?

When one see the slow train wreck that is coming in the way of a predicted 10C change in average temperature over the next 100 years, (which WILL lead to a mass extinction of thousands of species of life), I have to wonder about you deniers sanity.


ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (26) Aug 02, 2013
I believe! I believe in the consensus! Truly, I believe!

Consensus definition of global warming:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures::

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

Hmmm... maybe I should check the definitions for global cooling?
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (22) Aug 03, 2013
I believe! I believe in the consensus! Truly, I believe!

Consensus definition of global warming:

"http://www.thefre...+warming

Hmmm... maybe I should check the definitions for global cooling?

Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'tobacco wars'
http://phys.org/n...ars.html

Science under fire from 'merchants of doubt': US historian
http://phys.org/n...ian.html
djr
3.5 / 5 (16) Aug 03, 2013
So by picking 1997.5, and hadrcut 3 - uba can come up with this graph - http://www.woodfo....5/trend

But if you go back 1 year to 1996 - and use the more updated data record of hadrcut 4 - you come up with this graph - http://www.woodfo....5/trend

Interesting how cherry picking works!!!

So let's just look at the last 150 years.

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

I'd say that fits the definition that uba quoted of global warming....Looks like global warming to me.
djr
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 03, 2013
MR166 - there are a couple of questions that you have left hanging. I would love to have an answer.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (14) Aug 03, 2013
"I believe! I believe in the consensus! Truly, I believe!" - UbVonTard

The consensus of scientists believe as well.

That is why there is a consensus.

Tarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 03, 2013
"It may burst your philosophical bubble, but many of us "climate change deniers know what we're talking about ..." - JohnnyRetardo

That is the working assumption of every denialist, and one that is never realized.

Are you the new poster boy for Dunning/Kruger.

http://en.wikiped...r_effect
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (14) Aug 03, 2013
"Others who still have the facility of critical thought have questions about some scientific pronouncements." - ClaudiusTard

"Smoking isn't addictive." - Rush Limbaugh

"Smoking doesn't cause cancer." - Rush Limbaugh
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (13) Aug 03, 2013
Why do we bother to go to school/university then?

"Some of the best minds didn't need that. Maybe most of them.
One of them was Einstein" - SlaveYouAre

Myth. Einstein was educated in the German public school system.

http://www.abc.ne...5185.htm

On the other hand your education seems to be a complete failure.
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (13) Aug 03, 2013
"The debate is about the 3% of the total CO2 that man contributes" - MrRetard

3% per year

Continued over 150 years that amount to a total increase of 8,400 percent.

You poor Retard....
freeiam
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 03, 2013
Myth. Einstein was educated in the German public school system.

Not at all, he was educated in Italie and Switzerland and not even on a real university.
His exceptional insight came from self education (because he was an autodidact) and original thinking, something no university or other education can teach.
Denying these facts doesn't make you creditable. Playing with names like a three year old doesn't make it better.
djr
3.6 / 5 (12) Aug 03, 2013
freeiam - I am not a supporter of our current education system. My wife is a teacher, and I work in the school system a great deal here in the U.S. My education growing up in England was shameful. I agree that Einstein was independently brilliant - and he himself was critical of the wrote learning system that squashes creativity.

However - it seem you are factually wrong - and that from 1884 - 1894 - Einstein attended school in Munich. https://en.wikipe...Einstein
socean
5 / 5 (10) Aug 03, 2013
Dear Phys Org Moderators,

Please moderate the comments using editorial judgement.

Thanks
TruthSucks_
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2013
I do not either believe or agree with this post as a fellow scientist unless it is proven i.e. unless I see more drastic and severe whether changes and sea level rise and some cities sink.
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (19) Aug 03, 2013
Dear Phys Org Moderators,

Please moderate the comments using editorial judgement.

Thanks

I suggest not holding your breath in anticipation.
Neinsense99
2.3 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2013
freeiam - I am not a supporter of our current education system. My wife is a teacher, and I work in the school system a great deal here in the U.S. My education growing up in England was shameful. I agree that Einstein was independently brilliant - and he himself was critical of the wrote learning system that squashes creativity.

However - it seem you are factually wrong - and that from 1884 - 1894 - Einstein attended school in Munich. https://en.wikipe...Einstein

That would be a rote learning system, not "wrote". https://en.wikipe...learning
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2013
CapnKirk wrote:
I just want to say... CO2 is NOT the ONLY greenhouse gas that we have to worry for the atmosphere. Methane, CH4, will most likely be our current atmosphere's killer. Governments and companies want use to believe that natural gas is our best option for energy right now. Hydraulic Fracturing is producing greater methane leakage into the atmosphere every day with millions more wells being drilled throughout the world.
Just think about it.

It makes you want to get beamed up, eh?
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (20) Aug 03, 2013
I believe! I believe in the consensus! Truly, I believe!

Consensus definition of global warming:

"http://www.thefre...+warming

Hmmm... maybe I should check the definitions for global cooling?

Have you tried the Elvis Lives consensus? It's smaller, but I hear they have nice parties.
Neinsense99
2.2 / 5 (19) Aug 03, 2013
Dear Phys Org Moderators,

Please moderate the comments using editorial judgement.

Thanks

In the meantime, we can stop lifting the cranks and trolls above the comment filter threshold by not quoting the full text of their drivel all the time, unless there is some reason to do so. All that does is replicate their bunk in higher-rated comments.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (26) Aug 03, 2013
So by picking 1997.5, and hadrcut 3 - uba can come up with this graph -
It's not cherry picking. I just used full years to the end of the current data, to eliminate seasonal signals.

But if you go back 1 year to 1996 - and use the more updated data record of hadrcut 4 - you come up with this graph -
Here, you just tried to hide the current signal in a larger trend. Here's the current trend: http://www.woodfo....5/trend

Interesting how cherry picking works!!!
Yes, isn't it interesting you work so hard to hide the current trend. Why aren't you happy it's cooling? Isn't that what you claim you want?

So let's just look at the last 150 years.

I'd say that fits the definition that uba quoted of global warming....Looks like global warming to me.
Again, hiding the current data in a larger signal. Why? What is it about the current cooling that bothers you?

Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (20) Aug 03, 2013
freeiam - I am not a supporter of our current education system. My wife is a teacher, and I work in the school system a great deal here in the U.S. My education growing up in England was shameful. I agree that Einstein was independently brilliant - and he himself was critical of the wrote learning system that squashes creativity.

However - it seem you are factually wrong - and that from 1884 - 1894 - Einstein attended school in Munich. https://en.wikipe...Einstein

That's OK, he has his own set of facts.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (26) Aug 03, 2013
Consensus definition of global warming:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures:
http://www.woodfo....5/trend

So, just who are the "deniers" now?

djr
3.6 / 5 (17) Aug 03, 2013
No No Uba - here is the current trend.

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

Yes it is cherry picking - picking your start date and your end date to get the result you want - it's called confirmation bias.

Just look at the long term - 100 or 150 years - then you can see the current trend. To say that looking at the 100 year record is hiding the current trend is really dumb. It is clear that when you look at the 100 or 150 year record - surface temperatures are on a plateau. We have been around and around this one. Just as surface temperatures were on a plateau from 1940 to 1980. And just as with the situation for that 40 year period - the climate had not stopped warming - just the surface temps. And you can be so smug - pointing out that global warming is defined in a text book as surface temps. But the fact is that the climate as a whole is still warming. The system is still warming.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (16) Aug 03, 2013
Using UbVonTard's ConservaTard logic, Isn't this the current trend?

http://www.woodfo....5/trend
VendicarE
3 / 5 (16) Aug 03, 2013
I see that UbVonTard is back to using HadCrut3 even though he has been told dozens of times that it doesn't include the polar regions and hence doesn't reflect a global measure of the planet's temperature.

Hadcrut 4 does a better job.

And the trend is opposite TardieBoy's claimed trend over the same time period.

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

Like all Denialists. UbVonTard is here to lie... Lie... Lie... and then Lie some more.

Filth.

VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (17) Aug 03, 2013
"It's not cherry picking. I just used full years to the end of the current data," - UbVonTard

What a moron you are.

Adding full years is not relevant to the statistical significance of the result.

You insist on posting cherry picked start and end times that produce a result that is what you want rather than what reflects the real statistically significant trend.

In the case of global climate change, that trend is defined by 3 decades or more of data, not rounding up or down to the nearest year.

You have been told this dozens of times, yet you insist on trying to lie with statistics.

Filth.
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (15) Aug 03, 2013
"Here's the current trend:" - UbVonTard

Using your logic, here is the current trend..

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

Moving to 1 year earlier your trend becomes...

http://www.woodfo....5/trend
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (14) Aug 03, 2013
"Not at all, he was educated in Italie and Switzerland and not even on a real university." - SlaveYouAre

Odd how your view of reality doesn't mesh with real history....

Are you from an alternate universe?

