Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 percent certainty

Apr 11, 2014
Cloud in Nepali sky. Credit: Wikipedia

An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.

The study, published online April 6 in the journal Climate Dynamics, represents a new approach to the question of whether in the industrial era has been caused largely by man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature.

"This study will be a blow to any remaining -change deniers," Lovejoy says. "Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it."

Lovejoy's study applies statistical methodology to determine the probability that global warming since 1880 is due to natural variability. His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out "with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%."

To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses "multi-proxy climate reconstructions" developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales.

For the industrial era, Lovejoy's analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. "This allows the new approach to implicitly include the cooling effects of particulate pollution that are still poorly quantified in computer models," he adds.

While his new study makes no use of the huge computer models commonly used by scientists to estimate the magnitude of future climate change, Lovejoy's findings effectively complement those of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he says. His study predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. That range is more precise than – but in line with—the IPCC's prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.

"We've had a fluctuation in average temperature that's just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius," Lovejoy says. "This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.

"While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can't generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other."

Explore further: Long-term warming likely to be significant despite recent slowdown

More information: "Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming", S. Lovejoy, Climate Change, published online April 6, 2014. link.springer.com/search?query… %2Fs00382-014-2128-2

www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/ep… dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Macroweather is what you expect

Feb 25, 2013

While short-term weather is notoriously volatile, climate is thought to represent a kind of average weather pattern over a long period of time. This dichotomy provides the analytical framework for scientific ...

Volcanoes helped offset man-made warming: study

Feb 23, 2014

Volcanoes spewing Sun-reflecting particles into the atmosphere have partly offset the effects of Man's carbon emissions over a 15-year period that has become a global-warming battleground, researchers said Sunday.

Recommended for you

Bridgmanite: World's most abundant mineral finally named

3 hours ago

A team of geologists in the U.S. has finally found an analyzable sample of the most abundant mineral in the world allowing them to give it a name: bridgmanite. In their paper published in the journal Science, the te ...

Volcano in south Japan erupts, disrupting flights

10 hours ago

A volcano in southern Japan is blasting out chunks of magma in the first such eruption in 22 years, causing flight cancellations and prompting warnings to stay away from its crater.

User comments : 809

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

blovel
1.8 / 5 (30) Apr 11, 2014
I was looking for a publication date of 4-1-14, but it is 4-6-14, so my "statistical rejection of a hypothesis" (Shaun Lovejoy's) will have rely on something more substantial, such as ...err...FACTS, something clearly missing from Lovejoy's 'study'. Any science and scientific thought/method/process used to compile the 99.9% result is likely to be found in the 0.01% discrepancy. It is a shame that phys.org publishes such drivil.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 11, 2014
Wow! Sometime ~ 2010 there was enough data that I could do a layman statistical projection of signal-to-noise-ratio from a linear extrapolation of AGW increase and many noise sources so gaussian noise. I landed on that this year's IPCC data release could have 99 % confidence at a likelihood of 50 %.

Seems I won that coin toss, both last year's IPCC and now this is blowing the top of the linear extrapolation, as they should seeing how it is more like an exponential CO2 increase.

So ... on to the consequences.
TegiriNenashi
1.8 / 5 (25) Apr 11, 2014
The "robustness" of temperature record aside, did it ever occurred to the author that the "denier" camp has capable, well qualified statisticians which will shred his masterpiece to pieces?

http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (27) Apr 11, 2014
@blovel, TegiriNashi: Speaking of "drivil" [sic], your comments are an example. Those who take pain to read it find that you have no evidence [an anonymous graph -really!?], while already Lovejoys' references fills 2 pages and his abstract claims correspondence with IPCC who in turn comprise _all_ of the climate science, now 10's of 1000's of papers.

You can't have more factual support for climate science than that. The one who should be ashamed for mouthing off instead of appreciating science should be you - a waste of space.
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (18) Apr 11, 2014
I thought readers would be able to figure out the organization from URL. The graph is from British Antarctic Survey

http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/

...Which members accidentally are publishing a lot of AGW articles popularized by physorg.
freeiam
1.7 / 5 (17) Apr 11, 2014
Crimean referendum 2014: 96.77% for Russia, Climate change 2014: 99,9% man made.
The Russians obviously faked it, but at least they tried to give it a little credibility.
Nicias
1 / 5 (14) Apr 11, 2014
"It was therefore replaced by the [Ammann and Wahl, 2007] update of the original [Mann et al., 1998] reconstruction"

Quelle surprise !
the zombie hockey stick is of course the best tool for this "blow to the deniers".

TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (18) Apr 11, 2014
Crimean referendum 2014: 96.77% for Russia, Climate change 2014: 99,9% man made.
The Russians obviously faked it, but at least they tried to give it a little credibility.


In both cases, when in doubt, you can check it yourself. You can take Crimea census from 2011 and count language preference. Well, it is not 96%, but I tell you what. That guy, who is sitting on evil oil and gas, promised to raise their social services quite substantially so, perhaps, they have bought it?

In the other case you can look at satellite temperature records, non-urbanized weather station history (conveniently located at a continent which is subject to polar amplification effect), or sea ice cover, and form an informed opinion.
freeiam
1.4 / 5 (14) Apr 11, 2014
Your right but I must say that I don't understand it, at least not from this article.
I find a meta study a good idea, but I cannot assess whether this is the case, if the arguments are sane (and data is valid) or not until I read the original publication.
In any case it's not easy to validate this, but I do note that a quote like this "This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers, ..." and this (I could go on) "We've had a fluctuation in average temperature that's just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius," doesn't make it appear credible.
enviro414
1 / 5 (15) Apr 11, 2014
A natural long-term trend is defined by a proxy factor times the time-integral of the difference between each annual average daily sunspot number and the average sunspot number for a long period (1610-1940). The net surface temperature change of all natural ocean cycles oscillates above and below this trend. The combination calculates average global temperature anomalies (AGT) since before 1900 with R^2 > 0.9 (95% correlation) and credible AGT since the depths of the Little Ice Age.

All this is quantified at http://agwunveile...spot.com and sub-links.

Everything else must find room in the unexplained 10%
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (25) Apr 11, 2014
@TegiriNenashi,
In the other case you can look at satellite temperature records, non-urbanized weather station history (conveniently located at a continent which is subject to polar amplification effect), or sea ice cover, and form an informed opinion.
Oh, you mean something like this:

http://berkeleyea...findings

The "robustness" of temperature record aside, did it ever occurred to the author that the "denier" camp has capable, well qualified statisticians which will shred his masterpiece to pieces?
Wait, are you insinuating that you're one yourself? LMAO, why then would you present a couple of graphs for a couple of select spots in Antarctica, as your counter-argument to GLOBAL temperature trends? That's statistical "genius", if ever I encountered any...
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (22) Apr 12, 2014
From the article:
An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.


You flaterthers and deniers just don't get how serious this issue is. You and your beer buddies joke about it, slap yourselves on the back and make fun of the nerds, but in 10 years, that is going to be over. You flateathers are going to sweat like hogs when the AGW really kicks in.

Have fun you flat earther and AGW deniers! Have fun.
jahbless
2.7 / 5 (11) Apr 12, 2014
What would temperatures be today without AGW? This statistical analysis implies a counterfactual....?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (20) Apr 12, 2014
enviro414 but, WHY didnt he notice
http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
Take a look at the graphs enviro414, NOT quantified, notice they claim 'no CO2 effect' - Eg graph 1 which purports to plot volcanic events, how is this correlated with accepted CO2 data from Eg This link:- http://www.woodfo...o2/every

enviro414 desperately needs an education in Provenance in relation to blogspots which are NOT peer reviewed
All of the chaos, phase change, combinational complexity, turbulence and everything that you did not think of must find room in the unexplained 10%.
What garbage techo bable is this The "unexplained 10%" of WHAT precisely enviro414 ?

Other links posted previously enviro414 are also blogs, NOT peer reviewed.

What makes you think you and your blogspot links have more Science than the vast majority that have university credentials in Physics and have studied Heat Capacity, Statistical Mechanics etc.

Physics Education enviro414 Puh-Lease !
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (22) Apr 12, 2014
TegiriNenashi is at it again pretending to be a troll or plain stupid & uneducated in not just Science but basic technical communications
The "robustness" of temperature record aside, did it ever occurred to the author that the "denier" camp has capable, well qualified statisticians which will shred his masterpiece to pieces?
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf


TegiriNenashi please NOTICE in relation to YOUR anonymous links:-

- No info re titles - surface of what ?
- No Provenance - what is the data set, how was it compiled ?
- No error bars
- No comparative data set
- No regional references
- No discussion
- No peer reviewers mentioned

This is so FAR away for anything worthy of a those interested in a mature dialectic TegiriNenashi, why so naive, please get an education, if its too late for you to go to University then sign up for Community College & get uneducated bias out your anus!
Skepticus
4.3 / 5 (17) Apr 12, 2014
Denial is a well-known mechanism for those who can't face or act in face of peril. Well, in the end, they are just as dead...and drag others along too, if they are in positions of authority!
Pejico
Apr 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (16) Apr 12, 2014
Two apparent problems with the study seem to arise.

1. The start date of 1500. Why not earlier? There are earlier proxies available.

2. The 95% confidence prediction mentioned above doesn't square with actual observation of varying levels of CO2 in IR transparent glass containers (or even pop bottles) in a controlled setting. This can be verified by just about anyone willing to take the time and do the experimentation.

Something seems awry. I suppose a more thorough examination of the data used in the above study is in order.
enviro414
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 12, 2014
Mike - Your lack of science skill makes you gullible to mob-think.

The leaders of this mob have stated that it is a "travesty" that average global temperatures measure 0.3 K lower than they predicted. They don't mention thermalization although that is how IR warms the air. Some of the other mistakes that 'Climate Scientists' have made are described at http://consensusm...pot.com/

APS has begun to question the AGW mantra
http://news.inves...ange.htm

The method used at http://agwunveile...pot.com/ allows prediction of temperatures using data up to any date. The predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2013 calculated using data to 1990 and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 was within 0.012 K of the trend calculated using data through 2013.

I look forward to your comments as the average global temperature trend continues its decline.
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (16) Apr 12, 2014
Pejico claimed
Despite the effort of scientists and their massive propaganda, the wisdom of crowds is, the global warming can be still a consequence of the natural effects.
What "Propaganda" ? The Physics of gasses & water is PROVEN, r u NOT educated ?

Pejico
.. because the geothermal global warming hypothesis wasn't even considered, judged the less.
Has been checked, Geothermal is FAR below the burning of ~230,000 Litres of petrol/second adding GHG's & heat !
Pejico
The "scientific" theories based on single paradigm with no discussion only rarely become sucessfull.
If that did NOT include rapid rise of CO2 you 'might' be right, u r NOT.
Pejico
.. Again, no serious discussion exist about it, which just confirms my suspicion, it actually isn't.
Pejico, you don't move in any circles where there is 'serious discussion' YOU are here, this is a Science site, touching only on details of Climate Science sporadically...

Pejico, Please go to the serious site then - asap !
Bob Osaka
1.6 / 5 (15) Apr 12, 2014
Global warming has been happening since the end of the last ice age. An acceleration or "snowball effect" is expected. I wonder what coefficient ( if any) was assigned to 900+ atmospheric nuclear weapon test conducted 1945-1980.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (20) Apr 12, 2014
An analysis of reality shows that there is a 99% probability there is a motive behind the AGW hype.

http://phys.org/n...bon.html
Shootist
1.5 / 5 (17) Apr 12, 2014
I'll take all your "climate scientists" and raise you ONE, that's right one, Freeman Dyson.

My boffin is smarter than your boffin.

"The polar bears will be fine."
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Apr 12, 2014
Mike - Your lack of science skill makes you gullible to mob-think.

The leaders of this mob have stated that it is a "travesty" that average global temperatures measure 0.3 K lower than they predicted. They don't mention thermalization although that is how IR warms the air. Some of the other mistakes that 'Climate Scientists' have made are described at http://consensusm...pot.com/ allows prediction of temperatures using data up to any date. The predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2013 calculated using data to 1990 and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 was within 0.012 K of the trend calculated using data through 2013.

I look forward to your comments as the average global temperature trend continues its decline.


Right that does it.
You're merit no more responses from me my friend.
You are no more than and bloody spamming parrot..
At least a parrot is useful in warning of idiots entering the room.
PsycheOne
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 12, 2014
Let's say, for argument, that in fact human activity caused global warming. Then let's notice that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. We would deduce then that whatever the human activity was that caused global warming has ceased. Then let's look for what that human activity might be. It's certainly not CO2 emissions.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (20) Apr 12, 2014
Let's say, for argument, that in fact human activity caused global warming. Then let's notice that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. We would deduce then that whatever the human activity was that caused global warming has ceased. Then let's look for what that human activity might be. It's certainly not CO2 emissions.


Utterly and spectacularly wrong.
Try checking out sea temperatures.
Then realise that oceans contain greater than 90% of the climate system's stored heat.
Once armed with that information, if you're capable, do trot along and investigate the thermodynamic properties of water vs air. and while you're at it swat up on the basics of the effects that the ENSO cycle has on global temps.

Go away, do that, there's a good denialist, then come back on here - sigh - if you must and talk intelligently.
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (16) Apr 12, 2014
Let's say, for argument, that in fact human activity caused global warming. Then let's notice that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. We would deduce then that whatever the human activity was that caused global warming has ceased. Then let's look for what that human activity might be. It's certainly not CO2 emissions.


Climate Scientists won't see eye-to-eye with you on that account. They now are blaming volcanoes, pacific tradewinds, ocean thermodynamics, the Sun, and several other things for the apparent pause in warming. A couple years ago it was materials errors in ARGO sensors, and a few other items. They still maintain that as soon as the tradewinds change, as soon as volcanoes stop emitting, and as soon as the oceans stop absorbing heat, and so forth, that warming will accelerate as before, if not more quickly. Hide the decline, and if you cannot hide it any longer, blame weather/geological conditions for the alteration of climate.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (18) Apr 12, 2014
The climate of England and Japan are moderated by warm ocean currents.
Warm water then loses heat to the air, but if the air temperatures are dropping whey doesn't that heat hiding in the ocean warm the air?
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (18) Apr 12, 2014
PsycheOne offered with massive IGNORANCE
Let's say, for argument, that in fact human activity caused global warming. Then let's notice that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. We would deduce then that whatever the human activity was that caused global warming has ceased. Then let's look for what that human activity might be. It's certainly not CO2 emissions.
NO.

You are unaware of:- http://en.wikiped...capacity

& http://en.wikiped...echanics

& http://en.wikiped...of_water

When you are educated and able to think PsycheOne, you will notice the Ocean's capacity to absorb heat is enormous, well beyond the atmosphere's capacity to show a temp rise.

You PsycheOne R blissfully ignorant of high school physics shwoing definitively that temperature of glass of ice/water mix does NOT go up until all the ice melts - despite the amount of heat supplied.

Granted it takes effort & intellect to understand.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (19) Apr 12, 2014
The thing about 99% probability, there's always the 1%...

https://www.youtu...AnECkaME
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (19) Apr 12, 2014
the global warming can be still a consequence of the natural effects
@Zeph/Pej
sorry, bub. but this is why people make fun of you. YES, the natural effects exacerbate the situation, BUT they are not the underlying CAUSE
geothermal global warming hypothesis wasn't even considered
wrong again, sparky. ask T. Thompson or Runrig.. they are included
no serious discussion exist about it, which just confirms my suspicion...
and here we see total delusion as well as denial. SERIOUS discussion includes FACTS, EMPIRICAL data. NOT guesswork and blanket accusations.
SERIOUS discussion HAPPENS, especially between scientists... what you are calling "no serious discussion" is the fact that a crap load of scientists working on their own with separate experiments are all converging on the simple facts: WARMING. which then gives consensus, NOT BECAUSE there is some process voting on the best looking paper, but because everyone working separately came to the same conclusions!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (19) Apr 12, 2014
What "Propaganda" ? The Physics of gasses & water is PROVEN, r u NOT educated?
@Mike_Massen
pejico is Zephir
science skill makes you gullible to mob-think
@enviro
actually, the science skills make him more worried, as observation as well as empirical data show that warming is a serious problem
and quoting BLOGS is the equivalent of posting links to Pizza Hut ... completely irrelevant
skip the BS and post links to STUDIES/PAPERS
analysis of reality shows
analysis of CD's posts show a complete lack of understanding of physics, reality or the scientific method
Then let's notice that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years
@psycheone
this claim is only valid if you ignore empirical data, therefore it holds all the same authority/validity as saying "unicorn farts cause downdrafts"
see: http://centerforo...warming/
Pejico
Apr 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) Apr 12, 2014
1) Nope, the people hate and censor me, they do not laugh at me.
sorry Zeph, when you make conspiratorial comments like above... they laugh at you... AT you, not with you... AT. ESPECIALLY when there is a preponderance of empirical data against you and your posts
2) Just because I do understand the physics of gases well, I know, that the atmospheric CO2 is http://wattsupwit...warming/ supports this model too.
wrong again: see Tim Thompson and Thermodynamics in the following threads:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

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

your conjectures are impotent in the face of empirical data. thanks for playing
Pejico
Apr 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pejico
Apr 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (18) Apr 12, 2014
The article about permafrost just explains, how global warming http://wattsupwit...arming/, thus fooling the physicists, who are believing in green-house gas causality. It's an argument for me, not for you.
@zeph
try reading the comments sparky. that is why I told you to read Tim Thompson and Thermodynamics. the posters. below the article. in the comments.

is that spelled out better? quit being stupid

MAYBE you will learn something... although given your propensity for denial, it is doubtful

Pejico
Apr 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Apr 12, 2014
The climate of England and Japan are moderated by warm ocean currents.
Warm water then loses heat to the air, but if the air temperatures are dropping whey doesn't that heat hiding in the ocean warm the air?


Aside from the UK/Japan not being the world (most land is isolated from maritime effects).
Err - because it's warmed the water at depth ????
And is 'hidden' from the atmosphere.
The biggest contributor by far to the oscillation of global ave temps by SST's is the ENSO cycle. Which has largely been in a cool phase this last 16 years.
You will have to understand thermodynamics to appreciate that ryggy and I fear you do not.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (17) Apr 12, 2014
The thing about 99% probability, there's always the 1%...


Like I said to some other denier on here Cant.
Get yourself a gun with a 100 bullet magazine and ask someone to take out one a random. Now point the thing at your temple and pull the trigger.

Yes, there's always that one (lack of) bullet isn't there?
You'd take the chance?
Not with my planet you're not.
Pejico
Apr 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (18) Apr 12, 2014
An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation
500 years is too short interval. Most of climatic cycles known so far are substantially longer. It just means, within timespan 5000 years we can be sure with AGW at 90 percent certainty, within timespan 50.000 years we can be sure with it at 60% certainty only.


Err ... you're arguing that we include in the analysis things that we know aren't occurring now.
Principally orbital dynamics and sun activity.
We don't need that to skew the data.
They have used a period that best fits the available (reliable) data and gives a reasonable time period before industrialisation.
GuruShabu
1.9 / 5 (15) Apr 12, 2014

I am not questioning anything BUT the statistical method used.
The guy selected the period since 1500. How did her determine that choice? If there is one thing that is sure about random functions is that they look very different depending on the time period over which you inspect them. So I think this is no proof at all. This guy is into fractal theory and is seriously into scale invariance theory, which makes him think he can apply his theory on any time scale. It all depends on the validity of his model - who say a 'multifractal' model is the right one for the climate?
orti
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 12, 2014
"An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy."
Well. Yes. That includes the little ice age and excludes the medieval warming. (And I'm 99% certain of that.) Nothing like selecting you input to a statistical analysis.
antonima
1.8 / 5 (18) Apr 12, 2014
I swear if I read the headline 'scientists prove global warming is man made' again I'll be joining the deniers.
yep
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2014
"I wonder what coefficient ( if any) was assigned to 900+ atmospheric nuclear weapon test conducted 1945-1980."
Wow Bob, It seems this point illustrates whether we believe in AGW or not it is undeniable we effect our ecosystems locally and globally.
http://www.ctbto....e12b.pdf

Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 13, 2014
These comments by the "CO2 just disappears and has no further consequences for no apparent reason" crowd, just add credence to the point that they're views are not based on the scientific method.
Is not the persuasion of a truly open mind evidence?
You don't have to be a statistician to understand this is almost definitive proof. You guys jump on that word "almost", but this is about our impact on the environment, not the short comings of articulate description in the English language.
If your mind is closed against chemistry, geology, mineralogy, climatology, paleontology, radiology, .. ect. What evidence could I possibly provide to change your mind and accept the truth?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) Apr 13, 2014
the carbon dioxide levels, thus fooling the physicists
so your "ASSUMPTION" is that physicists are "fooled" by CO2. ok, copy/paste this:

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf" title="http://http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://forecast.u...ases.pdf

now read
Pay special attention to the last page (figure 4.8) where we see how CO2 absorption depends on relative abundance. This is directly related to the general claim that the relative abundance of CO2 is too low to matter compared to H2O. This figure directly refutes that claim.
Here is the parent page, dedicated to the book "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast" by David Archer (Prof. of Geosciences, University of Chicago). There are additional links thereon to video lectures & more.

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/

http://geosci.uch...d-archer
IOW - Zeph, you're WRONG YET AGAIN

wanna try for more?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (12) Apr 13, 2014
antonima muttered
I swear if I read the headline 'scientists prove global warming is man made' again I'll be joining the deniers.
Such knee jerk emotional redneck reactions not based on formal education are the problem & you just proved it - complaint without an attempt to get an education to (try) understand.

Humans are emitting greenhouse gasses far faster than natural events & CO2 especially has known thermal properties regarding re-radiation.

"No one in any denier came has ever been able to use their physics to show just why ADDING a green house gas to the atmosphere should NOT increase resistivity in terms of heat flows."

The only response ever on phys.org is "..its too dilute", with no qualification of the term "too", all these need clarification.

Physics shows clearly & evidentiary comparative proportions of CO2 have effects, CO2 is rising, with no blips on the chart re volcano's hence that output low, humans drive CO2:-
http://www.woodfo...o2/every

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (16) Apr 13, 2014
about the above link: phys.org doesn't like it
type in from Http until you get to david-archer and it works.

"http://geosci.uch...-archer"

@zeph
linking empirical data is best, and linking to blogs is the equivalent to linking to pizza hut.

however, you KNOW as well as others that Tim Thompson is not only a physicist, but is well versed in climate science. He also commented with PLENTY of empirical data leaving a plethora of links as studies proving his point.
the reason you ignored HIS comments is that it proves you wrong, as well as makes you look like an idiot. Well, that's the breaks, bubba, especially when you have a propensity for being fooled by fringe idiocy like AW/DAW or cold fusion.

I don't mind re-posting his comments again though. I admit I was being lazy (and trying not to cross-post). But I have NO PROBLEM re-posting to prove the point.

anything else?
antonima
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 13, 2014

Humans are emitting greenhouse gasses far faster than natural events & CO2 especially has known thermal properties regarding re-radiation.



You missed my point, completely. I KNOW that humans cause global warming, or at the very least climate change. I was entertaining the fact that repeating the strongest line of an argument, in this case that humans are wrecking the planet, will not make the argument stronger. In fact it will weaken the argument. These headlines appear every time a doctoral thesis is written on global warming it seems. After reading it for the n th time I'm about ready to stop giving a shit, completely, about climate change.
enviro414
1.7 / 5 (18) Apr 13, 2014
GW ended before 2001. http://endofgw.blogspot.com/

AGW does not exist. http://agwunveile...pot.com/
runrig
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 13, 2014
GW ended before 2001. http://endofgw.blogspot.com/


Wrong errerr - cos I said so errerr
Opinion from whatever source my friend counts for zero.
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 13, 2014
Why does enviro414 insist on relying on blogs and make uneducated claims
GW ended before 2001. http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
AGW does not exist.http://agwunveile....com.au/
Why does enviro414 not notice there is no CO2 curve compared on the two sites above, what is the Provenance please ?

What is wrong with you enviro414, paranoid about peer review, have you ever done a "Literature Review" ? The discipline of critiquing a journal, why do you not get physics training and an understanding of how to deal with bias at ANY level ?

enviro414 You claim bias, where - show it !?!

enviro414, many deniers use this site, and as Tim Thompson well pointed out one has to be careful with start & end points - here is a good illustration.
http://www.woodfo....1/trend

How would you enviro414, argue against any sort of warming in the right half of the graph ?
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 13, 2014
Apologies antonima
You missed my point, completely. I KNOW that humans cause global warming, or at the very least climate change. I was entertaining the fact that repeating the strongest line of an argument, in this case that humans are wrecking the planet, will not make the argument stronger. In fact it will weaken the argument. These headlines appear every time a doctoral thesis is written on global warming it seems. After reading it for the n th time I'm about ready to stop giving a shit, completely, about climate change.
I didn't see your point in that posting, it came across as satire/sarcasm from a denier.

Perhaps my sarcasm filter is not up with what you wanted to share in that short comment ?

Pejico
Apr 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 13, 2014
How can you get 99.9% certainty when the early climate records are mostly proxies and the later records have been tampered with or their validity is questionable do to the encroachment of civilization? This paper was written strictly for the consumption by and the indoctrination of the general public.

Papers such as this are a direct indication of how the moral and ethical standards of our society have collapsed.
antonima
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 13, 2014


Perhaps my sarcasm filter is not up with what you wanted to share in that short comment ?



Granted, it wasn't a very articulate post lol
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 13, 2014
An analysis of reality shows that there is a 99% probability there is a motive behind the AGW hype.

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


You are absolutely correct, canty:

[from the article]

An IMF study last year found that energy subsidies around the world amounted to $1.9 trillion—or eight percent of government revenues.


That's in reference to fossil fuels. Why should 8 percent of the world's tax dollars go to the continuing, artificial profitability of Big Carbon(subsidies to the most profitable business EVER, ongoing for years and years and years)? If that money was spent developing and deploying renewables, fossil wouldn't even begin to be able to compete at parity.

Any way you slice it, fossil is more expensive on a per-unit-energy basis and on a cost-to-the-environment basis as well.

Just think of carbon-pricing as a "reverse subsidy".

runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Apr 13, 2014
How can you get 99.9% certainty when the early climate records are mostly proxies and the later records have been tampered with or their validity is questionable do to the encroachment of civilization? This paper was written strictly for the consumption by and the indoctrination of the general public.

Papers such as this are a direct indication of how the moral and ethical standards of our society have collapsed.


First off - no proxies "have been tampered with" - if you refer to tree rings in Scandinavia, then real data replaced them.
Also the HI effect has been shown to not be a factor in global average temp records as the Koch sponsored BEST study found.

Anything else mythical you'd like to throw in there to justify your denial?

Seen through the prism of your ideology the last sentence makes sense - but the people holding same inhabit the rabbit hole, my friend, and not the real world.
So we need not worry eh?
enviro414
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 13, 2014
runrig – So, you don't believe average global temperature reports from NASA, UAH, HadCRUT, RSS, & GISS. Please advise us of your preferred sources.
enviro414
2 / 5 (16) Apr 13, 2014
Mike – If you would take the blinders off perhaps you might notice in Table 1 that including the influence of CO2 made no significant increase in R^2.

Blaming CO2 for global warming when it has no significant effect is bias.
Skepticus_Rex
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 13, 2014
One of the main failings of the paper is its omission of 1000 years of previous multiproxy data. Even inclusion of only 500 years of additional multiproxy data would have been an improvement. I very highly doubt that that was an accidental oversight.
Moebius
4.3 / 5 (16) Apr 13, 2014
So the climate change deniers ARE idiots? Darn, and I was .001% sure they may have been slightly correct in some small but insignificant part.

Do you think the deniers really believe themselves or are just motivated by greed? At least if it's greed they aren't stupid, just scum.
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (15) Apr 14, 2014
enviro414 still didn't notice
Mike – If you would take the blinders off perhaps you might notice in Table 1 that including the influence of CO2 made no significant increase in R^2.
If you mean either of these non peer-reviewed links:-
http://endofgw.bl....com.au/
http://agwunveile....com.au/

WHERE enviro414, is CO2 data listed ?
WHERE is the provenance of the source data defined ?

Do you imagine you know how a proper scientific paper is written ?
Do you imagine this is a good example making a claim not listing the data/source ?

enviro414 now might understand bias
Blaming CO2 for global warming when it has no significant effect is bias.
enviro414, evidence of bias is a CLAIM on a site that has NO review dialectic and NO data & NO indication of provenance ?

Why do not understand such a simple point ?

If I claim sky is falling but, refuse to show the mass of material arriving at earth then its either delusion or BIAS ?

Been trained to write anything enviro414 ?
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 14, 2014
enviro414 seems to be suffering from very selective sight
runrig – So, you don't believe average global temperature reports from NASA, UAH, HadCRUT, RSS, & GISS. Please advise us of your preferred sources.
So enviro414, why do YOU not appreciate this site, which is often presented by several deniers:-
http://www.woodfo....1/trend

Do you not see enviro414 it clearly shows warming ?

Did you no read the notice from the site admins:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes]http://www.woodfo...rg/notes[/url]

Did you not see on the notes references to the source data ?

Are you so totally blind enviro414, you cannot see that ?

What enviro414, is wrong with the site:- http://www.woodfo...rg/notes]http://www.woodfo...rg/notes[/url]

Analysis please enviro414, your best most strident intellectual effort please enviro414 ?

Do you understand "Confirmational Bias" enviro414 ?

Did you ever get any basic education in Physics enviro414 ?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 14, 2014
Skepticus_Rex offered this
One of the main failings of the paper is its omission of 1000 years of previous multiproxy data. Even inclusion of only 500 years of additional multiproxy data would have been an improvement. I very highly doubt that that was an accidental oversight.
How do you imagine Skepticus_Rex that any temp data of those periods is reflective of global heat indications at those times ?

During those periods is there ANY evidence of the extremely fast changes in CO2 we are experiencing of the last 100+ years ?

Equilibria is vastly complex, relative warming or cooling in those periods has conjunctive aspects not necessarily reflected in respect of CO2 as NOW.

If we had some indication of fast CHANGE in CO2 of a 100 year SPAN anywhere from 1000 to 500 or so years ago then you 'might' have a case.

Until then Skepticus_Rex, I don't see the correlation & in conjunction with known thermal properties of CO2.

If you can find the data Skepticus_Rex, I will analyse :-)
runrig
4.1 / 5 (17) Apr 14, 2014
runrig – So, you don't believe average global temperature reports from NASA, UAH, HadCRUT, RSS, & GISS. Please advise us of your preferred sources.


ALL of the above, taken in their entirety as they each have valid methodology.

I don't pick or choose the data... unlike some.
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 14, 2014
Moebius reflected & triggered a thought re "contrived indignance"
So the climate change deniers ARE idiots? Darn, and I was .001% sure they may have been slightly correct in some small but insignificant part.
The vast majority have not had the opportunity of a university education in respect of physics as core or as elective as part of a science degree. Many sadly also never had a high school education or if they did missed several lectures on "Heat Capacity" & especially "Probability & Statistics", measurements etc

Some smart skeptical people have raised points worthy of analysis but, many cloud those in political propaganda likely because they want to "..keep it simple" - why ?

Can they not handle a little intellectual complexity ?

Moebius
Do you think the deniers really believe themselves or are just motivated by greed? At least if it's greed they aren't stupid, just scum.
Mostly simpletons looking for simple ideas & focus on money others make not process of research.
Skepticus_Rex
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 14, 2014
How do you imagine Skepticus_Rex that any temp data of those periods is reflective of global heat indications at those times ?


We are talking about multiproxies. The same multiproxies used in the study that is the subject of this article. These are both Northern and Southern Hemisphere multiproxies. If these are not representative of global temps, then what is the use of even the study itself?

They are the same multiproxies that are used by the study, so the data is the same, with the exception of the portions of data going further back than the year 1500 left out by the study. You can get the data from the same sources from which the author of the study obtained them. Ask them for all the raw data.

But, the CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature increases of the period left out of the study. A controlled experiment with varying levels of CO2 will show almost no connection between temps and doubled atmospheric levels of CO2 (as claimed) at even 3000 ppmv. Try it.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 14, 2014
1) Nope, the people hate and censor me, they do not laugh at me. This is a difference.
Sorry Zeph, you have that backwards. Your "theories" are laughable, and yes, you are being laughed at. Not because you are wrong Zephyr, but because you make they same claims over and over even after being shown that your ideas cannot work.
2) Just because I do understand the physics of gases well, I know, that the atmospheric CO2 is http://wattsupwit...warming/ supports this explanation too. You guys have still lotta things to learn.
Yes, I for one do have a lot of things to learn. I can do that because I am not so bound to some idea that I can't or won't try to see beyond it. You cannot make the same claim, which is also a part of why you are not taken seriously.
enviro414
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2014
Mike – The current source for CO2 amount is the Keeling/ESRL data from Mauna Loa, Hawaii at ftp://aftp.cmdl.n..._mlo.txt . Future estimate is by 2nd order curve fit to the measured data 1980-2012.

It was shown more than 6 years ago at http://www.middle...urn.html that climate is insensitive to CO2 level. This is Reference 6 in the AGWunveiled paper. Graphs and data sources in Ref. 6 cover various time periods and measurement locations.

This and links to all of the data sources are given. But you need to look . . .

If you had looked, you might have noticed that I used the same HadCRUT source data that Woodfortrees used as well as other reliable sources for comparison as explained. I don't know what you had in mind with the two blank links.

You appear to be unaware that your inability to follow the analysis and referring to handbook-level assessment speaks loudly of your lack of science skill.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Apr 14, 2014
Dan, the Engineer who would be a climate specialist!

Dan, you have been posting the same claptrap and cherry-picked denialist propaganda for years now. Yet you remain almost universally ignored, and your book sales flat. One would think that, by now, you would begin the process of finding out why.

I sure hope you have a day job.

What about the oceans Dan?
CrossMan
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2014
@enviro414 "APS has begun to question the AGW mantra"

The APS formally reviews all of its official statements every 5 years as per its bylaws: http://www.aps.or...view.cfm
MR166
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 14, 2014
How can this be? According to the AGW crowd man is now contributing 3% yearly to the CO2 levels. If you average man's contribution starting at say the 1940s perhaps you get a 1.5-2 % contribution. Thus in in a time span of about 70 years this paper is 99.9% certain that man is the cause of the warming. But wait, it gets better! For the past 17 years or so there has been no warming. Thus there has been a period of 50 years in the past 1000 years where they are 99.9% certain that man's 2% CO2 contribution has caused warming. Lets get real, 50 years is a millisecond in geological time. There is absolutely no way to be 99.9% certain about the cause of weather fluctuations in 50 year period in the earth's history.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 14, 2014
OOOPS change that 1000 years to 500 since the paper starts at 1500
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 14, 2014
@enviro414 "APS has begun to question the AGW mantra"

The APS formally reviews all of its official statements every 5 years as per its bylaws: http://www.aps.or...view.cfm

This time with the inputs of Christy, Curry and Lindzen.
aksdad
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 14, 2014
We've had a fluctuation in average temperature that's just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius

"Huge" as compared to what? That works out to about 0.67 C per century. From HadCRUT4, the global temperature increase from 1910 to 1945 was 0.5 C or 1.43 C per century and most climate scientists agree that was before humans had much of an impact on warming.

HadCRUT4: http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png

Huge as compared to the 1.8 C from 1700 to 1738 recorded in the Central England Temperature data set, the oldest instrument temperature record?

CET: http://www.metoff.../hadcet/

Or the 0.95 C from 1816 to 1834? Or the 0.79 C from 1845 to 1872?

Lovejoy perpetuates "Mike's Nature trick" of grafting instrument temperatures onto proxy temperatures to "hide the decline". Multiproxy data showed declining temperatures so they were removed and replaced with instrument temperatures (that went up) instead. Pseudo-science.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 14, 2014
@enviro414 "APS has begun to question the AGW mantra"

The APS formally reviews all of its official statements every 5 years as per its bylaws: http://www.aps.or...view.cfm

This time with the inputs of Christy, Curry and Lindzen.


Rygg2: Are you anticipating what the APS is going to say? Would you be so kind as to fill us in so we don't have to wait for the study?

Please, just give me the main points that you think will change with their review of the statement. Particularly how you think it will change because of the input from Christy, Curry and Lindzen.

Your predictions will be greatly appreciated.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 14, 2014
I suspect APS will drop 'indisputable'.
AeroSR71
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 14, 2014
As a PhysOrg lurker for quite some time now, I must say it is tiresome reading the back and forth on global warming articles. How do you guys do it? How do you justify arguing with people who clearly have made up their minds a long time ago. No piece of evidence will ever sway them from their positions. Well, I might as well include my input on the topic. I'll explain it like you're my 4 year old nephew.

The process of life (living and dying) has been occurring for millions of years. This process was made possible due to the energy from the sun. These organisms have deposited vast amounts of carbon upon their demise (which is stored solar energy). We are currently using that stored energy at unprecedented rates, which in turn emits waste products (no process is 100% efficient). These waste products contain energy. What happens when you increase the energy in a closed system? The TOTAL thermodynamic energy of the system increases! Voila! We have a rise in temperature. Thank you.
AeroSR71
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 14, 2014
I know that my above statement isn't 100% accurate because atmospheric carbon content creates a greenhouse effect by trapping heat, which is the main contribution of global warming. Waste heat (or kinetic energy) however, does have an impact. Albeit, it's a few orders of magnitude less than the greenhouse effect.
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 14, 2014
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM: It seems that this conversation has been discussed before with Michael Mann and his PROVEN to be fraudulent "Hockey Stick" graph. Now we have a totally biased "scientist", Shaun Lovejoy, using the same thing that the charlatan, Mann, used to construct his graph. "The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales."

To show Lovejoy's biased approach to his 'study' I submit this as evidence: "This study will be a blow to any remainingclimate-change deniers," Lovejoy says. This whole article is pure drivel.
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 14, 2014
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM: Just what would you expect from an organization whose mandate is this?
1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.


You will not see this that follows in any IPPC reports:
Late Holocene air temperature variability reconstructed from the sediments of Laguna Escondida, Patagonia, Chile (45°30′S)
The temperature reconstruction from Laguna Escondida shows cold conditions in the 5th century (relative to the 20th century mean), warmer temperatures from AD 600 to AD 1150 and colder temperatures from AD 1200 to AD 1450. From AD 1450 to AD 1700 our reconstruction shows a period with stronger variability and on average higher values than the 20th century mean.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 15, 2014
...You will not see this that follows in any IPPC reports:
Late Holocene air temperature variability reconstructed from the sediments of Laguna Escondida, Patagonia, Chile (45°30′S)
The temperature reconstruction from Laguna Escondida shows cold conditions in the 5th century (relative to the 20th century mean), warmer temperatures from AD 600 to AD 1150 and colder temperatures from AD 1200 to AD 1450. From AD 1450 to AD 1700 our reconstruction shows a period with stronger variability and on average higher values than the 20th century mean.


@jdswallow,

Let's have a citation for the study from which you extracted those findings.

jdswallow
2 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2014
Caliban: Sorry about that. Here it is: http://www.scienc...12006517
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
Caliban: Where do you get your information from that is so false?

"That's in reference to fossil fuels. "Why should 8 percent of the world's tax dollars go to the continuing, artificial profitability of Big Carbon(subsidies to the most profitable business EVER, ongoing for years and years and years)?"

Oil Industry Profit Margin Ranks Fairly Low: There Are Bigger Fish
http://seekingalp...ger-fish

I well imagine that this below is seen as "the answer by you to fossil fuels, but is it?

