New study suggests more and longer atmospheric stagnation events due to global warming

Jun 23, 2014 by Bob Yirka report
Characteristic change in air stagnation components. Credit: Nature Climate Change (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2272

(Phys.org) —A new study conducted by researchers at Stanford University has led to findings indicating that much of the world can expect to have more atmospheric stagnation events as the future unfolds. In their paper published in Nature Climate Change, the researchers describe how they ran a variety of computer models that took into account a continued increase in greenhouse gas emissions—they report that taken together, the models predict that approximately 55 percent of the world's population can expect to be impacted by future stagnation events.

Stagnation is an where an remains in place over a geographic region for an extended period of time. They tend to happen due to the convergence of specific —light wind patterns near the surface, other light wind patterns occurring higher up, and a lack of rain. During normal weather periods, wind and rain combine to clean the air around metropolitan areas—when rain fails to fall and there is little wind to push pollution away from an area, particulates and other types of pollution levels climb, putting those that live in the area at risk of health problems.

The collection of computer models run by the team at Stanford also suggest that stagnation events are likely to last longer—increasing by an average of 40 days a year. The result the team notes, is likely to be an increase in heart and lung complications in people in those areas, contributing to an associated climb in the number of premature deaths due to air pollutants—numbering perhaps in the millions. They also note that Mexico, India and parts of the western U.S. are likely to be most at risk of health impacts from an increase in stagnation events, as all three will have more and longer such events and all three are heavily populated.

The researchers suggest that at some point, the entire planet will be impacted by stagnation events. That means governments and health workers will need to make plans on how to handle the problems as they begin to occur. They add that the only real solution to the problem is to begin curbing now, preventing the events from occurring in the first place.

Explore further: Researchers predict global warming will cause an increase in frequency of Indian Ocean Dipole events

More information: Occurrence and persistence of future atmospheric stagnation events, Nature Climate Change (2014) DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2272

Abstract
Poor air quality causes an estimated 2.6–4.4 million premature deaths per year. Hazardous conditions form when meteorological components allow the accumulation of pollutants in the near-surface atmosphere. Global-warming-driven changes to atmospheric circulation and the hydrological cycle are expected to alter the meteorological components that control pollutant build-up and dispersal, but the magnitude, direction, geographic footprint and public health impact of this alteration remain unclear. We used an air stagnation index and an ensemble of bias-corrected climate model simulations to quantify the response of stagnation occurrence and persistence to global warming. Our analysis projects increases in stagnation occurrence that cover 55% of the current global population, with areas of increase affecting ten times more people than areas of decrease. By the late twenty-first century, robust increases of up to 40 days per year are projected throughout the majority of the tropics and subtropics, as well as within isolated mid-latitude regions. Potential impacts over India, Mexico and the western US are particularly acute owing to the intersection of large populations and increases in the persistence of stagnation events, including those of extreme duration. These results indicate that anthropogenic climate change is likely to alter the level of pollutant management required to meet future air quality targets.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Erosion may trigger earthquakes

Nov 21, 2014

Researchers from laboratories at Géosciences Rennes (CNRS/Université de Rennes 1), Géosciences Montpellier (CNRS/Université de Montpellier 2) and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (CNRS/IPGP/Université Paris Diderot), ...

Strong undersea earthquake hits eastern Indonesia

Nov 21, 2014

A strong undersea earthquake hit off the coast of eastern Indonesia on Friday, but there were no immediate reports of injuries or serious damage and officials said it was unlikely to trigger a tsunami.

User comments : 382

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
2.1 / 5 (33) Jun 23, 2014
Please! Not another GW article! This topic is so abused. Please stick to real science stories.
Vietvet
3.5 / 5 (27) Jun 23, 2014
Please! Not another GW article! This topic is so abused. Please stick to real science stories.


As a science denier, why to you even bother visiting a science site and make inane comments?
Stevepidge
2.2 / 5 (21) Jun 23, 2014
Please! Not another GW article! This topic is so abused. Please stick to real science stories.


As a science denier, why to you even bother visiting a science site and make inane comments?


With language like that, you would fit right in with the religious wingnuts in the middle east.
Unbiased Observer
2.2 / 5 (23) Jun 23, 2014
Vietvet, allow me to suggest the following search term to plug into google.

"define: science"

Then read the following, which is from the article above.

"... In their paper published in Nature Climate Change, the researchers describe how they ran a variety of computer models..."

Now apply yourself for a moment. Models != science. Then remember that... "All models are wrong, but some are useful." These models are not at a point where they are useful. They have constantly and consistently failed to predict the climate without exceedingly large error bars.

The exasperation at another "model science" article is a legitimate complaint from a student of science. Science is not about denying, that is more in the realm of dogma, which I'm sure you would be against. As evidenced by the fervent zeal you displayed in the defense of your view of science.
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (20) Jun 23, 2014


The exasperation at another "model science" article is a legitimate complaint from a student of science. Science is not about denying, that is more in the realm of dogma, which I'm sure you would be against. As evidenced by the fervent zeal you displayed in the defense of your view of science.


...and after all that ask yourself how adding CO2 (a greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere, could do anything but make things warmer than they otherwise would have been. We can debate models on HOW MUCH warmer it's getting and that may not be perfect....but it's pretty solid science that more CO2 means a warmer atmosphere (that's firmly in the category of the Earth is round and the sky is blue).

So we are absolutely working with in a science qua science framework. We may disagree on details, but the basic principles are completely solid.
Cheeseburger
2.1 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2014
...and after all that ask yourself how adding CO2 (a greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere, could do anything but make things warmer than they otherwise would have been. We can debate models on HOW MUCH warmer it's getting and that may not be perfect....but it's pretty solid science that more CO2 means a warmer atmosphere (that's firmly in the category of the Earth is round and the sky is blue).



I am sorry but it is simply not that easy. If it was we could all go home. There are thousands of feedback mechanisms both positive AND NEGATIVE. According to the IPCC a DOUBLING of CO2 would only result in a 1 degree increase in temperature by itself. (Even this is high and much research suggests it is as little as half that.) But the IPCC looks at positive feedbacks such as increased water vapor which is a stronger greenhouse gas. And so they predict runaway temps. But the IPCC downplays the hundreds of NEGATIVE feedbacks. Besides, atmospheric water vapor hasn't even gone up, it's DOWN!
Unbiased Observer
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 23, 2014
Modern,

Your basic assumption is dependent that CO2 drives temperature which we know and have evidence to not be the case. The exact quantifiable effect of CO2 (on a global scale) is rather difficult to determine as we do not have all factors and their relative importance fully (or even partially) quantified. To echo Cheeseburger, many of these feedback loops/mechanisms are not even fully understood, let alone at a point were accurate modeling on a global scale is remotely accurate.

Purely model driven articles and model science does little to advance the overall goal of actual science. Experimental verification is necessary and currently articles of substance are few and far between.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2014
Most stagnant air is the result of surface topography.
People have a tendency to build in valleys and temperature inversions trap air in the valley.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (19) Jun 23, 2014
But the IPCC downplays the hundreds of NEGATIVE feedbacks. Besides, atmospheric water vapor hasn't even gone up, it's DOWN!

The IPCC "down plays" the "hundreds of -ve feed-backs eh? (can you list even 20?) - because in the grand scheme of things they are minor in the face of increasing atmospheric WV increase (please also provide data that shows it is decreasing) - a logical impossibility given that the hydrological cycle is free to evaporate into a warmer and therefore more accepting atmosphere ..... that's just empirical physics my friend.
I also suggest that that and reduced albedo in the Arctic are +ve feed-backs that can never be matched in effect by any -ve ones.

Just more hand-waving denialist nonsense.
jscroft
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2014
... but it's pretty solid science that more CO2 means a warmer atmosphere


That's entirely different from asserting that more CO2 CAUSES a warmer atmosphere. Stick a glass of soda in your microwave and hit the go button: there's a pretty solid argument to be made that the truth is exactly the reverse.
inversion
3.4 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2014
This has a prediction we can test - "By the late twenty-first century, robust increases of up to 40 days per year are projected throughout the majority of the tropics and subtropics, as well as within isolated mid-latitude regions."

It would be nice, though, if the authors outlined what type of signal would be necessary to test their prediction in, say, 10 years, 25 years, etc. When will we be able to tell whether they were right or wrong? Hopefully less than 85 years.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2014
Biased:
Your basic assumption is dependent that CO2 drives temperature which we know and have evidence to not be the case.


I know this has been explained to you ad-nauseum. If you can't understand it, just let us know and we will just note that the next time you make this wrong claim.

I will try one more time for you.

1) During heating periods brought on by orbital, solar, or tilt changes, the earth heats and CO2 is increased in the atmosphere which makes it a feedback mechanism (as does water). This is a typical mechanism for moving into warming events.

2) In this case, humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere and, therefore we have increased the CO2 content so that it is leading the warming and water vapor becomes a feedback mechanism.

3) If a GHG is added to the atmosphere it will increase the IR retained and will lead warming (as would happen if methane were released in large quantities). There is no conclusive evidence that this happened in the past. Cont
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2014
Continued:

4) Since we are, artificially increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we are performing an unsanctioned experiment (that we would never get permission to perform if we asked). We are now trying to calculate the impact of this unplanned experiment.

Biased said:

The exact quantifiable effect of CO2 (on a global scale) is rather difficult to determine as we do not have all factors and their relative importance fully (or even partially) quantified.


The term "exact" needs to be defined. No one I know expects any model to be exact. Do you really mean that or are you just babbling?

You indicate that if a model is not "exact" it is worthless. Try telling that to engineers who design your cars, airplanes, and weapons systems our soldiers field. Modeling is how we make progress in the world today and if you don't know that, just admit you don't understand modern science and engineering and stop spouting about models not being exact. They are useful.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2014
We are now trying to calculate the impact of this unplanned experiment.

Trying?
From the AGWites, one would think it has been done.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2014
We are now trying to calculate the impact of this unplanned experiment.

Trying?
From the AGWites, one would think it has been done.


I know you can't read Rygg, so let me point out the word "impact." It has been shown that it is happening (to all but the illiterate like you). Now the effort is to determine the impact. As anyone with a modicum of intelligence (again, that will rule you out) will be able to see, there is always an effort to improve every model. Once again, let me point out that just because a model is not perfect does not mean it is not useful. You are useless, but the models are not. The better they get, the better the predictions.

The science of CO2 AGW is settled.

How that will impact the earth is still open.

That it is impacting the earth is settled.

The quantitative estimate of the specific impacts will get better.

Only the deniers are left to dispute the science and bemoan the models.

The models are useful. Deniers are not.
verkle
1.6 / 5 (20) Jun 23, 2014
As a science denier, why to you even bother visiting a science site and make inane comments?


Your arrogance is suffocating.

I have only 2 science degrees, but no Ph.D, so maybe I don't have the qualifications to post here?

If I was an illogical person, there is no way on earth that I could have earned my perfect 800 on the SAT math section.

I hope you did at least that good.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2014
It has been shown that it is happening


"We prove that the EPA's "three lines of evidence" are fatally flawed, based on multiple robust data sets, not on "expert opinion" from those paid to support the president's position. Honest data show no unusual warming in the latter half of the 20th century and none at all for the past 15 years, despite a slow increase in carbon dioxide. "
http://www.oregon...han.html
strangedays
3.9 / 5 (19) Jun 23, 2014
verkle - I too share vietvets impatience with the need for many to jump on every article that has the word climate in the title - and to disparage physorg for simply copy and pasting what to me are important articles.

Of course climate science is legitimate science - and models are a legitmate part of science. Today's article pointing out that May was globally the warmest May on record is surely support for the legitimacy of what the climate science is telling us.

On a lighter note - you said
I hope you did at least that good


Which tells us that you do not know the difference between an adjective and an adverb - so maths was your strong point, and not English?
Solon
1.9 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2014
"the warmest May on record"

According to this, the warmest was in the 1930s.

The scandal of fiddled global warming data
http://www.telegr...ata.html
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2014
"the warmest May on record"

According to this, the warmest was in the 1930s.

The scandal of fiddled global warming data
http://www.telegr...ata.html

This article won't be copy and pasted on phys.org.
strangedays
3.7 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2014
This article won't be copy and pasted on phys.org.


Probably not - becuase it is a fluff opinion piece - with no basis in reality. Subscribe to the global conspiracy of evil scientists if you want. There is not just one data set - and the record is clear. Here is an article from the Japan Meteorological Agency - showing that globally - this spring was the hottest on record, and this May was the hottest on record. Their data is from both NASA and NOAA - although I am sure both agencies are part of the global conspiracy of evil scientists.
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2014
Lost the original link - but here is a repost from treehugger.

http://www.treehu...891.html
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2014
It has been shown that it is happening


"We prove that the EPA's "three lines of evidence" are fatally flawed, based on multiple robust data sets, not on "expert opinion" from those paid to support the president's position. Honest data show no unusual warming in the latter half of the 20th century and none at all for the past 15 years, despite a slow increase in carbon dioxide. "
http://www.oregon...han.html


Rygg: Where do we find your amicus brief? Or is that nonsense too? When did you file that?
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2014
Strange:
Lost the original link - but here is a repost from treehugger.

http://www.treehu...891.html


There you go thinking your data trumps Rygg's lies. You know he will just pick some random tidbit to confuse the thread. Let's see what tangent he comes up with for this one.

Good catch on the article.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2014
Lost the original link - but here is a repost from treehugger.

http://www.treehu...891.html

What does this have to do with global warming?
It's weather.
Climate doesn't count unless it's 30+ years, right?
Solon
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2014
"This article won't be copy and pasted on phys.org."

For a commercial site that is meant to make a profit, I'd think it would be. PO is not in the business of education or trying to determine truths, so posting articles that are controversial or devisive generally serves to increase readership and site traffic, which is what, hopefully, leads to better profits, but perhaps if Anti-AGW material is never, ever printed, then it may be wise to question where the income is really from.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2014
Lost the original link - but here is a repost from treehugger.

http://www.treehu...891.html

What does this have to do with global warming?
It's weather.
Climate doesn't count unless it's 30+ years, right?


Errr... Umhhh.... Rygg2. That is 120+ years. How do you think it is less than 30?

Can I find that in your briefs?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (20) Jun 23, 2014
"This article won't be copy and pasted on phys.org."

For a commercial site that is meant to make a profit, I'd think it would be. PO is not in the business of education or trying to determine truths, so posting articles that are controversial or devisive generally serves to increase readership and site traffic, which is what, hopefully, leads to better profits, but perhaps if Anti-AGW material is never, ever printed, then it may be wise to question where the income is really from.


The reason they don't publish all of the loon opinions is that they are not science and therefor have no reason to be reported on PO. They do a great job of catching published and peer reviewed papers, but OPeds from non-technical publications are not science. If you want the space-case loons, go to WattsUp. Look at the ratio of papers that understand AGW to those that don't. Those who really don't understand science (and refute AGW get cut in peer review - for good reason).
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2014
What does this have to do with global warming?
It's weather.
Climate doesn't count unless it's 30+ years, right?


You're shittin us right rygg? An article that explains that GLOBALLY, this spring was the hottest spring since records began - and that is your response!
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (19) Jun 23, 2014
@verkle

You claim two science degrees but continually make unscientific claims.
Creationism isn't science.

You can post whatever you want on this site but to think you are above criticism is arrogance.

I'm arrogant?

Over the past six decades if I've learned anything is that I'm humbled by what I don't know. I'm going to die before many of the important scientific questions today are resolved but I'm active in keeping unscientific teaching out of my grandchildren and great grand childrens class rooms.

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2014
@Solon - your article states that the U.S. has been cooling since the 1930's. Could you please supply references to any data sets that wouldd support that assertion?

Thanks.
Solon
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2014
@Solon - your article states that the U.S. has been cooling since the 1930's. Could you please supply references to any data sets that wouldd support that assertion?

Thanks.


Well, at Goddards site there is this:
A Closer Look At USHCN TOBS Adjustments
https://stevengod...stments/

And from the comments there:

"Why the heck are they even doing Tobs adjustments? The min/max thermometer has been around for centuries!"

Unbiased Observer
1.7 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2014
Thermo,

Start out with a personal attack and end with a straw man. Not doing well today are you?