Here is some photographic evidence from this universe.

http://nl.wikiped...tura.jpg

NikFromNYC
2.1 / 5 (26) Aug 03, 2013
Reality update: YOU GUYS ARE ARGUING ABOUT THE WEATHER!
jackjump
1.6 / 5 (19) Aug 03, 2013
The title is True but only if you include the last million years or so as recent. Here's the last 65 million years: http://www.global..._Rev.png
We're at the lower right hand corner where the swings in climate are strongest and are happening about a hundred thousand years apart. A couple million years ago where those swings are less violent they were occurring about forty thousand years apart. Before that the swings were much less violent. All that has nothing to do with man or CO2 which was ten times as large over much of the whole graph. It's very unlikely that man's contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to send the climate soaring to new heights beyond the amplitude of the swings that are already occurring, especially since the top of the current swings are much lower than the entire graph that has much higher levels of CO2 than we will ever put into the atmosphere.
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (16) Aug 03, 2013
"YOU GUYS ARE ARGUING ABOUT THE WEATHER!" - NikkieTard

We have been telling UbVonTard that for years.

He is just too stupid and too corrupt to accept that fact.
wwqq
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2013
The panic promoters however, do not put this into their models as you cannot charge $$$ water vapour.


Water vapour is an amplifying feedback. Every climate model ever made includes it.

Even Svante Arrhenius, the first person to suggest that CO2 emissions were large enough to affect climate included it in the 19th century.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (27) Aug 03, 2013
No No Uba - here is the current trend.
Well, that's hardly "warming." And again, you're manipulating the data to hide the net cooling currently (and generally) taking place.

Yes it is cherry picking - picking your start date and your end date to get the result you want - it's called confirmation bias.
Well, by that definition, ALL data is cherry picked.

Why have you consistently claimed the world continues to warm (present tense)?

Obviously (and by the consensus definition) your claim is false, as there's been no net warming in well more than a decade.

Just look at the long term - 100 or 150 years - then you can see the current trend.
Most of which having occured before any possibly discernible AGW signal, thereby demonstrating the warming trend had simply been an extension of a natural trend. And that it stopped, even in light of significantly higher levels of CO2, and continues to stall as CO2 continues to rise, indicates CO2 is not a significant cause.

meBigGuy
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 03, 2013
I looked up how to become an expert in anything by using google (on google, of course)
Step 1. Select the Area of Expertise Carefully
Step 2. Google the Expertise Exactly
Step 3. Go Deep!! (To Become An Expert Using Google Search, You Need to Go 10 - 20 Pages Deep)
Step 4. YouTube and Other Resources
Step 5. Start Telling Other What You Know

I guess that's all it takes! The 10-20 pages deep might throw a few people here, judging by their ability to RTFA.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (25) Aug 03, 2013
To say that looking at the 100 year record is hiding the current trend is really dumb. It is clear that when you look at the 100 or 150 year record - surface temperatures are on a plateau. We have been around and around this one. Just as surface temperatures were on a plateau from 1940 to 1980.
But shouldn't the ever increasing CO2 have a compounding effect, making it ever more difficult for other signals to intervene?

And just as with the situation for that 40 year period - the climate had not stopped warming - just the surface temps.
Uh, isn't that where we live?

And you can be so smug - pointing out that global warming is defined in a text book as surface temps. But the fact is that the climate as a whole is still warming. The system is still warming.
So now all of a sudden the "scientific consensus" doesn't matter? Have you gone rogue?

And no, it's not still warming. Most of the data used to imply this is from models, not actual measurements.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (25) Aug 03, 2013
Consensus definition of global warming:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....5/trend

djr = denier.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 03, 2013
"Well, that's hardly "warming." - UbVonTard

0.2'C per year is hardly warming? 2'C per decade is hardly warming?

20'C per century is hardly warming?

Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life TardieBoy?
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (16) Aug 03, 2013
Once again, serial liar UbVonTard is caught employing HadCrut 3 rather than HadCrut 4 data to produce his cherry picked cooling trend.

HadCrut 4 - which provides better global coverage produces the following result...

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

UbVonTard has been told dozens of times that HadCrut 3 ignores most of the polar regions and yet he continues to dishonestly misrepresent it as a global average.

What a filthy liar.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (26) Aug 03, 2013
"Well, that's hardly "warming." - Uba

0.2'C per year is hardly warming? 2'C per decade is hardly warming?
Where'd you get this figure? His graph only shows about a .02 degree rise in about five and a third years.

20'C per century is hardly warming?
...which would be about a third of a degree in a century.

Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life TardieBoy?
What's the matter spambot? Having trouble with the visual data?

LOL

VendicarE = stupid spambot.

Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (20) Aug 03, 2013
Ubavontubass wrote:

LOL
VendicarE = stupid spambot.

For a "stupid spambot", VendicarE responded to my PM rather convincingly like a human would. Either you are accusing without a case, or it's time for a Turing test.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (24) Aug 03, 2013
Ubavontubass wrote:

LOL
VendicarE = stupid spambot.

For a "stupid spambot", VendicarE responded to my PM rather convincingly like a human would. Either you are accusing without a case, or it's time for a Turing test.
I've tested this spambot. It fails, quite consistently.

VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (16) Aug 03, 2013
UbVonTard is incapable of interpreting a simple plot.

He just doesn't know how to read the horizontal scale.

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

I suspect his real failure is in not knowing how to perform simple subtraction.
djr
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
Uba: "So now all of a sudden the "scientific consensus" doesn't matter? Have you gone rogue?"

What scientific consensus are you talking about? My understanding is that current scientific consensus says that the climate is in a long term warming trend (on the order of 150 years or so), and that trend continues. This trend is marked by warming oceans, melting glaciers, melting ice sheets, rising oceans, and warming atmospheric temperatures. The system is highly complex, so many of the indicators are not smooth, linear curves, but very stepwise. Atmospheric temperatures have been on a plateau for a couple of decades - but the other indicators suggest that this is a part of the stepwise increase .

djr = denier.

You have a childish mean streak - on top of which the data is against you.

"Most of the data used to imply this is from models, not actual measurements." The hard data is conclusive - the climate system is still warming - you are wrong.
jlevyellow
2.4 / 5 (15) Aug 04, 2013


"Yet they fear communism."

Communism is whatever you think it is until you mute the television and just watch its actions. Try reading Diana West's hugely annotated "American Betrayal" I did not know about the Ukrainian famine deaths imposed by Russia or the Katyn massacre of 40 thousand Polish officers by the Russians (I thought of the Katyn massacre as a German atrocity.) I was aware of a number (60+ million deaths between Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot), but West puts that number at closer to 100 million - all nameless and unrecorded - as they should be in a communist reality. Yet, FDR is still lionized, though he allowed the death of humans at the hands of both Nazis and Communists in an attempt to "just get along." The fool who equated communism with cooperation between people is beyond saving. Until his own testicles are on the chopping block, he will fail to note the errors of his perceptions. He must be very young to be so pink.
Gmr
3.1 / 5 (19) Aug 04, 2013
Oh, jlevyellow.

I was in East Berlin before the wall fell. Communism as a means to control a population and oppress everyone but those in power is well documented as a system rife with opportunities for abuse and not in tune with the will to achieve individually.

But what people call communism here is as defined by Ayn Rand and Fox News. It's any cooperation at all, from what I can tell. It's nonsense like calling public education "communism" and tax collection "communism." It's as if some folks want to live free of any obligation to anyone else. But you can't. The sad message is you can't.

Whatever is yours only has any worth at all, regarding goods and services, if someone else agrees to it. Sure you can have a gun. But that won't make people want to trade with you, make contracts with you, deal with you at all. Even communication (there's that "comm" prefix) relies on a common agreed framework for interaction.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (25) Aug 04, 2013
Uba is incapable of interpreting a simple plot.

He just doesn't know how to read the horizontal scale.

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

I suspect his real failure is in not knowing how to perform simple subtraction.
LOL. The stuppid spambot has lost the context (again). Now it thinks when I stated, "Well, that's hardly 'warming.'" I was referring to its own nonsensical 3 onth graph, which came afterwards!

LOL

VendicarE = stupid spambot
VendicarE
3 / 5 (17) Aug 04, 2013
Using your logic, here is the current trend..

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

5 messages later, UbVonTard wrote...

"Well, that's hardly "warming."" - UbVonTard

Then he claims the order of those messages is reverse...

Once again, serial liar UbVonTard is caught lying.

That is what Global Warming denialists do. Lie, lie, lie, and then lie some more.

Filth.

In another thread UbVonTard is insisting that ice changes it's temperature as it melts.

But only if it is heated from above.....

His scientific illiteracy knows no bounds.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (26) Aug 04, 2013
What scientific consensus are you talking about?
The scientific consensus which defines global warming as, "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

My understanding is that current scientific consensus says that the climate is in a long term warming trend (on the order of 150 years or so),
Of which only the warming since 1950 has been (falsely) attributed to CO2.

and that trend continues.
You are lying. The trend reversed more than a decade ago.

This trend is marked by warming oceans, melting glaciers, melting ice sheets, rising oceans, and warming atmospheric temperatures.
More lies. These trends existed long before the supposed AGW signal could exist, and there's no subsequent signal of an acceleration in these trends as a result of AGW. Quite the opposite, in fact.

continued...

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (25) Aug 04, 2013
The system is highly complex, so many of the indicators are not smooth, linear curves, but very stepwise. Atmospheric temperatures have been on a plateau for a couple of decades - but the other indicators suggest that this is a part of the stepwise increase.
B.S.. If AGW is the result of CO2, and CO2 concentrations are increasing, then eventually the CO2 signal must overwhelm other signals. There is no indication this is the case.