Science News
... from universities, journals, and other research organizations
Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One
http://www.scienc...2436.htm

It also seems that carbon pricing has failed where ever it has been tried and for a reason.

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
For the past 17 years or so there has been no warming
@mr166

http://centerforo...warming/

http://www.livesc...ing.html

http://celebratin...ome.html

http://biology.du...ge3.html

http://news.disco...0711.htm

There is absolutely no way to be 99.9% certain about the cause of weather fluctuations in 50 year period in the earth's history
there is if you understand physics, thermodynamics and the scientific method
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
As a PhysOrg lurker for quite some time now, I must say it is tiresome reading the back and forth on global warming articles. How do you guys do it? How do you justify arguing with people who clearly have made up their minds a long time ago
@AeroSR71
I cannot answer for everyone but I am willing to bet it is mostly to keep the facts straight for those who are new.
Some people come here to learn (like myself). if the only comments were the deniers then many would go away thinking conspiratorial thoughts etc and they would end up with tin foil hats waiting for the aliens or NSA to come get them
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 15, 2014
Caliban: Here are some more links for you to look into and it would have been good if Shaun Lovejoy would also have done some research before he came out with this "analysis of temperature data"

Solar Cycles causing global warming:
A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
http://www.nature...1a0.html

Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations
[…]The impact on model response to doubling of CO2, on the other hand, is quite small and in most cases negligible.
http://www.agu.or...44.shtml

A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
Abstract: "Paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun.
http://www.scienc...46/1431b

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
Abstract: "We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle."
http://www.nature...121.html

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
http://geology.ge...30/5/455

Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England
http://xxx.lanl.g...312244v1

"This was the biggest dose of heat we've received from a solar storm since 2005," says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center.  "It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet."
http://science.na...r_saber/]http://science.na...r_saber/[/url]
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,"
http://science.na...r_saber/]http://science.na...r_saber/[/url]

"The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The sediment layers were deposited over 2,000 years.
"We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica," Lu says. "More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes."
http://asnews.syr...ate.html
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
As a PhysOrg lurker for quite some time now, I must say it is tiresome reading the back and forth on global warming articles. How do you guys do it? How do you justify arguing with people who clearly have made up their minds a long time ago
@AeroSR71
I cannot answer for everyone but I am willing to bet it is mostly to keep the facts straight for those who are new.
Some people come here to learn (like myself). if the only comments were the deniers then many would go away thinking conspiratorial thoughts etc and they would end up with tin foil hats waiting for the aliens or NSA to come get them


I second the comments by CS. I want to make sure that I give a response to claims by those who try to use non-scientific arguments on the issues related to the impact of CO2 on the climate. In that way I can be sure I have done my part to keep science on this web site instead of politics and personal prejudice.
jdswallow
2 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
Captain Stumpy
"For the past 17 years or so there has been no warming"
Captain Stumpy Has all of your scientific training and experience not made you believe that heat rises, that it is extremely difficult to heat water from the surface of what ever it is contained in, be it a bucket or the earth's oceans? The saloons of your youth knew this when they wrapped the beer in a wet gunny sack so that evaporation would cool the contents. All of these facts disappear and are not relevant when you are trying to explain why the earth is not burning up while your evil CO2's levels have increased. How do you explain these known ocean circulations that take up to 1,000 years to be completed and do you not think that these FACTS would have an effect ton the overall temperature of the vast oceans; temperature as well as the other fraud you are trying to perpetuate, acidic oceans?

"The interaction between water temperature and salinity effects density and density determines thermohaline circulation, or the global conveyor belt. The global conveyor belt is a global-scale circulation process that occurs over a century-long time scale. Water sinks in the North Atlantic, traveling south around Africa, rising in the Indian Ocean or further on in the Pacific, then returning toward the Atlantic on the surface only to sink again in the North Atlantic starting the cycle again." (Again, your narrow time span makes your worries groundless if you are looking at 90 years) Also NASA seems here to want to compress this circulation time span into centuries when most believe it is at least a thousand year cycle)
http://science.na...r-cycle/]http://science.na...r-cycle/[/url]
 
"As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate." [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
http://science.na...r-cycle/]http://science.na...r-cycle/[/url]

jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
Captain Stumpy: Do you still imagine that your warming oceans would lead to what I present below taking place?

Sea ice in the Antarctic continues to set new records, with average extent in August the highest on record at 18.624 million sq km. The previous August high was 18.606 in 2010.
http://nsidc.org/...dex.html
This year has obliterated the record for year over year ice gain, by a factor of two. It is now close to what it was in 2002
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
The Cryosphere Today
Compare Daily Sea Ice
http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2014
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
"In the article, NODC scientists concluded that the world ocean had potentially absorbed 20 x 1022 joules, and warmed 0.06 degrees Fahrenheit. (They revised the energy absorption figure downward to 14.5 X 1022 in a 2005 paper entitled "Warming of the World Ocean, 1955-2003," in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.)."
http://celebratin...omparing

Captain Stumpy: Do you think that in light of what follows they maybe should have revised their figures down even more?
April 10 Global Sea Ice Area Third Highest On Record

April 12, 2014
Sea Ice Update April 12 2014 – Global Sea Ice Over 1,158,000 sq km Above Normal! Antarctic Is Demolishing Old Records!
Filed under: Antarctic Sea Ice,Arctic Sea Ice,Global Sea Ice — sunshinehours1 @ 7:03 AM 
Tags: Antarctic Sea Ice, Antarctic Sea Ice Extent, Arctic Sea Ice, Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Global Sea Ice, Global Sea Ice Extent, record levels, sea ice extent

A quick update for sea ice extent:
○ Global Sea Ice Extent is 1,158,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean.
○ Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 1,574,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. That is 220,000 sq km above the old record, 6th daily record in a row and 34th daily record for 2014.
○ Arctic Sea Ice Extent is -417,000 sq km below the 1981-2010 mean and within one standard deviation of normal.
http://sunshineho...-normal/
MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 15, 2014
"Waste heat (or kinetic energy) however, does have an impact."

I am glad to see the overwhelming approval of Aero's post since it highlights the total ignorance and political bias of the AGW crowd.

Fossil energy accounts for about 1/10,000 of the heating of the earth each year yet he uses this as a point to prove AGW. Basically he is using the every little bit counts theory for justification of new regulations.
jgaritt
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 15, 2014
I'd like to see where Lovejoy's funding comes from. I bet that information can't be found. All this does is drum up the same pap they've been peddling since the late 80s (when they gave up on the whole global cooling scare). It uses the same Hockey Stick chart that Gore used which has been debunked countless times for editing the information that was used to create it, including fudging the tree ring data, to come up with the outcome they wanted (like their computer models). I notice nowhere in Lovejoy's, or any other government or UN funded scientist's research, is solar variability ever taken into account. Nope, to them the sun, that gigantic nuclear furnace that provides all of the light and heat to our solar system, as it heats up and cools down in it's own climate cycles seems to have no effect on the Earth's climate and temperature averages. Quite odd don't you think. If you look at those charts, they line up perfectly. And remember the polar ice cap was to be gone by 2010 LOL.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014

"Huge" as compared to what? That works out to about 0.67 C per century. From HadCRUT4, the global temperature increase from 1910 to 1945 was 0.5 C or 1.43 C per century and most climate scientists agree that was before humans had much of an impact on warming.

HadCRUT4: http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png

Or the 0.95 C from 1816 to 1834? Or the 0.79 C from 1845 to 1872?

Lovejoy perpetuates "Mike's Nature trick" of grafting instrument temperatures onto proxy temperatures to "hide the decline". Multiproxy data showed declining temperatures so they were removed and replaced with instrument temperatures (that went up) instead. Pseudo-science.


SInce when has the CET record been Global???
Err... have you any idea of how averaging works? and why it smooths extremes?

There was no decline to hide as the instrument record showed.
SO you prefer proxies to real temps then?
When, that is, they show declines and not warming ?
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 15, 2014
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM: It seems that this conversation has been discussed before with Michael Mann and his PROVEN to be fraudulent "Hockey Stick" graph.


Oh is it?
I/we await the revelatory proof from you.

BTW: That would be the same "hockey stick" that all researchers have found... and one that the (Denialist paymasters) the Koch's sponsored BEST study also found ??

Myths don't count, sorry.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
Captain Stumpy Has all of your scientific training and experience not made you believe that heat rises
@jdswallow
first thing, I noticed you are a newbie... so I will use small words.
heat does rise, but not when trapped properly (by cold or other methods)... but that is not the point I want to make
you really, REALLY should re-read the above links. articles as well as posts from Runrig, Thermodynamics, Maggnus, Tim Thompson, Mike_Massen, Caliban and those folks. Mr, Thompson and Runrig are in the field, Thermo and Maggnus et al are VERY knowledgeable. Although Thompson is not in this thread, I will provide links to view his comments and links.

click on the following links and read runrig, Thermodynamics and Thompson... you will learn something:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

http://phys.org/n...bal.html
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2014
Caliban: Where do you get your information from that is so false?

"That's in reference to fossil fuels. "Why should 8 percent of the world's tax dollars go to the continuing, [...].com/article/269679-oil-industry-profit-margin-ranks-fairly-low-there-are-bigger-fish

It also seems that carbon pricing has failed where ever it has been tried and for a reason.


Right.

And so, jdswallow goes from being, possibly, an actual underinformed -but hopefully open-minded- doubter to full-on willfully disunderstanding troll.

I'll not bother to refute any of the pseudoscience you cite, nor any of the under-, de-, or out-of- context quotes or references you offer up as "proof" that AGW is an invalid concept, since that has been done to death by myself and many others in an ongoing effort to educate you moron trolls, including in this very comment thread.

And your use of a financial analyst's investment advice column to refute the profitability of BigCarbon is a sure sign of your trolldom.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 15, 2014
This jdswallow person has the same MO as a certain Nik_From_NYC used to have.
That is spamming with multiple quotes/links.
Also he was the last person the violate the 1000 character limit.

I have reported his 2 posts (prob 3 ) on here and will do again if he proves as persistent as the aforementioned Nik.

You could say I am suspicious.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
"This jdswallow person has the same MO as a certain Nik_From_NYC used to have.
That is spamming with multiple quotes/links."

So let me get this straight, now it is a bad thing to prove your position with references.

So when you say "Show me the data." what you really mean to say is "Only show me the data that I want to see."!
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 15, 2014
....it uses the same Hockey Stick chart that Gore used which has been debunked countless times for editing the information that was used to create it, including fudging the tree ring data, .....


Another myth spouter.

Really???
I suggest you ask the Koch brothers why their denialist funded BEST study could not eliminate the "debunked hockey stick" and the former denialist, Richard Muller, who headed it came onboard the 97%'s side.

Err... because it's real my friend sorry.
Just because you don't like it and you take all your science from denialist blogsites, doesn't make it so.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 15, 2014
"This jdswallow person has the same MO as a certain Nik_From_NYC used to have.
That is spamming with multiple quotes/links."

So let me get this straight, now it is a bad thing to prove your position with references.

So when you say "Show me the data." what you really mean to say is "Only show me the data that I want to see."!


I reported the posts for going over 1000 characters my friend. Not for the data they showed.
There you go, defaulting to denialist paranoia.

I have no problem with links to science sites - but NOT Blogs.

The "spamming" is reference to the mid-numbing scope of them - in one post there are 9.

It's counter productive anyway as the eyes glaze over at the sight of the post and I ignore.

In order for me to critique his implied position/argument I'm not going to go through all 9 from one post, My rebuttal would run to many posts (always supposing I stick to the 1000 char limit). Which he/she has not.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 15, 2014
"I reported the posts for going over 1000 characters my friend. Not for the data they showed."

I see! Swallow will get 10 demerits, have to stay after class and will not get a Gold Star this semester.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 15, 2014
"I reported the posts for going over 1000 characters my friend. Not for the data they showed."

I see! Swallow will get 10 demerits, have to stay after class and will not get a Gold Star this semester.


If you say so.
enviro414
1.8 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
Who has enough confidence in their knowledge to agree with me that the average global temperature (average of GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT3, UAH & RSS) for 2014 will be lower than 2013 and who has enough confidence in their knowledge to disagree?
MR166
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
Enviro since we are trending towards a solar minimum I think that it is a good bet that 2014 will be cooler than 2013.
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
runrig: It is little wonder that you seem to be so in the dark regarding this subject when you call the links that I presented "Blogs". "I have no problem with links to science sites - but NOT Blogs." It shows just how crippling a closed mind can be when you think that links to Syracuse University, two to NASA Science, two to Nature, one each to Geology Science World, Science, The Worlds Leading Journal of Original Scientific Research, Geophysical Research letters& one to Cornell University are "blogs" and I assume that blogs are fine for you if they follow your distorted line of thinking. I'm afraid you show that your eyes are not just glazed but shut tightly to the truth, if it does not fall into the narrow realm of your preconceived opinion, and that sir is not how science is conducted.

If you can't get this right, then what will you get right?
(695 characters; the count for the character police on this thread, exclusive of this, naturally)
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 15, 2014
runrig: Does this sound like unbiased research to you?
"GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start."
http://www.linked...ciates_2

Yes; runrig, or whatever your alias is because you do not have enough confidence in your believes to offer up your real name, this below is a "blog"
"Elizabeth Muller is listed as "Founder and Executive Director" of the Berkeley Earth Team along with her father Richard Muller. But since 2008 it appears she's been earning money as a consultant telling governments how to implement green policies, how to reduce their carbon footprint and how to pick "the right technologies" – presumably meaning the right "Green" technologies.
http://joannenova...ultancy/
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014
Here is a different look at Muller's believes:
Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller

http://www.youtub...pciw8suk
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2014

Captain Stumpy: Yes, I did learn something but not what you imagine. I learned that if one seeks the truth one can find it. See, if you can, how maybe the permafrost is not disappearing like you would like the uninformed to believe.

Arctic treeline advance not as fast as previously believed
The Arctic Sounder | Mar 18, 2012
http://www.alaska...believed
I know from my experiences in the arctic that it can, on occasion, get very warm but it does not last for long, as the chart below shows.
Past Monthly Weather Data for Kaktovik, AK [Alaska] ("Barter Island (dew)") : JANUARY, 1947 – 2012
http://weather-wa...ary.html

"The National Weather Service, the official weather reporting and recording agency of the federal government reported 100 degrees F (37.8 degrees C) at Fort Yukon. The lowest recorded temperature was minus 80 degrees F (-62.8 degrees C) at Prospect Creek, about 25 miles southeast of Bettles, on January 23, 1971."
http://www.alasko...mate.htm

Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2014
So let me get this straight, now it is a bad thing to prove your position with references
@mr166
OR perhaps it is more likely "we've dealt with this troll in the past". Just like the Zephir comments about cold fusion/aw/daw... it gets irritating proving the same comments wrong over and over
whatever your alias is because you do not have enough confidence in your believes to offer up your real name
@jdswallows
OR maybe, like myself, his moniker is used because he has been known by it for longer than his real name? I've been known as (Truck) Captain Stumpy for longer than anything else
Yes, I did learn something but not what you imagine
I imagine nothing. I dont know you, only what you post.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Apr 16, 2014
I learned that if one seeks the truth one can find it. See, if you can, how maybe the permafrost is not disappearing like you would like the uninformed to believe
@jd
I am apathetic to any soliloquy where one conjectures about truth. it is irrelevant. what I care about is empirical data. Just because the natural world is not reacting/acting in a manner that you think it should, does not mean that the data is still not reflecting the fact that the earth is warming. Sometimes the data will seem to reflect something that it does not (See uba's argument about global cooling or the fact that warming stopped). it has not
I know from my experiences in the arctic that it can, on occasion, get very warm
warm is a subjective term when dealing with personal perspectives. Warm in my house is NOT warm in most other peoples.

the point is: we've ruled out the possibility that the warming issue today is natural & you've yet to provide evidence that the excessive warming is natural.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2014
All of these facts disappear and are not relevant when you are trying to explain why the earth is not burning up while your evil CO2's levels have increased
@jd
read Thermodynamics posts here: http://phys.org/n...bal.html
and Thompsons here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Has all of your scientific training and experience not made you believe that heat rises
ever heard of an inversion layer? also, I am an investigator/Firefighter, not a research scientist like runrig or Thompson
as well as the other fraud you are trying to perpetuate, acidic oceans
links have studies on them showing empirical data. the only thing I am perpetuating is that: EMPIRICAL DATA

so far all I am seeing is you ignoring the empirical data for a perspective that is likely born of conspiratorial or paranoid beliefs. There is plenty of data showing that warming is real and not natural. are you a paid hack or the nick troll ?
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 16, 2014
jdswallow said....
runrig: It is little wonder that you seem to be so in the dark regarding this subject when you call the links that I presented "Blogs".

I said....
"I reported the posts for going over 1000 characters my friend. Not for the data they showed.
There you go, defaulting to denialist paranoia.
I have no problem with links to science sites - but NOT Blogs.
The "spamming" is reference to the mid-numbing scope of them - in one post there are 9"
Where pray do I say that YOU are posting Blog links???
Oh, and I am a retired Meteorologist with the UKMO.
So I'm ignorant of the science eh ?
That's about par for denialists who have contempt for people with knowledge of the science that they have decided is wrong, because it does not fit with their ideology.
Like I said, your posts have contravened phys.org's rules ... so kindly keep them to 1000 char - then my eyes may not glaze over and I'll get to work demolishing the myths one by one.
And you professional expertise is?
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2014
jdswallow says ...

Yes; runrig, or whatever your alias is because you do not have enough confidence in your believes to offer up your real name


Excuse me! My name is known to many on here and is present in my profile.
Yours is not.
Hypocrite.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2014
jdswallow blustered...
It shows just how crippling a closed mind can be when you think that links to Syracuse University, two to NASA Science, two to Nature, one each to Geology Science World, Science, The Worlds Leading Journal of Original Scientific Research, Geophysical Research letters& one to Cornell University are "blogs" and I assume that blogs are fine for you if they follow your distorted line of thinking. I'm afraid you show that your eyes are not just glazed but shut tightly to the truth, if it does not fall into the narrow realm of your preconceived opinion, and that sir is not how science is conducted.


Please learn how to read and more importantly comprehend what I said my friend.
Post a regulation length post - I see you have since - well done.
I was talking to MR166 - and you do not know the history of this particular long-term denier on here - I do have history with him/her.
If I had said that to you then fine. I did not.
I did note all your links were legit.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2014
jdswallow muttered
I learned that if one seeks the truth one can find it.
This is most ironic from you, your posts do not reflect any base science knowledge of physics.

Surely, you jdswallow, can see that you find the truth but, only if prepared to earn the education many complex truths demand !

jdswallow, do you know the difference between ice area & ice mass ?

Have you ever studied any high school physics & come across the unusual properties of water
and just WHY melting ice is a much more potent heat absorber than ice or water ?

Focus on the core Science please jdswallow, can u do that ?

Then maybe when suitably informed you can answer this simple question - that so for no denialist has ever been able to address:-

"How can adding a green house gas such as CO2 to the atmosphere with demonstrable thermal properties NOT increase heat flow resistivity ?"

The corollary question is, from knowledge of heat/temperature relationship, why this does NOT result in temperature rise ?
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2014
Here is a different look at Muller's believes:
Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller

http://www.youtub...pciw8suk


More selective evidence choosing from the denialist camp.
Err that lecture was made before he made his BEST study.

And then there is this ....

http://www.youtub...uKxXUCPY
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2014
Further to the "Climategate" myth....

Spoiler: Denialists don't watch - not that you would anyway as it's contrary to your belief.
This is for the neutrals on here.

http://www.youtub...VQ2fROOg
http://www.youtub...2prBtVFo
aaron35
Apr 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2014
Warm water then loses heat to the air, but if the air temperatures are dropping whey doesn't that heat hiding in the ocean warm the air?

Global ave air temps are not dropping, other than that expected in a complex system due natural cycles, most notably the ENSO.
There are signs that it will, after a prolonged spell of neutral/cool conditions at last go into a warm El Nino later this year, which considering the vast amount of sensible and latent heat that that transports to the atmosphere will inevitably lead to a renewed rise in global ave temps.
Oh, and when the cool La Nina waters are at the surface, consequently, the warmer water sinks at the western end of the circulation. Hence the "warmth" is "hidden" from the atmosphere.

MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2014
"Global ave air temps are not dropping, other than that expected in a complex system due natural cycles, most notably the ENSO."

I love the other than expected part of the quote. Please show me a climate model that "expected" this temperature plateau.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Apr 16, 2014
"Global ave air temps are not dropping, other than that expected in a complex system due natural cycles, most notably the ENSO."

I love the other than expected part of the quote. Please show me a climate model that "expected" this temperature plateau.

O ignorant one ...
You are aren't you over the overlying cycles on Climate?
All climate models, model dips/rises away from a mean (is that not obvious?)
However, as you willfully continue to deny - GCM's are an Ensemble product and (surprise, surprise) when you add them then the dips can/do cancel. That is why all GCM's can do is give error bounds. Which the Global ave temp is within.
This is bar the unexpected prolonged cool ENSO cycle.
When the science is such that SST cycles such as ENSO can be predicted to within months from decades out (v v unlikely to say the least) they obviously cannot be explicitly modeled.
FYI: The variation from Cool to Warm ENSO is around 0.3C.
That explain it for you. No - silly question.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2014
That is why all GCM's can do is give error bounds. Which the Global ave temp is within

Confidence intervals expand as confidence levels approach 1.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2014
"O ignorant one ...
You are aren't you over the overlying cycles on Climate?"

Oh, you mean silly things like solar cycles?
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2014
You cannot have a valid climate model without including all of the oscillations and feedback loops. For Pete's sake, they do not even know with any degree of certainly if cloud cover is a positive or negative forcing.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2014
"O ignorant one ...
You are aren't you over the overlying cycles on Climate?"

Oh, you mean silly things like solar cycles?


Oh, well done, that is silly of you.

Gives a variation of around 0.1%. Measured by satellite.
Way off what is required to produce industrial warming.
And it's lasted this long? Amazing.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2014
You cannot have a valid climate model without including all of the oscillations and feedback loops. For Pete's sake, they do not even know with any degree of certainly if cloud cover is a positive or negative forcing.

Yes you can, because of error bounds.

And forcings will be included.
Clouds are probably a negative forcing overall, but fall well short of a dominant effect either way.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2014
You cannot set meaningful error bands for cycles and processes that you are unaware of. When a climate model is capable of producing a Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice age in a period of 750 years I might begin to have some faith that we understand most of what is going on.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2014
What is the mean about which error bars are set?
Any choice of a mean is subjective and biased.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2014
You cannot set meaningful error bands for cycles and processes that you are unaware of. When a climate model is capable of producing a Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice age in a period of 750 years I might begin to have some faith that we understand most of what is going on.

Of course you can - the cycle is accounted for in magnitude - just not in timing, as GCM's are integrated decades into the future, the cycles play out within the error bounds to leave the overlying AGW signal.
A GCM does not have to simulate the MWP or the LIA as both of those were regional phenomena. We are talking of global ave temps, my friend.
If you dispute the above - then perhaps you could give us the causation - since we know neither orbital parameters nor Solar output did it. What do you think caused them?
Perhaps a sudden disappearance of global clouds for the MWP and an equally sudden growth of them for the LIA. A massive outburst CR's perhaps for the LIA, maybe Dark matter for the MWP?
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2014
What is the mean about which error bars are set?
Any choice of a mean is subjective and biased.


What ??? Are you real ??

Beyond comprehension - and not worth answering.
This a science site and I'll not wasting my time teaching you basic statistics.
Go away and learn.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2014
Not sure about LIA but the MWP was a global phenomenon. This has be verified by numerous papers in many parts of the world. You know this as well as I do.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2014
Shame on you! The LIA was in both hemispheres.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2014
basic statistics.

Again, how is the mean chosen? From 1000 AD to present from 2000 from 3000, from 20,000 years ago ?
Or do you choose the time frame to get the mean you want?
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2014
Predictions vs outcome

http://www.drroys...ans1.png

An astrologer could do better.
Skepticus_Rex
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2014
BEST? Last time I checked the data it was 1) preliminary, and 2) goes only to 2010, and not even that entire year, and 3) does not even include the global ocean data as of yet. It is not the smartest thing in the world to base ones entire worldview on preliminary and incomplete data.
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2014
#3
Cache of historical Arctic sea ice maps discovered
Arctic Sea ice data collected by DMI 1893-1961
http://wattsupwit...covered/

"The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. […] See the original MWR article below and click the newsprint copy for a complete artic or see the link to the original PDF below:"
http://www.sott.n...gs-Melt-

TEMPERATURES RISING IN
ARCTIC REGION
May 1947
Dr. Hans Ahlman, a noted Swedish geophysicist, claimed that a mysteri- ous warming is manifesting itself in the Arctic and if the major ice cap at Greenland should be reduced, the oceanic surfaces will rise to ''catas- trophic proportions,"
Dr. Ahlman urged the establish- ment of an international agency to study conditions on a global basis. Temperatures had risen 10 degrees since 1900.
http://trove.nla....6276>
964

jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2014
#2 Mike: what was the difference between ice area & ice mass in these examples of a changing arctic?

Not only did the Skate surface in virtually ice-free water at the North Pole, but the weather was mild enough that crewmen went out to chip a bit of ice off the sub's hull."
http://www.ihatet...ubmarine

The date was 11 August 1958 and the Skate had just become the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.
http://www.navalh...th-pole/

1969: the SS Manhattan, a reinforced supertanker sent to test the viability of the passage for the transport of oil, made the passage. The route was deemed not to be cost effective.
http://www.fcpnor...xplorers
687
J Doug Swallow
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2014
Mike_Massen needs to answer a few questions for me about his assertions directed at me.

"jdswallow, do you know the difference between ice area & ice mass ?" Yes, I do, and I will try to walk you through some information to help you to maybe better understand that which you, at present, have "0" knowledge of.

Aug. 13, 1905
Amundsen sails from Gjoa Haven. A few days later, Gjøa encounters a whaling ship from San Francisco coming towards it from the west in approximately this location. Amundsen now knows he will complete the Northwest Passage. In his diary, he notes, "The North West Passage was done. My boyhood dream—at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn—it was weakness in me—but I felt tears in my eyes. 'Vessel in sight.. Vessel in sight.'
7. August 17, 1905
[…]The Gjøa breaks through the final stretches of the Northwest Passage and reaches Nome on August 30, 1906."
http://www.pbs.or...-nf.html

"1940: Canadian officer Henry Larsen was the second to sail the passage, crossing west to east, from Vancouver to Halifax."
http://www.fcpnor...xplorers
1,000
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
basic statistics.

Again, how is the mean chosen? From 1000 AD to present from 2000 from 3000, from 20,000 years ago ?
Or do you choose the time frame to get the mean you want?

ryggy baby .... lesson for the ignorant.

In any set of samples there will be a mean and variance from that mean.
There are, say 100 people attending a concert. Measurements are made of their height.
The numbers are crunched and there pops out of that an ave height (mean) and a variance above and below...
There you go, simples.
Same with GCM ensemble forecasts, each member is run separately and a mean and variance determined for that set.
The less uncertainty in each individual member will result in a narrower variance. It is the variance that encompasses such things as ENSO. The ave slope (upward - warming) is the overlying AGW -because there are no natural cycles beyond 30-60 years.If you think there is then pray tell?
So, no "choosing" - it all drops out naturally.
It must do or why bother?
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
Not sure about LIA but the MWP was a global phenomenon. This has be verified by numerous papers in many parts of the world. You know this as well as I do.


I do of course, but it was NOT cold/warm EVERYWHERE on the planet at the same time
That's the bloody point - all evidence suggests it/they were caused by shifts in climatic regimes. with an averaging out of GLOBAL temps - Jet-stream wiggling.
Vis the cold winters experience in parts of the NH when the Polar Stratospheric vortex gets weakened/disrupted some years, due feed-backs and the conjunction of low Solar/E'ly QBO etc.

In other words they were NOT caused by any magical major drop/rise in the suns overall energy output or an equally magical albedo increase on Earth - OTHER than that caused by volcanic aerosols.
http://phys.org/n...age.html
http://phys.org/n...age.html
http://phys.org/n...bal.html
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2014
jdswallow's interpretation of ice area & ice mass proves he has NO science training
Yes, I do, and I will try to walk you through some information to help you to maybe better understand that which you, at present, have "0" knowledge of.
jdswallow typed anecdotes of Amundsen in 1905 as some stupid attempt at proof of his 'knowledge' of the difference of ice area & mass ?

Where is the empirical data re ice area vs ice mass jdswallow ?

Why jdswallow, do you focus on historical qualitative anecdotes ?

You realise jdswallow, you are showing you cant tell difference between area & mass

And

can't tell difference between qualitative & quantitative ?

Education PLEASE jdswallow ?
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
Predictions vs outcome

http://www.drroys...ans1.png

An astrologer could do better.


Indeed well said ..
But not for the reason you think.

Err Mr Spencer here has compared mid-tropospheric temps taken either by radiosonde data which was never meant to be used as a detailed analysis tool ( the bloody things are rising through the air and even if perfectly calibrated would never show unanimity at any one pressure level better than 1C !!) AND sat data that is contaminated by the warming aloft of the Strat !!
IN OTHER WORDS it isn't possible to do - yet.

BTW I commented on the thread involved (TonyB)

ALSO:
http://davidappel...ils.html

Seems Mr Spencer's reputation as a climate scientists is deserved.

Anything else you want to know?
jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2014
Mike_Massen: One can easily wonder at just what scientific training you have or just how much you are able to draw on common sense logic.

"jdswallow typed anecdotes of Amundsen in 1905 as some stupid attempt at proof of his 'knowledge' of the difference of ice area & mass ?"
"Why jdswallow, do you focus on historical qualitative anecdotes ?"

I see that you do not have the ability to understand that if Amundsen was able to make this trip in 1905 there was far less ice than when the idiots were going to make the same trip 2013
"North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught"
"The Northwest Passage after decades of so-called global warming has a dramatic 60% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year. The future dreams of dozens of adventurous sailors are now threatened. A scattering of yachts attempting the legendary Passage are caught by the ice, which has now become blocked at both ends and the transit season may be ending early."
http://www.sail-w...t/113788

Even you, Mike, should be able to get the point I am making.
J. Doug Swallow
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2014
MR166 "Not sure about LIA but the MWP was a global phenomenon. This has be verified by numerous papers in many parts of the world. You know this as well as I do."
I know that while the alarmist want to stand by Mann's proven to be flawed Hockey Stick and if they do admit that there was a RWP, MWP, or even a LIA, they think that it serves their purpose to have these events be only regional and the evidence is conclusive that they were globe wide events and that is what I put forth when I was chastised for using too many characters.

What the alarmist know is that the RWP, MWP & LIA all occurred with no anthropogenic influence like they are now wanting to maintain is causing their 'earth with a fever' nonsense that they fret over now.

jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (11)Apr 15, 2014
Caliban: Here are some more links for you to look into and it would have been good if Shaun Lovejoy would also have done some research before he came out with this "analysis of temperature data"
J Doug Swallow
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
Even you, Mike, should be able to get the point I am making.
J. Doug Swallow


Finally, in 1905, Roald Amundsen completed the first successful navigation of the Northwest Passage. It took his ship two-and-a-half years to navigate through narrow passages of open water, and his ship spent two cold, dark winters locked in the ice during the feat.
http://www.wunder...ages.asp

"The first crossing was made by Amundsen in 1903-1905. He used a small ship and hugged the coast."
http://en.wikiped..._Passage

http://gizmo.geot...2011.pdf
http://bprc.osu.e...R_10.pdf

IE: he was lucky, bloody persistent and determined.
BTW: there are regional/yearly changes in the Arctic ice you know?
It's called weather on a short time scale, which, err, tends to influence ice formation.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
What the alarmist know is that the RWP, MWP & LIA all occurred with no anthropogenic influence like they are now wanting to maintain is causing their 'earth with a fever' nonsense that they fret over now.

It was NOT cold/warm EVERYWHERE on the planet at the same time
That's the bloody point - all evidence suggests it/they were caused by shifts in climatic regimes. with an averaging out of GLOBAL temps - Jet-stream wiggling.
Vis the cold winters experience in parts of the NH when the Polar Stratospheric vortex gets weakened/disrupted some years, due feed-backs and the conjunction of low Solar/E'ly QBO etc.

In other words they were NOT caused by any magical major drop/rise in the suns overall energy output or an equally magical albedo increase on Earth - OTHER than that caused by volcanic aerosols.
[url]http://phys.org/n...age.html[/url]
[url]http://phys.org/n...age.html[/url]
http://phys.org/n...bal.html
runrig
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2014
Remove [url] from below links to work
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2014
OK; Mike_Massen, since you are so astute and so well trained in science and I assume know the difference between what is qualitative & quantitative you will have no problem furnishing me with the 'empirical data re ice area vs ice mass' for the dates that I mentioned in my previous post to you, namely 1905, 1922, 1940, 1947,1958 & 1969. By the way, where is the empirical data for the Shaun Lovejoy piece that all of this discussion is supposed to be derived from?
"His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out "with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%." We are to just take his word for that?


runrig
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
"The Northwest Passage after decades of so-called global warming has a dramatic 60% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year. The future dreams of dozens of adventurous sailors are now threatened. A scattering of yachts attempting the legendary Passage are caught by the ice, which has now become blocked at both ends and the transit season may be ending early."
http://www.sail-w...t/113788


http://neven1.typ...a970b-pi
http://www.bitsof...st-6507/
http://en.wikiped...lies.png

Yep, there's surely been a massive recovery there. No question
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2014
Since you do not want to get the proper time line of Amundsen's expedition to the arctic in 1903 to 1906 and will not look it up, I will provide it for you:
1. June 16, 1903
"Roald Amundsen and his crew of six men and six sled dogs sail from Oslo in Gjøa, a 70-foot herring boat. Amundsen sets himself a maximum deadline of five years to chart a Northwest Passage and carry out scientific measurements at the magnetic north pole. (I guess this sounds to you like Roald Amundsen set out with NO plans of producing anything useful from this mission other than to just get from point A to point B. It seems like he had an itinerary and followed it and that is probably more than what was done in 2013 when at least 22 yachts and other vessels were in the Arctic trying do today with modern vessels rather than a 70 foot wooden sailing vessel that did have a 13 horsepower single-screw marine paraffin motor installed on it.)
6. August 13, 1905
Amundsen sails from Gjoa Haven. A few days later, Gjøa encounters a whaling ship from San Francisco coming towards it from the west in approximately this location. Amundsen now knows he will complete the Northwest Passage. In his diary, he notes, "The North West Passage was done. My boyhood dream—at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn—it was weakness in me—but I felt tears in my eyes. 'Vessel in sight... Vessel in sight.'
7. August 17, 1905
Continuing to the south of Victoria Island, the Gjøa clears the Arctic Archipelago on this date but has to stop for the winter before going on to Nome on Alaska Territory's Pacific coast. About 500 miles away, Eagle City, Alaska has a telegraph station; Amundsen travels overland there (and back) to wire a success message to Norway on December 5, 1905. The Gjøa breaks through the final stretches of the Northwest Passage and reaches Nome on August 30, 1906."
http://www.pbs.or...-nf.html
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
OK; ...............you will have no problem furnishing me with the 'empirical data re ice area vs ice mass' for the dates that I mentioned in my previous post to you, namely 1905, 1922, 1940, 1947,1958 & 1969. By the way, where is the empirical data for the Shaun Lovejoy piece that all of this discussion is supposed to be derived from?
"His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out "with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%." We are to just take his word for that?


try looking on here....

http://gizmo.geot...2011.pdf

And there can be no graph of volume for those dates my friend as it was before the satellite era, and ASAIK subs didn't exactly trawl about under the ice and surface occasionally to measure it's thickness, at least not extensively.

Also try looking here and pay for the privelige if you must...
http://link.sprin...4-2128-2
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
jdswallow - you're doing it again.
Please refrain...

Your last post had 1947 char including spaces.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2014
Runrig this is what you call a "Jet Stream Wiggle"?

From Wiki on the LIA:

"There is no consensus regarding the time when the Little Ice Age began,[10][11] although a series of events preceding the known climatic minima has often been referenced. In the thirteenth century, pack ice began advancing southwards in the North Atlantic, as did glaciers in Greenland. Anecdotal evidence suggests expanding glaciers almost worldwide. Based on radiocarbon dating of roughly 150 samples of dead plant material with roots intact, collected from beneath ice caps on Baffin Island and Iceland, Miller et al. (2012)[12] state that cold summers and ice growth began abruptly between AD 1275 and 1300, followed by "a substantial intensification" from 1430 to 1455.[13]

In contrast, a climate reconstruction based on glacial length[14][15] shows no great variation from 1600 to 1850, though it shows strong retreat thereafter."
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2014
Climate tax could be the oldest tax on earth. Just look at history. Governments combined with high holy men, ie today's climate scientists, have joined forces through the millennia to require the masses to offer sacrifice in the hopes of good climate. Yes the tools of delivery have become more sophisticated but the underlying message remains the same.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014

Runrig this is what you call a "Jet Stream Wiggle"?

It's what caused the persistent cold over the E US and Canada this winter (cold plunge end of the cycle) and the wet/mild/windy W European winter (warm half of the cycle). Add the two together and you get (essentially) zero temp change.
BTW: You do know that the W US had a warm winter? ... again the two adding to zero things out.
"This jet stream instability brings warm air north as well as cold air south. The patch of unusual cold over the eastern United States was matched by anomalies of mild winter temperatures across Greenland and much of the Arctic north of Canada,[81] and unusually warm conditions in Alaska. A stationary high pressure ridge over the North Pacific Ocean kept California unusually warm and dry for the time of year, worsening ongoing drought conditions there."
From: http://en.wikiped...d_States
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2014
jdswallow = Nik_from_NY

Still playing the denialist game. Still using out of context quote mining, cherry-picked data mining and multiple posts of gish-gallop to obfuscate the evidence and try to overwhelm the opposition.

And still failing miserably. You'll be gone again soon.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2014
Runrig you must really be getting desperate since you are trying to compare the LIA with one cold winter in the US!
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2014
ROTFLOL!!!! Runrig so what you are trying to say is that the 500 years of LIA was just localized weather but the 70 years of warming was global climate change.
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
I will comment on your links but first this information for you to qualify.
'Frightening' projection for Arctic melt
The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015...
By CanWest News Service November 16, 2007
http://www.canada...3683>

Arctic sea ice 'to melt by 2015'
Arctic sea ice could completely melt away by the summer of 2015...
6:30PM GMT 08 Nov 2011
http://www.telegr...html>


Saturday 31 May 1947
"ARCTIC PHENOMENON Warming Of Climate Causes Concern LOS ANGELES. May 30.-The possibility of a prodigious rise in the surface of the ocean with resultant widespread inundation, arising from an Arctic climatic phenomenon….
http://trove.nla....46315572

Really, it appears that proxies are more reliable than what these "scientist" put forth in the here and now.
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014

"These are close the IPPC AR5 values ΔT anth = 0.85 ± 0.20 K andλ2xCO2=1.5−4.5K (equilibrium) climate…"

Since the IPCC is wrong almost 98% of the time, why would I pay money to see this?

Dr McLean has also noted how the IPCC's draft 1995 Scientific Report … statements that express doubt about man-made effects: "None of the [scientific] studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases". "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes". "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced". But in the IPCC's later Summary Report for Policymakers ….. the above three statements had been replaced with this contrary statement: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". Such a U-turn was not justified by the scientific evidence, yet politicians seemed oblivious to the problem.
http://undeceivin...ipcc.htm
985
J Doug Swallow
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2014
Runrig you must really be getting desperate since you are trying to compare the LIA with one cold winter in the US!


