Methane hydrates and global warming

Jan 02, 2014
This image shows carbonate crusts at the observing site HYBIS at 385 meters water depth. For comparison: the white organisms in the right part of the picture have a length of about 15 cm. Carbonates of this size require several 100 years to build-up. Credit: GEOMAR

Methane hydrates are fragile. At the sea floor the ice-like solid fuel composed of water and methane is only stable at high pressure and low temperature. In some areas, for instance in the North Atlantic off the coast of Svalbard, scientists have detected gas flares regularly. The reasons for their occurrence were still unclear but one hypothesis was that global warming might cause the dissolution of gas hydrates. Over the past years, comprehensive investigations by an international team of researchers led by scientists from GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel have now shown that it is very likely that the gas flares are caused by natural processes.

"In 2008, when we observed the outgassing of for the first time, we were alarmed", reports Professor Christian Berndt, lead author of the study from GEOMAR. "The gas originates from depths where the hydrates should normally be stable. But we knew that a relatively small warming might melt the hydrates", Berndt explains. Thus, the key question was to find out what causes the outgassing. Step by step, several expeditions that took place in the following years helped to solve the mystery.

One of the most obvious assumptions was that the increasing has already extended into these regions of the North Atlantic. However, the investigations partly carried out with the German research submersible JAGO, pointed clearly to natural causes. "On one hand, we have found that the seasonal variations in temperature in this region are sufficient to push the stability zone of more than a kilometre up and down the slope," Professor Berndt explains. "Additionally, we discovered carbonate structures in the vicinity of at the seafloor", Dr. Tom Feseker from MARUM adds. "These are clear indicators that the outgassing likely takes place over very long time periods, presumably for several thousand years", Feseker continues.

Area of investigations west of Svalbard are shown. During several expeditions observations were performed. The colored dots mark gas seeps, the three named sites mark locations where dives took place. Credit: GEOMAR

Does this mean that global warming has no impact on potential methane release from the seafloor off Svalbard? Certainly not, because over long periods of time the deep ocean will also warm up and in particular the polar regions are affected. Here, enormous amounts of are stored in the ocean floor. "As a powerful greenhouse gas methane represents a particular risk for our climate. A release of large amounts of the gas would further accelerate global warming," says Prof. Berndt. "Therefore, it is necessary to continue long-term monitoring, particularly in such critical regions as off Svalbard", the Geophysicist concludes.

Explore further: New, tighter timeline confirms ancient volcanism aligned with dinosaurs' extinction

More information: Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1246298

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

6 hours ago

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

7 hours ago

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 104

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
2.5 / 5 (17) Jan 02, 2014
Over the past years, comprehensive investigations by an international team of researchers led by scientists from GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel have now shown that it is very likely that the gas flares are caused by natural processes.


Much as I had expected. It is akin to when Western scientists first discovered Gamma Ray Bursts, and thought the Soviet Union had been doing nuke testing in space. It caused initial alarm, until they discovered it was an entirely natural phenomena, originating from eons before humans ever thought about nuclear, or existed for that matter.

So, this has been going on, and continues, over time scales of several millenia, it just wasn't scientifically documented because it either was never noticed, or because those who did notice it thought nothing of it. No big deal, but one thing this does is remove some of the ammunition from the far left of the AGW alarmism crowd; this was used as "evidence" of our "destruction" of Earth.
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (21) Jan 02, 2014
@ Returner,

This is a poor analogy,,,,,,

Much as I had expected. It is akin to when Western scientists first discovered Gamma Ray Bursts, and thought the Soviet Union had been doing nuke testing in space. It caused initial alarm, until they discovered it was an entirely natural phenomena, originating from eons before humans ever thought about nuclear, or existed for that matter.


The discovery of GBR's never caused initial alarm. The GBR's were never mistaken for Soviet tests in space. The Vela satellites which first detected GBR's were designed to detect atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, to verify compliance with the test-ban treaties. It took awhile to release the findings because the Vela sat. program was a military secret.

The satellite data was never suspected as being caused by any man made event. They were recognized from the start as being outside the solar system. It was one of those great serendipitous discoveries which science is so replete with.
Zephir_fan
Jan 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2014
The discovery of GBR's never caused initial alarm. The GBR's were never mistaken for Soviet tests in space. The Vela satellites which first detected GBR's were designed to detect atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, to verify compliance with the test-ban treaties. It took awhile to release the findings because the Vela sat. program was a military secret.

The satellite data was never suspected as being caused by any man made event. They were recognized from the start as being outside the solar system. It was one of those great serendipitous discoveries which science is so replete with


Then why did astronomers make that statement on a world wide published television program, even recently, when discussing Gamma Ray Bursts?

I made up neither the story nor the claim. I was relating a natural, scientific "mix up" as I perceive it, which I heard from astronomers on the Science channel, probably Lawrence Kraus or Michio Kaku, but I forget who.
Returners
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2014
At any rate, the point remains that the Methane Torch scare was the result of hasty conclusions about a process which I recognized could easily have been on-going throughout time. It's nice that someone in the scientific community actually wanted a "second opinion" and did some actual sea floor research to dispute the alarmism.
Zephir_fan
Jan 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Jan 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2014
"A Brief History of the Discovery of GRB's"

http://apod.nasa....ist.html

and this is pretty cool, it's an enegetic universe;
http://astro.berk...rbs.html
shavera
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2014
no cantdrive. This is not an article about cosmology. I know you may only just troll the comment section, but please do try to stick to the conversation at hand.
EyeNStein
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2014
Back to the article in hand: Even a small amount of warming can release the methane from the "methane ice" or clathrate compound as it is properly called.
It is a wonderful property of water that it is at its most dense at 4 Celsius. This keeps your goldfish alive at the deepest parts of a nearly frozen pond: But ANY unfrozen costal waters will potentially stratify 4C water to the ocean floor and will release methane down to 400m depth as per the clathrates depth/temperature phase diagram. Only a hard freeze will keep water solid at depth or cold enough to conduct heat away from the warmer waters and clathrates at depth.
StarGazer2011
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2014
So we can scrub methane-ageddon off the list, apparently doomsday has been postponed again?
@EyeNStein: There would have to be some actual warming to cause the melt; a thing which exists (Methane hydrates melting) cannot be caused by a thing which doesn't exists (statistically significant warming in the last 17 years).
The CAGW theory is a bust, been obvious since 2009, only the stupid, the ignorant, the fanatical and the paid shills still try to push the barrow.
Returners
3 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2014
If I had to guess, I would say because you don't remember what you think you heard.