1) I am well aware of solar effects. Do not patronize. But you support my point, I appreciate that.
2) Humans are adding CO2. Relative magnitude and direct effects are still not fully quantified. Mathematical investigations have also indicated that even the most draconian limits will still not have any significant effects on the environment.
3) Hyper simplistic over summarization that erodes significant confidence that you know what you are talking about. Does a candle heat a mansion? Technically, yes. Realistically, no. Magnitudes and unquantified variables are currently the norm in this "soft science."
4) Does a mega volcano artificially increase the levels of CO2? Does a cow's expulsion of methane? We have a sample and population of 1. Very hard to draw conclusions.
cont...
Unbiased Observer
1.7 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2014
Nowhere did I say that exact results are needed. I did say that CO2 exact effects are unknown, and context would lead one to see that my desire is quantifiable effects with reasonable accuracy. It is a strawman argument to imply that I said modeling is useless and quite frankly it's shameful.
I am quite familiar with many modeling techniques, as well as their limitations. A rule of thumb for many industries that a model is good if its 80% correct. That is not sufficient, as a prototype is always built. Models generally identify potential concerns and reduce engineering resources spent on testing. For example, FEA and some CFD's are generally good, but they do not substitute for product or experimental testing. But both of those are well established models based upon thousands of tests that were validated experimentally. Climate codes fail time and time again, even with the massive error bars. If you are familiar with modeling then you know, "garbage in, garbage out."
strangedays
4 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2014
@ Solon - I asked for a data set that would support your assertion that the U.S. has been cooling since the 1930's. That is a pretty straight forward request.

Thanks.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2014
unbiased observer
Climate codes fail time and time again,


My understanding is that the climate models are considered quite succesful. Here is a discussion. http://web.archiv...odels-2/

Could you provide support for your assertion that climate models fail 'time and again'.

Thanks.
verkle
2 / 5 (10) Jun 24, 2014
verkle - On a lighter note - you said I hope you did at least that good. Which tells us that you do not know the difference between an adjective and an adverb - so maths was your strong point, and not English?


Absolutely correct! My English score was above the national average, but nothing high enough to brag about.

verkle
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 24, 2014
@verkle You claim two science degrees but continually make unscientific claims.
Creationism isn't science.


Vietvet --- I beg to differ with your reasoning and conclusions. Who is talking about Creationism? The topic is evolution.

I'm arrogant?


Yes.

Enough said.

JoeBlue
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
Let me know when the models can show reality.
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
JoeBlue - they already do - I posted this link above - but happy to repost - http://web.archiv...odels-2/
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 24, 2014
Biased said:
Nowhere did I say that exact results are needed. I did say that CO2 exact effects are unknown, and context would lead one to see that my desire is quantifiable effects with reasonable accuracy. It is a strawman argument to imply that I said modeling is useless and quite frankly it's shameful.


Biased also said:
The exact quantifiable effect of CO2 (on a global scale) is rather difficult to determine as we do not have all factors and their relative importance fully (or even partially) quantified.


I hope you can see why I thought you said that you expected exact quantifiable effects (that would be results). I hope you aren't starting to follow Rygg's lead.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
Typical of Rygg2. He spouts off about submitting a brief and then ducks out when asked if it really is somewhere we can see it to see how wrong it is. I would love to look over what he considers to be correct (if it exists).

Just more of his puffery. When asked a question he just changes the subject and thinks everyone else doesn't notice.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
According to this, the warmest was in the 1930s


The scandal of fiddled global warming data
http://www.telegr...ata.html

This article won't be copy and pasted on phys.org.
No it wont ryggy as it's not science - it's biased opinion from a particular Denier flake.

Again conflation of the US temperature record with a global one.

How many times do I/we have to say that the clue is in the name??

And that would be ?......GLOBAL.

Oh and another bizarre "it's a conspiracy" claim.

FFS

BTW:
Booker .... this is the man who amongst other things .....
"...has repeatedly claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human heath" and that " passive smoking[2] and BSE[8] have not been shown to be dangerous."
http://en.wikiped..._science

Yep that's the sort of science you would have.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
Lost the original link - but here is a repost from treehugger.

http://www.treehu...891.html

What does this have to do with global warming?
It's weather.
Climate doesn't count unless it's 30+ years, right?


Tart .... the graphs on there go from 1890 to present and my maths make that 124 years. They show an ~0.7C rise through spring and May globally. Notice barely a bump in the 30's .... yes, hard I know for you but the US is not significant on a global scale when it comes to climate.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
Let me know when the models can show reality.


You'd have to die and go to another reality my friend.

Models can NEVER show reality, and to expect them to do so is a failure of scientific, and actually, logical thought. What they do is show a range of credible possible future realities, based on best ( and continually undated ) available data under a range of scenarios.
At their base is empirical physics - that's not up for debate, no matter how often deniers bring it up. GHG's just DO warm the climate.

It's the modern day calculator my friend .... or if you're from my generation - the slide rule. Didn't Apollo 13 get back with one of them?

Science at this level is done by Supercomputer - get over it and learn some.

Go away and read how ensemble forecasting is done
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 24, 2014
JoeBlue - they already do - I posted this link above - but happy to repost - http://web.archiv...odels-2/


Strange....

I've just properly read that linked piece, and it shows something I was not aware of, namely.
That the inclusion of 2 Canadian GCM's has significantly skewed the IPCC means forecast warmer and that when these are removed the global average mean temperature tracks the models (mean) predictions staggeringly well. Also, it seems that the IPCC *may* be loath to remove these outlier models from it's ensemble mean for fear of being accused of *cooking* the projections.
Isn't taking the outliers from a sample, throwing them away, and calculating the resultant mean a recognised statistical technique? ... and the 2 Canadian models are WAY off - giving ~ 2x the warming since 1960 than the rest.

Thanks again - you have further strengthened my appreciation of the science
EnricM
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2014
Please! Not another GW article! This topic is so abused. Please stick to real science stories.

Nice, Why don't you gather a few friends and do science of your own? It's free mate. And if it's only half as profitable as you say you may as well start your own pro-GW site and get lots and lots of cash from the IPCC, Obama and the Alien Jewish World Governement!
thingumbobesquire
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2014
No! The conclusion is all wrong here. It should be: global warming theory leads to mental stagnation but plenty of monetary compensation...
emrysmoose
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2014
Is this phenomenon similar to the temperature inversions that cause pollution problems in some cities?. By the way, please don't feed the trolls.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
Is this phenomenon similar to the temperature inversions that cause pollution problems in some cities?. By the way, please don't feed the trolls.


Yes.
Put simply it is the increased incidence of light winds, especially in winter when a low level inversion is most likely.
This happens most when HP is in residence when the added influence of subsidence warming reinforces the inversion, but may also happen in slack LP situations and in Cols between.

The inversion prevents escape aloft, and in the presence of sunshine especially creates "bad" Ozone.
http://www.epa.go...sic.html

Under AGW the meridional temp gradient is being reduced, so hence likewise the PJ strength, which is leading to more "stuck" weather patterns, and the consequent more likely persistence of stagnation events.

Also....
They are mostly "pet" Trolls and it is/they are amusing (though not intentionally so).
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2014
Please! Not another GW article! This topic is so abused. Please stick to real science stories.

Nice, Why don't you gather a few friends and do science of your own? It's free mate. And if it's only half as profitable as you say you may as well start your own pro-GW site and get lots and lots of cash from the IPCC, Obama and the Alien Jewish World Governement!

I think this underlies the hostility of the AGWites.
The only theory they have is THE CLIMATE MODEL that only a few of the 'high priests' have access and ability to use. Galileo made a shattering discovery with a simple telescope observing the dark side of Venus.
AGWites must accept the THE CLIMATE MODEL high priest's doctrine and don' have the capability to do their own experiments.
When challenged, they lash out and attack when anyone attacks their faith in THE CLIMATE MODEL.
Modernmystic
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2014
I did say that CO2 exact effects are unknown


The exact effects are not needed to know the general ones.

I don't know the EXACT temperature that water will reach 5 minutes and 23.22394 seconds after I turn on a gas stove burner under 3/4 of a cup at 8,000 feet above sea level...but I do know it will be hotter than if I didn't.....
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2014
I think this underlies the hostility of the AGWites.


Nice straw man from Rygg. This is the person who looked at an article that shows us that this May was the hottest May on record - since records began - and dismissed the article as being only about weather. So - after complete humiliation from a scientific perspective - Rygg writes a childish post - that adds nothing to the substance of the conversation.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 24, 2014
hottest May on record - since records began

How does that support AGW?
Unbiased Observer
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2014
@Strange,
Your argument concerns weather. Please stop reiterating and embarrassing yourself. But to answer your request (in the future a cursory search will yield many results). But for ex. doi:10.1038/nclimate2111.

@Modern,
You can get a very good estimate based upon some simple thermo and gas relation equations. Perhaps you should try. It would be a good exercise for you. The results would be reasonably precise and accurate.
However, that argument is a poor analogy and extreme over simplification as climate codes basically use fudge factors to account for non-quantified effects.

@Thermo
It's apparent you are incapable of respectful discourse. I expected an average level of reading comprehension and ability to absorb context, but was proven wrong. Without quantification of effects it's all qualitative.
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 24, 2014
However, that argument is a poor analogy and extreme over simplification as climate codes basically use fudge factors to account for non-quantified effects.


It's irrelevant. We're talking general effects here. The general effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is an increase in temperature. To say otherwise is to be extremely intellectually dishonest.

Now, show me your peer reviewed scientific study that shows where the CO2 is going, which feedbacks your talking about that prevent an increase in temperature with increased CO2 (and I do mean EXACT verifiable numbers, because that's what you're talking about) and I'll be very open to listen. Otherwise you're just confusing oversimplification with denying the color of the sky.
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2014
How does that support AGW?


Look at the graph in the article I referenced - titled 'global average temperature in spring' - notice that this graph shows and average temperature rise of .75 degrees C. per century. This is very strong evidence to support the idea that C02 increase over the past 100 years has caused the temperature to increase.
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
@ unbiasedobserver
Your argument concerns weather. Please stop reiterating and embarrassing yourself.


Not embarrassed at all. The article I referenced discusses climate - not weather. It seems you don't know the difference - strange for someone wanting to post on a science web site - regarding the climate. Here - let me help you.

http://www.nasa.g...her.html
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
C02 increase over the past 100 years has caused the temperature to increase.


Temperatures have been increasing for the past 10,000 years.
How did CO2 cause that?
Modernmystic
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
C02 increase over the past 100 years has caused the temperature to increase.


Temperatures have been increasing for the past 10,000 years.
How did CO2 cause that?


Temperatures have fallen 12 degrees over the last 55-60 million years

http://en.wikiped..._Maximum]http://en.wikiped..._Maximum[/url]

Fallen again over the past 170,000 years

http://en.wikiped..._Maximum]http://en.wikiped..._Maximum[/url]

and then risen over the past 100 years

http://en.wikiped...e_record

Aint cherry pickin' fuuuuun :)
Modernmystic
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
Oh wait!

Looky here!

http://en.wikiped...l_period

Those pesky temperatures dropped again from 110.000 years ago to 12,000 years ago....they just won't sit still.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2014
"as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?"
http://geology.ut...ages.htm
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2014
"One can conclude that man had nothing to do with the end of the ice age. CO2 and climate continued to change at the same rate until industrialisation. I could be worried that our CO2 emissions could very well go and have serious consequences; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct. "
http://www.nbi.ku...l_svar1/
Modernmystic
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2014
And despite all that inane cherry picking we know for a fact, just like we know the Earth is round, that CO2 traps heat...and therefore the more CO2 we put in the atmosphere the hotter it's going to get.

You can try to play the shell game allllll day long....I'm talking ALLLLL day long. At the end of the day though you can't change those facts....

Again, I'm willing to listen with a very open mind (I used to be on the other side of the debate after all) to any FACTS about how adding more CO2 to the air could do anything other than raise the mean global temperature over time....anyone....anyone...Bueller?
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
Temperatures have been increasing for the past 10,000 years.
How did CO2 cause that?


The fact that you don't know the answer to this question - further reinforces the observation that you do not know what you are talking about - but continue talking.

Scientists are well aware of the multiple drivers of earth's temperatures. It is those very scientists who have spent countless hours in research, to develop the proxy data - that allows us to understand our climate history. Those same scientists are very clear that the current warming trend is primarily driven by the increase in greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere.

Do you have a better explanation? Please write a paper on it and have it peer reviewed.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 24, 2014
C02 increase over the past 100 years has caused the temperature to increase.


Temperatures have been increasing for the past 10,000 years.
How did CO2 cause that?

No they haven't ryggy and I didn't until Man injected it into the atmosphere .... and I told you that somewhere very recently.
It has been cooling for some thousands of years since the HCO (Holocene climatic optimum - and only started warming again ~150 yrs ago.

"In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."
http://www.ncdc.n...ene.html
http://en.wikiped...ions.png

Try parroting the truth for once.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
Rygg2: Where can we see that brief you claim to have filed? (Note Rygg seems to like to make claims and then not produce.)

Also, do you even read what you post? You said:
"as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?"
http://geology.ut...ages.htm


From the article you posted: " Many factors contribute to climate variations, including changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns, varying concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and even volcanic eruptions."

So here is your article acknowledging the impact of CO2. I suspect you don't even read these.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
So here is your article acknowledging the impact of CO2. I suspect you don't even read these.

No, because CO2 doesn't explain previous 'climate change'.

Follow the links or Google if you want to read the amicus brief.
to develop the proxy data

Like Mann's hokey schtick trying to hide past temperatures?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2014
e the more CO2 we put in the atmosphere the hotter it's going to get.

Why?
There are wide IR windows in the atm for heat to radiate.
Just stand outside at night in a dry desert and you can feel the heat radiating into space.
Unbiased Observer
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 24, 2014
@strange,
I am quite aware of the differences between climate and weather. Something that you do not seem to share. A warm month is too small a scale to measure a climate event. Sorry.
@Modern
Just one of many articles that infer that CO2 follows temp. You could do a couple of searches yourself. Just picked a random one, there are quite a few detailing various mechanisms (for example ocean absorption and release).
doi:10.5194/cp-8-1213-2012
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2014
@strange,
I am quite aware of the differences between climate and weather. Something that you do not seem to share. A warm month is too small a scale to measure a climate event. Sorry.
Patronizing. May 2014 is just another in a string of some 351 consecutive months that have been warmer than the 20th century average. The last month that saw a cooler than average temperature was Feb 1985, and May was the hottest average global temperature ever recorded. That's 29 years there denier, and marks a climate trend, not weather.
Just one of many articles that infer that CO2 follows temp. You could do a couple of searches yourself. Just picked a random one, there are quite a few detailing various mechanisms (for example ocean absorption and release).
Of course CO2 follows temp. It also drives it, and both have been seen in the geologic record.

You know, if you are going to be a denier, you might want to bone up a bit about the subject. Unbiased you are not.
Modernmystic
3.9 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2014
doi:10.5194/cp-8-1213-2012


That's a study that merely states that there was a 400 year lag between a 80 ppm CO2 rise and a 10 degree rise in global temperatures. It says NOTHING about how adding CO2 to the atmosphere won't cause warming as it's a greenhouse gas.

Try again...
strangedays
3.8 / 5 (15) Jun 25, 2014
unbiasedobserver
A warm month is too small a scale to measure a climate event. Sorry.


Did you miss the graph that shows 130 years of GLOBAL spring temperatures? - and the graph shows about a .75 degree C. per century temperature increase. This May is the warmest May on record - and is one month on a 130 year record - so is highly significant - and we are talking weather.
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 25, 2014
oops - last line was meant to read 'and we are NOT talking weather'
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 25, 2014
It has been shown that it is happening


"We prove that the EPA's "three lines of evidence" are fatally flawed, based on multiple robust data sets, not on "expert opinion" from those paid to support the president's position. Honest data show no unusual warming in the latter half of the 20th century and none at all for the past 15 years, despite a slow increase in carbon dioxide. "
http://www.oregon...han.html


Rygg: I did find your brief on line. It sits at the Heartland Institute (what a surprise). Instead of anything technical it is a batch of handwaving. Not an equation to be found (what a surprise with it sitting at Heartland). Rygg, why did you write something so bland? There was nary a scream of "socialist plot" throughout. Who edited those screams of conspiracy out once you put them in?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 25, 2014
Instead of evaluating the content, thermo is more concerned about who distributes that content.
This is no surprise as the AGWite socialists need to control their message, rejecting anything that does not appear in biased media that supports their cause.
Control 'the peers' and the 'journals', and they believe they can control their 'science'.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 25, 2014
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 25, 2014
An excerpt:
"Amici curiae are well - qualified climate scientists. Amici include respected professors and scientists who have worked for government agencies, universities, and businesses. These highly regarded scientists have expertise in a wide array of fields implicated by this rulemaking,
including climate research, weather modeling, physics, geology, statistical analysis, and engineering. They have many publications in peer-reviewed journals and are
respected in their fields of expertise by their peers.

Specifically, amici submit that EPA's finding of human-
caused global warming is not supported by the evidentiary record that was before EPA."

http://sblog.s3.a...o....pdf
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 26, 2014
New study suggests more and longer atmospheric stagnation events due to global warming
Isn't this the opposite of the much hyped: "more frequent extreme and adverse weather conditions" LOL.

ox·y·mo·ron
/ˌäksəˈmôrˌän/
noun: oxymoron; plural noun: oxymorons

A rhetorical figure of speech in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in "climate science"

LOL

howhot2
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 26, 2014
@R2, who cares about EPA's finding of human-caused global warming. Certainly not you or your fellow tea party wing nuts. All you care about is whether Obama will make you tar babies look like the enviro-nazis you are and you will do anything to make Obama fail. Be proud my friend, your a great American (Not).
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 26, 2014
New study suggests more and longer atmospheric stagnation events due to global warming
Isn't this the opposite of the much hyped: "more frequent extreme and adverse weather conditions" LOL.