Err no..
merely explaining to the uneducated/stupid how it is that regional cold is balanced by regional warmth and that the LIA as a consequence of the long period of low solar output (0.1% mind ) and it's imbalance of UV output changed the dynamics of the Arctic Polar Stratospheric vortex (in some years -not all) and thus feed-backs developed regionally (eg sea-ice movement).
Add to that the evidence of volcanic activity and aerosols further reduced temps.
I would be pleased to here you causation for the LIA ?
It was?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2014
jdswallow = Nik_from_NY

Still playing the denialist game. Still using out of context quote mining, cherry-picked data mining and multiple posts of gish-gallop to obfuscate the evidence and try to overwhelm the opposition.

And still failing miserably. You'll be gone again soon.


Maggnus:
I notice he's not refuted your accusation.
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
"Maggnus:
I notice he's not refuted your accusation."
runrig: Do you actually believe that I will waste my time to refute this kind of trivial trash that is more the product of, I assume, your kind of juvenile "information" that you must respect. If this is the kind of ad hominem attacks with no link to the article that is in question or even to the comments in general, then I ask you to please leave me out of your loop if this is the stupid game you want to play. You need to be content with counting characters and trying to answer some of the important questions that have been directed at you.
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014

jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
"I would be pleased to here you causation for the LIA ?
It was?"
It for sure had nothing to do with any anthropogenic produced CO2 that caused the end of the LIA. Any thinking individual would know that it came from a change in the solar cycles that are still in play today.
A data set of worldwide glacier length fluctuations

Abstract. Glacier fluctuations contribute to variations in sea level and historical glacier length fluctuations are natural indicators of past climate change. To study these subjects, long-term information of glacier change is needed. In this paper we present a data set of global long-term glacier length fluctuations.
http://www.the-cr...014.html

Himalayan Glaciers
A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies,
Glacial Retreat and Climate Change
And we don't forget the Raina report;
http://gbpihed.go...iers.pdf This is a good report on glaciers in the Indian Himalayan Mountains.
 
jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
Runrig: One thing that needs clarified is this use of the term "denier" or whatever other snide way it is used. What is it supposed to mean? I do not know of anyone that does not believe that the earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age began to moderate or, guess what, it would not have ended had a cosmic event/events not caused it to happen. It sure had no anthropogenic cause for ending, no more than the warmer than present, MWP had any anthropogenic cause for existing world wide for at least 350 years.

"The Norse arrived in Greenland 1,000 years ago and became very well established," says Schweger, describing the Viking farms and settlements that crowded the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland for almost 400 years."
http://www.folio..../03.html
Could the same type of society exist in the same location on Greenland today? No is the answer. I am totally SKEPTICAL that CO2, in its present amount in the atmosphere today, has anything to do with the earth's climate. You cannot supply me with an experiment that shows that it does. Provide with the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
runrig: So sorry about offending the character limits but I was exasperated by your cavalier attitude and NOT knowing history when you made your remarks.

AMUNDSEN EXPEDITION
1. June 16, 1903
Roald Amundsen and his crew of six men and six sled dogs sail from Oslo in Gjøa, a 70-foot herring boat. Amundsen sets himself a maximum deadline of five years to chart a Northwest Passage and carry out scientific measurements at the magnetic north pole.

5. Winter 1903-Summer 1905
On the southeast coast of King William Island, Amundsen finds a protected bay in which to drop his anchor. He names the area Gjoa Haven, and the expedition stays on King William Island until August 1905. During this time, Amundsen learns Arctic survival skills from the Netsilik, a band of Inuit people. He and his men also fulfill the scientific aims of their mission during these two years; they take many geographical measurements and locate the magnetic north pole.
http://www.pbs.or...-nf.html


jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
runrig: It is not hard to imagine that if Robert Scott had done the same type of study as Amundsen did before before he left for Antarctica his fate would not have been so dire.
"1912 – Reaches South Pole on January 17 with Edward Wilson, Henry Bowers, Lawrence Oates and Edgar Evans and discovers that Amundsen has got there first.
1912 – Makes last entry in his diary on March 29 as, trapped in a blizzard, 11 miles from a supply base, Scott and dies with the remaining men from malnutrition, dehydration and frostbite."
http://www.exeter...ory.html

I well imagine he would have used the proper cloths and also taken dogs and not ponies for his mission.
Unbiased Observer
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
Wow, this is a slaughter.

Runrig, Maggnus, and Mike you better up your game, you are getting eaten alive. Its rather amusing actually, you realize you've lost and instead of trying to prove your points, you resort to the typical behavior of children and call your 'opponent' names and try to 'character count' him. Seriously?

Jdswallow, these people are understood to be trolls. They pretty much sock puppet around and try to bot-vote down anyone who disagrees with them.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2014
"Maggnus:
I notice he's not refuted your accusation."
runrig: Do you actually believe that I will waste my time to refute this kind of trivial trash that is more the product of, I assume, your kind of juvenile "information" that you must respect. If this is the kind of ad hominem attacks with no link to the article that is in question or even to the comments in general, then I ask you to please leave me out of your loop if this is the stupid game you want to play. You need to be content with counting characters and trying to answer some of the important questions that have been directed at you.


No ad hominem about it my friend, I was merely observing the fact that you had not refuted an accusation that you were a previous poster on here who had been banned (2x) for contravening "etiquette".
Simples.

You are free to ask me any questions you like and I mean questions - not quotes, they mean not a jot whoever they come from.
Please do so one at a time.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2014
Wow, this is a slaughter.

Runrig, Maggnus, and Mike you better up your game, you are getting eaten alive. Its rather amusing actually, you realize you've lost and instead of trying to prove your points, you resort to the typical behavior of children and call your 'opponent' names and try to 'character count' him. Seriously?

Jdswallow, these people are understood to be trolls. They pretty much sock puppet around and try to bot-vote down anyone who disagrees with them.


Ah, tis the Biased Observer again.
Welcome.

As you are naturally "unbiased" then this observation of yours is, of course, correct.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2014
To Nik the gish-galloping denialist (now jdswallow); I do not have the desire or space to respond to every multiple, over the limit, post. So, as time permits, I will respond the occasional misrepresentation.

...first this information for you to qualify.
'Frightening' projection for Arctic melt
The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015...


This article from 2007 quotes a Canadian researcher, Louis Fortier, discussing the rapid extent of ice melt in the Arctic in that year. He states at least twice that "if the trend continues" the Arctic ice could melt completely in summer as early as 2015, not 2050 as was predicted by the IPCC. He goes on to state that some 4.13 m sq kms was left the year of that interview (2007), which at that time was the largest seasonal melt ever. (compare 2012 when only 3.74 m sq km remained). He then suggests that a "worst case scenario" would see an ice free Arctic "as early as" somewhere between 2010 and 2015.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2014
So here we have an article quoting {GASP} ONE! researcher suggesting that the predictions of the IPCC may be wrong (they predicted 2050) and it "COULD" become ice free much earlier.

This is a cherry-picked taking point, intended to beg the question. Furthermore, it is a case of intellectual dishonesty; the data was chosen to set up a strawman argument that "they" have been making a prediction that has not come true. "They" in this case, consisting of a single researcher quoted in an article. No paper. No citation or data. Just the opinion of a researcher standing on the middle of an icefield that was at it's lowest extent ever (now the 2nd lowest) worrying about where we are heading.

It is a misrepresentation to suggest this article somehow represents the position of climate scientists - or frankly anyone beyond that single researcher.

It is also the case that he was not even wrong, as 2015 is next year. But that was not even the point.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
The benefits of CO2 in food crops:

http://scienceand..._c02.pdf

runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2014
It for sure had nothing to do with any anthropogenic produced CO2 that caused the end of the LIA. Any thinking individual would know that it came from a change in the solar cycles that are still in play today...


Any thinking individual you mean who knows nothing of the science involved. In which case they aren't thinking are they?

"Using a middle-of-the-road model sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2, solar forcings of less than 0.5% are too small to account for the cooling of the Little Ice Age. Volcanic forcings, in contrast, give climate responses comparable in amplitude to the changes of the Little Ice Age. A combination of solar and volcanic forcings explains much of the Little Ice Age climate change, but these factors alone cannot explain the warming of the twentieth century."

http://onlinelibr...ed=false

And the Maunder minimum had a 0.1 to 0.2% reduction.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
You are 100% wrong about the suns lack of effect.

http://www.washin...ke-note/

http://calderup.w...ics-101/
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2014
You are 100% wrong about the suns lack of effect.


"Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1% or about 1.3 Watts per square meter (W/m2) peak-to-trough from solar maximum to solar minimum during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The amount of solar radiation received at the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere averages 1366 W/m2.There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation, and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ. The intensity of solar radiation reaching Earth has been relatively constant through the last 2000 years, with variations estimated at around 0.1–0.2%.Solar variation, together with volcanic activity are hypothesized to have contributed to climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. Changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain recent climate change."
http://en.wikiped...ariation

Life down the rabbit hole sure is different.
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
A little more sunspot correlation:

http://agwunveile...pot.com/
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2014
The benefits of CO2 in food crops:

http://scienceand..._c02.pdf


Yes indeed - all fine for crops that have sufficient water,... However a warmer world will mean a more sluggish jet-stream and a consequent reduction of penetration of precipitation into the the continents. All the fertilizer in the world is no good without water, So favoured agricultural regions will be more than offset by drought elsewhere..
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2014
A little more sunspot correlation:

http://agwunveile...pot.com/


Oh yes Mr enviros bollocks.
Well done and 10/10. Now give me the peer reviewed paper, the exact mathematics, data sources and error bars.
Done on the back of a fag (cigarette) packet my friend and totally worthless, other than to be magnet you denialists to stick too.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2014
The Sun's energy output vs ave global temp.....

http://www.epa.go...arge.jpg

Yes, it's the Sun stupid..
You are indeed.

It's a vast global conspiracy by climate scientists and all you denialists just know, KNOW better.

Only down the rabbit hole, that is - and here is where you should look for the answer my friends..

http://phys.org/n...ive.html
MR166
1.3 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
Runrig to just talk about power output is ludicrous. Ultraviolet levels change quite a bit and the sun's effect on cosmic rays changes quite a bit. It is a known fact that the earth cools during periods of low sunspot activity. Claiming that the sun's power output changes very little is correct but does not prove that other solar changes are not responsible for temperature changes on earth.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2014
Runrig to just talk about power output is ludicrous. Ultraviolet levels change quite a bit and the sun's effect on cosmic rays changes quite a bit. It is a known fact that the earth cools during periods of low sunspot activity. Claiming that the sun's power output changes very little is correct but does not prove that other solar changes are not responsible for temperature changes on earth.


Mr166: Would you be so kind as to give us the references for the causal relationship between sunspots and cooling of the earth? I know there are some statistical correlations but we all know that correlation does not mean causation. I would like to see the references that show causation.

As an example, we can show causation for the relationship between volcanic activity and cooling of the planet because of the change in albedo. However, I have not seen the proof of causality for sunspots causing cooling. Links would be appreciated.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2014
Let's put it this way, there is a LOT more correlation between sunspot activity and temperature than there is between CO2 and temperature. As far as posting the links for you it is a waste of time since I am sure you are already aware of the studies but choose to disregard them.

But if you really care, the info is readily searchable.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2014
Let's put it this way, there is a LOT more correlation between sunspot activity and temperature than there is between CO2 and temperature. As far as posting the links for you it is a waste of time since I am sure you are already aware of the studies but choose to disregard them.

But if you really care, the info is readily searchable.

You are so F'ing pathtic.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
Wow, this is a slaughter.

Runrig, Maggnus, and Mike you better up your game, you are getting eaten alive. Its rather amusing actually, you realize you've lost and instead of trying to prove your points, you resort to the typical behavior of children and call your 'opponent' names and try to 'character count' him. Seriously?

Jdswallow, these people are understood to be trolls. They pretty much sock puppet around and try to bot-vote down anyone who disagrees with them.


Wow, DumbassedObserver, you need to get some new glasses and take a remedial course in Reading Comprehension.

Maybe take it three or four times, so that it really sinks in, andyou are able to distinguish reality from ideologically motivated wishful thinking.

If it so happens that aren't merely another willfully disunderstanding troll, that is...

Oh, who am I kidding?

TROLL!

howhot2
5 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
TROLL!
Ha Ha ha. Isn't that the unbiased truth! Year after year, I've come to phys.org to read an article and look at a field out side of my line of work. On all works related to AGW (or global warming), it is amazing how many contrarians will post disproven BS and expect everyone to accept it as god's truth.

Deniers = methane inhalers.

jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2014
The benefits of CO2 in food crops:

http://scienceand..._c02.pdf


Yes indeed - all fine for crops that have sufficient water,... However a warmer world will mean a
more sluggish jet-stream and a consequent reduction of penetration of precipitation into the the continents. All the fertilizer in the world is no good without water, So favoured agricultural regions will be more than offset by drought elsewhere..


The benefits of CO2 in food crops:
http://scienceand..._c02.pdf

runrig: MR166 has offered up proof for their contention while, as usual, all you have is conjecture and the hope that those of sound mind will believe what you spout.

In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat. We didn't come anywhere close to that this summer.
http://docs.lib.n...0212.pdf
Severe drought in 1934 covered 80% of the country, compared with 25% in 2011
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2014
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9)Apr 16, 2014
"A GCM does not have to simulate the MWP or the LIA as both of those were regional phenomena. We are talking of global ave temps, my friend."

If this above is an example of runrig's knowledge and what they believe, then what will they tell the truth about?

The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the "Little Ice Age," approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the "Medieval Warm Period," approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago. Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica.

"We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica," Lu says. "More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes."
http://asnews.syr...uks.dpuf
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2014
I had presented the Syracuse University study to runrig before but now it appears that they would rather exist in a world of their own making where they have their own 'facts'; therefore, are not bothered by what science has found while they were asleep.
SAO/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service
Title: An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula

"Our interpretation, based on ikaite isotopes, provides additional qualitative evidence that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were extended to the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic Peninsula."
http://adsabs.har...51A1819L

I will show other places where runrig , in the very remote chance that they have an interest in learning more than how to count characters; but, want to apply some real science to their believes that seem to be very narrowly defined by this obsession with the trace gas, CO2, that they have no experimental proof, what so ever, of its affects on the climate.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2014
An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula

(Same authors & affiliations)

"This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula."
http://www.scienc...12000659
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
runrig: Since you appear to read nothing I submit this to you.

Modeling of severe persistent droughts over eastern China during the last millennium

Abstract. We use proxy data and modeled data from 1000 yr model simulations with a variety of climate forcings to examine the occurrence of severe events of persistent drought over eastern China during the last millennium and to diagnose the mechanisms. Results show that the model was able to simulate many aspects of the low-frequency (periods greater than 10 yr) variations of precipitation over eastern China during the last millennium, including most of the severe persistent droughts such as those in the 1130s, 1200s, 1350s, 1430s, 1480s, and the late 1630s–mid-1640s. These six droughts are identified both in the proxy data and in the modeled data and are consistent with each other in terms of drought intensity, duration, and spatial coverage.
http://www.clim-p...013.html
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
Let's put it this way, there is a LOT more correlation between sunspot activity and temperature than there is between CO2 and temperature. As far as posting the links for you it is a waste of time since I am sure you are already aware of the studies but choose to disregard them.

But if you really care, the info is readily searchable.

Exactly it is!

One day my friend, though I do not live in hope, you may be able to distinguish between GLOBAL changes caused by direct consequence of the balance between Solar SW absorbed and IR emitted. AS opposed to changes induced by O3 destruction/formation reactions in the Stratosphere, which reconfigures the wintertime jet-stream in (as it happens because it was the centre of civilisation in those times) western Europe. And yes because there are waves in the jet there ... other waves are formed downstream (simple jet theory). Net result, near zero. AS was the case this last winter in the US.The sun caused that eh?... of course it did.
FFS
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
runrig: Since you appear to read nothing I submit this to you.


I read the science my friend ... you know, like that published on here. I don't confirm my bias by searching out the 3% of contrarian scientists such as Spencer ( though I've actually conversed via email with him and posted on his blog) ... waste of time BTW - they're away with the fairies .. like there can be no GHE because it contravenes the 2nd Law of thermodynamics !! - I'll give you the link to that piece of "science" discussion if you like. Just ask. Nor, bar that example and another demonstration of strange people talking with fairies, (oh and amusingly getting one banned on WUWT) Blogs.
Do you see how it works.
No of course not ... you're away with the fairies too.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
Year after year, I've come to phys.org to read an article and look at a field out side of my line of work. On all works related to AGW (or global warming), it is amazing how many contrarians will post disproven BS and expect everyone to accept it as god's truth.


how:
It's a constant isn't it?
Like goldfish in a bowl swimming around and forgetting they were there the last time.
It matters not to them anyway as they only want to infect the gullible public with their view.
Unfortunately the science is involved and in some cases counter intuative (S'ern sea-ice) and simplistic thinking conects with many.
But hey, that is why we have "experts" isn't it, well I always though so anyway.
You know, when I went to school/college/Polytechnic, I rather assumed I was learning stuff from people who knew.
Mmmm it seems not - at least in Geography class and during my in-house Meteorology training.
Seems I was taught bollocks and I should hold my lecturers in contempt.
What a strange world.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
Runrig to just talk about power output is ludicrous. Ultraviolet levels change quite a bit and the sun's effect on cosmic rays changes quite a bit. It is a known fact that the earth cools during periods of low sunspot activity. Claiming that the sun's power output changes very little is correct but does not prove that other solar changes are not responsible for temperature changes on earth.


FFS: The bloody solar output is measured to within fractions of a percent via satellite. And UV is a small part of the spectrum that causes a reaction in the Strat to warm out MS80C (say) up to say MS30C and consequently wave action (Mountain torque event - just ask if you're ignorant) is able to penetrate the weakened Polar Vortex core to disrupt it - just fluid dynamics my friend and NOT involving massive amounts of energy from the Sun. It's just an example of how delicately balanced is the climate system.
Which we are buggering about with via injection of GHG's aka CO2.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
Mr swallow:
runrig: MR166 has offered up proof for their contention while, as usual, all you have is conjecture and the hope that those of sound mind will believe what you spout.


CO2 is undoubtedly plant food - just look at the wavy nature of the Mauna Loa trace.....

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

When Spring returns to the NH global levels of CO2 drop.
Errr ... did you notice the rising trend level. But of course that's having no effect on the Earth other than feeding plants.

It is basic Meteorology my friend that a warming world will decrease jet-stream strength and allow it to meander and form cut-offs more easily, this causing "stuck" weather - hence more frequent floods/draught.
So, the upshot of your "plant food" is to (apart from warming the world eventually to greatly damaging levels) cause death/disruption via weather events.
FFS:
Still I suppose the vastly increased food supply from a few favoured areas will come in handy to feed those fleeing.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
Further to those not able to understand the causation of a a weaker sun on the Stratosphere and consequently it's causation of redistribution of winds/temperatures at the surface...

http://planeteart...onsent=A
http://www.nature...282.html

http://www.newsci...rop.html

"UV is absorbed in the stratosphere, the upper atmosphere, by ozone. So in the quiet bit of the solar cycle, when there is less UV to absorb, the stratosphere is relatively cooler.

The Hadley Centre model shows that the effects of this percolate down through the atmosphere, changing wind speeds, including the jet stream that circles the globe above Europe, North America and Russia.

The net change is a reduced air flow from west to east, which brings colder air to the UK and northern Europe and re-distributes temperatures across the region."
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
during periods of low sunspot activity
&
there is a LOT more correlation between sunspot activity and temperature than there is between CO2 and temperature
@mr166
you are assuming that this is unstudied. climate models already include a great deal of information about your precious solar activity as well as sunspots etc. these studies are widely available, and if you've a problem finding them, then I suggest following Tim Thompson here on Phys.org. - since you are ignoring (or can't understand) runrig's info:

http://adsabs.har...09....7S
http://adsabs.har...70.2031C
http://adsabs.har...67..948H
http://adsabs.har...67..940K
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
runrig: It appears that in March, 1958 the level of CO2, by Mauna Loa's measurement, was 315.17 ppm; that level is now up to 397.9.
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
http://www.esrl.n...aph.html

Please tell me what the CO2 level was in the period for which I give evidence of far a greater draught than what you imagined. It was, by good estimates at 310 ppm

"Over the 11-year span from 1930-1940, a large part of the region saw 15% to 25% less precipitation than normal. This is very significant to see such a large deficit over such a long period of time. This translates to 50 to 60 inches of much needed moisture which never arrived that decade. For an area which only averages less than 20 inches of precipitation a year, deficits like this can make the region resemble a desert. Deficits like this are the equivalent of missing three entire years of expected precipitation in one decade.
http://www.srh.no...es_today

"Severe drought in 1934 covered 80% of the country, compared with 25% in 2011
In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat
http://docs.lib.n...0212.pdf

runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
I will show other places where runrig , in the very remote chance that they have an interest in learning more than how to count characters;

i didn't have to count actually - it was obvious they were well over 1000 char.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
I will show other places where runrig , in the very remote chance that they have an interest in learning

No you wont
And a fine example of reverse logic Mr swallow, that should be displayed on the psychology thread current operating.
I do not take lessons on climatology and meteorology from you my friend. So sorry if that offends.
When you realise that the politicisation of the topic of AGW is your beef and that of those who you go too for your "info" then ....
You are akin to a student denying a lecturer armed with quotes selectively chosen from favoured papers mined on the internet, and not joined up with the science - vis the reference to the Antarctic peninsula as evidence that the MWP/LIA were global when all it does is give an insight into a regional conditions that have been caused by regional weather pattern changes.
Life really is simple for those who approach a complicated science with simplistic thinking and comfirmatory bias evidence mining. DK indeed. Writ large.
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
I hope that you can give me some indication about how you feel that CO2 had something to do with these temperature extremes, all in the same year. The site has some indication of just what max. Temps have been doing through the years in the US; in the remote case you have any interest in such a thing. If you do look the site over you will find that the only state with a recent High temperature reading is AZ, June 29, 1994 & Connecticut, July 15, 1995. Notice how many records were set in 1936. This is not the trend one would expect to see in your "planet with a fever" but I'm sure you have some ready explanation that some may believe.

South Dakota Maximum Temperature 120°F July 5, 1936 GANN VALLEY 4NW


July 15, 2006 FORT PIERRE 17 WSW


South Dakota Minimum Temperature -58°F February 17, 1936 MC INTOSH 6 SE


I could have also chosen North Dakota for extremes in the same year.

North Dakota Maximum Temperature 121°F July 6, 1936 STEELE 3N

North Dakota Minimum Temperature -60°F February 15, 1936 PARSHALL

http://www.ncdc.n.../records


runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
runrig: It appears that in March, 1958 the level of CO2, by Mauna Loa's measurement, was 315.17 ppm; that level is now up to 397.9.
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
http://www.esrl.n...aph.html

Please tell me what the CO2 level was in the period for which I give evidence of far a greater draught than what you imagined. It was, by good estimates at 310 ppm

Another example of simplistic linear thinking regarding a non-linear system - namely (but not solely) with regard to accelerating feed-backs such as Polar sea-ice melt and the reduction in the NH polar jet strength in late summer through to early winter, which has effects on the build-up of Eurasian snowfield - which in turn influences (in some-not all, years) causing -AO spells and consequent spillage of Arctic air further south than usual. .... see (rhetorical) it's bloody complicated and your DK controlled mind will not solve the conundrum by staring at the Mauna Loa CO2 graph my friend.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
I hope that you can give me some indication about how you feel that CO2 had something to do with these temperature extremes

All irrelevant my friend.
Any individual temp extreme whether high or low is just a reflection of the weather at that location.
To be tied to AGW then the GLOBAL frequency and extreme of said temp records is what needs to be examined.
Please find me data (peer reviewed as statistically verified) that says that GLOBALLY temperature records have diminished in heat extreme and increased in cold extreme.
Now that's got to be counter-intuitive, unless you are one of those odd, and increasingly rare characters that deny that there has indeed been warming over the last 60 odd years.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
I will show other places where runrig , in the very remote chance that they have an interest in learning more than how to count characters;

i didn't have to count actually - it was obvious they were well over 1000 char.


It appears runrig , that your interpretation of climate science is as flawed as your limited ability to count and that appears to be of more importance to you than climate science, and it shows.

Character count, no space= 827
Character count, with space=987
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
Please find me data (peer reviewed as statistically verified) that says that GLOBALLY temperature records have diminished in heat extreme and increased in cold extreme.
Now that's got to be counter-intuitive, unless you are one of those odd, and increasingly rare characters that deny that there has indeed been warming over the last 60 odd years."

Am I all that rare or are you the one that is being swept into the dust bin of history, where you belong with your corrupted ideas that are not based on scientific research?

NASA AND NOAA CONFIRM GLOBAL TEMPERATURE STANDSTILL CONTINUES
• Date: 21/01/14
• Dr David Whitehouse
In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the 'pause' in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues.
Statistically speaking there has been no trend in global temperatures over this period. All these years fall within each other's error bars. The graphs presented at the press conference omitted those error bars.
When asked for an explanation for the 'pause' by reporters Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun and natural variability. In other words, they don't know.
http://www.thegwp...ntinues/

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
Mr swallow - comprehension - I said 60 odd years and not your much vaunted "pause".

To learn more I suggest you investigate global sea temp rises at depth
(always supposing you appreciate the difference between temperature and heat - clue involves mass and SH).
And the effects that ENSO has on the atmosphere.

The dustbin of history eh?
Well then you need to investigate also the GHE of CO2 - as investigated, confirmed in the laboratory, observed by both Earth-bound and satellite instrumentation ... known of this last ~150 years.
My friend, the flat-Earthers were wrong back when... and they're still wrong now.
If you dont like the implications regarding the mitigation of the calamity that mankind is causing our environment then criticise the methodology, not the science.
It may come as a surprise to you but you don't know better than the experts, including me.
97% of climate scintists and many other "ologists" besides. Do also investigate probability if that number doesn't impress
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2014
I wonder if runrig could show that what is listed below are NOT still records all the while explaining maybe the reason for it, the Jet Stream.
What follows are world record high temperatures: World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya; Sept. 13, 1922, (136F):
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F);
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia ,Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain,Aug. 4, 1881 (122F):
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada,Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania;Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn't that in the 30s
http://www.infopl...375.html

jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
If you think this winter is cold, be glad you're not in Antarctica.
Using new satellite data, scientists have measured the most frigid temperature ever recorded on the continent's eastern highlands: about -136°F (-93°C)—colder than dry ice.
The temperature breaks the 30-year-old record of about -128.6°F (-89.2°C), measured by the Vostok weather station in a nearby location. ( "South Pole Expeditions Then and Now: How Does Their Food and Gear Compare?")

http://news.natio...science/

New world high temperature record holder: Death Valley, California
Extreme Weather
September 13, 2012
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced today that the record holder for the hottest temperature ever recorded on the planet had been change..honor now falls on a temperature recorded in Death Valley, California in 1913. (please note that this record was set one hundred years ago)
http://www.examin...lifornia

Please show me which of these records above have been broken so that I can update my records.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
This will be the last one that I post for now because I do have other important things to do. This, among many other "facts", is why I'm a skeptic and very proud to be among their ranks. The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen people like runrig. He said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." I'm not sure that "deniers" are in the minority, but you get my point.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
I know that you understand that these additional ppm are spread out over this 16 m
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
This will be the last one that I post for now because I do have other important things to do. This, among many other "facts", is why I'm a skeptic and very proud to be among their ranks. The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen people like runrig. He said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." I'm not sure that "deniers" are in the minority, but you get my point.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
I know that you understand that these additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn't it be a task to be told to sort out the 392 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
Mr swallow - comprehension - I said 60 odd years and not your much vaunted "pause".

To learn more I suggest you investigate global sea temp rises at depth
(always supposing you appreciate the difference between temperature and heat - clue involves mass and SH).
And the effects that ENSO has on the atmosphere.
Why can't you understand anything?
"The interaction between water temperature and salinity effects density and density determines thermohaline circulation, or the global conveyor belt. The global conveyor belt is a global-scale circulation process that occurs over a century-long time scale. Water sinks in the North Atlantic, traveling south around Africa, rising in the Indian Ocean or further on in the Pacific, then returning toward the Atlantic on the surface only to sink again in the North Atlantic starting the cycle again.
http://science.na...r-cycle/]http://science.na...r-cycle/[/url]

"As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate." [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side]
http://science.na...r-cycle/]http://science.na...r-cycle/[/url]
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
I will show other places where runrig , in the very remote chance that they have an interest in learning more than how to count characters;

i didn't have to count actually - it was obvious they were well over 1000 char.


It appears runrig , that your interpretation of climate science is as flawed as your limited ability to count and that appears to be of more importance to you than climate science, and it shows.

Character count, no space= 827
Character count, with space=987


Mr swallow .. to quote yourself here.....
It appears your counting skill, or at least those when pasting your posts into a tool to count them is indeed as flawed as your knowledge of climate science - and that's zero.
Hint try WinWord.

The 1st one posted on 15/4 has 2166 char+spaces (Word)
The 2nd one on 15th 2239 char+spaces
The 3rd one when pasted into the message box finishes at the words "1,158,000 sq km above the" - 327 chars(+spaces) short of what you wrote.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
Mr swallow...
And you're still doing it your last post counts 1382 in Word and when pasted into the message box is cut-off at the the words "the global conv"

Please tell how you manage to do it?
No, I'm interested - because you know what they say - if you cant beat em then join em!
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
If you think this winter is cold, be glad you're not in Antarctica…..

The "temp" that is talked of was measured by satellite in a region of Antarctic that has not been sampled before.
And as such who knows what are THE lowest temps achieved there.
Also record low temps could crop up anywhere for some time yet – but then you have to understand meteorology for that to sink in.
Hint: it's to do with radiative cooling over snow, through a very dry/transparent atmosphere.
A very strong surface inversion will develop in such conditions – minima mostly being limited by katabatic drainage.

"The temperature was deduced from radiance measured by Landsat 8, and discovered during a NSIDC review of stored data in …. This temperature isn't directly comparable to the -89.2 quoted above, as it's a skin temp. deduced from satellite-measured upwelling radiance, rather than a thermometer-measured temp. of the air 1.5m above the ground surface."

http://en.wikiped...tarctica
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
Sunspots

http://informthep...g-month/


"This unexpected stage has prompted some scientists to propose now a "double-peaked" solar maximum. Thus, according to solar physicist Dean Pesnell, of NASA's GSFC, the 2011 surge might just have been part one of Solar Cycle 24's peaks, and the second peak might occur in mid-2013 or later, possibly lasting into 2014."

No not unexpected.
http://en.wikiped...cycle_24
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
This will be the last one that I post for now because I do have other important things to do.


My thoughts exactly ... but you know, needs must.

Someone has to deny the bollocks posted on here as fact by denialists.
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
The correlation between increasing CO2 from the 40 and temps.

http://sunshineho..._sst.png

runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
The correlation between increasing CO2 from the 40 and temps.

http://sunshineho..._sst.png



You seem to have just highlighted the period of "global dimming" there my friend.
Good try - but no cigar.

http://en.wikiped..._dimming
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
colder than dry ice

Maybe that's how AGWites want to eliminate CO2, freeze it out.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
colder than dry ice

Maybe that's how AGWites want to eliminate CO2, freeze it out.


"Ridicule is the first and last argument of fools"

Charles Simmons
American clergyman and author.
(1798 - 1856)
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
runrig: Since you appear to read nothing I submit this to you.
Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming

Abstract. We use statistical methods for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming (AGW), according to which an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations raised global temperature in the 20th century […] We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.
http://www.earth-...012.html


jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
This will be the last one that I post for now because I do have other important things to do.


My thoughts exactly ... but you know, needs must.

Someone has to deny the bollocks posted on here as fact by denialists.


runrig: You are well acquainted with the bollocks that I see in your every post and now even more frequently as you see how mistaken you are about this subject, agw, or since there is no warming now , it is called "climate change" by you alarmist. You say that you recognize no information from blogs. Now is see that your information source of choice is Wikipedia that I do not recognize as a legitimate source of valid information.
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
I will show other places where runrig , in the very remote chance that they have an interest in learning

No you wont
And a fine example of reverse logic Mr swallow, that should be displayed on the psychology thread current operating.
I do not take lessons on climatology and meteorology from you my friend. So sorry if that offends.
When you realise that the politicisation of the topic of AGW is your beef and that of those who you go too for your "info" then ....
You are akin to a student denying a lecturer armed with quotes selectively chosen from favoured papers mined on the internet, and not joined up with the science - vis the reference to the Antarctic peninsula as evidence that the MWP/LIA were global when all it does is give an insight into a regional conditions that have been caused by regional weather pattern changes.
Life really is simple for those who approach a complicated science with simplistic thinking and comfirmatory bias evidence mining. DK indeed. Writ la
"Ridicule is the first and last argument of fools"

Charles Simmons
American clergyman and author.
(1798 - 1856)

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
runrig: You are well acquainted with the bollocks that I see in your every post and now even more frequently as you see how mistaken you are about this subject, agw, or since there is no warming now , it is called "climate change" by you alarmist. You say that you recognize no information from blogs. Now is see that your information source of choice is Wikipedia that I do not recognize as a legitimate source of valid information.


That is a self-fulfilling prophecy my friend - in other words, as you despise my knowledge, you will always call it "bollocks".
It is enough that I am meteorologically trained with 32 years experience with the UKMO.
No - wiki just happens to be one source among many -- ah, you remind me of the view you peeps have that wiki is "non-kosher" ... except, that is, when you use it to lend credence to *your* arguments
Your view matters not a jot to me, some people are beyond reason.
But ignorance and prejudice will not prevail on here mr swallow.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
Latest post by mr swallow counts to 1131 char/spaces in Word ... just wont learn, will the man/woman.

Oh and not ridicule my friend - it's called irony/sarcasm ( here in the UK anyway ).

PS: have you recounted your posts again?
Care to offer an apology for lying/being incorrect?

Ever read/seen Alice in Wonderland?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
during periods of low sunspot activity
&
there is a LOT more correlation between sunspot activity and temperature than there is between CO2 and temperature
@mr166
you are assuming that this is unstudied. climate models already include a great deal of information about your precious solar activity as well as sunspots etc. these studies are widely available, and if you've a problem finding them, then I suggest following Tim Thompson here on Phys.org. - since you are ignoring (or can't understand) runrig's info:

http://adsabs.har...09....7S


Farmers' Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models
Bad Science: It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can't even predict the past.
Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S. The Farmers' Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold, snowy winter.
The Maine-based Farmers' Almanac's still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action. It claims an 80% accuracy rate, surely better than those who obsess over fossil fuels and CO2.
The winter has stayed cold in 2014, and snowfall and snow cover are way above average. USA Today reported on Feb. 14 that there was snow on the ground in part of every state except Florida. That includes Hawaii.

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.
http://www.earth-...012.html

Mr swallow....
There is such a thing as *bad* science you know?

That is why we have peer-review, and why the 97:3 is important.

Here is your answer...

http://www.earth-...2013.pdf
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
mr swallow - you continue to violate phys.org rules - your last post has 1555 char/spaces.
Do it again and I will report you to admin.
The contiguous US winter was just a little below the average.
You are welcome to come back with data that involves the whole globe BTW.

The clue is in the name AGW
Anthroprogenic GLOBAL warming.
NOT AAW.
Anthroproneic American warming or as you would have it, cooling.

Anybody with an incling of scientific knowledge would know there are temporal/regional variations well away from the mean.

"But human memory is not a scientific measure, and long-term perspective tends to get lost in everyday conversation and news coverage. The winter of 2013-14 followed two winters that were significantly warmer than the norm, which likely made this season feel worse than it was. Researchers at the U.S. NCDC reported that the average temperature of the contiguous U.S. for the winter was just 0.4° C.

http://earthobser...id=83371
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014

runrig: "It is enough that I am meteorologically trained with 32 years experience with the UKMO."
It appears runrig, that you must have slept through many of your classes from the lack of knowledge that you exemplify in your Wikipedia derived post. Not that I even remotely respect you; but, this following quote applies to you.
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth" Albert Einstein.

"Your view matters not a jot to me, some people are beyond reason."
You views matter to me in that; how else am I to find out what goes through the mind of someone who believes that a trace gas, CO2, that makes up a paltry .038% of the total atmosphere and that is one & 1/2 times heavier than that atmosphere, that is odorless and colorless and absolutely vital for life on earth?

"But ignorance and prejudice will not prevail on here mr swallow." But Mr aka, or shall we call you runrig, you are still on here and you epitomize that you say is intolerable.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
According to my count of what I actually posted; the count is 871. I see where now you count the quote, for some strange reason, so be it.

Am I to understand that now, besides not sending me a Christmas card that you are going to run and "tell" on me?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
runrig: What follows are some FACTS about CO2 that you obviously have never heard of or you would not persist with your delusional view of the trace gas.

"ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2"
https://greenpart...-practic
(you can copy the link and past it on the browser because it may not open for you, but you will not even try to open it, will you?)

This is an interesting site to look into and it coincides with the above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times heavier than "air". This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake.
http://www.neator...century/
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
Sunspots
http://informthep...g-month/
@mr166
this is what is called a biased personal conjecture
whereas the links that I posted, which I shall re-post, are called studies, or papers, and are peer reviewed as well as technical and scientific.
http://adsabs.har...09....7S
http://adsabs.har...70.2031C
http://adsabs.har...67..948H
http://adsabs.har...67..940K

If you cannot support your argument with scientific data on a science site, perhaps you would prefer this site: http://www.godlik...ons.com/
or this one: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/
there you will find people like you who dont care about science, empirical data or logic.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
Farmers' Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models
@jdswallows

bullocks. might i remind you about this link:
http://qz.com/163...n-worse/

please watch the video.

as for your farmers almanac... which version are you saying is the more accurate? or are you combining them all as an aggregate prediction? The three most popular for my perticular area were not only off, but predicted a warmer winter this year than what occured...
of course, you could be one of the lucky ones who got an accurate one...

the farmers almanac is considered anecdotal and it is NOT a scientific OR ACCURATE publication, especially around here: ours also predicted that any Aries would have a new financial breakthrough as well as a love interest come into their lives... would that be considered just as accurate given its publication in the almanac as well?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
runrig; It appears that real scientist have a vastly different view of CO2 than your foaming at the mouth, hand waving & terror filled view that it is destroying the planet and everything on it.

"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every
scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so…Global warming, as a
political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations
walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of
Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan

Dr. Roy Spencer
"It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth's atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind's CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40."
http://www.drroys...manmade/

howhot2
5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
So, JD Shallow is a paid for skeptic of the rightwing giving his all on Pysorg to inject some doubt in the conversation about climate change. Man @Runrig, you attract the big dogs of climate deniers. So out of his bag of tricks he pulls out this little number;

"ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2"

You mean, that at 8520 meters CO2 ppm is practically zero? That is just one person's opinion actually. Not a good reference dude. Here is something better for you;

http://www.nature...0a0.html

That is just a tad-bit better explaining CO2 concentrations in the Upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. As if that really matters with respect to AGW. AGW is primary heat traped in the lower atmosphere. People forget just how thin the atmosphere that surrounds Earth is. 20Km more or less. You can walk 20km is half a day.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
Captain Stumpy: I'm sure that you can give me a sensible answer about where YOUR jet stream was when these historical winters occurred.