I made up neither the story nor the claim. I was relating a natural, scientific "mix up" as I perceive it, which I heard from astronomers on the Science channel, probably Lawrence Kraus or Michio Kaku, but I forget who.


Forget who? Forget where? Forget when? That sorta means you pulled it out of your ass Skippy. Now unless you have some other really stupid thing you're just dying to tell us, GO SIT IN THE CORNER, WITH THE SILLY LOOKING POINTY CAP ON YOUR HEAD.


No, it doesn't mean I pulled it out of my ass.

It means I remember FACTS more readily than people's names or faces, idiot.

Reported again, for harassment, but they way.

I'm really getting sick of you and Otto, but I know the admin probably won't do a damned thing about it anyway.
Returners
3.6 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2014
Found it. Pay attention to the exact wording. And there was another one too, I'll find it too.

http://science.di...ster.htm

I was exactly right, so don't blame ME for their choice of words.

Piss off "Skippy". You arrogant jackass.
Zephir_fan
Jan 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Jan 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VENDItardE
2.6 / 5 (11) Jan 02, 2014
i ain't had this much fun in weeks....get to accurately rate returners and zephir a 1 over and over while they argue with each other.......absolutely priceless.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2014
no cantdrive. This is not an article about cosmology. I know you may only just troll the comment section, but please do try to stick to the conversation at hand.

That was in response to discussion, not necessarily the article.
Zephir_fan
Jan 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VENDItardE
1.9 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2014
keep being nice skipp,,,,er, i mean zephir and i wont be able to keep giving you ones......nahhhhhhhhh
Zephir_fan
Jan 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EyeNStein
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
Back to the article in hand, again: So you lot hadn't heard of the extra 3 watts per square meter of warming ,over the whole earth, attributable to the MEASURED recent (anthropogenic period) increase of the known greenhouse gasses?
I know the global measured temperature rises are a better indicator of warming but the figures ,and causes, are disputable. So I quoted the directly calculable world heat input figure from the measured atmospheric gas concentrations. These gas sources can also be indisputably measured at the car exhaust pipe or at power station effluent.
The extra heat input to the world that 7 Billion people have caused is not a political opinion, or a left wing agenda. It is apparent to anyone who will listen and think.
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2014
"One of the most obvious assumptions was that the increasing global warming"

Always good for another round of funding, but kudos to these scientists for being honest.

"Does this mean that global warming has no impact on potential methane release from the seafloor off Svalbard? Certainly not, "

The lesson here is to always leave the door open for another round of funding.

Follow the funding.
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2014
@ScooterG

obviously you have not read THIS article:
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Speaking specifically about FUNDING, Scooter: why HIDE your funding sources if you are doing real science (like the Anti-Global warming folk are doing) unless you know you are supporting something wrong?
(see above link)
ScooterG
2 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2014
@ScooterG

obviously you have not read THIS article:
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Speaking specifically about FUNDING, Scooter: why HIDE your funding sources if you are doing real science (like the Anti-Global warming folk are doing) unless you know you are supporting something wrong?
(see above link)


AGW is an abomination on true science. When one realizes that, it makes no sense to address it (AGW) as science.

AGW is a scam - a brilliant, clever, legalized scam - but a scam just the same..
ScooterG
2 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2014
@ScooterG

obviously you have not read THIS article:
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt


Re the article: I don't doubt the author is a nice guy, but that smug, arrogant selfie at the top is enough to repulse anyone.

What marketing genius thought of that?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2014
ScooterG says:
AGW is an abomination on true science. When one realizes that, it makes no sense to address it (AGW) as science.AGW is a scam - a brilliant, clever, legalized scam - but a scam just the same..


perhaps you should go back a few posts and re-read the EyeNStein post?

the issue you have is probably with Gore, or some of the people who support global warming. the science which you call
abomination
is just science.

science adjusts its theories based upon observational data and experimental data. you can't fight the data.

and so far your argument is
... but that smug, arrogant selfie...
What marketing genius thought of that?
AGW is a scam
Follow the funding


and
AGW is an abomination on true science. When one realizes that, it makes no sense to address it (AGW) as science.


why not post some SCIENCE to support your view?
i know... shocking to ask THAT on a science site... but...

convince me that the science is wrong.
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2014
Convince me its' right.

Follow the money.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2014
Convince me its' right.

Follow the money.

@ScooterG

you posit that the SCIENCE is wrong, show proof. that is how science works.

if you want to learn WHY the science is right, i suggest getting an education. or at least learn enough science to prove WHY you are right.
should i go find you a couple of web pages where you can learn SCIENCE so that you can understand?
http://web.mit.edu/

let me known when you are ready to continue.

Follow the money.

this is great advice for investigating crime... and given that anti-global warming people tend to HIDE their funding, suggests that it is the ANTI's that are bent and/or crooked, NOT the scientists attempting to find the truth
ScooterG
2 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2014

"you posit that the SCIENCE is wrong"

Show me even one post where I've claimed the science is wrong. What I do claim is that if any other branch of science followed the same protocols as the AGW industry, they'd be laughed off this website.

"given that anti-global warming people tend to HIDE their funding"

NEWS FLASH: Financial privacy is very important in the business world - and make no mistake, AGW is a for-profit industry.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2014
ScooterG
Show me even one post where I've claimed the science is wrong

ok
AGW is an abomination on true science. When one realizes that, it makes no sense to address it (AGW) as science.

that good enough for you?

NEWS FLASH: Financial privacy is very important in the business world - and make no mistake, AGW is a for-profit industry.

i am not disputing that financial privacy is not important. i am just wondering WHY the big oil companies and other companies are hiding it NOW...unless there is something hinkey going on.
when our state was voting on gambling, the anti-gambling ads/movement was supported by MEGA-bucks by the casino's all around the border of our state, and by the ONE institution IN the state where it was allowed.

like YOU said... follow the money.

now- BACK to REALITY
you posited that the science is
an abomination on true science

now give PROOF.

i'll check back in a few hours... that should give you time.
shavera
4 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2014
The proof he's bound to give is something along the lines of "Climate science comes from models. No other scientist uses models. Therefore climate science is wrong." Neglecting of course, that pretty much like... every science uses models. But only when oil prices are on the line does that somehow become unacceptable science. I wonder where that money trail might lead.........
ScooterG
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2014
The radical enviro-nazis have proven to me all I need to know, beginning with the spotted owl hoax in the `80's. That probably cost me half-a-million or so. It put a number of my workers out of jobs, put their families on food stamps, then you wonder why my first reaction is "F**k you"??

Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2014
@ScooterG
so... let me get this straight:
YOU come to a SCIENCE site, you READ an article about global warming, then you say it is bad science with this comment
an abomination on true science

when questioned about it, you say
Show me even one post where I've claimed the science is wrong

so i did...

you offer no proof
you offer no evidence at all
and because we have the audacity to question you about it you say
The radical enviro-nazis have proven to me all I need to know


well... when you are so nice about it
then you wonder why my first reaction is "F**k you"??

BUT
all I did was ask YOU to supply YOUR proof that the science is bad.

c'mon scooter... dont be another ryggson2 and share your manifesto on why no one else can be correct... the paranoid schizo's like Rygg already cornered that market. the LEAST you could do is JOIN the discussion.

try it on... Google works for everyone.
or use another.
https://duckduckgo.com/
just do some homework and try
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2014
@ScooterG

you know... it is entirely possible that in the process of learning about this, you could learn enough about the science to understand a little more about why Global warming is bad for humans.
you might even change your mind, and quit the
my first reaction is "F**k you"??

knee jerk reaction...

you may find that you understand, change your mind, and join in.

or maybe not.

even when Rygg was given all the same evidence, he just turned tail and started a political fight. ignorance has many doors to hide behind. Rygg chooses politics. mostly because as long as he has his "faith" in his party, or belief system, then NO ONE can prove him wrong... much like a cult religion.

think about it
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2014
The AGW portion of this site is replete with lame studies and poor scientific protocol. Find it yourself.

runrig
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2014
The AGW portion of this site is replete with lame studies and poor scientific protocol. Find it yourself.


Of course it is scooty - to someone blind to the entirety of the science and who only focuses on bits picked out and distorted/lied about by the cheer-lead deniaists

Like everything in life - there is the good, the bad and the indifferent. Science is no different. The bad/indifferent are weeded out via peer review. If you think it's pal review then give me a better way to have a specialist knowledge checked?
Maybe you advocate a jury of 12 good men and true dragged in off the street?
I'm sure all those would find Climatology, Radiative physics, Meteorology, Oceanology, Palaeoclimatology, Dendrochronology, Biology. Solar physics. Geophysics, Glaciology, Biochemistry, Ecology, "easy".

But then I was "discussing" meteorology with someone on WUWT recently who claimed he'd "figured out" weather/climate by age 13 - I proved him wrong - he got abusive - was banned.
ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2014
To shorten your search, look at most any physorg article about the bark beetle or global warming/forest fire relation - it's all pure BS.

The enviro-nazis mis-manage our forests for 60 years, then blame AGW when the forests burn to the ground.

AGW studies are based on other AGW studies which are based on previous AGW studies - all of which are biased from the start.

You have Al Gore at or near the helm - the same Gore that generates a carbon footprint larger than most US cities. You hypocritical chumps are too busy worshiping the ground he walks on to take him to task over it.

How many reasons does a person need to distrust EVERYTHING about the environmental movement?

AGW is a profit-driven industry created by schmucks, operated by schmucks, and followed by schmucks.

Follow the money.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2014
now give PROOF
If I may interject here...

http://www.woodfo....9/trend

barakn
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2014
Convince me its' right.

Follow the money.

I tried. I found grad students eating ramen noodles and professors driving old Volkswagens. And these people have mathematical skills that are in high demand. It's well known in physics departments that students were siphoned away by the financial industry to produce the algorithms that drove the real estate boom (and bust). People do not become climate scientists because it is lucrative (it is not, and if they were after lucre, they would have gone somewhere else). They become climate scientists because of the challenge, because they care for the well-being of the planet and the people on it, because of the thrill of discovery, because science is a noble and honorable profession, because science and math are beautiful. Emotionally stunted people like ScooterG are incapable of understanding any motivation besides greed, and that's because greed is the only thing that motivates them. They worship at the foot of the golden calf.
barakn
3.5 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2014
I think you are wasting your time trying to argue with ScooterG. It's tempting to simply classify him as the lowest form of human life. But it may be that Scooter's condition is a psychological disorder that could one day be diagnosed and cured, or at least treated and kept at bay. Literature is certainly rife with tales of such transformation, but it usually takes something supernatural to perform this kind of miracle. Witness Scrooge's visitations from ghosts and time-traveling or the scales falling from Saul's eyes. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2014
I think you are wasting your time trying to argue with ScooterG. It's tempting to simply classify him as the lowest form of human life.

@barakn
methinks you may be right...
anyone that actually makes a choice to visit a SCIENCE site, then makes comments like
The AGW portion of this site is replete with lame studies and poor scientific protocol.

but when questioned for his proof, simply says
Find it yourself.

the only conclusion we can truthfully draw is one of the following:
said person is extremely lazy
said person is just stupid
said person is a Troll (which qualifies him for both the other)

I hoped that scooter would actually do some homework, or at least justify his comments, but I guess that is just a pipe dream.

you are definitely right about the first part... it is a waste of time. you are most likely right about the second part...

so... YOUR OWN QUOTE Scooter:
"F**k you"

Right back at ya! i
ScooterG
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2014
It's important that people who visit this site understand that the under-lying agenda of AGW has nothing to do with science, any more than saving the spotted owl was the motive behind the spotted owl hoax.

Environmentalism is a scam.

AGW is a scam.

AGW is a profit-driven industry that feeds off taxpayers.

Follow the money.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (11) Jan 04, 2014
It's important that people who visit this site understand that the under-lying agenda of AGW has nothing to do with science, any more than saving the spotted owl was the motive behind the spotted owl hoax.

Environmentalism is a scam.

AGW is a scam.

AGW is a profit-driven industry that feeds off taxpayers.