You have a childish mean streak -
I'm tired of your B.S..

on top of which the data is against you.
What data? The temperatures are clearly in decline.

Most of the data used to imply this is from models, not actual measurements.-uba
The hard data is conclusive - the climate system is still warming - you are wrong.
What "hard data?" According to the scientific consensus definition, the only hard data that matters is the temperature. The temperatures are declining (albeit slowly).

djr = liar

VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (17) Aug 04, 2013
"You are lying. The trend reversed more than a decade ago." - UbVonTard

Quite impossible, for as you have been told at least 100 times now, Global Climate isn't defined over periods as short as 10 years.

Lie, Lie, Lie... That is all UbVonTard does. And then when he is finished, he Lies some more.

That is what he is here for. That is what he does. Lying is his reason for living.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 04, 2013
"If AGW is the result of CO2, and CO2 concentrations are increasing, then eventually the CO2 signal must overwhelm other signals." - UbVonTard

Mindless Non-Logic.

Simply because something is increasing doesn't mean that a function of that increase will necessarily exceed some some other value.

Your stated general principle, is false. And once again you have exposed yourself as astonishingly ignorant of science and mathematics.

Filth.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
"The temperatures are clearly in decline." - UbVonTard

Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

http://www.woodfo...83/trend

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (24) Aug 04, 2013
Using your logic, here is the current trend..

5 messages later, Uba wrote...

"Well, that's hardly "warming."" - Uba

Then he claims the order of those messages is reverse...
LOL. The stupid spambot is actually showing us how it lost the context. It can't see to which, and to whom's, statement I was responding to. That must be why it doesn't use proper quote brackets.

LOL.

In another thread Uba is insisting that ice changes it's temperature as it melts.

But only if it is heated from above.....

His scientific illiteracy knows no bounds.
Idiot spambot, that's about atmospheric gasses, water vapor and steam, not ice itself. Maybe you think the atmosphere can't be warmer than the surface of the ice?

LOL

VendicarE = stupid spambot

runrig
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 04, 2013
The panic promoters however, do not put this into their models as you cannot charge $$$ water vapour.


Water vapour is an amplifying feedback. Every climate model ever made includes it.

Even Svante Arrhenius, the first person to suggest that CO2 emissions were large enough to affect climate included it in the 19th century.


Thanks for the reassertion of that point - which I made lower down the thread.
It's Just another example of the myopic thinking of denialists.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2013
But what people call communism here is as defined by Ayn Rand and Fox News. It's any cooperation at all, from what I can tell. It's nonsense like calling public education "communism" and tax collection "communism." It's as if some folks want to live free of any obligation to anyone else. But you can't. The sad message is you can't.


This resonated as the ideology behind "some" of the posters on here.

AGW needs a "co-operative" world-wide response to counter - so therefore I deny it exists as it is against my ideology. It's damn Communism.
Further, in order to convince myself that it is a communist plot, my logic produces conspiracy theory beyond the bizarre and demonises public figures who have a voice pro the argument..
Egleton
1.4 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
It is I,
Invader Zim.
Climate change is a lie propagated by Me.
I spread the Lies and Propaganda.
Kneel before me Oh masses of Earth.
I, I. Invader Zim, am your Master.
Bwa Ha Ha Ha.
(Evil Laughter)
All is Revealed
maxberan
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2013
Runrig - actually methane and carbon dioxide are very similar as greenhouse gases, i.e how opaque they are to IR radiation. The differences commonly quoted relate mainly to differences in their concentrations - methane three orders of magnitude less abundant - but also differences in their radiatively active wavebands and their lifetimes in the atmosphere.
mountain_team_guy
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 04, 2013
Climate change is happening so fast, we can't even see it?

If you do happen to spot some example of what can be attributed to climate change, please elaborate here. For example, did your local ski resort shut down earlier in the season over the years? No significant trend here in the Cascades. The passes still close and open same as they have for decades. Here's proof. http://www.wsdot....tory.htm

Another idea that just came to me was to check the date of ice break up of Alaskan rivers. Couldn't find any change there either. I'm not saying climate change isn't happening. I'd be a lot more suprised if it weren't. I just find articles like this one a bit amusing, when despite my personal experience of more than a few decades, I haven't seen or felt a thing.
djr
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
Uba: "I'm tired of your B.S."

And I yours. The facts are against you - but you keep hurling insults.

Here are the facts - over the past 100 or so years - the climate has been in a long term warming trend. All the data sets are in good close agreement of this long term warming trend. This trend can be seen in the ocean temps, ocean levels rising, the ice sheets melting, the glaciers melting, the atmospheric temps. When trying to identify the driver of this warming trend - scientists have eliminated all but one factor - and that is greenhouse gas concentrations. The mechanism of this warming in well understood. The atmospheric temp increase have been very stepwise - but over the long term have shown a very consistent increase. Currently atmospheric temps have shown a plateau for about 2 decades. Such plateaus have occurred before. All other indicators show the warming trend continuing. All facts Uba, all facts.
djr
3.8 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
mountain: " I haven't seen or felt a thing."

The science of climate change is not based on your personal experience. If you talk to someone in China they will have a very different experience. http://www.upi.co...5401284/

But neither experience proves anything. The science is based on data. Go look at the data for the past 100 years. Look at as many factors as you can - atmospheric temps, ocean temps, ice sheet volume, glacier volume, ocean levels etc.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (22) Aug 04, 2013
If you want to understand the reasoning behind the government sponsored global warming scare you have to look no farther than the proposed "solutions". All of them involve redistribution of wealth. The UN on a global scale, wealthy countries paying poor countries and nations taxing conventional energy users in order to increase their power over the poor.

Redistribution of YOUR MONEY is also to large corporations and campaign contributors. After all, we can't continue to "save the planet" if we cannot get reelected. You just have to look at massive failures of government subsidized "Green" corporations to see the extent of the political corruption connected with AGW.
djr
3.7 / 5 (15) Aug 04, 2013
Hey MR166 - you are really long on conspiracy theories - and short on data.

Here let me repeat my question to you from earlier.

Really - I was not aware of that. Could you support your assertion - and also tell us what the cause of the pre 1940's warming was? I think the candidates would be - milankovich cycles, increased solar output - reduced atmospheric particulate matter - natural green house gases. Please enlighten us.

(the assertion was that no one attributes pre 1940's warming to man).

Thanks in advance.
MR166
2 / 5 (25) Aug 04, 2013
Hummmm increased temperatures from and increase in NATURAL greenhouse gasses. What a novel idea. You had better reread the warmist propaganda handbook which clearly states the the natural CO2 emissions are in perfect balance with natural sequestration. It is only man's 3% that is causing all the problems.
plaasjaapie
1.9 / 5 (23) Aug 04, 2013
I think that PhysOrg publishes ridiculous global warming tripe like this just to inflate their hit counts.
djr
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 04, 2013
So is that your response MR166 - it is natural increases in C02 levels? This would at least allow that the warming is being caused by greenhouse gasses. Do you have any data and references to support your assertion?
MR166
1.6 / 5 (21) Aug 04, 2013
Of course humans contribute to the CO2 levels and yes it is a greenhouse gas. But CO2's total contribution to warming is pretty much obscured by noise of other natural cycles.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (24) Aug 04, 2013
Here are the facts - over the past 100 or so years - the climate has been in a long term warming trend. All the data sets are in good close agreement of this long term warming trend. This trend can be seen in the ocean temps, ocean levels rising, the ice sheets melting, the glaciers melting, the atmospheric temps. When trying to identify the driver of this warming trend - scientists have eliminated all but one factor - and that is greenhouse gas concentrations. The mechanism of this warming in well understood. The atmospheric temp increase have been very stepwise - but over the long term have shown a very consistent increase. Currently atmospheric temps have shown a plateau for about 2 decades. Such plateaus have occurred before. All other indicators show the warming trend continuing. All facts Uba, all facts.
Since you insist there's evidene linking the long term warming trend to CO2, please provide this supposed evidence.

(crickets chirping)

That's what I thought.

Gmr
2.8 / 5 (19) Aug 04, 2013
If you want to understand the reasoning behind the government sponsored global warming scare you have to look no farther than the proposed "solutions". All of them involve redistribution of wealth.


Not really. They involve solutions that don't always benefit the status quo. The losers will decry that it's not really happening, that it's not accurate, that new things are bad. You should have seen the campaigns and regulations against the motorcar.

This is the new reality. Polluters and producers of high-carbon-emitting fuel are scared, and rightly so.

The motorcar is being proposed, and they are all horse traders.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (22) Aug 04, 2013
Has anyone else noticed the unusual behavor of the Arctic sea ice these past 10 days? It's probably just a temporary anomally, but the ice area hasn't been decreasing normally:

http://i44.tinypi...s745.jpg

...whereas the sea ice concentration has been increasing:

http://i43.tinypi...gffk.jpg

Also, the Antarctic sea ice is in record territory:

http://i40.tinypi...x0ue.jpg

Brr-rr-rr!