The Great Blizzard of 1888, which struck the American Northeast, became the most famous weather event in history. The ferocious storm caught major cities by surprise in mid-March, paralyzing transportation, disrupting communication, and isolating millions of people.
It is believed at least 400 people died as a result of the storm. And the "Blizzard of '88" became iconic.
http://history180...1888.htm

THE WINTER OF 1886–1887 WAS HARD ON THE WEST, ESPECIALLY MONTANA. Following a series of early November blizzards, a 10-day storm blew in on January 9, 1887. Sixteen inches of snow fell in as many hours, and temperatures dropped to 46 below zero. Cattle froze to death while standing upright and ranch hands perished in vain attempts to rescue stock.
http://www.bigsky...ky-journ
howhot2
5 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
It is interesting that people don't realize how thin and fragile our atmosphere is. Your normal everyday life is isolated to the bottom 5 km or so (more or less). Heat trapping by CO2 is primarily in the lower atmosphere. (CO2 actually cools the upper atmosphere by reflecting incoming infrared out to space).

In the lower atmosphere, polluters are dumping multi-gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere and changing it's chemical makeup. That is purely man-made pollution and the polluters need to be held accountable for their actions. They should be taxed with a heavy carbon tax and all fossil fuel subsidies should be ended. Oil and coal workers (and every other co-dependent) needs to find an alternative jobs as long as CO2 is 400ppm or higher.

So Mr Shallow man says; " THE WINTER OF 1886–1887 WAS HARD ON THE WEST, ESPECIALLY MONTANA." Very good. Very very good. Historians will love you.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
Captain Stumpy: I'm sure that you can give me a sensible answer about where YOUR jet stream was when these historical winters occurred.
jdswallows
ok, sparky. I can see you have a problem with reading and comprehension, so I will use YOUR WORDS again to put it in better context... you were saying
It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter
to which I replied with the above link

now, in MY book, when you talked about the last winter and its applicability to the farmers almanac, this meant you were referring to the last winter, so I gave you an article which referenced a study which has EMPIRICAL DATA.
now... I care about empirical data. but I am not going to argue about who's horse turd defiled Temujin's boot during the war with Rome because it is irrelevant. YOU ARGUED THE ALMANAC & the almanac also has horoscopes, I brought SCIENCE.

deal with that and quit changing the argument
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014

howhot2: How is this link "a tad-bit better explaining CO2 concentrations in the Upper troposphere and lower stratosphere" when it does not give the ppm at any altitude for either CO2 or H2O? They do say that their 1962 experiment was screwed up because they "contaminated" the water vapor. Isn't that convenient since H2O causes over 95% of the earth's greenhouse affect.

If you have I problem with the information that the link took you to,
"Excel spreadsheet extension of CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry......
Equations worked out in Maple 12 by Maplesoft.
The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg"
http://www.greenp...-practic

I would hope that you are smart enough to take it up with them, but that is obviously not the case with some one that changes my name while not having enough confidence in their opinion to use THEIR own name.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
Captain Stumpy: Try to understand what was said. If you do not agree, take it up with NOAA or the Almanac.
"Surprised by how tough this winter has been? You're in good company: Last fall the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that temperatures would be above normal from November through January across much of the Lower 48 states. This graphic shows just how wrong the official forecast of the U.S. government was:"

"Farmers' Almanac" predicts a "bitterly cold" winter August 26, 2013, 10:24 AM
LEWISTON, MAINE "The Farmers' Almanac is using words like "piercing cold," "bitterly cold" and "biting cold" to describe the upcoming winter. And if its predictions are right, the first outdoor Super Bowl in years will be a messy "Storm Bowl." "
http://www.cbsnew...-winter/

howhot2
5 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
Mr. Shallow man says, nice try, old experiment It's a classic! Here is something a little more updated for you since you asked.

http://web.b.ebsc...mp;crl=c

What you find if you look at the literature is the effect that CO2 concentrations of the upper atmosphere can have on stratospheric phenomena like the jet stream. Buoyancy changes caused by increased CO2 densities can modify the jet stream. An effect we saw this winter in the North America.

The point is CO2 is a well measured parameter in atmospheric physics and the upper atmosphere is pretty irrelevant to AGW. What is a concern is what > 400ppm is going to do to planet Earth!

As far as "Farmers' Almanac", that is about as reliable in it's predictive capabilities as a horoscope. I'm sure you read yours daily.
howhot2
5 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
Buy the way, for my friends I want to point out that the Nature article Mr. Shallow man is dismissing was one of the first to measure CO2 concentrations in the Stratosphere! It was important in that an atmospheric model was being developed and CO2 measurement were vital in "calculations of the radiation budget of the atmosphere." To me, it doesn't matter if there was water in cockpit, Georgii and Jost pioneered experimental atmospheric physics.

So, Mr. Shallow man say; "The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg" Calculated using Maple 12. I use Maxima by the way. Look it up. Download it. What you need to do is calculate the heat trapping potential for lower atmosphere CO2, and the whole carbon cycle specifically like most people do and throw your model into the pool. If it doesn't predict disaster, then there is something wrong with your model.

I see nothing that is encouraging in the models or mankind's response to CO2 so far.


Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2014
Try to understand what was said. If you do not agree, take it up with NOAA or the Almanac
first off, swallows, I fully understand what was said. YOU DIDNT!
you posted non-empirical data for an argument that is irrelevant and off topic.

IT'S like complaining that Genghis Kahn's boot was soiled so he killed off most of western Asia... (IOW=irrelevant and off topic)

almanacs usually publish data about horoscopes. so, are you saying that we should take that into consideration for scientific analysis of our climate?

you want to prove a point, use empirical data, not some almanac that also shows housewives how to spray Listerine on the porch to get rid of flies/mosquito's/gnats (published 2012 in Poor Richards available in the south)

read/learn WHY warming destabilized the jet stream and WHY the weather got nasty.

http://qz.com/163...n-worse/

changing the argument doesn't work with me. keep swapping your goal-posts. I don't care.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2014
Buy the way, for my friends I want to point out that the Nature article Mr. Shallow man is dismissing was one of the first to measure CO2 concentrations in the Stratosphere!
@howhot2
yeah... dont hold your breath for answers. he also completely ignored the following
read Thermodynamics posts here: http://phys.org/n...bal.html
and Thompsons here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
and apparently is ignorant of inversion layers as well...

plenty of time to flood post, as well as post TROLLING comments and irrelevant data, but cannot factually address the relevant stuff with empirical data.

see ya later jd
howhot2
5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
Damn troll sites are like a minefield on the internet. Just googling around on climate models and randomly clicking is found deniers attacking this guy;
Admiral Locklear told the Boston Globe on March 9, 2013, that Climate Change is "is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific Region."


How deep does this dark money go to set up a website to contradict the Admiral of the Pacific fleets? And you know they are tea party wonks and repub boot lickers. ,,, Amazing how the denier's web works. It is also amazing your labeled with a party if you speak the truth. Screw em, I stay with truth.



jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
Howhot2: So this is what you wanted me to waste my time on, the reports of Models?
"The dynamical mechanisms underlying the transient circulation adjustment in the extratropical atmosphere after the instantaneous doubling of carbon dioxide are investigated using the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Atmosphere Model version 3 coupled to a Slab Ocean Model." […]
The rise in tropopause height appears to lead the tropospheric jet shift but no close relation is observed. The length scale of transient eddies does increase but does not lead the tropospheric jet shift. Finally, the tropospheric jet shift can be captured by changes in the index of refraction and the resulting anomalous eddy propagation in the troposphere.

Key words: Models, (they DO NOT produce empirical information),appears, but does not lead
So just what was your point, or did you have one?
jdswallow
1.1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
Captain Stumpy: I'm sure that you can give me a sensible answer about where YOUR jet stream was when these historical winters occurred.
The Great Blizzard of 1888, http://history180...1888.htm

THE WINTER OF 1886–1887 WAS HARD ON THE WEST, ESPECIALLY MONTANA.
http://www.bigsky...887.html

It is without a doubt that these climatic events occurred, look at the dates to try to determine that they were not just localized. You can present me with no info on what CO2 may have had to do with creating your Polar Vortex, and I assume that you acknowledge that these events did happen.

Your video failed to mention that the Arctic sea ice has increased during the 2013-14 winter season; so, is that the type of empirical evidence you are seeking?
John Douglas Swallow is my name, what is yours?

runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
mr swallow
runrig: "It is enough that I am meteorologically trained with 32 years experience with the UKMO."
It appears runrig, that you must have slept through many of your classes from the lack of knowledge that you exemplify in your Wikipedia derived post. Not that I even remotely respect you; but, this following quote applies to you.
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth" Albert Einstein.


QED

Oh, and the feelings mutual with knobs on.
This in part due to your continued use of overly long posts, but, actually mostly there by your denial of it, and lack of integrity by not admitting it was so and apologising.

Anyone with any wit and scientific knowledge of the subject we talk about here would know of our relative merits, and I have said somewhere below i care not, as you come from a domain that is written about in "Alice in Wonderland".
Wherever you live in you head my friend it does not live in a sane world..
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014

Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III
"He is a 1992 graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and holds a master's degree in Public Administration from the George Washington University."

howhot2: Do you think that with that kind of a back ground he should be making pronouncements about global warming, climate change or what ever you call it, and not being worried about a very real problem in that part of the world?
"A larger concern is North Korea, which in recent days has threatened to launch a nuclear weapon against the United States." NO NO, we need to worry about a thing called "climate Change" I hope he retires soon.
http://www.boston...ory.html

J Doug Swallow
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2014
You views matter to me in that; how else am I to find out what goes through the mind of someone who believes that a trace gas, CO2, that makes up a paltry .038% of the total atmosphere and that is one & 1/2 times heavier than that atmosphere, that is odorless and colorless and absolutely vital for life on earth?


Try putting 0.038% cyanide in a drink and see if has no effect (no offence intended).

It is quite simple my friend, and has been known of for around ~150 years.

99% of the atmosphere is transparent to terrestrial IR and ~1% is not. They are GHG's. They absorb and re-emit at that wavelength. Add more and consequently that process is increased. We are only talking of a very few W/m2 here BUT if you were to know anything of thermodynamics you would know that the SB law requires that the Earth heat up to compensate for that "resistence".
I don't propose to argue established physics with you any further than that. The world is round you know.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
Am I to understand that now, besides not sending me a Christmas card that you are going to run and "tell" on me?


If you continue - yes, as will others I suspect.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
"But ignorance and prejudice will not prevail on here mr swallow." But Mr aka, or shall we call you runrig, you are still on here and you epitomize that you say is intolerable.


The words "rabbit" and "hole" spring to mind my friend.
Has it ever occurred to you that stuffing your fingers in your ears, scrunching your eyes shut and screaming at the world, does not change it. It just makes you look an idiot and the same scientific truths continue to apply. Things that I am an authority on, for instance. And things that you, because of your right wing/libertarian views despise me for.
Also said below somewhere...
Do tell the medical profession after a browse on the internet that their diagnosis of your ailment is wrong, and that you're off to see a psychic surgeon, and spit in their faces. The analogy is a parallel.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
"NOAA's 2013-14 Winter Outlook: Cold Northern Plains, Mild South
November 21, 2013
Winter 2013-2014 may be a cold one for some in the Midwest, but relatively mild in other parts of the nation, according to the winter outlook released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)."
Captain Stumpy: Notice the dates of these predictions. None of my tax $ go to the F A and they were closer to the actual truth than where my $ do go.
August 26, 2013, 10:24 AM
"Farmers' Almanac" predicts a "bitterly cold" winter
LEWISTON, MAINEThe Farmers' Almanac is using words like "piercing cold," "bitterly cold" and "biting cold" to describe the upcoming winter. And if its predictions are right, the first outdoor Super Bowl in years will be a messy "Storm Bowl."
"The Farmers' Almanac makes predictions based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles — a prediction system that has remained largely unchanged since its first publication in 1818. While modern scientists don't put much stock in the almanac's way of doing things, the book says it's accurate about 80 percent of the time."


runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2014
"ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2"
https://greenpart...-practic

mr swallow ..
What is your point here?

That level seems about right, as it is around the height of the mid-hemispheric jet-streams – the chief transporters of air around the globe.

The Mauna Loa CO2 monitor station lies at altitude in the middle of the pacific, under the sub-equatorial HP belt – which has sinking air – from the westerly jetstreams, yet it reveals a trace of rising CO2 that parallels others around the world.
CO2 is a very well mixed gas in the atmosphere….

http://www.youtub...PKj20GFo

http://earthobser...-record/
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
"Try putting 0.038% cyanide in a drink and see if has no effect (no offence intended)."
Now the disingenuous one, runrig, thinks that someone is stupid enough, other than he perhaps, to not wonder at being asked to equate the total of the earth's atmosphere with a drink that I assume they believe would then go into a human's body. Where is the correlation?

It is quite simple my friend, and has been known of for around ~150 years.
I assume you are referring to of Tyndall's ingenious 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity's CO2 emissions are warming the planet, only that CO2, H2O & O3 are greenhouse gasses. An experiment needs to be done that revolves around the actual amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, today, and not some model nonsense that are not empirical in any sense of the word. Why haven't you, rundig, ever done such an experiment?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
Runrig: It certainly appears that 155 years ago Tyndall understood the science much better than you do now in that he, unlike you and your minions on here, who never mention the primary "greenhouse gas". "Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature.."

"In 1859 Tyndall began to study the capacities of various gases to absorb or transmit radiant heat. He showed that the main atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are almost transparent to radiant heat, whereas water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone are such good absorbers that, even in small quantities, these gases absorb heat radiation much more strongly than the rest of the atmosphere.
Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth's heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost' – the greenhouse effect."
http://understand...dall.htm
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
If you were going to bring up Svante Arrhenius , then you need to look into what this Swede said, and note that he did no experiments regarding CO2 and how it can change the earth's climate.
"Linking the calculations of his abstract model to natural processes, Arrhenius estimated the effect of the burning of fossil fuels as a source of atmospheric CO2. He predicted that a doubling of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning alone would take 500 years and lead to temperature increases of 3 to 4 °C (about 5 to 7 °F). This is probably what has earned Arrhenius his present reputation as the first to have provided a model for the effect of industrial activity on global warming."
http://www.britan...rrhenius


jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
"But ignorance and prejudice will not prevail on here mr swallow." But Mr aka, or shall we call you runrig, you are still on here and you epitomize that you say is intolerable.


The words "rabbit" and "hole" spring to mind my friend.
Has it ever occurred to you that stuffing your fingers in your ears, scrunching your eyes shut and screaming at the world, does not change it. It just makes you look an idiot and the same scientific truths continue to apply. Things that I am an authority on, for instance. And things that you, because of your right wing/libertarian views despise me for.
Also said below somewhere...
Do tell the medical profession after a browse on the internet that their diagnosis of your ailment is wrong, and that you're off to see a psychic surgeon, and spit in their faces. The analogy is a parallel.

runrig: Do you feel better now? No need for reference on that diatribe, Is there?
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III said
"The ice is melting and sea is getting higher," Locklear said, noting that 80 percent of the world's population lives within 200 miles of the coast. "I'm into the consequence management side of it. I'm not a scientist, but the island of Tarawa in Kiribati, they're contemplating moving their entire population to another country because [it] is not going to exist anymore."

The Admiral needs a better adviser on these issues.
http://www.agu.or...59.shtml

http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/10

http://www.agu.or...30.shtml]http://www.agu.or...30.shtml[/url]

"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration."
http://www.agu.or...30.shtml]http://www.agu.or...30.shtml[/url]
http://dx.doi.org...-00373.1
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
#2
It is a fact that real scientist devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on. They sure do not say that the science is settled and the argument is over because there are REAL scientist out there doing REAL scientific work that are not blinded by some agenda that they support so that they can get more "research" money or money to fund a boondoggle renewable energy scheme that will never work.
http://www.scient...nglement

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

http://cdsweb.cer...77?ln=de

http://www.youtub...embedded

http://online.wsj...618.html
http://www.bbc.co...24987749
It seems to me that if the experiments above could be devised and carried out, that one showing how carbon dioxide can cause the earth's climate to act as some seem to want people to believe it does should have been carried out long ago.
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
#1
runrig, or any of his minions on here, needs to provide me with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what some maintain as far as being the driver of the earth's climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall's 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity's CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why this experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that affect the earth's climate. If they cannot provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it affects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
#1
runrig, or any of his minions on here, needs to provide me with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what some maintain as far as being the driver of the earth's climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall's 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity's CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why this experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that affect the earth's climate. If they cannot provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it affects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.
NASA has found that CO2 in the high atmosphere induces cooling, these folks think this effect goes all the way down.

"...the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's atmosphere."

http://ruby.fgcu....here.pdf

MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
Great Find there Uba.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
There are thousands of papers out there doubting AGW.

http://www.breitb...-Reports

So much for the 99.9% certainty.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
Cool Temperature Chart

http://nextgrandm...p_chart/
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2014
I'm sure that you can give me a sensible answer about where YOUR jet stream was when these historical winters occurred
@jd
ok, sparky, lets play your moving-goalpost-lets-talk-about-changed-subjects-for-distraction crap game, but first: what is the relevance between the HISTORICAL DATA and RIGHT NOW?
IOW - WHATS YOUR POINT? it is irrelevant to the topic and to my post. are you saying that the historical jet stream has affected the current one through time travel? what? SPELL IT OUT
John Douglas Swallow is my name, what is yours?
I've been known as (Truck) Captain Stumpy for more than 25 years. My name was given to me by my firefighters, and I almost never use my given name of James... and if Otto (and others) can dig up my info with ease, so can you. it's not like I am hiding. All my public profiles have the call sign "Stumpy" in them, or have Captain Stumpy in it. LEARN TO GOOGLE
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2014
An experiment needs to be done that revolves around the actual amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, today, and not some model nonsense that are not empirical in any sense of the word. Why haven't you, rundig, ever done such an experiment?


So somehow when added to the atmosphere GHG's don't have the same effect as in the Lab. ?
How convenient for you.
What about spectrographic analysis of back-radiation done on Earth. Here is a list a papers showing real world results (on continuation page).
Of course I haven't done an experiment – apart from not being a research climate scientist - it is unnecessary. It is accepted fact. It just is. The world does not have to continually perform basic physical experiments to satisfy deniers, and even if they did. you'd still deny it.

Oh, I am taking it at the moment that "rundig" was a typo.
Please note I have called you Mr swallow throughout.
Thank you.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2014
Empirical evidence:
"Increases in GH forcing inferred from outgoing LW radiation spectra of the Earth 1970-1997," Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 ( '01).
http://www.nature...5a0.html
"Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing LW data between 1970 & now," Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 ('04). http://spiedigita.../1/164_1
"Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's IR spectrum between 1970 & '06," Chen et al, ('07) http://www.eumets...es_v.pdf
"Radiative forcing – measured at Earth's surface – corroborate the increasing GHE" Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibr...abstract
"Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate," Evans, '06
https://ams.confe...0737.htm
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2014
http://ruby.fgcu....here.pdf

"There is lots of silly there. For one, you can't ignore GHG's absorbing radiation from the ground, and radiating a fair bit of it back. If you do, you find that that solar heating alone cannot keep the surface at a toasty 288 K. C&Co's only admit to processes which REMOVE energy from the surface, so the surface will cool drastically, way below the case where there is no atmosphere and no convection, because in the chilingarsphere, convection et al, only REMOVE heat from the surface"
http://rabett.blo..._21.html

The GHE is NOT just mechanical transfer to air. It is the "resistance" to the flow of LW IR to space. It back-radiates to the surface - go outside on a frosty night, then later when/if clouds come over. The ground frost is melted. That is the GHG trapped LWIR back-radiating. It is not just lost to adiabatic expansion. Venus is very cold due CO2 eh?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2014
runrig: Do you feel better now? No need for reference on that diatribe, Is there?


Yes thanks, I did.
You know, after 8ish years of batting back the same bollocks, occasionally even the most patient of us needs the odd rant.
True though eh?
What you and your ilk do is spit in the face of the worlds experts. Not just atmospheric scientists mind, but a whole gamut of specialist "ologists" that confirm the same thing. Then run off to uncritically confirm your bias with whatever you can find (at the proportion of 97:3 in peer reviewed papers). Blogs, of course, magnify the veracity of these "papers" with the fan boys cheering them on, or with some other bizarre notion like "violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics".
As I've said, I've been/posted on Spencers Blog and at WUWT, and for those of us who know science it truely is an exercise in the psychology of the human mind.
You're free to call that a diatribe if you like BTW.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
hen later when/if clouds come over. The ground frost is melted. That is the GHG trapped LWIR back-radiating.


That GHG is water vapor.

Venus receives twice the energy from the sun as does the earth.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
"The path to the broad sunlit uplands of permanent prosperity still lies before us—but to get there we have to choose that path. Nature is kind, and we could seamlessly switch from rocks that burn in chemical furnaces to a metal that burns in nuclear furnaces and maintain civilisation at a level much like the one we experience now in the post-fossil fuel eternity. But for that to happen, civilisation has to slough off the treasonous elites, the corrupted and corrupting scribblers. What lies beyond that is of our own choosing."
http://www.breitb...aying-Us
The 'treasonous elites' call themselves 'progressives'.
Science and technology created wealth and opportunity for millions without any need to kowtow to any estate lord or baron.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
"That is, it was the Green elites who unwittingly opened the door to the Abundance Revolution and the fantastic increase in wealth that Americans have since realized over the last half-century. "
"We can point to three events, all occurring in April 2014. "
"Presciently, Root noted that Reid allies were involved in "green energy" efforts, which required vast tracts of land for solar facilities. As Root opined: "
"The second triggering incident occurred a few hundred miles away in Salt Lake City on April 17, 2014. The first of a series of assemblies of local officials and state land commissioners focused on one goal: reasserting state sovereignty over federal lands. "
"The third triggering incident came on April 18, 2014, when the Barack Obama administration announced that it was delaying, yet again, any decision on the Keystone Pipeline. "
http://www.breitb...volution
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
"Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

The infamous 1995 "conspiracy commerce memo" tried to demonize and discredit alternative media outlets on the right to mainstream media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.

The memo notes that the "Internet has become one of the major and most dynamic modes of communication" and "can link people, groups and organizations together instantly.""
http://www.breitb...ombshell
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
runrig: After your long battle with the truth it must now be very exasperating for you to see that the real laboratory, the earth, in this case, is not cooperating with your invalid hypotheses of agw since the seas are not raising any more than what one would expect from a planet recovering from the LIA , the planet is not frying, there are no more than the normal weather events occurring, even with less frequency than in the past and all the while your devil in the sky has increased.

So let's maybe take a look at the importance of that "alarming" 400 parts-per-million atmospheric CO2 concentration we keep hearing about. Coldest summer on record at the North Pole, Highest August Arctic ice extent since 2006, Record high August Antarctic ice extent, No major hurricane strikes for eight years, Slowest tornado season on record, No global warming for 17 years, Second slowest fire season on record, & Four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters have occurred since 2000.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
That GHG is water vapor.

Exactly the same process. I highlight a readily viewable example of the GHG effect.
Please show me the science that shows CO2 is not a GHG.
Venus receives twice the energy from the sun as does the earth.

"If the amount of solar units hitting Earth is 100 units, then based on the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun, it receives 193 units. Yet Earth absorbs 70% of these units and Venus absorbs 30% of these units.
Earth absorbs: 100 X 0.70 = 70 units
and Venus absorbs:193 X 0.30 = 58 units
Thus, based on the distance from the Sun AND the albedo of both planets, Venus should be COLDER than Earth because it actually absorbs a lot less solar radiation.
The average temperature of Earth is 15°C, while the average surface temperature of Venus is........480°C! "
http://www.wunder...vs-venus
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014


Venus receives twice the energy from the sun as does the earth.


ryggy baby ... now do you see what you've done there?

Try either thinking or applying the science ... and preferably both.
You have obviously not noticed, but we don't still live in the Dark Age.
We do know a thing or two now.
What is received as solar energy is not the issue ... it is what is ABSORBED that is used to heat the atmosphere.
http://en.wikiped...of_Venus
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
http://www.breitb...aying-Us

From the above...
"The predictions at the low end were correct. It has become established—for those who are willing to look at the evidence—that climate will very closely follow our colder Sun. Climate is no longer a mystery to us. We can predict forward up to two solar cycles, that is about twenty-two years into the future. When models of solar activity are further refined, we may be able to predict climate forward beyond a hundred years."

I think you will find this tells you what you (don't) want to know.
http://meteo.lcd....N_62.pdf
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
And this as well...
http://rspa.royal...ll#sec-5

".....suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
Captain Stumpy: I can see because you can't even understand what you yourself post that you do not remember that the stupid video that I suffered through that said that it was due to global warming that the U.S. had such a cold winter. Then your site also said this: Snow and ice are disappearing from the Arctic region at unprecedented rates, leaving behind relatively warmer open water, which is much less reflective to incoming sunlight than ice. That, among other factors, is causing the northern polar region of our planet to warm at a faster rate than the rest of the northern hemisphere.
"A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming"
Does a warm arctic produce the most sea ice ever measured this time of year?
http://arctic.atm...979-2008 … pic.twitter.com/vSpnZo2fTi

What do you imagine the arctic ice conditions were and the level of CO2 was in 1886-88?

Those were epic bad winters; but, you and howhot2 cannot seem to link this winter with those events; strange mind set you 2 have.





jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
runrig:"The average temperature of Earth is 15°C, while the average surface temperature of Venus is........480°C! "

So what is your point? Is it that no one is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is not in sufficient quantity on earth to produce anywhere near the temperature on Venus. If it wasn't for H2O in the atmosphere of earth, it would be too cold for the life we enjoy now to exist.

"The next challenge that the atmosphere of Venus presents is its composition. It is made up of 96% carbon dioxide. Oxygen cannot be detected even as a trace element. At the surface the atmospheric pressure is 92 times that of Earth. If you were able to find a way to survive the intense pressure and had enough oxygen, you would be standing on a surface that is hot enough to melt lead. The temperature across Venus, from pole to pole, is a steady 462°C as a result of the atmosphere's greenhouse qualities. In the hottest parts of the hottest deserts here on Earth, the temperatures never top 50°C."
http://www.univer...of-venus







Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
Let's leave Venus out of the discussion. Venus' situation is very different than that of earth. You are forgetting adiabatic compression in the lower atmosphere of Venus from the sheer density of the atmosphere (well over 90 times the pressure of earth) as well as the fact that the atmosphere of Venus is 965,000 ppm CO2. And, we are talking about an atmosphere over 90 atmospheres denser than that of earth.

Yes, if you put that amount of CO2 into a bottle, or an atmosphere, there will be substantial heating and retention of heat. But, double the amount of CO2 in our own atmosphere in an IR transparent bottle (either IR transparent glass or soda pop two-liter bottle) and notice that you won't see the same or even a similar result--at all. You have to have well over 4,000 ppm to get a notable temperature increase of around 2 degrees C or more over the controls. Try it sometime and see for yourself.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014

So what is your point? Is it that no one is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is not in sufficient quantity on earth to produce anywhere near the temperature on Venus. If it wasn't for H2O in the atmosphere of earth, it would be too cold for the life we enjoy now to exist.


mr swallow, that is the point - ryggy was denying it.

I said…

"Venus is very cold due CO2 eh?."
Ryggy replied…

Venus receives twice the energy from the sun as does the earth.

To me that implies that CO2 is not the cause of it's runaway GHE and rather the Sun was therefore denying CO2 is a GHG, or at least for some magical reason, on Venus.
There's plenty enough CO2 content in the Earth's atmosphere to be doing what we see/observe/measure my friend (amplified by increased H2O content). I gave you just a few studies that have measured that further down the thread.
It may be a small number in ppm but it's increased by 40% since pre-industrial times.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
Let's leave Venus out of the discussion. Venus' situation is very different than that of earth. You are forgetting adiabatic compression in the lower atmosphere of Venus from the sheer density of the atmosphere (well over 90 times the pressure of earth) as well as the fact that the atmosphere of Venus is 965,000 ppm CO2. ....

There is no adiabatic compression IN THE SENSE that it is continually being heated from that compression.
It is a "one time" compression. Under the influence of Venus' gravity the atmosphere is compressed yes and so is heated (as on Earth of course) … but it does not continue being heated by that compression.
In the same way that a tyre when pumped up to a high pressure gets hot – but cools down as the heat from the compressed air leaks away once the "compressing" stops EVEN THOUGH the tyre stays at, say, 40psi !
On a planet the adiabatic compressive heating would leak away to space and other "heating" causes take over.On Venus it is CO2.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
Mr swallow.
That video you refer to (jet-stream behaviour) is just basic meteorology. There is nothing deniable there. For you, a layman to say so, does not make it so. It just is. The mathematics prove it - it is observed and measured. It is simply fluid mechanics on a rotating sphere with a cold central sink and a peripheral heat source.
Denialism in the extreme my friend.
However, I myself saw nothing unusual in the NH conditions this winter in the set up of the stratospheric vortex – it was actually more intense and immovable than for some years. That is not an attribute of GW.
What is beyond stupid is to imply that because the "good ole US of A" had an extreme winter (didn't actually taking in the contiguous USA – was only 0.4C colder), the world is cooling. BECAUSE the "wiggles" in the jet stream" also take warm air north as well as cold air south – result - a near zero ave temp change hemispherically
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
... double the amount of CO2 in our own atmosphere in an IR transparent bottle (either IR transparent glass or soda pop two-liter bottle) and notice that you won't see the same or even a similar result--at all. You have to have well over 4,000 ppm to get a notable temperature increase of around 2 degrees C or more over the controls. Try it sometime and ...

A bottle isn't a model for the atmosphere.
What's missing my friend is PATH LENGTH. That's how the GHE increases it's strength.
In other words the "resistive" effect of a GHG in the atmosphere DEPENDS upon the length of the path of travel of the re-directed LWIR. Which is why CO2 on Earth is nowhere near saturation. It is NOT an "insulation" effect in the sense of adding more "insulation" to a restricted volume. The level of effective emission to space merely takes place at a higher level the more CO2 is added and so at a colder and less efficient emission rate. Currently the level of maximum emission is 7km and rising.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
What do you imagine the arctic ice conditions were and the level of CO2 was in 1886-88?Those were epic bad winters; but, you and howhot2 cannot seem to link this winter with those events; strange mind set you 2 have
@jd
ok pinky... fill me in. HOW do they link?
please show me the empirical data that undeniably links the past 1886-1888 winter with the current weather in north America. and be specific... because the random moving goal-post is hard to hit unless you define parameters for discussion.

now... I've already asked HOW this applies in your delusional world and you ignored it. You gave me historical data posted in articles but I have YET to see the empirical data that links these two weather patterns. anecdotal evidence is pretty but useless to me unless it points me to empirical data which can PROVE a point.

IOW - pretty pics and links, but NO SUBSTANCE. NOT OPINION, NOT CONJECTURE, NOT YOUR POINT OF VIEW... EMPIRICAL DATA
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
oh yeah... one last thing, helmet boy
Captain Stumpy: I can see because you can't even understand what you yourself post
I understood it just fine, but apparently it is YOUwho is having comprehension problems... READ MY LAST POST...

what I am asking, and what I have continually asked, is for EMPIRICAL DATA...
NOT your opinion
NOT your conjectures
NOT your beliefs
EMPIRICAL DATA...

I don't particularly CARE about historical weather patterns or records that tell me NOTHING unless I was present, or unless I am studying weather during those dates. you've STILL NOT GIVEN ANYTHING THAT TIES THOSE WEATHER EVENTS INTO THE LATEST weather events... you can't even tell me if the past weather was a problem activated by the jet stream, a volcano, Leprechauns drinking hard in Ireland, the Wakinyan of the Oglala, or if it's Obama's fault!

until you can give empirical data SHOWING SOMETHING, then your argument is circular, stupid, and not worth continuing.

understand now?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
runrig: After your long battle with the truth it must now be very exasperating for you to see that the real laboratory, the earth, in this case, is not cooperating with your invalid hypotheses of agw since the seas are not raising any more than what one would expect from a planet recovering from the LIA .

Mr swallow that is nothing more than hand-waving. And I deny it.
Coldest summer on record at the North Pole

Weather - just as the warm one previous was also weather.
Highest August Arctic ice extent since 2006

Merely returning conditions to the falling trend line. This after 3 summers when the fall was ~3sd's beyond the mean. You know what a sd is?
Record high August Antarctic ice extent

A consequence of reducing salinity over Antarctic waters kept in check by currents – in turn caused by more melt from the peripheral glaciers, especially the WAIS. More divergent windiness causing greater dispersal of the ice, which is ~1/2 as thick as Arctic ice.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
Cont
http://www.antarc...reas.php

No major hurricane strikes for eight years
US centric - not global.
Met. knowledge – there are many factors governing the formation of Hurricanes/Typhoons – the major ones were not in place this year – the originating upper-air from N Africa was too dry to allow them to spawn over the waters in the E Atlantic as westerly moving upper troughs caused the divergence aloft necessary to lift the CB cells. So not enough LH was injected into the Trop to initiate, as an example.
http://phys.org/n...son.html

Slowest tornado season on record
US centric - not global.
Again basic Met. absent – there are many factors that have to come together to make a tornado. It's not just warm/humid air at the bottom – there needs to be colder (rel to a DALR) aloft and a backing of winds with height to generate the spin.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
Cont.
No global warming for 17 years

The clue is in warming of the SYSTEM - you know (surely you do?) that >90% of which is stored in the oceans. And the cooling effect that ENSO conditions have had. Actually it's been 9 years (if you can cherry pick - then so can I) – since 2005 when GISS had the warmest year on record.
Second slowest fire season on record

That's for the world is it ? - so the hot year previous (US centric as ever - one day you peeps will discover places outside of your shores - but with your media I doubt it) wasn't.
& Four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters have occurred since 2000.

A warming world means more moisture available to create snow FFS. Especially over Eurasia in early winter because of the openness/warmth of the E Siberian seas (5C above normal at that time in recent years) and consequent influx of moisture normally absent. Also the "wiggly" jet allows colder, snowier conditions further south into more land-mass.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
Cont.
Snow amount does not equate to global cooling. It is NOT a proxy for hemispheric average temps. Sorry. You need Met knowledge my friend to know that, and I know these moles will still keep popping their heads up because of that and the rampant denialism you so painfully exhibit.

If you want, just ask and I provide research papers for you.
However you'd only deny them anyway.

Oh, and not a rant – just giving the facts/truth to any neutrals out there.
And overly long because of your continued spamming of multiple myths.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
For all of you confused people out there the proof of AGW is really easy to understand. If the CO2 levels are higher today than they were yesterday global warming is occurring. Don't let stupid little things like the current global temperature readings, snowfall or diminishing rates of sea level rise confuse you. All of these are just short term anomalies that will be rectified as soon as the winds die down.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
**Clap clap** Yay Mr166 you are starting to read and understand I see! As you state, higher CO2 levels will induce more warming, leading to higher temperatures. And you are right, global surface temperatures are not trending with the higher deep ocean temperatures, giving some great concern about the recent observations that the Pacific appears to be going back into El Nina mode! The higher atmospheric temperature is indeed causing higher moisture content, thus leading to more snowfall during winter over the northern hemisphere, and that higher moisture level is indeed slowing the rate of sea level rise in the short term!

I guess I owe you an apology, you are not as stupid as ubamoron and you DO have the ability to read! Impressive!
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
For all of you confused people out there the proof of AGW is really easy to understand. If the CO2 levels are higher today than they were yesterday global warming is occurring. Don't let stupid little things like the current global temperature readings, snowfall or diminishing rates of sea level rise confuse you. All of these are just short term anomalies that will be rectified as soon as the winds die down.


You have it backwards mr166 - those with any inkling of critical thought realise that a complex system such as is the Earth's climate, has many underlying cycles, causes/effects, and so they modulate the overall rising trend in global ave temps due to AGW. The signal will at times be masked, as recently, for well known reasons. But it remains - because indeed CO2 levels are rising - as myopic and criminally selfish types like this poster do all they can to deny it. Why? Because they say so. A self-fulfilling prophecy turning hundreds of years of human learning aside.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
For all of you confused people out there the proof of AGW is really easy to understand. If the CO2 levels are higher today than they were yesterday global warming is occurring. Don't let stupid little things like the current global temperature readings, snowfall or diminishing rates of sea level rise confuse you. All of these are just short term anomalies that will be rectified as soon as the winds die down.
LOL. Here, you have just admitted that global warming HAS stopped! LOL.

So your argument is: "Don't let the lack of global warming fool you, I predict future global warming."

Rarely have I had the privilege of enjoying such a ridiculous argument from the AGWites.

Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
For all of you confused people out there the proof of AGW is really easy to understand. If the CO2 levels are higher today than they were yesterday global warming is occurring. Don't let stupid little things like the current global temperature readings, snowfall or diminishing rates of sea level rise confuse you. All of these are just short term anomalies that will be rectified as soon as the winds die down.
LOL. Here, you have just admitted that global warming HAS stopped! LOL.

So your argument is: "Don't let the lack of global warming fool you, I predict future global warming."

Rarely have I had the privilege of enjoying such a ridiculous argument from the AGWites.


Yep, ubamoron charging forward in full regalia to skewer another skeptic only because he couldn't be bothered to actually read what was said.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
Yep, ubamoron charging forward in full regalia to skewer another skeptic only because he couldn't be bothered to actually read what was said.
Oh I read it alright. I'm still busting a belly laugh!

I suppose it was inevitable though, as many AGWite "scientists" have found it is no longer credibly possible to deny the pause.

So the new AGWite argument is, "Global warming will resume someday. We swear it will ...really, it will... ...someday..."

LOL.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
**Clap clap** Yay Mr166 you are starting to read and understand I see! As you state, higher CO2 levels will induce more warming, leading to higher temperatures. And you are right, global surface temperatures are not trending with the higher deep ocean temperatures, giving some great concern about the recent observations that the Pacific appears to be going back into El Nina mode! The higher atmospheric temperature is indeed causing higher moisture content, thus leading to more snowfall during winter over the northern hemisphere, and that higher moisture level is indeed slowing the rate of sea level rise in the short term!

I guess I owe you an apology, you are not as stupid as ubamoron and you DO have the ability to read! Impressive!
I suspect MR166 must be pulling our leg...

MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
Uba I was just explaining how it is impossible for any data to change the position of the warmists. The technical term for their position is unfalsifiable. They are basing their whole "science" on some CO2 in a bottle. Their attempts to quantify the temperature change due to man's CO2 contribution is an abject failure.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
Captain Stumpy: Thanks, I will use your own words to ask this of you.

"what I am asking, and what I have continually asked, is for EMPIRICAL DATA...
NOT your opinion
NOT your conjectures
NOT your beliefs
EMPIRICAL DATA…
until you can give empirical data SHOWING SOMETHING, then your argument is circular, stupid, and not worth continuing.

understand now?"

Where is the repeatable experiment that shows EMPIRICAL DATA that the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere today has anything to do with the ever changing climate of the earth? Cut the mindless blustering and do some research and present the information I now demand from you. If you can't present it, then shut up about your EMPIRICAL DATA. The links that runrig wanted me to waste my time on say this:
"The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established . But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood. (No kidding)
http://www.nature...5a0.html
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2014
Mr swallow.
That video you refer to (jet-stream behaviour) is just basic meteorology. There is nothing deniable there. For you, a layman to say so, does not make it so. It just is. The mathematics prove it - it is observed and measured. It is simply fluid mechanics on a rotating sphere with a cold central sink and a peripheral heat source.
Denialism in the extreme my friend.
However, I myself saw nothing unusual in the NH conditions this winter in the set up of the stratospheric vortex – it was actually more intense and immovable than for some years. That is not an attribute of GW.

