Human cause of global warming is near certainty, UN reports

Jan 31, 2014
By absorbing much of the added heat trapped by atmospheric greenhouse gases, the oceans are delaying some of the impacts of climate change. Credit: WMO/Olga Khoroshunova

Global warming is unequivocal, human influence has been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century, and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, already at levels not seen in at least 800,000 years, will persist for many centuries, the final version of the latest United Nations report on climate change warned today.

"Continued emissions of will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system," according to the report, which finalizes a summary of findings by the UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued in September, outlining a litany of threats from the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to rising oceans to extreme weather events such as cyclones and heat waves.

"Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of ," it stresses, using the term "extremely likely" for human causality since the mid-20th century, meaning there is a 95 to 100 per cent probability that humankind, and not naturally occurring phenomena, are to blame, a 5 percent increase from the 90 to 100 per cent "very likely" probability of if the IPCC's last report in 2007.

Even if emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are stopped, most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries. "This represents a substantial multi-century commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2," the report warns.

"Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes," it says.

"This evidence for has grown since AR4 (the last IPCC report). It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."

The report says it is extremely likely that more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the increase in caused by humans and other human causes. Some of the major warming emissions caused by humankind since the birth of the industrial era 250 years ago – CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) – have all increased since 1750 due to human activity.

"Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean , and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," the report stresses.

"Concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O now substantially exceed the highest concentrations recorded in ice cores during the past 800,000 years. The mean rates of increase in atmospheric concentrations over the past century are, with very high confidence, unprecedented in the last 22,000 years."

It notes that each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850, changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950, the frequency of heat waves has likely increased in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia.

There are also likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased and the frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation has likely increased in North America and Europe. Likely means a 66 to 100 per cent probability.

On the cryosphere (cold regions) the report notes that annual mean Arctic sea ice decreased over the period 1979 to 2012 at a rate very likely in the range 3.5 to 4.1 per cent per decade and in the range 9.4 to 13.6 per cent per decade the summer sea ice minimum (perennial sea ice).

There is very high confidence that the extent of Northern Hemisphere snow cover has decreased since the mid-20th century, decreasing by an average 1.6 per cent per decade for March and April, and 11.7 per cent per decade for June, over the 1967 to 2012 period.

There is also high confidence that permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the early 1980s. Observed warming was up to 3° Celsius in parts of Northern Alaska and up to 2°C in parts of the Russian European North, where a considerable reduction in permafrost thickness and areal extent has been observed over the period 1975 to 2005.

As for the sea level, the rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia, its global mean level rising 0.19 metres over the period 1901 to 2010.

Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for most scenarios studied by IPCC, and likely or "more likely than not" to exceed 2°C for some of them. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all scenarios except one, will continue to show inter-annual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform.

It is very likely that Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease, the report adds.

Global mean , meanwhile, will continue to rise during the 21st century, very likely exceeding the rate observed during 1971 to 2010 due to increased ocean and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.

Explore further: UN climate report: Key points (Update)

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Global warming: The conversation we need to have

Jan 15, 2014

We all know the earth's climate is changing. The effects are inescapable no matter where we live. Here in New England, some changes are subtle (more humidity, consistently warmer nights), dramatic (more intense ...

Recommended for you

NASA image: Signs of deforestation in Brazil

4 hours ago

Multiple fires are visible in in this image of the Para and Mato Grosso states of Brazil. Many of these were most likely intentionally set in order to deforest the land. Deforestation is the removal of a ...

Sunblock poses potential hazard to sea life

4 hours ago

The sweet and salty aroma of sunscreen and seawater signals a relaxing trip to the shore. But scientists are now reporting that the idyllic beach vacation comes with an environmental hitch. When certain sunblock ...

Is falling recycling rate due to 'green fatigue'?

5 hours ago

It's been suggested that a recent fall in recycling rates is due to green fatigue, caused by the confusing number of recycling bins presented to householders for different materials. Recycling rates woul ...

Study to inform Maryland decision on "fracking"

7 hours ago

The Maryland Department of Environment and Department of Health and Mental Hygiene released on August 18, 2014, a report by the University of Maryland School of Public Health, which assesses the potential ...

User comments : 241

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2014
News editors know it but it's safe to say you remaining "believers" don't know that the scientific consensus was nothing beyond; "could be". Now you know.

Former Climate Blame Believers Are Better Planet Lovers

*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians, taxing the air we breathe to tame the weather and make it colder at the same time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (25) Jan 31, 2014
"Global warming is unequivocal, human influence has been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century, and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, already at levels not seen in at least 800,000 years, will persist for many centuries, the final version of the latest United Nations report on climate change warned today."

-Translation:
1) it's getting hotter
2) it must be our fault because we're here
3) it must be true because the UN says so

-Well I'm convinced. Who wouldn't be?
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (20) Jan 31, 2014
Wow Ghost, that's what you got out of that? Our fault "because we're here"? Nothing to do with the hundreds of studies showing human introduced co2. No thought about the deafening silence of the studies that say otherwise. Just "because we're here". Ya that's it Ghost! True because the UN says so. Nothing at all to do with the thousands of scientific studies that were reviewed. No consideration of findings from every scientific discipline from atmospheric studies to zoology. Just cause the UN says so.

How disappointing, you are mostly a voice of reason.
ekim
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2014
Here is a link. http://sparrowism...tes.html
I didn't bother reading it, but it has a nice graph that proves whatever I'm trying to prove.
This is where I talk about "mainstream" whatever and how much more enlightened I am for rejecting it. In conclusion, the only explanation for global warming is The Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you all be touched by his noodly appendage. RAmen.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2014
Wow Ghost, that's what you got out of that? Our fault "because we're here"? Nothing to do with the hundreds of studies showing human introduced co2. No thought about the deafening silence of the studies that say otherwise. Just "because we're here". Ya that's it Ghost!
I have read literally millions of papers which present conclusive evidence that we are, indeed, here. So what?
freethinking
2 / 5 (21) Jan 31, 2014
Carbon tax and Carbon trading schemes have worked! Not only is Al Gore and other Profits of AGW richer (now they can afford more private planes, yachts, monster cars and of course multiple monster mansions), , Not only have they made cost of living higher for us normal folks, it has reduced the temperature of the United States.

Perhaps, just Perhaps, we need to now get rid of these carbon taxes and carbon trading schemes, that way we can get rid of this historic cold snap we have been having in the USA.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2014
Wow Ghost, that's what you got out of that? Our fault "because we're here"? Nothing to do with the hundreds of studies showing human introduced co2. No thought about the deafening silence of the studies that say otherwise. Just "because we're here". Ya that's it Ghost!
I have read literally millions of papers which present conclusive evidence that we are, indeed, here. So what?
Well then, I guess that means we must not be here, because it's actually a government conspiracy to make you THINK that you're here, when clearly you are actually there. And Al Gore, Anthony Watts and David C. Koch are all richer because you think your here, when actually you are there!
full_disclosure
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2014
Time to change your diaper Magganus….make sure to wipe 'up'….not 'down' or you'll get a yeast infection ma'am.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2014
Awww look at little full_diaper, trying so hard to be part of the adult's conversation. SO cute! Toddle off now little full_diaper, that's a good little moron!
Agomemnon
1.7 / 5 (18) Jan 31, 2014
warmer is better.
more CO2 is awesome. Its so awesome the US government subsidizes CO2 producton in greenhouses because it increases yield.

If you don't agree please provide the scientific basis for the optimal average global temperature of the earth and the optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Only facts please
Cocoa
4.1 / 5 (17) Jan 31, 2014
Agomemnon - how come you are allowed to make definitive statements without providing any facts ("warmer is better") - but then you are allowed to demand only facts from others?
The Shootist
2 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2014
The chance that the UN is full of thieving liars, with delusions of grandiosity?

Unity.
TegiriNenashi
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2014
I searched this article for a magic 97% number and found none. Therefore, unconvinced.
Cocoa
4 / 5 (21) Jan 31, 2014
The chance that the UN is full of thieving liars, with delusions of grandiosity?

Unity.


The chance that tens of thousands of highly trained climate scientists are all colluding on a grand conspiracy to steal Shootists freedoms - ZERO
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Jan 31, 2014
tens of thousands of highly trained climate scientists

How many?
"trained"?
Scientists should be educated, not 'trained'.
The collusion is inherent in a system that provides funding for AGWism.
Cocoa
3.9 / 5 (19) Jan 31, 2014
The collusion is inherent in a system that provides funding for AGWism.


No it is not. Scientists are funded for many things - example the research into antibiotics. Does this mean they collude to steal your freedoms? What a stupid premise.
TegiriNenashi
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2014
"Highly trained" adjective is suspicious when applied to climate field. At the last UK parliamentary climate hearing
http://judithcurr...he-ipcc/
Richard Lindzen made pretty bold assertion. When cornered with question:
"Do you think climate researcher [abilities] are inferior to other fields?"
he didn't hesitate to reply
"Certainly they are. At the time when I was educated, the brightest went to study math and science [and not climate]"
(This judgement must be hurtful to Judith who is climate researcher herself; no wonder this part is missing in the transcript.)
billpress11
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2014
@Freethinking:
What you need to do is copy the link below and whenever you think global warming cannot be true because it is colder than normal where you live check out the temperature forecast at the North Pole and surrounding areas.

For example, in the most recent cold snap in the Midwest it was warmer at the north pole and Alaska.

You need to escape from the prison of your little parochial world. The same goes for Rygg2.

http://www.weathe...rge.html
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2014
Scientists are funded for many things -

Who funds 'climate scientists'?
"Certainly they are. At the time when I was educated, the brightest went to study math and science [and not climate]"


What is level of math required for climate scientists compared to physicists? Do climate scientists take complex analysis or study tensors?

From the University of Chicago Geophysical Department, only three semesters of calculus are required and and statistics.
http://collegecat...sciences

Howhot
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2014
More nails in the coffin of the debate that was about Man made global warming, but the zombie deniers (@R2 and @freestink) still don't believe they are dead. Everyday Al-Gore (all deniers hail and praise his name as speaker of the truth) is proven to be a profit of correct predictions. Predictions he has warned the world against. Mankind is approaching 400ppm/CO2 per volume of air, and temperatures have been hockeystick commensurate with the rise. When are the deniers going to stop trying to feed everyone HORSE SH*T.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2014
"Virtually all the scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous problems and uncertainties still associated with their product. "
"it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sources—external anyway to their own particular organisation.

The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. "
http://quadrant.o...-change/
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2014
"Virtually all the scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous problems and uncertainties still associated with their product. "
"it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sources—external anyway to their own particular organisation.

The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. "
http://quadrant.o...-change/


And that has WHAT to do with the Article? That you can pull a rabbit out of you A*S?

Cocoa
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2014
Rygg
From the University of Chicago Geophysical Department, only three semesters of calculus are required and and statistics.


So you pick one college undergraduate program - see that it ONLY requires 3 calculus classes - and that proves the grand conspiracy - now we understand - the whole field of climate science is bogus - cuz one undergraduate program ONLY require 3 calculus classes.

How many college level calculus classes do you have Rygg?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2014
one college undergraduate program

This is where Judith Curry obtained her PhD.
Engineers are required to have at least 4-5 calculus classes: calculus, differential equations and advanced engineering mathematics. Then most take a statistics course, maybe linear algebra, numerical analysis, complex analysis, real analysis, ...
Many science programs do not require high level math: biology, chemistry, geology, meteorology as most of the work is observational, not analytical.
Nothing wrong with that, but as Lindzen suggests, do not require the rigor of mechanical or electrical engineering or physics.
Cocoa
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2014
Rygg
Engineers are required to have at least 4-5 calculus classes:


So you find one undergraduate program that requires 3 calculus classes, and compare that to an engineering program that requires 4-5 calculus classes - and feel that this allows you to draw some conclusion about the 'rigor' (your word) of the entire field of climate science.

It is so instructive to watch people like you and UBA - spend your days just looking for evidence to support your conspiracy theory - very scientific of you - form a conclusion - then look for the evidence to support it.
Gmr
3.9 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
Don't you see, Cocoa? Climate scientists aren't educated to nearly the level of elite engineers. And we shouldn't trust "experts" or "elite" people, as we've been told numerous times. The wisdom of the masses suffices to discount experts.

Ergo, engineers are even less trustworthy in their opinions of climate science.
Nestle
1 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2014
What all these links have in common 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6,7, 8,9, 10,11?
steven_johnston_353
4 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2014
It's all a UN conspiracy to tax American libertarians
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2014
Agomemnon - how come you are allowed to make definitive statements without providing any facts ("warmer is better") - but then you are allowed to demand only facts from others?

Because it is the AGWites that assert 'the planet has a fever'.
Ag stated warmer is better,a value judgement based upon higher crop yields and lower engery costs.
AGWites assert warmer is bad, a value judgement, basing that warming on some arbitrary earth normal temperature.
The question for AGWites remains, what is the normal temperature of the planet?
BillD
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
Pretty silly arguement about the training of climate scientists. The climate science that I review and occasionally publish is documenting the effects of climate change on lakes. Thousands of articles are looking at how climate change has already affected migrations, seasonally timing (search Google Scholar under Climate Change and phenology and you will see three reviews in Nature with over 4,000 citations each). Many climate scientists have Ph.Ds. in physics and some have degrees in mathematics, others in biology, oceanography or geology or even engineering. Having the a degree helps in getting a job, but careers are judged by publications. Climate science is very interdisciplinary and there are few if any departs of climate change. So get your degree and training according to what questions you want to answer.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2014
Pretty silly arguement about the training of climate scientists.

Could be, but the AGWites are very quick to attack any non-believer who does NOT have degree in "climate science".
Quite convenient if there are few climate 'experts' who can peer review each others' work.
thermodynamics
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
What all these links have in common http://tinyurl.com/k26vf?

Nestlé: I know the answer to your question.

The answer is that all of the links have nothing to do with this article...

Do I win a prize?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
@Agomemnon
warmer is better

speculation based upon personal assumptions
references/links? Supporting data?
more CO2 is awesome

speculation based upon personal assumptions
references/links? Supporting data?
Its so awesome the US government subsidizes CO2 producton in greenhouses because it increases yield

speculation based upon personal assumptions
references/links? Supporting data?

It seems that you are making claims:
in order to argue effectively, it would be best to view your supporting data for analysis
your links would allow us to post a refute in terms that you could understand
and that are consistent with your own assessments
without this data any speculation on anyone else's part is just as valid as yours

@Ryggy
Scientists should be educated, not 'trained'

trained in math
educated in scientific method

unlike YOU, rygg who is neither trained NOR educated
please get back to real science
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
@Ryggy
Because it is the AGWites that assert 'the planet has a fever'

baseless conjecture
links/ references?
Ag stated warmer is better,a value judgement based upon higher crop yields and lower engery costs

flexible value based upon arbitrary adjustable judgment which cannot be quantified
it should have links/references for support
AGWites assert warmer is bad, a value judgement, basing that warming on some arbitrary earth normal temperature

biased personal conjecturer without merit or substance
state the arbitrary earth normal temp that you are using as a foundation of your proclamation
references/links?
The question for AGWites remains, what is the normal temperature of the planet?

this is a question that scientists are attempting to answer

one certain thing is that the anthropogenic changes are causing issues that the earth has not naturally seen
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
Ryggy states
Could be, but the AGWites are very quick to attack any non-believer who does NOT have degree in "climate science"

conjecture based upon past occurrences against you
AGW ites are quick to point out the fallacy of your arguments, which I think is DIFFERENT than attacking your belief system
they also use logical arguments with science and links to refute most anti-agw persons

whereas your contributions are normally about politics and speculations that are not founded and cannot be supported unless you are politically motivated and biased in certain beliefs.
IOW – you use political links to speculate about science whereas AGWites use science to prove you are not knowledgeable in the "climate sciences"
Quite convenient if there are few climate 'experts' who can peer review each others' work

personal conjecture without substance

public access studies are used here repeatedly to show anti-AGW the error of their claims
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2014
ogical arguments with science

When?
Where?
All I here from AGWites are insults demonstrating they have no logical arguments.

Example:
From AGW stump:
"unlike YOU, rygg who is neither trained NOR educated
please get back to real science"

Like Mann, stump must attack the individual.

Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
Many science programs do not require high level math: biology, chemistry, geology, meteorology as most of the work is observational, not analytical.
Nothing wrong with that, but as Lindzen suggests, do not require the rigor of mechanical or electrical engineering or physics

@ryggy
ok, wait a minute...
you are making it sound like you should know QM in order to turn on your laptop because there are quantum properties in the solid state electronics inside!
Normally climate science is about measuring CLIMATE, not about quantum mechanics and the effects of QM tunneling... they use the maths that are needed for the study and have to show a proficiency in them in order to pass the grade and get the label

you dont need to know QED to be able to model the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere

as for attacking you...
its because of your history

you attempt to obfuscate with semantics and politics

try science
it WORKS
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2014
they use the maths that are needed for the study

Most engineers and scientists NEVER use complex or tensor analysis, but that is NOT why it is required.
It's required to train the mind.
Mann was publicly slapped down for his sloppy statistical work on his hokey schtick by a professional statistician.
you dont need to know QED to be able to model the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere

One would if they wanted to model how CO2 interacts with photons from first principles.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2014
One would if they wanted to model how CO2 interacts with photons from first principles.

@Ryggy
my point is that you can get all the feedback you need just by addressing a physicist with specialisation in QED, and that you dont need to be conversant and specialised in the field to model the climate.

but you already knew that, i am sure...

just more obfuscation in your attempt to push your own brand of crackpot pseudoscience

p.s. one man made a mistake... but that doesnt mean that all the other scientist working in the field who generally agree about AGW are wrong, especially given that they are all working separately (for the most part) coming to similar conclusions.

this is the BIG indicator that they are on to something REAL

as for your funding claims...
we argued that in another article
and it was shown in THAT STUDY that big oil/etc funds anti-warming science and is now hiding that funding in various ways.

ESCHEW OBFUSCATION
but i doubt that you will...
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2014
one man made a mistake.

The high priest of AGW tried to use science to cover up data that shows climate was as warm, if not warmer 1000 years ago.
If AGWites can't explain the climate of 1000 years ago, how can they explain today? They can't so it must be covered up and denied.
conversant and specialised in the field to model the climate.

Only if you want to really understand how photons and CO2 interact, which is the basis of the AGWites assertion that CO2 is evil.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2014
@Ryggson
Most engineers and scientists NEVER use complex or tensor analysis, but that is NOT why it is required.
It's required to train the mind

I can understand the argument
but I dont think you understand where I am coming from

how about this:
IF typing teaches you how to be proficient
AND speed drills on a musical instrument provide you with better manual dexterity while multi-tasking
THEN (theoretically) all typists should be conversant and professionally trained in a musical instrument that required manual dexterity

this is the logic you are using above
just because there is a small correlation between them
(in your case, the use of maths – in my hypothetical case, manual dexterity)
does not mean that there is a need for one to be proficient in the other to accomplish their goals
ALTHOUGH it really might help in the long run
it ALSO depends where the individual will go in the future

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2014
@Ryggy
The high priest of AGW tried

I stopped there because obviously you DIDNT read THIS part of my post
that doesnt mean that all the other scientist working in the field who generally agree about AGW are wrong, especially given that they are all working separately (for the most part) coming to similar conclusions

please explain the supporting data in favor of AGW
and also explain why the anti's cant refute it unless they cherry-pick data and make false accusations or resort to conspiracy thoeries
Cocoa
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2014
Rygg
Scientists should be educated, not 'trained'.


Rygg - later in the same thread - while criticizing climate scientists for not having to take enough calculus classes - Rygg makes this announcement -
Most engineers and scientists NEVER use complex or tensor analysis, but that is NOT why it is required.
It's required to train the mind.


Could there be any more clear example of self contradiction? - someone who just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2014
"Here's a dirty little secret about math skills. No one really cares if you have them. Computers and even very sophisticated calculators can do about any math manipulation, and they do so more quickly and accurately than any human. If taking math was only about acquiring math skills then it would be pointless to do so. But computers cannot think, reason and analyze like humans.

So math is required in college because you need to learn how to think at deeper, more effective levels, and like almost anything else, that requires practice. And you will learn other ways to think in other subject areas."
http://www.sscc.e...ath.html
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2014
The chance that the UN is full of thieving liars, with delusions of grandiosity?

Unity.


The chance that tens of thousands of highly trained climate scientists are all colluding on a grand conspiracy to steal Shootists freedoms - ZERO

Yep... tens of thousands.
The chance that you will realize just how stupid you are - ZERO
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2014
" From a mathematics graduate student: "
On my first co-op job, I got hired to work at a
bank helping the company implement/transition over to some new software that is used
to evaluate stocks, bonds, etc. I asked my boss why he hired mathematicians for the
job when there wasn't any "math" involved, 'Wouldn't it be better to hire someone with
a strong business/finance background instead of someone from math who doesn't
know much about business?' I asked. He told me that he hires math students because
of how they're trained to think, not what they know about the business world. Math
students are trained how to take apart a big problem, troubleshoot those pieces, and
then troubleshoot putting the pieces back together again. He said that those from the
'softer sciences' aren't trained to think that way, so students from those backgrounds
don't interest him as much.""
http://www.math.u...math.pdf
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
Nestlé: I know the answer to your question.

The answer is that all of the links have nothing to do with this article...

Do I win a prize?
Hell YA you win the "Best Answer of the Week" Prize. On it's way to you now :)
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2014
Aaannnnddddd.... Magganus wins the Most Stupid Award again.
Cocoa
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2014
Antigoracle
Yep... tens of thousands.
The chance that you will realize just how stupid you are - ZERO


Well - I have to grant you that I did not research that number - but it seemed like a pretty reasonable estimate to me. I did try to do a quick google - and could not come up with a specific number - but I think tens of thousands is reasonable. Here is a quote that I just pulled out -

"Given that there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of scientists with real
expertise in basic sciences related to climate"

from - http://heartland....cent.pdf

So genius - who likes to call others stupid - but is not interested in supporting anything he says - how many climate scientists are there in the world?
Cocoa
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2014
Antigoracle
Yep... tens of thousands.
The chance that you will realize just how stupid you are - ZERO


Well - I just did a little bit of digging. I found that there are over 60 universities in the U.S. that offer programs in climatology or atmospheric science. So if you estimate a class size of 20 students - that would mean that they are graduating 1200 students per year - just from the U.S. An average post college career of 30 years - would give you 36,000 scientists - just from the U.S. alone.

http://education-...ose.html

Who is stupid?
gary_hitch
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2014
Oh gee, the UN has spoken. Therefore it must true!
Not.
If the UN says its true, its almost certainly NOT true.
Climate Gate?
Climate Gate 2 anyone?

It is so ridiculous to claim that humans cause global warming its almost as bad as the flat earth. And all politically motivated. Follow the money.
Look up UN Agenda 21.
Do your homework.
The "scientists" of IPCC are dishonest hypocrites, liars & profiteers, like most other .scientists claiming AGW.
Ask them why Mars and Jupiter warmed during the same period.
Ask them why the polar ice cap has recovered almost all its former area in ONE single year: 2013

Believe it or not the sun is what warms this planet. Duh.

Take a look at a globe, note where major cities are, then look at all the empty space.
There is no way humans could have emitted enough gas to cause the whole planet to warm more. No one even knows how much gas is emitted!! By humans OR nature!
Those that believe that tripe have no idea whatsoever of he size of our atmosphere
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2014
@gary_hitch
If the UN says its true, its almost certainly NOT true

personal conjecture
provide proof/links to substantiate claim
Follow the money

see this study

http://phys.org/n...ate.html

The "scientists" of IPCC are dishonest hypocrites, liars & profiteers, like most other .scientists claiming AGW

libelous personal conjecture
provide proof/links to substantiate claim
Believe it or not the sun is what warms this planet

so... the Sun heats rock to molten temps underground to form Magma?
Huh!
No one even knows how much gas is emitted


https://en.wikipe...mosphere

Those that believe that tripe have no idea whatsoever of he size of our atmosphere


https://en.wikipe...mosphere

Protoplasmix
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2014
Take a look at a globe, note where major cities are, then look at all the empty space. There is no way humans could have emitted enough gas to cause the whole planet to warm more. No one even knows how much gas is emitted!! By humans OR nature! Those that believe that tripe have no idea whatsoever of he size of our atmosphere

Wrong. Humans emit as much CO2 every 2.7 days as the entire planet does in an entire year from volcanic activity. Personally, I just emitted methane in your general direction.
runrig
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2014

One would if they wanted to model how CO2 interacts with photons from first principles.


Correct Ryggy - point is they don't have to show how CO2 interacts withnphotons from first principles as that is a given. Science that has been tested, experimented with, observed and refined for ~150 years. Therefore they just plug it into computer models to work out the consequences of that interaction 100 years down the road. You know, models, because humans would collectively need a zillion years to figure it out on pen and paper ourselves.
It's just the likes of you and your ideologically challenged ilk who have decided that you know better than that sum total of human endeavour because you don't like what it entails .... on you freedoms. Ah diddums! Now that's a shame isn't it? (rhetorical).
Cocoa
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2014
gary_hitch
Those that believe that tripe have no idea whatsoever of he size of our atmosphere


Ahhh - now we understand the problem - silly scientists have not measured the size of the atmosphere. Well you just go ahead and measure it for them gary - and then write a couple of papers about it - straighten them all out!

(I don't need to specify sarcasm do I?)
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2014
TheGhostofOtto1923 must be some EXTREME idiot & so unconscious to PUSH this sarcastic straw man paradigm
-Translation:
1) it's getting hotter
2) it must be our fault because we're here
3) it must be true because the UN says so
-Well I'm convinced. Who wouldn't be?
You have ALREADY been educated yet IGNORE these two key facts TheGhostofOtto1923 !

1. Rising CO2 confirmed AND accepted

AND

2. Known thermal properties of CO2

AND

3. Humans are burning approx 230,000 L of petrol each & EVERY second in total

THEN

Are you SO stupid TheGhostofOtto1923 you MUST ignore those facts ?

AND are you so amazingly unintelligent & lacking in simple capacity to appreciate combinatorial complexity of the relationship of those undeniable facts ?

Why are you dogmatically insistent upon ugly stupid PROPAGANDA ?

Where is any SCIENCE proving ANY contrary positions ?

a. Reducing CO2 levels
b. CO2 has no re-radiation issue at all
c. Humans are not burning HUGE amounts of fuel

Capisce' ?

Keh ?
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2014
Protoplasmix offered this claim but, as is often the case, didn't base it on physics or EVIDENCE
Wrong. Humans emit as much CO2 every 2.7 days as the entire planet does in an entire year from volcanic activity..
Please indicate how your claim tally's or contradicts or in any way is relevant (from any side of any dialectic) to the undisputed fact CO2 levels are rising ?

Are you Protoplasmix, offering a critique, a counter or a confirmation of the issue central to AGW - which is CO2 & all it entails re mass & confirmed thermal properties ?

Its not clear from your claim what you are trying to achieve with such an oddball statement & especially so as it appears un-connected with this data (linked below), from a site often (selectively) exploited by non-scientific AGW denialists - as there don't seem to be any scientific AGW denialists that have any credibility or understand the fundamentals (which they emotionally dislike) :-)

http://www.woodfo...o2/every

?
Nestle
1.9 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
What all these links have in common 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6,7, 8,9, 10,11?
The cosmological origin of global warming is apparently an inconvenient truth both for proponents of global warming, both for its deniers. Until the people will not care about alternative explanations and until they will use the global warning controversy just for their political fight, then we cannot expect, we will move further with it.
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
Protoplasmix offered this claim but, as is often the case, didn't base it on physics or EVIDENCE
Wrong. Humans emit as much CO2 every 2.7 days as the entire planet does in an entire year from volcanic activity…

Are you Protoplasmix, offering a critique, a counter or a confirmation of the issue central to AGW - which is CO2 & all it entails re mass & confirmed thermal properties ?

Its not clear from your claim what you are trying to achieve with such an oddball statement

You're right, I should have posted a link. Please see Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview from the USGS, in the section "Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions", last line in the table of that section. Hopefully my intent is clear.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2014
plug it into computer models to work out the consequences

Yes, low fidelity models that can't account for significant features.

"Within the foreseeable future climate model tuning will continue to be necessary as the prospects of constraining the relevant unresolved processes with sufficient precision are not good."
"The model tuning process at our institute is artisanal in character, in that both the adjustment of parameters at each tuning iteration and the evaluation of the resulting candidate models are done by hand, as is done at most other modeling centers. "
"Tuning/calibration is unavoidable in a complex nonlinear coupled modeling system. The key is to document the tuning, both the goals and actual calibration process, in the manner in which the German climate modeling group has done."
http://judithcurr...-tuning/
idaho
3.8 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
If we had proof that a new ice age was coming soon would we be changing the atmosphere on purpose to stop it?
Protoplasmix
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2014
Yes, low fidelity models that can't account for significant features.

Models are tools to help people better understand complex problems and processes. Never mind the models if they're not your cup of tea, Rygg—deal with the reality: they're employed because of the one point AGW deniers make that has a shred of validity—we have no spare earth to use as a control for comparing natural, nonindustrial CO2 emission climate change with an earth where we're pumping that annual natural amount into the atmosphere every 2.7 days. Now don't stop there with that line of reasoning, Rygg, as deniers are prone to do. Further down the line are two points:
1. With a carbon-neutral economy we need not perform the anthropogenic emission experiment and are provided with a pollution-free climate to study and model.
2. Since we don't have a spare earth, performing such an experiment at the quoted rate of emission is beyond foolhardy. It's dangerously insane.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2014
plug it into computer models to work out the consequences

Yes, low fidelity models that can't account for significant features.
"Within the foreseeable future climate model tuning will continue to be necessary as the prospects of constraining the relevant unresolved processes with sufficient precision are not good."
......


There you go again using a quote and not science to substantiate your beliefs. And one from one of the 3% of scientists who you agree with.
Tuning of GCM's will be done - that's what climate scientists do for a living. It will make no difference though to the inexorable (long term) rise in ave global temp. We will pin down the error bars a bit better with time but the "unresolved processes" Curry talks of do not matter as they only encompass the overlying climate cycles that merely redistribute the systems stored heat around on time-scales of around 30 years. The basis physics of CO2 GHE and the imbalance of Solar absorbed vs LWIR emit ensure that.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2014
Tuning of GCM's will be done - that's what climate scientists do for a living.

Yes, they must to promote their faith.

performing such an experiment at the quoted rate of emission is beyond foolhardy. It's dangerously insane.


Based upon what reference?
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2014
This is not science?
"Tuning the climate of a global model"
http://www.mpimet...ng_6.pdf

Quality science demands tools that are well characterized with documented uncertainties.

The ONLY tool AGWites have are low fidelity computer models to predict their doom.

VENDItardE
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
I must admit how much I admire all the AGWites....none of them associate their real names with the pseudonyms that they use, methinks thou doest lie too much.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2014
@VENDItardE
OFF TOPIC... but i will say this
i am using a name that i have used professionally and personally for more than 30 years which includes my rank (specifically, Truck Captain, but can also be shortened to Captain) as well as my call sign, which was used more than my last name in the military
most people that know me dont even know my last name and call me Captain Stumpy
See IFSAC and IAFF
also - some people do not use real names because there are crackpots like ryggy, shootist, VENDItardE, JVK, cantdrive and so many others who's mental stability may be questionable, and they may be concerned for their safety as there is no reason to assume that you cannot backtrack a name just because it may/may not be be as common as you believe.

BUT if you want, leave me an e-mail address and i will be more than happy to e-mail you my name etc
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
What all these links have in common http://tinyurl.com/k26vf?
They are all about planets?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2014
Now don't stop there with that line of reasoning, Rygg, as deniers are prone to do. Further down the line are two points:
1. With a carbon-neutral economy we need not perform the anthropogenic emission experiment and are provided with a pollution-free climate to study and model.
2. Since we don't have a spare earth, performing such an experiment at the quoted rate of emission is beyond foolhardy. It's dangerously insane.
Well said and an excellent point.

Don't mind venti whatever Capt., he just trolls by here on occasion to showcase his stupidity before slinking off to crawl back under his rock. Not even worth the effort of responding to.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
I must admit how much I admire all the AGWites....none of them associate their real names with the pseudonyms that they use, methinks thou doest lie too much.