No, as the planet has lots of room to have extremes between (geographically).
A sluggish PJ Stream will allow stagnant Highs in the Rossby wave ridges - this leading to extremes of drought, and in summer, heat to boot. The Lows stuck in the slow moving/cut-off Rossby wave troughs will lead to wet/flood.
Mr Uba chimes in will his amazing ignorance of meteorology ... LOL

FFS
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 28, 2014
Deniers should know; stagnation is an atmospheric phenomenon where an air mass remains in place over a geographic region for an extended period of time. Kind of like smog. This article simply suggests that global warming could stagnate regions with smog for long periods and that has now been computer modeled. GAG. The entire planet will be impacted by stagnation events. That means governments and health workers will need to make plans on how to handle the problems.

Anyway, I'm sure the deniers will have had a field-day of crazy buffoonery from it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2014
stagnation is an atmospheric phenomenon where an air mass remains in place over a geographic region for an extended period of time. Kind of like smog.

Happens every winter all over the west.
Salt Lake City is well know for many weeks of fog in Dec due to 'stagnant air'.
xstos
3.8 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2014
It doesn't matter if you're a denier or not. Not polluting the earth is a win for everybody. People should just shut the hell up and take responsibility for steadily killing our planet. Destroying the biosphere that nourishes us is the absolute dumbest way to end our species considering we have brains and free will. I wish all you bickering simpletons would wake the hell up and stop living like self destructive sociopaths.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2014
It doesn't matter if you're a denier or not. Not polluting the earth is a win for everybody. People should just shut the hell up and take responsibility for steadily killing our planet. Destroying the biosphere that nourishes us is the absolute dumbest way to end our species considering we have brains and free will. I wish all you bickering simpletons would wake the hell up and stop living like self destructive sociopaths.


XSTOS: I agree with your point and I gave you a five. However, I disagree that it does not matter if people are deniers or not. I think it is important to point out the deniers when they come out with an antiscience stance. This is a science site and we have an obligation to point out those who come out with political, instead of scientific perspectives. When the only argument they can come up with is that anyone wanting to prevent pollution is a socialist (which is absurd), we need to point these deniers out.
xstos
5 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2014
@thermodynamics

I completely agree they need to be singled out. Their feeble arguments hold no merit. I basically was aiming my rant at them, but I agree completely. They should be shut down at every possible opportunity. It's not just global warming, it's biosphere destruction (land, water, and atmosphere), biodiversity loss, pollutants, and human encroachment on habitats. This needs to stop.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2014
This is a science site

It's an AGW propaganda, pro-socialist, pro-Obama site.

They should be shut down


Sounds just like those opposed to the earth orbiting the sun.

If AGWism were so sound, there could be no reasonable opposition.
But, in spite of all the fake studies and fake data, political spin and media propaganda, there is reasonable opposition which so many MUST shout down because they have NO alternative. The theory is too weak.
No real science is EVER settled.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2014
An excerpt:
"Amici curiae are well - qualified climate scientists. Amici include respected professors and scientists who have worked for government agencies, universities, and businesses. These highly regarded scientists have expertise in a wide array of fields implicated by this rulemaking,
http://sblog.s3.a...o....pdf


A dozen well-known-to-unknown BigCarbon shills...with a Heartland Institute affiliation?

It just doesn't get any more compelling than that...if you are compelled by agenda-driven pseudoscience...as, of course, our lumpy-headed, spotty-bottomed troll rygsuckn' most certainly is.

Back to your trollhole, moron.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2014
New study suggests more and longer atmospheric stagnation events due to global warming
Isn't this the opposite of the much hyped: "more frequent extreme and adverse weather conditions" LOL.

ox·y·mo·ron
/ˌäksəˈmôrˌän/
noun: oxymoron; plural noun: oxymorons

LOL


LOL! LOL! LOL!

A spectacular display of stupidiosity from ubybooby, wherein his attempt at ironic sarcasm proves only too accurate, as the attempt doublebarrell-backfires right back into the ol' trollsnout.

LOL!

Firstly he fails to understand that that these extended episodes of stagnation are --in and of themselves-- examples of "extreme, severe, prolonged" weather phenomenon, and therefore EXACTLY what is predicted by AGWGCMs, and that they will feed into other extreme weather, just as runrig pointed out.

Secondly, he trots out the definition of "oxymoron", never understanding its complete inapplicability in this case.

LOL! LOL! LOL!

Who be moron? UBYMORON!

What a ridiculous maroon.

LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
New study suggests more and longer atmospheric stagnation events due to global warming
Isn't this the opposite of the much hyped: "more frequent extreme and adverse weather conditions" LOL.
No, as the planet has lots of room to have extremes between (geographically).
A sluggish PJ Stream will allow stagnant Highs in the Rossby wave ridges - this leading to extremes of drought, and in summer, heat to boot. The Lows stuck in the slow moving/cut-off Rossby wave troughs will lead to wet/flood.
Funny, the article doesn't claim this. Quite the opposite, in fact. From the article:

"During normal weather periods, wind and rain combine to clean the air around metropolitan areas—when rain fails to fall..."

Are you suggesting you disagree with the article?

Mr Uba chimes in will his amazing ignorance of meteorology ... LOL
Mr. runrig chimes in with his amazingly poor comprehension skills.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
Firstly he fails to understand that that these extended episodes of stagnation are --in and of themselves -- examples of "extreme, severe, prolonged" weather phenomenon, and therefore EXACTLY what is predicted by AGWGCMs, and that they will feed into other extreme weather, just as runrig pointed out.
LOL. Now the AGWite's are suddenly adding the word "prolonged" to their previous claims of "more frequent extreme and adverse weather conditions" apparently without comprehending that "prolonged" is the exact opposite to "more frequent."

Hey Caliban, can you say, "oxymoron."

Secondly, he trots out the definition of "oxymoron", never understanding its complete inapplicability in this case.
Don't look now, but your poor comprehension skills are showing.

LOL! LOL! LOL!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2014
Would Vietvet like to explain why he ranked these posts so low?
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2014
Firstly he fails to understand that that these extended episodes of stagnation are --in and of themselves -- examples of "extreme, severe, prolonged" weather phenomenon, and therefore EXACTLY what is predicted by AGWGCMs, and that they will feed into other extreme weather, just as runrig pointed out.
LOL. Now the AGWite's are suddenly adding the word "prolonged" to their previous claims of "more frequent extreme and adverse weather conditions" apparently without comprehending that "prolonged" is the exact opposite to "more frequent."

Hey Caliban, can you say, "oxymoron."

Secondly, he trots out the definition of "oxymoron", never understanding its complete inapplicability in this case.
Don't look now, but your poor comprehension skills are showing.

LOL! LOL! LOL!



You fail to comprehend there is no conflict between "prolonged" and "more frequent". The events can be both.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2014
Would Vietvet like to explain why he ranked these posts so low?


You are the one with the comprehension problem. If the norm is three events a year lasting a week and due to AGW it becomes six events lasting two weeks the events are prolonged and more frequent.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2014
You can argue minutiae with people all day long. You can go tit for tat about how the sky is or isn't blue. You are going to get nowhere at all until you start to talk about what everyone on one side doesn't want to talk about and is the reason everyone on the other side is denying that pumping out a greenhouse gas can't be making the planet hotter....

I'm pretty sure it's just that a lot of you like to argue. Heck I like a good debate too...personally though, on this one I'd rather actually get something done...
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
Would Vietvet like to explain why he ranked these posts so low?


I would like to preemptively explain why I find it easy to consistently rate you and others (such as Rygg and Cantdrive) low. I am sure you just forgot to include me in the list of those who rate you low. The reason I rate the three of you low is that none of you understand the science of the articles and make ignorant statements about issues that are not scientifically sound. I have to admit that Rygg and Cant have dropped to new lows lately, but you should be proud that I mention you in the same posts as those two to point out how sad your ignorance of science is. When you get started on anything that has to do with statistics, you excel at showing how little you know (as VietVet has pointed out in this article). Keep up the lousy work and you might pass Rygg and Cantdrive as the low of the lows.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2014
I'd rather actually get something done.

That's how socialists operate. Compromise principles 'to get something done'. But what really is accomplished is the advancement of socialism.
Give examples of what socialist polices have wrought 'to get something done' that have actually 'gotten something done'.

I understand science quite well. Anyone who relies on "the science is settled" and intimidation does not understand or respect science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
" I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. "
"For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. "
"If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results. "
http://neurotheor...ult.html
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2014
Would Vietvet like to explain why he ranked these posts so low?


You are the one with the comprehension problem. If the norm is three events a year lasting a week and due to AGW it becomes six events lasting two weeks the events are prolonged and more frequent.


@uba

Was my explanation simple enough for you?
supamark23
5 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2014
Holy crap, 100 comments... mostly from denier trolls who amaze me by their ability to use the internet to fling their poo.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2014
I'd rather actually get something done.

That's how socialists operate. Compromise principles 'to get something done'. But what really is accomplished is the advancement of socialism.
Give examples of what socialist polices have wrought 'to get something done' that have actually 'gotten something done'.

I understand science quite well. Anyone who relies on "the science is settled" and intimidation does not understand or respect science.


Rygg once again moves forward in the McCarthy award category. Please point out what socialistic approach anyone suggested for you to come back with this stupid question?

None. You just pulled it out of the air.

As for what science is not settled, please tell us what you think is not settled. Do you believe the CO2 does not retain heat on the planet? Speak up or shut up.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
Socialism: Carbon 'tax', EPA regulations, ....
what you think is not settled

THE CLIMATE MODEL.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2014
Why waste the money on 'settled science'?
"NASA Launches Satellite to Study Global Warming After Revelation of Faked Data"
http://www.breitb...ked-Data
supamark23
5 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2014
Oh look, another breitbart article link. Andrew Breitbart was nothing more than a lying sack of crap, and the world is a much better place since he died.... though unfortunately Rygg2 is too stupid to tell fact from fiction so he continues to post links to breitbart's lies.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2014
Why waste the money on 'settled science'?
"NASA Launches Satellite to Study Global Warming After Revelation of Faked Data"
http://www.breitb...ked-Data


So, you are quoting the peer reviewed journal Breitbart? Really, do you expect anyone on a science site to fall for that ploy?

Can you tell me how the data were "faked?"

Are you of the opinion that any data touched by a computer is faked? You continue to show yourself as ignorant of science. Please share with us how those data were "faked."

Can't do that can you.

Do you think that data should be analyzed by hand?

Was this some "secret" ploy to steal your money?

Just give us the explanation of how those data were faked? Not a clue right?

Just one more conspiracy theory. You haven't met one you didn't like.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
Firstly he fails to understand that that these extended episodes of stagnation are --in and of themselves -- examples of "extreme, severe, prolonged" weather phenomenon, and therefore EXACTLY what is predicted by AGWGCMs, and that they will feed[...]

LOL.

[...]"more frequent extreme and adverse weather conditions" apparently without comprehending that "prolonged" is the exact opposite to "more frequent."

Hey Caliban, can you say, "oxymoron."


No -- I prefer "UBYMORON", as it has a much more specific meaning, you clown.

Secondly, he trots out the definition of "oxymoron", never understanding its complete inapplicability in this case.

Don't look now, but your poor comprehension skills are showing.


Don't look now, ubybooby, but both your stupidiosity and poor comprehension are showing, as it is plain that you don't understand that from the context of the article --to answer your inane quibble-- "prolonged" equates with "severe".

Ridiculous maroon.

LOL!LOL!LOL!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
Would Vietvet like to explain why he ranked these posts so low?
I would like to preemptively explain why I find it easy to consistently rate you and others (such as Rygg and Cantdrive) low. I am sure you just forgot to include me in the list of those who rate you low. The reason I rate the three of you low is that none of you understand the science of the articles and make ignorant statements about issues that are not scientifically sound. I have to admit that Rygg and Cant have dropped to new lows lately, but you should be proud that I mention you in the same posts as those two to point out how sad your ignorance of science is. When you get started on anything that has to do with statistics, you excel at showing how little you know (as VietVet has pointed out in this article). Keep up the lousy work and you might pass Rygg and Cantdrive as the low of the lows.
This is just ridiculous coming from you, particularly in light of the fact that it was I that had to teach you that sea ice has a lower freezing point than land ice.

And as far as my science postings are concerned, I consistently back up everything I write with the best available online science. For instance:

No one can deny the global temperatures are what they are, and they have even been cooling (slightly) for more than 17 years;

http://www.woodfo....4/trend

...rather you AGWites simply insist the globe is warming in spite of the temperatures. That's NOT science!

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
Oh look, another breitbart article link. Andrew Breitbart was nothing more than a lying sack of crap, and the world is a much better place since he died.... though unfortunately Rygg2 is too stupid to tell fact from fiction so he continues to post links to breitbart's lies.

Attack the messenger and not the message, again.
With a free and responsible press, Obama would not be president and AGWism would be treated for what it is, a religion.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
Firstly he fails to understand that that these extended episodes of stagnation are --in and of themselves -- examples of "extreme, severe, prolonged" weather phenomenon, and therefore EXACTLY what is predicted by AGWGCMs, and that they will feed into other extreme weather, just as runrig pointed out.
LOL. Now the AGWite's are suddenly adding the word "prolonged" to their previous claims of "more frequent extreme and adverse weather conditions" apparently without comprehending that "prolonged" is the exact opposite to "more frequent."

Hey Caliban, can you say, "oxymoron."

Secondly, he trots out the definition of "oxymoron", never understanding its complete inapplicability in this case.
Don't look now, but your poor comprehension skills are showing.

LOL! LOL! LOL!
You fail to comprehend there is no conflict between "prolonged" and "more frequent". The events can be both.
You fail to comprehend "frequent" means rapidly changing and "prolonged" means slowly changing.

So you're essentially stating the weather is changing rapidly and slowly, at the same time. And, this is not what the article is claiming.

fre·quent: adjective
/ˈfrēkwənt/

1. occurring or done on many occasions, in many cases, or in quick succession.
"frequent changes in policy"

synonyms: recurrent, recurring, repeated, periodic, continual, one after another, successive;

pro·longed: adjective
/prəˈlôNGd,-ˈläNGd/

continuing for a long time or longer than usual; lengthy.
"the region suffered a prolonged drought"

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
Uba said:
This is just ridiculous coming from you, particularly in light of the fact that it was I that had to teach you that sea ice has a lower freezing point than land ice.


As usual, you learned nothing from our discussion. As I pointed out before, sea ice is not a homogeneous material. It ranges from pure water ice to brine ice (depending on its origin). What I pointed out before is that sea ice can be pure water ice as well as brine ice and the freezing point is governed by the content of minerals (predominantly NaCl). Your attempt to consider sea ice as homogeneous and having the same composition of sea water is misguided and simplistic. My point was (and still is) that you have to define the composition of the specific piece of sea ice you are looking at and it can vary within a single large chunk. Is that clear to you yet?
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
Uba said:
No one can deny the global temperatures are what they are, and they have even been cooling (slightly) for more than 17 years;


Of course we can deny that and we can also point out that it is heat content that is more important. Once again your simplistic lack of understanding points out your ignorance. No one with a scientific background expects a monotonic increase in any single measure of heat content (such as local temperatures, sea surface temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, etc...). Instead, the integral of heat content in the upper layers, including the upper third of the ocean, of the earth will have an increase in heat due to the extra heat that is retained by the earth. Your inability to look beyond your limited and biased selection of specific start and stop dates of specific surface temperatures reflects your lack of understanding. Please try to show me that the heat content of the Earth is not increasing.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2014

You fail to comprehend "frequent" means rapidly changing and "prolonged" means slowly changing.


No, ubymoron, "prolonged" means of greater than usual, average, or expected extent, and at some point this shades into "extreme".

Nor does "frequent" mean "rapidly changing" --it means occuring many times over a relatively short time interval.

Desist in your stupidiosity, you ridiculous maroon.
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2014
My friend @R2 says
With a free and responsible press, Obama would not be president and AGWism would be treated for what it is, a religion.


I haven't a clue as to what AGWism is, but if it's a religion, then given the recent Supreme Court decision I guess I can demand employees must come into work with their hair on fire!
According to you lunatic deniers, us sane global warming progressives run around with our hair on fire, we should expect it of our employees. The sad part with you repubs (and assorted wingnuts) is that you probably believe that is truth.

In the mean time, Obama has been president 6 years now, and repugs have food fights over his slightest move. House repugs just borders on the insane.