Henrik Svensmark, being a scientist, devised experiments of his own to test his theory and that demonstrates how science works. It is not about a group of self-serving charlatans proclaiming that "the debate is over" when they have no experiment that shows that CO2 drives the earth's climate or even provide the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.


jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
"That's for the world is it ? - so the hot year previous (US centric as ever - one day you peeps will discover places outside of your shores - but with your media I doubt it) wasn't."
But runrig, isn't it you who wants to claim that the RWP and especially the MWP, which has been proven historically to be worldwide occurrences, were localized events? You need to get rid of the MWP because it does not square with your absurd hypotheses that CO2 is causing a devastating influence on the earth's climate. Get real and use some logic, if that is possible for you to do.

Climate Change and the Media
"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages."
http://www.epw.se...d=266543


ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
Uba I was just explaining how it is impossible for any data to change the position of the warmists. The technical term for their position is unfalsifiable. They are basing their whole "science" on some CO2 in a bottle. Their attempts to quantify the temperature change due to man's CO2 contribution is an abject failure.
Well, I'll admit you had me fooled for a few minutes. Seriously, it was so stupid, I thought for sure it had to be a real AGWite argument.

What was particulalry funny was Maggnus even validated your sarcasm!

It's not as clear, but it looks like runrig validated it too (supposing the "poster" he was referring to was jdswallow).

...proving the AGWites are really that stupid!

jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
Skepticus_Rex has come closer to answering my challenge about an experiment about the amount of CO2 in TODAYS atmosphere having anything to do with the climate. It shows that he has a far better analytical mind than some of the others on here that would rather ignore the challenge or prevaricate instead of answering it.

"Yes, if you put that amount of CO2 into a bottle, or an atmosphere, there will be substantial heating and retention of heat. But, double the amount of CO2 in our own atmosphere in an IR transparent bottle (either IR transparent glass or soda pop two-liter bottle) and notice that you won't see the same or even a similar result--at all. You have to have well over 4,000 ppm to get a notable temperature increase of around 2 degrees C or more over the controls. Try it sometime and see for yourself."

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
Thanks, I will use your own words to ask this of you
@jd
so what you are telling me is ya got nothing... you've failed to connect the dots and you think I am going to do your homework for you? try again

why are you still here arguing?
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2014
Yeah Mr. shallowman why are you still here arguing? Every point you have tried to make has been shot down and your arguments so full of holes its like Snoopy on his Sopwith Camel going down in flames. Your last post is another laughable blarb;
You have to have well over 4,000 ppm to get a notable temperature increase of around 2 degrees C or more over the controls
Maybe its your soda bottle. So how much light did you put into that soda bottle? Was it equivalent to modern solar irradiance. Doubtful.

Who can blame you. Anyone can screw up a jr. high-school science fair project. There is only one reason a phoney like you would bring up 4000ppm, and that is the Jurassic-Cretaceous 4000ppm myth. The one where earth is in CO2 levels of 4000ppm and everything is ice covered? http://www.skepti...past.htm

Nah, it's not applicable contrarianism and an insult to science fairs and Jr high students of science everywhere.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2014
Jurassic-Cretaceous 4000ppm myth is funny because if the CO2 levels during that time weren't that high, Earth WOULD have been a frozen solid mass. Given the same today, we would all bake like crawdads on a grill.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
Uba I was just explaining how it is impossible for any data to change the position of the warmists. The technical term for their position is unfalsifiable. They are basing their whole "science" on some CO2 in a bottle. Their attempts to quantify the temperature change due to man's CO2 contribution is an abject failure.


A few points necessary here I feel.

a) Classic reverse denialist logic. In a sane world the consensus of expert opinion holds. The sanity that logic dictates that the position is taken BECAUSE of the data and not DESPITE of it. Unless we want to get into the socialist conspiracy bollocks. Cue ryggy?

b) The sanity that tells a critical/unbiased mind that there will ALWAYS be individuals with agendas. Scientists that do bad science, that slips through the net. To need 100% unanimity is nonsensical.

cont

runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
Cont

c) As explained previously, your CO2 in a bottle is not an experiment applicable to Earth and is just a denialist myth that no amount of explanation, and real world demonstration via spectrographic observation can seeming remove from certain addled heads.

d) You preach to the converted and the hand-waving you exhibit here has no effect in the real world other than for you to vent your anger, like screaming at the tide for coming in, when, as did King Canute find, it wont stop just because you want it to.

http://en.wikiped...he_Great
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
"That's for the world is it ? - so the hot year previous (US centric as ever - one day you peeps will discover places outside of your shores - but with your media I doubt it) wasn't."
But runrig, isn't it you who wants to claim that the RWP and especially the MWP, which has been proven historically to be worldwide occurrences, were localized events?


mr swallow:
Err, slow down boy you're getting confused, and you're getting your arguments mixed up … well more than usual anyway.
Yes, correct - you prove my point. Regional is NOT global as in GW.

I make the point that US citizens ( I've viewed your media 1st hand and one does come away from your shores thinking that Americans really do think that (the) Athens is in Georgia) concentrate on US centric happenings as though that proves the AGW theory is wrong, ignoring such things as the hot weather (yes, it's weather, but modulated by AGW) of 2012, and some previous mild winters.

cont
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
cont

AND I state that a regional event of cold/warm is counter-balanced by other cold/warm events hemispherically, of the opposite sign.
That is what the MWP and LIA were, other than the general cooling that volcanic aerosol injection caused.
It just has to be as the overall solar SW absorbed vs LWIR emitted would be out of balance otherwise. Give me the causation please. And not pet theories like CR's, neutinos or DM. FFS.
It was NOT the Sun stupid.( I've posted links for all the good it does with you lot).
The MWP/RWP and LIA may have had world-wide effects – BUT you cannot attribute those effects to a global AVERAGE temp/rise/fall. There is NOT enough data to state that. FFS. You even deny that there's been warming (some do anyway) due the data we have in this satellite age.
Cant have it both ways my friend. Smacks of schizophrenia.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
Henrik Svensmark, being a scientist, devised experiments of his own to test his theory and that demonstrates how science works. It is not about a group of self-serving charlatans proclaiming that "the debate is over" when they have no experiment that shows that CO2 drives the earth's climate or even provide the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.


For those with a short attention span (denialists)….
http://www.youtub...8m2VJ4Ho

Full video…
http://www.youtub...5p0kpMsw

"The suggestive basis for the
solar claims—as presented personally by
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen on the screen—
are the misleading graphs from the above
mentioned 1991 and 1998 articles."
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
Thanks, I will use your own words to ask this of you
@jd
so what you are telling me is ya got nothing... you've failed to connect the dots and you think I am going to do your homework for you? try again

why are you still here arguing?


It is too bad Stumpy that you did not even bother to read the bit of nonsense that got this discussion started and now you demonstrate that you have no idea what the difference is between "imperial" &"multi-proxy climate reconstructions"; but, we knew that from the very first post of yours that we read:
"Lovejoy's study applies statistical methodology to determine the probability that global warming since 1880 is due to natural variability. His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out "with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%." (where does he come up with this nonsense at?)
To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses "multi-proxy climate reconstructions" developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics.

runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
cont

http://www.realcl...2004.pdf

"The CLOUD researchers made two key discoveries. Firstly, they found that minute concentrations of amine vapours combine with sulphuric acid to form aerosol particles at rates similar to those observed in the atmosphere. Then, using a pion beam from the CERN Proton Synchrotron, they found that ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has NEGLIGIBLE INFLUENCE ON THE FORMATION RATES OF THESE PARTICULAR AEROSOLS."

http://press.web....e-change

The CERN paper…

http://www.nature...663.html
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
#2
Is climate change going to be less extreme than you previously thought?
"The Revenge of Gaia was over the top, but we were all so taken in by the perfect correlation between temperature and CO2 in the ice-core analyses [from the ice-sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, studied since the 1980s]. You could draw a straight line relating temperature and CO2, and it was such a temptation for everyone to say, "Well, with CO2 rising we can say in such and such a year it will be this hot." It was a mistake we all made."
http://www.nature...tureNews
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
#1
It is a shame runrig that you are not as intelligent as James Lovelock is. Your fellow Brit is smart enough to understand that this agw hypotheses of linking CO2 to all that you "alarmist" now try to do was and is a mistake. You will never change your mind and what difference does it make because your opinion is worth nothing while people pay attention to what James Lovelock says.

James Lovelock reflects on Gaia's legacy
"Scientist who features in an exhibition opening today in London, talks about Gaia, climate change and whether peer review is necessary."

In 2006, his book The Revenge of Gaia predicted disastrous effects from climate change within just a few decades, writing that "only a handful of the teeming billions now alive will survive".
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014

#2
Would it have been before 1900 when the life expectancy for men was 46.3 and 48.1 for women in the US; by 1998 according to a Berkeley study that had improved to 73.8 for men and 79.5 for women?
http://demog.berk...re2.html

According to another study in 1930 the life expectancy for both sexes was 59.7 years and in 2010 it was 78.7 years.
http://www.infopl...148.html

"Despite the rise in real income, by the end of the century life was still hard for the average European, compared to 21st century European standards. In Britain the average male was dead at 51.5 years of age, the average woman at 55.4. In France these figures were 45.4 and 50, in Spain at 41 and 42.5. Figures for the Russians, available in 1895, have the average male dead at 31.4 years and the average woman at 33.3."
http://www.fsmith...9soc.htm
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
#1
runrig; Please tell me what kind of a climate you want for the earth. Since you can not give me the example of the experiment I requested, I hope that you can answer this question for me.

Carbon based energy is what has produced the economy that allows you and your minions to waste your time involved in this libelous campaign against it. It has caused 2% of the population of the U.S. to be able to feed the rest of the nation and a part of the world and it has also caused the life expectance to increase.
It is kind of hard to know just what to believe, for the disciples of this hoax, agw. I have a few questions for you. Just which period in the past would have qualified for your climatic "utopia" since you believe that things are so bad now because of this trace gas, CO2, that is absolutely essential for ALL life on the earth's surface? Could there be intelligent design after all because even you will admit that it is more dense than the rest of the atmosphere.
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
runrig: I watched your uninformative YouTube presentation and will throw this back at you. The narrator kept saying that the experiment had failed but where is your experiment on You Tube regarding how CO2 is causing climate change? According to your video, it is preposterous to think that the object in the sky that makes up 99.8 of the mass of the solar system and provides the warmth for our planet could possibly be responsible for the climate. I think that the fool even said that it was heretical to believe such a thing and that is probably true of your cult that has no empirical bases for your believe that there is a bad devil in the sky that you can not see, CO2, unlike water in the form of clouds that we all see and you could to, if you got your heads out of your posterior and actually looked at the world
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
runrig: There needs to be NO proving of cosmic rays to understand that H2O in the atmosphere is responsible for over 98% of the greenhouse effect on earth.
One does not need elaborate scientific experiments to assess the influence of atmospheric H2O on the earth's climate. First off, one can not only see it but one can also feel it in the atmosphere. If someone has ever spent any time in the upper latitudes, or lower, where there are distinct seasons that are caused by the sun's 22.4⁰ tilt on its axes, the coldest nights of the winter always occur when there is no cloud cover and it is also the reason why the deserts can be 120⁰ F. during the day and freezing at night.
On the three different occasions when I have; at different locations, two of which were in Nepal and the other on Kilimanjaro in 2011, been at or above 18,000 feet, it took no experiment to show one that there is only about 1/2 as much atmosphere at these altitudes as at sea level by just trying to get enough O2 to exist; but, there were always clouds over head and snow on the ground.
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
"One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(According to a NASA web page, 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns."
http://www.nytime...uds.html
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
It is a shame runrig that you are not as intelligent as James Lovelock is.


Excuse me mr swallow
You do not KNOW me and I do not know you.
So that gives neither of us the right to say we are either more or less intelligent than anyone else.
Least of all of someone who only has a "hypothesis" with no empirical mathematics, causation/correlation or scientific oberservation.
Mr Lovelock is no more a super omniscient being than is Dyson (also Brit born) or you, or me.
It is arrogance in the extreme to make such comparisons.

As for the rest of your recent posts – mere hand-waving and quotation – which are worthless in a scientific context.

Oh, also, I told you why your "experiment" was worthless in modelling the Earth's GHE.

You'd do well to understand why.

This a science site, please show me some that is peer-reviewed. Blathering on about and fan-boy cheering your favourites doesn't cut it.
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2014
The fact that ALL of the river systems in the world that life depends on are kept flowing because of the continual evaporation and precipitation cycle that takes place and at one time or the other ALL of this H2O is in the atmosphere.
"The Amazon River carries more water than any other river in the world. In fact, the Amazon River is responsible for about one-fifth (twenty percent) of the fresh water that flows into the world's oceans."
http://geography....ver8.htm

This is the absorption spectrum for liquid water in the atmosphere:
http://i42.tinypi...aes8.jpg

Note the location of the strongest absorption peak of liquid water and it's unfortunate coincidence with the absorption peak for CO2, where liquid water absorbs 300+ times more intensely than CO2, not to mention water's much greater abundance in the troposphere:
http://i44.tinypi...ayi1.jpg
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
You'd do well to understand why.

How many AGWites understand the limits of computer simulations, for ANY field.
'Simple' discrete event simulation models of 'simple' processes like manufacturing or inventory control can be very difficult to predict.
Yet AGWites have faith in computer simulations created to tell them what they want to believe.
Computer simulation is what Dyson primarily critiques.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
......
At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(According to a NASA web page, 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns."
.....


Of course clouds do as stated.
However clouds come from WV which is ONLY sourced via the hydrological cycle, which means that any one H2O molecle spends on average just 10 days in the atmophere before begining the cycle again.
Thus it is a constant over lengthy time scales, and as such so are clouds.
It all averages out my friend.
There is NO science (as yet) that shows there is any variable acting on cloud formation that influences long-term temperatures (GLOBALLY).

Also, and crucially, clouds warm and cool depending on their altitude - so we have to discriminate there as well, high cirrus cloud being warming. Care to bring in aircraft contrails?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
You'd do well to understand why.

How many AGWites understand the limits of computer simulations, for ANY field.
'Simple' discrete event simulation models of 'simple' processes like manufacturing or inventory control can be very difficult to predict.
Yet AGWites have faith in computer simulations created to tell them what they want to believe.
Computer simulation is what Dyson primarily critiques.


ryygy baby...

The understanding in question relates to science that has OBSERVED the GHE in the real world in Earth's atmosphere.
AS I said read the linked science and UNDERSTAND WHY.
Computer simulations merely confirm what we see.

The vacuum man is no more a sage/font of knowledge than anyone else on the planet, and it doesn't matter if he was, as words aren't science .... unless of course those words support denialism.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014

It's not as clear, but it looks like runrig validated it too (supposing the "poster" he was referring to was jdswallow).

...proving the AGWites are really that stupid!



Err no Uba,...
I am English, and we live on irony (less than sarcasm and more subtle).

I use it all the time on here.
Hadn't you noticed?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
Computer simulations merely confirm what we see.

What a surprise!
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
The AGW theory of more CO2=higher temperatures is popular because it is easy to explain in a way that the uniformed sheeple can understand. You cannot sustain a functioning political movement if the people cannot understand the cause.

It is one a dimensional science in a multidimensional world and as such of little predictive value.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
The AGW theory of more CO2=higher temperatures is popular because it is easy to explain in a way that the uniformed sheeple can understand. You cannot sustain a functioning political movement if the people cannot understand the cause.

It is one a dimensional science in a multidimensional world and as such of little predictive value.


The AGWites are having a bit of trouble with that correlation and following Popper, their 'science' is failing. Just as Popper noted that Marxist 'science' failed.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
It is too bad Stumpy that you did not even bother to read the bit of nonsense that got this discussion started
@jd
actually, I was thinking that about you... I assumed (wrongly) that you had been reading and comprehending what was in the thread. had you been paying attention, you would have seen
see Tim Thompson and Thermodynamics in the following threads:
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

http://phys.org/n...bal.html
&
so your "ASSUMPTION" is that physicists are "fooled" by CO2. ok, copy/paste this:
http://geosci.uch...d-archer
but you keep going on and on about historical WEATHER and thinking it is linked here...

AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO LINK IT TO TODAYS WEATHER AND CLIMATE PATTERNS & in your first post to me you forgot all about inversion layers and assumed that heat must ALWAYS be above cold
Lovejoy's study applies
that's in the article, I never quoted that. try again
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
we knew that from the very first post of yours that we read:
"Lovejoy's study applies statistical methodology...blah blah blah
@jd
and AGAIN...
you change the whole argument by being stupid (or are you just having comprehension issues?)
are you mentally challenged? do I need to quit picking on you?
I NEVER QOUTED or SAID THAT.

now get back to the topic.
perhaps I wrongly assumed that you had an attention span that was capable of following the debate, but I guess I was wrong.

GO BACK AND READ MY POSTS... not other people and the article, and you will see where your CO2 questions are answered as well as more data supporting my position... now... I can see where you are either being disingenuous, you are having comprehension issues, or you are totally mad, but in order for you to continue you MUST stay on topic and get to the point... and in order for me to assess whether you are a TROLL or intelligent this must also happen, because right now you are TROLLING
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses "multi-proxy climate reconstructions" developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics
@jd
one last thing... if THIS is your problem, then perhaps you need some refresher education in physics, math and science. these techniques are based upon sound principles, much like forensic investigation of a crime scene. The testing and retesting over time as well as the verification of models through the process of the scientific method make them a viable working method.

IOW - there is a measure of uncertainty built in to every measurement.

you can go here http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm and get some physics retraining or learn a little of what you need
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
assess the influence of atmospheric H2O on the earth's climate
@jd
and if you had been reading MY posts and links, you would have seen where I addressed this issue... by referring you to Mr Thompson and Thermodynamics and their descriptive comments in another thread...
this is the irritating thing about you, jd.
you are here to (obviously) prove some point, and you have decided that global warming is not happening (or you have made up your mind that it cannot be happening for whatever reasons and stuck your head in the sand) and then you ignore all data presented to you that proves otherwise.

we don't care if you want to TROLL, however, we will continue to post EMPIRICAL DATA supporting our arguments because there ARE intelligent people looking at those links.

ya want to learn something? READ THOSE LINKS ABOVE!

p.s. TimT, Runrig and Thermo's arguments are math/physics based and fully supported by experimental data = EMPIRICAL
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
Computer simulations merely confirm what we see.


"Ptolemy's major contribution, however, was that his model could so accurately explain the motions of heavenly bodies, it became the model for understanding the structure of the solar system. "
http://www.polari...sub1.htm

In the parlance of modeling and simulation, Ptolemy's model suffered a type III error:
"Type III error
Use of irrelevant model;
Accreditation mistake;
Accreditor's risk;
More
serious error"
http://www.iitsec...1306.pdf
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
The AGWites are having a bit of trouble with that correlation and following Popper, their 'science' is failing. Just as Popper noted that Marxist 'science' failed.


Of course it is ryggy. That's what delusion does to you. Removes you from reality. So for you QED.

And I note the inevitable reference to socialism.
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2014
But where, Captain Stumpy; do you supply an empirical experiment that shows how the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the earth's atmosphere, today, can cause the dire consequences that you and others pushing this flawed hypothesis that requires prevarication, (Mann's hockey stick), subterfuge, (the missing heat is in the oceans) and a whole host of dishonest methods to try to support your hoax? It is proven, Captain Stumpy, that as water warms it gives up CO2 and it is up to 800 years before this is in the atmosphere; therefore, under fools assertion that CO2 causes positive forcing, the oceans would have boiled away before they even formed.

I assume that this is an example of what you and rinrig consider being an experiment that shows what your delusional mind wants to believe.
http://www.bbc.co...10959197
Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment
Replicating Al Gore's Climate 101 video experiment (from the 24 hour Gore-a-thon) shows that his "high school physics" could never work as advertised http://wattsupwit...eriment/
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2014
I would hope that this information in video form graphically demonstrates to you, Captain Stumpy, just how insignificant the amount of CO2 in the earth's air really is. It does for people that are not crippled by preconceived ideas that have no scientific bases but logical folks can readily get the picture, can you?

"At 398 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present.
Let's picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 metres high (1063ft). If the hight of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO2 would be 8.75 centimetres of that hight (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimetres (1.5 inches)
http://a-sceptica...ic-facts

You alarmist have a way of classifying anyone that disagrees with your cult's believes as being "trolls".
"The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" — Karl Popper
"Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin." Huxley


ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2014
The AGWites are having a bit of trouble with that correlation and following Popper, their 'science' is failing. Just as Popper noted that Marxist 'science' failed.


Of course it is ryggy. That's what delusion does to you. Removes you from reality. So for you QED.

And I note the inevitable reference to socialism.

Does a fish know its in water?
Does a retired govt weatherman know he lives in socialism?
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2014


we don't care if you want to TROLL, however, we will continue to post EMPIRICAL DATA supporting our arguments because there ARE intelligent people looking at those links.

ya want to learn something? READ THOSE LINKS ABOVE!


But where is your EMPIRICAL DATA supporting your arguments? It is not post on this site by other fools that share your believes. You are right about one thing, there is much to be learned from ryggesogn2's that do appear above your post and you certainly need to look into what is said when you open these links, which I know you will because of your natural interest in learning all you can about this issue.
John Douglas Swallow
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2014
The AGWites are having a bit of trouble with that correlation and following Popper, their 'science' is failing. Just as Popper noted that Marxist 'science' failed.


Of course it is ryggy. That's what delusion does to you. Removes you from reality. So for you QED.

And I note the inevitable reference to socialism.

Does a fish know its in water?
Does a retired govt weatherman know he lives in socialism?
Does an admitted anarchist schizophrenic suffering from paranoid episodes recognize his duplicity?

What does one label an anarchist who bands together with other anarchists to form a cabal? A stupid hypocrite?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
you and others pushing this flawed hypothesis
@jd
ok... loosen up the helmet, it's cutting off the O2 to your head.
SHOW ME ONE LINK/POST where I have pushed a FLAWED HYPOTHESIS.
so far, everything I've posted, linked or refferred to is supported by EMPIRICAL DATA. Just because you've ignored it, doesn't mean it aint true, helmet boy
do you supply an empirical experiment
I didnt post an experiment because if you cannot understand the explanations of the links/references that I DID POST, then it would be kinda stupid, especially as the links/posts were supported by valid modern physics as well as empirical data.
TRY READING THOSE LINKS ABOVE and quit being retarded about this. really.
Ignoring all the links in my posts above (start from the beginning) only shows that you are being fallacious as well as intentionally deceitful for purposes of obfuscation. this seems to be a continuing problem
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
whole host of dishonest methods to try to support your hoax
@jd
first off... O2 deprivation can be lethal... take a breath. good? now...
SHOW ME ONE DISHONEST METHOD I have used. you will not find one
I assume that this is an example of what you
do not make assumptions about me. I am an investigator, as stated (when you wrongly "assumed" I was a scientist above)

now... if you will read my links above, you will see that I never made a reference to a bottle or an experiment in a bottle (nor any BBC references, either). all my posts above are supported by empirical data or known physics (as in the Tim Thompson links)

therefore either
you are a complete idiot
you're being intentionally obtuse
you're ignorant (which I recommend those MIT links)
you are (again) changing the argument
you are hiding or intentionally trying to obfuscate what is being said
OR
you have comprehension problems

pick one
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
But where is your EMPIRICAL DATA supporting your arguments?
@jd
have you not learned how to use the links above? Right click on them with the mouse. you will find LOTS of empirical data or explanations supported by physics. here is one, posted YET AGAIN for you... feel free to read it and weep at your continued stupidity... which is becoming annoying
http://centerforo...warming/
don't forget to check the references
you might also try this one
"http://geosci.uch...-archer"
there is a mess of studies on this one...
want to try for more? all I am doing is re-reading re-posting from above... and this is what is frustrating as well as annoying

you've made plenty of claims, but so far you've not been truthful.
still want to play this game?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
You are right about one thing, there is much to be learned from ryggesogn2's that do appear above your post and you certainly need to look into what is said when you open these links
@jd
so NOW it comes out... all you are is another Rygg (or even a sock-puppet)
NOW we know that all you are doing is TROLLING
you certainly need to look into what is said when you open these links, which I know you will because of your natural interest in learning all you can about this issue
now that we've finally gotten you to admit that you are nothing but a TROLL, why should we open the links?

what you fail to realize about this site is this: a LOT of the people here READ the links and understand the studies/data/publications/reports/experiments, unlike you. What I post (as well as others) is fully supported by empirical data and the known laws of physics etc, therefore your attempts to obfuscate the issue will come to naught

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2014
But where, Captain Stumpy; do you supply an empirical experiment that shows how the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the earth's atmosphere... dire consequences that you and others pushing this flawed hypothesis…..


Mr swallow – there is a small problem there. Err… I don't know of a laboratory quite big enough to do the experiment in!
The data obtained from the observations made by spectrograph, are related to the GHG's in the atmosphere, of which we know the constituents.

The excess back-radiated terrestrial IR can then be tied in with the known physical properties of those GHG's.
We know the rate at which mankind is spewing CO2 into the atmosphere and it is simple (for a computer programme) to figure an answer as to what energy will be (re)received at the Earth's surface as a result.
Get it?
It stems from the known physical properties of molecules and radiative physics TIED in with observation.
Your repeated call for a lab experiment is specious and ignorant.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2014
I assume that this is an example of what you and rinrig consider being an experiment that shows what your delusional mind wants to believe.


Mr swallow: OK – so in this reverse logic world of yours.
People who know science. Experiment with science. Observe science. Advance science…. THEY are delusional?
Is that what you are saying?

If so, I take it you are using technology to post on here. Were the scientists/engineers who developed the means you use to be here delusional?

In a sane world it is the minority who do not DO the science and do not KNOW the science and above all, DENY the science who are the deluded here.

But then the deluded can be sufficiently deluded as to not think they are deluded.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
"Earth Day was hijacked a month later by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) as a day for environmental and social injustice teach-ins on April 22, 1970 (Lenin's birthday). "
""The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." Kenneth Watt, Ecologist"
"The original Earth Day founders absolutely got the science and their projections for the future wrong, "
http://www.breitb...it-Wrong
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
i provided a long list of reserch that had been done on different scientific questions. If you do njot care to rtecall them, fine.
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
Sun spots and temp. changes:

http://nextgrandm...ling.pdf
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014

.
People who know science. Experiment with science. Observe science. Advance science…. THEY are delusional?
Is that what you are saying?

Runrig: I had posted this list of amazing experiments that HAVE been done and then you offer up this feeble bit of utter nonsense:
"Mr swallow – there is a small problem there. Err… I don't know of a laboratory quite big enough to do the experiment in!"

You are confirming my contention that NO experiment proves that CO2 does what you imply that it does and therefore your believe is little better than a cult's belief in the supernatural.

http://www.scient...nglement
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
http://cdsweb.cer...77?ln=de
http://www.youtub...embedded
http://online.wsj...618.html
Dark matter hunt: LUX experiment reaches critical phase
http://www.bbc.co...26819792

runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
Sun spots and temp. changes:

http://nextgrandm...ling.pdf


166 - thanks for enlightened us with a paper written for the SPPI - which is, according to…

http://www.source...nstitute

"The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics website and blog now run by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which employs SPPI President Robert Ferguson; the SPPI website has drawn heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton."

The author is a noted/active AGW critic and this paper was NOT peer-reviewed
(read acknowledgement at bottom)

From… http://www.desmog...r-lingen

"THAT THE EARTH HAS BEEN COOLING and the fact that many signs point to a continued cooling is difficult to accept for scientists and politicians who have nailed their colours to the apocalyptic-global-warming mast."

Oh, yes, and 4th warmest March globally?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
You are confirming my contention that NO experiment proves that CO2 does what you imply that it does and therefore your believe is little better than a cult's belief in the supernatural.


mr swallow.
What experiment do you propose pray, when in order to simulate the path-length of the back-radiated terrestrial LWIR one would need a vertical column of air of the order of 50km in which to do the experiment.
Simulations can be done experimentally on (much) shorter lengths - but it comes down to calculation in order to figure the number for Earth.

I say again - experiments are not required (and plainly cannot be done realistically) when observations have been made of what is happening.
I gave you a list of links to some of them.
Kindly stop denying the undeniable. Just as the world is round and not flat.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
NOT peer-reviewed

You mean not authorized by the anointed ones.

Trust is a terrible thing to loose. Especially for science.

'Peer review' in general has not been doing so well lately, if you hadn't noticed.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
You are confirming my contention that NO experiment proves that CO2 does what you imply that it does and therefore your believe is little better than a cult's belief in the supernatural.

mr swallow:
That you compare science to the supernatural, says more about you and your blathering than anything I can.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
NOT peer-reviewed

You mean not authorized by the anointed ones.

Trust is a terrible thing to loose. Especially for science.


If you mean that it being given the once over by a friend who plainly believes the bollocks it it - then Dr Gerrit van der Lingens paper is peer reviewed eh ?

Please give me a better way of a science paper being checked for error than to have it read by fellow scintists that understand the scince and not ....
"I am grateful to my colleague, geologist Albert Jacobs (Calgary, Canada) for
critically reading several versions of my essay and making pertinent and constructive suggestions, which have improved the manuscript substantially. I would like to thank my wife Marianne for reading the manuscript, picking up many typing and other mistakes, but especially for giving her opinion whether my essay is understandable for an educated, non-specialist audience (my target audience)."

Even he calls it an "essay".
An essay is not science - no cigar there.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
i provided a long list of reserch that had been done on different scientific questions. If you do njot care to rtecall them, fine.


mr swallow, to quote yourself:
I provided a long list of links of papers .... pertaining to real world spectroscopic observations made of the atmosphere. which by virtue of same, atmospheric constituents can be separated out and their causal back-emitted terrestrial IR measured.
Real world mr swallow.
What is happening mr swallow.
No need for an experiment that your biased/unscientific mind will have us do in order to satisfy you. What is a self-fulfilling prophecy for you, my friend, so you can be forever be smug and in denial as you want something that cannot be done.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
"Oh, yes, and 4th warmest March globally?"

Runrig does this look like the 4th warmest.

http://www.woodfo.../to:2015

Who do you trust NOAA or satellite data?

NOAA claims an anomaly of .7 degrees and hadcrut claims .25 degrees.

Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
"Oh, yes, and 4th warmest March globally?"

Runrig does this look like the 4th warmest.

http://www.woodfo.../to:2015

Who do you trust NOAA or satellite data?

NOAA claims an anomaly of .7 degrees and hadcrut claims .25 degrees.



What exactly do you think that graph means? And how do you think it relates to temperatures in March over the last few decades?
MR166
1.8 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
Well Maggnus if NOAA claims a .7 degree anomaly for march and HADCCRUT claims a .25 degree anomaly one of them has to be wrong.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
Please give me a better way of a science paper being checked for error than to have it read by fellow scintists that understand the scince


I referred to a case where a 'peer' refused to be critical of a paper he was reviewing because he would have to identify himself and the author of the paper reviewed his grant funding.
Others have said the number of climate science 'peers' are so few they review each other's papers.
And, so few ever really check the data, if supplied, that all peer review does is support the present consensus.
When McIntyre and McKitrick finally obtained Mann's hokey schtick data, their peer review demonstrated how poorly the analysis was conducted.
Few to no papers are reviewed to this level.
'Peer' review is just another means to control the message and not advance science.
Kuhn discussed this in his work on science.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
Well Maggnus if NOAA claims a .7 degree anomaly for march and HADCCRUT claims a .25 degree anomaly one of them has to be wrong.
Have you considered that the HadCRUT data misses some 20% of the globe? Does that make the information wrong?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
Well Maggnus if NOAA claims a .7 degree anomaly for march and HADCCRUT claims a .25 degree anomaly one of them has to be wrong.


No, one doesn't - they are both different and equally valid ways of measuring an average global temperature.
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
And NOAA has how many reporting stations to cover the entire globe????????????????
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
"No, one doesn't - they are both different and equally valid ways of measuring an average global temperature."

Oh this is getting funnier by the minute. They are trying to say that 2 degrees per century is apocalyptic yet the measurement systems can differ by a factor of .45 degree and still be "Valid".
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
And NOAA has how many reporting stations to cover the entire globe????????????????


About 1500 not including ocean buoys.

You haven't answered my questions.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
I referred to a case where a 'peer' refused to be critical of a paper he was reviewing because he would have to identify himself and the author of the paper reviewed his grant funding.

One swallow does not make a summer – shit happens – peer review is just the best worst way of doing it. What do YOU want? – layman-review perhaps, by tea-party members? You'd win hands down.
Others have said the number of climate science 'peers' are so few they review each other's papers.

So? if the expertise lies in a small number of people then so be it.
I venture to suggest that in other cutting-edge science there is an equally small number of experts. You have a problem with that too? No, thought not, as it doesn't take your "tax dollars". Ah diddums.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
Oh this is getting funnier by the minute. They are trying to say that 2 degrees per century is apocalyptic yet the measurement systems can differ by a factor of .45 degree and still be "Valid".
Funnier, meaning you don't understand it. And because you don't understand it, you think the small numbers have no meaning.

In other words, you don't understand it, so it must be wrong somehow.

You haven't answered my questions.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
cont

When McIntyre and McKitrick finally obtained Mann's hokey schtick data, their peer review demonstrated how poorly the analysis was conducted…..

Denialist myth and the mole appears again …. that would be the "hokey schtick" that the Koch's BEST paper also found then… and every other study to boot.
AND the critique was successfully rebutted..
"Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (~+0.05C), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years."
http://link.sprin...6-9105-7

FFS: ~0.05C

+ others behind walls.

MR166
1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2014
"About 1500 not including ocean buoys."

Oh WOW! That works out to about 1 per 340,000 KM2. Just for giggles why don't you deduct the stations that are compromised due to poor site locations and compute the true figure.

Sorry, I will stick with the satellite data.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
if the expertise lies in a small number of people then so be it.

But it does not.
Only true believers can be 'peers' to perpetuate the faith.
In real science, one individual can make or break a theory.
In AGW 'science', dissenters are attacked and excommunicated.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
"About 1500 not including ocean buoys."

Oh WOW! That works out to about 1 per 340,000 KM2. Just for giggles why don't you deduct the stations that are compromised due to poor site locations and compute the true figure.

Sorry, I will stick with the satellite data.


Makes no bloody difference - as long as there is a lengthy record of reliably maintained data then it is applicable. You cant measure every bloody where.
Do you not understand statistical averages as well as not understanding probabilities.

Oh and the hadcrut data happens to miss the Arctic out almost entirely ... where the greatest heating is taking place (no, last summer was weather - I mean the 30 yr trend).

You should be pleased, eh? As the record ends up colder than it should.

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

Cue for the next mole to appear .... place your bets now...
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
if the expertise lies in a small number of people then so be it.

But it does not.
Only true believers can be 'peers' to perpetuate the faith.
In real science, one individual can make or break a theory.
In AGW 'science', dissenters are attacked and excommunicated.


Complete rubbish and please give an answer as to how the science should be checked for error.

It happened to Fleishman and Pons my friend - it is by no means unique in climate science.
Anyone doing bad science is liable to the same thing.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
Mr166 said:
Well Maggnus if NOAA claims a .7 degree anomaly for march and HADCCRUT claims a .25 degree anomaly one of them has to be wrong.


Would you please give us the URL links for these observations?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
In real science, one individual can make or break a theory.
In AGW 'science', dissenters are attacked and excommunicated
@Rygg
argument from stupidity as well as personal conjecture
climate science is no different than any other science... in order to prove something wrong/different/other than accepted mainstream or whatever you want to call it, it requires EMPIRICAL DATA.

PERIOD

there is no if's, and's, or but's here. this is how science always works. it is why we value the system in place now, and why science is so highly valued as well. EMPIRICAL DATA underpins everything.

given that some "dissenters" as you put it are attacked and excommunicated... it couldn't possibly be because of BAD SCIENCE in your eyes, only that everyone else rose against them for believing differently.... this is called an irrational thought process.

what's next? conspiracy? aliens? no moon landing? pyramid on the moon? Elvis is in my kitchen? what?
and of course you can prove all of this?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
Anyone doing bad science is liable to the same thing.

Except for a high priest of AGW like Mann.
Excuses are made for him and his 'peers'.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
And NOAA has how many reporting stations to cover the entire globe????????????????
@mr166
ooo... all those question marks... are you epileptic? turn off the strobe light bubba.
you are assuming that reporting stations are the only way of collecting data

http://www.noaa.g...tes.html

polar-orbiting satellites circle the Earth and provide global information from 540 miles above the Earth.
&
Data from satellites are used to measure the temperature of the ocean, which is a key indicator of climate change. Satellite information is used to monitor coral reefs, harmful algal blooms, fires, and volcanic ash. Monitoring the Earth from space helps us understand how the Earth works and affects much of our daily lives. A listing of all satellite products is available on the website of NOAA's Satellite and Information Service.
as for this
Who do you trust NOAA or satellite data?
did you forget NOAA has satellites too?

http://www.weathe...image=ir
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
how the science should be checked for error.

Full disclosure of raw data for analysis by anyone for a start.
Mann refused to release his hokey stick data for quite some time.
Too bad we can't trust the scientists today to be honest.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
Anyone doing bad science is liable to the same thing.

Except for a high priest of AGW like Mann.
Excuses are made for him and his 'peers'.
@Rygg
personal conjecture based upon stupidity

of course, you have proof? empirical data supporting your conjecture above?

WHY do you keep posting irrelevant or unsupported conjecture as argument or proof of argument?

if ya aint got empirical data, ya aint got crap.

your personal conjecture is every bit as valid as the comment "Bee's use fairy manure to pollinate unicorn horns" and holds all of the same scientific validity, or proof.
Too bad we can't trust the scientists today to be honest.

more personal conjecture without evidence... see above
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2014
"About 1500 not including ocean buoys."

Oh WOW! That works out to about 1 per 340,000 KM2. Just for giggles why don't you deduct the stations that are compromised due to poor site locations and compute the true figure.

Sorry, I will stick with the satellite data.
Well you seem to think you have an idea, how about you give us an indication of those sites you think are compromised, and why you think they are compromised. So what if there are one to 340,000 or 3,400,000 or 34,000,000? What do you think that means?

What satellite data? Why are you sticking to it? What are you sticking to?

How about you try making sense?
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
Thermo I was referencing the NOAA data, http://www.ncdc.n...s/global with Hadcrut http://www.woodfo.../to:2015 for the month of march per Runrig 4th highest march temps.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
runrig: I know your opinion of Anthony Watts because you go to his site and get shot down by facts and you, for some reason, keep bringing up the BEST paper. I'm not sure that what Muller is saying here is true or not; but, this is what he did say.

"MulIer says that the BEST team has now cleared up this issue by showing that when it comes to specifically measuring change in temperature, the 30% of good stations are not significantly more accurate than the 70% of bad stations. "lf Watts hadn't done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he's a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize."
http://bishophill...tts.html

Another question about the hockey stick, why does it not show the known RWP, MWP and LIA that have historical, empirical evidence of having occurred? We all know why, but do you?


jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2014


mr swallow.
What experiment do you propose pray, when in order to simulate the path-length of the back-radiated terrestrial LWIR one would need a vertical column of air of the order of 50km in which to do the experiment.

runrig: Do you not have the ability to understand that if the complex experiments that I supplied the links for could be done, then one certainly can be done to show that the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere does what you and others want sane people to believe? Is that that hard to understand unless you know that CO2 can not do want you claim because it is physically impossible for a trace gas that comprises only .038% of the atmosphere. I am now reading the Book "Night Comes To The Cretaceous" & the experiments that were used by the Alvarez's to turn their hypotheses into the theory of what caused the dinosaur's extinction are amazingly complex and accurate. Don't tell me that an experiment can not be done regarding CO2.
Tyndall certainly knew more about this 155 years ago than what you do to day: "Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth's heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost' – the greenhouse effect."