I do - or at least did. This site has gone backwards in it not being available to be seen by others on here. As also is it no longer possible to PM people.
So for the record:
runrig is: Tony Banton. Retired Meteorologist with UKMO of 32 years.
happy?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
gary_hitch proves he has zero understanding of basic Science and likely has not even completed high school with
It is so ridiculous to claim that humans cause global warming..
You fail dismally to understand most basic of all physics & its sad to infer you never learned basic 'heat capacity' along with calculus.

Note gary_hitch of:-

1. Confirmed rising CO2 levels !
2. Known thermal properties of CO2, particularly re-radiation (ie Photons & of IR) !!
3. Burning of some 230,000L of petrol/second !!!

Can you gary_hitch, understand any simple physics & can you do the math ?

gary_hitch lumbered on with so much ignorance
Take a look at a globe, note where major cities are, then look at all the empty space. There is no way humans could have emitted enough gas to cause the whole planet to warm more.
Arbitrary claims make you look ignorant & thus stupid to perpetuate that claim.

Look at facts re CO2 & energy use, travel, powering industry/cities !
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2014
Antigoracle
Yep... tens of thousands.
The chance that you will realize just how stupid you are - ZERO


Well - I have to grant you that I did not research that number - but it seemed like a pretty reasonable estimate to me.......

Cocoa, your response is so typical of the AGW Chicken Littles. I call you out on your ignorance of fact, and instead of accepting your mistake, you go and dig yourself a deeper hole. Even the IPCC, who desperately try to exaggerate their numbers, can barely claim 3000 "scientists".
But, there may still be hope for you. Do some more digging and you shall see the AGW lie for what it is. Start with False "Profit" Gore and his greed.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
Agomemnon is clearly completely ignorant with this oh so naive & stupid claim
warmer is better.
more CO2 is awesome...
NO.
Warming increases sea levels, water also expands as well as there being more ice runoff.
Noticed glacial decline ?

But, some food plants respond to more CO2 by shifting equilibrium to produce more cyanogens, ie Cyanide & its byproducts as a defense mechanism against being consumed.

Agomemnon put himself right in it with
If you don't agree please provide the scientific basis for the optimal average global temperature of the earth and the optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Only facts please
Study Food Science as I did and you will discover many peer reviewed journal reports & experiments which confirm Cassava produces cyanogens as does Clover.
We need an equilibrium level of CO2 similar to pre-industrial times - if at least as a starting point !

Get an education please Agomemnon, don't blurt idiocy & proof you are oh so very ignorant !
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
antigoracle is an idiot as he paraphrases propaganda instead of Science with
Do some more digging and you shall see the AGW lie for what it is. Start with False "Profit" Gore and his greed.
Claims by propagandists don't cut it.

You don't need to dig far - its called an Education antigoracle.

You look so stupid & ignorant focusing on propaganda when YOU can easily focus on basic truths BUT, these do need you to think after you had some basic education in:-

1. Fact, CO2 levels rising.
2. Fact, CO2 known thermal properties, especially re-radiation.
3. Fact, burning massive amounts of CO2 producing fuels, last estimate is 230,000 Litres/second !

Can you antigoracle, exercise the understanding of a simple concept to those trained in Science, called combinatorial complexity which is sadly too hard for those that never finished high school, then you will accept essentially simple logic.

Why do you WANT to look naive, uneducated & unable to think a straight line of logic ?
Protoplasmix
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
performing such an experiment at the quoted rate of emission is beyond foolhardy. It's dangerously insane

Based on what reference?

It's based on the fact we have but one planet and the fact that the experiment itself is not necessary. It's based on the knowledge of the interaction between energy in the form of light and CO2 in the atmosphere. It's derived from personal experience of catching fish but not being able to eat them due to mercury content. And years later, at another picture-postcard-perfect lake in the northeast, fishing for hours with friends and not getting a nibble—learning afterwards from locals of the nearby town there were no fish because of acid rain. And lastly, it's based on recognition that the frontier ethic is not sustainable—for that I can provide a reference: http://cnx.org/co.../latest/ See the last section on "Tragedy of the Commons".
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2014
What all these links have in common?
The cosmological origin of global warming is apparently an inconvenient truth both for proponents of global warming, both for its deniers. Until the people will not care about alternative explanations and until they will use the global warning controversy just for their political fight, then we cannot expect, we will move further with it.
Well said.

ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
I don't use my real name since I was threatened by Skeptical Heretic who thought he knew who I was.
Why should anyone really care who anyone is unless they want to attack them personally?
This is a tactic of the 'liberals' who want to shut down any discussion.
"The science is settled, so shut up!"
"There is a consensus, so shut up!"
This is not science but propaganda and politics.
AGWites need to clean up their act if they want me to take seriously they legitimately support science.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
Why do AGWites follow Rules for Radicals?

" RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)"
"RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)"
"RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." "
" RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.""
http://www.bestof...radicals
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2014
1. Rising CO2 confirmed AND accepted
Agreed.

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

AND

2. Known thermal properties of CO2
Agreed, but only under laboratory conditions which do not emulate the global atmosphere.

http://www.rsc.or...home.htm

AND

3. Humans are burning approx 230,000 L of petrol each & EVERY second in total
Well I don't know how accurate your statistic is, but I'll grant it's a lot.

http://www.eia.go...mp;aid=2

But what does any of this prove? If you are right, wouldn't you expect as CO2 rises, there would be an ever stronger impetus on the atmosphere to warm? Why isn't this happening?

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Gmr
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2014
Short version of denier propaganda:

Not all scientists agree
Scientists who do agree are being paid
Scientists who don't agree are being squelshed

Don't trust scientists, they are too educated and elite
Don't trust scientists, they are not educated enough

Don't trust a nobody on the internet, they are not educated enough
Trust me, a nobody on the internet, because I am not educated enough
Trust me, a nobody on the internet, because I am an engineer and therefore more elite than a scientist

So, does it follow that I don't trust the scientists who don't agree because they are too not educated enough much because I don't trust myself?
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2014
@Gmr
Scientists who do agree are being paid
Scientists who don't agree are being squelshed

personal conjecture based upon ignorance
references/proof/links?
Scientists who dont agree are required, just like those who DO agree, to provide evidence and proof of their pronouncements, called the scientific method

https://en.wikipe...c_method

Don't trust scientists

your choice
So, does it follow that I don't trust the scientists who don't agree because they are too not educated enough much because I don't trust myself?

nonsensical and deliberate obfuscation for purposes unknown

do some homework
trust the science
the data doesnt lie (unless it is cherry picked for that purpose)
knowledge is power
Cocoa
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
Antigoracle
Cocoa, your response is so typical of the AGW Chicken Littles. I call you out on your ignorance of fact


I was quite honest in my response - in acknowledging that my use of the term 'tens of thousands' was not something I had researched - but felt was a pretty reasonable number. I have done a little digging on google - and provided you with a very substantive response that supports my assertion that the term 'tens of thousands' is quite reasonable. Perhaps you cannot read what I said - because you you are too busy scoring childish points. How about you address my argument - that the U.S. alone has produced some 36,000 climate scientists over the past 30 years - and that is just one country. So the use of the term 'tens of thousands' is quite reasonable.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
The cosmological origin of global warming is apparently an inconvenient truth both for proponents of global warming, both for its deniers. Until the people will not care about alternative explanations and until they will use the global warning controversy just for their political fight, then we cannot expect, we will move further with it.


Ok -I await your "cosmological origin" of GW with bated breath.
Please link to a paper that gives both correlation and causation.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
@Uba
Agreed, but only under laboratory conditions which do not emulate the global atmosphere.

http://www.rsc.or...home.htm

fallacy
from your link
the carbon dioxide warming more and faster than the air, see Figure 2

ALSO
http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

states that Scientists understand that the atmosphere is dynamic
AND that CO2 is a GREENHOUSE GAS, it affects temperature and it also creates warming, even mixed into the air/atmosphere

Runrig has explained all of this before quite a few times

your attempt to obfuscate reality with qualifiers only proves that you cannot admit the reality of the data in front of you, as proven also by your tunnel vision and willingness to exclude relevant data in your posts
keyword being RELEVANT
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
AND

2. Known thermal properties of CO2
Agreed, but only under laboratory conditions which do not emulate the global atmosphere.

http://www.rsc.or...home.ht


So this experiment emulates the Global atmosphere? Really? .... Bollocks.
Try reading up Beer- Lambert law. And note the importance of path-length.
Oh, and go adjust your D-K syndrome with a mirror as it's in danger of suffocating you whilst you inhabit your rabbit hole.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
Oh, and go adjust your D-K syndrome with a mirror as it's in danger of suffocating you whilst you inhabit your rabbit hole.


Once again, an AGWite applies Rules for Radicals, ridicule to stifle opposition.
Gmr
3.7 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
@Gmr

do some homework
trust the science
the data doesnt lie (unless it is cherry picked for that purpose)
knowledge is power


Read for comprehension?
runrig
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
Oh, and go adjust your D-K syndrome with a mirror as it's in danger of suffocating you whilst you inhabit your rabbit hole.


Once again, an AGWite applies Rules for Radicals, ridicule to stifle opposition.


No just an observation of fact.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2014
Read for comprehension?


@Gmr

sorry about that... i totally misread that
my sincerest apologies
the first line i read as deniers but i thought it meant something else...

my head was elsewhere
again... my apologies
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
Oh, and go adjust your D-K syndrome with a mirror as it's in danger of suffocating you whilst you inhabit your rabbit hole.


Once again, an AGWite applies Rules for Radicals, ridicule to stifle opposition.


No just an observation of fact.

Yes, I was observing a fact.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2014
Oh, and go adjust your D-K syndrome with a mirror as it's in danger of suffocating you whilst you inhabit your rabbit hole.


Once again, an AGWite applies Rules for Radicals, ridicule to stifle opposition.


No just an observation of fact.

Yes, I was observing a fact.


Yes, thinking about it - you are right. And I nominate "Lord" Moncton as prime exhibit.
Gmr
4 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2014
Umm, no- ryggesogn2 - you were establishing a conjecture and hypothesis. One which, much like pseudoscience, consists of projection of ones own flaws onto ones opponents or perceived opponents.

If folks run anti-global-warming propaganda here unopposed, it is proof that global warming is untrue; nobody can speak against the propaganda - if instead they are countered by people brandishing tools like logic and statistics and records like so many torches, it is instead proof of persecution of heretics and that it is a conspiracy.

See, nowhere in there is anything like actual dialogue or discussion or an attempt at understanding. Either nobody can face you, or they are obviously part of a conspiracy.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
But what does any of this prove? If you are right, wouldn't you expect as CO2 rises, there would be an ever stronger impetus on the atmosphere to warm? Why isn't this happening?


Err, no they wouldn't as indeed the IPCC doesn't - and I don't. Just like all people who understand the science involved. How many times have I and others talked of climate cycles (ocean based) that overlie the GHG warming signal. vis the PDO/ENSO in particular.
You try desperately to deny that anything other than CO2 affects global temp in a cyclic fashion, and somehow imagine that ave global temp should/is forecast to rise in an inexorable fashion along the same slope. Please link me to any natural process that behaves that way. There are none - a complex system will involve complexity in it's movement BUT can/does move in one direction when integrated sufficiently forward in time ... as climate must do in response to an imbalance in Solar absorbed vs LWIR emitted due extra GHG accumulation.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2014
BLAH....blah...
Can you antigoracle, exercise the understanding of a simple concept to those trained in Science, called combinatorial complexity which is sadly too hard for those that never finished high school, then you will accept essentially simple logic....blah...blah

-- Mike_Massen
Oh, the rant of the "educated" ignoramus. If it wasn't so funny, I swear, there would be tears.
Tell me, what good is your education, if, even in your best moment, you could not even hope to have an original thought. Like all the AGW Chicken Littles before, you claim to have science on your side, regurgitating the deceit of your church, while staying blind to the fact that it's a "science" based purely on faith, conjecture and greed.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
@Cap'n Stumpy:

Agreed, but only under laboratory conditions which do not emulate the global atmosphere.

http://www.rsc.or...home.htm
fallacy

from your link

the carbon dioxide warming more and faster than the air, see Figure 2
If you do not know what the word "emulate" means, why don't you just say so?

Thd experiment I linked to was an example of AGWite propaganda using methods that DO NOT emulate the earth's atmosphere.

Johnpaily
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2014
It is common sense that our environment is governed by two cyclic forces; heating and cooling or unwinding and winding that gives way to one another. This manifests as day and night and climatic cycles with nearly equal time span given for each cycles. We also see a Parallel Design where when one part is heating another part is cooling. It is natural that when such a system is heated in exponential way through our material activity and the parallel world design is upset by eating on the time given to cool, the system goes into disorder and accelerates, in which both forces of heating and cooling peaks and fall violently leading to huge destruction from forces of Mother Nature. We are witnessing it around the world yet intellectuals are failing to Awaken to Truth. Science has come to realize temperature fluctuation is more fundamental threat to life. A fact I strived to call world attention for nearly two decades http://phys.org/n...h.htmlle
http://www.thecan...trophes/

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
"The activity allows students to compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide with those of air, and can be extended to compare water vapour as well. The gas which absorbs the most heat (infrared radiation) is the most effective greenhouse gas as in the atmosphere it would absorb more infrared coming from the Earth's surface."

The gas which will absorb the most heat is water vapor, not CO2.
For any serious demonstration of this type, the bottle must be made of an IR transmissive material, like Cleartran in cryogenic vacuum chamber with interior walls that have an emissivity >.95.
Skepticus_Rex
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2014
This experiment can be expanded and have additional controls added. Use varying levels of CO2 in the bottles and more calibrated temperature probes. Place all bottles upside down to remove any excess CO2.

Make one bottle of pure oxygen. Make another bottle of ambient outside air. Make another bottle of ambient air inside a house. Make another bottle of ambient air taken from a large classroom after a few hours of occupation. Make another bottle and fill it with pure CO2. Measure the levels of CO2 in the locations and/or containers and mark the bottles with the results as the samples are taken. This will provide an empirical test for what varying levels of CO2 will do, including doubling of CO2.

Warm the containers with calibrated heat sources as in the above experiment. Record the results. Do the temperature probes record what is to be expected? If not, why not? Repeat the experiment with small amounts of water added to the bottoms of the containers. Record the results.
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
antigoracle continues to show ignorance by focusing only on claim & argument
.. you claim to have science on your side, regurgitating the deceit of your church, while staying blind to the fact that it's a "science" based purely on faith, conjecture and greed.
NO.
It is EXPERIMENT,
Repeated Observation.
There is no GREED in facts.

You KNOW Science works, it has made all advances eg in technology, production, medical so very reliable.

You do not need faith as you claim, when the Science which = "The discipline of the acquisition of knowledge".

Eg.
- You can calculate fuel consumption stats for your car - thats science, its not faith
- You can calculate chemical reaction quantities - thats science, not guess work, chemical
companies do it routinely

The Science of CO2 is VERY WELL KNOWN, it is not FAITH !

If you did have any basic Science education you would Know that, clearly you don't,

Please leave & GO to a faith site, astrology, religion, political rantings etc
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2014
ubavontuba - can he actually think with integrity & follow a line of reasoning, lets see
When I said

2. Known thermal properties of CO2


Agreed, but only under laboratory conditions which do not emulate the global atmosphere.
So WHAT precludes application of mathematics Eg addition & subtraction to gasses ?

You imply ubavontuba, thermal properties of CO2 (which you accept, thanks) are defeated NON-linearly & cannot be proportionately calculated by simple maths - WHY ?

You seem to be ignorant ubavontuba, that the properties of CO2 have been studied for over a HUNDRED years in many experiment, the Science of partial pressures is KNOWN, the Science of 'Heat Capacity' is KNOWN.

What then ubavontuba, are the top three RATIONAL reasons there are differences in the atmosphere which cannot be emulated or indeed replicated in any laboratory ?

Check your hypotheses, see below, think please !

http://en.wikiped...capacity

http://en.wikiped...Gas_laws
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
ryggesogn2 is pretending to simple (again) with selective memory & pretends low cognition
The gas which will absorb the most heat is water vapor, not CO2.
You need to UNDERSTAND that CO2 is ADDITIVE to water vapour. ie Do the MATH.

Mentioned before, H2O has easy & quick path to return, sadly most to oceans, as precipitation whereas CO2 does not, effects are ADDITIVE. H2O also passes heat on & to CO2.

Adding CO2 increase re-radiation, therefore acts as a blanket !

Earlier ryggesogn2 blurted
Only if you want to really understand how photons and CO2 interact, which is the basis of the AGWites assertion that CO2 is evil.
Photons ie Infra Red light, "Interact" with CO2 as is well KNOWN.