Follow the money.


tell you what, scooter.
i will follow the money when, and only when, you can provide SOME scientific argument that
-AGW is a scam
-the science is an abomination
-prove all that garbage about lame studies and POOR scientific protocol
-that i am an enviro-nazi (or ANY kind of nazi)

oh, and by the way...IMHO -Gore is an idiot. but just because HE is an idiot, and says stupid stuff, doesn't mean all the SCIENCE is bad.

that would be like saying that, since YOU are "lazy" and cant give proof (and are prone to expletives) that ALL Anti-AGW people are the same.

just because you CAN make a statement, doesn't mean it is TRUE
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2014
Captain:
oh, and by the way...IMHO -Gore is an idiot. but just because HE is an idiot, and says stupid stuff, doesn't mean all the SCIENCE is bad.

that would be like saying that, since YOU are "lazy" and cant give proof (and are prone to expletives) that ALL Anti-AGW people are the same.

just because you CAN make a statement, doesn't mean it is TRUE

I'll take it to the flip side..
Monckton is an idiot and a peculiarly arrogant one, who seems to think that by talking bollocks no one will notice. Well most fan-boys don't because they aren't looking to see the lies.

Ryggy (like a certain Nikfrom NYC –late but not lamented did before him) reams off stuff in quotes as though science filtered through supposed superior minds is the ONLY way to gauge it.
Is it just me?
Selected filtering via quotes is scientifically worthless.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2014
Selected filtering via quotes is scientifically worthless.

quotes about science subjects are about as good as used toilet paper unless they are backed by science... that is pretty much how i feel, anyway.

Ryggy likes to throw in political quotes (usually off topic, or connected by some hallucination or paranoid delusion). Ryggy sticks to this tactic because if he/she/it sticks to his/her/its delusions, no one can prove him/her/it wrong.

its the Fanatic tactic. it's FAITH, not SCIENCE.

and have you ever noticed that the "superior minds" that they tend to refer to tend to not have Peer review (watch Rygg go nuts over THAT one -its all a conspiracy)

i like what you said above
The bad/indifferent are weeded out via peer review.


i think some of your key words are
supposed superior minds

and
Selected filtering via quotes


yep. selected filtering via quotes is worthless.

i will stick with the science
ScooterG
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2014
If you enviro-heros want to be believed now, you shouldn't have lied to us years ago. Shouldn't have tried to wreck the economy in the name of spotted owl. Now you're trying to wreck the economy again, only this time you want to profit from it.

You're inextricably tied to the likes of Gore, Richardson, Strong, Moore. It's the lie with dogs/fleas situation.

It's not my fault that you enviro-nazis have destroyed your own credibility. I'll do my part to rub your nose in it `til the day I die.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2014
To shorten your search, look at most any physorg article about the bark beetle or global warming/forest fire relation - it's all pure BS.

The enviro-nazis mis-manage our [...]when the forests burn to the ground.

AGW studies are based on other AGW studies [...]- all of which are biased from the start.

You have Al Gore at or near the helm - the same Gore that generates a carbon footprint [...]worshiping the ground he walks on to take him to task over it.

How many reasons [...]distrust EVERYTHING about the environmental movement?

AGW is a profit-driven industry created by schmucks, operated by schmucks, and followed by schmucks.

Follow the money.


scooty,

Follow this link:

http://phys.org/n...ion.html ,

and understand that you, like ~ 1/3 of humans, are congenitally "conservative", and reflexively reject ANYTHING which challenges your "I got mine", baked-in, and pathologically self-interested worldview.

"Follow the money", indeed.
Urgelt
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2014
The scientists themselves interpret their results as *not* precluding a scenario in which AGW releases methane hydrates in bulk and produces runaway warming. Yet the denialists are all out in force again, citing this study as closing the door to that possibility.

A lot of what denialists say can be explained by hypothesizing that they all have a reading comprehension deficit.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2014
now give PROOF
If I may interject here...

http://www.woodfo....9/trend


Whack-a-mole!

barakn
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2014
A lot of what denialists say can be explained by hypothesizing that they all have a reading comprehension deficit.

Or that they live in Exxon's deep pockets.
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2014
LMAO!

The enviro-nazis would like nothing better than to sweep their sordid past under the rug.

Now they've resorted to using the word "science" in every other sentence, as if to make everyone think they are suddenly noble and trustworthy - it's nothing but a veil to cover even more sordid activity.

Don't forget the past, the leopard doesn't change his spots.

And always follow the money - always!
VENDItardE
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2014
The enviro-nazis would like nothing better than to sweep their sordid past under the rug.

I agree.

They think they can get away with it because there are no records of their past actions, now they shoot themselves in the foot every time they open their mouths and they are on record with all their comments. I give it less than 5 years and they will either be gone or using new aliases for their new "cause" as they try to run from the BS they are spewing today as nature proves them stupid, gullible fools. AGAIN.
ScooterG
2 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2014
Or that they live in Exxon's deep pockets.


More hate towards Exxon...

At least when you hand money over to Exxon, you get something of value in return.

With AGW, only the research whores and heathen, rapacious capitalists like Al "The Footprint" Gore receive anything of value. The rest of us take it in the shorts.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2014
Or that they live in Exxon's deep pockets.

More hate towards Exxon...
At least when you hand money over to Exxon, you get something of value in return.
With AGW, only the research whores and heathen, rapacious capitalists like Al "The Footprint" Gore receive anything of value. The rest of us take it in the shorts.


Scooty: Why do you bother? other than to let off your rage at perceived injustice.
"We" give scientific reasoning plus links to impartial science (not cherry-picked from Blogs) to state our case - that's the only thing that counts.
Denialists on here are not going to change our minds by paranaoic accusation and selected quotes from omniscients of your liking, nor from Monckton or any other plausible liar.
Only the science can do that.
ryggy even says that " ...democracy would enslave .. or any other scapgoat of the day? That is what democracy is, mob rule"
This used to rubbish peer-review.
I'll not let ignorance win and will persist in denying it.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2014
ScooterG wrote
At least when you hand money over to Exxon, you get something of value in return.


hey, Scooter...
didnt i hear almost the EXACT same argument about Phillip-Morris et al back in the day? (only replace Exxon with Phillip-Morris and all the other Cigarette companies)

you know... when they were "PROVING" that cigarette smoking was NOT bad for your health?

do yall all go to the same seminar to get all the exact same date to post onto sites?

just wondering...
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2014
now give PROOF
If I may interject here...

http://www.woodfo....9/trend
Whack-a-mole!
Just saying, "Whack-a-mole." is not an argument. Try again. Otherwise you're simply admitting there is no valid argument.

runrig
4 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2014
now give PROOF
If I may interject here...

http://www.woodfo....9/trend
Whack-a-mole!
Just saying, "Whack-a-mole." is not an argument. Try again. Otherwise you're simply admitting there is no valid argument.