SteveS
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2014


Tyndall certainly knew more about this 155 years ago than what you do to day: "Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth's heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost' – the greenhouse effect."


and TC Chamberlin certainly knew more about water vapor feedback than you back in 1905

"Water vapor, confessedly the greatest thermal absorbent in the atmosphere,
is dependent on temperature for its amount, and if another agent, as CO2, not
so dependent, raises the temperature of the surface, it calls into function a
certain amount of water vapor which further absorbs heat, raises the
temperature and calls forth more vapor"
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2014

and TC Chamberlin certainly knew more about water vapor feedback than you back in 1905

"
SteveS: I would think that you would realize that CO2 makes up only .038% of the atmosphere while water vapor is greater than .25% by mass over full atmosphere & is up to 5% by volume. Could that be why Tyndall made the statement that he did and we can wonder at why you made the one you just made?
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
Thermo I was referencing the NOAA data, http://www.ncdc.n...s/global for the month of march per Runrig 4th highest march temps.


Great, but the Wood For Trees site has not been updated for March.

Take a look at the latest plots for global.

http://www.cru.ue...erature/

It seems it is quite different from the WFT site.
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2014

and TC Chamberlin certainly knew more about water vapor feedback than you back in 1905

"

SteveS: I would think that you would realize that CO2 makes up only .038% of the atmosphere while water vapor is greater than .25% by mass over full atmosphere & is up to 5% by volume. Could that be why Tyndall made the statement that he did and we can wonder at why you made the one you just made?


Both Tyndall and Chamberlin were right, I made the statement I did because you are wrong.
SteveS
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
Jd why do you assume ulterior motives?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
how the science should be checked for error.

Full disclosure of raw data for analysis by anyone for a start.
Mann refused to release his hokey stick data for quite some time.
Too bad we can't trust the scientists today to be honest.


ryggy baby:

Please explain how Mr Mann got the "schtick" wrong, as in it being ANY different to all the OTHER "schticks" that, err, were the SAME.

And how when independently analysed his graph was found to be just 0.05C too warm on one portion of it.

Explain how the Koch's "schtick" was found to confirm Mann's as well.

I'm all ears, my friend, though I do not expect anything other than an exercise in wriggling evasion and denial of facts.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2014
runrig: I know your opinion of Anthony Watts because you go to his site and get shot down by facts and you, for some reason, keep bringing up the BEST paper. I'm not sure that what Muller is saying here is true or not; but, this is what he did say.

mr swallow:
I will correct you there...
I WENT to his site (past tense). It is like being in an alternative universe... And I mean that - as even Anthony considers some of them "Slayers" - as in denying the undeniable (he is AFTER all a meteorologist). Laughable really when one accused me of not knowing anything as I was a Meteorologist! get the drift there. Own goal!
Mr Cotton too, as he banned a persistent "slayer" after he did the same with me.
BTW: both those "skeptics" accept the GHE.
It is just so wearing my friend, one has to be in the real world, it's akin to drowning I suspect - To argue against basic atmospheric processes, that "he'd figured out by the time I was 13" FI.
So many of them just away with the fairies.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2014
SteveS: I would think that you would realize that CO2 makes up only .038% of the atmosphere while water vapor is greater than .25% by mass over full atmosphere & is up to 5% by volume. Could that be why Tyndall made the statement that he did and we can wonder at why you made the one you just made?

mr swallow:
So what?
It is not the quantity of a substance that matters in a process it is its effect. That is why catalysts are important FI (and yes I DO know that's chemical not radiative).
Given that ~99% of the atmosphere is transparent to Terrestial IR then GHG's are VITAL in the "resistive" effect that gives rise to the GHE.
Like I said, read the papers on the real world observations, study the physics and stop spamming this science site with your moles please.

Oh, found this re the Metrology of GHG's see especially from "Spectroscopy-Based Approaches for CO2, CH4, & N2O" AND path-length onwards

http://www.nist.g...tone.pdf
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2014
To correct an error in my post a little earlier.
The "skeptic" who banned a "slayer" was Roy Spencer and the person he banned was Mr Cotton.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2014
"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999)
that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least
a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for
individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because
not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."
http://www.nap.ed...d=11676#
MR166
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2014
Thanks for pointing out my error Thermo. It was not obvious to me until now. I will have to look at the newest data.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2014
http://www.americ...nce.html

CO2 absorption of Long Wave IR
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
Andre Lofthus? Another guy who claims to be a physicist, yet provides no evidence that he is, gets very basic physics wrong, suggesting he is being less than truthful, and writes for a known far right neo-conservative rag. MR166, do you ever step back and consider your sources? Are you sure that's not Rygg?

That's a laughingly inept attempt at discussing the "science". He is writing for those just like you MR166 - close-minded, neo-conservative tea partiers. What a poor excuse for a cite.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
http://www.americ...nce.html

CO2 absorption of Long Wave IR


An "own goal" there 166.

This is a post by noted climatologist skeptic Dr Roy Spencer posted on his site today about said "science" by Loftus.

http://www.drroys...stinker/

Do any of you recall me talking of "slayers"?
This man is such.

I encourage all to read - to lay this appalling bollocks to rest, where it belongs ... in the round receptacle residing on the floor in the corner of the room.
I thank you 166 for the post - keep em coming. FFS.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2014
Also in regard to Spencer and the Lofthus bollocks ...

http://junkscienc...s-essay/

"I have serious reservations about climate models, but people like this writer of the American Thinker article are barking up the wrong tree. Unfortunately, they sound like experts, and they persuade a lot of people. I then have to spend a lot of my time trying to undo the damage.

-Roy"
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
Well, I have to admit runrig, that I never expected such a blunt and accurate assessment from Roy Spencer. While I disagree with much that he has to say, he is certainly not purposefully blinded, and that's a good sign.

Now I wonder if I need to reassess Judith?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
" it will be a higher level of radiation because of the high temperature)"
If ALL the ENERGY in the 15um band is absorbed at the surface, there is NO more energy to absorb at 15 um.
Even if that energy continuous to higher altitudes, there is still a fixed energy rate of transfer.
I perfect selective energy absorber can't create energy.
Kinetic energy transferred to N2 or O2 or to the surface, will radiate into space through other atmospheric windows.
It's like a well insulated house with a constant heat source. You can add more insulation, slow the heat transfer, to a limit, but if you keep that same windows open, the temperature will stabilize unless the source of energy changes.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
Run:
http://www.americ...nce.html

Do any of you recall me talking of "slayers"?
This man is such.

I encourage all to read - to lay this appalling bollocks to rest, where it belongs ... in the round receptacle residing on the floor in the corner of the room.
I thank you 166 for the post - keep em coming. FFS.


I almost feel sorry for Spencer after reading the comments from the whackos following his web site... Almost.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2014
CO2 absorption
@mr166
from your link http://www.americ...nce.html
As a professional scientist, a physicist with 40 years experience in aerospace and extensive knowledge of atmospheric physics
I've been searching for studies by Andre Lofthus and I can't find ANY. I DID find some AM Lofthus in Mental Health and one A. Loftus in neurology publications, but no physics and especially no aerospace studies.
http://scholar.go...as_sdtp=

ok, one 40yr old study http://iopscience...8/5/007/ (but no guarantee it is the same person)

please provide some proof that this Loftus is a physicist per his claims. I can't find anything.

This makes it hard to accept your source as legitimate, especially since it is an article with only TWO references, one to amazon books, and one to Plank's law.

thanks
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2014
Run:
http://www.americ...nce.html

Do any of you recall me talking of "slayers"?
This man is such.

I encourage all to read - to lay this appalling bollocks to rest, where it belongs ... in the round receptacle residing on the floor in the corner of the room.
I thank you 166 for the post - keep em coming. FFS.


I almost feel sorry for Spencer after reading the comments from the whackos following his web site... Almost.

Yes, I don't think Spencer is that far gone. Believe me if you think our 'family' of deniers are bad then a visit to either Spencer's' or Watt's Blog forums will soon make you seriously worry for the human race.
For the sake of my sanity I had to desist.
Talk about arguing with idiots bringing you down to their level ...and they win because of their experience.

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2014
" it will be a higher level of radiation because of the high temperature)"
If ALL the ENERGY in the 15um band is absorbed at the surface, there is NO more energy to absorb at 15 um.
Even if that energy continuous to higher altitudes, there is still a fixed energy rate of transfer.
I perfect selective energy absorber can't create energy.
Kinetic energy transferred to N2 or O2 or to the surface, will radiate into space through other atmospheric windows.
It's like a well insulated house with a constant heat source. You can add more insulation, slow the heat transfer, to a limit, but if you keep that same windows open, the temperature will stabilize unless the source of energy changes.

So your 400ppm of co2 'absorbs' all the energy at 15 microns does it ?
And no there is NO 'fixed' rate of transfer ..... that's the bloody point. The RATE of transfer to space is slowed, by increasing path-length and greater emission from higher in the atmosphere which is colder and less efficient.
MR166
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
I also respect Roy Spencer and gladly cede to his judgement of this article.
MR166
3.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
Every government rule has it's consequence.

http://dailycalle...zj0GrL6B
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
he RATE of transfer to space is slowed, by increasing path-length and greater emission from higher in the atmosphere which is colder and less efficient.


At 15 um.
Not at 8-12 um.

one to amazon books,

The IR Handbook:
http://books.goog...AAAAMAAJ

There are hundreds of sources for the data in the IR Handbook.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2014
I also respect Roy Spencer and gladly cede to his judgement of this article.
So you agree then that global warming is a fact? Or do you just agree with the parts of Spencer's arguments that fit your predetermined stance?
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
How long do the CO2 molecules keep this absorbed energy? Since the number of water and nitrogen molecules far outnumber the number of CO2 molecules the CO2 must collide with the water and nitrogen, transferring the energy pretty quickly.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2014
How long do the CO2 molecules keep this absorbed energy? Since the number of water and nitrogen molecules far outnumber the number of CO2 molecules the CO2 must collide with the water and nitrogen, transferring the energy pretty quickly.


This is a tricky question because it depends on where in the atmosphere it is for mean time between collisions. In general, it can collide and give up some of its energy which changes its emission line. It can also emit in jumps or a single jump. It can change vibration or rotation during a collision. The result is a lot of calculations go into deciding how the molecule gives up extra energy from a photon. Alch and I are going to attack this issue in the open on the

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

thread. I am not sure how smoothly it will go, but your input would be appreciated as we formulate the problem statement as well as the solution.
MR166
5 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
Thanks Thermo, I will be the first to admit that this sort of problem is beyond my knowledge.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
Thanks Thermo, I will be the first to admit that this sort of problem is beyond my knowledge.
@mr166
I thought that Thermodynamics and Tim Thompson attacked some of the issues well in another thread I linked, but I suggest joining in the thread Thermo linked above http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

input is great and it is open to everyone to watch. I am hoping Tim Thompson also takes a few whacks at helping as well... so far it is pretty clear and everyone is on the same page. it should be interesting, even for laymen like me
MR166
3.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
"So you agree then that global warming is a fact? Or do you just agree with the parts of Spencer's arguments that fit your predetermined stance?"

Maggnus I have never denied that CO2 contributes to warming. My issue is how much and does it's contribution warrant the governmental solutions that are being proposed? It is very easy to propose an end to carbon based fuels but is that solution really beneficial to the survival of mankind?
MR166
not rated yet Apr 26, 2014
Another skeptic!

http://www.breitb...Nonsense

I don't really understand the part about CO2 not increasing. Does he mean due to man?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
Another skeptic!

http://www.breitb...Nonsense

I don't really understand the part about CO2 not increasing. Does he mean due to man?

166:
I'm not going to speculate as to what he means, as he is blowing smoke out of his arse.

Just as away with the fairies as the last idiot that "sounds plausible" to the non-believers and is spouting utter bollocks to those that know the science.
Don't ask me about why some "educated" people do this - I won't speculate as to his politics - but I note he is not educated/trained in radiative physics - rather chemistry.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
Another skeptic!

http://www.breitb...Nonsense

I don't really understand the part about CO2 not increasing. Does he mean due to man?


Mr 166: I agree with Run on this. I went to the site and looked it over. He says some things (more than just the strange comment on CO2) that just don't hold up. Another of his comments is:

"Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and it's completely unpredictable beyond around five days."

It is not the idea that a single event can happen. It is the idea that the statistics of the events changes over time. It is the drift in statistics that is important. It is also important to know weather from climate. It will be interesting to watch those statistics over the next few years.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2014
MR166 asked
How long do the CO2 molecules keep this absorbed energy? Since the number of water and nitrogen molecules far outnumber the number of CO2 molecules the CO2 must collide with the water and nitrogen, transferring the energy pretty quickly.
The point is its cumulative and ongoing. Energy absorbed means vibration, means re-radiation and/or greater kinetic energy, more collisions, more buffering of IR from earth's surface - or rather an Increase in resistivity.

Any increase in resistivity results in an increase in temperature, unfortunately a great of that increase is absorbed (masked to a degree) by massive absorption in the Oceans particularly the melting of ice - which absorbs MUCH more heat than ice or water ie
Ice 2 units, water 4 units, melting ice 331 units - ie HUGE

Point is ice mass is declining.

When that same 331 units of heat is applied to water and not to ice melting with no temperature change THEN the water can rise by ~80 deg C - significant !
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2014
ryggesogn2 STILL hasn't addressed the fundamental question and repeats his mantra re wavelengths
At 15 um.
Not at 8-12 um.
The IR Handbook:
http://books.goog...AAAAMAAJ
Why doesnt ryggesogn2 answer this simple question ?

"How can ADDING a greenhouse gas with known thermal properties of re-radiation NOT increase resistivity and thus increase temperature (in the atmosphere)?"

Is it likely that ryggesogn2, doesnt understand basic physics of heat & statistical mechanics, where ryggesogn2 did you get the university degree you claimed in Physics - please ?

Also,
"Is there any sound hypothesis ryggesogn2, that CO2 has different properties BECAUSE it is in the atmosphere ?" - if so then state them otherwise you are stepping on foundations of equivalence in Physics - as if you never actually studied the subject !
MR166
2.8 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2014
Mike I am not speaking for others but I have never doubted that CO2 increases the earth's temperature. The question is how much heating does man's contribution make to the overall CO2 effect and is that contribution of any significance? Is it worthwhile to impoverish hundreds of millions more people just to save say .5 degrees of heating? Would that even be noticed among the overall climate noise?
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2014
MR166 a fair question
Mike I am not speaking for others but I have never doubted that CO2 increases the earth's temperature.
Thats great to hear & especially as its based upon sound fundamentals of Physics.
MR166
The question is how much heating does man's contribution make to the overall CO2 effect and is that contribution of any significance?
This is maths of overall heat capacity is so important & it should be born in mind a relatively small increase in temperature (of the atmosphere) does indicate a very large heat absorption of the oceans as the oceans have 1000x more heat capacity - this means expansion means higher sea levels means changes in evaporation pattern & consequent effect of food production.
MR166 went further
Is it worthwhile to impoverish hundreds of millions more people just to save say .5 degrees of heating?
Media says, not me.
MR166
Would that even be noticed among the overall climate noise?
Yes integration but, we r at early stage fast change!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2014
changes in evaporation pattern & consequent effect of food production.

What are the changes?
The Club of Rome predicted dire changes decades ago that were wrong.
AGWites are hyping bad change with NO discussion for any good change.
I think the melting of the glacier that used to cover my hometown in SD is good change.
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2014
changes in evaporation pattern & consequent effect of food production.

What are the changes?
The Club of Rome predicted dire changes decades ago that were wrong.
AGWites are hyping bad change with NO discussion for any good change.
I think the melting of the glacier that used to cover my hometown in SD is good change.


rygsuckn'--

Ok, then, how about this:

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

Is that a "good " change, or a "bad" change?

You want to split hairs, and spew drivel to the effect that Siberia and Canada will be rendered into overflowing baskets of agricultural plenty...

The reality is that much of current agri practice will have to be extensively modified, over broad areas, and quickly enough to support another couple billion people over the next 2-3 decades. Where is the money, policy, planning and infrastructure to accomplish this well-nigh impossible feat going to come from?

NeoCon LibertaRandites like you?

Moron.
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2014
jdswallow proves yet again he doesnt understand measurement metrics etc with this ignorance
Mike_Massen: One can easily wonder at just what scientific training you have or just how much you are able to draw on common sense logic.

I see that you do not have the ability to understand that if Amundsen was able to make this trip in 1905 there was far less ice than when the idiots were going to make the same trip 2013
"North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught"
You jdswallow, focused on ONE YEAR of qualitative data:-

Prove Amundsen made mass measurements and calculations over the whole Artic AND factored in outliers in the year he was there and the whole data set averaged over a reasonable period - lets start with 2 decades.

Focusing on ONE year jdswallow proves you are biases AND focusing on qualitative data proves you have no understanding of the Science of measurement and acquisition of empirical data...!

Please jdswallow, I beg you get a BASIC high school education!
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2014
ryggesogn2 proves he has his head in the sand
What are the changes?
Start with reduced rainfall where I live in Perth, Western Australia
The Club of Rome predicted dire changes decades ago that were wrong.
Why shift to propaganda ryggesogn2, where is the Science ?
AGWites are hyping bad change with NO discussion for any good change.
Good change would be to start with reducing CO2 emissions as it is KNOWN CO2 has known thermal properties !
I think the melting of the glacier that used to cover my hometown in SD is good change.
Very stupid of you ryggesogn2, you have lost one buffer effect already - with many more under threat...

Remember the massive buffering of melting ICE and its heat absorption is far more than ice or water !

There is so much ryggesogn2, you prove you have no claimed university degree in Physics, why did you lie ryggesogn2, it proves nothing, your methodology so often proves you WILL not learn !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014
The reality is that much of current agri practice will have to be extensively modified, over broad areas, and quickly enough to support another couple billion people over the next 2-3 decades. Where is the money, policy, planning and infrastructure to accomplish this well-nigh impossible feat going to come from?


The money and planning did NOT come from central planning socialists.
Socialism destroyed agriculture in Zimababwe, USSR, Cuba, DPRK, ...yet the socialists still demand state predisposed centralized planning.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2014
Mike virtually every prediction made to date about floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, snow, ice melt and droughts has been wrong. There has been a lot of blame thrown at CO2 from increased crime, rape and war, to fatalities on Mt. Everest. Until they have a climate model that actually works all of these warnings of world catastrophes are little more than superstition.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2014
MR166 obviously needs an education to be able to discriminate what to read
Mike virtually every prediction made to date about floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, snow, ice melt and droughts has been wrong.
So called 'predictions' are by the very same type of people as arbitrary idiot deniers - ie. Uneducated propagandists - they are media mostly & obviously not Scientists !
MR166 went on without discriminating
There has been a lot of blame thrown at CO2 from increased crime, rape and war, to fatalities on Mt. Everest.
Never seen this rubbish but, then again I don't frequent idiot propagandist sites or listen to un-informed media, I am an Engineer, this is ostensibly a Science site but many uneducated deniers make just as stupid claims as alarmists however, the fact is sea levels are rising Eg. Tuvalu
Until they have a climate model that actually works...
MR166 is obviously confusing claims by media disparate from claims re models - Physics education will arm you -capisce' ?
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014
So let me get this correct, there have been no predictions concerning droughts, hurricanes and and tornadoes by reputable climate scientists.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2014
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2014
MR166 has been seriously misled but, hasn't noticed
So let me get this correct, there have been no predictions concerning droughts, hurricanes and and tornadoes by reputable climate scientists.
These "weather" events happen often, general view which has foundation that more energy in the system, probability goes up that some of these events may be more severe - weather men & media obviously use this to make sensationalist claims. This is why you NEED an education in Science MR166, so you can discriminate. Have never seen or heard of a "reputable climate scientist" make this claim in isolation or in context with any particular weather pattern - please try MR166 to understand weather is not the same as climate !

MR166 offered a link re rape. It is well known that amongst the uneducated & poor, higher humidity + high temperatures makes some people angrier & wishing to express power.

But MR166, these are not claims by reputable "climate scientist" r they - huh ?

Education MR166 !
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014
".........general view which has foundation that more energy in the system, probability goes up that some of these events may be more severe ....."

Again, this "general view" has absolutely no basis in history. Very harmful weather events were much more prevalent during the LIA. Now during a warm period these events are becoming less common and only the hyperbole related to those that do occur is increasing.
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2014
MR166 desperately needs education in "Probability & Statistics" as taught in High School & expanded upon at University level
Again, this "general view" has absolutely no basis in history.
MR166 Misses the point, its not history its the ever present Physics of the properties of materials NOW, the atmosphere, the gases, the properties of water, the differing greenhouse gases, the chaotic changes in sea currents plus the ability to integrate heat flows (Calculus)
Very harmful weather events were much more prevalent during the LIA.
Why focus on qualitative when empirical data is Essential on a Science site ?
Now during a warm period these events are becoming less common and only the hyperbole related to those that do occur is increasing.
What is the basis of this ambit immature claim, where is the data set to support such Bias ?

What is your definition MR166 of "Now", last year, last 10, etc ?

Obviously MR166, does not understand methodology of acquiring empirical data !
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014
Mike it is obvious that you do not understand the difference between real science and religious beliefs! I will be kind here, perhaps it is only your political ideology that allows you to believe that history is of little consequence. Past CO2 levels and temperatures are meaningless because now it is all the fault of mankind. Right Mike, all of the past climate changes were one time occurrences and now it is different. Mankind is solely responsible for any changes from this time forward.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2014
The reality is that much of current agri practice will have to be extensively modified, over broad areas, and quickly enough to support another couple billion people over the next 2-3 decades. Where is the money, policy, planning and infrastructure to accomplish this well-nigh impossible feat going to come from?


The money and planning did NOT come from central planning socialists.
Socialism destroyed agriculture in Zimababwe, USSR, Cuba, DPRK, ...yet the socialists still demand state predisposed centralized planning.


Pathetic.

A typical rygsuckn' side-step.

Where is the money to address these far-reaching changes in agriculture going to come from?

NeoCon LibertaRandites like you?

No? Then where?

Moron
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2014
"Where is the money to address these far-reaching changes in agriculture going to come from?"

Caliban these changes will come from the hard working farmers who built this country despite government interference. Government does not create wealth, prosperity or food.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2014
Caliban these changes will come from the hard working farmers who built this country despite government interference. Government does not create wealth, prosperity or food.


Notsofast, 166(...and rygsuckn'), it'll probably be funded by redistributed TAX revenues and private funding via the likes of Socialist gubberment agencies like NASA and not-for-profit NGOs, and their analogues the world over:

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

Private industry only rarely spends its own money on infrastructure or technology/research sharing. They prefer surer things like lobbying for favorable tax status, elimination of regulation, and the exploitation of the commons as ways to make money.

Agriculture is only of interest if IT GENERATES PROFIT. If there isn't enough of that product to go around, or you can't afford it, then that's just your tough luck -isn't it?

It's for damn sure that ADM,Cargill, Monsanto, et al, aren't going to pay for it.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2014
Much of the growth of giant agribusiness is the result of a powerful government. ADM,Cargill, Monsanto and 3M pretty much own the government. In most but not every case big government is the problem and not the solution. Private industry is much more likely to find a cost effective solution to a problem than government.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2014
"Where is the money to address these far-reaching changes in agriculture going to come from?"

Caliban these changes will come from the hard working farmers who built this country despite government interference. Government does not create wealth, prosperity or food.


I know it's difficult (read impossible) for you to conceive but the consequences down the line of AGW involve rather more of the world than "hard working farmers who built this country" .. typical US centric and selfish thinking.
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2014
MR166 made a very un-intelligent claim
Mike it is obvious that you do not understand the difference between real science and religious beliefs!
How is probabilistic acceptance of the principles of Physics demonstrated at High School & University any sort of "religious belief" ?

MR166 made another dumb claim
I will be kind here, perhaps it is only your political ideology that allows you to believe that history is of little consequence.
How is acceptance of underlying Physics & value of Empirical Data a "political ideology" ?

There is NO comparable history of the rapid rise of CO2 anywhere !
Eg As recorded here:-
http://www.woodfo...o2/every

How is this empirical data any sort of "religious belief" or "political ideology" ?
Past CO2 levels and temperatures are meaningless because now it is all the fault of mankind.
NO, they are useful & indicative.

Please MR166 have some integrity, show history of rapid CO2 rise event long before last 150 years ?
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2014
Mike I was referring to historical temperature change not CO2. Granted CO2 is going up and man is helping that happen but there has not been a corresponding increase in temperature that is at all unusual when viewed from a historical perspective. The amount of warming caused exclusively by man's release of CO2 has not been quantified and the effects of some increased warming are not understood.

If renewable energy could fill most of our energy needs in a cost effective manner this discussion would be pointless but they cannot and some of the proposed solutions do not really help the energy CO2 balance in any meaningful way. A carbon tax is little different from an income tax with the exception that it is not graduated and working families that now are just making ends meet will have to be subsidized by their governments. The last thing that the world needs is more governmental control of the people.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2014
They prefer surer things like lobbying for favorable tax status, elimination of regulation

That's because this is the only way to profit in fascist states.
If the fascists states had their socialist power limited, investments in innovation may have a better chance of returning a profit.
In the Regulatory States of American, there is no way to predict what new ways to plunder and restrict wealth will be promulgated by the 'dear leader'.
The 'dear leader' has unilaterally rewritten his takeover of the medical industry more the 30 times since its passage as it continues to fail and its victims discover how terrible ObamaCare is.
The recent debacle with ethanol subsidies in the US is a prime example of how crony socialism/fascism distorts markets, enriches lobbying firms and members of Congress.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2014
Another example of how the fascist Regulatory States of Amearica fear their subjects:
"New documents released this week raise serious questions about whether the EPA delayed publication of new environmental rules in order to help Democrats running for re-election in the upcoming 2014 midterm elections.

Worse, the new documents also contradict sworn testimony given before a Senate committee by Obama's Environmental Protection Agency chief, Gina McCarthy, insisting the EPA had published the rules in a timely manner. "
http://www.breitb...o-Policy

AGWites can't achieve their objectives with truth so they must deceive.
Science has succumbed to such deception in the past and is doing so once again.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2014
Sounds like 'science' today:
"Under the Soviet system all science was funded by the state, which meant that so long as Lysenko remained in Stalin's good graces it was career suicide for any scientist to dispute him. Few did, and Lysenko's opponents were frequently sent to the gulag. Science textbooks were rewritten, with Lysenko's work replacing what he called "alien foreign bourgeois biology". Even after Stalin's death and denunciation by Nikita Khrushchev, Lysenko maintained his position at the apex of Soviet science until the mid-1960s."
http://www.nndb.c...0050678/

This Soviet communist 'science' starved millions.
And this is the same type of central planning the socialist Ehrlich disciples rant about here.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2014
I see the resident schizophrenic loon if off on yet another paranoid off-topic rant.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2014
Maggnus off topic my A$$! That is exactly the topic. Is man's contribution to CO2 really a problem or is this whole AGW scare an attempt by progressive/socialist/communist governments to confiscate my wealth and freedoms?
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2014
They prefer surer things like lobbying for favorable tax status, elimination of regulation

That's because this is the only way to profit in fascist states.
If the fascists states had their socialist power limited, investments in innovation may have a better chance of returning a profit.
[...] is.
The recent debacle with ethanol subsidies in the US is a prime example of how crony socialism/fascism distorts markets, enriches lobbying firms and members of Congress.


Aha-- the whirling dervish of stupidiosity emits another flood of NeoCon LibertaRandiTard gobbledygook!

At least(in this case) I'll admit that 166 showed some restraint and relative concision with his psedointellectual chicanery....

A slightly more honorable opponent --or merely one with less ready access to terabytes of cross-referenced NeoCon Blogospheric Media, aka NBM?

I was just reading that astronomers had made the first confirmed findings of this stuff in the Lying Rat Fuck nebula.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2014
Maggnus off topic my A$$! That is exactly the topic. Is man's contribution to CO2 really a problem or is this whole AGW scare an attempt by progressive/socialist/communist governments to confiscate my wealth and freedoms?


So what you are saying, 166, is that AGW is, in fact, a socialist conspiracy designed to conscript your "wealth and liberty".

Why do you even bother asking if AGW is real, if you have already decided that it is a cover story for this Socialistic(or is it FascioSocialism? --an even more improbable fiction), redistributive conspiracy?

As if it weren't already crystal clear to everyone reading your comments, you aren't here to develop any understanding of the bedrock science, but to attack any understanding of the world that might lead to policy that would affect that NeoCon-LibertaRandiTard-Freemarket-Complex's ability to post quarterly returns to your investment portfolio.

[cont'd]
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2014
[cont'd]

Meanwhile, I invite you to provide even a single example of "freemarket innovation" that has
--without direct and explicit government funding, subsidy, or tax exemption-- developed or deployed a non-GHG emitting energy production technology.

You would think that Big Carbon's "entrepreneurial" masterminds would be sinking billions into R&D to find just that very thing, so that they would own the technology, and therefore take all the future profits(trillion$), but they aren't.

I wonder why?

Sorry for mocking you with a rhetorical question, since we all know the real answer.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2014
Maggnus off topic my A$$! That is exactly the topic. Is man's contribution to CO2 really a problem or is this whole AGW scare an attempt by progressive/socialist/communist governments to confiscate my wealth and freedoms?
Wow, you poor deluded fool.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2014
take all the future profits

[

There are NO future profits in AGWism.
Enron tried pushing AGWism on GHW Bush promoting the Kyoto treaty so Enron would profit from its natural gas business.
eveloped or deployed a non-GHG emitting energy production technology.


http://flibe-energy.com/

MR166
1 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2014
"Wow, you poor deluded fool."

ROTFLMAO, Right Mike that really answers the questions I have raised.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2014
Look -even more Watermelon EcoFascioSocialist wealth'n'liberty robbery!!!!!

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

rygsuckn', 166, freethinking --save us from this commie plot to try to find ways to feed the world in the midst of the increasing AGW threat to traditional agriculture's ability to provide enough food.

Why aren't your freemarket agribusiness giant heroes stepping up and leading the way with massive R&D and infrastructure investments to overcome AGW's vicious handmaiden?

Oh --that's right...massive R&D and infrastructure investment = reduced short-term profitability.

Oh, alas --the dirty secret at the rotten core of the freimarket model.

MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2014
Caliban ask your friends in Venezuela how the system is working out for them.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2014
It's interesting how irrational socialists become when confronted with the failure of their faith.
With such irrationality how can socialists be taken seriously on science?
reemarket agribusiness giant heroes stepping up and leading the way with massive R&D and infrastructure investments to overcome AGW's vicious handmaiden?


Who are these 'free market agribusiness giants'?
I do know from experience seed companies are continuously innovating to create new hybrids for the specific needs of their farming customers and will continue to do so.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2014
Rape
mr166
if I may make some points about that study: it also states in the study (found here: http://www.google...zHczQXmA )
The short-term effects of weather on crime are well documented...with higher temperatures leading to higher levels of criminal activity (Brunsdon et al, 2009; Bushman, Wang, and Anderson, 2005; Cohn, 1990). However, despite the strength of this relationship, there is little evidence on how weather affects patterns of criminal behavior over longer time scales. In particular, there is great uncertainty about how climate change is likely to affect the incidence of crime
this is in the introduction
cont'd

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2014
@mr166 cont'd
one thing about blog references... your blog did NOT have the whole study. but I found it easily enough...
it also states
The estimates in this paper also assume a static baseline of criminal activity, based on average crime rates between 2000 and 2009. Given the challenges of accurately predicting long-term trends in crime rates (Levitt, 2004), such an assumption is a reasonable analytical strategy. However, if for reasons unrelated to climate change, crime rates were to increase or decrease substantially over the coming decades, then the estimates from this paper could significantly over- or underestimate climate's effects on future crime
so this means that the paper is showing a possible outcome based upon historical data with projections also based upon that data and making some assumptions that are considered logical and valid.
you took some numbers out of context, and it looks bad, but you didn't post the rest...
cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2014
@mr166 cont'd
and also
However, if for reasons unrelated to climate change, crime rates were to increase or decrease substantially over the coming decades, then the estimates from this paper could significantly over- or underestimate climate's effects on future crime. As a final caveat, I emphasize that this paper's estimates of the social cost of climate-related crime should be considered to be highly uncertain
so IMHO, this study is a valid assessment but is also remains valid only if certain factors remain static.
I dont know if you actually read the entire study, so read the link I left above and get back to me with your comments.

The numbers look bad, or might be considered high, whatever, but there is much that is not taken into consideration when throwing a number out there on a blog or you post: all the OTHER relevant data... like population increase, etc... your number is meaningless without more data.

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2014
Mankind is solely responsible for any changes from this time forward
@mr166
are you attempting hyperbole?
Is man's contribution to CO2 really a problem or is this whole AGW scare an attempt by ...
@mr166
now, I am not sure where you are going with this (I've been gone for a few days and not fully caught up yet) so I will give you trhe benefit of the doubt.
CO2 is definitely a problem, but not just because we are pumping it into the atmosphere. Remember, there are also sources that are natural and the earth has cycles... the problem is comming from our adding it to the atmosphere without regard to any other sources.

a flammable gas does NOT always ignite with a sufficient heat source, it also needs O2. There is also a maximum proportion of vapor in air above which propagation of flame does not occur. These boundary-line mixtures of vapor with air are known as the lower and upper flammable limits (LFL or UFL) respectively. they are usually expressed in terms of percentage by volume of vapor in air. I believe this analogy applies here to CO2
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) May 01, 2014
It's interesting how irrational socialists become when confronted with the failure of their faith.
With such irrationality how can socialists be taken seriously on science?
reemarket agribusiness giant heroes stepping up and leading the way with massive R&D and infrastructure investments to overcome AGW's vicious handmaiden?


Who are these 'free market agribusiness giants'?
I do know from experience seed companies are continuously innovating to create new hybrids for the specific needs of their farming customers and will continue to do so.


Tell me, rygsuckn' do you drive a Dodge?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) May 01, 2014
It's interesting how irrational socialists become when confronted with the failure of their faith.
With such irrationality how can socialists be taken seriously on science?

ryggy baby....

Is that how your brain works?
You equate climate science with socialism, as in the one springs from the other?
Does that apply to all science.
Or just the science that you perceive is behind a plot to steal "your tax Dollars".
Ah diddums.
If so then we should thank socialism for advancing mankind then eh?

It may or may not interest you to know that personally I am not socialist.
I shall for instance be voting UKIP in the forthcoming Euro elections.

In other words the science is the science and the politics is the politics.
Try learning some.

Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) May 01, 2014
ryggesogn2 stumlbed oh so dearly with this
It's interesting how irrational socialists become when confronted with the failure of their faith.
With such irrationality how can socialists be taken seriously on science?
So ryggesogn2, are you claiming the Science of the properties of water are socialist, perhaps evaporation then is capitalist ?

Your posts ALWAYS show you have NO training in Science and your claim of a University degree in Physics can only be false when you link Science with Politics & Ideology.

ryggesogn2, where is the evidence of your claimed degree in Physics ?

Why ryggesogn2, can't you address Science head on ?

Explain ryggesogn2, how ADDING a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere has NO effect on thermal resistivity and therefore temperature changes ?

Physics ryggesogn2 !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 01, 2014
equate climate science with socialism, as in the one springs from the other

Now climate 'science' is just another hammer to beat socialism into the people.
It started in the late 60s and little opposition from climate scientists.
science is the science and the politics is the politics.

That's not the real world.
The US EPA is NOT required to provide to the citizens they 'serve' the data they are using to destroying major industries in the US and the world.
Socialists will lie about anything to keep power. BHO murdered his own ambassador in Libya to stay in power.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 01, 2014
science is the science and the politics is the politics.

How can scientists be independent when they are funded by the state?
MR166
1 / 5 (6) May 01, 2014
Capt. I don't get the fire analogy unless you are trying to say that extra CO2 in the atmosphere will create a tipping point in the earth's climate. If there is no tipping point then man's contribution to warming is of less significance and there is time to fully quantify the effects, both good and bad, of his contribution to climate change.
This is necessary because the proposed changes are drastic and very costly in terms of prosperity and individual freedoms. They all involve a huge increase in the powers granted to central government. As you may have gathered by now, I feel that all governments local and otherwise should have as little power as possible but they should have enough power to insure that each and every individual has the right to live their life in freedom as long as they do not interfere with the freedoms of others. I view taxes as an infringement of freedom and as such they should be as low possible while still empowering the governments to protect all freedoms
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) May 01, 2014
science is the science and the politics is the politics.

How can scientists be independent when they are funded by the state?


Then how can anyone?
It's easy, my friend.
All one needs is integrity.
If you cheat a patience, it doesn't mean everyone does.
"Government law enforcement positions include police officers, criminal investigators, correctional officers, border patrol agents and FBI agents. Popular federal government cabinet agencies in the law field include the following: Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Justice.
The U.S. government is always seeking employees in the medical field. The areas of work include clinical, public health, research and health policy positions. Such job titles include nurses, doctors, pharmacists, medical technologists and medical records technicians."

To name a few...
http://www.ehow.c...bs.html/

FFS
MR166
1 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
MR166
1 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
He has highlighted some some of the problems caused by the governmental corruption of science.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2014
Another settled scientific "fact".

http://www.breitb...-Settled

Is seems that scientists have their own agendas which are more important than the truth.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2014
Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 percent certainty
Interestingly, as the earth continues to cool, it is starting to negate previous warming. RSS MSU (satellite temperature measurements) now go backward, beyond the 1998 peak with no warming (17.8 years):

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) May 03, 2014
Ubavontuba is at it again with
Interestingly, as the earth continues to cool, it is starting to negate previous warming. RSS MSU (satellite temperature measurements) now go backward, beyond the 1998 peak with no warming (17.8 years):

http://www.woodfo....3/trend
Stupid to say 'no warming' as ubavontuba ignores this:-
http://www.woodfo....3/trend

The Earth must have warmed as there is reducing ocean salinity whilst loss of ice mass, given the facts re properties of water it is easy for intelligent people to see that heat absorbed by melting ice can and does reduce atmospheric temperatures - its physics.

Selectively ignoring oceans have 1000x greater heat capacity than atmosphere is a dis-ingenuous distortion of the complexity of the climate system.

There is more than enough evidence the Earth is warming whilst atmosphere cools.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 03, 2014
uba states
as the earth continues to cool
without regard to these points found here http://www.epa.go...emp.html
Sea surface temperature increased over the 20th century and continues to rise. From 1901 through 2012, temperatures rose at an average rate of 0.13°F per decade (see Figure 1).

Sea surface temperatures have been higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable observations began in 1880 (see Figure 1).

Increases in sea surface temperature have largely occurred over two key periods: between 1910 and 1940, and from about 1970 to the present. Sea surface temperatures appear to have cooled between 1880 and 1910 (see Figure 1)
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 03, 2014
no warming (17.8 years):

http://climate.na...enter/28
from the above link
As of 2014, 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880 according to NASA scientists
&
The temperature analysis done by GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea-surface temperature and Antarctic research station measurements, taking into account station history and urban heat-island effects
maybe this link is easier for you to understand Uba : http://climatekids.nasa.gov/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
All one needs is integrity.