"'Crazy' is a term of art; 'Insane' is a term of law. Remember that, and you will save yourself a lot of trouble." Hunter S. Thompson
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2014
Let's take a minute to see if Uba will let us know how little he knows? Uba brought up his distortion that says that I don't understand freezing point depression with the addition of a salt to water. Let me review how this question came up. Uba denies that there is convection that can move heat into the ocean to depths of 700 m. Uba said:

This just serves to prove your gullibility. You'll believe any ridiculous assertion regarding global warming, without any consideration to the physics involved.

So what would you claim is the magical source for this suppposed heating? Do you think the sun's energy just magically passes through 700 meters of seawater, only to stop and be absorbed at this absurd depth?


Do you still contend that heat can't get down to the depth of 700 m because convection is not important?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2014
Let's see what else Uba said along those lines:

And, if these "scientists" had even a basic understanding of thermodynamics and the energy density difference between the atmosphere and the ocean, they would know the ocean depths can't heat up significantly as a result of atmospheric CO2 concentration, without first significantly heating both the atmosphere and sea surface.

Frankly, that you bought into it is laughable.


So, Uba, do you still believe this?

What I brought up was that there are three mechanisms for heat transfer in fluids. They are conduction, convection, and radiation. However, the most important of those is convection because it involves bulk motion. Uba seems to think that is not possible. Please explain Uba. Let us see what a great heat transfer expert you are.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
The most important is radiation.
Radiation is the ONLY way for energy to leave the planet.
Much heat radiates into space in the 8-12 um IR windows.
In the mean time, Obama has been president 6 years now, and repugs have food fights over his slightest move.


All should be upset when the president violates the law on a daily basis.
Obama swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. He violates that oath every day.
Socialists don't care about law.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
"In the past week alone, President Obama has twice been rebuked by the Supreme Court for having run afoul of the Constitution (a 9-0 decision) or federal law (5-4). Unchastened, he brazenly picked the very day that the second decision was announced to reassert the Obama Doctrine — namely, that if Congress refuses to pass a political loser that Obama is championing, Obama will take the law into his own hands. "
"Obama announced that he would no longer deport illegal immigrants under 30 years of age. This was pure lawlessness, even by his own earlier admission."
http://www.weekly...998.html

"A government-contracted security force threatened to arrest doctors and nurses if they divulged any information about the contagion threat at a refugee camp housing illegal alien children at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, sources say."
http://www.foxnew...e-arrest
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
Ryggy - this is an article about climate change. You have just posted 2 totally off topic comments - criticizing president Obama - and of course criticizing socialists.

Do you understand the despair that many here express over the state of the human race - and how stupid, childish, and destructive we are currently being - doing things like polluting our planet, killing each other, war, etc? That stupidity, ignorance, and destructiveness is exemplified in the ignorance of your posts. Yes we know you hate president Obama. I happen to think he is a pretty good president. That is irrelevant. This article is about the climate. You exemplify ignorance - by taking every opportunity to express your hate, and to pollute science with ignorance. Does this perception that I have of you not bother you in any way?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
@ uba - you wrote
And as far as my science postings are concerned, I consistently back up everything I write with the best available online science. For instance:


Just in case you do care how others perceive things. The point is not if you can dig around the internet and find sites to support your claim. That is called confirmation bias. I am real good at that. The point is more - 'are you reasonable in your thinking?'. In my view - you very clearly are not. Take the issue of warming. The big point that everyone keeps making - is that the earth is warming - as evidenced by the long term record of temps (atmospheric, and ocean), ice sheet melt, glacier melt, ocean level rise, etc. You repeatedly appear with your woodfortrees link - show us what we know - the atmospheric temps are currently flat - and you never address the more important issue. I certainly agree with the others - and put you in the troll bucket - with ryggy, antigoracle, shootist etc. Make sense?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
The point is not if you can dig around the internet and find sites to support your claim. That is called confirmation bias.


This what physorg and IPCC does.

this is an article about climate change. You have just posted 2 totally off topic comments - criticizing president Obama - and of course criticizing socialists.


I was responding to hotty.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
The point is not if you can dig around the internet and find sites to support your claim. That is called confirmation bias.


How many off the wall studies are there like this:
"Climate change could stop fish finding their friend"

As long as any work has any tangential relationship to promoting 'climate change' you can get it published.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
I was responding to hotty.


And hotty was responding to you. The point is that you take every opportunity to take science articles - and turn them into a forum to express your hatred for President Obama - and the socialists. People try to point out how upsetting it is to see our world constantly devolve into childish spats - but you seem totally unwilling to see the part you play in the mess that we are in. I guess you are more intent on scoring your political points, and could not care that you contribute to the mayhem we currently call civilization.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
"Three of the Great Lakes, Huron, Michigan and Superior, are over 12 inches higher than they were in 2013 – a time they were experiencing record lows. They're even expected to rise a few more inches. Meanwhile, Lake Ontario and Lake Erie have also had a substantial rise in water levels, ranging from seven to nine inches.

Scientists partially attribute the rise in water levels to the frigid winters and abundance of rain in the Midwest, but climate change activists failed to predict the dramatic reversal of trends."
http://dailycalle...t-lakes/
Is this anywhere on physorg?

but you seem totally unwilling to see the part you play in the mess that we are in.

My part is to point out how socialism created the mess and AGWism is just another socialist sect.
Why do you refuse to see that?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
From thermo:
"This is a science site and we have an obligation to point out those who come out with political, instead of scientific perspectives"

Scientific perspectives are valueless. But not to the AGWites here who apply their values.

the mess that we are in.

That's a value judgement, not science.
Why can 'strange' express his values and I can't on a 'science' site?

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
From thermo:
"This is a science site and we have an obligation to point out those who come out with political, instead of scientific perspectives"

Scientific perspectives are valueless. But not to the AGWites here who apply their values.

the mess that we are in.

That's a value judgement, not science.
Why can 'strange' express his values and I can't on a 'science' site?



Because Strange adds value and you don't.

You express your endless monologue of hate for Obama, Gore, and socialism. We really don't care if you hate socialism or Gore. Please take that hate to a social or political site and stop pretending that your distorted quasi-libertarian view of the world has anything to do with science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
Because Strange adds value and you don't.

Then it ain't science.
Science has no values.
For AGWism to be science, you must refrain from making attempts to alter the world economy to 'save humanity'.
I simply point out how AGWites promote socialism as THE solution to 'save the planet'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
"I have been arguing that there is a distinction between what science can tell
us about the world and what we have reason to do in light of what science tells
us. Determining whether one should avoid or pursue a course action involves a
scientific appreciation of the risks, but it also involves a normative evaluation, which
science cannot provide."
http://link.sprin...3#page-4
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
Rygg2: You show a lack of command of the English language to go along with your lack of scientific understanding when you say:

"Because Strange adds value and you don't."

Then it ain't science.
Science has no values.


There is a difference between "value added" and "values." Do you speak English as a second language?

We know you don't have any scientific background but your command of English has not been bad for a non-native speaker. Do I need to explain the difference between adding value and having values?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
Again, thermo prefers to attack me than to address the issue of normative science.
AGWites push their values and call it science.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
Rygg2: Let me take this opportunity to ask the obvious question. Since you agree with Cantdrive on his disbelief in AGW, do you also subscribe to his view of the electric universe?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
Again, thermo prefers to attack me than to address the issue of normative science.
AGWites push their values and call it science.


Rygg2: Is heat transfer a set of values?

My argument for AGW is based on heat transfer. I see that as reliable science with more than 100 years of success.

Attacking you is just icing on the cake.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
I simply point out how AGWites promote socialism as THE solution to 'save the planet'.


That is just not true Ryggy - and it is interesting that you do not acknowledge the part you play in deliberately fementing discord. Your constant use of the term AGWite is of course deliberately provocative - that is just a term to jab at other people and get a negative response.

Look at this quote Ryggy
Obama announced that he would no longer deport illegal immigrants under 30 years of age


How is that 'pointing out how AGWites promote socialism to save the planet' It is completely off topic. It shows how you politicize everything - with your hatred for Obama.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
Science has no values.


I don't think that is a very well formed thought. Facts have no values, they just are. Scientists have values - which is why you talk a lot about ethics when you study science. When scientists commit fraud - they reap the ire of the entire science community - who value integrity very highly. Medical science is focussed on the improvement of human lives - do you think that is value less?

Do you not know the dilema that people like Oppenheimer felt - when using science to develop the bomb - but understanding the potential application of that science?
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
Why can 'strange' express his values and I can't on a 'science' site?


Don't you see the difference between discussing the implications of science, and knowledge, and education etc on a science site, vs cutting and pasting 'we hate president Obama' clips - like the one mentioned above - where we have an article talking about climate - and you post a quote about president Obama refusing to deport illegal immigrants. Do you really not understand the point being made?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
from hottie:
" haven't a clue as to what AGWism is, but if it's a religion, then given the recent Supreme Court decision I guess I can demand employees must come into work with their hair on fire!
According to you lunatic deniers, us sane global warming progressives run around with our hair on fire, we should expect it of our employees. The sad part with you repubs (and assorted wingnuts) is that you probably believe that is truth.

In the mean time, Obama has been president 6 years now, and repugs have food fights over his slightest move. House repugs just borders on the insane."

Pointing out how Obama is breaking the law speaks to hotties false comment above.

AGWites, those who believe that humans cause global warming, DO promote socialism, which is state control of private property.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
I don't think that is a very well formed thought.

Science is a disciplined process to describe the universe.
'Good' or 'bad' science can describe how well the scientist(s) follow the process with integrity.
The knowledge gained from the process is neither 'good' or 'bad'.
The application of that knowledge has consequences and whether those consequences are 'good' or 'bad' is subjective.
Nearly all the stories on physorg and in the media imply, or categorically state, that human produced CO2 WILL cause some event that is 'bad' IFF govts don't DO something NOW.
Paul Ehrlich and others believe they have a duty as scientists to promote their value judgements as superior because they are scientists and know more than the ignorant masses.
This has been going on since the late 80's when AlGore began pushing Hansen's global warming agenda.
Scientists must make a credible effort to pull back if they want to be taken seriously.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
For example, after 40 years of proclaiming natural fat was causing heart disease and pushing public policies to those ends, oops, scientists took a better look at the data and changed their mind.
This example parallels climate science well as human nutrition studies are very difficult due to the broad genetic differences and the inability to legally perform controlled experiments.
Human physiology and the global climate are emergent systems difficult to precisely model and control.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
And Howhot was responding to you -

With a free and responsible press, Obama would not be president and AGWism would be treated for what it is, a religion.


So - true to form - you politicize the thread - and use childish taunts (there is no such thing as AGWism). You refuse to take any responsibility for your part in polluting this board with politics and childishness.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
thermo prefers to attack me than to address the issue of normative science.AGWites push their values and call it science
@ryg-tard
nope. Thermo is pointing out the obvious that you seem to not be able to comprehend. there is NO SUCH THING as an AGWite. it is a personal imagined belief of yours and a label that deniers of science use as a derogatory label for those who believe in empirical data and real science
AGWites, those who believe that humans cause global warming, DO promote socialism, which is state control of private property
Um...no!
if someone BELIEVES something, then that is it! a belief is a personal thought that is only powerful to the individual who has the belief. UNLESS they take an active extern approach in order to facilitate their belief in an outward display of manipulation, of policy, reality or other physical changes, then a BELIEF is every bit as harmless as a dream, a color or a vision.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
For example, after 40 years of proclaiming natural fat was causing heart disease and pushing public policies to those ends, oops, scientists took a better look at the data and changed their mind.
This example parallels climate science well as human nutrition studies are very difficult due to the broad genetic differences and the inability to legally perform controlled experiments.
Human physiology and the global climate are emergent systems difficult to precisely model and control.


Rygg2:

Let me see if I have this right. You are accepting a single meta-analysis as correct for the impact of fat on heart disease.

You do understand that a meta-analysis is the use of computer models and not actual new data? I thought that you were the one who always says that computer models are useless. I guess that is only for socialist computer programs. :-)
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Ryggy
Why can 'strange' express his values and I can't on a 'science' site?


I know this has been touched on before - but please give this some thought. You and I (and others) have expressed dismay at things we see in the world. We talk about war, and pollution, and environmental destruction, and crime, etc. etc. Right?

Well I (and I think others) see the solution to these problems as complex, but involving education, knowledge, science, and technology. This is why I spend so much time reading science and technology sites. Here is an exciting look at some trends http://cleantechn...earlier/ You may not agree with the message, but you perhaps get a look at how optimistic we can be for the future.

Do you understand how discouraging it can be to see the comments - dominated by haters like you - who turn everything into hate Obama rants?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014
blah...blah...blah... fling their poo.
--supamark23
Admit it, you enjoy the ride.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
dominated by haters like you

Such a 'liberal' response.
Why won't you defend Obama's socialist policies and his complete disregard for the rule of law?
Who coined the term 'denier' to imply anyone who doesn't toe the AGW line is on par with those who deny millions of Jews and others were murdered by socialists?
You are accepting a single meta-analysis as correct for the impact of fat on heart disease.

No.
you politicize the thread

AGW is political.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Here is an exciting look at some trends http://cleantechn...earlier/ You may not agree with the message, but you perhaps get a look at how optimistic we can be for the future.


I would think anyone who supports this would be vehemently opposed to the crony capitalism around the world and especially the wasted billions spent on companies like Solyndra and the market distorting subsidies for wind and solar.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Uba said:
This is just ridiculous coming from you, particularly in light of the fact that it was I that had to teach you that sea ice has a lower freezing point than land ice.
As usual, you learned nothing from our discussion. As I pointed out before, sea ice is not a homogeneous material. It ranges from pure water ice to brine ice (depending on its origin). What I pointed out before is that sea ice can be pure water ice as well as brine ice and the freezing point is governed by the content of minerals (predominantly NaCl). Your attempt to consider sea ice as homogeneous and having the same composition of sea water is misguided and simplistic. My point was (and still is) that you have to define the composition of the specific piece of sea ice you are looking at and it can vary within a single large chunk. Is that clear to you yet?
LOL! Rationalizing your ignorance in no way minimizes your ignorance.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Here is the original conversation:

Uba says: "Of course it's worth studying, but so very much (sea ice) freezes and so very much naturally melts every year that more or less isn't much to get excited about. It's the continental ice that might be concerning, but it melts at a higher temperature, so it isn't quite so sensitive."

Uba: Please explain what you mean by: "...it melts at a higher temperature..."

Let me rephrase the question: Are you smoking crack?

If we are talking about ice, the melting point is sensetive to impurities. However, as we have tried to explain before to you, the melting of ice is, nearly, isothermal. How do you explain the ice melting at a "higher temperature." This is going to require the spinning of a monumental yarn. Please, enlighten us. Is there something you haven't filled us in on?


"Sea ice is largely formed from seawater that freezes. Because the oceans consist of saltwater, this occurs below the freezing point of pure water, at about -1.8 °C (28.8 °F)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki


Funny thing is, you had no response to make to me after that (even though you did respond to other posts).

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

strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
I would think anyone who supports this would be vehemently opposed to the crony capitalism around the world and especially the wasted billions spent on companies like Solyndra and the market distorting subsidies for wind and solar.


I totally am against crony capitalism - and government corruption of all kinds.

I do acknowledge a role for government in protecting the well being of citizens. I support laws such as the clean air act. I support government being involved in the development of new technologies such as advanced nuclear, wind, solar, wave etc. Sometimes new technologies need support in order to get off the ground - against established and heavily subsidized industries like oil and gas.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
Uba said:
No one can deny the global temperatures are what they are, and they have even been cooling (slightly) for more than 17 years;
Of course we can deny that and we can also point out that it is heat content that is more important.
Unproven claim, and not important to global warming (by definition) anyway:

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

Once again your simplistic lack of understanding points out your ignorance. No one with a scientific background expects a monotonic increase in any single measure of heat content (such as local temperatures, sea surface temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, etc...).
Actually they did. Only when this didn't happen did they change the catch phrase to "Climate Change." Funny thing there though, is they can't point to any real lasting climate change, only historically normal weather variations – to which they try to raise a false sense of alarm.

Instead, the integral of heat content in the upper layers, including the upper third of the ocean, of the earth will have an increase in heat due to the extra heat that is retained by the earth. Your inability to look beyond your limited and biased selection of specific start and stop dates of specific surface temperatures reflects your lack of understanding. Please try to show me that the heat content of the Earth is not increasing.
B.S. mumbo-jumbo. How does CO2 affect the "heat content" of anything else, if it is not affecting the heat content of the atmosphere, first and foremost?

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
I would think anyone who supports this would be vehemently opposed to the crony capitalism around the world and especially the wasted billions spent on companies like Solyndra and the market distorting subsidies for wind and solar.
I totally am against crony capitalism - and government corruption of all kinds.