MR166
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 04, 2013
The biggest threat to mankind is not fossil fuels but their finite nature. We will run out of economically recoverable fuels long before the earth reaches some sort of climate "tipping point".

So I am on the same page as most of the warmists in regards to renewable energy. I just have an issue with things like carbon sequestration and renewable projects that do not make any economic sense at this point in time or have a very low or negative EROEI.

Nuclear energy has been written off as too dangerous but new nuclear technologies are available and must be utilized as part of the solution.
Gmr
3 / 5 (16) Aug 04, 2013
The biggest threat to mankind is not fossil fuels but their finite nature. We will run out of economically recoverable fuels long before the earth reaches some sort of climate "tipping point".

So I am on the same page as most of the warmists in regards to renewable energy. I just have an issue with things like carbon sequestration and renewable projects that do not make any economic sense at this point in time or have a very low or negative EROEI.

Nuclear energy has been written off as too dangerous but new nuclear technologies are available and must be utilized as part of the solution.

Then argue for nuclear energy. You'll find people here who support it as a somewhat viable alternative, too. All solutions come with their own problems. But labeling anything as "warmist" puts you in a camp of folks who live in deep denial for purely economic reasons, and are looking to deny the problem rather than propose solutions.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (22) Aug 04, 2013
GMR you do not fully understand the "Green Movement" and it's plan to bring the economies of the western world to it's knees via environmental concerns. Even power as renewable as hydroelectric does not count as "Green" under the proposed carbon emissions schemes. The US government has made a concerted effort to remove hydroelectric power stations for ecological reasons.
djr
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
Since you insist there's evidene linking the long term warming trend to CO2, please provide this supposed evidence.

(crickets chirping)

I am happy to take a minute to tackle that one. Your crickets chirping comment is childish - being that you put it as part of your comment.

OK - being that we cannot build an earth - and do experiments - we must rely on the data at hand - and doing the best we can to understand the relationship between the C02 increase, and the temperature increase. The scientific consensus is that the warming is caused by the C02 increase. Most C02 is natural - but the quantity in the atmosphere has been increasing because the anthropogenic portion has tipped the balance. Here is a good explanation of the whole process - http://www.skepti...fect.htm

If you want to disagree with the scientific consensus about what is causing the current warming - it is then on your head to tell us what you (cont).
djr
3.7 / 5 (13) Aug 04, 2013
(cont) believe is driving the current warming - and provide your data in support of your explanation.

I await your response.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (26) Aug 04, 2013
If you want to disagree with the scientific consensus about what is causing the current warming - it is then on your head to tell us what you believe is driving the current warming - and provide your data in support of your explanation.

I await your response.
Consensus definition of global warming:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....5/trend

So what "current warming" are you talking about?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (25) Aug 04, 2013
OK - being that we cannot build an earth - and do experiments - we must rely on the data at hand - and doing the best we can to understand the relationship between the C02 increase, and the temperature increase.
Hand-waving nonsense.

The scientific consensus is that the warming is caused by the C02 increase.
Which is not evidence.

Most C02 is natural - but the quantity in the atmosphere has been increasing because the anthropogenic portion has tipped the balance.
Then why is it currently cooling?

Here is a good explanation of the whole process - http://www.skepti...fect.htm
Pure conjecture (B.S.), and this article only attributes CO2 warming since 1975 and therefore does not support your claims.

(crickets still chirping)

MR166
1.9 / 5 (24) Aug 04, 2013
Warmist and denier are not pejoratives but just just two terms that describe which side of the CO2/energy discussion you are on.
Warmists are willing to support solutions that are not cost effective to our long term energy problems and they justify their positions with fears of imminent ecological dangers to the planet.

Deniers feel that the dangers are small and are looking for more cost effective solutions to long term problems.

IMHO the governments are feeding on the warmists fears to increase their own powers and reduce individual freedoms since that is the ultimate goal of any form of government.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 04, 2013
Warmists are willing to support solutions that are not cost effective to our long term energy problems and they justify their positions with fears of imminent ecological dangers to the planet


No, I at least support no particular solution, other than a switch away from fossil. As a retired meteorologist, I merely acknowledge the veracity of the science. Simple as that. Try and divorce the ideology/politics.

Deniers feel that the dangers are small and are looking for more cost effective solutions to long term problems.


Some do, but many of the most vocal on here have decided that CO2 AGW is wrong via that ideology and Google support for their position - which, of course they will find. It's the internet - anything you what is out there, making you think it's mainstream.

IMHO the governments are feeding on the warmists fears to increase their own powers and reduce individual freedoms since that is the ultimate goal of any form of government.


QED
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (26) Aug 04, 2013
MR166 suggested: "Deniers feel that the dangers are small and are looking for more cost effective solutions to long term problems."

The term "denier" is self-defeating to activists since as hate speech it both embarrassingly and anti-scientifically equates skepticism to Holocaust denial, but even if granted a pass on that, it represents fraudulent bait and switch propaganda in which skeptical denial of highly speculative massive water vapor amplification of the high school physics greenhouse effect is claimed to be denial of the boring greenhouse effect itself.

James Hansen's collegue who runs the junk-science-PR-firm-created RealClimate.org site, Gavin Schmidt, has advice for you: SHUT UP.

http://tinypic.co...&s=5
Gmr
3.5 / 5 (21) Aug 04, 2013
GMR you do not fully understand the "Green Movement" and it's plan to bring the economies of the western world to it's knees via environmental concerns...


I don't buy the ramblings of a few extremists as a template for the United States or western governments. Hydroelectric requires damming, which will have both economic and environmental impact. Any extraction of power requires a trade-off of some kind. What is acceptable is the point of negotiation. Giving up on negotiation and going for the stance of denying the problem is an unacceptable position, not opposition to current solutions.

Critique, but understand that people will want to know what is a viable alternative. People are much more receptive to statement of a problem if you have an idea for an alternative.

Hydroelectric, solar, wind - all require terrain and are not efficient, but are renewable. Nuclear is non-renewable, but small in footprint and high in cost of failure. And so-on.
Gmr
3.4 / 5 (22) Aug 04, 2013
The term "denier" is self-defeating to activists since as hate speech it both embarrassingly and anti-scientifically equates skepticism to Holocaust denial, but even if granted a pass on that, it represents fraudulent bait and switch propaganda in which skeptical denial of highly speculative massive water vapor amplification of the high school physics greenhouse effect is claimed to be denial of the boring greenhouse effect itself.


Oh cry me a river, you oppressed minority. Talk sense and people will talk sense to you. What's going on is actually happening. Sack up and deal with facts, then we can argue methods. Whinging does nothing.
djr
3.8 / 5 (18) Aug 04, 2013
Uba: Here was your question: "Since you insist there's evidene linking the long term warming trend to CO2, please provide this supposed evidence."

It is very reasonable to assume from this question that you are in agreement that there is a long term warming trend - and you were asking for the evidence to support that C02 is the driver of this warming. You did not dispute that there is a long term warming trend.

So I provided you with an explanation of the process that has led the scientific community to the conclusion that the most likely driver of this trend is C02, and I gave you a link that gives an in depth explanation of the process that has led to that conclusion.

You respond with -

"Then why is it currently cooling?"

I hope you understand how frustrating it is that you cannot stay on topic - and squirm around in a discussion like this.

So which is it - do you disagree that there is a long term warming trend, or do you disagree with the assessment that it is (cont)
djr
3.9 / 5 (18) Aug 04, 2013
cont. driven by C02 increase? If the latter - please provide your explanation for what is driving this warming trend - with support.
lengould100
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2013
Difficult to believe there's still dummies trying to dispute the science. That got boring ten years ago. Learn some science. And if your pet wacko theory is supported by peer reviewed, reputably published documents, please provide links or references, else shut the heck up.
lengould100
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2013
VendicarE
3 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2013
"Gavin Schmidt, has advice for you: SHUT UP." - NikkieTard

Schmidt doesn't want polarization.

I on the other hand want as much polarization as possible.

The farther I can push the enemy into an extreme stance, the more justified we will be in their coming slaughter.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (21) Aug 05, 2013
cont. driven by C02 increase? If the latter - please provide your explanation for what is driving this warming trend - with support.

Perhaps it is Satan working extra hard on the giant bellows that fan the fires of hell. It's part of the Infernal One's physician-recommended fitness program. Yeah, that's the ticket...
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (23) Aug 05, 2013
Since you insist there's evidene linking the long term warming trend to CO2, please provide this supposed evidence.

(crickets chirping)

That's what I thought....

It isn't him saying that, it's every national science organization on the planet -- and no, your beer buddies down at the local peeler bar aren't a national science organization.
Unbiased Observer
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 05, 2013
"Gavin Schmidt, has advice for you: SHUT UP." - NikkieTard

Schmidt doesn't want polarization.

I on the other hand want as much polarization as possible.

The farther I can push the enemy into an extreme stance, the more justified we will be in their coming slaughter.


Seriously? This is acceptable behavior?

Phys.org moderators, when this trash is posted and not removed, you have failed. This is honestly disgusting.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2013
The farther I can push the enemy into an extreme stance, the more justified we will be in their coming slaughter.