Nice idea, unless a govt funded climate 'scientist' wants to work in his field and feed himself and family.
No one will challenge the 'consensus' until it is easy to do.
For example, soon the sycophantic US press will have to look more deeply into Obama's lies about Libya just before an election.
Just as that same sycophantic press will have to address the inconsistencies with the AGW hype and reality.
All it takes is integrity.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
All one needs is integrity.

"A recent landmark health study has concluded that there has never been a link between saturated fats and heart disease. The "settled science" on nutrition wasn't quite so settled.
Writing in Saturday's Wall Street Journal, nutrition researcher Nina Teicholz unpacks a new comprehensive study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine which found that "saturated fat does not cause heart disease." This theory, and decades of government-sponsored nutritional advice can be traced back to one scientist at the University of Minnesota, Dr. Ancel Keyes. His crusade against animal fats began in the 1950s and has misled the public about a proper diet ever since. "
http://www.breitb...-Settled

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
"All one needs is integrity."
"There is little reason to document the litany of methodological flaws here except to note that the research was conducted in a way to validate a preformed conclusion.

It is also noteworthy that America's obesity "epidemic" began at the same time as the government began endlessly recommending a "low-fat" diet. It turns out the fat was replaced with sugar and other carbohydrates that likely worsened our diets."
"

More than a billion dollars have been spent trying to prove Ancel Keys's hypothesis, but evidence of its benefits has never been produced.

In the early 1990s, the food police at the Center for Science in the Public Interest urged consumers and restaurants to switch from animal fats to trans fats. They succeeded and unleashed a product that has been linked to heart disease. "
"Science is never "settled." Something to keep in mind when it comes to political campaigns to ban people from raising questions about climate science."
brietbart.com
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 04, 2014
Nice idea, unless a govt funded climate 'scientist' wants to work in his field and feed himself and family
@Rygg
personal conjecture and irrelevant
you are attempting to show conspiracy where there is none
science is the use of the scientific method to study the universe
scientific method = a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

science works http://xkcd.com/54/
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 04, 2014
No one will challenge the 'consensus' until it is easy to do
@rygg
sigh...wrong again
taking the scientific method into consideration, if a scientists has a study which has EMPIRICAL DATA that shows something that is against the consensus, it is then published, the testing re-done and verified (or debunked: see cold fusion) and scientists take the conclusions into consideration while moving on.
the sycophantic US press will have to look more deeply into Obama's lies
irrelevant and not science or climate. who cares?
obummer is NOT a scientists nor is he presenting empirical data on the current topic: climate change
All it takes is integrity
and in your case, maybe a few meds to help you focus. try sticking to the topic and use science/empirical data and you will get further than ranting and irrelevant political conspiratorial posts
and BLOGS are NOT EMPIRICAL BTW...

why do you TROLL here when you can go to a conspiracy/political website and have a zillion friends?
GO
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
you are attempting to show conspiracy where there is none

I have shown references where 'peers' won't provide a critical review if they have to provide their name to the journal and the author.
This was because the 'peer' was reviewing a paper from the individual who approves his grants.

Isn't it interesting that those most critical of AGWism are tenured and retired or nearly retired?
EMPIRICAL DATA that shows something that is against the consensus, it is then published,

Not according to those who have attempted to have such data published.
Critics of Mann's hokey shtick had to have a US Senator force the NAS to review their critique and others.
NAS reluctantly supported the critique and parsed their report very politically. Not very scientific of them.
Look it up. It's free from NAS.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
This is integrity?
"The Environmental Protection Agency has tapped a top staffer with the Union of Concerned Scientists to be the EPA's next scientific integrity official."
"Francesca Grifo, a Ph.D. botanist, is currently a senior scientist at the advocacy group"
"Grifo led an analysis of Obama-era policies that listed the EPA among the agencies with the most scientific integrity."

Read more: http://thehill.co...0llkPyJp
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
"he studies used to support the 1997 PM2.5 standard have never been independently reproduced or validated, and EPA has successfully resisted all attempts – including a 2000 Freedom of Information Act request from the U.S. Chamber – to obtain the data underlying the studies upon which EPA based its standards."
https://www.uscha...e-public
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
Integrity?
"Seven months after being subpoenaed by Congress, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy conceded that her agency does not have - and cannot produce - all of the scientific data used for decades to justify numerous rules and regulations under the Clean Air Act."
""Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims," committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in February, denouncing what he called EPA's "secret science.""
http://www.cnsnew...ir-rules
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
Stupid to say 'no warming' as ubavontuba ignores this:-
http://www.woodfo....3/trend

That's a highly manipulated dataset, but even then, it shows no warming for 13.5 years:
http://phys.org/n...ent.html

The Earth must have warmed as there is reducing ocean salinity
References?

...whilst loss of ice mass, given the facts re properties of water it is easy for intelligent people to see that heat absorbed by melting ice can and does reduce atmospheric temperatures - its physics. What melting ice?
http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

Selectively ignoring oceans have 1000x greater heat capacity than atmosphere is a dis-ingenuous distortion of the complexity of the climate system.
Selectively ignoring huge increases in Antarctic ice is disingenuous.
http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

There is more than enough evidence the Earth is warming whilst atmosphere cools.
Where?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
uba states
as the earth continues to cool
without regard to these points found here http://www.epa.go...emp.html
Sea surface temperature increased over the 20th century and continues to rise. From 1901 through 2012, temperatures rose at an average rate of 0.13°F per decade (see Figure 1).
B.S.. Where's the upswell from AGW? That's an extended "reconstructed" dataset, which shows long term warming from well before the supposed AGW.

But here, is what is happening now:
http://www.woodfo....3/trend

Sea surface temperatures have been higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable observations began in 1880 (see Figure 1).

Increases in sea surface temperature have largely occurred over two key periods: between 1910 and 1940, and from about 1970 to the present. Sea surface temperatures appear to have cooled between 1880 and 1910 (see Figure 1)
You do know the oceans are still recovering from the last iceage, don't you? Where's your evidence for increased warming caused by AGW?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
@Mike Massen (formatting correction):
Stupid to say 'no warming' as ubavontuba ignores this:- http://www.woodfo....3/trend


That's a highly manipulated dataset, but even then, it shows no warming for 13.5 years:

http://phys.org/n...ent.html]http://phys.org/n...ent.html[/url]

The Earth must have warmed as there is reducing ocean salinity
References?

...whilst loss of ice mass, given the facts re properties of water it is easy for intelligent people to see that heat absorbed by melting ice can and does reduce atmospheric temperatures - its physics.
What melting ice?

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

Selectively ignoring oceans have 1000x greater heat capacity than atmosphere is a dis-ingenuous distortion of the complexity of the climate system.
Selectively ignoring huge increases in Antarctic ice is disingenuous.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

There is more than enough evidence the Earth is warming whilst atmosphere cools.
Where?

http://phys.org/n...ent.html
5/4/2014

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
@Mike Massen (another formatting correction):
Stupid to say 'no warming' as ubavontuba ignores this:- http://www.woodfo....3/trend


That's a highly manipulated dataset, but even then, it shows no warming for 13.5 years:

http://www.woodfo....2/trend

The Earth must have warmed as there is reducing ocean salinity
References?

...whilst loss of ice mass, given the facts re properties of water it is easy for intelligent people to see that heat absorbed by melting ice can and does reduce atmospheric temperatures - its physics.
What melting ice?

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

Selectively ignoring oceans have 1000x greater heat capacity than atmosphere is a dis-ingenuous distortion of the complexity of the climate system.
Selectively ignoring huge increases in Antarctic ice is disingenuous.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

There is more than enough evidence the Earth is warming whilst atmosphere cools.
Where?

P.S. Sorry for the triple post. My system is having difficulty with this thread.

jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) May 04, 2014
Captain Stumpy says "maybe this link is easier for you to understand Uba" : http://climatekids.nasa.gov/

If NASA is attempting to get their message across to people who have limited knowledge and an illogical approach to issues, then it is people like them that appreciate such garbage as what is presented in this video.

For there people who know the truth and for sure are not "flat earthers" because some of them have seen the earth from the moon they have this opinion of agw.
49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change

http://www.busine...e-2012-4
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 05, 2014
For there people who know the truth and for sure are not "flat earthers" because some of them have seen the earth from the moon they have this opinion of agw.
49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change
@jdswallows
personal conjecture without evidence, obfuscation and misdirection

I dont care what they "believe in"... they could be satanic chicken worshipping nudists streaking through homeless sewers during the solstices searching for leprechauns in order to trap fairy urine because they believe it help with faster than light travel for all I care!

the empirical data speaks for itself. the physics speaks for itself. the fact that 97% of the studies and science globally point in one general direction speaks for itself
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) May 05, 2014
For there people who know the truth and for sure are not "flat earthers" because some of them have seen the earth from the moon they have this opinion of agw.
49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change
@jdswallows
personal conjecture without evidence, obfuscation and misdirection
This is a lie. Are you a chatterbot? Are you unable to see the link to the letter?

I dont care what they "believe in"... they could be satanic chicken worshipping nudists streaking through homeless sewers during the solstices searching for leprechauns in order to trap fairy urine because they believe it help with faster than light travel for all I care!
And how is this different than an AGWite?

the empirical data speaks for itself.
Indeed it does.

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

the physics speaks for itself. the fact that 97% of the studies and science globally point in one general direction speaks for itself
B.S.. Appeal to authority. An (erroneous) argument based on a claimed consensus, is not science.

jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) May 05, 2014
Captain Stumpy; From your post it is easy to see that you 'dont care what they "believe in" because you will never consider a conflicting view to whatever yours is. You keep talking about another thing that you seem to know nothing about, empirical data. Where was the empirical data that Michael Mann used to fabricate his "hockey stick" that gets you alarmist waving arms and frothing at the mouth if called what it is, a fraud? He used proxies, such as couple of trees from Siberia to come up with this graph. If you think you deal in empirical data, then where is the result of the experiment that demonstrates that the amount of CO2 in today's atmosphere has anything to do with the climate? That a hypotheses that you seem to push, agw caused by CO2, comes under the heading of being faith based because I now challenge you to produce one experiment carried out that is real in that it deals with the amount of CO2 now in the atmosphere and that deals with this trace gas, CO2, that makes up a scant .039% of the atmosphere and is 1 &1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere. That anthropogenic global warming offers no testable hypotheses or mechanisms underscores its non-scientific nature.
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) May 05, 2014
Captain Stumpy: It is a sure bet that the American astronauts who are heroes in most sane people's eyes do not care one iota about what you or your fellow alarmist think and therefore they wrote this letter that you accuse me of "personal conjecture without evidence, obfuscation and misdirection" and yes; there was a hint of the direction you could go to see what these people thought but you see it better to present the nonsense that you did to me. Because you believe that you only deal with empirical information, I'm sure that you will have no trouble answering when I ask for the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 05, 2014
ubamoron states
This is a lie
nope. the letter is an appeal to authority. besides the fact that there are plenty of "admin's" and flight engineers that may not have a lot of info on the issue at hand (what does Ass't. Chief Materials Division or Mgr., Flight Operations Integration have to do with climate studies?), only 1 Meteorologist! therefore it is irrelevant and opinionated and without merit as a scientific study or empirical study supporting climate warming.
now.. given that 97% of the world climate science is pointing in one direction through separate studies into the same basic subject, then I could say that some of these people are being misled.
IOW - it is not empirical, it's an appeal to authority figures and personal conjecture without evidence, obfuscation and misdirection
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 05, 2014
you will never consider a conflicting view to whatever yours is
@jdswallows
wrong. I only consider empirical data. and never cherry picked data like Uba's. my POV changes when there is evidence to change it, and i am not swayed by sppeals to authority figures unless said authority figure gives empirical data. see Tim Thompson, Runrig, Thermodynamics et al.
if ya want to talk about CO2, try watching/commenting on this thread: http://phys.org/n...nia.html
be a part of the talk/experiment and quit whining about Mann etc... I dont care about Mann either.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 05, 2014
It is a sure bet that the American astronauts who are heroes in most sane people's eyes do not care one iota about what you or your fellow alarmist think
@jd
they are hero's to me as well, but just because they are hero's doesn't mean they are infallible. nor does it mean they are conversant in climate science, just like them being hero's does not make them fully capable trained professional firefighters. so your point is irrelevant, as it does not matter, nor do I care (as I am sure the signatures also do not care about MY feelings)
you accuse me of "personal conjecture without evidence, obfuscation and misdirection"
not just you
there was a hint of the direction you could go to see what these people thought
hint recognized but it's still unproven, therefore I stand by my statement

IOW - it is STILL not empirical, it's an appeal to authority figures and personal conjecture without evidence, obfuscation and misdirection
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 05, 2014
the physics speaks for itself. the fact that 97% of the studies and science globally point in one general direction speaks for itself
uba-tard states that this is
B.S
http://theconsens...ect.com/ there is a study or three here for you to peruse at your leisure
Appeal to authority
no authority stated. it was actually an appeal to empirical data contained in studies
An (erroneous) argument based on a claimed consensus
argument based on consensus, yes, but not erroneous (See http://theconsens...ect.com/ )
is not science
never said it was science, this is my extrapolation of data from various sites that contain empirical data which all conclusively point toward a general direction. otherwise I would have linked a specific source. nice try, ubamoron
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2014
Captain Stumpy: It is easy to see that you lack the ability to put anything into its proper perspective regarding this subject that you know so little about. Just how many of them are "fully capable trained professional firefighters. so your point is irrelevant, as it does not matter, nor do I care" It is easy to see that you do not care about getting any facts straight because the # of fire fighters is much larger than the # of American astronauts who have a very definite opinion on this subject, don't you think? You who claim to deal only with empirical info still have not presented me with the answers to my challenges to you regarding CO2 and the silence means that there is none that you can find; therefore, your believes are no better, or different, than those of a faith based cult's.

It is interesting that someone who uses an aka instead of their real name can't even spell my name correctly and then they clam to "deal" with empirical data.
John D. Swallow


jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) May 05, 2014

Captain Stumpy: I looked into the link that you presented but I fear that you are unable to connect the dots, as usual.

"Today, Antarctica is year-round one of the coldest places on Earth, and the continent's interior is the coldest place, with annual average land temperatures far below zero degrees Fahrenheit."
http://phys.org/n...nia.html

I know that you do not look at the fact that due to plate tectonics, Antarctica was not where it is today. You also fail to understand that if something is alive, warm is preferable to cold any day.

Journal of Climate 2012
http://journals.a...-00373.1

http://www.agu.or...59.shtml

http://www.energy...9c3.dpbs

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
http://www.agu.or...59.shtml#content

"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of facts." Mark Twain


MR166
1 / 5 (6) May 07, 2014
The purpose of all of this climate change "science" was made very evident of late. The progressive establishment in the US is pushing to tax energy and shut down all coal power generating plants. This will cause shortages, blackouts and much higher prices. Of course, the hardship and loss of jobs that this creates will be blamed on the "greedy power companies" refusing to invest in our future!

Just watch the media circus for the next few weeks dispense the government's propaganda.

I am afraid that freedom of the press is an just an archaic concept.
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) May 07, 2014
The purpose of all of this climate change "science" was made very evident of late. The progressive establishment in the US is pushing to tax energy and shut down all coal power generating plants. This will cause shortages, blackouts and much higher prices. Of course, the hardship and loss of jobs that this creates will be blamed on the "greedy power companies" refusing to invest in our future!

Just watch the media circus for the next few weeks dispense the government's propaganda.

I am afraid that freedom of the press is an just an archaic concept.


Ha Ha. An archaic concept? That sums up the vast majority of your posts.

The suggestion the earth will continue to be a place that supports 7.5G people while burning coal uncontrollably is not supported by the science. GHG's is just one of a laundry list of reasons to stop using that disgusting and toxic substance. That you continue to spew your propaganda to support its continued use demonstrates your own archaic thinking.
rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) May 07, 2014
@ DSWALLOWSJ
"I know that you do not look at the fact that due to plate tectonics, Antarctica was not where it is today. You also fail to understand that if something is alive, warm is preferable to cold any day.

If you knew anything about anything you would immediately recognise your statement as patently false. Many species of fish cannot tolerate warm water due to the reduced oxygen holding capacity. Here in Alberta, the increase in temperatures is driving oxygen depletion and blue-green algae blooms (with agricultural run-off). This is killing off fish species which are warm water tolerant and making the water toxic to the touch.

Got any other dumb ass statements too make? Clearly, you know 3/5ths of fuck all.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2014
Another impact crater is confirmed in Alberta that would have 'fried' Calagary.
But AGW is a much more serious issue to AGWites than preventing another impact that would destroy cities, but it would kick enough debris into the atm that would impact world climates for decades, cooling off Canada for you.
Maybe that's why the AGWites don't mind an asteroid strike as it will cool the planet.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (6) May 07, 2014
Another impact crater is confirmed in Alberta that would have 'fried' Calagary.
But AGW is a much more serious issue to AGWites than preventing another impact that would destroy cities, but it would kick enough debris into the atm that would impact world climates for decades, cooling off Canada for you.
Maybe that's why the AGWites don't mind an asteroid strike as it will cool the planet.


What the hell does impact craters have to do with burning coal. There is not one iota of evidence that suggests there is the slightest thing we can do about asteroid strikes at this point anyway so the conversation is moot. Using cleaner sources of energy is however within our technological capability so there is no excuse not to develop those resources.

Are you brain dead or something? Did someone hold you under water too long? Was it your Mom? Is that why you hate the world?
rockwolf1000
4.2 / 5 (5) May 07, 2014
Ha Ha. Calagary? Is that in Calafornia? Or are you still getting your info from Dickipedia? The deniers handy resource of falsehoods, lies, flawed logic and disinformation.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 07, 2014
Thursday, May 08, 2014
rockwolf1000: I doubt that you analyzed your post to see just how NO science is stated in your babbling, incoherent nonsense & just who in the hell was talking about fish?
rockwolf1000 needs to provide us with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what some maintain as far as being the driver of the earth's climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall's 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity's CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why these experiments must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that affect the earth's climate. If they cannot provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it affects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 07, 2014
The only thing rockwolf1000 proves is just how little they know and I imagine from the general ignorance of what they post, they will never be able to learn anything.
At the end of the winter season last Saturday, Sept. 22, the Antarctic ice pack was at a near-record high level and still advancing like an ocean glacier towards Argentina and Chile. "
http://www.cdapre...3b3.html

Record Antarctica Ice Contradicts Global Warming Trend
http://www.newsma...d/458115

The overall temperature trend since actual satellite measurements have been made shows no trend either up or down across the coldest place on earth for the last three and a half decades."
http://www.energy...ord-High


ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 07, 2014
There is not one iota of evidence that suggests there is the slightest thing we can do about asteroid strikes


Yes, there is.

There is no evidence anything humans can do to change climate.
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 07, 2014
The only thing rockwolf1000 proves is just how little they know and I imagine from the general ignorance of what they post, they will never be able to learn anything.
At the end of the winter season last Saturday, Sept. 22, the Antarctic ice pack was at a near-record high level and still advancing like an ocean glacier towards Argentina and Chile. "
http://www.cdapre...3b3.html


jdswallow. I am sorry I gave you a 1, just out of habit. I didn't realize you were being sarcastic about your denial of AGW. After looking at your links I realized they were from 2012 and were from articles with nothing but editorial expertise and not a hint of climate science sources. These had to be sarcasm on your part because no one would be dumb enough to post those as a basis for assumptions about science. Now I realize how uproariously funny you really are.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2014
thermodynamics; You have much to be sorry about and your being ignorant of facts is at the top of the list.
"A Russian vessel is stranded in ice off the coast of Antarctica with 74 people onboard, including the scientific team recreating explorer Douglas Mawson's Australasian Antarctic Expedition from a century ago."
"[…]Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death."
http://news.natio...tl_ot_w#

Sea ice extent in recent years for the northern hemisphere.
http://ocean.dmi....r.uk.php

"North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught"
http://www.sail-w...t/113788

J Doug Swallow
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 07, 2014
Regarding rockwolf1000 & their "dumb ass statements" about fish and this shows just how little logic the alarmist possess. I know rockwolf1000 can not tell me how many new species, of anything, have been discovered in Alberta recently because they probably can't even tell me, with accuracy, what time of day it is.

"NAGOYA, Aichi, Japan, October 26, 2010 (ENS) – At least 1,200 new species have been discovered in the Amazon ecosystem, at an average rate of one every three days during the decade from 1999 through 2009, the global conservation organization WWF revealed today in a new report.
This is a greater number of species than the combined total of new species found over a similar 10-year period in other areas of high biological diversity – including Borneo, the Congo Basin and the Eastern Himalayas, WWF said in the report, "Amazon Alive!: A Decade of Discoveries 1999-2009."
Presented to delegates from 193 countries at the UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, the WWF report details the discoveries of 39 mammals, 16 birds, 55 reptiles, 216 amphibians, 257 fish and 637 plants – all new to science."
http://www.ens-ne...-01.html
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 07, 2014
You who claim to deal only with empirical info still have not presented me with the answers to my challenges
&
I looked into the link that you presented but I fear that you are unable to connect the dots, as usual
@jd
WTF are you ranting about now? http://phys.org/n...nia.html first off: see the link I left, the point of CO2 is being addresed by two people with opposing viewpoints in the coments, or did you miss the whole F*ing sentance above it where i said
if ya want to talk about CO2, try watching/commenting on this thread
I can't use smaller words for you... and you think I can't connect the dots? your comment only shows that you are here to start a TROLL comment and fight, and that you either CANNOT read, DID NOT read, or CANNOT comprehend what IS WRITTEN. take your pick jd.

is that simple enough for you to understand?
as for my "aka"... I've been known and called "Captain Stumpy" for longer than 20 years. it IS my name, it IS what I go by. Just because you dont LIKE it, doesn't mean I am anonymous
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 07, 2014
It is interesting that someone who uses an aka instead of their real name can't even spell my name correctly and then they clam to "deal" with empirical data
@jd
it is interesting that someone who claims to be able to read and intellectually add to a conversation cannot comprehend basic English or recognize a derogatory play on words, sometimes referred to as a pun. If Otto can find my FB page and current state of residence within 5 minutes with my GIVEN NAME ABOVE, as I use it for everything, including legal documents, then I suggest you get your local ten year old to help you
I know that you do not look at the fact that due to plate tectonics, Antarctica was not where it is today
and I now know that you can't read and are either a tolling moron or just feigning immense stupidity for laughs. Guess you really DID miss that whole sentence before the link

and I really am getting tired of repeating stuff in threads when stupidity rears and someone claiming literacy cannot read
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 07, 2014

You also fail to understand that if something is alive, warm is preferable to cold any day
@jd
now THAT depends on the species and how quickly it can adjust, now doesn't it? you are trying my patience, and I am already in a foul mood
Thank you Rockwolf for pointint out some "fishy" facts
hey jd, watch this video http://www.cosmos...43555624 , then call Dr. Tyson an idiot. maybe you will learn a little of what I am talking about. Maybe you can explain it to Ryggy when your interpreter has time.

as for me, I can now catagorically state you are nothing but an idiot TROLL who wants to pass himself off as an intellectual denier. Let me know when you learn to read, jd, maybe we can continue this discussion after you apoloigize for being baltantly stupid.

Keep up the good work Thermo, waiting patiently for those results!
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
CS: You said:

"Keep up the good work Thermo, waiting patiently for those results!"

I hope patience is your strong suite. Working in 1000 character increments with discussions about every number is really like making sausage. I hope it is worthwhile for everyone, but it might take long enough that the Greenland ice sheet is nothing but a memory.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
I hope patience is your strong suite. Working in 1000 character increments with discussions about every number is really like making sausage. I hope it is worthwhile for everyone, but it might take long enough that the Greenland ice sheet is nothing but a memory
@Termodynamics
I have patience for this. I am interested, and you have the patience for the calculations, so I wait. :-)
this is one of those times where the journey is every bit as important as the conclusion, or the termination point.

if the thread terminates comments before the end result, it would make sense to have an alternative thread ready for continuation of the posts. something related to earth/climate. at the time of termination, take the first earth article in the drop-down menu maybe? (right now I got "kelp study finds...")
perhaps the fallback should be the first Earth article in the dropdown and wait for Thermo and Alchemy to show up and acknowledge with a link to this thread?

just thinking out loud
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) May 08, 2014
@Just Dumb Swallows
"You also fail to understand that if something is alive, warm is preferable to cold any day. "
Fish are alive moron!

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 08, 2014
""I have used most of my career to develop models for predicting the weather. I have learned the importance of forecasting validation, i.e. the verification of predictions with respect to what has really happened. So I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility. It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show.""
"But I see no need for the endeavour of the IPCC to achieve a consensus. I think it is essential that there are areas of society where a consensus cannot be enforced. Especially in an area like the climate system, which is incompletely understood, a consensus is meaningless."
Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg

rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) May 08, 2014
@Jiant Dickhead Swallows

"Regarding rockwolf1000 & their "dumb ass statements" about fish and this shows just how little logic the alarmist possess. I know rockwolf1000 can not tell me how many new species, of anything, have been discovered in Alberta recently because they probably can't even tell me, with accuracy, what time of day it is."

First of all, I am not plural. If you weren't such a dumb ass you would know that.
2nd, my statement about fish was absolutely accurate and completely discredited your obvious and continued lies.
3rd, what the fuck does new species discoveries have to do about this article?
4th, I know perfectly what time it is. It is time to expose you for the congenital liar, moronic fool, and bed-wetting sissy you really are.
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) May 08, 2014
@Just Demented Swallows

"rockwolf1000 needs to provide us with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what some maintain as far as being the driver of the earth's climate."

Now I know you're a real idiot. You and I both are commenting on an article that is found on a website which has provided and continues to provide the very studies you are asking for. Are you suggesting I should start a new web site and enter into competition with phys.org?

Do you think I'm your personal librarian? Your personal tutor? Need me to hold your hand and show you where to go?

You want the data/study? - Fucking GOOGLE it. Perhaps if you're really nice someone here will show you how that works. I won't. Frankly, I wouldn't cross the road to piss on you if your head was on fire.
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
Captain Stumpy: I certainly did look at your site that you directed me to and I do not see where it answers my challenge to you and the others on here about empirical evidence that the amount of CO2 in earth's atmosphere, today, has anything to do with the climate.

"Today, Antarctica is year-round one of the coldest places on Earth, and the continent's interior is the coldest place, with annual average land temperatures far below zero degrees Fahrenheit."

I hope that you are aware of this new record for cold being set and please pay attention to the dates.
http://science.na...oldspot/

Captain Stumpy, since you are so taken by empirical data, what happened to all of this CO2 they talk about here?
"By measuring past temperatures in different parts of Antarctica, this study gives us a clearer perspective of just how warm Antarctica was when the Earth's atmosphere contained much more CO2 than it does today,"
http://phys.org/news/2014
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
rockwolf1000: One can wonder at what makes you such a hostile person. It has to be a combination of knowing what ever you to claim to believe in regarding the climate is total nonsense. You must believe that a gas that makes up .039% of the atmosphere and is 1 &1/2 times heavier than that atmosphere is responsible for the earth's climate without taking into account that the Sun, that makes up 99.8% of the solar system is, as it has always been, the driver of the climate.
"Why Do We have Seasons?

As the earth spins on its axis, producing night and day, it also moves about the sun in an elliptical (elongated circle) orbit that requires about 365 1/4 days to complete. The earth's spin axis is tilted with respect to its orbital plane. This is what causes the seasons. When the earth's axis points towards the sun, it is summer for that hemisphere. When the earth's axis points away, winter can be expected
http://www.crh.no...=seasons

Get someone to read this to you and then explain what it says.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
@Just Dumb Swallows
"You also fail to understand that if something is alive, warm is preferable to cold any day. "
Fish are alive moron!



Yes, rockwolf1000, fish are alive in some of the warm waters that I have seen them in, such as the Great Barrier Reef and also in the Amazon Basin Where do you think, using the term loosely in your case, that the cat fish are raised in Louisiana and Texas if not in the warm waters that you say "warm water due to the reduced oxygen holding capacity". You are more than likely unaware that cold water takes in Co2 while warm water gives it off and that is why the CO2 levels in the atmosphere lag warming by up to 800 years. There is one thing about you, rockwolf1000 , and that is that you appear to be a typical alarmist in every conceivable way one can imagine.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
You want the data/study? - Fucking GOOGLE it. Perhaps if you're really nice someone here will show you how that works. I won't. Frankly, I wouldn't cross the road to piss on you if your head was on fire.

rockwolf1000: There is no experiment that has ever been done that proves what you seem to believe people that think and are logical should share your delusional hypotheses about CO2. If you believe this with out pove then you are no different than members of a religious cult

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment
http://wattsupwit...eriment/
Here are a few experiments that HAVE been carried out http://www.scient...nglement
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
http://cdsweb.cer...77?ln=de
http://www.youtub...embedded
http://online.wsj...618.html
Dark matter hunt: LUX experiment reaches critical phase
http://www.bbc.co...26819792
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
This, I hope, will put this into some kind of a perspective for demented folks like rockwolf1000 to understand just how insignificant this increase in CO2 is.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.

At 400 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

Let's picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO2 would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)
http://a-sceptica...ic-facts

jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
idiot. You and I both are commenting on an article that is found on a website which has provided and continues to provide the very studies you are asking for.

Do you think I'm your personal librarian? Your personal tutor? Need me to hold your hand and show you where to go?

You want the data/study? - Fucking GOOGLE it. Perhaps if you're really nice someone here will show you how that works. I won't. Frankly, I wouldn't cross the road to piss on you if your head was on fire.


Reading rockwolf1000 post certainly gives one a look into the mind of a typical anthropogenic global warming alarmist and I thank you for that view.

Since rockwolf1000 professes to be from Canada, they should be interested in this site, if it possible to have interest in something besides calling people names while providing NO information of any value about, well, anything.

ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
http://greenparty...-practic
(It is strange that I happened on this above at the Green Party of Canada's site)



jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
If Otto can find my FB page and current state of residence within 5 minutes with my GIVEN NAME ABOVE, as I use it for everything, including legal documents, then I suggest you get your local ten year old to help you


The truth is Mr. Stumpy, I reeeeally do not care a whole lot what your real name is and will spend no time looking it up.

You seem like a real cut up, Mr. Stumpy, and I well imagine that you are the life of the party and that you get invited to any party that is having a dwarf tossing contest going on. I can almost see how cute you must look in your little red Velcro suit with the handles between your little shoulders and on your rear. You will undoubtedly get over all of the hardships that have come your way in life, such as when you were really small and had all of the other normal children rubbing your nose in fresh dog dung.

You need to keep going to your mental health meetings and keep attending the group therapy sessions provided by your local dwarfs chapter and see if you can somehow to get some one to buy you a pair of Larry Mahan cowboy boots; but, that would mean that there would have to be someone that actually liked you to expect that becoming a reality. You also need to quit worrying about anthropogenic global warming because, like everything else, that is way over your head.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
JDS: You said: "You must believe that a gas that makes up .039% of the atmosphere and is 1 &1/2 times heavier than that atmosphere is responsible for the earth's climate without taking into account that the Sun, that makes up 99.8% of the solar system is, as it has always been, the driver of the climate."

You also said: "ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
http://greenparty...-practic
(It is strange that I happened on this above at the Green Party of Canada's site)"

At the web site the person generating the spreadsheet also said:

"I've been diagnosed with a schizoid disorder and have a heart condition.
if this post and software has been beneficial to you in the interests of the green party
1) Please make a donation to the green party of canada."

I hope you donated a lot to the schizoid because the concept of CO2 "settling out of the atmosphere" is just baseless. He needs your money. Continued
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 08, 2014
Continued: The Alchemist and I have been going through a derivation of the effect of increased CO2 on radiation through the atmosphere. It can be found here:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

In the discussion I ran across the concept of the homosphere and heterosphere. I had not seen the terms before and you may or may not have. The bottom line is that the gases are mixed in the homosphere and not in the heterosphere. The trick is that the homosphere extends up to about 80000 m to 100000 m. That means your whole premise of a drop off in the mole fraction of CO2 with altitude is bunk. So, what does that do to your argument and use of the spreadsheet from a guy who is a psychiatric case?

I have seen you rail against the use of complex models. Why would you put your faith in a spreadsheet? Geesh...
rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
@JD

"rockwolf1000: One can wonder at what makes you such a hostile person. It has to be a combination of knowing what ever you to claim to believe in regarding the climate is total nonsense. You must believe that a gas that makes up .039% of the atmosphere and is 1 &1/2 times heavier than that atmosphere is responsible for the earth's climate without taking into account that the Sun, that makes up 99.8% of the solar system is, as it has always been, the driver of the climate"

Ya, I get agitated. As an outdoorsman I can see the effects of our warming world. I'm involved with various conservation projects regarding fisheries and I have found that local waterways have increased in temperature thus excluding species which are intolerant of warm water/low oxygen. I converse directly with biologists in this matter and my statements are based on their conclusions. Thus your repeated statements suggesting warmer is always better are confirmed to be categorically false.
rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
@JD
"You must believe that a gas that makes up .039% of the atmosphere and is 1 &1/2 times heavier than that atmosphere is responsible for the earth's climate without taking into account that the Sun, that makes up 99.8% of the solar system is, as it has always been, the driver of the climate."

The venom from a black widow bite must comprise < .0001% of our body mass yet the effects are staggering. Your assertion that the concentration of CO2 is negligible is unfounded.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
I have seen you rail against the use of complex models. Why would you put your faith in a spreadsheet? Geesh...

(It is strange that I happened on this above at the Green Party of Canada's site)
thermodynamics: It is a shame that you, first off cannot see where Richard was being facetious to have come up with this information that runs counter to what The Green Party of Canada wants people to believe about your devil in the sky, CO2. That you took Richards comment out of context is consistent with your prevarications about CO2. He also said this:
"There is a research group in the States that has done high altitude analytical chemistry of the atmosphere and has detected significant amounts of CO2 up there, mostly due to high altitude currents, airplane exhaust, and stochastic brownian motion..... eventually it should sink to the earth and take its place in the mass of CO2 that exists under self-partial pressure according to the formulas in the spreadsheet. This may take quite some time to settle."
It is obvious that there is much that you are not capable of understanding and you seem all too eager to let everyone know about what it is you are in the dark about. If you question this site's findings, take it up with them at: " CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry......"

thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
(It is strange that I happened on this above at the Green Party of Canada's site)
thermodynamics: It is a shame that you, first off cannot see where Richard was being facetious to have come up with this information that runs counter to what The Green Party of Canada wants people to believe about your devil in the sky, CO2. He also said this:
"There is a research group in the States that has done high altitude analytical chemistry of the atmosphere and has detected significant amounts of CO2 up there, mostly due to high altitude currents, airplane exhaust, and stochastic brownian motion..... eventually it should sink to the earth and take its place in the mass of CO2 that exists under self-partial pressure according to the formulas in the spreadsheet.


In other words you don't have enough sense to go look up the homosphere and heterosphere? You also don't have the training to realize that the concept you are pushing has no basis in fact. Go look it up.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
thermodynamics: I would hope that you realize why CO2 is used in fire extinguishers. If not, what follows should help to clear it up for you and produced a partially enlightened alarmist, if such a person exist.

This is an interesting site to look into and it coincides with the above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times heavier than "air". This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake.
http://www.neator...century/
rockwolf1000
3.7 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
thermodynamics: I would hope that you realize why CO2 is used in fire extinguishers. If not, what follows should help to clear it up for you and produced a partially enlightened alarmist, if such a person exist.

This is an interesting site to look into and it coincides with the above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times heavier than "air". This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake.
http://www.neator...century/


Your desperation is incredible. Literally!
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
thermodynamics: I would hope that you realize why CO2 is used in fire extinguishers. If not, what follows should help to clear it up for you and produced a partially enlightened alarmist, if such a person exist.

This is an interesting site to look into and it coincides with the above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times heavier than "air". This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake.
http://www.neator...century/


Good grief. You don't even know the basics of physics or fluid dynamics? Did you really want to post something like this on a science site? By your analogy you should expect us to be wallowing in heavy gases. Is that your expectation? How rapidly do you think the CO2 settles out?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
#3
Title: An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula
[…]Ikaite is thought to rapidly decompose into calcite and water at temperatures above 4°C. The hydration water in ikaite grow suitable for reconstructing a low resolution ikaite record of the last 2000 years. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the AP, a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments and derive a climatic signal, related to local changes in fjord δ18O, versus time encoded in this late Holocene ikaite record. Our interpretation, based on ikaite isotopes, provides additional qualitative evidence that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were extended to the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic Peninsula.
http://adsabs.har...51A1819L

Thermodynamics: I will also post this to the site from which it came for you viewing pleasure.


jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
#2
"To determine the ancient temperatures, the scientists measured the abundance of two rare isotopes bound to each other in fossil bivalve shells collected by co-author Linda Ivany of Syracuse University at Seymour Island, a small island off the northeast side of the Antarctic Peninsula. The concentration of bonds between carbon-13 and oxygen-18 reflect the temperature in which the shells grew, the researchers said. They combined these results with other geo-thermometers and model simulations."
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
#1
Thermodynamics: Mr. Stumpy gave me the link to this rather biased and misleading site and I asked this question of him and I now ask you to tell me where all of this CO2 that Douglas is talking about went? Why are new records for cold now being set in Antarctica if CO2 levels are up?

"By measuring past temperatures in different parts of Antarctica, this study gives us a clearer perspective of just how warm Antarctica was when the Earth's atmosphere contained much more CO2 than it does today," said Douglas.

Then we are presented with this totally uninformative bit of disinformation below and other than knowing why they did not want to present what I will inform you of because the alarmist have been saying ever since they understood that there was a MWP & a LIA that they did not want to try to explain, in spite of overwhelming historical evidence, that they accrued, & that is because they had no anthropogenic cause. When the charlatans could no longer dodge the facts, they tried to say that theses climatic events were only isolated to Northern Europe, if you can imagine that.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
JDSwallow said:

Thermodynamics: Mr. Stumpy gave me the link to this rather biased and misleading site and I asked this question of him and I now ask you to tell me where all of this CO2 that Douglas is talking about went? Why are new records for cold now being set in Antarctica if CO2 levels are up?

"By measuring past temperatures in different parts of Antarctica, this study gives us a clearer perspective of just how warm Antarctica was when the Earth's atmosphere contained much more CO2 than it does today," said Douglas.


Are you trying to say that the higher concentrations of CO2 from the past "settled out" and magically disappeared? Are you unaware of the geological process called weathering that reacts CO2 with rocks over geological times?

I always thought Rygg2 was the least technical person on the site, but I think you give him a run for his money.

Look up homosphere. Do yourself a favor and stop providing laughs for the rest of us.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide, CO2, is one of two oxides of carbon, and it is the principal product oxide of carbon formed from the compustion of hydrocarbon fuels. Carbon dioxide is the focus of public concern in recent years due to the increasing concentration of this gas in the atmosphere as a result of the combustion of fossel fuels. The gas is implicated in the Greenhouse Effect.
The carbon dioxide which is present in the atmosphere is produced by respiration and by combustion. However, it has a short residence time in this phase as it is both consumed by plants during photosynthesis.