I do acknowledge a role for government in protecting the well being of citizens. I support laws such as the clean air act. I support government being involved in the development of new technologies such as advanced nuclear, wind, solar, wave etc. Sometimes new technologies need support in order to get off the ground - against established and heavily subsidized industries like oil and gas.
Even though you regulalry downrank me (without thinking, obviously) I entirely agree with this.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
If you would quit trolling - repeating the same arguments about the surface temps over and over - I would not down vote you. It seems there is not much else we can do to the trolls other than down voting. We know the surface temps are on a plateau - and we can all read a graph. This issue is understood - the earth is still warming. But you continue to repeat the same discredited arguments.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
Sometimes new technologies need support in order to get off the ground

Socialists who claim they don't like cronyism just can't resist the temptation to use that power for their own cronyism.
Oil and gas started without govt subsidy, until the govt stepped in and demanded a piece of the action and took control of the industry. This was called 'progressivism'.
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
B.S. mumbo-jumbo. How does CO2 affect the "heat content" of anything else, if it is not affecting the heat content of the atmosphere, first and foremost?


That sounds like a very reasonable question. I bet runrig can explain it to us. A counter question that I have for you is this. Given that the ice sheets are melting rapidly (I hope you don't need me to provide a reference for that reality) - if not green house gas - what is the driver of that warming?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
Given that the ice sheets are melting rapidly

Ice is growing in Antarctica.
"Government scientists are not only blaming global warming for the centuries-long collapse of western Antarctic ice sheets, but global warming is also being blamed for record levels of sea ice in the South Pole."
http://dailycalle...warming/

"t was just a couple weeks ago that sunbathers enjoyed their Memorial Day weekend on Lake Superior as ice floated past. "
http://www.huffin...993.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
How fat guidelines were determined:
"McGovern and his wife had both gone through diet-guru Nathan Pritikin's very low fat diet and exercise program. McGovern quit the program early,
but Pritikin remained a major influence on his thinking.
McGovern's committee listened to 2 days of testimony on diet and disease in July 1976. Then resident wordsmith Nick Mottern, a former labor reporter for The Providence Journal, was assigned the task of researching and
writing the first "Dietary Goals for the United States." Mottern, who had
no scientific background and no experience writing about science, nutrition,
or health, believed his Dietary Goals would launch a "revolution in diet
and agriculture in this country."
He avoided the scientific and medical controversy by relying almost exclusively on Harvard School of Public Health nutritionist Mark Hegsted
for input on dietary fat ..."

http://garytaubes...t-21.pdf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
The point of the dietary fat guidelines show how science was hijacked by politicians in the 70s.
This is about the same time activists began the 'climate change' warnings.
For thermo, the data supporting saturated fat was causing heart disease was weak and politically based, according to the Science article.
Alternative recommendations, low sugar/starch, natural fats (coconut oil, lard, butter, yolks) and quality protein have been demonstrated to be effective at improving health.
And this was know BEFORE the 70s.
"The first low-carbohydrate diet book was written in 1863 by William Banting as a service to his fellow Man. His name passed into the language as the verb 'to bant'.

That the 'Banting diet' works has been attested to by 140 years of epidemiological studies and clinical trials. "
http://www.second..._47Hb4is
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
"When Banting's booklet, in which he described the diet and its amazing results was published, it was so contrary to the established doctrine that it set up a howl of protest among members of the medical profession. The 'Banting Diet' became the centre of a bitter controversy and Banting's papers and book were ridiculed and distorted. No one could deny that the diet worked, but as a layman had published it, and medical men were anxious that their position in society should not be undermined, they felt bound to attack it. Banting's paper was criticised solely on the grounds that it was 'unscientific'.

Later, Dr. Harvey had a problem too. He had an effective treatment for obesity but not a convincing theory to explain it. As he was a medical man, and so easier for the other members of his profession to attack, he came in for a great deal of ridicule until, in the end, his practice began to suffer. "
http://www.second..._47Hb4is
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
That science can become so distorted and twisted by so many for so long about the food we eat suggests that ALL science can be distorted and twisted with the 'proper' motivation.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
What took so long?
"Variations in the size and density distributions of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) particles have been related to risk for cardiovascular disease. In particular, increased levels of small, dense LDL particles, together with reduced levels of large HDL and increases in small HDL, are integral features of the atherogenic dyslipidemia found in patients with insulin resistance, obesity, and metabolic syndrome. Increased dietary carbohydrates, particularly simple sugars and starches with high glycemic index, can increase levels of small, dense LDL and HDL, primarily by mechanisms that involve increasing plasma triglyceride concentrations. Low-carbohydrate diets may have the opposite effects. Diets with differing fatty acid composition can also influence LDL and HDL particle distributions."
http://www.ncbi.n...16256003
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014
blah...blah...blah.. we can all read a graph...blah...blah..
--strangedays
It is one thing to look at pictures and claim you can read, but quite another to comprehend.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Ryggy wrote
Ice is growing in Antarctica.


Hey Uba - you got Ryggy on your side now - and you are both making total fools of yourselves. Ice in not growing in Antarctica - and just like the temperature argument - we have done this dance a thousand times. Do you understand why we just resort to downvoting trolls?

Ryggy - do some research, read your own article - learn the difference between ice extent, and ice volume.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
It is one thing to look at pictures and claim you can read, but quite another to comprehend.


No really Goracle - I am quiet capable of reading and comprehending complex statistical data. Also I understand that the Earth's climate is complex - and so cherry picking one piece of data from a complex system - and drawing conclusions about the whole system from that one subset of data - is either dishonest - or shows lack of comprehension.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
If you would quit trolling - repeating the same arguments about the surface temps over and over - I would not down vote you. It seems there is not much else we can do to the trolls other than down voting. We know the surface temps are on a plateau - and we can all read a graph.
Funny, none of the other AGWite trolls are willing to admit this. Does it occur to you this is why the information bears repetition?

This issue is understood - the earth is still warming.
In what capacity? How?

But you continue to repeat the same discredited arguments.
So now you are also saying the surface temperatures and the very definition of "global warming" are discredited? Since when? How?

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
UBA: I am flattered that you are dwelling on a comment I made two years ago because you think it was incorrect. The fact that you would think that was the only incorrect thing I might have said in two years is very flattering. However, if you read my post again you will see that I included the comment:

If we are talking about ice, the melting point is sensetive to impurities.


That is my acknowledgement of freezing point depression.

Uba still said:
This is just ridiculous coming from you, particularly in light of the fact that it was I that had to teach you that sea ice has a lower freezing point than land ice.


Doesn't the statement that ice freezing point is sensitive to impurities imply that I recognize the freezing point can change? Is that consistent with Uba teaching me anything?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Uba - atmospheric temperatures have been on a plateau for about 20 years now. How does repeating this information serve you. We have seen this dance done over and over. How does it serve you to keep repeating the same information. What have you proved - when you repeat this information in a discussion about the Earth's climate. It makes you a troll. Just like Ryggy above - once again arguing that Antarctic ice is growing. Just repeating the same debunked arguments make you a troll.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
You fail to comprehend "frequent" means rapidly changing and "prolonged" means slowly changing.
No, ubymoron, "prolonged" means of greater than usual, average, or expected extent,
And how is this substantively different (in context) than slowly changing?

and at some point this shades into "extreme".
Only in length, not variation.

Nor does "frequent" mean "rapidly changing" --it means occuring many times over a relatively short time interval.
How (in context) is "occurring many times over a relatively short time interval" substantively different than "rapidly changing?"

Desist in your stupidiosity, you ridiculous maroon.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
uba
In what capacity? How?


The question "in what capacity" does not make any sense to me. Please explain what you mean by that term. Perhaps give some examples.

Are you questioning if the Earth is actually warming?

How? The scientists who are studying the earh state that there are a number of drivers that have caused the climate to fluctuate over geological time (milankovich, solar activity, wobble, atmostpheric content, etc. etc.) Having looked at all of the different factors that could be causing warming - understanding is that green house gasses are causing current warming.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
Let's take a minute to see if Uba will let us know how little he knows? Uba brought up his distortion that says that I don't understand freezing point depression with the addition of a salt to water. Let me review how this question came up. Uba denies that there is convection that can move heat into the ocean to depths of 700 m.
This is a lie. I have only said it can't substantively occur in the relevant time period (since 1997 when atmospheric temperatures ceased increasing).

Uba said:

This just serves to prove your gullibility. You'll believe any ridiculous assertion regarding global warming, without any consideration to the physics involved.

So what would you claim is the magical source for this supposed heating? Do you think the sun's energy just magically passes through 700 meters of seawater, only to stop and be absorbed at this absurd depth?


Do you still contend that heat can't get down to the depth of 700 m because convection is not important?
In the relevant time period, yes.

Do you even know how long it takes these deep waters to circulate to the surface, and back again?

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
That science can become so distorted and twisted by so many for so long about the food we eat suggests that ALL science can be distorted and twisted with the 'proper' motivation.


So, this is a great example of how Rygg2 jumps at everything that looks like like some failure of science. He has jumped on a paper that indicates he can eat fatty foods with impunity. Of course, it is a single metastudy and it relies on modeling (which Rygg2 considers unreliable).

Don't get me wrong. I love steak-and-eggs and would love to be able to add hash browns (maybe with sausage gravy). However, I like to see reproduciblity in a study before I accept a major change in the "science."

Rygg2 is ready to jump at anything that casts a shadow on scientific views. I love it when things change, but I want to be sure they have really changed.

Now where are my steak and eggs?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
Let's see what else Uba said along those lines:

And, if these "scientists" had even a basic understanding of thermodynamics and the energy density difference between the atmosphere and the ocean, they would know the ocean depths can't heat up significantly as a result of atmospheric CO2 concentration, without first significantly heating both the atmosphere and sea surface.

Frankly, that you bought into it is laughable.


So, Uba, do you still believe this?
Yes.

What I brought up was that there are three mechanisms for heat transfer in fluids. They are conduction, convection, and radiation. However, the most important of those is convection because it involves bulk motion. Uba seems to think that is not possible. Please explain Uba. Let us see what a great heat transfer expert you are.
Oceanic downwelling currents are regional, not global.

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
Let's take a minute to see if Uba will let us know how little he knows? Uba brought up his distortion that says that I don't understand freezing point depression with the addition of a salt to water. Let me review how this question came up. Uba denies that there is convection that can move heat into the ocean to depths of 700 m.


Uba said:
This is a lie. I have only said it can't substantively occur in the relevant time period (since 1997 when atmospheric temperatures ceased increasing).


That is good enough for me to know you don't have a clue about convective heat transfer. Measurements have shown that heat transfer does occur at that rate. Are you denying that the measurements are correct?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
Uba said:
Do you even know how long it takes these deep waters to circulate to the surface, and back again?


Uba do you have a clue how the temperature change can inform us of the circulation? It actually gives us a way to estimate the circulation rates without time-consuming calculations. Did that just pass you by?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
@ uba - you wrote
And as far as my science postings are concerned, I consistently back up everything I write with the best available online science. For instance:
Just in case you do care how others perceive things. The point is not if you can dig around the internet and find sites to support your claim. That is called confirmation bias. I am real good at that.
There's no bias on my part. I have even often stated, warming may (or may not) resume.

The point is more - 'are you reasonable in your thinking?'. In my view - you very clearly are not.
And in my view, you very clearly are not.

Take the issue of warming. The big point that everyone keeps making - is that the earth is warming -
Posing this as a bold statement is clearly an indication of confirmation bias.

...as evidenced by the long term record of temps (atmospheric, and ocean), ice sheet melt, glacier melt, ocean level rise, etc.
I have never had an issue with warming in the past. I'm only saying it hasn't been warming during the current pause (to which you already admitted, and then reneged).

You repeatedly appear with your woodfortrees link - show us what we know - the atmospheric temps are currently flat
..and now you admit it again! At least you, unlike the other AGWites, are willing to go this far.

- and you never address the more important issue.
To what "more important issue" do you refer?

I certainly agree with the others - and put you in the troll bucket - with ryggy, antigoracle, shootist etc.
Although I do not agree with their politics, they often make valid points concerning the climate.

Make sense?
No (but I suppose it might, to a hater).

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
I said:
What I brought up was that there are three mechanisms for heat transfer in fluids. They are conduction, convection, and radiation. However, the most important of those is convection because it involves bulk motion. Uba seems to think that is not possible. Please explain Uba. Let us see what a great heat transfer expert you are.


Uba said:
Oceanic downwelling currents are regional, not global.


Uba, please explain why that was relevant. The idea is that all currents are "local" with respect to the size of the current. The idea that convection takes place at a specific rate doesn't have to be "global." It just has to occur at a lot of locations. From the measurements of the heat transfer in the upper 1000 m of ocean, that seems to be true. There is still a lot of research to do on the mechanisms, but the fact that the measurements are being made is good and indicate that the convective models can be improved.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
B.S. mumbo-jumbo. How does CO2 affect the "heat content" of anything else, if it is not affecting the heat content of the atmosphere, first and foremost?
That sounds like a very reasonable question. I bet runrig can explain it to us. A counter question that I have for you is this. Given that the ice sheets are melting rapidly (I hope you don't need me to provide a reference for that reality) - if not green house gas - what is the driver of that warming?
More accurately, Some icesheets are melting, some are growing. Currently, more are melting than growing.

However, there is a strong link to melting and soot, which melting is not an indication of, or result of, global warming (not to diminish the melting).

And frankly, I have no problem with ice melting, as it's very hard to live on the ice.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
blah...blah...blah.. we can all read a graph...blah...blah..
--strangedays
It is one thing to look at pictures and claim you can read, but quite another to comprehend.
Well said.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
Ryggy wrote
Ice is growing in Antarctica.
Hey Uba - you got Ryggy on your side now - and you are both making total fools of yourselves. Ice in not growing in Antarctica
Actually, it is.

- and just like the temperature argument - we have done this dance a thousand times.
Only because the AGWites choose not to believe the empirical science.

Do you understand why we just resort to downvoting trolls?
I understand your frustration in that it appears to be your goal to dissuade people from thinking and researching independently of your beliefs, but only in the context that I think you are clearly unreasonable.

Ryggy - do some research, read your own article - learn the difference between ice extent, and ice volume.
There's little evidence concerning ice volume either way, but the fact of substantially increased year round Antarctic sea ice suggests the ice volume is probably increasing.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
if you read my post again you will see that I included the comment:

If we are talking about ice, the melting point is sensetive to impurities.
That is my acknowledgement of freezing point depression.
This is a minor statement taken out of context. You went on to claim, "the melting of ice is, nearly, isothermal."

So clearly, you thought any difference must be miniscule to the point of irrelevance.

Uba still said:
This is just ridiculous coming from you, particularly in light of the fact that it was I that had to teach you that sea ice has a lower freezing point than land ice.


Doesn't the statement that ice freezing point is sensitive to impurities imply that I recognize the freezing point can change? Is that consistent with Uba teaching me anything?
(continuing from above) you concluded with:

"How do you explain the ice melting at a "higher temperature." This is going to require the spinning of a monumental yarn. Please, enlighten us. Is there something you haven't filled us in on?"

Therefore, yes. You did not know sea ice and freshwater ice have substantially different melting points. I taught this to you.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Uba - atmospheric temperatures have been on a plateau for about 20 years now.
It's nice to know you agree.

How does repeating this information serve you. We have seen this dance done over and over. How does it serve you to keep repeating the same information. What have you proved - when you repeat this information in a discussion about the Earth's climate.
It serves to demonstrate the dishonesty of most of the AGWites here.

It makes you a troll.
If stating the truth in the face of lies makes me a troll, then I would proudly own that.

Just like Ryggy above - once again arguing that Antarctic ice is growing. Just repeating the same debunked arguments make you a troll.
They aren't debunked arguments. And your uninformed dismissal of them serves to show you to be the troll.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
uba
In what capacity? How?
The question "in what capacity" does not make any sense to me. Please explain what you mean by that term. Perhaps give some examples.
It is interesting you did not understand this. It is common usage.

Are you questioning if the Earth is actually warming?
Yes.

How? The scientists who are studying the earh state that there are a number of drivers that have caused the climate to fluctuate over geological time (milankovich, solar activity, wobble, atmostpheric content, etc. etc.) Having looked at all of the different factors that could be causing warming - understanding is that green house gasses are causing current warming.
What "current warming?"

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
That is good enough for me to know you don't have a clue about convective heat transfer. Measurements have shown that heat transfer does occur at that rate. Are you denying that the measurements are correct?
What measurements? Where? How many? For how long?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Uba do you have a clue how the temperature change can inform us of the circulation? It actually gives us a way to estimate the circulation rates without time-consuming calculations. Did that just pass you by?
You do know ocean currents change, along with their temperatures, without any additional thermal input, didn't you? You know, sort of like atmospheric weather changes the temperatures.

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
More accurately, Some icesheets are melting, some are growing


Which ones are growing Uba? Do you know the difference between ice volume, and ice extent?

However, there is a strong link to melting and soot,


So is your hypothesis that soot is causing the melting? Do you have any research or data to support this? Are you suggesting that the earth is not warming.

And frankly, I have no problem with ice melting, as it's very hard to live on the ice.