And slaughter isn't an extreme stance? (I.e. you're justifying your own slaughter right afterwards)

I disagree with these people as much as you do - but you're falling into the very trap you're trying to lay for them (needlessly - as facts are enough. Reality will bear out the facts. Always)

Polarization helps no one. It only entrenches and radicalizes BOTH sides into a dogmatic stance.
That's not the way to go with the facts (and science in general)
MR166
1.6 / 5 (21) Aug 05, 2013
Runrig if you do not see how AGW is being used as a tool to strip us of our freedoms by a powerful few then it is too late for you and the others who have been programmed like you.

The ultimate goal is one huge central world government controlled by a very small group of powerful people. Any wealth or rights that your children possess will be through their "benevolence". But your children will be happy since they will be taught from preschool on up that freedom is a bad thing since it results in horrible inequalities and mass destruction of the planet.
Neinsense99
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 05, 2013
Runrig if you do not see how AGW is being used as a tool to strip us of our freedoms by a powerful few then it is too late for you and the others who have been programmed like you.

The ultimate goal is one huge central world government controlled by a very small group of powerful people. Any wealth or rights that your children possess will be through their "benevolence". But your children will be happy since they will be taught from preschool on up that freedom is a bad thing since it results in horrible inequalities and mass destruction of the planet.

http://rationalwi...y_theory
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2013
Runrig if you do not see how AGW is being used as a tool to strip us of our freedoms by a powerful few then it is too late for you and the others who have been programmed like you.


Like I said I'm a retired meteorologist - and on that basis, and that alone I accept the science as having established that CO2 driven AGW is occurring beyond reasonable doubt.
I don't consider working for a premier weather organisation for 32 years in a variety of capacities, primarily observation and forecasting in military and commercial fields (not research) and getting a natural instinct of how the weather system works in that time - as being "programmed" - not by ideology anyway - but by nature.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2013
The ultimate goal is one huge central world government controlled by a very small group of powerful people

Erm. This problem is a little bigger than people. If we don't do anything about climate change there won't BE any people (controlled by a few or not).

You're saying that all the data of all the scientists in all of the world for the past hundred years were manipulated by some all-powerful (and yet completely invisible) cabal?
If there were such a powerful cabal then it'd have no need for a unified world government anymore. That's just tinfoil-hat territory.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (23) Aug 05, 2013
It has been well documented that some of the leading scientists connected with the AGW movement have manipulated the data in order to justify their claims. Historical records that did not fit the curve that they were trying present were discarded, the MWP being just one of them.

At least I can still see and hear with my tinfoil hat. You on the other hand are a victim of a progressive educational system and media that has blinded you to reality.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 05, 2013
It has been well documented that some of the leading scientists connected with the AGW movement have manipulated the data in order to justify their claims.

1. There is no such thing as a 'leading scientists' (that's just journalistic blurb)
2. Proof?
3. Climate science is done by pretty much every country in the world (most of them do have easy access to weather data by looking outside). A few scientists getting together and plotting nefarious schemes could never hope to influence that. If they manipulated any data the discrepancy would show up in ALL the studies of ALL other countries immediately.

You on the other hand are a victim of a progressive educational system and media that has blinded you to reality

I, on the other hand, have worked as a scientist and know how science is done (on a national and international level). I need no tinfoil hat. I've been-and-done. And your idea of what science is is so far off the mark it doesn't even make a good Hollywood movie.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (23) Aug 05, 2013
MR166:
...At least I can still see and hear with my tinfoil hat. You on the other hand are a victim of a progressive educational system and media that has blinded you to reality.

Friends don't let friends type bunk.

If you know the author of the above, and care for their reputation and wellness, hold on to those keys. Better yet, the entire keyboard. Not only can posting bunk result in severe social penalties if caught, every year, bunk typers kills thousands of intellectual discussions and injure the dignity of thousands more, most often their own!

Don't hesitate to seek professional guidance and help if needed. Prolonged posting of bunk can lead to troll syndrome, a socially fatal condition, and early intervention is key.

Warning: graphic imagery of troll syndrome may be disturbingly. http://static.tec...ge-2.png

The good news is that it is curable, and there is hope. :)
SURFIN85
2.9 / 5 (16) Aug 05, 2013
I used to be skeptical of human-caused global warming, but, after analysis of the issue, I changed my mind.

Still, I'm discouraged by the amount of pure bullshit and conspiracy-theory nonsense espoused in forums like these. We need everyone on board making real changes in our way of life to prevent a catastrophe of unprecedented scale. Our way of life is the catastrophe. Or should I say, way of death.
GuruShabu
1.5 / 5 (24) Aug 05, 2013
I used to be skeptical of human-caused global warming, but, after analysis of the issue, I changed my mind.

Still, I'm discouraged by the amount of pure bullshit and conspiracy-theory nonsense espoused in forums like these. We need everyone on board making real changes in our way of life to prevent a catastrophe of unprecedented scale. Our way of life is the catastrophe. Or should I say, way of death.

That's exactly what these greed global scheme wants you to believe.
OMG, the sea level is going to the roof and we are damaging the planet.
They want you to feel guilty and defend their propaganda as a religious issue.
It is exactly what we see here.
There is no shade area.
It is black or white.
A fight between "believers" and deniers".
I am really sorry for this status quo.
Not to mention trollers like Vendicar (or whatever his alias) calling people "tards".
This is NOT a scientific forum.
It is a inquisition mass (or mess?), unfortunately.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 05, 2013
The Guru says;
Not to mention trollers like Vendicar (or whatever his alias) calling people "tards".This is NOT a scientific forum.
If you look at all of the articles that have no comments, you can rest assure that this is a scientific forum. Just ask a question of relevance and I'm sure you will get a straight answer. However, what is happening here is partly politcal. The rightwing tribe doesn't like global warming because it is a burden on heir belief system. That belief system includes being able to run roughshod over anyone who disagrees with certain beliefs. Beliefs like it is OK to pollute the air, it will go away.
Or it's ok spill oil in the ocean because it happens naturally. Etc.. Etc. I mean really nutty stuff.

Just completely ill-logical. So if you wander why Vendi calls everyone tards, it's because they make statements that are tard like, and have no logical foundation. Almost all are rightwing stooges (ie. Tards).
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2013
"It has been well documented that some of the leading scientists connected with the AGW movement have manipulated the data"- Mr166

That has been the continual accusation made by congenital liars.

The dozens of investigations of the accused scientists that have exonerated them for any wrongdoing, is what proves people like Mr166 are congenital liars.
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2013
Yup, you even have to explain to the Tard why they are Tards.

"Just completely ill-logical. So if you wander why Vendi calls everyone tards, it's because they make statements that are tard like, and have no logical foundation. Almost all are rightwing stooges (ie. Tards)." - Howhot

Conservatives are intellectually inferior.

Polarize. Identify. Exterminate for the betterment of the species.
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2013
"At least I can still see and hear with my tinfoil hat. " - Mr166

Then you must hear everyone laughing at you for being so stupid.

What does that laughter tell you, TardieBoy?

Does it tell you that you need more Tinfoil?

Bahahahahhahaha.............

djr
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 06, 2013
A fight between "believers" and deniers".

Think about the pattern Guru. There is a scientific article - discussing an issue related to the climate. It could be species drift, disease migration, glacier retreat, ice sheet changes etc. etc. Almost immediately - the same group of posters jump up and start ranting about Al Gore, the conspiracy of the climate science community, attempts to set up a world government etc. etc. Nik from NY wants to attack the science - by telling us that Al Gore owns a jet ski. There are several posters on this site who clearly have some scientific training - and try to discuss the science. Those discussions often end in Uba, or Antigoracle calling people scumbags, and turds. You are right - the caliber of the discussion is often very poor. It seems to us on the side of science - that the alternative is to give the anti science thugs free reign to monopolize the comments. So we push back some... What should we do?
GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 06, 2013
"You are right - the caliber of the discussion is often very poor. It seems to us on the side of science - that the alternative is to give the anti science thugs free reign to monopolize the comments. So we push back some... What should we do?"