CO2 is not Evil per se' - why are you pretending to be simple & emotive ?

CO2 has KNOWN thermal properties & are proportional to concentration plus you need to also understand this key issue & Calculus, comes with Science TRAINING !

http://en.wikiped...capacity
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2014
ubavontuba failed basic maths of addition/subtraction, knowledge of gas laws, partial pressures & rather importantly heat capacity & calculus with this piece of IGNORANCE
Thd experiment I linked to was an example of AGWite propaganda using methods that DO NOT emulate the earth's atmosphere.
Although the experiment is not ideal and has a couple of flaws - it is not propaganda. Is a simple experiment prepared on a naive basis but, nonetheless does illustrate the general issue.

It is so EASY for anyone with even a little smarts to go beyond this basic experiment:-
http://www.rsc.or...home.htm

PLEASE ubavontuba learn tested & well accepted Facts of:-
http://en.wikiped...capacity

AND

The far older, tested & well accepted Facts of:-
http://en.wikiped...Gas_laws

Mathematics of addition/subtraction would be a GREAT start for you to learn Calculus so you
have an education & are not so easily misled by idle propaganda !
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2014
@Uba
EMULATE. 1. a: to strive to equal or excel. b: imitate; especially: to imitate by means of an emulator. 2: to equal or approach equality with

the models scientists use attempt to EMULATE the atmosphere
scientists and their models are much better than just "winging it"
or getting tunnel vision
like you do
Thd experiment I linked to was an example of AGWite propaganda using methods that DO NOT emulate the earth's atmosphere

really should have looked at that link
would have made more sense
the link pretty much shows that Scientists understand that the atmosphere is dynamic AND that CO2 is a GREENHOUSE GAS, it affects temperature and it also creates warming, even mixed into the air/atmosphere

http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

should have read it and looked through the tabs

oops, forgot your tunnel vision, sry.
i will point it out next time
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2014
ubavontuba - can he actually think with integrity & follow a line of reasoning, lets see
Apparently, you can't.

When I said

2. Known thermal properties of CO2


Agreed, but only under laboratory conditions which do not emulate the global atmosphere.
So WHAT precludes application of mathematics Eg addition & subtraction to gasses ?
No math is complex enough to calculate Earth's chaotic atmosphere with any accuracy.

You imply ubavontuba, thermal properties of CO2 (which you accept, thanks) are defeated NON-linearly & cannot be proportionately calculated by simple maths - WHY ?
Chaos.

You seem to be ignorant ubavontuba,
Rather, this seems to be your problem.

that the properties of CO2 have been studied for over a HUNDRED years in many experiment, the Science of partial pressures is KNOWN, the Science of 'Heat Capacity' is KNOWN.
So why not have the experiments emulate the actual properties of Earth's atmosphere?

What then ubavontuba, are the top three RATIONAL reasons there are differences in the atmosphere which cannot be emulated or indeed replicated in any laboratory ?
CO2 is measured in parts per million, the system is inherently chaotic, the atmosphere is heated unevenly (and only about 50% of the time, but some places not for months at a time) and it's open to space. It's highly unlikely any clear signal for the thermal properties of this minor gas might be detected at these levels and under these conditions.

Check your hypotheses, see below, think please !

http://en.wikiped...capacity

http://en.wikiped...Gas_laws
These just served to demonstrate your own ignorance. The atmosphere's volume, pressure, temperature, and even mass are not fixed. How do you solve for any one, when all are variables?

ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2014
ubavontuba failed basic maths of addition/subtraction, knowledge of gas laws, partial pressures & rather importantly heat capacity & calculus with this piece
LOL. As I've already shown above, this appears to be a problem you are having.

ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2014
@Uba
EMULATE. 1. a: to strive to equal or excel. b: imitate; especially: to imitate by means of an emulator. 2: to equal or approach equality with
Copying and pasting a definition doesn't mean you understand it.

the models scientists use attempt to EMULATE the atmosphere
scientists and their models are much better than just "winging it"
or getting tunnel vision
like you do
The experiment I linked to was an example of AGWite propaganda using methods that DO NOT emulate the earth's atmosphere

really should have looked at that link
would have made more sense
the link pretty much shows that Scientists understand that the atmosphere is dynamic AND that CO2 is a GREENHOUSE GAS, it affects temperature and it also creates warming, even mixed into the air/atmosphere

http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

should have read it and looked through the tabs

oops, forgot your tunnel vision, sry.
i will point it out next time
LOL. So just how is the earth's atmosphere like a bottle filled with CO2?

vlaaing peerd
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2014
these studies combined with above opinions at least show with 99,999% certainty that 50% of the posters here are completely retarded.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2014
ubavontuba showed ignorance of Calculus with this bad thinking
The atmosphere's volume, pressure, temperature, and even mass are not fixed.
If you had studied basic high school heat capacity with Calculus you would know you don't need to "fix" variables per se', you deal with the masses of the gasses within the system in accordance with gas laws, heat capacity, concentration levels etc.

Eg. Learn about equilibrium in chemistry.

Understand thermal properties of gasses *and* be free to understand experimental evidence's complexity beyond illustrative but naive ones then you can assess with confidence that increasing CO2 traps more heat - and this is exactly what is happening.

Then you include the effect of water's heat capacity such as the tremendous amount of heat water can absorb from ice to water *without* a change in temperature !!

Not hard ubavontuba, please learn Calculus.

No one who understands Science & has integrity can be manipulated by politics, only the uneducated.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2014
ubavontuba proves he doesnt understand even to the point of dulling his own imagination with this gem
So just how is the earth's atmosphere like a bottle filled with CO2?
Clearly earths atmosphere is not 'filled' with CO2.

Whether gasses are chaotic or not, have turbulence or not, an increase in the concentration of a gas which has particular thermal properties of heat retention will result in integration in respect of that increased heat capacity.

Please learn "heat capacity"
Please learn Calculus
Please learn gas laws

Bottles of gas mixtures are very easy to heat unevenly & guess what, convective flows result just as in the atmosphere. Those flows don't negate summation or integration.

This is why the mathematics of integration & differentiation is taught alongside heat capacity in such a way that heat capacity is understood.

Clearly ubavontuba you have missed the chance to learn Calculus when your dismissal of it proves you have no basis for any anti AGW propaganda :-(
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2014
@Cap'n Stumpy:

Agreed, but only under laboratory conditions which do not emulate the global atmosphere.

http://www.rsc.or...home.htm
fallacy

from your link

the carbon dioxide warming more and faster than the air, see Figure 2
If you do not know what the word "emulate" means, why don't you just say so?

Thd experiment I linked to was an example of AGWite propaganda using methods that DO NOT emulate the earth's atmosphere.


Like I've said to before Uba - it's pointless arguing with you, as no one will ever win in your mind and in print on here also, as you simply move the goal-posts out of the stadium.

I only correct your bollocks on here for others - to whom I repeat. Look up Beer-Lambert law folks and in particular, note the crucial importance of photon path-length on a planetary scale.

RoMiSo
2 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2014
What counts most is that:
"Even if emissions of global warming carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are stopped, most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries."
Therefore there isn't and there won't be an efficient solution focused on reducing mankind and animal produced emissions of CO² and other gases. This won't work. As I warned since the early years of the new millenium, the PonR (point of no return) was already crossed, at least for a 100+ years.
And, BTW, "our" peaceful emissions and interference will never ever match 0.0001 of the power of climate change that is inherent in our living Earth geology and in its interaction with the solar system and its components. Just take a historic look at life on earth ...

The UN report will be great cleaning stuff for restrooms.



ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2014
You need to UNDERSTAND that CO2 is ADDITIVE to water vapour. ie Do the MATH.

There is not much energy under the Planck curve at 15 um.
Do the math.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2014
uba shows a stunning inability to read or comprehend basic English with
LOL. So just how is the earth's atmosphere like a bottle filled with CO2?

COMPLETELY missing the part about
really should have looked at that link

AND ignoring everything thereafter...
as well as the link

between her tunnel vision and her inability to comprehend basic English...
I am with runrig and his assessment of uba on this one
Like I've said to before Uba - it's pointless arguing with you, as no one will ever win in your mind and in print on here also, as you simply move the goal-posts out of the stadium

runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2014
You need to UNDERSTAND that CO2 is ADDITIVE to water vapour. ie Do the MATH.

There is not much energy under the Planck curve at 15 um.
Do the math.


The worlds experts have ryggy, and what's more, measured it ..... https://ams.confe...0737.htm

- but thanks very much for the offer. I prefer to stick with the known physics ta very much. You know? Rather than go along with the likes of you who have decided they know better .... not because they are better at maths and possess the necessary computing power to work it out properly for a planetary atmosphere - but simply because it's all a commy conspiracy to get "my tax dollars". Yes fine - go away and believe that, I don't give a toss. I'm sure there are people who believe in a loving God with a long flowing grey beard sat in a cloud - doesn't make it so. Just makes them deluded in the face of all obvious evidence to the contrary.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2014

I am with runrig and his assessment of uba on this one
Like I've said to before Uba - it's pointless arguing with you, as no one will ever win in your mind and in print on here also, as you simply move the goal-posts out of the stadium


Captain - this person is one deniaist to avoid "discussion" with at all costs, because that way madness lies. I've been there and got the T-shirt, and watched while others are confounded while battling his superior intellect ( in his mind ). There must be a name for the condition - it's much more complicated than just the D-K syndrome.
Do as I (try to ) do - just deny the bollocks in a first post then ignore.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2014
Captain - this person is one deniaist to avoid "discussion" with at all costs, because that way madness lies. I've been there and got the T-shirt, and watched while others are confounded while battling his superior intellect ( in his mind ). There must be a name for the condition - it's much more complicated than just the D-K syndrome.
Do as I (try to ) do - just deny the bollocks in a first post then ignore.

runrig
you are right... and it DOES get rather repetitious as arguing with uba entails going back and picking her arguments to pieces, quoting her absurdity, constantly repeating the same thing in an attempt to show her the fallacies she supports, etc etc...
she could be autistic?
it gets boring

thanks runrig, for continually showing how real science works!
PEACE
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2014
AGW 'science' works by ridicule and intimidation.
Real science does not.
eric_in_chicago
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2014
THE UN LIES!!!

THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO FORCE US TO MAKE OUR FRIES FRENCH AGAIN!!!
eric_in_chicago
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2014
oh, i feel SO VICTIMIZED by AGW science, wRyggly!

I feel so intimidated and i have been ridiculed!
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2014
Ridicule and intimidate, R & I, the AGW mantra.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2014
The worlds experts have ryggy, and what's more, measured it ..... https://ams.confe...0737.htm


No, it was not measured. It was inferred from FASCOD3.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2014
No, it was not measured. It was inferred from FASCOD3.


ryggy: It really is a case of only reading the bits that square with your misconception of climate science with you lot isn't it? See the word "model" and the thinking process halts. If there was any there in the first place.

Err, the paper is about real world measurements, confirming the GHE of trace gases … which are in turn CONFIRMED by models.
IE the measurements stand on their own.

If you really are interested click on the link in my link for the PDF of the full paper.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2014
ryggesogn2 blurts crap, despite being shown the Science
AGW 'science' works by ridicule and intimidation.
Real science does not.
Unfortunately ryggesogn2, you have never actually done 'Real Science', if you had you would see the extensions & extrapolations articulated by Climate Scientists are based upon two key issues which are UNDENIABLE !

1. Levels of CO2 are rising
&
2. CO2 has known thermal properties. ie Re-radiation

Also ubavontuba tried but, failed oh so badly by claiming CO2 in a bottle acts differently than CO2 in atmosphere by blurting a "wild card" of chaos.

Ubavontuba obviously, has NEVER studied properties of gases. Had he/she/it received a basic high school education then he/she/it would know the motions of atoms in gasses are chaotic !

Ubavontuba just doesn't understand Calculus, especially integration !

Just because gas motion (in bottles) is chaotic as it is in the atmosphere doesn't mean it can't be integrated - FFS !

Oh ryggesogn2, education Pu-lease !
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2014
Captain - this person is one deniaist to avoid "discussion" with at all costs, because that way madness lies. I've been there and got the T-shirt, and watched while others are confounded while battling his superior intellect ( in his mind ). There must be a name for the condition - it's much more complicated than just the D-K syndrome.
Do as I (try to ) do - just deny the bollocks in a first post then ignore.

runrig
you are right... and it DOES get rather repetitious as arguing with uba entails going back and picking her arguments to pieces, quoting her absurdity, constantly repeating the same thing in an attempt to show her the fallacies she supports, etc etc...
she could be autistic?
it gets boring

thanks runrig, for continually showing how real science works!
PEACE


I am of the same opinion! Definitely not autism Capt, as the symptoms are wilful.

Also want to give a thanks to you runrig, your efforts are noticed and appreciated.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2014

I am of the same opinion! Definitely not autism Capt, as the symptoms are wilful.

Also want to give a thanks to you runrig, your efforts are noticed and appreciated.

And my thanks to you for your support.

PS: I've tied intervening on WUWT this last 6 weeks or so - but it's literally like going down the rabbit hole to sit at the Mad Hatter's tea-party.
Talk about away with the fairies!
Oh and the fan-boy cheering.
Completely nauseating, and my stomach couldn't take any more.
Trust me they have nothing to offer.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2014
the paper is about real world measurements,

Where are the error bars?
Do you understand the uncertainties involved with any radiometric measurement?
"The uncertainty for irradiance responsivity measurements that have been done to date is currently at about 3 % (k=2),"
http://www.nist.g...lity.cfm
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2014
I've tied intervening on WUWT this last 6 weeks or so - but it's literally like going down the rabbit hole to sit at the Mad Hatter's tea-party.
I tired that for a while too. For me it was not just the mad-hatters etc, which were bad, it was the constant zombie arguments presented on every comment thread and the games of whack-a-mole. It was akin to talking to Uba times three on every thread. And the self congratulation was cloying, to say the least.

It's sad really, the strongest argument that gets repeated over and over on that site is "I think it is political, I don't agree with the politics, I don't trust the scientists (or anyone actually) therefore the premise MUST be wrong". And round and round we go!
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2014
"I think it is political,

Whose fault is that?
AGWites like Hansen, US Senator Al Gore and other true believes who in the late 80's began the intimidation of any who might disagree.
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2014
Rygg
Whose fault is that?


Yours.

Most of the articles we read here are about science. Commenters like runrig et al want to talk about the science.

Who is it keeps mentioning socialists, and progressives, and liberals? (that was rhetorical)
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2014
I tired that for a while too. For me it was not just the mad-hatters etc, which were bad, it was the constant zombie arguments presented on every comment thread and the games of whack-a-mole. It was akin to talking to Uba times three on every thread. And the self congratulation was cloying, to say the least. ..........


Completely agree and good on you from giving it a go.
It truely was an eye opener. I may be naive, but - some of those folk are truely from a different planet.
And Watts just lets it go on. I know for a fact that he doesn't agree with much of it. The GHE for instance he accepts - just not at the IPCC predicted levels.
BTW: I had a good defence - when they set the attack dogs on - I just said excuse me I am a Meteorologist, you know, JUST LIKE ANTHONY - that seemed to work. I did that to someone who said Meteorology wasn't a "proper" science. Yes, tap-in goal!
He just needs to keep the fan-base happy.
You bump into NikfromNYC?
I saw the odd post from him.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2014
Most of the articles we read here are about science.

Science could not reasonably predict global catastrophe in 30 years from 'climate change', yet at least 10% of the articles on this site are the latest AGW propaganda.

And when the articles are not about AGW propaganda, they are about 'progressive' talking points.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2014
CO2 has known thermal properties. ie Re-radiation

So does H2O.

Here some of the real impacts of AGW 'science':
"Europe's high subsidies for renewables to meet climate change targets, coupled with the switch to gas, which is expensive to import, are damaging energy-intensive manufacturers, who between them employ some 30 million people"
" "Not only are we unable to attract investment to create new jobs, but we risk losing them as well." He proposed a moratorium on the targets for cutting EU carbon emissions by 20 per cent of 1990 values by 2020. "
http://www.telegr...ver.html

AGWites, step up and take some responsibility for the failure of your socialist policies.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2014

He just needs to keep the fan-base happy.
You bump into NikfromNYC?
That was before he came here. Him, Jim Steele, and a few others I recognized as posting here on occasion.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2014
"The ostensible purpose of The Copenhagen Diagnosis was as follows:

The purpose of this report is to synthesize the most policy-relevant climate science published since the close-off of material for the last IPCC report. The rationale is two-fold. Firstly, this report serves as an interim evaluation of the evolving science midway through an IPCC cycle – IPCC AR5 is not due for completion until 2013. Secondly, and most importantly, the report serves as a handbook of science updates that supplements the IPCC AR4 in time for Copenhagen in December, 2009, and any national or international climate change policy negotiations that follow.