From:http://www.skepti...DK12.pdf
http://www.skepti...Fig1.jpg

I await he goal being shifted to the corner flag.
ScooterG
2 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2014
Runny asks "Scooty: Why do you bother?"

As they say, all it takes is for good men to do nothing.

Runny asserts: "impartial science (not cherry-picked from Blogs) to state our case - that's the only things that counts." and "Only the science can do that.".

There you go with the science science science charade again, LMAO.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2014


There you go with the science science science charade again, LMAO.


I suppose the irony of that comment, here on phys.org, escapes you?
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2014


There you go with the science science science charade again, LMAO.


I suppose the irony of that comment, here on phys.org, escapes you?


The only thing we really need to know about AGW is that it is organized, operated, and followed by untrustworthy people.

No amount of tax-payer funded "science" can erase past enviro-scams.

In a world where integrity is everything, environmentalists have none.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2014
I'm really getting sick of you and Otto, but I know the admin probably won't do a damned thing about it anyway.
Well they have lurker/QC - theyve banned you many times havent they? Keep up the inane manic rambling egomaniac flood-posting. I think its symptomatic of SADS except you do it periodically all year long.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2014
The only thing we really need to know about AGW is that it is organized, operated, and followed by untrustworthy people.
The Scooter's conspiracy theory! Those bad old owls are sure out to get you Scooter. You should go hunting.

Don't get lost.
barakn
3.5 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2014
Or that they live in Exxon's deep pockets.


More hate towards Exxon...

At least when you hand money over to Exxon, you get something of value in return.

With AGW, only the research whores and heathen, rapacious capitalists like Al "The Footprint" Gore receive anything of value. The rest of us take it in the shorts.

Does Exxon pay you in cash? I bet that helps the family finances a lot, especially since you're the kind of person that wouldn't pay taxes on it.
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2014
The only thing we really need to know about AGW is that it is organized, operated, and followed by untrustworthy people.
The Scooter's conspiracy theory! Those bad old owls are sure out to get you Scooter. You should go hunting.

Don't get lost.


Magnuss still hasn't figured out that an industry operating in a free market does not need to be conspiratorial.

Purveyors of AGW are scrambling (competing) to position themselves for financial gain, why would they want to share that with anyone else?
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2014
Magnuss still hasn't figured out that an industry operating in a free market does not need to be conspiratorial
You say I need to figure that out? So why do you consistently and constantly claim that there is a conspiracy of scientists seeking nothing but financial gain?

You are one messed up denialist Scooter. I am truly sorry to hear you got caught up in that mess with the owls, but really dude, get over it.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2014
now give PROOF
If I may interject here...

http://www.woodfo....9/trend
Whack-a-mole!
Just saying, "Whack-a-mole." is not an argument. Try again. Otherwise you're simply admitting there is no valid argument.
From:http://www.skepti...DK12.pdf
http://www.skepti...Fig1.jpg

I await he goal being shifted to the corner flag.
You're the one moving the goalposts. Here you've done nothing but move the goalposts to a hypothesized warming of the oceans based on models. There's no real science here.

Why can't you just admit surface temperatures have not been rising for more than a decade?

ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2014
Magnuss still hasn't figured out that an industry operating in a free market does not need to be conspiratorial
You say I need to figure that out? So why do you consistently and constantly claim that there is a conspiracy of scientists seeking nothing but financial gain?

You are one messed up denialist Scooter. I am truly sorry to hear you got caught up in that mess with the owls, but really dude, get over it.


I never said you need to figure it out.

I've never claimed a conspiracy.

You are a liar.

"Really dude, get over it...so we can REALLY ram it not just to you, but to every single person in the world who pays taxes."
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2014
I've never claimed a conspiracy.
Oh that's right, you claim you've never claimed there is a conspiracy because you don't use the word "conspiracy" while you are describing the conspiracy you claim all scientists are involved in.

You are truly one messed up denialist.

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2014

Why can't you just admit surface temperatures have not been rising for more than a decade?


Whack-a-mole!

http://www.noaane...ats.html
http://www.skepti...1998.htm

Zombie arguments are such fun to whack!
ScooterG
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2014
I've never claimed a conspiracy.
Oh that's right, you claim you've never claimed there is a conspiracy because you don't use the word "conspiracy" while you are describing the conspiracy you claim all scientists are involved in.

You are truly one messed up denialist.



I may be messed up, but at least I'm not trying to scam hard-working people out of their money.
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2014
I may be messed up, but at least I'm not trying to scam hard-working people out of their money.


Maybe not, but you're sure trying hard to pretend the obvious isn't.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2014
Scooter says
I've never claimed a conspiracy. You are a liar.


that right, you called it
an abomination on true science

and
a brilliant, clever, legalized scam

Wouldn't that mean (by default) that you believe the general consensus of REAL scientists is wrong then?
It seems that you support conspiracy by supporting anti-science and the rhetoric they spew that somehow, all those professional scientists are being manipulated by bad science (but like all conspiracy theories, there is no proof).

And therein lies the problem with the scientifically illiterate. you propose your "scams and conspiracies" but you offer no proof. In fact, the link I left you way towards the TOP shows that it is the ANTI-group that is hiding funds and being "conspiratorial".

Sorry, scooter, your logic has more holes than your underwear. And your rebuttal is nothing more than ranting because of personal reasons. If you want to CONVINCE anyone, try using …oh... SCIENCE!

I know you dont like the word, but it is the only thing that works
ScooterG
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
"consensus" in the AGW industry is critical to the success of the industry - a rising tide lifts all ships.

I don't trust anything or anyone that comes from the environmental agenda - I don't need to prove that to anyone. Why talk science when the science cannot be trusted?