Well glad that is settled. The whole science community is worried about little stuff like sea level rise, permafrost melting, habitat destruction etc. Thank goodnes everything is OK - Uba has no problem with ice melting!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Uba said:
Oceanic downwelling currents are regional, not global.
Uba, please explain why that was relevant.
So how come the atmosphere isn't warming everywhere else?

The idea is that all currents are "local" with respect to the size of the current. The idea that convection takes place at a specific rate doesn't have to be "global." It just has to occur at a lot of locations.
What locations? How fast? What's the volume? How much heat energy is transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean? Why aren't these areas particularly cold since 1997?

From the measurements of the heat transfer in the upper 1000 m of ocean, that seems to be true. There is still a lot of research to do on the mechanisms, but the fact that the measurements are being made is good and indicate that the convective models can be improved.
Again, laughable.

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
They aren't debunked arguments. And your uninformed dismissal of them serves to show you to be the troll.


Yes they are debunked. Do you not understand that the earth is warming? If you do understand that - then of course it is just trolling to select one piece of data - repeat it over and over - and pretend that you have said something of substance. The earth is warming. You are just being deliberately obtuse, and a troll to keep bringing up the same one piece of information - and ignoring all the other data.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Uba said:
This is a minor statement taken out of context. You went on to claim, "the melting of ice is, nearly, isothermal."

So clearly, you thought any difference must be miniscule to the point of irrelevance.


Uba. Let me use small words to try to explain this. When ice melts, it does so at the freezing point. For different concentrations of salt water the freezing point is a different temperature but for any specific freezing point the temperature stays the same as a piece of ice melts. That is the reason that the freezing point or triple point is used as a standard.

That characteristic of a single temperature is "isothermal." If it were done without heat transfer it would be isenthalpic. It it were done in a reversible way it would be isentropic.

You just don't have a very good handle on that scientific jargon do you?
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
It is interesting you did not understand this. It is common usage.


Very adult argument. I tell you I do not understand your question. I ask you to explain - and perhaps give examples. Your response is to say "it is common usage" - and not to have any abiltity to expand on your question - so that I may have to opportunity to understand what it is that you are asking. Seems to me that you asked a question that you really don't know what that question means. When asked to explain - you could not - and fell back and stating that it is my problem. Try again to explain - I am all ears.

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Uba: You seem to be having a tough night. You just continue to show how little you know.

Let me recap:

You don't know that the melting of ice is isothermal.

You think the earth is cooling.

You think ice is increasing on the earth.

You do not understand that heat is transferred to the lower sections of the ocean from the surface.

And, please let us know if you agree with Rygg2 that this is all a socialist pllot.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Which ones are growing Uba?
First, you'll have to explain your understanding of the term, "ice sheet." Do you feel this includes sea ice?

Do you know the difference between ice volume, and ice extent?
Certainly.

So is your hypothesis that soot is causing the melting? Do you have any research or data to support this?
It is readily available. Why don't you put in the miniscule effort to check for yourself?

Are you suggesting that the earth is not warming.
I'm suggesting nothing. I'm merely reporting the fact it hasn't for at least 17 years (as you have already agreed to).

Well glad that is settled. The whole science community is worried about little stuff like sea level rise,
This is nothing but AGWite scaremongering. The whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a lie, all along.

http://nzclimates...levl.pdf

permafrost melting,
A minor inconvenience, at worst – and mostly only in small, disperse, and sporadic patches. Lately, much of it has been refreezing

The fear of this has largely been due to exaggerated AGWite claims it "could" melt and cause a "catastrophic" release of methane.

It's just bunk.

habitat destruction etc.
Ice supports far less biomass than earth.

Thank goodnes everything is OK - Uba has no problem with ice melting!
indeed. Or are you suggesting I'm not allowed a preference?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
They aren't debunked arguments. And your uninformed dismissal of them serves to show you to be the troll.
Yes they are debunked. Do you not understand that the earth is warming?
Is it?

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

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

If you do understand that - then of course it is just trolling to select one piece of data - repeat it over and over - and pretend that you have said something of substance. The earth is warming. You are just being deliberately obtuse, and a troll to keep bringing up the same one piece of information - and ignoring all the other data.
What "other data?"

Do we not measure temperature with thermometers?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Uba. Let me use small words to try to explain this. When ice melts, it does so at the freezing point. For different concentrations of salt water the freezing point is a different temperature but for any specific freezing point the temperature stays the same as a piece of ice melts. That is the reason that the freezing point or triple point is used as a standard.

That characteristic of a single temperature is "isothermal." If it were done without heat transfer it would be isenthalpic. It it were done in a reversible way it would be isentropic.

You just don't have a very good handle on that scientific jargon do you?
LOL. Another laughable attempt to rationalize.

You did not use either isenthalpic, or isentropic. You used "nearly isothermal"

Definition of ISOTHERMAL:

1: of, relating to, or marked by equality of temperature

http://www.merria...othermal

And the surrounding context supports this usage and definition.

Try again hotshot. You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
It is interesting you did not understand this. It is common usage.
Very adult argument. I tell you I do not understand your question. I ask you to explain - and perhaps give examples. Your response is to say "it is common usage" - and not to have any abiltity to expand on your question - so that I may have to opportunity to understand what it is that you are asking. Seems to me that you asked a question that you really don't know what that question means. When asked to explain - you could not - and fell back and stating that it is my problem. Try again to explain - I am all ears.
Look it up.

Your inability to understand such a simple turn of phrase makes me wonder, do you have ears?

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Uba:

You said:
This is a minor statement taken out of context. You went on to claim, "the melting of ice is, nearly, isothermal."

So clearly, you thought any difference must be miniscule to the point of irrelevance.


Are you saying that the melting of ice is not isothermal?

The reason I used isenthalpic now is that would be the term if heat were not changing. You might have been confused with that word.

The reason I used isentropic now is that would be the term for a reversible process and you might have confused the word isothermal with that.

Do you really not understand that melting of ice is an isothermal process? You keep saying that it is not. Do you really mean that?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Uba: You seem to be having a tough night. You just continue to show how little you know.

Let me recap:

You don't know that the melting of ice is isothermal.
LOL. You are pathetic.

You think the earth is cooling.
Slightly, yes.

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

You think ice is increasing on the earth.
When did I supposedly make this claim?

You do not understand that heat is transferred to the lower sections of the ocean from the surface.
Heat from where? How much heat?

Actually, the downwelling currents are dominated by bitterly cold, ice encrusted waters. And heat generally rises ...didn't you know?

And, please let us know if you agree with Rygg2 that this is all a socialist pllot.
LOL. Please.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Are you saying that the melting of ice is not isothermal?
In the context used, the melting point of fresh water ice (land ice) vs. sea ice, are not isothermal.

The reason I used isenthalpic now is that would be the term if heat were not changing. You might have been confused with that word.
LOL. Still digging that hole?

The reason I used isentropic now is that would be the term for a reversible process and you might have confused the word isothermal with that.
I'm going to have to start throwing the "m" word around if you don't quit.

Do you really not understand that melting of ice is an isothermal process? You keep saying that it is not. Do you really mean that?
Still trying to change the context? LOL

Please explain the scientific relevance to these statements:

"Uba: Please explain what you mean by: "...it melts at a higher temperature..."

Let me rephrase the question: Are you smoking crack?"


BWAHAHAHAHHAHA!

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Uba, I know you like to reinvent, but you said:

"This is a minor statement taken out of context. You went on to claim, "the melting of ice is, nearly, isothermal."

So clearly, you thought any difference must be miniscule to the point of irrelevance.


Now you are saying:
In the context used, the melting point of fresh water ice (land ice) vs. sea ice, are not isothermal.


What do you want to say next? You went so far as to think that the idea that the melting of ice is isothermal is ludicrous and now you are trying to make it seem as though you didn't say what is right above.

Pretty poorly done Uba. I'm still flattered you think this would be my only mistake in two years (if I had been wrong).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Uba, I know you like to reinvent, but you said:

"This is a minor statement taken out of context. You went on to claim, "the melting of ice is, nearly, isothermal."

So clearly, you thought any difference must be miniscule to the point of irrelevance.
Now you are saying:
In the context used, the melting point of fresh water ice (land ice) vs. sea ice, are not isothermal.
What do you want to say next? You went so far as to think that the idea that the melting of ice is isothermal is ludicrous and now you are trying to make it seem as though you didn't say what is right above.
LOL. Poor thermodynamics. He has been reduced to incoherent rambling. He is now crediting me with statements he said, because I said he said them. LOL.

Pretty poorly done Uba. I'm still flattered you think this would be my only mistake in two years (if I had been wrong).
LOL. You think this is the only mistake I have caught you in? LOL.

Hey thermo, just for kicks, please explain the scientific relevance of these statements:

"Uba: Please explain what you mean by: "...it melts at a higher temperature..."

Let me rephrase the question: Are you smoking crack?"

LOL.

strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Why won't you defend Obama's socialist policies and his complete disregard for the rule of law?


Well - in my view - president Obama is no more a socialist that his predecessors.
strangedays
4 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2014
Your inability to understand such a simple turn of phrase makes me wonder, do you have ears?


Keep dodging uba - I asked you to explain yourself - as I do not understand what you meant. That is a pretty straight forward communication technique. It is like 'I don't understand what you mean - could you rephrase that for me?' and the other person says "sure - let me explain what I meant". Only you responded - "I don't know what I said - cuz I am not too bright" - and then you turned it around on me. Very cute.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2014
Your inability to understand such a simple turn of phrase makes me wonder, do you have ears?
Keep dodging uba - I asked you to explain yourself - as I do not understand what you meant. That is a pretty straight forward communication technique. It is like 'I don't understand what you mean - could you rephrase that for me?' and the other person says "sure - let me explain what I meant". Only you responded - "I don't know what I said - cuz I am not too bright" - and then you turned it around on me. Very cute.
Fine, I'll hold your ...er, hand (cord?).

First, the question was already rephrased from the beginning: "How?"

"In what capacity?" is a turn of phrase meaning: In which particular way?

thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2014
Uba: You appear really dumb to me, Caliban, and Strangedays simultaneously for three different reasons that all have to do with your understanding of science and the English language. It seems to me to be clear enough to anyone reading this thread. Just keep making your mistakes. I am sure this is entertaining to anyone following the thread.
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
First, the question was already rephrased from the beginning: "How?"


No - the question was not already rephrased - that is false. The question is 'In what capacity?' - and I did not understand what you meant by that - and I asked you for clarification - which you were not able to provide.

Now - you have attempted to answer the question - and I perceive that you have failed. You say that 'in what capacity' is another way of saying 'in which particular way'.

Your whole language construction is making no sense to me. I am asking if you recognize that the earth is warming. That means to me 'do you agree that the temperature of the earth is increasing?' Temperatures do not increase in a specific capacity, or in a particular way - they just increase. Up is up, and down is down. So - do you acknowledge that the earth is warming, or not? Again - I will ask you - If you agree that the Earth is warming - what is the driver of that warming. If you do not agree cont.
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
then we have a whole different issue - and I will be happy to supply you with the data - that clearly shows that the earth has been warming - fairly consistently for the past 100 years or so.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2014
Uba: You appear really dumb to me, Caliban, and Strangedays simultaneously for three different reasons that all have to do with your understanding of science and the English language. It seems to me to be clear enough to anyone reading this thread. Just keep making your mistakes. I am sure this is entertaining to anyone following the thread.
And here we have more incoherent ramblings from thermo.

Perhaps you think science is a popularity contest, but I know better.

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
UBA
Yes they are debunked. Do you not understand that the earth is warming?

Is it?

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


You keep playing the same stupid little game. Look at the little switch you pull. I ask if you acknowledge that the Earth is warming - and you jump to a technical definition of 'global warming'. You are so childish. Yes we know that your dictionary definition of 'global warming' only talks about the atmospheric temps. But we are also smart enough to understand that when someone asks 'is the Earth warming' - that this question includes ocean temps, ice sheet volume, glacier volume, land temps, etc. So - I acknowledge that atmospheric temps have been flat for about 20 years. Do you acknowledge that the whole system continues to warm? Stop playing stupid games.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
No - the question was not already rephrased - that is false.
For clarification, I asked the same question twice, in two different ways. That you don't get this ...is interesting.

The question is 'In what capacity?' - and I did not understand what you meant by that - and I asked you for clarification - which you were not able to provide.
Not able, and not interested in doing so, are not the same thing.

Now - you have attempted to answer the question - and I perceive that you have failed. You say that 'in what capacity' is another way of saying 'in which particular way'.
Yes.

Your whole language construction is making no sense to me. I am asking if you recognize that the earth is warming.
This is false. You made a statement which I questioned.

That means to me 'do you agree that the temperature of the earth is increasing?' Temperatures do not increase in a specific capacity, or in a particular way - they just increase. Up is up, and down is down. So - do you acknowledge that the earth is warming, or not?
Clearly, no.

Again - I will ask you - If you agree that the Earth is warming - what is the driver of that warming. If you do not agree then we have a whole different issue - and I will be happy to supply you with the data - that clearly shows that the earth has been warming - fairly consistently for the past 100 years or so.
Warming from one hundred years ago is not "warming" (present tense verb) today.

The earth has not been substantively warming in more than 17 years. Do you agree?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
UBA
Yes they are debunked. Do you not understand that the earth is warming?

Is it?

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."
You keep playing the same stupid little game. Look at the little switch you pull. I ask if you acknowledge that the Earth is warming - and you jump to a technical definition of 'global warming'. You are so childish. Yes we know that your dictionary definition of 'global warming' only talks about the atmospheric temps. But we are also smart enough to understand that when someone asks 'is the Earth warming' - that this question includes ocean temps, ice sheet volume, glacier volume, land temps, etc. So - I acknowledge that atmospheric temps have been flat for about 20 years. Do you acknowledge that the whole system continues to warm? Stop playing stupid games.
First, find an official definition of "global warming" which encompasses your definitions.

Second, no. I do not acknowledge that the whole system "continues to warm."

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
However, I like to see reproduciblity in a study before I accept a major change in the "science."

What's great about food choices is you don't have to wait for 'experts' to tell you what to do.
It's too bad thermo doesn't have the courage to personally engage in science.
The anti-fat crusade has great parallels to the AGW crusade. McGovern started the anti-fat campaign. Al Gore, another senator, began the AGW crusade. 'Studies' soon proliferated to support each crusade with no regard to significant previous work. Journals, experts and business were co-opted to support the crusade.
These crusades proceed because quality data is difficult to obtain and any signal is difficult to discern from the noise.
Crusaders are eager to step up and fill that uncertainty gap promoting their agenda.
I recommend reading Protein Power, by two MDs who treat their patients with diet, not drugs. But if thermo doesn't have the courage, he can follow the 'experts'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
What happens when one challenges consensus, Nobel Prize.
"The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and did not want to hear the answer that was right."
"isn't it hard for new ideas to be heard when medical journals are gatekeepers of the status quo?
It's true, but they have their ears pricked up now because every time a paper comes to them, they say: "Hang on a minute, I had better make sure that this is not a Barry Marshall paper. I don't want to have my name on that rejection letter he shows in his lectures." Now they might say, "It's so off-the-wall....Is it true?""
http://discoverma...-mystery
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014
Second, no. I do not acknowledge that the whole system "continues to warm."


Finally - after hours of childish obfuscation - you come to the core of the matter. You do not agree that the system continues to warm. You are able to deny reality. Let me quickly show you the data - and then we can close. Our long exchange has been informational to me. We clearly use different language - have a different reality - and have no problem in lying. Perhaps that is just mental illness on your part - but either way - our realities collide - and it is a waste of time talking. I will continue to downrate what I see as your lies.

The data -

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

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

http://psc.apl.wa...V2.1.png

http://www.skepti...-ice.htm

cont.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014
cont.

http://nsidc.org/...iermelt/

http://www.nasa.g...vw7H2KQo

It is July 4th here - I am going to dig my garden.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
Second, no. I do not acknowledge that the whole system "continues to warm."
Finally - after hours of childish obfuscation
On your part

- you come to the core of the matter. You do not agree that the system continues to warm.
Indeed.

You are able to deny reality.
Sometimes I'll suspend disbelief to enjoy a movie or story, but not in this case. Sadly, it appears you have little contact with reality.

Let me quickly show you the data - and then we can close. Our long exchange has been informational to me. We clearly use different language
I'm using English. What language are you using?

- have a different reality
Mine is the real world. What other "reality" do you live in?

- and have no problem in lying.
Speak for yourself. But it is interesting that you readily admit you are a liar.

Perhaps that is just mental illness on your part
You're the one claiming to live in a different reality.

- but either way - our realities collide - and it is a waste of time talking.
It has been entertaining.

I will continue to downrate what I see as your lies.
Of course. I wouldn't expect any different, given your obviously disturbed behavior here.