Its co-authors included both Real Climate bloggers (Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Steig) as well as University of New South Wales academics (Matthew England, Steven Sherwood, Ben McNeill, Andrew Pitman), ...
http://climateaud...re-18850
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2014
"Although PAGES2K Arctic also had an extensive collection of ice core isotope series, they also expunged the Mt Logan series from their network, again setting out seemingly objective selection criteria. Since Kepler Lake is comparable in its major features to Mt Logan, it's hard to understand how one series "passed" the PAGES2K criteria, while the other one failed. However, these are the same folks who used the contaminated Igaliku series and used the Hvitarvatn data upside-down, so any search for precision is bound to be fruitless."
http://climateaud...re-18737
Cocoa
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2014
Rygg
And when the articles are not about AGW propaganda, they are about 'progressive' talking points.


No they are not - you just look at everything through your reds under the beds colored glasses. Anyone who takes a quick look through the selection of articles on todays board sees an interesting mix of articles on a broad range of topics. Nothing to do with some paranoid progressive conspiracy that you keep spewing. Would that you would truly believe that - and go leave the normal folks alone.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2014
I'll backup @Cocoa's comment. @R2 , what you have is a case of self delusion.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Yeap, that about sums it up.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2014
I'll backup @Cocoa's comment. @R2 , what you have is a case of self delusion.

you can add me to that list too

time for Ryggy to get those meds checked... or get some meds... whichever applies

AGWites, step up and take some responsibility for the failure of your socialist policies.

@ryggy
why are the actions of politicians the fault of scientists reporting data?
what you are really after is the politicians... the scientists only performs the research, data collection and attempts to model the situation effectively
they are not getting rich, despite the allegations to the contrary

take off the tinfoil hat and get out of the basement...
everything you post is about political conspiracy

try to learn science and keep the posts on topic
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2014
the scientists only performs the research, data collection and attempts to model the situation effectively


""Knowing what to do is not enough," says Dr Walker. "Institutional reforms are needed to bring about changes in human behaviour,"
""We are not advocating that countries give up their sovereignty," adds co-author Professor Terry Hughes, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University.

"We are instead proposing a much stronger focus on regional and worldwide cooperation, helped by better-designed multi-national institutions."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

"Twenty marine scientists, including prominent Britons, are asking the world's governments to regulate the live fish trade to help protect coral reefs."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2014
"The policy paper notes the National Academy of Sciences has outlined a suggested portfolio of approaches to mitigation, which include adopting a mechanism for setting an economy-wide greenhouse gas emission pricing system."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
"Emissions pricing revenues could overcompensate profit losses of fossil fuel owners"
http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

"Scientists must leave the ivory tower and become advocates, or civilization is endangered, says Stanford biologist

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

From today's headlines:

"Speed appeal: Top male cyclists rated more attractive"
http://medicalxpr...sts.html

"Study finds evidence that stock prices can be predicted within a short window of time"
"Apple claws back share in US with new iPhones"
Cocoa
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2014
What is your point ryggy? Is "Apple claws back share in US with new iPhones" supposed to be some subliminal message - 'the liberal socialists are taking over the world again?'

Maybe the article on the new optical storage device - is really about Al Gore and Michael Mann's latest plot to do zombie mind control, and steal all of your freedoms!

I wish you could hear yourself.
Timray
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
it went from Global Warming....to Climate Change...to Climate Smarming
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
ubavontuba showed ignorance of Calculus with this bad thinking
The atmosphere's volume, pressure, temperature, and even mass are not fixed.
If you had studied basic high school heat capacity with Calculus you would know you don't need to "fix" variables per se', you deal with the masses of the gasses within the system in accordance with gas laws, heat capacity, concentration levels etc.
You're an idiot. If it was just math, how come as the CO2 continues to rise, the temperature does not?

Maybe you think the earth fails math? LOL

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
Like I've said to before Uba - it's pointless arguing with you, as no one will ever win in your mind and in print on here also, as you simply move the goal-posts out of the stadium.
You're the one moving the goalposts. You won't even agree with the standard definition of "global warming" anymore.

Standard 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...14/trend

Ergo, no global warming in 16.5 years ...and counting.

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
I am with runrig and his assessment of uba on this one
Like I've said to before Uba - it's pointless arguing with you, as no one will ever win in your mind and in print on here also, as you simply move the goal-posts out of the stadium
Captain - this person is one deniaist to avoid "discussion" with at all costs, because that way madness lies. I've been there and got the T-shirt, and watched while others are confounded while battling his superior intellect ( in his mind ). There must be a name for the condition - it's much more complicated than just the D-K syndrome.
Do as I (try to ) do - just deny the bollocks in a first post then ignore.
This is nothing more than a typical AGWite propaganda ploy. You attack the person and ignore the science. Grow up.

Here's the science: http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
ubavontuba struggles to understand Heat Capacity and in conjunction with combinatorial complexity with this un-intelligent unconnected blurt
...Maybe you think the earth fails math? LOL
You ubavontuba, seem to crave the most SIMPLISTIC & un-intelligent idea of how the Earth's climate system functions, I feel sorry for you & your family your loss of education opportunity.

How might your life be so different if schooled ?

Whats worse, you ignore heat capacity

Summarising for you again as it does seem you have GREAT difficulty in thinking other than in SIMPLE a,b,c's.

Takes ~2 units of heat to make ice rise by 1 deg C in temperature.
Takes ~4 units of heat to make water rise by 1 deg C in temperature.

BUT

It takes ~331 units of heat to change ice to water with NO increase in temperature.

Capisce

Can't you see decline in ice mass (not volume) is the confirmation of lapse !

Why do you ubavontuba, so WANT to remain ignorant & uneducated & PROVING to us you cannot think well.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2014
ubavontuba claims crap & ends u proving he/she/it has ZERO education
... ignore the science..
NO ubavontuba YOU ignore Science *AND* at the most BASIC of levels - taught in most high-schools !
Please ubavontuba get BASIC education in Heat Capacity & read, please (i know its hard, its not redneck SIMPLE) understand non-linearities Eg:-

http://en.wikiped...d_fusion

Clarifying/summarising previous post & correction:-

- Increase temp of ice by one degree C takes ~2 units of energy
- Change ice to water with NO increase in temp takes ~333 units of energy
- Increase temp of water by one degree C takes ~4 units of energy
- Change water to vapour with NO increase in temp takes ~2260 units of energy

Can anyone see why non-linearities of water are SO very VERY important & why the observation that water is the PRIME moderator of climate heating are intrinsically & absolutely CORRECT ?

Education ubavontuba !

Capisce?
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2014
It takes ~331 units of heat to change ice to water with NO increase in temperature.

So, somehow, all this missing heat for the past 15+ years is somehow being directed to melting ice and is NOT raising any surface air temperatures?
If, as you say, the earth has lost so much ice, why isn't this extra heat being found in surface temperatures since their is much less ice to melt?
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2014
If, as you say, the earth has lost so much ice, why isn't this extra heat being found in surface temperatures since their is much less ice to melt?


So Rygg is disputing that the ice sheets and the glaciers have lost mass over the past 15 years. Of course a quick look at the data will show Rygg's blatant ignorance.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
What I am saying it that IF, as AGWites assert, so much ice has already melted, then less heat would be needed to continue to melt ice and more heat should be reflected in higher surface temperatures.
But that is not what has been recently asserted here. Some assert the deep ocean is selectively absorbing the heat while others assert that the ice is selectively absorbing the heat.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
This is nothing more than a typical AGWite propaganda ploy. You attack the person and ignore the science. Grow up.

Here's the science: http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Whack-a-mole!


Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
Standard 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...14/trend

Ergo, no global warming in 16.5 years ...and counting.



Whack-a-mole!
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2014
ryggesogn2 choice of language doesn't help his thinking
So, somehow, all this missing heat for the past 15+ years is somehow being directed to melting ice and is NOT raising any surface air temperatures?
The heat is not missing, it results in change, part of that has not resulted in temperature rise that we can easily measure.

Try to understand:-
- Temperature measurements are incomplete
It is therefore erroneous to claim "NOT raising surface..."
- Sea currents are dynamic & a great deal completely unknown
It is therefore erroneous to point to local maxima/minima
If, as you say, the earth has lost so much ice, why isn't this extra heat being found in surface temperatures since their is much less ice to melt?
There is a tremendous amount of ice STILL melting, salinity is dropping around Antarctica, more melt water off Greenland etc.

The interplay of forces moving heat around are extremely complex, there is no simple paradigm that the uneducated crave as Simple yes/no.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2014
ryggesogn2's logic? needs work with this
What I am saying it that IF, as AGWites assert, so much ice has already melted, then less heat would be needed to continue to melt ice and more heat should be reflected in higher surface temperatures.
Ice has melted and continues to melt, there is a lot of ice it is NOT evenly distributed.
It is erroneous logic to now say "..less heat would be needed to continue".
NO - absolutely wrong, the heat we get is being distributed non-linearly
& not homogeneously, there is still tremendous melting, it is also subject to currents AND tidal forces which affect deep water currents also.
Temperature measurements cannot cover the whole planet, its therefore erroneous
to conclude prematurely there is NO overall warming. It is extremely complex.
..Some assert the deep ocean is selectively absorbing the heat while others assert that the ice is selectively absorbing the heat.
"Selectively" - heh ?
Subject to VERY complex dynamics & tidal forces !
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
Ergo, no global warming in 16.5 years ...and counting

@Uba
cherry picking data again...

http://www.woodfo...60/trend

GIVEN the past 100yrs,
ANY IDIOT who cherry picks data could make the SAME argument in any of the dips
in fact, cherry picking idiots could also have argued that it reversed itself and coooled in those short periods
given the complexity, anything short of 30yrs is way too short to make a claim on
this is why climate science requires a longer trend period
so that they dont look like idiots by cherry-picking data

http://www.thecon...ect.com/

the above link has some good data and graphs to show WHY uba is wrong...
feel free to peruse it at your leisure

and if you need help reading it, Uba, let us know...
i have seen how comprehension is NOT your strong suit
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2014
This is nothing more than a typical AGWite propaganda ploy. You attack the person and ignore the science. Grow up

@Uba
first off... it is a comment to ME, not you.
although it IS about you... it only states facts that Runrig has seen
you DO deny REAL SCIENCE
you cherry pick data and you ignore RELAVANT data
your link is laughable in its state as it does NOT reflect the reality of the overall rise and trends.
Second: Runrig knows more about climate science that you ever will, especially given your attitude of denial
lastly: Runrig has NEVER ignored the science, it is YOU who ignores relevant data and real science

feel free to attempt to dispute this fact
but understand that there is a preponderance of evidence in our favor
and a none in your favor

http://www.thecon...ect.com/
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2014
Rygg
What I am saying it that IF, as AGWites assert, so much ice has already melted,


Rygg clearly has an English comprehension problem (we are all aware of that - but it is good to show it for what it is). Using the word IF - means that Rygg is questioning the fact that 'so much ice has already melted'. But that is a fact - it is not disputable - the data tells us so. So Rygg is on record as questioning reality.

Also - as Mike points out above - arguing that if X amount of ice has already melted - then it would need less heat to continue to melt the ice - is patently foolish. In fact - open water absorbs more heat than ice (which has more reflectivity) it would be reasonable to expect that more of the heat would be absorbed into the ocean - as the ice sheets melt.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
more of the heat would be absorbed into the ocean

And raise surface temperatures.

Others assert that the heat is hiding in the ocean below 5000meters. BTW, what is the historic temperature of the oceans below 5000 meters?
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
ryggesogn2 betrays a desire for inane SIMPLICITY avoiding education offered, UGH such naivity
And raise surface temperatures.
If and only if all surface temperatures were able to be measured on a grand scale over the WHOLE planet - which clearly are impractical
Others assert that the heat is hiding in the ocean below 5000meters. BTW, what is the historic temperature of the oceans below 5000 meters?
Who knows !

In the absence of secondary data one MUST deal with the foundations, as already indicated to you ryggesogn2, the fundamentals are:-

1. CO2 level rising
2. CO2 has known thermal properties (re-radiation)
3. Heat Capacity

It's worth getting a serious education, need serious study in Science, not mere smatterings you lumber at, please please get a REAL Science education and PLEASE include these:-

http://en.wikiped...culation
http://en.wikiped...of_water

In the absence of your prior exposure to education, investigate !
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2014
Rygg
And raise surface temperatures.


Not necessarily.

Here is a graph of ocean temperature

data - http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

Here is a graph of atmospheric temperature for the same period.

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Rygg should read the article today on the spreading of myths (information that is factually incorrect). Rygg is a perfect example of someone with D.K. - who is intent of spreading myths.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
one MUST deal with the foundations

Yes, one must deal from first principles.
I don't see first principles applied with AGW.
The UK and US have proposed two satellites (TRUTHS, CLARREO), traceable radiometers to continuously measure the radiance of the earth.
They are not on orbit. Is someone afraid of what they will discover?
And if surface temperatures are so difficult to obtain, what about the temperatures of the ocean below 5000 meters?

inane SIMPLICITY

1. CO2 level rising
2. CO2 has known thermal properties (re-radiation)
3. Heat Capacity

This is AGWism.
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2014
Rygg asks -
They are not on orbit. Is someone afraid of what they will discover?


Actually the very scientists that Rygg is constantly belittling - are the ones pushing hard to figure out a way to get the satellites launched.

http://www.spacen...ored-for

It is D.K. anti science obstructionists like Rygg who are constantly fighting the science - and then accusing the scientists of being afraid of what they might find.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
ubavontuba struggles to understand Heat Capacity and in conjunction with combinatorial complexity with this un-intelligent unconnected blurt
...Maybe you think the earth fails math? LOL
You ubavontuba, seem to crave the most SIMPLISTIC & un-intelligent idea of how the Earth's climate system functions, I feel sorry for you & your family your loss of education opportunity.

How might your life be so different if schooled ?

Whats worse, you ignore heat capacity

Summarising for you again as it does seem you have GREAT difficulty in thinking other than in SIMPLE a,b,c's.
1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Takes ~2 units of heat to make ice rise by 1 deg C in temperature.
Takes ~4 units of heat to make water rise by 1 deg C in temperature.

BUT

It takes ~331 units of heat to change ice to water with NO increase in temperature.

Capisce

Can't you see decline in ice mass (not volume) is the confirmation of lapse!
Then how do you explain the sudden increase in the ice minimum, this season over last season?

Does the earth not understand heat capacity now? LOL

Why do you ubavontuba, so WANT to remain ignorant & uneducated & PROVING to us you cannot think well.
Why are you such a troll?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
ubavontuba claims crap & ends u proving he/she/it has ZERO education
... ignore the science..
NO ubavontuba YOU ignore Science *AND* at the most BASIC of levels - taught in most high-schools !
Please ubavontuba get BASIC education in Heat Capacity & read, please (i know its hard, its not redneck SIMPLE) understand non-linearities Eg:-
1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

http://en.wikiped...d_fusion

Clarifying/summarising previous post & correction:-

- Increase temp of ice by one degree C takes ~2 units of energy
- Change ice to water with NO increase in temp takes ~333 units of energy
- Increase temp of water by one degree C takes ~4 units of energy
- Change water to vapour with NO increase in temp takes ~2260 units of energy

Can anyone see why non-linearities of water are SO very VERY important & why the observation that water is the PRIME moderator of climate heating are intrinsically & absolutely CORRECT ?
LOL. So how does this supposed (unproven) ocean heating just skip the atmosphere and land entirely? Is it magic?

Education ubavontuba !

Capisce?
Mike_Massen = troll.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
This is nothing more than a typical AGWite propaganda ploy. You attack the person and ignore the science. Grow up.

Here's the science: http://www.woodfo...14/trend]http://www.woodfo...14/trend[/url]
Whack-a-mole!
Maggnus proves my case for me.