That's a very tough question because it implies we are logic and impartial which I am sure it is not the case.
So, answering your question "What should we do?"
I would begin with respect.
Respect for both sides.
What we really want to achieve here is not consensus but clarification.
Assuming people here are reasonably educated in science, maths and because of that they "frequent" a webpage like this one, I would recommend tolerance.
If you detach yourself from the very topic and just analyse the polarized posts we can compare our "discussion" here with religion extremism (which I have posted a number os times).
I have worked for NASA for 10 years (from 1995 to 2005) and even at NASA you see this sharp dichotomy. (Continuing on next post)
GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (21) Aug 06, 2013
I believe this extremism is caused by the intrinsic emotional content the subject brings up.
It is also caused by the form the media bridles public attention to the subject.
If you count the number of times a certain word appears by day in the Internet you will find something about the "public opinion".
Public opinion is nothing but media manipulation, unfortunately.
On the other hand if you think about the planet with a geological view, not a psychological view you will agree that there is no such a thing as a constant climate.
The climate has changed since the planet begun forming.
In the Carboniferous period the CO2 concentration was above 800ppm. This was about 300 million years ago. The weather was a very agreeable 22 degrees in almost the entire planet.
The sea level was much higher than today. The vegetation was booming at a much faster rate than today because they just love CO2. However, man or even mammals were not there yet.
Most of that colossal vegetal (next post)
GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 06, 2013
...was transformed on what today we call coal reserves. Our coal one day was in the atmosphere.
Another (VERY) appealing claim by the media (mostly here in Australia where I live) drowns us with the prospect of coral bleaching. All Great Barrier Reef is going to die IF the oceans temperature raises just 1 degree centigrade!
However, if you just look at the biological history of corals, you are going to realise that they have been in the planet even before the Carboniferous period. Therefore they have experienced and survived temperature changes with a range much bigger than 1 single degree. It seems that when journalists publicise their articles based upon some "scientists" view they forget on purpose what we call (because we still don't know) "rubbish genes" what in fact is 90% of the genetic material that is not rubbish at all but some sort of spare genetic tyre for different environmental roads. (continuing...)
GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 06, 2013
...We also forget in our painful guilty about the damage we are doing to the "poor suffering planet" that "sustainability does not exist in nature!
Nothing is sustainable forever in nature. In the long run systems evolve and transform themselves into something else.
If you go to the top of the Andes or the Alpes and you collect some rock samples what do you find?
Former coral reef specimens!
They were one day underneath the sea level. Now they are about 4000m above it!
Can you ave a better example on how dynamic the terrestrial environment is?
So, how can we prevent the "magnificent" Great Barrier Reef to vanish in future?
But nobody highlights this point. The only thing spread in the news is OMG, the global warming is threatening the GBR! We need to cat right now!
There is another hidden assumption in this statement: It assumes we can act and we can change something in the global weather! This is patently untrue but nobody says it!
Continuing...
GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 06, 2013
Also, most of the articles about the future of the weather are not sincere to state they are "just' models and that prediction is based on that model.
No, they just state bluntly "The sea level will rise 2 feet in the nest 50 years!"
To finalise: we also read a lot of articles stating the Kilimanjaro snow coverage of dwindling due to global warming!
It is not correct at all.
The snow coverage of the Kilimanjaro is vanishing for good but not due to any "global" weather change but t very local reasons. Simply the vegetation around the mountain been destroyed for agriculture and the humidity generated by the forest is not available any longer. Therefore there is not snow supply for the summit! This is indisputable but you never read this anywhere.
The very same with the glaciers. Does anyone here knows how many glaciers there are in the planet?
Nobody knows because we don't have a full map of all glaciers in the planet. It is estimated we have about 70,000 glaciers on earth. (cont....)
GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (21) Aug 06, 2013
Just in California we have more than a 1000 glaciers!
For sure some glaciers are melting but some are building up as well. Mostly in West Antartica.
Another interesting geological feature nobody seems to know is that we never had two polar caps so big as we have presently. There is an entire continent drifting presently right on the South pole. 300,000,000 years ago we had only an ocean there. Oceans are much better thermal machines than silicate continents therefore is much difficult to form a polar cap over moveable heat transporting streams of water. The North polar cap presently is only made possible because Alaska and Russia are squeezing a merely 60km passage that is compromising the efficiency of the oceans to transport heat.
There is also a clear correlation and "causation" between global temperature and CO2 present in the atmosphere. Not the other way around as Al Gore and other interested in promoting the idea of a cataclysmic future ...(cont.)
GuruShabu
1.5 / 5 (22) Aug 06, 2013
caused by humankind incapacity of controlling its appetite for energy!
There is a huge pressure for installing energy devices in our hoes to allow the government to "know" when we are consuming too much energy! So we will allow them to install some remote control switches that will cut our energy consumption whenever we reach a certain "threshold".
The "carbon footprint" is a disguised tax to basically reduce our free movement in the planet.
The greens agenda is not about "clean energy" it is about to reduce overall consumption of it and therefore put us back to our homes, make us ride bicycles, prevent us to commute and basically introduce a Global Government.
Unfortunately this view is mocked and very few are aware of the huge manipulation the media do blindly and consensually guided by interests that are far beyond any serious environmental concern.
Sadly though, real problems such as pollution, over fishing, ...(cont...)
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 06, 2013
So which is it - do you disagree that there is a long term warming trend, or do you disagree with the assessment that it is Red herring and driven by C02 increase? If the latter - please provide your explanation for what is driving this warming trend - with support.
Shifting the Burden of proof, and multiple other falllicies.

I asked you to prove your case, you failed to do so. Try again.

Also: K-an u reed dis cent-ants & core-ekt itt four spell-ink & grammmer?

GuruShabu
1.5 / 5 (20) Aug 06, 2013
...ocean reserves depletion, poverty and galactic expenditures on endless war are not tackled and are overseen by most of the media that only promotes "extraordinary" events such as earth quakes, floods, BBs, sports stars...endless distraction to the crowd.
Not to mention the financial manipulation of big institution such as JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Linch, to cite a few.
We have a return of malaria that had been almost eradicated but due to massive manipulation of data we all became against of DDT not because it is bad for health and the egg shells become thinner (which is not true either) but because we were told and we believed on what we were told. As a teenager I remember suffering while reading that "scientists" were finding "traces of DDT at the poles..." While during the WW2 Italian soldiers were given half a kilogram of DDT to wash their bodies when hot environment such as North Africa where they were fighting...(cont...)
GuruShabu
1.5 / 5 (19) Aug 06, 2013
None of them never had any contamination or died because of that.
Anyway, my point is we are constantly being manipulated by the majority of the media that only promotes what the powerful state determines.
I am really sorry for all of us that fight with our minds and souls for what we believe to be true and most of the time w are only perpetrating bigger plant put inside our heads and harts by a manipulative invisible power.
The planet needs our resources, our intellects, our hearts but in directions that we do not see clearly but fight regardless.
This was my longest writing I aver done here and I am sure I did not cover 1 % of what is still untouched.
Sorry for the length and lack of review but I am passionate about this subject.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (21) Aug 06, 2013
This problem is a little bigger than people. If we don't do anything about climate change there won't BE any people.
Why would you say this? Did you not know that people survive in virtually every climate type?

You're saying that all the data of all the scientists in all of the world for the past hundred years were manipulated...
The keepers of the official global temperature indexes admit it themselves.

Example: In the HadCRUT4 paper, the word "homogenization" is used 30 times, "adjustment" is used 53 times, "error" is used 79 times, and "bias" is used a whopping 114 times.

Why do they even need these particular words to describe temperature readings?
runrig
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2013
Guru;
Assuming people here are reasonably educated in science, maths and because of that they "frequent" a webpage like this one, I would recommend tolerance.


Indeed - and I do try, because the alternative is counter productive. However if you know the science ( see profile ) it is beyond frustrating.

The climate has changed since the planet begun forming.

Yes, yes we DO know. The point is AGW is different as we are in control of the cause.

There is another hidden assumption in this statement: It assumes we can act and we can change something in the global weather! This is patently untrue but nobody says it!

Man is altering the climate now! - so of course we can change it - by not burning fossils.

There is also a clear correlation and "causation" between global temperature and CO2 present in the atmosphere. Not the other way around


cont
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2013
Did you not know that people survive in virtually every climate type?

Did you know that humans (at our current numbers) require food? That we require water? That limiting the amount of space where either may be found creates social pressures (read: mass migrations and wars)?

You may want to think where the water comes from and what happens when the glaciers disappear (rivers don't just flow because of magic, you know). Food production is vitally linked to having rivers which supply the water for our food production (or the cooling water for our powerplants).

Now if you have in mind that maybe a few million out of the 7 billion people alive today can survive as 'huddled cavemen' - yes.
But I wonder whether you'd be among the first to cede your place?

No? Then think again (or maybe just start thinking).
runrig
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2013
Why is it so hard to understand that CO2 leads AND follows? - that in the ( studyable ) geologic past it followed as man didn't add it - only volcanoes ( in any climate changing sense ). Milankovitch cycles dominated, hence NH temp was the causation. CO2/WV then amplifying.

huge manipulation the media do blindly and consensually guided by interests..


You mistake human nature for conspiracy. The media is in the business of selling itself and hyperbole sells.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2013
Example: In the HadCRUT4 paper, the word "homogenization" is used 30 times, "adjustment" is used 53 times, "error" is used 79 times, and "bias" is used a whopping 114 times.

So? The word 'the' is used a lot of times - what exactly is that supposed to tell me?

You will find the words error, bias, homogenization and adjustment in EVERY paper. You check for errors (first and second order), point to possible sources of bias in your data, homogenize the data to make it comparable (and cull the occasional outlier created by faulty measurement methods/devices) and adjust for known effects. If you DIDN'T then there would be somthing wrong with your paper - because you'd be jumping to conclusions based on faulty/incomparable data.

But you think they falsify data/papers retroactively all the way back 100 years? That they have an iron grip on every researcher from North Korea to Cuba to Chile to Europe to the US to Russia to China,...? You're watching WAY too many Hollywood movies.
Unbiased Observer
2 / 5 (21) Aug 06, 2013
Yup, you even have to explain to the Tard why they are Tards.

"Just completely ill-logical. So if you wander why Vendi calls everyone tards, it's because they make statements that are tard like, and have no logical foundation. Almost all are rightwing stooges (ie. Tards)." - Howhot

Conservatives are intellectually inferior.