Cont...

antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 04, 2014
http://www.woodfo...14/trend
It just amazes me that those in the AGW Cult would claim this graph proves human produced CO2 is responsible for global warming, and yet be blind to the fact that the rate of warming prior to 1940 is identical to that after 1960.
That's what AGW Scientology does. Leaves you ignorant of the obvious truth.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
The data -

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


Again, Warming from one hundred years ago is not "warming" (present tense verb) today. Cooling for more than a dozen years is the current version of this data:

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

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/
Sure, I'll grant that the oceans have been warming, but for a very long time (long before AGW could possibly be a factor). Essentially, since the last ice age. However, lately the temperatures have been leveling off:

http://oceans.pme...2012.pdf

...and as I have already shown, sea surface temperatures are actually in decline:

http://www.woodfo....4/trend

http://psc.apl.wa...V2.1.png
This is based on a model. Here's some real data:

"Measurements from ESA's CryoSat satellite show that the volume of Arctic sea ice has significantly increased this autumn.

The volume of ice measured this autumn is about 50% higher compared to last year."

http://www.esa.in...cord_low

And this is only part of the story. Sadly, Antarctic sea ice volume data is extremely scarce, the extent increases, especially of year round ice, indicated significant volume increases. And lately, the extent is off the hook!

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

Cont...

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014
http://www.skepti...-ice.htm
LOL. "Skeptical (not) Science! Need I say more?

Seriously, the Antarctic is too cold for the ice to melt. It loses ice because it essentially gets overburdened with ice and it just flows downhill to the sea.

Here's a tutorial:

https://nsidc.org...ets.html

And until recently the Antarctic ice sheet had been increasing in volume:

"During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge"

http://ntrs.nasa....3495.pdf

http://nsidc.org/...iermelt/
Not including Antarctica and Greenland, all the world's glaciers combined, only account for about 1% of global ice. Some are growing, more are retreating. The mass balance is probably slowly decreasing, but so what?

http://www.nasa.g...vw7H2KQo


So? Sea levels have supposedly been rising since long before AGW...

http://en.wikiped...Rise.png

Funny thing though, the beaches look the same to me now as when I was a child. Further research finds that the whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a lie, all along.

http://nzclimates...levl.pdf

It is July 4th here - I am going to dig my garden.
Enjoy!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
http://www.woodfo...14/trend
It just amazes me that those in the AGW Cult would claim this graph proves human produced CO2 is responsible for global warming, and yet be blind to the fact that the rate of warming prior to 1940 is identical to that after 1960.
That's what AGW Scientology does. Leaves you ignorant of the obvious truth.
They are devoted crusaders, so they believe what they want to believe. The facts have nothing to do with it.

Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
You fail to comprehend "frequent" means rapidly changing and "prolonged" means slowly changing.


No, ubymoron, "prolonged" means of greater than usual, average, or expected extent.

And how is this substantively different (in context) than slowly changing?


and at some point this shades into "extreme".

Only in length, not variation.


Nor does "frequent" mean "rapidly changing" --it means occuring many times over a relatively short time interval.

How (in context) is "occurring many times over a relatively short time interval" substantively different than "rapidly changing?"


Desist in your stupidiosity, you ridiculous maroon.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice.


Mere hairsplitting semantic chicanery. The point remains, you infantile buffon -I mean UBYMORON- that in the context of both the article and the science, any prolongation, increased frequency, or severity of these stagnation events are -as predicted- AGW
effects.

Moron squint.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
Ubybooby,

I could easily use the thousand-character limit 10 times over, and still not have used all of the appropriate adjective-adverb terms available to describe just how much contempt I feel towards your circumlocutive, disengenous horseshit.

LOL.

The fact is, UBYMORON, that it is completely understood that you don't lack reading comprehension --but rather refuse to acknowledge the facts in front of your snout.

LOL.

This, then --and not to put too fine a point on it-- is deliberate miscomprehension, and therefore
willful disunderstanding.

LOL.

It is also clear that you hope to impress readers --not with your incisive grasp of the facts, or by presenting any compelling evidence to the contrary-- but by demonstrations of your low cunning and blithe sophistry.

LOL.

As I said--

Contemptible.

Now piss off, maroon.

XXXOOOXXX,

Caliban

P.S.

LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.
LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.

thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2014
Uba said:

This is based on a model. Here's some real data:

"Measurements from ESA's CryoSat satellite show that the volume of Arctic sea ice has significantly increased this autumn.

The volume of ice measured this autumn is about 50% higher compared to last year."

http://www.esa.in...cord_low


Uba, I asked you about this earlier and you said you were not pedaling this line about the arctic increasing. Here you are saying that it is increasing (although this is from 2013 - but stale data never stopped you before). Please explain what you are saying here?

I interpret this to mean that (to paraphrase) we should not be taking the results of models, instead we should look at data like this which is saying that the ice in the arctic is increasing.

You and Rygg2 have both mentioned that it is more likely we will continue to increase the ice in the arctic because we are rebounding from the anomalously low extent in 2012. Is that your belief?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
UBA
It has been entertaining.


Not in the least entertaining for me - I take this subject very seriously (like most major scientific organizations in the world) - and observing your level of obfuscation and obstructionism is very discouraging to me.

My premise is that the system is warming - and I provide 100 years or more data to support that notion. Understand that the system has to be seen as a whole - not cherry picked like you do.

I am just going to give one example to show how you cherry pick, and dismiss data that does not suit your position. You say of glacier retreat " The mass balance is probably slowly decreasing, but so what?" Nice attitude right - "so what?"

You do not define 'slowly' - but the data in this article shows that the vast majority of the world's glaciers are in retreat - and it would not be characterized as 'slowly decreasing' Then you make snarky comments about how the AGW cult do not care for facts.

You do not care for facts. cont.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2014
"Glaciers repeatedly advanced into South Dakota during the Pleistocene Epoch. The most recent episode of glacial activity (called the late Wisconsin stage) started about 30,000 years ago, and peaked at roughly 14,000 years before present. At that time, glaciers covered all of South Dakota east of the Missouri River, with the exception of portions of the lower Big Sioux River valley (see Figure 3). Evidence of older glaciations consists of glacial sediments found beneath and beyond the limit of the late Wisconsin deposits, as well as glacial striations and erratics in areas without these sediments.

During the peak of the most recent period of glaciation in South Dakota, the ice in the Aberdeen area was at least 1,000 feet (303.3 m) thick, and may have been as much as 1,500 feet (455 m) thick over Rosholt in the extreme northeast corner of the state. "
http://www3.north...cie1.htm
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
Here is the link for the glacier data - http://www.realcl...-update/

Another quick example of your cherrypicking - you said of Arctic ice measurements

"Measurements from ESA's CryoSat satellite show that the volume of Arctic sea ice has significantly increased this autumn."

You claimed this was valid data - as it was based on real world satellite data. But here is the full discussion of that very data.

http://ecowatch.c...ce-loss/

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014
Ryggy - that was a nice lesson on glaciers. What do you think it contributed to the argument? What I am presenting to UBA - who has expressed how this is entertainment - and can glibly say "so what if the glaciers are melting" - is that when you look at the system as a whole - it is warming.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
The point remains, in the context of both the article and the science, any prolongation, increased frequency, or severity of these stagnation events are -as predicted- AGW
effects.
Are you having trouble with understanding the article? Did you not see where they are talking about light winds, on a global scale?

From the article: "(Stagnation events) tend to happen due to the convergence of specific weather conditions—light wind patterns near the surface, other light wind patterns occurring higher up, and a lack of rain. ...at some point, the entire planet will be impacted by stagnation events."

And from the abstract: "Potential impacts over India, Mexico and the western US are particularly acute"

Funny thing, this article states the exact opposite:

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

And to go to the extreme, there is this:

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

Which is definitely NOT global air stagnation.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
I could easily use the thousand-character limit 10 times over, and still not have used all of the appropriate adjective-adverb terms available to describe just how much contempt I feel...
Contemptibly childish rants do not flatter you.

Why do AGWites, like you (and those who uprank you for this, like yyz, thermodynamics, and Vietvet) think this is a perfectly acceptable way to behave? Are your science arguments so invalid they simply can't stand on their own?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
Uba said:

This is based on a model. Here's some real data:

"Measurements from ESA's CryoSat satellite show that the volume of Arctic sea ice has significantly increased this autumn.

The volume of ice measured this autumn is about 50% higher compared to last year."

http://www.esa.in...cord_low
Uba, I asked you about this earlier and you said you were not pedaling this line about the arctic increasing. Here you are saying that it is increasing
No, the article (backed by empirical data) stated the increase. I only reported it.

(although this is from 2013 - but stale data never stopped you before).
It is the latest available data I could find. Do you have anything fresher?

Please explain what you are saying here?
The article speaks for itself.

I interpret this to mean that (to paraphrase) we should not be taking the results of models, instead we should look at data like this which is saying that the ice in the arctic is increasing.
Empirical data is obviously preferred.

You and Rygg2 have both mentioned that it is more likely we will continue to increase the ice in the arctic because we are rebounding from the anomalously low extent in 2012. Is that your belief?
When did I supposedly make this claim?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
UBA
It has been entertaining.
Not in the least entertaining for me - I take this subject very seriously
As do I. After all, I actually am a professional environmentalist, working full time to protect our biosphere. What do you do?

My premise is that the system is warming - and I provide 100 years or more data to support that notion.
Your premise then, is false. That would be akin to arguing reptiles remain the dominant land vertebrate, because I can show you hundreds of millions of years of history showing they are.

You say of glacier retreat " The mass balance is probably slowly decreasing, but so what?"

You do not define 'slowly' - but the data in this article shows that the vast majority of the world's glaciers are in retreat - and it would not be characterized as 'slowly decreasing'
It's not readily definable. No one, yet, has a good handle on this. But some glaciers certainly are growing. Why do you ignore this?

Then you make snarky comments about how the AGW cult do not care for facts.
Too frequently, they would rather play schoolyard bully, than discuss the facts.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
Here is the link for the glacier data – http://www.realcl...-update/
Like I said, so what? Do you cry for all the glaciers that disappeared since the last ice age? Or are you more pleased the U.S. is the "Breadbasket of the World" as a result?

Another quick example of your cherrypicking - you said of Arctic ice measurements

"Measurements from ESA's CryoSat satellite show that the volume of Arctic sea ice has significantly increased this autumn."

You claimed this was valid data - as it was based on real world satellite data. But here is the full discussion of that very data.

http://ecowatch.c...ce-loss/
You accuse me of cherry-picking, and then you deliberately provide a link to data which ends BEFORE the recent increase? Have you no pride, at all?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014
Ryggy - that was a nice lesson on glaciers. What do you think it contributed to the argument? What I am presenting to UBA - who has expressed how this is entertainment - and can glibly say "so what if the glaciers are melting" - is that when you look at the system as a whole - it is warming.
Oh no! The South Dakota glaciers have melted! It is an unmitigated disaster on a global scale, sure to cause the death of all humanity!

Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014
Nice flood, UBYMORON.

Unfortunately A 10x pile of diversionary horseshit still remains just so much horseshit.

LOL.

Posting related articles about other regional AGW effects doesn't change the fact that they are all still AGW effects.

LOL.

Just further examples of your willful disunderstanding.

How are the glaciers of Glacier National Park doing these days?

LOL.

Moron buffoon.

LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.
LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.
LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2014
If AGWites love the cold so, why aren't they moving north?
Must not be very many true AGWites as population trends are toward warmer climates.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
Uba said: "
You and Rygg2 have both mentioned that it is more likely we will continue to increase the ice in the arctic because we are rebounding from the anomalously low extent in 2012. Is that your belief?

When did I supposedly make this claim?


I am trying to figure out what you consider trends, projections, and data. For instance, are you saying that the the Woodfortrees graphs you put out are not saying that there is a trend of falling temperatures or even flat temperatures that might continue?

There is a completely different interpretation of what you post if you are saying you have no idea what you think is coming next.

I will state my view based on thousands of pages of reading: The Earth is warming, predominantly due to AGW.

Now, please state your view. Or are you posting without a message?

Do you have the cajones to say something about what you project the next trends to be based on your "studies?"

What will happen to ice?

What will happen to temperatures?
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
Uba said: "
You and Rygg2 have both mentioned that it is more likely we will continue to increase the ice in the arctic because we are rebounding from the anomalously low extent in 2012. Is that your belief?

When did I supposedly make this claim?


" Now, please state your view. Or are you posting without a message?

Do you have the cajones to say something about what you project the next trends to be based on your "studies?"

What will happen to ice?

What will happen to temperature? "

Good luck with that, thermo --prevarication is ubymoron's bailiwick-- he(?) hasn't made any concrete claim since he(?) got stung on that whole Glacier National Park/NSIDC "increased" snow/ice cover extent hogwash three or so years back.

Just another Dodge City troll.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014
Just further examples of your willful disunderstanding.
Naw, that's an AGWite shtick.

How are the glaciers of Glacier National Park doing these days?
It is hard to tell from all the snow:

June Snowstorm Hits Glacier National Park

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2014
I am trying to figure out what you consider trends, projections, and data. For instance, are you saying that the the Woodfortrees graphs you put out are not saying that there is a trend of falling temperatures or even flat temperatures that might continue?
If you're asking me to make a prediction, save your breath. I am on record for repeatedly stating, warming may (or may not) continue.

So yes, the trend of flat/falling temperatures may continue (or not).

There is a completely different interpretation of what you post if you are saying you have no idea what you think is coming next.

I will state my view based on thousands of pages of reading: The Earth is warming, predominantly due to AGW.

Now, please state your view. Or are you posting without a message?
Global Warming has been on hiatus for roughly 18 years.

Do you have the cajones to say something about what you project the next trends to be based on your "studies?"
By "cajones" you mean "stupidity," don't you?

What will happen to ice?
Only two possibilities. Either it melts, or it doesn't.

What will happen to temperatures?
Look, thousands of scientists got this one wrong. Do you really think I might have some significant predictive ability they don't?

What I am saying is, anyone willing to stake their reputation on these long term prognostications, is a fool.

Obviously the climate changes, and we should accept this and prepare as much as is reasonable. The problem is, AGW "science" has long since left reasonable behind.
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
UBA -
No, the article (backed by empirical data) stated the increase. I only reported it.


Correct - you dismissed the data that I presented that shows 100 years of climate warming - you dismiss that data saying it is just modeling - therefore it is not valid. You then present satellite data - that is of course preferable - to show that Arctic ice is increasing. Well I then presented a more complete satellite data article - that showed that you had just cherry picked one year of data - and that more extensive satellite data - in fact supports the reality that the Arctic ice continues on a long term trend down. You cannot present satellite data, or modelled data, or any other data that would support the falsehood - that the system is warming. You are a cherry picker - and slippery as an eel.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
Just further examples of your willful disunderstanding.

Naw, that's an AGWite shtick.


That's pretty funny, coming from a smelly teratoma located on a troll's spotted bottom.

LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.

How are the glaciers of Glacier National Park doing these days?

It is hard to tell from all the snow:

http://www.livesc...tos.html


That was two weeks ago, ubymoron --how's it looking now, O Most Wise NSIDC Wizard? Did the nearly non-existent, formerly majestic glaciers make a miraculous comeback?

LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014
Good luck with that, thermo --prevarication is ubymoron's bailiwick-- he(?) hasn't made any concrete claim since he(?) got stung on that whole Glacier National Park/NSIDC "increased" snow/ice cover extent hogwash three or so years back.
Stung on what?

You mean the one where I provided a quote from an article from a particularly snowy season? And then you responded with a quote from the very same article which wasn't even relevant?

I don't recall making any prediction then. What prediction do you think I made?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2014
UBA -
No, the article (backed by empirical data) stated the increase. I only reported it.


Correct - you dismissed the data that I presented that shows 100 years of climate warming - you dismiss that data saying it is just modeling - therefore it is not valid. You then present satellite data - that is of course preferable - to show that Arctic ice is increasing. Well I then presented a more complete satellite data article - that showed that you had just cherry picked one year of data - and that more extensive satellite data - in fact supports the reality that the Arctic ice continues on a long term trend down. You cannot present satellite data, or modelled data, or any other data that would support the falsehood - that the system is warming. You are a cherry picker - and slippery as an eel.
Do you even know what you wrote?

Of course I wouldn't "present satellite data, or modelled data, or any other data that would support the falsehood - that the system is warming," because it is not warming.

Why would I want to support a falsehood?

Why do you want to support a falsehood?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2014
Just further examples of your willful disunderstanding.

Naw, that's an AGWite shtick.
That's pretty funny, coming from a smelly teratoma located on a troll's spotted bottom.

LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.

How are the glaciers of Glacier National Park doing these days?

It is hard to tell from all the snow:

http://www.livesc...tos.html
That was two weeks ago, ubymoron --how's it looking now, O Most Wise NSIDC Wizard? Did the nearly non-existent, formerly majestic glaciers make a miraculous comeback?

LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.

And here we have yet another fine example of an AGWite argument.

Pathetic.