Standard 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...14/trend]http://www.woodfo...14/trend[/url]

Ergo, no global warming in 16.5 years ...and counting.
Whack-a-mole!
And again, Maggnus proves my case for me.

Maggnus = troll.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
ryggesogn2 choice of language doesn't help his thinking
So, somehow, all this missing heat for the past 15+ years is somehow being directed to melting ice and is NOT raising any surface air temperatures?
The heat is not missing, it results in change, part of that has not resulted in temperature rise that we can easily measure.

Try to understand:-
- Temperature measurements are incomplete
It is therefore erroneous to claim "NOT raising surface..."
- Sea currents are dynamic & a great deal completely unknown
It is therefore erroneous to point to local maxima/minima
If, as you say, the earth has lost so much ice, why isn't this extra heat being found in surface temperatures since their is much less ice to melt?
There is a tremendous amount of ice STILL melting, salinity is dropping around Antarctica, more melt water off Greenland etc.

The interplay of forces moving heat around are extremely complex, there is no simple paradigm that the uneducated crave as Simple yes/no.
You're too stupid to know it, but you just admitted there is no global warming! LOL

And if the earth can so stealthily sequester heat, the opposite must be true too. Therefore, you just claimed it's never been cooler, too!

Mike_Massen = moron.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
ryggesogn2's logic? needs work with this
What I am saying it that IF, as AGWites assert, so much ice has already melted, then less heat would be needed to continue to melt ice and more heat should be reflected in higher surface temperatures.
Ice has melted and continues to melt, there is a lot of ice it is NOT evenly distributed.
It is erroneous logic to now say "..less heat would be needed to continue".
NO - absolutely wrong, the heat we get is being distributed non-linearly
& not homogeneously, there is still tremendous melting, it is also subject to currents AND tidal forces which affect deep water currents also.
Temperature measurements cannot cover the whole planet, its therefore erroneous
to conclude prematurely there is NO overall warming. It is extremely complex.
..Some assert the deep ocean is selectively absorbing the heat while others assert that the ice is selectively absorbing the heat.
"Selectively" - heh ?
Subject to VERY complex dynamics & tidal forces !
LOL. Do you even have an understanding of how long it takes deep sea water to circulate to the surface, and back again? And yet we're to believe this magical deep sea heating is somehow relevant to today's atmospheric CO2? LOL

ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2014
Actually the very scientists that Rygg is constantly belittling - are the ones pushing hard to figure out a way to get the satellites launched.


Why should they? The science is 'settled' so why waste the money?
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
http://www.thecon...ect.com/

the above link has some good data and graphs to show WHY uba is wrong...
feel free to peruse it at your leisure

and if you need help reading it, Uba, let us know...
i have seen how comprehension is NOT your strong suit
LOL. Science by "consensus" ...need I say more?

Here, I can do that too:

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...14/trend

the above link is a good graph to show WHY Stumpy is wrong...
feel free to peruse it at your leisure

and if you need help reading it, Stumpy, let us know...
i have seen how comprehension is NOT your strong suit LOL!

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
...arguing that if X amount of ice has already melted - then it would need less heat to continue to melt the ice - is patently foolish. In fact - open water absorbs more heat than ice (which has more reflectivity) it would be reasonable to expect that more of the heat would be absorbed into the ocean - as the ice sheets melt.
But has it?

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Hmm... I don't see it.

Maybe it's here?

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

..nope.

It appears you just don't know what you're talking about.

ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2014

"Why consensus matters: the Consensus Gap There is a large gap between the public perception of consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the reality of 97% agreement among climate scientists. This "Consensus Gap" has real-world implications. Research into climate change attitudes has found that a CORRECT perception of scientific consensus is linked to support for climate policy. In other words, when people don't realize there's a scientific consensus, they're less likely to support climate action. This underscores the importance of closing the Consensus Gap."
http://www.thecon...ect.com/

In other words, the propaganda is failing.
This project doesn't care about science, it cares that policies for govt coercion are facing opposition. It's explicitly stated by AGWites.
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
Rygg
Why should they? The science is 'settled' so why waste the money?


So Rygg attacks scientists - accusing them of not launching 2 satellites for fear of the information they may learn from the satellites - and then Rygg asks 'why should they?' [launch these satellites. What a rube.

The main point Rygg fails to understand here is that science is never settled - in the sense that we know everything. Otherwise we would not be thinking about building the next super-collider. So of course - there will always be more to learn - just not by rubes like Rygg - who already knows everything.
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2014
UBA -
But has it?


Yes it has.

UBA - master cherry picker - reappears. Oh right - the ice sheets aren't melting, the glaciers are growing, the oceans are getting cooler, Antarctica is cooling all over.

Except that all of UBA's attempts to cherry pick are transparent. Here is the exact same chart that UBA referenced - but with a little longer time scale. See how that works?

http://www.woodfo...14/trend
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
@uba writes
1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

therefore, based upon the above, and the fact that Uba continually posts the SAME argument which has been REFUTED
and is also CHERRY PICKED
http://www.woodfo14/trend

which shows only that Uba cannot comprehend REAL SCIENCE
because she cherry picks data, makes proclamations that are not supported by real science
cannot understand basic terminology

therefore Ubavontuba = SPAMMING PESUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT TROLL

see below for real science
http://www.woodfo...14/trend

a DIRECT REFUTE to uba's cherry picking and PROOF that she cherry picks data
bye UbaTROLL
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2014
UBA -
But has it?


Yes it has.

UBA - master cherry picker - reappears. Oh right - the ice sheets aren't melting, the glaciers are growing, the oceans are getting cooler, Antarctica is cooling all over.

Except that all of UBA's attempts to cherry pick are transparent. Here is the exact same chart that UBA referenced - but with a little longer time scale. See how that works?

http://www.woodfo...14/trend
Which only serves to prove warming has stopped. You have to tack on older data to show any warming at all, proving it currently is not warming!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2014
therefore, based upon the above, and the fact that Uba continually posts the SAME argument which has been REFUTED
This is a lie. How can simple observational data be refuted? If this data is no good, then none of it is trustworthy.

and is also CHERRY PICKED
No it's not. It's the most current data.

which shows only that Uba cannot comprehend REAL SCIENCE
because she cherry picks data, makes proclamations that are not supported by real science
cannot understand basic terminology
Funny, "real science" is recognizing the hiatus, why aren't you? Maybe you don't believe in science?

therefore Ubavontuba = SPAMMING PESUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT TROLL
1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Ergo Captain Stumpy = troll.

see below for real science
http://www.woodfo...14/trend

a DIRECT REFUTE to uba's cherry picking and PROOF that she cherry picks data
bye UbaTROLL
Which only serves to prove ocean warming has stopped. You have to tack on older data to show any warming at all, proving it currently is not warming!

And, how do you explain all that warming from BEFORE the supposed anthropogenic warming? Was it magic?

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
This is a lie. How can simple observational data be refuted? If this data is no good, then none of it is trustworthy

@uba
it is cherry picked to represent what you wish it to
given the same criteria, you could have argued that warming stopped/reversed several times
BUT we also know it has not
therefore: your data is specifically meant to represent
and it has been SHOWN REPEATEDLY that this is true
which means you have been refuted
no lie there
No it's not. It's the most current data.

nope
cherry picked specifically to misrepresent reality
thats why I added the FULL data spread

http://www.woodfo...60/trend

this is accurate
your link is no better than: watching animal house and making the assumption that all parades are crashed by colleges because the last one you saw in the movie was
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
Funny, "real science" is recognizing the hiatus, why aren't you? Maybe you don't believe in science?

@uba
seeing the data and making an unfounded correlation like you did is two different things
just like: I can SEE the moon, but that doesnt mean I can reach out and touch it
you have claimed warming is STOPPED
no global warming in 16.5 years

it is not
Which only serves to prove ocean warming has stopped. You have to tack on older data to show any warming at all, proving it currently is not warming!

the link is to show you that your claims are refuted by simply adding all the relevant data

if you would peruse the data on this link you would learn more

http://www.thecon...ect.com/

source for the link

http://www.skepti...nsus.pdf

i know you will not go to the site: you FEAR the truth
just as you continually post the same crap
and continue to get refuted

hence Maggnus "whack-a-mole" comments

Uba = Troll
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
Which only serves to prove warming has stopped. You have to tack on older data to show any warming at all, proving it currently is not warming!

@uba
again with the comprehension problems?
Please see
GIVEN the past 100yrs,
ANY IDIOT who cherry picks data could make the SAME argument in any of the dips
in fact, cherry picking idiots could also have argued that it reversed itself and coooled in those short periods
given the complexity, anything short of 30yrs is way too short to make a claim on
this is why climate science requires a longer trend period
so that they dont look like idiots by cherry-picking data


and again, I give you

http://www.thecon...ect.com/

source for the link

http://www.skepti...nsus.pdf

and so we now have you continuing to post the same refuted data that shows that you either:
cannot comprehend real science OR
are incredibly stupid OR
you are nothing but a pseudoscience TROLL

more evidence for TROLL than not
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
it is cherry picked to represent what you wish it to
All I "wish to represent" the current circumstances. I have no control over the current circumstances. If it was still warming, that's what I would be "representing."

given the same criteria, you could have argued that warming stopped/reversed several times
BUT we also know it has not
Technically, it has.

therefore: your data is specifically meant to represent
and it has been SHOWN REPEATEDLY that this is true
which means you have been refuted
no lie there
It's only observational data, ergo it only represents the facts as they are. It cannot be refuted.

No it's not. It's the most current data.
nope
cherry picked specifically to misrepresent reality
thats why I added the FULL data spread
How can observational data " misrepresent reality?"

this is accurate
Again, this only serves to prove warming has stopped. Having to tack on older data to show any warming at all, just proves it is currently not warming.

your link is no better than: watching animal house and making the assumption that all parades are crashed by colleges because the last one you saw in the movie was
This is a stupid analogy. Do you have any idea how many countless data points are represented by that graph?

Seriously, learn a little science, will ya?

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
seeing the data and making an unfounded correlation like you did is two different things
just like: I can SEE the moon, but that doesnt mean I can reach out and touch it
you have claimed warming is STOPPED
no global warming in 16.5 years

it is not
Lying about it doesn't change the fact that it has stopped.

Which only serves to prove ocean warming has stopped. You have to tack on older data to show any warming at all, proving it currently is not warming!

the link is to show you that your claims are refuted by simply adding all the relevant data
This is like showing a car driving before it comes to a stop and saying this proves it has not stopped.

if you would peruse the data on this link you would learn more

http://www.thecon...ect.com/

i know you will not go to the site:
LOL. I've seen it. It is possibly the stupidest AGWite link I have ever seen.

you FEAR the truth
This is a lie. I'm not the one living in denial of what's really happening. It is you who fears the truth.

just as you continually post the same crap
and continue to get refuted
Again, if the data I presented is "refuted," then none of the AGWite claims can be true, as the data comes from the same sources!

hence Maggnus "whack-a-mole" comments
More AGWite science avoidance and trolling. Is this all you have?

Captain Stumpy = AGWite troll.

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
All I "wish to represent" the current circumstances

@uba
this is obfuscation
especially when you qualify your "representation" with
no global warming

a repeat claim
Technically, it has

it fluctuated as shown by the overall data
it did NOT stop rising
It cannot be refuted

YOU were refuted &
How can observational data " misrepresent reality?"

you were shown to use cherry picked data to misrepresent reality

I see you are having a really bad comprehension day
your data is cherry picked for a purpose
your purpose is misrepresentation
should really have visited those links I left you.

This is a stupid analogy

yes, it is, but it is the same logic that you are using
therefore you are simply reaffirming the fact that you are using stupid logic
learn a little science

it appears that I am much more conversant that you are
given that you cannot even comprehend basic english

cherry picked data is pseudoscience
IOW - stop TROLLING with SPAM
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
again with the comprehension problems?
Trolling

Please see
GIVEN the past 100yrs,
ANY IDIOT who cherry picks data could make the SAME argument in any of the dips
in fact, cherry picking idiots could also have argued that it reversed itself and coooled in those short periods
given the complexity, anything short of 30yrs is way too short to make a claim on
this is why climate science requires a longer trend period
so that they dont look like idiots by cherry-picking data
Then why are so many "climate scientists" starting to talk about it?

and again, I give you

[http://AGWitepropaganda.com/

and so we now have you continuing to post the same refuted data that shows that you either:
cannot comprehend real science OR
are incredibly stupid OR
you are nothing but a pseudoscience TROLL

more evidence for TROLL than not
...said the AGWite troll.

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
Lying about it doesn't change the fact that it has stopped.

@uba
http://www.thecon...ect.com/

http://www.woodfo...60/trend

not lying
It is possibly the stupidest AGWite link I have ever seen.

personal conjecture
mad because they use science and you cannot refute it with your bull?
I'm not the one living in denial of what's really happening. It is you who fears the truth

not according to your posts
you are the one that keeps denying the science
you are the one who keeps leaving out relevant data
you are the one who argues the same graph over and over even though you have been proven wrong time and again
I actually had no leaning whatsoever before I came to this site
the science taught me that there is warming
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2014
if the data I presented is "refuted," then none of the AGWite claims can be true, as the data comes from the same sources!

@uba
The above is a perfect example of comprehension problems
I said
you continually post the same crap and continue to get refuted

key word is YOU
YOU get refuted
so it is NOT some AGW tactic... it is a valid assessment of your lack of ability
and given that you continually post the same thing over and over
you are therefore also proven a TROLL
we could continue this argument
but it would be pointless as you are not capable of comprehending

that is why you label a science site as propaganda... they made that site for people like you who cannot understand basic science

Bye Troll!
happy spamming
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
this is obfuscation
especially when you qualify your "representation" with
no global warming
Again, it is merely an observation.

it fluctuated as shown by the overall data
it did NOT stop rising
Actually it has, and many of your precious AGWite "scientists" are beginning to admit it.

YOU were refuted
How can I be refuted when I'm just reporting the observed data? Either the data is valid, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.


you were shown to use cherry picked data to misrepresent reality
No, that's what you did when you tacked on historical records in an effort to modify contemporary results.

I see you are having a really bad comprehension day
Pure trolling.

your data is cherry picked for a purpose
your purpose is misrepresentation
Again, how can it be a "misrepresentation" when it is only observational data? Are you claiming the data is wrong?

This is a stupid analogy

yes, it is, but it is the same logic that you are using
Not even close.

it appears that I am much more conversant that you are
given that you cannot even comprehend basic english
LOL. Your grammar is atrocious!

cherry picked data is pseudoscience
So stop cherry picking the data. That's right. You're the one cherry picking the data. You're the one trying to hide data. You're the one in denial.

No global warming in 16.5 years...

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

...and counting.

Skepticus_Rex
4 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
In fairness to both positions, this site just published an article, summarizing an article in Nature Climate Change, that states that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 13 years (the author also uses the word 'hiatus'). The author of the study, however, blames the Pacific tradewinds and expects things to really heat up again when the powerful tradewinds that stalled global warming for the last 13 years die down.

http://phys.org/n...for.html

I guess we'll all have to wait and see, won't we?
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
Lying about it doesn't change the fact that it has stopped.
not lying
Lying about not lying is just another lie.

It is possibly the stupidest AGWite link I have ever seen.
personal conjecture
mad because they use science and you cannot refute it with your bull?
LOL. What science? They don't use science.

I actually had no leaning whatsoever before I came to this site
the science taught me that there is warming
That explains it. You've been brainwashed by phys.org's AGWite writers. LOL

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
if the data I presented is "refuted," then none of the AGWite claims can be true, as the data comes from the same sources!
The above is a perfect example of comprehension problems
I said
you continually post the same crap and continue to get refuted

key word is YOU
How can I be refuted when all I've done is post someone else's observational data?

that is why you label a science site as propaganda... they made that site for people like you who cannot understand basic science
Oh I understand it quite well, thank you.

Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
ubavontuba uses the wood for trees web site but, apparently hasn't read the notes or just ignores them:-

http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

Ubavontuba claims to know the science but, can't seem to get her/his/it's head around combinatorial complexity in relation to the fundamentals, as already stated & NOT refuted:-

1. CO2 levels increasing
2. CO2 has know thermal properties ie Re-radiation

ubavontuba cannot seem to grasp tremendous importance of the properties of water & just how its possible to have an increase in heat without there necessarily being a rise in temperature.

http://en.wikiped...of_water

The vast majority of ubavontuba's comments are argument, propaganda or simplistic assertions & questions without increasing knowledge.