If it's all about SCIENCE, and this is a SCIENCE website, and I'm SCIENCE illiterate, why do you spend so much time taking me to task? What are you afraid of?
goracle
3 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2014
Where the 'global cooling' talking point came from: http://www.scient...me-to-be
goracle
3 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2014
Review of peer reviewed papers global warming papers shows 9136 agree, only 1 disagrees that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause. http://blogs.scie...sagrees/
ScooterG
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2014
peer reviewed papers global warming papers


As I said, "consensus" is key to the success of the AGW industry.

There is complete lack of criticism within the industry - ever notice that?? It's like the authors of self-help books - they always edify other self-help authors hahahahaha!

A prosperous AGW offers something for everyone who is faithful: big profits for the $$-transaction skimmers at the top (eg Al Gore), employment for struggling research-whores, and something "noble" to believe in for the gullible, lowly, emo-throngs (goracle, magnus, cpt stumpy to name a few).

You think lots of money has been spent/made via the War On Drugs and the War On Terror, wait `til the War On Carbon heats up ;)
Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2014
Where the 'global cooling' talking point came from: http://www.scient...me-to-be

That is an excellent story goracle, thank you for sharing.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2014
As I said, "consensus" is key to the success of the AGW industry.
No actually, it's not. Consensus is simply what happens when the majority of scientists understand the truth of something. It is not required.
You display a complete lack of knowledge. Denialism typified, both by the extreme denialsm and the conspiracism.
(eg Al Gore)
politicized stupidity.
You think lots of money has been spent/made via the War On Drugs and the War On Terror, wait `til the War On Carbon heats up ;)
Claptrap. Denialism. Conspiracism. Idiocy.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
Why can't you just admit surface temperatures have not been rising for more than a decade?
Whack-a-mole!

http://www.noaane...ats.html
http://www.skepti...1998.htm

Zombie arguments are such fun to whack!
A story about a sea surface temperature spike from more than four years ago only serves to prove it's been cooling ever since, and a "Skeptical Science" article is, well ....a "Skeptical Science" article! BAHAHAHAHA!

...and pretending the heat is hiding in places we don't look, because you don't want to believe the actual thermometers, is ridiculous in the extreme.

"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....9/trend

Ergo, no global warming for 16 years.

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2014
If it's all about SCIENCE, and this is a SCIENCE website, and I'm SCIENCE illiterate, why do you spend so much time taking me to task? What are you afraid of?

@Scooter
Afraid of? Surely not YOU!
Perhaps we are just hoping that you were literate enough to understand the science? Guess NOT

There is complete lack of criticism within the industry - ever notice that?? It's like the authors of self-help books - they always edify other self-help authors

so...what you are saying is that the scientists, whom all receive a great deal of education, and are respected in their fields, are all in some conspiracy?
And comparing them to "self help" authors? Really? At least NOW I know where you hang out in a bookstore... and it is apparent that you haven't found anything helpful

Maggnus gives you important information above (about consensus), you should take it to heart.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2014
@Scooter
all the scientists who disagree with AGW are on big oil/industry payroll, or are hiding their funds from the public now. WHY is that? (unless they have something to hide)
WHY are all the rest of the scientists agreeing on the problem?
WHY would such a SMALL sample of scientists with black/hidden funds be speaking out so loud if they weren't on a leash owned by big oil/industry?
having a couple of scientists on the payroll of Big Oil shouting conspiracy to the paranoid believers (like yourself) is nothing more than proof that people are gullible and will swallow anything that is wrapped in a conspiracy, especially anti-gov't types (like you and Ryggy)
You think lots of money has been spent/made via the War On Drugs and the War On Terror,

sorry, but BOTH of these are bad examples too... neither are capable of really being "won"...
The only "win" outcome of the AGW "war" (as you put it) would be that humans get to keep on living on this rock.
goracle
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
Silence of the Labs http://cbc.ca/fifth
Maggnus
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2014


http://www.noaane...ats.html

Ergo, no global warming for 16 years.

Whack-a-mole!
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014


http://www.noaane...ats.html

Ergo, no global warming for 16 years.
Whack-a-mole!
Troll.

If you can't come up with a valid argument, why post at all?

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
Troll.
If you can't come up with a valid argument, why post at all?

@Uba
http://www.ncdc.n.../2011/11
http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/11
http://www.ncdc.n.../2013/11

I just looked specifically at
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date


because it DIRECTLY REFUTES what you say about there not being a global warming trend, as well as the original post being a "data spike"

Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
If you can't come up with a valid argument, why post at all?
Back atcha moron! You are the one playing whack a mole Ubamoron. Posting the same zombie argument over and over makes it no more right than the first time you posted it.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
Troll.
If you can't come up with a valid argument, why post at all?

@Uba
http://www.ncdc.n.../2011/11

I just looked specifically at
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date


because it DIRECTLY REFUTES what you say about there not being a global warming trend, as well as the original post being a "data spike"
So now you're using multiple cherry picked data spikes, and think that somehow proves something?

The NOAA uses their own data set, but even they show no global warming in the last dozen years:

http://www.ncdc.n...ear=2012

Funny that...

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
If you can't come up with a valid argument, why post at all?
Back atcha moron! You are the one playing whack a mole Ubamoron. Posting the same zombie argument over and over makes it no more right than the first time you posted it.
It may be "wrong" in as far as it's manipulated by the warmist organization which produces it, but it is the official record...

http://www.woodfo....9/trend

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@ubavontuba blows up with
So now you're using multiple cherry picked data spikes, and think that somehow proves something?

nope
I said
because it DIRECTLY REFUTES what you say about there not being a global warming trend, as well as the original post being a "data spike"

guess you cant read well
perhaps you should use a LARGER FONT?

As for
The NOAA uses their own data set, but even they show no global warming in the last dozen years

ok...skip the DOZEN and lets show GLOBAL by decade from 1880 to NOW!
do it yourself OR copy paste below into the address bar!

http://www.ncdc.n...ear=2012

HOLY AGW, Uba!!
So WHO is cherry picking NOW? want to TRY AGAIN?
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@ubavontuba blows up with
So now you're using multiple cherry picked data spikes, and think that somehow proves something?

nope
I said
because it DIRECTLY REFUTES what you say about there not being a global warming trend, as well as the original post being a "data spike"

guess you cant read well
perhaps you should use a LARGER FONT?
Obviously, you didn't read, or understand, your own data series.