Polarize. Identify. Exterminate for the betterment of the species.


I don't care what side of the debate you are on. This poster needs to banned. You are asking to KILL people because they don't argee with your political alignment. Distasteful as a joke, but I don't think this poster is capable of separating reality from fiction based on the near constant barrage of personal attacks without a single regard for civility.

Have to say, good write up Guru. Perhaps some people should debate as opposed to just call names or argue with over generalized responses.
djr
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2013
Uba: "I asked you to prove your case, you failed to do so. Try again."

I think I provided a very reasonable response - and of course you are able to respond to any response with 'that is not good enough - try again'. However Uba - you are not my school teacher - and I have no interest is playing your childish games. I think that the burden of proof is on you - when you disagree with the scientific consensus, and the preponderance of evidence. You are of course entitled to any opinion you want - and have clearly shown here that you are not interested in supporting this opinion with any data.

"Also: K-an u reed dis cent-ants & core-ekt itt four spell-ink & grammmer?"

What on earth is that supposed to mean? We all type pretty fast - and I don't think spelling and grammar are priority # 1, as long as we get our point across. Here is an example of your work from the exact same post. Can u spot the typo????

"Shifting the Burden of proof, and multiple other falllicies."

Cont.
djr
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2013
Cont. - So please excuse my bluntness - but I have to conclude that you are small minded, and mean spirited - not interested in honest exchange of ideas - but interested in pushing other peoples buttons - and then moving on. Sad and childish!
djr
4 / 5 (16) Aug 06, 2013
Guru wrote - "Respect for both sides."

I have to disagree with you Guru. I think that a point is reached where it is OK to say f*ck off - you do not deserve respect. Uba has just reached that point for me. When there is an honest attempt to discuss the issue - and it is met with obfuscation, and distraction, and deliberate meanness - there is no point in continuing a discussion. At that point I think it is fine to perhaps play a role of pointing out the bullshit of the individual - but not to try to engage is serious conversation. Showing respect - and trying to be reasonable - makes you totally vulnerable to frustration when the person on the other side does not come from a point of honesty. I think Vendi expresses this frustration - although obviously Vendi goes way overboard - and damages the case for science. It is very frustrating to find that middle ground. I think it lies in learning who is up for a reasonable conversation - and being willing to call the assholes out.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (15) Aug 06, 2013
Guru wrote - "Respect for both sides."

I have to disagree with you Guru. I think that a point is reached where it is OK to say f*ck off - you do not deserve respect. Uba has just reached that point for me. When there is an honest attempt to discuss the issue - and it is met with obfuscation, and distraction, and deliberate meanness - there is no point in continuing a discussion. ....


Exactly djr - join the club regarding this particular individual.
I concluded the same a while ago after the same experience.
There is nothing about meteorology that he can teach me (profile) that his raging Dunning Kruger syndrome thinks he can.
I will not engage directly again - it's futile.

Ralp
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2013
Re: Uba

Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.

Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time.

If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet — in mailing lists, newsgroups, or forums — your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.

http://rationalwi...rongness
NotCandide
3.1 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2013
Using holocaust denial as a stand in for global warming denial is a useful paradigm here. Most holocaust deniers don't really believe that that the holocaust never happened. That it happened is OK with them. And by denying it, they manage to piss off their opponents who eventually either disintegrate into blubbering frustration or simply move on. There is no engaging with these people on any rational level since (1) they do not know and/or acknowledge enough factual information to engage on a rational level and (2) they are not genuinely rational if rational means to be able to sift through conflicting facts and approach an understanding the underlying issues.

kevin_buckeye_3
1.9 / 5 (16) Aug 06, 2013
The fact is, though, the rate of change is also far faster than can be expected by simply an accumulation of carbon dioxide in the air. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is no more than a few percent higher than before 2000,

Did you know that humans have cut down over 50% of the earth's forests? I don't think you did.
kevin_buckeye_3
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2013
Molecules like CH4 and CO2 both absorb infrared rays from the sun,and trap heat.
Water_Prophet
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 06, 2013
THE greatest contributor green house gas is water vapour.
Yes, methane is 60 times stronger green house gas than CO2 but both do nothing compared to the very welcome greenhouse effect caused by water vapour in the atmosphere.

You say well: The blessed Water is 12 fold more plentiful than the accursed Air Element CO2, even in the most sinful of deserts, and is tweleve and twenty fold more prevalent in its powers to absorb elemantal Fire. The accursed CO2 is as a man trying to hold back the tides compared to the blessed Water.
Howhot
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2013
There is also a clear correlation and "causation" between global temperature and CO2 present in the atmosphere. Not the other way around as Al Gore and other interested in promoting the idea of a cataclysmic future caused by humankind incapacity of controlling its appetite for energy!

Oh great, the all-mighty anal GS is a dim bulb denier. Nuff said.

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (23) Aug 07, 2013
Did you know that humans (at our current numbers) require food? That we require water? That limiting the amount of space where either may be found creates social pressures (read: mass migrations and wars)?
Isn't this a reason to desire the freeing of the poles from ice?

You may want to think where the water comes from and what happens when the glaciers disappear (rivers don't just flow because of magic, you know). Food production is vitally linked to having rivers which supply the water for our food production (or the cooling water for our powerplants).
So you think all rivers source from glaciers?

Now if you have in mind that maybe a few million out of the 7 billion people alive today can survive as 'huddled cavemen' - yes.
But I wonder whether you'd be among the first to cede your place?
I'm not interested in living in caves, but you can if you want.

No? Then think again (or maybe just start thinking).
A warmer globe is a greener globe.

antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 07, 2013
If you scroll down to the 'impact' section of greenhouse gases
http://en.wikiped...se_gases
you will find that CO2's (and mthane's) effect is disproportionally large compared to the amount inthe atmosphere.

Also we do have control over putting excess CO2 in the atmosphere (with the exception of wildfires and volcanic eruptions) while we do not - for the overwhelming part - have control over putting water vapor in the atmosphere.

(Also note that the lifetime of water vapor inte atmosphere is on the order of 10 days, whereas CO2 is between 30 and 95 years. So fixing CO2 related problems NOW is much more important than looking at water vapor if we don't want to run into a serious buildup problem down the road)
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (24) Aug 07, 2013
So? The word 'the' is used a lot of times - what exactly is that supposed to tell me?
That you prefer misdirection to addressing the content?

You will find the words error, bias, homogenization and adjustment in EVERY paper. You check for errors (first and second order), point to possible sources of bias in your data, homogenize the data to make it comparable (and cull the occasional outlier created by faulty measurement methods/devices) and adjust for known effects. If you DIDN'T then there would be somthing wrong with your paper - because you'd be jumping to conclusions based on faulty/incomparable data.
So modifying raw data to suit your purposes is the essence of science?

But you think they falsify data/papers retroactively all the way back 100 years? That they have an iron grip on every researcher from North Korea to Cuba to Chile to Europe to the US to Russia to China,...? You're watching WAY too many Hollywood movies.
They have clearly manipulated the data.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (24) Aug 07, 2013
I don't care what side of the debate you are on. This poster needs to banned. You are asking to KILL people because they don't argee with your political alignment. Distasteful as a joke, but I don't think this poster is capable of separating reality from fiction based on the near constant barrage of personal attacks without a single regard for civility.

Have to say, good write up Guru. Perhaps some people should debate as opposed to just call names or argue with over generalized responses.
The despicable poster in question is a known spambot. It cannot be reasoned with.

But it does make one wonder, why do the warmists feel the need for contentious spambots? Is their science so shaky they simply can't defend it on its merits?

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (24) Aug 07, 2013
I think I provided a very reasonable response
Sure, if your reasoning is to avoid supporting your own stated position. Do you even remember what your stated position is?

What on earth is that supposed to mean? We all type pretty fast - and I don't think spelling and grammar are priority # 1, as long as we get our point across. Here is an example of your work from the exact same post. Can u spot the typo????
Hmm... failing a simple Turing test. Is this a ruse though...?

Cont. - So please excuse my bluntness - but I have to conclude that you are small minded, and mean spirited - not interested in honest exchange of ideas - but interested in pushing other peoples buttons - and then moving on. Sad and childish!
So asking you to support your own stated position is being small minded? Is it really that difficult?

Why do you use quotations instead of quote brackets when responding?

Can you read, and properly attribute this question to its author?


Gmr
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 07, 2013
uvonatuba:
Ocean productivity is linked to cold, nutrient-rich water. Remove the cold water circulation and oddly enough you reduce the nutrients, and reduce ocean productivity. Some fish live at the freezing point of water and would not survive the change to ice-free poles.

And the point of pointing out the word-frequency of "the" is that the word-counts you cite are completely out of context, and don't refer in any way to phrases or use, just words. As such, they don't have any meaning, sinister though you might think they are.