Can ubavontuba explain why he/she/it totally ignores the "Land only data" which continues to show warming, yet claims warming has 'stopped', thereby accepting there was warming (before) ?

http://www.woodfo...rg/notes#best
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
1. CO2 levels increasing
2. CO2 has know thermal properties ie Re-radiation

So?
Water has more IR absorption bands than CO2 in the range of 8-12 um.
But it's not easy to model is it?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
ryggesogn2 keeps bringing this up
Water has more IR absorption bands than CO2 in the range of 8-12 um.
But it's not easy to model is it?
Please try to understand the precipitation factor, this is why calculus (mathematics) is taught at or before the teaching of chemical equilibria, heat capacity, advanced properties of materials & how to calculate within an essentially chaotic framework...

I have mentioned to you before but, you ryggesogn2 still do not understand:-

a. Water has a very easy & virtually immediate path to leave the atmosphere as precipitation
b. CO2 doesn't have an easy time, proof is here:- http://www.woodfo...o2/every

Please ryggesogn2, do a basic science course such as in community college etc in equilibrium conditions, heat capacity etc. Because its clear ryggesogn2 that although I have linked you to wikipedia articles you have not read them or cannot understand them.

Look up relative equilibria re water and 'do the sums' please.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
ubavontuba uses the wood for trees web site but, apparently hasn't read the notes or just ignores them: -
LOL. That YOU don't understand how to properly use the site in no way impinges upon me.


Ubavontuba claims to know the science but, can't seem to get her/his/it's head around combinatorial complexity in relation to the fundamentals, as already stated & NOT refuted:-

1. CO2 levels increasing
2. CO2 has know thermal properties ie Re-radiation
B.S.. This is not experimentally proven under truly earth-like conditions.


ubavontuba cannot seem to grasp tremendous importance of the properties of water & just how its possible to have an increase in heat without there necessarily being a rise in temperature.
Here, you're just admitting there is no global warming!


The vast majority of ubavontuba's comments are argument, propaganda or simplistic assertions & questions without increasing knowledge.
LOL. Have you ever even bothered to read your own posts?


Can ubavontuba explain why he/she/it totally ignores the "Land only data" which continues to show warming,
So all of a sudden it isn't "global" warming anymore? Even so, the pause still exists. RSS satellite land data shows the longest pause, but I generally prefer CRU data:

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

...yet claims warming has 'stopped', thereby accepting there was warming (before) ?
When have I ever suggested there wasn't warming before?

http:/www.woodfortrees.org/notes#best
LOL! This is proof you don't understand the site. The BEST study data ended in 2010!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
Water has more IR absorption bands than CO2 in the range of 8-12 um.
But it's not easy to model is it?
Please try to understand the precipitation factor, this is why calculus (mathematics) is taught at or before the teaching of chemical equilibria, heat capacity, advanced properties of materials & how to calculate within an essentially chaotic framework...

a. Water has a very easy & virtually immediate path to leave the atmosphere as precipitation
Funny, that's not what the IPCC says:

"It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence),"

b. CO2 doesn't have an easy time, proof is here:- http://www.woodfo...o2/every
So why aren't the temperatures increasing?

Look up relative equilibria re water and 'do the sums' please.
So it's your claim that all the water vapor from burning fossil fuels is increasing precipitation? I drive my car and water the fields at the same time?

Cool that.

Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
@ubavontuba, your comments in "
"..properly use the site.."
The Notes CLARIFY, understand the dilemma !

"..not experimentally proven under truly earth-like.."
Then claim CO2 in atmosphere does NOT re-radiate & integration maths is all false, how so ?

"..admitting there is.."
You missed the word 'necessarily'.

"..prefer CRU data"
Why ?

"..suggested there wasn't warming.."
So you accept there was, what cause then ?

"..study data ended in 2010"
It shows warming during period of ~12yrs prior.

"..not what the IPCC says".
Understand whole context, not picked isolated phrases.

"..why aren't the temperatures increasing?"
Factor in, water plays a large part re heat flow, climate is extremely complex, full details will eventually be known, probabilistic.

"..burning fossil fuels is increasing precipitation?"
H2O is a product of combustion, WoW humans are adding 2 x G.H.Gasses !

Note:
Air can only hold certain amount of H2O, NOT the case with CO2, latter is therefore more significant !!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
that's what you did when you tacked on historical records in an effort to modify contemporary results

@uba
nope. I included all relevant data, unlike YOU.
you have intentionally selected partial records in order to misrepresent legitimate science and results in order to support a false proclamation that global warming stopped, which, if you read my links, means that you are lying as well as trolling as you are intentionally causing deception by obfuscation and cherry-picking data
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias


https://en.wikipe...llacy%29

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
it is merely an observation

@uba
your "observation" is personal conjecture not supported by valid scientific facts
..."scientists" are beginning to admit it

no. scientists are observing the data
How can I be refuted when I'm just reporting the observed data? Either the data is valid, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways

when you cherry pick data leaving out relevant information
then qualify it with a definitive statement not supported in light of all the information
it ceases to be speculative
it becomes intentional obfuscation in order to confuse/support an invalid hypothesis
therefore it becomes refutable with relevant data and by including all the information
IOW – when you include all the data, you can plainly see that your speculations are not only incorrect but also intentionally misleading, obfuscates reality and are malicious for purposes known only to you
which means YOU are TROLLING
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2014
Are you claiming the data is wrong?

@uba
I am STATING that you misrepresent the data (cherry picking) by not including all relevant information
not a guess
it is factual statement backed up by showing the same graph on the same site with the relevant information included
Your grammar is atrocious

personal conjecture
You're the one cherry picking the data. You're the one trying to hide data. You're the one in denial.
No global warming in 16.5 years

nope.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias"

https://en.wikipe...llacy%29
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
uba writes:
What science? They don't use science.


http://www.thecon...ect.com/

see studies for supporting evidence
That explains it. You've been brainwashed by phys.org's AGWite writers

I have seen the science and I have learned the truth
How can I be refuted when all I've done is post someone else's observational data?

again with comprehension problems
I refuted your claims
the data is simply out of context as it does not include all relevant data
When have I ever suggested there wasn't warming before?

when you posted
No global warming

and in numerous other threads
shall i link them all here?
the 30 year trend (or longer) shows rising
your information is out of context
therefore cherry-picked
IOW – YOU are wrong
your data that you posted is being studied by scientists
when it makes a trend, they will publish a study
until then... references that claim it is stopped are premature and wrong

SEE Runrig for details and more science
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
In fairness to both positions,... The author of the study, however, blames the Pacific tradewinds and expects things to really heat up again when the powerful tradewinds that stalled global warming for the last 13 years die down.

http://phys.org/n...for.html

I guess we'll all have to wait and see, won't we?

@Skepticus_Rex
the above is one reason that they normally require trends to be at least 30yrs
Trends are about averages over a period of time

short trends (like uba's) only show the ignorance of the user of the data

the scientists are watching the fluctuations
then they will proclaim it one way or the other when there is enough time/data to make a valid case for the trend

this is what uba cannot comprehend

thanks for the article and link though
good science being done
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
No global warming in 16.5 years...

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

...and counting.


Whack-a-mole!
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
The Notes CLARIFY, understand the dilemma !
Clarify what? What is it you're trying to say? Spit it out, man!

Then claim CO2 in atmosphere does NOT re-radiate & integration maths is all false, how so ?
Again, if it was a simple matter of math, why is the earth not warming now?

You missed the word 'necessarily'.
It's implied.

Why ?
Consistency

So you accept there was, what cause then ?
Who knows?

It shows warming during period of ~12yrs prior.
No excuse for using outdated data.

Understand whole context, not picked isolated phrases.
Why is it no one ever talks of the water vapor created and spewed into the atmosphere from combustion? The quantity is immense.

Factor in, water plays a large part re heat flow, climate is extremely complex, full details will eventually be known, probabilistic.
I doubt anytime soon.

H2O is a product of combustion, WoW humans are adding 2 x G.H.Gasses !
Exactly, yet the world continues to not warm. Why?

Note:
Air can only hold certain amount of H2O, NOT the case with CO2, latter is therefore more significan
It's not that simple.

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
that's what you did when you tacked on historical records in an effort to modify contemporary results
nope. I included all relevant data, unlike YOU.
Nope, you intentionally added irrelevant data to obfuscate the contemporary trend.

you have intentionally selected partial records in order to misrepresent legitimate science and results in order to support a false proclamation that global warming stopped, which, if you read my links, means that you are lying as well as trolling as you are intentionally causing deception by obfuscation and cherry-picking data
Bullying me with false accusations of actions you are guilty of, is a childish argument. Stop trolling.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias
https://en.wikipe...llacy%29
So why do you do that?

I'm perfectly willing to admit warming occurred before the pause, why aren't you equally willing to admit the pause? Climate scientists are doing so in numbers, now. What's holding you back?

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
your "observation" is personal conjecture not supported by valid scientific facts
It's not a conjecture. It's data.

..."scientists" are beginning to admit it

no. scientists are observing the data
Exactly.

How can I be refuted when I'm just reporting the observed data? Either the data is valid, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways

when you cherry pick data leaving out relevant information
then qualify it with a definitive statement not supported in light of all the information
it ceases to be speculative
Idiot, it's data. It's not "speculative."

it becomes intentional obfuscation in order to confuse/support an invalid hypothesis
therefore it becomes refutable with relevant data and by including all the information
IOW – when you include all the data, you can plainly see that your speculations are not only incorrect but also intentionally misleading, obfuscates reality and are malicious for purposes known only to you
which means YOU are TROLLING
Again, bullying me with false accusations of actions you are guilty of, is a childish argument. Stop trolling.

Are you a chatter-bot-bot-bb-bot?

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
I am STATING that you misrepresent the data (cherry picking) by not including all relevant information
What information, in the window of the pause, am I supposedly missing?

not a guess
it is factual statement backed up by showing the same graph on the same site with the relevant information included
I see, you have no idea what it means to be relevant, so you? Let's clarify:

"rel·e·vant
adjective

closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand."

So I'm talking about a pause lasting as long as 16.5 years, and you're trying to add data from prior years to prove the pause is false. As I have not stated the pause extends beyond the 16.5 years, it seems, therefore, you're the one adding irrelevant data. Why are you doing this, if not to obfuscate the 16.5 year trend?

Your grammar is atrocious

personal conjecture
You don't see it? Really?

Chatterbot much?

You're the one cherry picking the data. You're the one trying to hide data. You're the one in denial.
No global warming in 16.5 years
nope.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias"

https://en.wikipe...llacy%29
It's not cherry picking, as I have not ignored the larger data set and regularly admit there was warming prior to the contemporary trend.

You're using a reverse non sequitur argument. You're trying to disprove the conclusion by adding irrelevant data. So why don't you just stop it and refer, henceforth, only to the period in question?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
I have seen the science and I have learned the truth
You are a chatterbot and your posting history proves it. You post multiple, lengthy posts (with links and quotes), within minutes of each other.

Captain Stumpy = chatterbot.
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2014
UBA
Which only serves to prove warming has stopped. You have to tack on older data to show any warming at all, proving it currently is not warming!


Fact - the ice sheets are melting.
Fact - the glaciers are retreating.
Fact - the oceans are getting warmer.
Fact - the ocean levels are rising (due to both thermal expansion, and ice sheet melting).

Can you use google - or do you need me to provide links for all of these facts? You have picked the one indicator that is on a plateau - (but over the long term is also showing warming) to conclude - 'it currently is not warming'

Cherrypicker.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
you intentionally added irrelevant data to obfuscate the contemporary trend

@uba
interesting switch from the denial front
so... if I cherry-pick like you it is ok
but if I include all relevant data, or even the last 30 years
(which still refutes your argument)
then it is obfuscation by including relevant data
so- you are either an idiot or attempting to discredit
I figure the latter, but I cant rule out the former based upon your claims either
Bullying me with false accusations of actions you are guilty of, is a childish argument. Stop trolling

given your past &
given your continual denial
where is the false accusation?
There is no bullying, just truth
I'm perfectly willing to admit ...What's holding you back?

already answered more than once
longer duration
longer trend
validation

until the 30yr trend criterion is met
there is no trend
only data to be watched
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
ME
this is obfuscation
especially when you qualify your "representation" with "no global warming"

Uba-Again, it is merely an observation.

Me
your "observation" is personal conjecture not supported by valid scientific facts

Uba-It's not a conjecture. It's data

now THIS is an example of obfuscation
ignorance
and the denialist circular argument AND TROLLING
it's data. It's not "speculative."

I was referring to your statement, but you already knew that
this is your tactic
simply draw out the comments with denial claims
keep circling
say nothing while keeping the entire thread filled
TROLLING
bullying me with false accusations

not one false accusation there
that is why I use your exact words
quotes
PROOF
you are a TROLL
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
So I'm talking about a pause lasting as long as 16.5 years

no. the DATA was for 16.5 years
you switched to arguing a pause later
your initial argument was that global warming was over
you're trying to add data from prior years to prove the pause is false

wrong again
I argued that global warming was not over
I also included that a "trend" is normally 30yrs or longer
including your data with the last 30 years, there is still not enough data to make the statements you are making about global warming being over
switching the goal post now to "pause" is just a tactic to make you feel better about yourself
You're trying to disprove the conclusion by adding irrelevant data. So why don't you just stop it and refer, henceforth, only to the period in question?

the problem is that YOU forgot what YOU claimed
you said
Which only serves to prove warming has stopped.

I am refuting that argument
I used relevant data
your data set is not long enough to call a trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
Fact - the ice sheets are melting.
Which ones, and how much?

Fact - the glaciers are retreating.
Which ones, and how much?

Fact - the oceans are getting warmer.
No, they aren't.

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Fact - the ocean levels are rising (due to both thermal expansion, and ice sheet melting).
They've been rising for thousands of years, big whoop. Where's the uptick from anthropogenic warming? Why isn't it accelerating?

Can you use google - or do you need me to provide links for all of these facts? You have picked the one indicator that is on a plateau - (but over the long term is also showing warming) to conclude - 'it currently is not warming'
Go ahead, prove your case (good luck with that).

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
if I include all relevant data, or even the last 30 years
The relevant period is the last 16.5 years.

until the 30yr trend criterion is met
there is no trend
Lots of climate scientists disagree with you. Are you a science denier?

no. the DATA was for 16.5 years
you switched to arguing a pause later
your initial argument was that global warming was over
This is a lie. I have never said, "Global warming is over." Rather I have often stated, "Global warming may, or may not, resume."

the problem is that YOU forgot what YOU claimed
you said
Which only serves to prove warming has stopped.

I am refuting that argument
Do you even know what "stop" means? In this case, "stop" means to pause, cease, discontinue as before. It is not intended to be predictive. A car, stopped at a stop sign, is expected to continue onward, yet we do not say the car did not stop.

your data set is not long enough to call a trend
Says who? There's no requirement that a trend be a specified length or duration.

Cocoa
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
UBA:

Which ones, and how much?


The arctic is - http://psc.apl.wa...V2.1.png

Antarctic is tougher to catalog. Clearly the extent is increasing (in line with past predictions) but data on the volume is missing. If the volume is in fact increasing -"The numbers for the southernmost ocean, however, pale in comparison with the rates at which the Arctic has been losing sea ice"

From http://www.nasa.g...ice.html

The glaciers are retreating -

Which ones, and how much


Most of them - and by a lot. See graphs here - http://www.geo.uz...m11.html

The oceans are getting warmer -

No they aren't


Yes the are - your reference only showed surface temps - read this - http://www.livesc...ars.html

Or look at this pretty picture. http://www.realcl...000m.png



Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2014
UBA
They've been rising for thousands of years, big whoop. Where's the uptick from anthropogenic warming? Why isn't it accelerating?


right here - "Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years."

From http://ocean.nati...el-rise/

Need more evidence?

http://oceanservi...vel.html

There is a nice graph on this web site for you - http://www.realcl...-expect/

Go ahead, prove your case (good luck with that).


I just did.

ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
UBA:

Which ones, and how much?
The arctic is - http://psc.apl.wa...v2.1.png/

Antarctic is tougher to catalog. Clearly the extent is increasing (in line with past predictions) but data on the volume is missing. If the volume is in fact increasing -"The numbers for the southernmost ocean, however, pale in comparison with the rates at which the Arctic has been losing sea ice"

From http://www.nasa.g...ice.html/
Your links are broken, but I know this article, and it was written during the record low summer extent in 2012. Things have changed substantially since. In fact, if you insist on using this article as a base, then last summer's minimum represents substantial sea ice growth, disproving your case.