As for
The NOAA uses their own data set, but even they show no global warming in the last dozen years

ok...skip the DOZEN and lets show GLOBAL by decade from 1880 to NOW!
do it yourself OR copy paste below into the address bar!

http://www.ncdc.n...ear=2012

HOLY AGW, Uba!!
So WHO is cherry picking NOW? want to TRY AGAIN?
Which changes nothing, as it only serves to show there was some warming prior to the last dozen+ years.

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@UBA
It may be "wrong" in as far as it's manipulated by the warmist organization which produces it, but it is the official record

it is CHERRY PICKED BY YOU!
read the woodfortrees main page
Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others

guess you missed that one

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@UBA
It may be "wrong" in as far as it's manipulated by the warmist organization which produces it, but it is the official record
it is CHERRY PICKED BY YOU!
It's not cherry picked. It's the last 16 full years of available data.

read the woodfortrees main page
Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others
guess you missed that one
16 years of the latest available data is plenty long enough to show the current trend. However, if you don't want to believe it, you're free to live in your own fantasy.

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
16 years of the latest available data is plenty long enough to show the current trend. However, if you don't want to believe it, you're free to live in your own fantasy.

yet when you include ALL the data, you see a picture emerging, right?
or did you just SKIP that

16 years may be enough for YOU, but if given a choice to review TRENDS, i would want AS MUCH DATA AS I COULD SEE

therein lies my refute to YOU

IOW-you cherry picked data to support YOUR OWN ARGUMENT
but when compared to the whole data set, it shows that you are wrong
AND that you cherry picked to support an OBVIOUSLY FALSE ARGUMENT

16 years may be enough for YOU as an ANTI agenda-toting mouthpiece, but when you look at ALL the data, it shows that THERE IS A TREND
and OBVIOUSLY REFUTES your minuscule 16 year argument

so i leave you with your own comment AGAIN
you're free to live in your own fantasy


ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
16 years may be enough for YOU ...but when you look at ALL the data, it shows that THERE IS A TREND
and OBVIOUSLY REFUTES your minuscule 16 year argument
Again, yoou're making a different argument. Othersise you wouldn't refuse to talk specifically about the last 12 .- 16 years.

so i leave you with your own comment AGAIN

you're free to live in your own fantasy
So how's that working out for you?

Maggnus
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
Just more whack a mole.

Here Stumpy: http://www.metoff...-warming
http://www.uottaw...883.html
http://onlinelibr...abstract

Ubamoron thinks that "debating" means he says what he imagines and you're supposed to go along with it. He'll no doubt tell you now that the Met office has conspired to fudge the numbers, and that the researchers who updated the data and the different universities and studies from around the world are all part of it. That's his particular take on the "conspiracy".

Notice that while there has been a slowdown in temperature rise, the temperature is still rising at some 0.12C/year, even during this so called "pause". Ubamoron's fantasy argument is that it has stopped or even reversed - in other words, he can't even get the denialists argument right.

Now watch as he puts up the HadCrut3 data again.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@Uba
Again, yoou're making a different argument. Othersise you wouldn't refuse to talk specifically about the last 12 .- 16 years
[sic]
nope.still same argument that i had
i said to scooter
you posited that the science is

an abomination on true science

now give PROOF.


and you said
If I may interject here...

http://www.woodfo....9/trend


which does not PROVE the SCIENCE is wrong, only that YOU believe the warming to be ended.
my take has always been that it exists
therefore my argument and proof from YOUR links PROVES that warming exists using YOUR OWN LINKS
and proves that you are wrong
and cherry-picking

and now you are pissed about it so you are trying to say the argument was different than it always was.
not for ME it isnt!
if YOU want to change the rules now, fine, but i will argue from the same standpoint

that the SCIENCE is REAL
PEER REVIEWED
FACTUAL
and PROVES that Global Warming exists!

and i will CONTINUE from that point of view
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
Just more whack a mole.

Here Stumpy: http://onlinelibr...oi/10.10

Ubamoron thinks that "debating" means he says what he imagines and you're supposed to go along with it. He'll no doubt tell you now that the Met office has conspired to fudge the numbers, and that the researchers who updated the data and the different universities and studies from around the world are all part of it. That's his particular take on the "conspiracy".

Notice that while there has been a slowdown in temperature rise, the temperature is still rising at some 0.12C/year, even during this so called "pause". Ubamoron's fantasy argument is that it has stopped or even reversed - in other words, he can't even get the denialists argument right.

Now watch as he puts up the HadCrut3 data again.

THANKS!
seems uba cant read though
appreciate the links Maggnus
have same argument on - How global warming works, in 35 words, or 52 seconds link!
PEACE
ScooterG
2.4 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2014
" that the SCIENCE is REAL
PEER REVIEWED
FACTUAL
and PROVES that Global Warming exists! "

You betcha'!

Brought to you by the same crooks that concocted the spotted owl fraud.

Brought to you by the same people who have mismanaged our national forests for the past 50 years, who now cop-out by blaming global warming for all the problems, and who continue to shirk their duties as forest managers even to this day.

And they wonder why nothing they say or do can be trusted?

Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2014
ScooterG proves complete ignorance of Science & Integrity in scientific community
Why talk science when the science cannot be trusted?
Science = "The Discipline of the Acquisition of Knowledge".

YOU can do Science too, its easy.
Its because anyone (with a basic education) can do it, is WHY it is trusted.

There is a lot of consensus in the simple Science of causality in respect of AGW because the fundamentals are so easy to prove.

There is consensus that water boils at 100 deg C because it's easy to prove.
To claim there is something wrong with the huge majority that agree with this and there is no critique is completely stupid *unless* there is a hypothesis that gives different rationale for same observation ?

So, be a Scientist with integrity & focus on a simple experiment that unequivocally shows there is NO relationship between known thermal properties of CO2 & rise in CO2 levels that results in more heat retained in the system, therefore rising temperatures as observed !
ScooterG
2 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2014
"There is a lot of consensus in the simple Science of causality in respect of AGW because the fundamentals are so easy to prove."

If only it were this simple! The devil's in the details.

Remember the past and follow the money.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
ScooterG is in emotional & intellectual rut
"There is a lot of consensus in the simple Science of causality in respect of AGW because the fundamentals are so easy to prove."
If only it were this simple! The devil's in the details.
It IS simple, go to BASICS, learn the details of the known physical properties & application of mathematics, ie. Integration (ie Adding up)

Show integrity PLEASE, address details of CO2, details:-
1. Well known & universal basic properties of CO2 as documented in publications such as CRC,
properties have been proven many times & are NOT in dispute.