And "manipulating" the data is just about the same as you "manipulating" just about anything else. If you look at a crumpled suit without "manipulating" it, you might have no idea what kind of article of clothing it might be. "Manipulate" it by smoothing it out, you've got a suit. Nothing sinister, but you're welcome to think that. Assuming intent appears to be the fatal flaw in your reasoning.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (26) Aug 07, 2013
Ocean productivity is linked to cold, nutrient-rich water. Remove the cold water circulation and oddly enough you reduce the nutrients, and reduce ocean productivity. Some fish live at the freezing point of water and would not survive the change to ice-free poles.
So you automatically equate "freeing from ice" with the tropics?

And are you claiming biomass and species diversification is greater at the poles than in temperate or even tropical climes?

And are you stating the world has never been warmer, therefore no species can survive a warmer world?

It seems you might benefit from considering your answers a little longer.

And the point of pointing out the word-frequency of "the" is that the word-counts you cite are completely out of context, and don't refer in any way to phrases or use, just words. As such, they don't have any meaning, sinister though you might think they are.
So Gmr is a sockpuppet of antialias_physorg?

Did you understand my concern?

antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (12) Aug 07, 2013
So modifying raw data to suit your purposes is the essence of science?

Not in the way you mean. FALSIFYING data is wrong. Cleaning up data to remove corrupted data points is necessary.

It's very important to be careful when doing this and you will find that in all papers where this is done the issue is explained accordingly.

E.g. I did this in my own work because we did a multi-national, multi-site study on CT datasets. One scanner from one site in Russia was calibrated wrong and also reconstructed at a wrong resolution. The data from that site could not be sensibly compared to that from the other sites so it was decided not to use it. At other times individual datasets where so artefact-laden (e.g. because the patient had metal implants) that the images couldn't be analyzed. These, too, were omitted.

Data is never perfect.
But you don't omit data just because they don't support the conclusion you like (you actually never do science with a conclusion in mind)
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2013
They have clearly manipulated the data.

Bold statement. Please show proof.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (22) Aug 07, 2013
And "manipulating" the data is just about the same as you "manipulating" just about anything else. If you look at a crumpled suit without "manipulating" it, you might have no idea what kind of article of clothing it might be. "Manipulate" it by smoothing it out, you've got a suit. Nothing sinister, but you're welcome to think that. Assuming intent appears to be the fatal flaw in your reasoning.
Actually, this appears to be your logical flaw. Smoothing a suit to examine its qualities is not the same as taking empirical scientific data and manipulating it because you don't like it. Rather, it's more like smoothing the suit, examining its quality, and then lying about its quality because you don't like it.

Carefully discarding suspect data is one thing (and questionable in itself), but to boldly decide that the data should be this, or should be that, completely destroys the data's very value.

Should NASA just decide they don't like gravity, and therefore adjust its values?

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (24) Aug 07, 2013
Not in the way you mean. FALSIFYING data is wrong. Cleaning up data to remove corrupted data points is necessary.
Where do you draw the line? Removal of carefully selected data, which can obviously be shown to be false is fine (within reason), but to boldly manipulate virtually the entire set? Really?

It's very important to be careful when doing this and you will find that in all papers where this is done the issue is explained accordingly.
And how do their explanations amount to anything more than, "We don't like it, so we changed it."

Data is never perfect.
But you don't omit data just because they don't support the conclusion you like (you actually never do science with a conclusion in mind)
Which is what they've been doing.

Just read their site. It's all about attributing global warming to this and that. What happened to just reporting the weather?

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (22) Aug 07, 2013
They have clearly manipulated the data.
Bold statement. Please show proof.
Besides the clearly biased paper I already referenced, they practically brag about their confirmation bias on their website.

They were founded on the premise the climate is changing (see, "History of the Met Office Hadley Centre" on their homepage).

Their very funding is based upon the preconceived premise of climate change:

- "Largely co-funded by Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)"

And brag about taking an active roll in policy making.

- "Our climate projections were the basis for the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change."

- 'It is beyond dispute that the Met Office Hadley Centre occupies a position at the pinnacle of world climate science and in translating that science into policy advice.'

How is this NOT a biased, science reporting organization?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 07, 2013
Where do you draw the line?

On a case by case basis and always with an eye towards not biasing the results. You have to remember that scientists are interested in getting meaningful results (and that it's not important whether that result then corroborates or disproves the hypothesis).
If you know you're biasing your data then your results aren't meaningful - in that case you might as well not do the work at all. Doing a study is hard work (sometimes years of it).

but to boldly manipulate virtually the entire set?

There have been cases (e.g. in the some clone experiment) - but that was singular and no one else used the same data. So it went unnoticed for a (short) while (and even there it was uncovered quickly). In climate science there's no way to manipulate without being IMMEDIATELY at odds with everyone else.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 07, 2013
And how do their explanations amount to anything more than, "We don't like it, so we changed it."

You have to give reasons. You can't just say "we didn't use dataset X". You have to say WHY you didn't use dataset X. With the amount of people working in climate science if you eliminate a dataset for spurious reasons you might as well not publish. Your peers will smell the rat 10 miles off if you do that (which will bring your scientific career to a crashing halt. Not good if you invested half your life building up the knowledge for having one).

You have to realize that for scientists there is something at stake when publishing. It's not like used car salesmen that can say "I trained for all of a month to be a salesman, cheated a customer and got fired - so I'll just start over and sell waterbeds". Science is a life vocation and there is no gain in doing bad science and a LOT to lose. If you cheat just once that's decades of your life down the drain.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 07, 2013
they practically brag about their confirmation bias on their website.

Erm. You may try to put aside your (massively biased) view and read the website again.

They were founded on the premise the climate is changing

They were founded based on OBSERVED climate changes. Not a premise - but solid observation. If it's observed then that's not a preconception.
And brag about taking an active roll in policy making.

Yes. They provide data to policy makers. Which is what research institutions are SUPPOSED to do, so that our (scientifically uneducated) policy makers can make INFORMED decisions. What exactly is wrong with that?
You may have an issue with that they state the climate is changing - but THAT particular issue has been settled a long time ago. You may not believe it - but that doesn't make it any less real.

But as I said: Hadley isn't the only one doing climate research or collecting data. If they were to falsify the data it would show up everywhere else.
djr
4 / 5 (12) Aug 07, 2013
Uba: "So asking you to support your own stated position is being small minded? Is it really that difficult?"

No - asking someone to support their position is not small minded - I asked you to do just that (crickets chirping). But many of the things you do are small minded - which is why I have crossed you off the list of people that deserve any respect - or much more than a few seconds of my time to tell you what a jerk you are - and how wrong you are.

I will give you a couple of examples of what makes me disrespect you. - Calling some one a scumbag/coward/liar. Shifting your position on issues like an eel (what warming, I never questioned warming, global cooling- etc.) Making an issue out of typos, or the use of quotation marks - or other irrelevant issues. Dismissing someone's arguments with childish comments like 'not good enough - try again' without actually engaging the science. I could go on - but time is up.

runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2013
Uba: "So asking you to support your own stated position is being small minded? Is it really that difficult?"

No - asking someone to support their position is not small minded - I asked you to do just that (crickets chirping). But many of the things you do are small minded - which is why I have crossed you off the list of people that deserve any respect - or much more than a few seconds of my time to tell you what a jerk you are - and how wrong you are.

I will give you a couple of examples of what makes me disrespect you. - Calling some one a scumbag/coward/liar. Shifting your position on issues like an eel (what warming, I never questioned warming, global cooling- etc.) Making an issue out of typos, or the use of quotation marks - or other irrelevant issues. Dismissing someone's arguments with childish comments like 'not good enough - try again' without actually engaging the science. I could go on - but time is up.


Seconded
Water_Prophet
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 07, 2013
@antialias_physorg. You blaspheme against the blessed Water and your reflections on the power and persistence of the blessed Element show you do not understand its holiness. Your eyes are not open to the elements of the blessed Element resembling each other more closely than an egg resembles another... That where one falls an identical one takes its place. Even so, this blessing is small to the puissance of Water.
Even in the most accursed of deserts, where the presence of the Water is rare and precious, it powers and numbers so overwhelm the accursed Air Elemental CO2 that it is like unto a man wrestling an Angel.
beleg
1.2 / 5 (13) Aug 07, 2013
All life maintains homeostasis until demise.
Whatever lifetime climatic signal any planet exhibits until demise is all downhill...irreversible.

Homeostatic climate. Non existent.

Water Prophet sounds like cultural belief. Not a belief in the culture of science.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (13) Aug 07, 2013
"Calling some one a scumbag/coward/liar. Shifting your position on issues like an eel (what warming, I never questioned warming, global cooling- etc.) Making an issue out of typos, or the use of quotation marks - or other irrelevant issues. Dismissing someone's arguments with childish comments like 'not good enough - try again' without actually engaging the science. I could go on - but time is up."

UbVonTard is all of those things, and less.

Filth.

Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (21) Aug 10, 2013
Dear Denialist Shill/Troll:

Your comment history indicates you are here to further a political or economic agenda, not to engage in honest discourse.

Your arguments are as original as they are sound, which is to say, not at all. Your tactics are insinuation, smearing, misquoting, diversion of threads, distortion of facts/meaning, pointing the finger, projection, targeted down-voting, and sock puppetry.

Neither insults, lies, nor goading will cause me to waste time playing your game. I will not grant your comments the undeserved dignity of a customized response.
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2013
Waterprofit must have watched too much "Charmed".