Physical Properties of Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide is a colourless odourless gas, which is soluble in water, in ethanol and in acetone.
• Melting Point : -55.6 degC
• Boiling Point : -78.5 degC
• Density : 1.977
http://www.ucc.ie...co2.html

Do you see what the density of this colorless & odorless gas is or is that too damn difficult for you to get straight?

jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
"A pocket of magma lies beneath the lake and leaks carbon dioxide (CO2) into the water, changing it into carbonic acid. Nyos is one of only three known exploding lakes to be saturated with carbon dioxide in this way, the others being Lake Monoun, also in Cameroon, and Lake Kivu in Democratic Republic of Congo. On August 21, 1986, possibly as the result of a landslide, Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages."
http://en.wikiped...ake_Nyos

"Lake Nyos occupies a volcanic crater that was formed by a
violent explosion only a few hundred years ago. Underlying
the lake is a volcanic pipe that serves as a conduit for
the gradual upward migration of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) from
deep within the earth. Over a long period of time, gas
dissolved in groundwater has been accumulating in the
bottom water of the lake r creating a potential hazard."
http://pubs.usgs....port.pdf

Are these enough links for you two duds who seem to not have the intelligence or ability to look anything up, and it shows?


jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
"The eventual number of people who died in the Lake Nyos gas leak was put at more than 1,700.
Scientists debated the cause of the disaster for some time afterwards.
It was finally concluded that the lake's lower levels had become saturated by carbon dioxide gas (CO2) due to gaseous springs which bubbled up from the extinct volcano beneath.
It is thought that recent high rainfall had displaced the CO2-rich water at the bottom, releasing a massive bubble of carbon dioxide gas from the lake in a natural phenomenon now referred to as "lake overturn".
The heavy gas then sank to the ground and rolled in a cloud several tens of metres deep across the surrounding countryside.
Pipes have now been put in place in Lake Nyos and nearby Lake Monoun to siphon water from the lower layers up to the surface and allow the CO2 at the bottom of the lake to slowly bubble out, preventing a repeat of 1986 tragedy.
Following the Nyos tragedy, a survey was carried out into the CO2 content of other African lakes."
http://news.bbc.c...0803.stm
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
So anyway, thermodynamics & rockwolf1000, why would you go to such lengths to make yourselves look so stupid? Is it because you are unable to look anything up? Is it because you do not believe that what I posted, believing that I had to have made it up even though I presented the link to where the information came from? There has to be some legitimate reason other than being so brainwashed over your belief in this devil of your imagination creating all of the nonexistent problems you have come to imagine. Is it because you do not know what the properties of CO2 are? There has to be some legitimate answer to these questions besides just plain old fashion "stupid" and if you do not think that the Aug, 21, 1986 Lake Nyor overturn happened because of CO2, it is up to you to prove it. Got that!

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
JDSwallow: You are dumb as a bucket of hammers.

Do you really think that gases settle out? Have you ever heard of fluid dynamics? Have you ever heard of statistical mechanics? Have you ever heard of weather?

Gases are mixed within the homosphere (there is my favorite word again).

Look up homosphere. Give it up. You have been clinging to a myth (only one of many you support). You are, truly ignorant of physics or engineering. You really need to stop embarrassing your self. All you need to do is to look up homosphere, read about it, and realize that you are wrong. If you could do that I would have respect for you. We all learn all of the time (or most of us do). I'm ignorant of many things, but I know I am. However, to be ignorant and choose not to educate yourself by not looking up a term and understanding what it means, you have shown all of us that your are a special kind of ignorant individual.

You are ignorant and proud of it.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
JDStupid: So, did they have to put fans into the region around the crater to blow the CO2 out after it vented?

Of course they didn't.

It is called fluid dynamics. The gas comes up as a big bubble. It then rolls across the valley because it is heavier than air. However, from the moment it contacted air it started mixing. it then thoroughly mixed within a few hours and the area was ready for rescue crews to come in the next day. The mixing increases entropy. So, what you are saying is that there is a natural way of decreasing the entropy and unmixing the gases. The bottom line is that you just have no idea of thermodynamics or fluid dynamics. And you actually believe what you are spouting out. Incredibly ignorant.
jdswallow
1.2 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
Are you trying to say that the higher concentrations of CO2 from the past "settled out" and magically disappeared? Are you unaware of the geological process called weathering that reacts CO2 with rocks over geological times?

Thermodynamics: I had asked the question of YOU and this is an answer, in your warped manner of deduction, & I imagine it is the best that you can do. It is YOU who is unaware of the process that removes CO2 from the atmosphere and the main one took place during the late Carboniferous. Now another question for you; when will you ever wake up and look at the FACTS?

"Coal beds, which can be up to 11 to 12 meters thick, characterize the late Carboniferous. The forests of seedless vascular plants that existed in the tropical swamp forests of Europe and North America provided the organic material that became coal. Dead plants did not completely decay and were turned to peat in these swamp forests. When the sea covered the swamps, marine sediments covered the peat. Eventually, heat and pressure transformed these organic remains into coal. Coal balls, pockets of plant debris that were preserved as fossils and not converted to coal, are sometimes found within the coal layers."
http://www.ucmp.b...rous.php

What part of this do you not understand?

jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
thermodynamics: It is time to cut the BS of trying to tell me what I think. I gave you the instance of the Lake Nyos disaster that you and the other challenged individual on here tried to totally discount because you had never heard of it, like most other things of value. Now you launch yourself off on another thing that you are ignorant about when you say "geological process called weathering that reacts CO2 with rocks over geological times" You are too dense to understand that if this process, in addition to the coal building process, took place in the past, then it would also be occurring now? I wonder how you imagine that CO2 is taken up by ocean water if it does not settle to the sea's level or do you think that there is another way it is done and do not tell me it comes down with the rain, snow, or what ever other delusion you may concoct?

Why didn't you care to deal with the ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula?
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
JDS: You just don't stop digging that hole.

1). We are not in the Carboniferous era. The only thing that might cook to coal is peat. We are even using peat to produce energy.

2). Do you really believe that weathering is not taking place? You say that, but do you really think that geological processes that remove CO2 through weathering have stopped?

3). As for the process of CO2 dropping out of the sky to the surface of the oceans, you are a moron. The CO2 does not settle out. It diffuses into the surface of the water, as does every part of the atmosphere. At that point the balance of the partial pressure in the atmosphere and the fugacity of the gas in the liquid, as well as the vapor pressure of the water determines the composition at the interface. They also each mix.

Can you follow that? Probably not. Did I use too many technical terms for you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
"To use a simulation as a laboratory, one has to understand how to break it—otherwise, one may mistake an artifact as a result. In approximating continua as being discrete, one has to pay multiple penalties. Spurious oscillations or enhanced viscosity that are artifacts of this procedure may easily be misinterpreted as being physically meaningful. When one slices up space and time in a simulation, it may introduce features that look like real waves or make the fluid more viscous in an artificial way. The conservation of mass, momentum, and energy—cornerstones of theoretical physics—may no longer be taken for granted in a simulation and depend on the numerical scheme being employed, even if the governing equation conserves all of these quantities perfectly on paper. "
http://www.americ...sue.aspx
rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
@JD

"Are these enough links for you two duds who seem to not have the intelligence or ability to look anything up, and it shows?"

Why would I? It has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. You're simply grasping at straws again. It's quite pitiful actually.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
The good news is that the meandering misinformation of a jdswallow or ubavontuba and the rabid anti-socialist rantings of a ryygeson are becoming more and more irrelevant to the conversation. People are understanding that scientists are in strong agreement that global warming possibly leading to catastrophic climate change is real and is well documented. It is the lying denialism and contrarianism displayed by the above examples that is losing ground, as people realize it is simply evidence of the lunatic fringe and is not to be taken seriously.

Even the US conservatives are beginning to step back from these types of lunatic denialists.

The best part is that people are simply reading the delusional ramblings of the examples cited above and recognizing the lunacy they represent. I've been saying for a while now that they should continue spouting their lunacy as they are their own worst enemies, and theya re showing me to be right.

Keep up the good work loons!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
Captain Stumpy: I certainly did look at your site that you directed me to and I do not see where it answers my challenge to you and the others
@jd
this is getting repetitious: READ THE COMMENTS!
Thermodynamics and Alchemist are working through some now in the comments section. I am NOT going to REPEAT THIS AGAIN. that's more than THREE TIMES I have directed you to the comments to watch how this works out...

do you have ADD?

are you being intentionally stupid?

is this just another TROLL attack?
I would hope that you realize why CO2 is used in fire extinguishers
ok, share with us why CO2 is used in fire extinguishers... I need to hear this before we can go further.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
I reeeeally do not care a whole lot what your real name is
@jd
then why do you keep on whining about it? it IS my real name, moron. as for the rest of that post, especially the
you get invited to any party that is having a dwarf tossing contest going on
I found it quite humorous, but quite irrelevant. at least now we can see WHY you cannot put two and two together... you are stuck in a fantasy world. this is referred to (generally) as a psychosis. given your lack of ability to comprehend written English and Thermodynamics math/explanations, then I suggest professional assistnace. there ARE meds you can take
I gave you the instance of the Lake Nyos disaster that you and the other challenged individual on here tried to totally discount because you had never heard of it
no, they discount what you are talking about because you understand ZIP about fluid dynamics and the gasses in the atmosphere
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
scientists are in strong agreement

Really?
"Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides."
http://www.breitb...onsensus
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
scientists are in strong agreement

Really?
"Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides."
http://www.breitb...onsensus
Mines a quote about one person like it means something. Typically rygg.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
'one person'
"Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - "
"Bengtsson said:

"I have used most of my career to develop models for predicting the weather. I have learned the importance of forecasting validation, i.e. the verification of predictions with respect to what has really happened. So I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility. It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show.""
http://www.breitb...onsensus

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
'one person':
"I have great respect for the scientific work that goes into the IPCC reports. But I see no need for the endeavour of the IPCC to achieve a consensus. I think it is essential that there are areas of society where a consensus cannot be enforced. Especially in an area like the climate system, which is incompletely understood, a consensus is meaningless."
http://www.breitb...onsensus
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014

Ya, I get agitated. As an outdoorsman I can see the effects of our warming world. I'm involved with various conservation projects regarding fisheries and I have found that local waterways have increased in temperature thus excluding species which are intolerant of warm water/low oxygen. I converse directly with biologists in this matter and my statements are based on their conclusions. Thus your repeated statements suggesting warmer is always better are confirmed to be categorically false.


Churchill ice report and summer preview
April 19, 2014
The Hudson Bay is packed solid with thick ice and seems to be supporting a healthy seal-feeding season for polar bears. Extreme cold and stormy weather has been pervasive throughout the region this year and should lead to a extended hunting season for bears on the ice surface. Here is the link of the most recent Hudson Bay ice chart from Environment Canada Ice Survey.
http://churchillp...preview/

jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014
Thus your repeated statements suggesting warmer is always better are confirmed to be categorically false.

Churchill ice report and summer preview
April 19, 2014
The Hudson Bay is packed solid with thick ice and seems to be supporting a healthy seal-feeding season for polar bears. Extreme cold and stormy weather has been pervasive throughout the region this year and should lead to a extended hunting season for bears on the ice surface. Here is the link of the most recent Hudson Bay ice chart from Environment Canada Ice Survey.
http://churchillp...preview/

jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014
Trees not invading as fast as earlier predicted
March 16th 2:26 pm
A study released this month by Cambridge University indicates the advance of the tree line into the Arctic is moving slower than has previously been predicted.
The study, which was released March 17 by Gareth Rees, a researcher with the university's Scott Polar Research Institute, says the relationship between climate change and tree growth is more complicated than initially thought.
"To generalize our results, the tree line is definitely moving north on average but we do not see any evidence for rates as big as 2 kilometers per year anywhere along the Arctic rim," he said in a release. "Where we have the most detailed information, our results suggest that a rate of around 100 meters per year is more realistic. In some places, the tree line is actually moving south. The predictions of a loss of 40 percent of the tundra by the end of the century is probably far too alarming."
http://www.thearc..._earlier



rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
Thus your repeated statements suggesting warmer is always better are confirmed to be categorically false.

Churchill ice report and summer preview
April 19, 2014
The Hudson Bay is packed solid with thick ice and seems to be supporting a healthy seal-feeding season for polar bears. Extreme cold and stormy weather has been pervasive throughout the region this year and should lead to a extended hunting season for bears on the ice surface. Here is the link of the most recent Hudson Bay ice chart from Environment Canada Ice Survey.
http://churchillp...preview/


Yes. I'm well aware of this. And conversely if the summer gets too hot they languish in their fur coats, fasting while they wait for the ice to return. There are many other examples too!
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
@JD

Shall I assume you have retracted your previous erroneous statement?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
I'm involved with various conservation projects regarding fisheries and I have found that local waterways have increased in temperature thus excluding species which are intolerant of warm water/low oxygen. I converse directly with biologists in this matter and my statements are based on their conclusions. Thus your repeated statements suggesting warmer is always better are confirmed to be categorically false.


rockwolf1000 says "I converse directly with biologists in this matter and my statements are based on their conclusions." to which I respond that you need to broaden your list of sources and get some facts for a change. I see where you look nothing up; so, I will provide something that you lack & those are FACTS & most of these pertain to Canada. Incidentally, I spent 10 years guiding elk hunters & taking out pack trips some years ago in the Teton Wilderness & I seldom carried a rifle and let a hunter kill my personal elk for me & I lived in various remote areas of Alaska for 24 years.
The Great Lakes Are Still Almost Half Frozen, And It Could Affect The Environment For Years
04/17/2014 6:06 pm EDT
Though more than a month has passed since ice coverage on the Great Lakes reached a near-record high, the amount of ice that still remains could have a big impact on the environment in the months -- and years -- ahead.
http://www.huffin...962.html

North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught
http://www.sail-w...t/113788

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
'one person'
"Lennart Bengtsson -blah blah blah--ndon/2014/05/08/Leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus

Yes, one person. Still. You can probably find another 3% or so of climate scientists who take a similar tact.

Still doesn't mean anything.

And coming from you, it mean less than nothing. You have nothing to add, almost nothing worth listening to, and nothing but paranoid rantings of imagined persecution.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014

"Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides."
http://www.breitb...onsensus

ryggesogn2: Another astute Swede sees through all if arm waving, foaming at the month BS.

Dr. Mörner's resignation letter as expert reviewer for the IPCC:
(2) QUALITY:
Having glanced through Chapter 13, I find it to be of such low quality that a serious review would require very much extra work. At previous expert-reviews of mine (2000, 2006), all comments and corrections were neglected, despite their firm anchoring in facts.
The so-called authors of Chapter 13 seem to be a collection of all those who have written anything about sea level changes that agrees with the concept of IPCC, despite that fact that many of those papers were of a very low quality.

All the debate and questioning has been shamelessly left out; not even referred to.

Today, the President of the Maldives had to resign. Finally, reality caught up with his illusions about sea level changes.

So should most of the Chapter 13 authors do, too – for the benefit of science. And by this I resign as expert reviewer

Stockholm, February 7, 2012
Nils-Axel Mörner
http://www.themin...-int-18n
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014
Thus your repeated statements suggesting warmer is always better are confirmed to be categorically false.

Churchill ice report and summer preview
April 19, 2014
The Hudson Bay is packed solid with thick ice and seems to be supporting a healthy seal-feeding season for polar bears. Extreme cold and stormy weather has been pervasive throughout the region this year and should lead to a extended hunting season for bears on the ice surface. Here is the link of the most recent Hudson Bay ice chart from Environment Canada Ice Survey.
http://churchillp...preview/

Ya, it was a cool winter.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014


I would hope that you realize why CO2 is used in fire extinguishers
ok, share with us why CO2 is used in fire extinguishers... I need to hear this before we can go further.

Mr. Stumpy: Are you actually this dense that you do NOT know why CO2 is used in fire extinguisher?
Carbon dioxide extinguishes work by displacing oxygen, or taking away the oxygen element of the fire triangle. CO2 is a colorless and, in normal concentrations, odorless gas. It doesn't react with burning materials, so it doesn't create any toxic or other by-products when used to suppress a fire. It's therefore a clean gas, meaning it leaves no trace of its use when suppressing a fire.
The carbon dioxide is also very cold as it comes out of the extinguisher, so it cools the fuel as well. Carbon dioxide doesn't burn and it is heavier than air. This means that a layer of carbon dioxide sinks to floor level and all the air is pushed up away from the fire. Effectively it suffocates the fire. In enclosed spaces CO2 will put out most fires. Got that, Mr. Stumpy?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014

Ya, it was a cool winter.


Maggnus: I'm hope you are not unaware that it was also cool in the Antarctic and is the best you can do? Shows just how much interest in this subject you have.

Eighty three years ago today, Mawson was sailing along the Antarctic coast. In 2013, global warming nutcases trying to retrace Mawson's route are hoping an icebreaker comes and saves them.
Sir DOUGLAS MAWSON'S second expedition on SCOTT'S Discovery to Antarctic waters south of the Indian Ocean and Australia is by this time already near the coast which he skirted and explored in the Summer of 1929-30. He identified Enderby and Kemp Lands, first seen by British explorers a hundred years before.
http://query.nyti...448385F9
Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death.
http://news.natio...tl_ot_w#
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
Maggnus: I'm hope you are not unaware that it was also cool in the Antarctic and is the best you can do? Shows just how much interest in this subject you have.
You seem to like quote mining. "Antarctica is a land of extremes: the driest, windiest, coldest place on Earth." "Those efforts reveal that the continent is home to some of the most rapidly warming places on Earth." https://www.scien...perature

Eighty three years ago today, Mawson ...blah blah..hoping an icebreaker comes and saves them.
Not surprised you have no idea what this actually means.
Sir DOUGLAS MAWSON'S second expedition on SCOTT'S Discovery to Antarctic waters south of the Indian Ocean and Australia is by this time already near the coast which he skirted and explored in the Summer of 1929-30. He identified Enderby and Kemp Lands, first seen by British explorers a hundred years before.
Yep. So?

PS do you know what gish-gallop is?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
Are you actually this dense that you do NOT know why CO2 is used in fire extinguisher?
@jd
are YOU so dense as to not be able to read and comprehend? I've posted here already that I am
an investigator/Firefighter
this does not surprise me that you can't comprehend this as I've posted numerous links that refer you to comments in order to explain your CO2 problem, and either you cant read them, you cant understand them, or you are ignoring them
At least I know you can google and get info... why stop there though?
Effectively it suffocates the fire
correct. now... where does THAT CO2 go after use? and why can an unmasked person use CO2 to put out a fire?
THIS IS WHAT IS BEING ADDRESSED ON THE OTHER THREAD COMMENTS
the properties of CO2 gas in the atmosphere, ya moron

Given the repeated posts and fixation, I say, at this point, that your continued posting is proof positive that you are here to TROLL, obfuscate the truth, and that you are stupid
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
In enclosed spaces CO2 will put out most fires. Got that, Mr. Stumpy?
@jd
in am enclosed space it will also kill a person if not properly ventilated due to the same properties that suffocate the fire: access to available O2.
quick lesson here: CO2 is quite stable, but any firefighter that has a lot of experience will also tell you that
It doesn't react with burning materials
is not necessarily true, and it depends heavily on the heat, fuel and available O2 & If CO2 is the oxidizer used to fuel a chemical reaction then it creates the O2 FOR the fire...
now... in the other comment thread http://phys.org/n...nia.html the properties of CO2 are being addressed, which is why I referenced it above (and I said as much).

I see now that you are just another TROLL trying to obfuscate the truth. Trying to hide reality with stupidity and TROLL comments, SPAMMING other comments too with stupidity, not science.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014

PS do you know what gish-gallop is

"New Record for Coldest Place on Earth, in Antarctica"
The temperature breaks the 30-year-old record of about -128.6°F (-89.2°C), measured by the Vostok weather station in a nearby location.
Although they announced the new record this week, the temperature record was set on August 10, 2010.
http://news.natio...science/

Maggnus: Below is from your link
"That year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in its Fourth Assessment Report that Antarctica was the only continent where anthropogenic temperature change had not been detected. In contrast to the Arctic, the report said, ice in the far south wasn't experiencing alarming, widespread melting. Some data even suggested that the continent was moderately cooling. "As best we knew," says David Bromwich, a climate scientist at Ohio State University, "there was not much changing."
https://www.scien...perature

PS do you know what prevarication is?


jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014

Mr Stumpy: Thanks so much for your flawed insight & when will you understand that NOTHING that you post has any validity or purpose other than to show, in no uncertain terms, how little you know about anything. I have no problem with this essential for all terrestrial life on earth life trace gas that comprises only .039% of the atmosphere, CO2. It seems to be you that have a problem with it and want to assign powers to it that it does not possess, kind of like a devil within your religious cult, I assume.

Maggnus: I doubt that in all of your blowing spittle and arm waving, you are aware of this that is happening on the other end of the earth.
The volume of sea ice in the Arctic is 50 percent higher than it was last fall, satellite measurements show
http://www.alaska...percent/


Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
Mr Stumpy: Thanks so much for your flawed insight blah blah that you post blah blah how little you know about anything
@jd-hooker
personal conjecture without evidence and based upon stupidity
It seems to be you that have a problem with it
personal conjecture based on stupidity
lets see... considering that you've ignored valid data, references and posts and blatantly posted BLATANT stupidity for whatever reason, as well as ignored the mathematical contributions of a PHYSICIST/CLIMATE SCIENTIST Tim Thompson, Meteorologist Runrig, etc... I would say that you are the one missing points and having flawed insights
by the way... figured out what is going on in the other thread yet? oops... that's right, ya cant read. sorry
I doubt that ...you are aware of this that is happening on the other end of the earth
@Maggnus
you must've hit a sore spot! jd-hooker ornithologist is calling you names!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
Still doesn't mean anything.

One person, Einstein has a theory, but the remaining 99.99999% don't buy it.

Doesn't mean anything does it?

That's why socialists must hate real science. The power one individual has to change the world.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
Still doesn't mean anything.

One person, Einstein has a theory, but the remaining 99.99999% don't buy it.

Doesn't mean anything does it?

That's why socialists must hate real science. The power one individual has to change the world.


????

Stupidiosity beyond belief.

Even for one such as rygsuckn', this comment is irrefutably, spectaculary, and contemptibly
delusional.

Go climb your spotty backside up a rope, troll.

rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
@JD

"rockwolf1000 says "I converse directly with biologists in this matter and my statements are based on their conclusions." to which I respond that you need to broaden your list of sources and get some facts for a change. I see where you look nothing up"

I look plenty of stuff up and have tons of resources. On this subject and many others. And I certainly know enough to know that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about or if you do you are purposely lying because your posts consist of utter nonsense.

I don't post many links. Lot's of people more qualified than I do just that, along with logical and cogent arguments, and to what end? No one concedes their position. Ever! So although I do appreciate the links that some people care to leave, I just can't be bothered.

I am also certain that Captain Stumpy has probably forgotten more about fire extinguishers than you will ever know. Your assertion that he doesn't know what he's talking about is absurd.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 11, 2014
@JD
I look plenty of stuff up and have tons of resources. On this subject and many others. And I certainly know enough to know that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about or if you do you are purposely lying because your posts consist of utter nonsense.


You tell your story like you see fit. You do not believe that I am untiled to my views and that is constant with you anthropogenic global warming folks who have no proof, at all, the there is a human factor regarding the climate. Where was it when the last ice age began, or ended or when the Roman Warm period occurred, or the Medieval Warm Period and then the Little Ice age occurred and these are all historically recorded events. You people know that to admit to these events is to not be able to fall back on the only arrow in your quiver, CO2; therefore, you do everything you can to not admit they occurred and that makes you look very naive and not understanding much, if you get my point & please note that I did not call you a liar or in any way attack you personally & I know from experience that would be too much to ask from you because when you understand that you have lost this debate, what else do you have left?

Abrupt Holocene climate change as an important factor for human migration in West Greenland
http://www.pnas.o...abstract
An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula
http://adsabs.har...25..108L
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 11, 2014


I don't post many links. Lot's of people more qualified than I do just that, along with logical and cogent arguments, and to what end? No one concedes their position. Ever! So although I do appreciate the links that some people care to leave, I just can't be bothered.


Since you say you are Canadian, this should interest you.
"The Norse arrived in Greenland 1,000 years ago and became very well established," says Schweger, describing the Viking farms and settlements that crowded the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland for almost 400 years.
"The Greenland settlements were the most distant of all European medieval sites in the world," said Schweger. "Then the Norse disappear, and the question has always been: what happened?"

Cross-sections of the GUS soil show the Vikings began their settlement by burning off Birch brush to form a meadow. Over the next 300 to 400 years, the meadow soil steadily improved its nutritional qualities, showing that the Greenland Vikings weren't poor farmers, as McGovern and others have suggested. "At GUS, the amount of organic matter and the quality of soil increased and sustained farming for 400 years," says Schweger. "If they were poor farmers, then virtually all the farming in North America is poor farming."
http://www.folio..../03.html

jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2014
@JD

This piece from a New Zealand paper gives the views of people before they were inflicted with the fear of the big CO2 boogie man in the sky and used observed information to construct a true look at the world and its climate. They found that in 1122AD the Vikings were sailing through open arctic seas but by the fourteenth century the seas had closed due to ice.
VARIATIONS IN CLIMATE.
Press, Volume XLIV, Issue 6903, 8 November 1887, Page 6
http://paperspast...+melting

jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2014
I am also certain that Captain Stumpy has probably forgotten more about fire extinguishers than you will ever know. Your assertion that he doesn't know what he's talking about is absurd.


You can inform me of what I told Mr. Stumpy about fire extinguishers that is not the truth. He is the one that asked the question of me, in case you missed that.
"Evidence of Viking Outpost Found in Canada
Sharpeners may be smoking guns in quest for New World's second Viking site.
For the past 50 years—since the discovery of a thousand-year-old Viking way station in Newfoundland—archaeologists and amateur historians have combed North America's east coast searching for traces of Viking visitors.

Archaeologists have long known that Viking seafarers set sail for the New World around A.D. 1000. A popular Icelandic saga tells of the exploits of Leif Eriksson, a Viking chieftain from Greenland who sailed westward to seek his fortune. According to the saga, Eriksson stopped long enough on Baffin Island to walk the coast—named Helluland, an Old Norse word meaning "stone-slab land"—before heading south to a place he called Vinland."
http://news.natio...herland/

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2014
Now I see why 'liberals' like Islam:
"A British Islamist leader has outlined how an "Islamic State" should humiliate Christians to encourage them to convert to Islam. "
http://www.breitb...-Convert
They use the same tactics.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) May 11, 2014
@JDS

This piece from a New Zealand paper gives the views of people before they were inflicted with the fear of the big CO2 boogie man in the sky and used observed information to construct a true look at the world and its climate. They found that in 1122AD the Vikings were sailing through open arctic seas but by the fourteenth century the seas had closed due to ice.
VARIATIONS IN CLIMATE.
Press, Volume XLIV, Issue 6903, 8 November 1887, Page 6
http://paperspast...+melting



You have outdone yourself. A great flood!!!

Are you kidding? A great flood from an article from 1887. What a maroon!
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) May 11, 2014
Now I see why 'liberals' like Islam:
"A British Islamist leader has outlined how an "Islamic State" should humiliate Christians to encourage them to convert to Islam. "
http://www.breitb...-Convert
They use the same tactics.


....and, still more Fool's Gold from the Vault of Irrelevant Inanity.

We all know that what you really want to say is:

"Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!

jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2014
Are you kidding? A great flood from an article from 1887. What a maroon!

Thermodynamics: Yes I know that for someone whose world started two days ago many things are a mystery and a reason to call people names. You really show your lack of maturity + other bad qualities.

Is this current enough for you agw freaks?
Winter Storm Warning

URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DENVER/BOULDER CO
1158 AM MDT SUN MAY 11 2014

...A STRONG SPRING STORM WILL AFFECT NORTHEAST AND NORTH CENTRAL
COLORADO THROUGH MONDAY MORNING...

.A STRONG STORM SYSTEM WILL MOVE FROM THE FOUR CORNERS AREA SLOWLY
EAST AND NORTHEAST ACROSS COLORADO TONIGHT AND MONDAY MORNING. SNOW
WILL CONTINUE IN THE MOUNTAINS...FOOTHILLS...AND I-25 CORRIDOR...
WHILE RAIN WILL CHANGE OVER TO SNOW ON THE EASTERN PLAINS LATE
THIS AFTERNOON THROUGH THIS EVENING.

DOWNED TREE LIMBS AND SOME POWER OUTAGES ARE EXPECTED...AS WELL
AS HAZARDOUS WINTER DRIVING CONDITIONS
http://www.srh.no...;wwa=all
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) May 11, 2014

Are you kidding? A great flood from an article from 1887. What a maroon!

Is this current enough for you? I know with the agw folks, if it is a cold event then it is only weather; but, if it is like the summer of 2012 then it is for sure global warming.
USA TODAY4:04 p.m. EDT May 11, 2014
A powerful spring storm made a wet, cold wintery mess of Mother's Day in parts of Colorado and Wyoming.A foot of snow fell Sunday in the foothills northwest of Denver, and more precipitation in the form of a rain-snow mix was expected to greet Monday commuters along much of Coloado's Front Range. http://www.usatod...8964437/

Mercury drops to record low in much of China
Updated: 2013-01-03 07:56
http://usa.chinad...7726.htm
 
'Historic' snow storms spread havoc and misery across the Middle East The worst snow storms since 1953 have caused chaos in Israel and the Palestinian territories and exacerbated an already severe crisis among Syrian refugees"http://www.telegr...k/new...
"Snow closes roads in Israel, is a source of wonder in Egypt"  December 13, 2013 http://www.latime...rld/w...
"Snow falls in Vietnam Unusual weather strikes east Asia. Last updated: 16 Dec 2013 09:39 Snow has fallen in Northern Vietnam for the first time in many years. The snow caused a five-hour traffic jam as people drove into the mountainous provinces of Lao Cai and Ha Giang to see the wintry flurries." http://www.aljaze...weath...
"It is really a rare occasion for Fort Peck to freeze completely over prior to Christmas at lake elevations at or above its current level," Daggett wrote in an email. "The last time it did was Dec. 21, 2000." http://billingsga...m/lif...
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2014


....and, still more Fool's Gold from the Vault of Irrelevant Inanity.

We all know that what you really want to say is:

IPCC criticised by tens of thousands of informed scientists
But I also reminded you that tens of thousands of informed scientists have criticised the IPCC's findings. So I urged you to look up their conclusions on the internet. The main petitions are: The Heidelberg Appeal (4000 signatures including 62 Nobel prizewinners), The Oregon Petition (31,000 accredited scientists), The Manhattan Declaration (600 research climatologists), The Petition to the United Nations (100 geoscientists), Petition to the Canadian Prime Minister (60 climate experts), The Leipzig Declaration (100 geoscientists), The Statement from Atmospheric Scientists (50), Petition to the German Chancellor (200 German scientists), Statement from the American Physical Society (150 physical scientists), Petition to President Obama (100 leading climate researchers), UN Climate Scientists speak out on Global Warming (700, many previously involved with the IPCC). All are critical of the notion of man-made global warming, and all of them (with signatures and accreditations) are accessible via Google.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2014



You have outdone yourself. A great flood!!!

Are you kidding? A great flood from an article from 1887. What a maroon!
Recorded Weather Extremes, U.S. and Worldwide
• Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960–Dec. 1966), 94° F (34.4° C). (U.S.): Key West, Fla. (30-year normal), 78.2° F (25.7° C).
• Lowest average annual mean temperature (world): Plateau Station, Antarctica, –70° F (–56.7° C). (U.S.): Barrow, Alaska (30-year normal), 9.3° F (–12.6° C).
• Greatest average yearly rainfall (world): Cherrapunji, India (74-year avg), 450 in. (1,143 cm). (U.S.): Mt. Waialeale, Kauai, Hawaii (32-year avg), 460 in. (1,168 cm).
• Minimum average yearly rainfall (world): Arica, Chile (59-year avg), 0.03 in. (0.08 cm) (no rainfall for 14 consecutive years). (U.S.): Death Valley, Calif. (42-year avg), 1.63 in. (4.14 cm). Bagdad, Calif., holds the U.S. record for the longest period with no measurable rain, 767 days, from Oct. 3, 1912 to Nov. 8, 1914.
• Hottest summer average in Western Hemisphere (U.S.): Death Valley, Calif., 98° F (36.7° C).
• Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (37.8° C) (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924.
• Largest hailstone (U.S.): Aurora, Neb., 7 in. (17.8 cm) in diameter, 18.75 in. (47.6 cm) in circumference, June 22, 2003.
• Costliest U.S. hailstorm: Denver, Colorado, July 11, 1990. Total damage was $625 million.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2014



We all know that what you really want to say is:


We all know that what you really want to say is for you, and all those like you, Caliban is just shove it where the light don't shine.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2014
....and, still more Fool's Gold from the Vault of Irrelevant Inanity.

We all know that what you really want to say is:

"Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!


It is these kind of people that Caliban aligns them selves with and represents, it appears & they are a typical anthropogenic global warming kind of person!!!.
Afghanistan arrests 10 in acid attack on girls
Afghanistan arrests 10 in acid attack on girls. M. Karim Faiez,Laura King, Los Angeles Times. Wednesday, November 26, 2008 ...
www.sfgate.com/cg...C6CG.DTL

Stoning victim 'begged for mercy'
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
"A young woman recently stoned to death in Somalia first pleaded for her life, a witness has told the BBC.

http://news.bbc.c...8169.stm

Iran has a heart: 'Stoning woman' to be hanged instead
Posted: 5:58 AM, September 28, 2010
http://www.nypost...BDuxuz4O

Iran: Pregnant woman to be stoned to death
Tehran Court rules 25-year-old woman convicted of adultery must be executed despite pregnancy. Her lawyer hopes to have sentence 'commuted' to lashing


http://www.ynetne...,00.html
Pakistan acid attack victim commits suicide
One of Pakistan's most high profile victims of domestic acid attacks has committed suicide in Rome where she had been undergoing cosmetic surgery to rebuild her face.

http://www.telegr...ide.html
rockwolf1000
4.5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014
@ JD
"You tell your story like you see fit. You do not believe that I am untiled to my views and that is constant with you anthropogenic global warming folks who have no proof, at all, the there is a human factor regarding the climate."

It's a theory at this point. One that is backed by volumes of data and evidence. The consequences that the theory suggest that it would be prudent to prevent the atmosphere form further accumulating CO2. You keep posting links regarding the LIA and the MWP. That only goes to show that the climate is very unpredictable. At the same time you proclaim that the climate models are flawed and cannot be trusted. Yet you think it's still ok to modify the atmosphere with emissions, which it is quite clear that we are doing, in such an unpredictable system. Talk about rolling the dice with humanity! The atmospheric composition that allowed us to thrive and prosper is being forever altered and you still think that's just fine.
Are you mental? You are untiled!
rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014
@JD

"if you get my point & please note that I did not call you a liar or in any way attack you personally & I know from experience that would be too much to ask from you because when you understand that you have lost this debate, what else do you have left?"

That reminds me of a song by Carly Simon:

You're so vain.
I bet you think this song is about you?
You're so vain.
I bet you think this song is about you?
Don't you?
Don't you?
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014
....and, still more Fool's Gold from the Vault of Irrelevant Inanity.

We all know that what you really want to say is:

"Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!


It is these kind of people that Caliban aligns them selves with and represents, it appears & they are a typical anthropogenic global warming kind of person!!!.
Afghanistan arrests 10 in acid attack on girls
Afghanistan arrests 10 in [...]=/c/a/2008/11/26/MN7914C6CG.DTL


???

So then, what's yer point, j' swallow?

Other than to flood this thread(and every other thread you comment on) with mined quotes and other oddments from The Vault of Irrelevant Inanity?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 12, 2014


So then, what's yer point, j' swallow?



My point is to demonstrate that you, as usual, have no idea about anything that you babble on about.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2014
[q "

The consequences that the theory suggest that it would be prudent to prevent the atmosphere form further accumulating CO2.

rockwolf1000: How much do you think the atmosphere was modified these with emissions I present to you? Where do you think the earth's atmosphere came from?

About 252 million years ago, the largest mass extinction and the largest volcanic eruptions in Earth history occurred apparently synchronously:
• Worldwide 90% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species went extint.
• In Siberia 6,000,000 cubic kilometers of magma erupted, enough to cover the continental U.S. to almost a mile in depth.
http://siberia.mi...research

The Rift Valley
About three-quarters of a million years ago (making Kilimanjaro a veritable youngster in geological terms) molten lava burst through the fractured surface of the Great Rift Valley, a giant fault in the earth's crust that runs through East Africa (actually, Kilimanjaro lies 50 miles from the East African Rift Valley along a splinter running off it, but that need not concern us here). The huge pressures behind this eruption pushed part of the Earth's crust skywards, creating the Shira volcano, the oldest of the volcanoes forming the Kilimanjaro massif. Shira eventually ceased erupting around 500,000 years ago, collapsing as it did so to form a huge caldera (the deep cauldron-like cavity on the summit of a volcano) many times the size of its original crater.
http://www.climbm...ogy.html

I know that the eruption at Yellowstone was a "earthshattering event", even if you do not.
jdswallow
1.2 / 5 (6) May 12, 2014


It's a theory at this point.

NO, it is not a theory at this point. It has never moved beyond being a hypothesis, for obvious reasons.
the·o·ry
 noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject


hy·poth·e·sis
 noun \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\
: an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion
plural hy·poth·e·ses 
Full Definition of HYPOTHESIS
1
a :  an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b :  an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
:  a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3
:  the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
rockwolf1000
4.5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014
@JD
"I know that the eruption at Yellowstone was a "earthshattering event", even if you do not."

Why do deniers think that AGW and massive volcanic eruptions can be compared on par? They're not the same thing. Not even close.

"rockwolf1000: How much do you think the atmosphere was modified these with emissions I present to you? Where do you think the earth's atmosphere came from?"

My understanding is that CO2 levels have gone up 40% in under 200 years. And that is without major volcanism. Scary!

Earth's atmosphere? It came from space, just like the rest of the earth.
Dr_toad
May 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 12, 2014
My understanding is that CO2 levels have gone up 40% in under 200 years.

So?
Dosage makes the poison.
rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014
My understanding is that CO2 levels have gone up 40% in under 200 years.

So?
Dosage makes the poison.

What would your doctor think if you increased your sodium intake by 40%? Might not be fatal immediately, but I'm sure he would concerned about your long term health. Even when millions of others wouldn't give a crap.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014

Lets say there is a 120 ppm increase from 300ppm. That's 40%.
120ppm, mole, is 233 mg/m^3.
Density of air is ~1.3 kg/m^3 at STP.
233mg/1.3kg = 1.79e-4
So a 40% increase is CO2 is .0179% change in the atmospheric mass.

Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014

Lets say there is a 120 ppm increase from 300ppm. That's 40%.
120ppm, mole, is 233 mg/m^3.
Density of air is ~1.3 kg/m^3 at STP.
233mg/1.3kg = 1.79e-4
So a 40% increase is CO2 is .0179% change in the atmospheric mass.


And that, in addition to being more Fool's(and I do mean Fool) Gold from the Vault of Irrelevant Inanity, is entirely beside the point, since it is the IR-trapping properties of CO2 which are of concern. More CO2 = more heat trapped.

Thus your post is redundantly stupid.

Moron.

rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014


NO, it is not a theory at this point. It has never moved beyond being a hypothesis, for obvious reasons.
the·o·ry
 noun \ˈthÄ�-É�-rÄ�, ˈthir-Ä�\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject


hy·poth·e·sis
 noun \hÄ�-ˈpä-thÉ�-sÉ�s\
: an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion
plural hy·poth·e·ses 
Full Definition of HYPOTHESIS
1
a :  an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b :  an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
:  a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3
:  the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

By your definitions AGW is a theory. Thank you. Apology accepted!
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014