&

2. Observed rise in CO2 levels, accepted by scientists & deniers alike
Eg. http://www.woodfo...o2/every

ScooterG has become a simpleton with
Remember the past and follow the money.
Far MORE intelligent to learn science details, surely !

YOU could be a blind follower of propaganda but, realise its ok for many to exploit AGW by innovating alternate energy sources.

Better for all !
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
@ScooterG
Brought to you by the same crooks that concocted the spotted owl fraud

the same people who have mismanaged our national forests for the past 50 years, who now cop-out by blaming global warming for all the problems, and who continue to shirk their duties as forest managers even to this day

the problem with that is... the people YOU mention work for a bureaucracy in which the primary purpose is self-preservation (justify your job to save it)
whereas scientists are about experimentation which can be replicated
peer review
empirical data
IOW- PROOF

there is no connection between them and scientists who bring proof
this is the same as arguing that science is bad because you once stepping in a cow pie and drug it over your wife's floor

reply to Maggnus
If only it were this simple! The devil's in the details.

it really IS that simple
even YOU can do it
although I would suggest you drop your preconceived notions and let the science/data speak for itself
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2014
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....9/trend

Still not warming...

Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2014
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....9/trend

Still not warming...



Whack-a-mole!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2014
Just more whack a mole.

Here Stumpy: http://www.metoff...-warming
Here, they admit warming has apparently stopped, and then try to rationalize that it hasn't.

http://www.uottaw...883.html
Here, they're arguing heat is somehow magically increasing only in places we don't measure it.

http://onlinelibr...abstract
And this is just the paper referenced in the above article.

Notice that while there has been a slowdown in temperature rise, the temperature is still rising at some 0.12C/year, even during this so called "pause".
Hmm... http://www.woodfo....9/trend ...sure coulda' fooled me.

Now watch as he puts up the HadCrut3 data again.
Which you deride, only because it's irrefutable.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2014
Again, you're making a different argument. Otherwise you wouldn't refuse to talk specifically about the last 12 .- 16 years
nope.still same argument that i had
i said to scooter
you posited that the science is

an abomination on true science

now give PROOF.
and you said
If I may interject here...

http://www.woodfo....9/trend
which does not PROVE the SCIENCE is wrong, only that YOU believe the warming to be ended.
my take has always been that it exists
therefore my argument and proof from YOUR links PROVES that warming exists using YOUR OWN LINKS
and proves that you are wrong
and cherry-picking
You can only prove warming has existed, not that it does exist.

and now you are pissed about it
You're the one writing in caps.

so you are trying to say the argument was different than it always was.
not for ME it isnt!
if YOU want to change the rules now, fine, but i will argue from the same standpoint
The argument is AGW is an abomination of science. True scientists don't ignore or try to rationalize away relevant data.

that the SCIENCE is REAL
PEER REVIEWED
FACTUAL
and PROVES that Global Warming exists!

and i will CONTINUE from that point of view
Only because you want to "believe."

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2014
Uba bends her tuba with
Now watch as he puts up the HadCrut3 data again.

Which you deride, only because it's irrefutable.

you must have missed my arguments then
I am not deriding it, I used YOUR data to prove YOUR argument wrong
You can only prove warming has existed, not that it does exist.

so you are saying that NASA is wrong?
http://data.giss....aphs_v3/
and that would mean that, in your eyes, the temp is consistent with pre-industrial global mean temps, right?
I would LOVE to see your proof of THAT
even if you just take from 1950 on you are proven WRONG
You're the one writing in caps

caps used for intentional emphasis
and to get your attention
given that you apparently have issue with reading
The argument is AGW is an abomination of science

so your idea to refute this is to cherry pick data and ???
this only supports the conclusion that the anti-'s are using abominable science

this is FUN Uba
keep it up!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
uba gets her bell bent with
The argument is AGW is an abomination of science. True scientists don't ignore or try to rationalize away relevant data.

this is what YOU are doing...
You are ignoring the upward trend over the past 100 years saying that your small trend trumps the overall picture! Isnt that ignoring data and trying to rationalize away relevant data?
Only because you want to "believe."

this is your attempt to justify your ignoring valid scientific data??
you figure if you make me emotional, I will ...what?

As far as I can tell, given that you are ignoring valid scientific data, and trying to rationalize away relevant data, then
BY YOUR DEFINITION
you are NOT doing TRUE SCIENCE

thanks for pointing that out to me.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2014
I used YOUR data to prove YOUR argument wrong
This is clearly a lie. "My data" only extends back to 1997.9

You can only prove warming has existed, not that it does exist.
so you are saying that NASA is wrong?
NASA's GISS shows the stall, as well.

http://www.woodfo....9/trend

and that would mean that, in your eyes, the temp is consistent with pre-industrial global mean temps, right?
I would LOVE to see your proof of THAT
even if you just take from 1950 on you are proven WRONG
When did I supposedly say, or imply that?

Are made up up lies, all you have?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2014
uba gets her bell bent with
The argument is AGW is an abomination of science. True scientists don't ignore or try to rationalize away relevant data.
this is what YOU are doing...
You are ignoring the upward trend over the past 100 years saying that your small trend trumps the overall picture!
Isnt that ignoring data and trying to rationalize away relevant data?
I haven't ignored previous data, and I readily agree there has been warming in the past. All I'm saying is that currently, warming has stalled.

Only because you want to "believe."
this is your attempt to justify your ignoring valid scientific data??
Wow, you are confused. This is me accusing you of ignoring data.

you figure if you make me emotional, I will ...what?
It's obvious from your posts, you're already emotional.

As far as I can tell, given that you are ignoring valid scientific data, and trying to rationalize away relevant data, then
BY YOUR DEFINITION
you are NOT doing TRUE SCIENCE

thanks for pointing that out to me.
Accusing me of your own faults now? LOL

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2014
It appears to me that you guys aren't talking in the context of an agreed-upon relevant time frame.
10 yrs? 100 yrs?, 1000, 10000,100000? Agree to that and then pursue argument, with all references bounded by that criteria.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.