The glaciers are retreating -

Which ones, and how much
Most of them - and by a lot. See graphs here – http://www.geo.uz...m11.html/
The link is broken. But I've admitted before glaciers grow, and glaciers shrink. It must be this way, or eventually the world must be consumed by ice.

The oceans are getting warmer -

No they aren't
Yes the are - your reference only showed surface temps - read this - http://www.livesc...ars.html
I can't, the link is broken. But if it's what I think it might be, it's probably the deep ocean heating thing which is based on models (not real temperatures).

Or look at this pretty picture. http://www.realcl...000m.png
This link worked. It only serves to support what I said, "They've been rising for thousands of years, big whoop. Where's the uptick from anthropogenic warming? Why isn't it accelerating?" only replace "rising" with "warming."

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2014
UBA
They've been rising for thousands of years, big whoop. Where's the uptick from anthropogenic warming? Why isn't it accelerating?


right here - "Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years."

From http://ocean.nati...el-rise/
Undated and speculative articles. Here's some real data:

http://www.epa.go...vel.html

and

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Go ahead, prove your case (good luck with that).


I just did.
Sorry kid. Keep working on it.

Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
@ubavontuba
Evidence of glacial declines, go back to "Inconvenient Truth" doco,
Eg. Greenland losing tremendous amount of melt water, overall land is rising as weight is reducing.

Problem for simplistic thinkers who forget various links offered re properties of water have great difficulty getting their head around "relative heat capacities"

ubavontuba/ryggesogn2 try appreciate

1. The oceans are a MASSIVE heat sink & not homogeneous & subject to complex currents.
2. Vast regions of the oceans are still much colder than large atmospheric regions near ground level
3. More heat in the system, as we have seen influenced by:-
3a. Accepted Rising CO2 levels &
3b. Accepted thermal properties of CO2
4. Heat ALWAYS moves from hot to cold

You have the situation of greater perturbation of oceans, due to more activity, in contact with the atmosphere can cool those regions despite the earth still heating from sun & our activity.

Eventually a new equilibrium will prevail, ie. & its hotter !
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2014
So here is an example of UBA. It is interesting that we have recently had a couple of articles talking about myths, and pseudoscience.

The debate covers several points about global warming - and UBA is all over physorg, claiming the glaciers are growing, the ice sheets are growing, warming has stopped etc. etc. Just selecting one quick issue - ocean level rise - UBA claims that "They've been rising for thousands of years, big whoop. Where's the uptick from anthropogenic warming? Why isn't it accelerating?"

Then UBA references an article - that states cont.
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2014
After a period of approximately 2,000 years of little change (not shown here), global average sea level rose throughout the 20th century, and the rate of change has accelerated in recent years. 1 When averaged over all the world's oceans, absolute sea level increased at an average rate of 0.07 inches per year from 1880 to 2011 (see Figure 1). From 1993 to 2011, however, average sea level rose at a rate of 0.11 to 0.13 inches per year—roughly twice as fast as the long-term trend."

http://www.epa.go...vel.html

This is a direct quote from the first page of UBA's article - and totally refutes the denial that UBA is attempting to promote.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
Heat ALWAYS moves from hot to cold

Fortunately, no.
Otherwise lakes would freeze to the bottom.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
This is a lie. I have never said, "Global warming is over."

@uba
you said
It stopped rising
&
Virtually every current global data set shows temperatures have fallen off for at least the last 12 years
&
Just because warming resumed before, doesn't foretell it will do so again

which means to most observers you are saying it stopped
A car, stopped at a stop sign, is expected to continue onward, yet we do not say the car did not stop

but according to your above quotes, you think it will not do so again
your words, not mine
and you spread them in most every thread that can be connected with AGW
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
ryggesogn2 clearly has never does Science with this completely dumb statement when I stated an unequivocal fact of physics
Heat ALWAYS moves from hot to cold
Fortunately, no.
Otherwise lakes would freeze to the bottom.
You ryggesogn2 are OBVIOUSLY confusing heat flow with convection currents AND still ignoring the properties of water, the FACT water is at its highest density at ~4 deg C.

PLEASE ryggesogn2 get an EDUCATION and STOP wasting all our time, LOOK:-

http://en.wikiped...of_water

In any case, depending upon any number of factors, bodies of water CAN and HAVE frozen 'to the bottom'...

Which planet are you on ryggesogn2, where did you get your education, its PLAIN evidence ryggesogn2, you have never studied basic high school physics, never studied calculus eg Integration and even basic addition !

Why are you WASTING your time even blurting dumb comments, why are you trying so hard to look un-researched, uneducated and plain stupid ?????
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2014
confusing heat flow with convection currents

Heat flows three ways, convection, conduction and radiation.

bodies of water CAN and HAVE frozen 'to the bottom'...

Of course it can. But as you say, fresh water is most dense at 4C at standard pressure.
Heat in the denser water sinks, away from the colder, less dense air.
Ice helps to insulate, but if the air temperature stays below freezing for sufficient time, heat conducts through the water and is lost to the air and then radiated into space.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2014
@ubavontuba
Evidence of glacial declines, go back to "Inconvenient Truth" doco,
Eg. Greenland losing tremendous amount of melt water, overall land is rising as weight is reducing.
LOL. See, this is a prime example of the ignorance of the AGWite crowd. They insist Greenland is melting as a result of global warming, until they eventually find out it isn't.

Funny thing about that though is then they blame global warming on it thickening!

http://www.abc.ne...5573.htm

There's little doubt Mike_Massen will now start to whine about the THICKENING Greenland ice sheet being the result of global warming. And even though it's physically impossible for it to both be thickening AND contribute "the most to sea level rise" he will, like the AGWite scientists, insist this simply MUST be true.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2014
This is a direct quote from the first page of UBA's article - and totally refutes the denial that UBA is attempting to promote.
So you're claiming anthropogenic global warming didn't start until 1993? LOL.

How about this:

"Although the tide gauge data are still too limited, both in time and space, to determine conclusively that there is a 60-year oscillation in GMSL, the possibility should be considered when attempting to interpret the acceleration in the rate of global and regional mean sea level rise."

http://sealevel.c...ea-level

Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2014
UBA
So you're claiming anthropogenic global warming didn't start until 1993? LOL.


No - I am claiming that you are not capable of understanding the things that you read - and that you consistently post things that actually contradict the position you are taking - and that when such moronic behavior is pointed out, you just scurry off to find some other piece of evidence to support your stupidity - even though you probably don't understand what that is saying either.

YOU claimed that there was no acceleration in ocean level increases - and post an article that directly contradicts that position, and goes into great depth to discuss that acceleration. When that is pointed out - you scurry off looking for some other evidence to support your pre-determined anti science agenda - and come up with something that says (paraphrased) - 'although we don't have enough data to support this position - it should be considered as a possibility'. See how you cherry pick? - I thought not!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2014
YOU claimed that there was no acceleration in ocean level increases - and post an article that directly contradicts that position, and goes into great depth to discuss that acceleration.
No, I asked the questions; "Where's the uptick from anthropogenic warming? Why isn't it accelerating?" Meaning, why isn't it accelerating in correlation with the supposed global warming?

When that is pointed out - you scurry off looking for some other evidence to support your pre-determined anti science agenda - and come up with something that says (paraphrased) - 'although we don't have enough data to support this position - it should be considered as a possibility'. See how you cherry pick - I thought not!
So are you claiming my quotation wasn't science?

It clearly points out the AGWite tendancy to prematurely jump all over everything to claim as the result of global warming, and you're insulted by it?

Are we learning anything yet?

Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2014
ryggesogn2 blundered simplistically again
Heat in the denser water sinks, away from the colder, less dense air.
Dead wrong if any of it is above 4 deg C, density goes DOWN.

ryggesogn2 is simplistic yet again
.. if the air temperature stays below freezing for sufficient time, heat conducts through the water and is lost to the air
Depending on area, sea currents, tidal forces, ice flows - & in aALL these case you need maths its called INTEGRATION !

ryggesogn2 is so simplistic and AGAIN
..and then radiated into space.
The key bit you can't seem to grasp, there is CO2 in the air, it RE-RADIATES, compared to KNOWN lower levels of CO2 previously therefore it MUST be true there is LESS heat going straight to space. As well some heat will be also be brought back to earth by precipitation, it depends on not only the temperature but the nature of the precipitation; rain, drizzle, snow, hail & wind - That is ONE reason of many, why climate models are probabilistic & asymptotic.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2014
ubavontuba
They insist Greenland is melting as a result of global warming, until they eventually find out it isn't.
There is evidence Greenland is releasing tremendous amount of melt water.

You ubavontuba, can't seem to understand the MASS differential & can't understand that H2O has a much easier path to leave the atmosphere, whether put their by your petrol consumption or otherwise, it depends on humidity, temperature etc.

This is WHY CO2 is such an important issue, even if all H2O emitted from the burning of petrol were captured we have the far bigger problem of CO2 as a whole re-radiating heat AND allowing naturally induced precipitation to bring some of that heat back to earth depending on temperature DIFFERENTIAL and the nature of the precipitation.

Its CLEAR ubavontuba, you have never considered this and it must be true you have never studied high school physics & understood the importance of calculus - especially INTEGRATION.

Please go to community college at least !
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2014
UBA -
No, I asked the questions; "Where's the uptick from anthropogenic warming? Why isn't it accelerating?"


When you ask "why isn't it accelerating?" - this means that you are claiming that it is not accelerating. This is very simple English. Perhaps you do not understand English. YOU were claiming that it is not accelerating. Then you posted a link to an article that stipulated exactly the opposite - that it is accelerating. YOU posted a link to an article that contradicted the point that YOU were making. This is a pattern - you are desperately looking for evidence to support your flawed positions.

Are we learning anything yet?
I guess so. I am learning that people like you are capable of great stupidity - and incapable of understanding a logical argument - no matter how many times it is pointed out to you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
Maybe you climate 'scientists' can solve a problem for rocket scientists, combustion instability.

"Combustion stability presents a ma jor challenge to the design and development of liquid ro cket engines"
http://www.iccfd....aper.pdf

After all, climate scientists have computer models that are claimed to predict the climate for the next 100 years while rocket scientists can't model a little liquid rocket motor and keep it from failing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
there is CO2 in the air, it RE-RADIATES

So?
H2O re-radiates MORE energy than CO2.
there is LESS heat going straight to space.

Why?
As temperatures increase, more photon radiation is shifted to shorter wavelengths photons that are not absorbed by anything.
The peak of the blackbody curve at 300K is at 10 um. There is a very large IR window from ~8-12 um.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
:-)

ryggesogn2 doesnt seem to relate to which planet he is on, with this ignorant claim
..climate scientists have computer models that are claimed to predict the climate for the next 100 years while rocket scientists can't model a little liquid rocket motor and keep it from failing.
You haven't noticed usage of reliable liquid rocket motors:-

- 'moon shot' circa 1969+ ?
- Gemini ?
- Mercury missions ?
- Space-X recent accomplishments ?
- So many other nations too !

ryggesogn2's post sadly PROVES he never read an article HE linked:-
http://www.iccfd....aper.pdf

ryggesogn2 just WHY didn't you notice, rather early on, a most important aspect, so please, with your CLAIMED University accredited Physics degree (Where/When?) explain to all those watching, just how Earth's climate system is comparable to "..cryogenic propellants operating at super-critical pressures.." ?

Ever study "Fluid Dynamics", turbines & incompressible flows - hmmm ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
ryggesogn2 at it again, picking disjointed aspects, NO underlying hypothesis
So?
H2O re-radiates MORE energy than CO2.
Really ryggesogn2, at what pressure, what temperature, subject to what spectra & radiation intensity ?

ryggesogn2 lumbers, picking randomly yet again with
As temperatures increase, more photon radiation is shifted to shorter wavelengths photons that are not absorbed by anything.
ryggesogn2, why are you going to so much trouble to PROVE you haven't studied:- http://en.wikiped...iki/Heat

Explain why you IGNORE molecular collisions, Eg H2O, CO2, N2, O2 etc ?

Your comment PROVES you ONLY focus on IR, that's physics Ignorance ?

ryggesogn2 spouts
The peak of the blackbody curve at 300K is at 10 um. There is a very large IR window from ~8-12 um.
Comparative differential, heat transfer ie collisions vs re-radiation please ?

Sorry ryggesogn2, do you have Alzheimer's, no joke your posts starting to take on rather familiar pattern, see a Doctor please ?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2014
You haven't noticed usage of reliable liquid rocket motors

You didn't read the paper.
" In most engine development programs, instabilities were typically eliminated or mitigated using a test-driven strategy during the design phase. A notable instance of this approach was the development of the F-1 liquid ro cket engine for the Ap ollo mission. From 1962 to 1965, the F-1 underwent over 2000 full-scale tests resulting in a four-year delay [1]. Because of the challenges of the mo deling of the fundamental physical phenomena in
liquid rocket engines, most other major engine developments have taken a similar path [2]"
http://www.iccfd....aper.pdf

They want to cut testing costs and model a rocket motor that can will work the first time.

Climate models can model climate out for 100 years surely those modelers could help out the rocket scientists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
IR windows:

http://www.raythe...hart.pdf

Note the atmospheric transmission from 8-14 um is ~90%
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
Mikey, if you live in an Aussie desert, go outside at night and you can feel the heat being radiated into space.
This heat is from 290-321K and a dry atm has a very large window for that heat to radiate into space.
Wait for a cloudy night and the heat won't escape into space quite so easily.
If all that CO2 is holding in all that heat, then it should be easy to measure that heat being trapped in a dry desert.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
ryggesogn2 clearly has problem with dynamic range/context
Climate models can model climate out for 100 years surely those modelers could help out the rocket scientists.
I did read the paper, you may have read it as pixels across your eyeballs but, did it go any further, why did you NOT understand the issue of material properties - & CLAIM to be a physicist. At best you are ill at worst some sort of progagandist liar !

How does climate science relate to "..cryogenic propellants operating at super-critical pressures.." (from the paper) - it is the core of their modelling need ?

Do you NOT see the massive differences, if at least size, number of variables, WHY can you not grasp this simple & essential contextually different aspect - find something else.

Your post ryggesogn2
If all that CO2 is holding in all that heat, then it should be easy to measure that heat being trapped in a dry desert.
Simplistic & PROVES you have NO training in physics !

Study Calculus too please !
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
Do you NOT see the massive differences, if at least size, number of variables, WHY can you not grasp this simple & essential contextually different aspect - find something else.


Compared to the fluid dynamics of the global climate, a rocket motor's fluid dynamics is a spit in the ocean so why can't the glorious climate models solve the unstable rocket motor combustion that lasts only a few seconds?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
When ryggesogn2 asks
Compared to the fluid dynamics of the global climate, a rocket motor's fluid dynamics is a spit in the ocean so why can't the glorious climate models solve the unstable rocket motor combustion that lasts only a few seconds?
it proves he has NO Physics degree & still cannot appreciate the paper relates to "..cryogenic propellants operating at super-critical pressures..".

Know the term '..orders of magnitude', look it up, will give you a clue ?

You think
http://en.wikiped...echanics
study of a rocket motor is a 'spit in the ocean', mate you are SO uneducated using that term !

This web topic & thread is not re Computational Fluid Dynamics.

You desperately need formal education, not random tech that "feels" close !

ryggesogn2's outlook MOSTLY qualitative - feels cooling desert at night - so naive !

Science, especially re climate change/AGW is & needs to be quantitative.

Maths/Physics PROVES atmospheric CO2 reduces radiation to space !
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
"We think it is clear that simulations can fail in scientifically important ways. They fail most crucially when a simulation fails to properly correspond with reality, but it is important to note that different uses of simulation are open to different forms of correspondence failure in different ways and with different implications. "
" In the 1990s, simulators in meteorology coupled atmospheric and ocean simulations for the first time, resulting in a more accurate simulation of climate. A crucial element of that coupled simulation, however, was a Flux Adjustment —an artificial mechanism introduced so that the newly-coupled simulation would not produce 'unrealistic' data. The Flux Adjustment was a mechanism operating solely within the simulation with no purported correspondence to reality other than to ensure that the simulation would indeed simulate reality."
http://www.pgrim....fail.pdf
Maybe a new 'flux capacitor' is needed.