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014
Hey UBA - here is the link regarding the satellite data.

http://ecowatch.c...ce-loss/

This link shows the 30 odd years of data constructed using modeling - and then talks about hiq the 2 years of satellite data we had from 2010 to 2012 - clearly validating this data.

Your link -

http://www.esa.in...cord_low

Discusses one year of data - and looks at how there was a record low in 2012, and in the fall of 2013 - there was a recovery.

So - again - let's go picture on this one issue. Here is latest data on the Arctic ice

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

Look carefully at the graph "Avg monthly sea ice extent" It is of course clear who is the cherry picker - when you happen to find an article that highlights the uptick of 2012, rather than the long term trend, or the down tick of 2014.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014
Do you even know what you wrote?


I know what I wrote very well. I explained that the big picture of our climate - tells us the system is warming. I provided 100 years of data - encompassing ice sheet data, glacier data, atmospheric temp. data, ocean temp data, and ocean level data. Every one of these indices tell us the system is in a long term trend of warming - which is of course in line with the scientific consensus. You then nit pick the data - and so for example - you dismiss the long term ice sheet data as being only from models - and you present one year of satellite data to counter this 30 year record - and you conveniently ignore the more recent satellite data - that validates the 30 year NSIDC data. What a cherry picker.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014
Hey UBA - please present any long term - comprehensive (meaning not just one metric like atmospheric temps) - that contradicts my assertion (and that of the scientific community) that the system is in a long term warming trend.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2014
Long term warming trend"
"Glaciers repeatedly advanced into South Dakota during the Pleistocene Epoch. The most recent episode of glacial activity (called the late Wisconsin stage) started about 30,000 years ago, and peaked at roughly 14,000 years before present. At that time, glaciers covered all of South Dakota east of the Missouri River, with the exception of portions of the lower Big Sioux River valley (see Figure 3). Evidence of older glaciations consists of glacial sediments found beneath and beyond the limit of the late Wisconsin deposits, as well as glacial striations and erratics in areas without these sediments.

During the peak of the most recent period of glaciation in South Dakota, the ice in the Aberdeen area was at least 1,000 feet (303.3 m) thick, and may have been as much as 1,500 feet (455 m) thick over Rosholt in the extreme northeast corner of the state. "
http://www3.north...cie1.htm
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Just further examples of your willful disunderstanding.

Naw, that's an AGWite shtick.
That's pretty funny, coming from a smelly teratoma located on a troll's spotted bottom.

LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.

How are the glaciers of Glacier National Park doing these days?

It is hard to tell from all the snow:

http://www.livesc...tos.html
That was two weeks ago, ubymoron --how's it looking now, O Most Wise NSIDC Wizard? Did the nearly non-existent, formerly majestic glaciers make a miraculous comeback?

LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.

And here we have yet another fine example of an AGWite argument.

Pathetic.


And an even finer example of UBYMRONIC evasion.

How are the Gacier National Park glaciers doing, ubymoron?

LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.

Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Long term warming trend"
"Glaciers repeatedly advanced into South Dakota during the Pleistocene Epoch. The most recent episode of glacial activity (called the late Wisconsin stage) started about 30,000 years ago, and peaked at roughly 14,000 years before present. At that time, glaciers covered all of South Dakota east of the Missouri River, with the exception of portions of the lower Big Sioux River valley (see Figure 3)


Gosh, rygsuckn' --you mean that only 14,000 years ago, most of North America was enduring an Ice Age?

You'd never know it now, since pretty much every last vestige of "permanent" ice is gone from everything south of Alaska --including the Glacier National Park glaciers ubymoron claimed were growing.

Speaking of growing --you'd probably better get that teratoma on your spotted bottom looked at, before IT starts growing...unless it has a growth habit like ubymaroon's glaciers --in which case, no worries, as it will be gone in a twinkling!

Maybe some salve?
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2014
Gang: Just pay attention to what Uba has said.

He has told us that he does not know if AGW is true or false.

He has told us that he does not know if the ice will grow or shrink.

He has told us that he does not know if temperatures will go up or down.

He has told us that he has no opinion.

So, I propose we just point this out the next time he puts out one of his Woodfortrees so that people reading know he is just pointing it out for information (as incomplete as it is) and that he has no confidence, in that plot or whatever he has posted, that what he puts forward has any meaning. That is an interesting point that I had not known before. What he is really saying is that he has no leaning. So, please be sure to point that out.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Hey Ryggy - you just cut and pasted a comment that you already cut and pasted. Jusy FYI - links don't work on Physorg when you cut and paste them.

I already asked you why you think this cut and paste is significant. Do you think the scientists don't know about the glacials, and the interglacials? Oh right - it is the scientists who created the proxy data that allows us to know about the climate over geological time. It is also the scientists who are telling us that we are in a long term warming trend - and that it is being caused by green house gasses. Hey Ryggy - what do you think is the driver of the current long term warming trend. Feel free to chime in UBA or Goracle - if you have a candidate for what is the driver of the current long term warming trend. Here is the data -

http://www.ncdc.n...arge.jpg

Do you see that uptick in the past 100 years? What do you think is the driver of that uptick?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
UBA
Of course I wouldn't "present satellite data, or modelled data, or any other data that would support the falsehood - that the system is warming," because it is not warming.


Yes it is warming - you are wrong. Notice I did not say that the atmospheric temperatures are currently warming - I said the system is currently warming. I presented 100 years of data that supports that assertion. You cherry picked one year of ice data - to refute the notion that the system is warming. Take a look at the graphs I have just referenced. O hell - I will repeat the link for you - http://www.ncdc.n...arge.jpg

Who can't read a graph Goracle?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2014
Do you see that uptick in the past 100 years?

Did you see the uptick over 1000 years ago, or 2000 years ago?
How about the downtick known as the Little Ice Age giving us Frankenstein?
What were the drivers?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Did you see the uptick over 1000 years ago, or 2000 years ago?


No Ryggy I don't. Perhaps you should look at the data again.

http://www.ncdc.n...arge.jpg

What were the drivers?


Oh - you don't know what the drivers that caused the glacials and interglacials were. You don't understand the complex subject of the climate variations over geological history - but you want to spam the internet with snarky comments regarding this subject that you don't understand.

Here - do some reading.

http://geology.ut...ages.htm

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Hey UBA - here is the link regarding the satellite data.

http://ecowatch.c...ce-loss/

This link shows the 30 odd years of data constructed using modeling - and then talks about hiq the 2 years of satellite data we had from 2010 to 2012 - clearly validating this data.
You seem to fail to understand that my reference invalidates this, as it is off the trend from your PIOMAS link.

So - again - let's go picture on this one issue. Here is latest data on the Arctic ice

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

Look carefully at the graph "Avg monthly sea ice extent" It is of course clear who is the cherry picker - when you happen to find an article that highlights the uptick of 2012, rather than the long term trend, or the down tick of 2014.
It is disingenuous of you to look at only one region, in the global context. Global sea ice is well above the 1979 – 2008 mean:

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Do you even know what you wrote?
I know what I wrote very well. I explained that the big picture of our climate - tells us the system is warming. I provided 100 years of data - encompassing ice sheet data, glacier data, atmospheric temp. data, ocean temp data, and ocean level data. Every one of these indices tell us the system is in a long term trend of warming - which is of course in line with the scientific consensus. You then nit pick the data - and so for example - you dismiss the long term ice sheet data as being only from models - and you present one year of satellite data to counter this 30 year record - and you conveniently ignore the more recent satellite data - that validates the 30 year NSIDC data. What a cherry picker.
Again, you're being disingenuous.

You claim the system is warming, but admit temperatures haven't been increasing in 20 years. These are contradictory.

Consensus definition of global warming:

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

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

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Hey UBA - please present any long term - comprehensive (meaning not just one metric like atmospheric temps) - that contradicts my assertion (and that of the scientific community) that the system is in a long term warming trend.
I have already asked you to find an official dictionary definition for global warming which encompasses your claims – and you failed.

Therefore, the ONLY metric which matters is clearly defined. Why is it you reject this definition? It was quite sufficient for the AGWites until the temperatures failed to rise as predicted. Are you simply trying to fudge your way out of failed predictions?

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2014
Perhaps you should look at the data again.

http://www.ncdc.n...arge.jpg

What data?
These are poor quality images of squiggly lines.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Gang: Just pay attention to what Uba has said.

He has told us that he does not know if AGW is true or false.
This is a lie. I have stated many times AGW is falsified by the fact the temperatures aren't rising, under the supposedly increasing pressure of higher atmospheric CO2 content.

IF AGW theory is true, why did only a little extra CO2 supposedly cause a significant rise, while a lot of CO2 causes no rise at all?

He has told us that he does not know if the ice will grow or shrink.
That is not true. I have told you it will either melt, or not. You didn't ask about shrinking.

He has told us that he does not know if temperatures will go up or down.
So you think you know?
Have the AGWite predictions held up so far?

I would ask you for your predictions, but if you're wrong, you'll just claim it is a result of AGW anyway!

He has told us that he has no opinion.
This is clearly false.

So, I propose we just point this out the next time he puts out one of his Woodfortrees so that people reading know he is just pointing it out for information (as incomplete as it is) and that he has no confidence, in that plot or whatever he has posted, that what he puts forward has any meaning. That is an interesting point that I had not known before. What he is really saying is that he has no leaning. So, please be sure to point that out.
Why is it AGWites have to resort to fallacies to support their claims (rhetorical)? I'll tell you why. That's because the only way to support a lie, is with more lies!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
UBA
Of course I wouldn't "present satellite data, or modelled data, or any other data that would support the falsehood - that the system is warming," because it is not warming.


Yes it is warming - you are wrong. Notice I did not say that the atmospheric temperatures are currently warming - I said the system is currently warming.
Again, I challenge you to find a dictionary definition for "global warming' which encompasses your claims.

Using words which clearly don't mean what you claim they mean, makes you a liar.

I presented 100 years of data that supports that assertion. You cherry picked one year of ice data - to refute the notion that the system is warming.
This is a lie. I used that data to invalidate your PIOMAS link.

Take a look at the graphs I have just referenced. O hell - I will repeat the link for you - http://www.ncdc.n...arge.jpg
What do you think these prove? Do you think we really had official thermometer readings that long ago?

Do you even know when "global warming" officially (supposedly) began?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
UBA -
You seem to fail to understand that my reference invalidates this, as it is off the trend from your PIOMAS link.


No it does not - any more than your 20 flat spot on surface temps invalidate the science of climate change. The article I presented has 2 years of data - and the scientists stipulate that it validates the modeled data. As usual - you want to argue minute details - and will ignore the wider trend. Typical of your cherrypicking.

This is a lie. I used that data to invalidate you PIOMAS link.


No you did not - you cherry picked one piece of data - and use that to sit on your false conclusion that the system is warming. Stop cherry picking data UBA - and show us 100 years of data that show that the system is not warming.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
What do you think these prove? Do you think we really had official thermometer readings that long ago?


No UBA - they use something called proxy data. If you knew anything about the earth's climate - you would know about proxy data. If you and your friend Ryggy (you are responding to a comment I made to Ryggy) - don't accept proxy data - how can ryggy make comments like 'the earth has been warming for 10,000 years? How do you know that? Of course it is also a lie - but you guys seem very happy to engage in a perpetual round of telling lies.

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Do you even know when "global warming" officially (supposedly) began?


No I don't - do you? I don't even think your question is well thought out - since our climate has been going up and down for millions of years - and C02 has been heavily involved in that (sometimes leading, and sometimes trailing temps - as is well understood by the scientists). Here is a nice discussion of C02 levels over the past 200 years -

http://cdiac.ornl...ple.html

And if you compare that to recent temperature data - you get pretty strong support for the idea that C02 levels are causing the temps to increase. If it the other way around - as it certainly could be - then the onus is on you to tell us what is causing the temperatures to increase.

http://en.wikiped...ison.png
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
UBA -
You seem to fail to understand that my reference invalidates this, as it is off the trend from your PIOMAS link.
No it does not - any more than your 20 flat spot on surface temps invalidate the science of climate change. The article I presented has 2 years of data - and the scientists stipulate that it validates the modeled data. As usual - you want to argue minute details - and will ignore the wider trend. Typical of your cherrypicking.
So two years encompasses a "wider trend" now? You're an idiot. Your two year trend plus my additional year is a three year trend which invalidates the PIOMAS model.

That you don't want to believe this, in consideration of your AGW zeal, is understandable, but belief alone cannot change the facts.

This is a lie. I used that data to invalidate you PIOMAS link.
No you did not - you cherry picked one piece of data - and use that to sit on your false conclusion that the system is warming.
Okay, I give. I apologize for my "false conclusion that the system is warming."

Stop cherry picking data UBA - and show us 100 years of data that show that the system is not warming.
Do you even know when global warming supposedly began?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Okay, I give. I apologize for my "false conclusion that the system is warming."


Instead of being a smart ass - why not address the question - show us 100 of years of data to support your false conclusion that the system is NOT warming. My bad. By the way - calling people idiot is ad hominem - and definitely lowers you in terms of credibility. I am not an idiot - I am actually very smart, and well educated.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
UBA

You claim the system is warming, but admit temperatures haven't been increasing in 20 years. These are contradictory.


No - they are not contradictory - and the fact that you think they are - show a fundamental lack of understanding of basic principles. The temperatures we are looking at are one part of the wider system. A system as a whole can be warming - while specific parts of that system are cooling. That is very basic and obvious to me. That you do not understand such a basic principle is very telling. It is staggering that you want to spend your time - having a discussion of a science site - while advertising your lack of understanding of such a basic principle.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
What do you think these prove? Do you think we really had official thermometer readings that long ago?
No UBA - they use something called proxy data. If you knew anything about the earth's climate - you would know about proxy data. If you and your friend Ryggy (you are responding to a comment I made to Ryggy)
Funny, the post I was responding to clearly started with "UBA" and then referenced a previous post of mine.

You really are just an idiot chatterbot, aren't you? You don't even know to whom you're addressing your posts!

- don't accept proxy data - how can ryggy make comments like 'the earth has been warming for 10,000 years? How do you know that?
We use more reliable and less politically manipulated temperature proxies. And we understand they are merely approximations, with wide variances between the different proxy data sets and long term smoothing of the data (usually centuries long smoothing). They are not climate gospel.

Of course it is also a lie - but you guys seem very happy to engage in a perpetual round of telling lies.
This appears to be your shtick.

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
UBA
Do you even know when global warming supposedly began?


No I don't - do you?

It is actually a pretty poorly worded question (yet again). Those of us who have done some reading on the subject of climate - know that the temperatures have been going up and down for billions of years. We know that because of proxy data (that's the stuff you should look up in a intro college text book) - which was compiled by many different - very smart climate scientists. Here is a neat article on the subject.

http://muchadoabo...erature/
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Funny, the post I was responding to clearly started with "UBA" and then referenced a previous post of mine.

You are correct - I was jumping back and forth too fast. The point still stands - your statement indicates that you are not aware of proxy data.

Using ad hominem just diminishes you. I understand that you find this entertaining. I do not.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Do you even know when "global warming" officially (supposedly) began?


No I don't - do you?
Yes.

I don't even think your question is well thought out - since our climate has been going up and down for millions of years
I put "global warming" in quotes to differentiate it from climate variability, as I was specifically referring to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It is disingenuous for you to pretend you thought otherwise.

Funny, I keep having to use that word, " disingenuous" with you a lot. Why is that?

- and C02 has been heavily involved in that (sometimes leading, and sometimes trailing temps - as is well understood by the scientists).
"Leading?" When?

Here is a nice discussion of C02 levels over the past 200 years -

http://cdiac.ornl...ple.html
Nice, but not very good science. Where are the controls? Where is the repetition? What was the terrain? Could CO2 have been trapped here from a local source? Etc., etc.

And if you compare that to recent temperature data - you get pretty strong support for the idea that C02 levels are causing the temps to increase. If it the other way around - as it certainly could be - then the onus is on you to tell us what is causing the temperatures to increase.
You're the one supporting the AGW theory, therefore the onus is on you to explain why, if increased CO2 causes temperatures to increase, why aren't they increasing now – during a period of record high atmospheric CO2 content?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
We use more reliable and less politically manipulated temperature proxies.


Please share your more reliable temperature proxies. A discussion of the evidence that supports your claim that they are more reliable would also be interesting.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Okay, I give. I apologize for my "false conclusion that the system is warming."
Instead of being a smart ass - why not address the question - show us 100 of years of data to support your false conclusion that the system is NOT warming.
"NOT warming" is a current tense statement. 100 years of data shows the climate warmed until around 1997. Since then, it has not been warming. Currently therefore, the climate is not warming. You have admitted this yourself. Own it.

My bad. By the way - calling people idiot is ad hominem - and definitely lowers you in terms of credibility. I am not an idiot - I am actually very smart, and well educated.
If you are so smart, why do you feel the need to lie so much?

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Leading?" When?


Damn it UBA - do you not realize how poorly you understand the subject at hand? Are you so inept at using something as basic as google?

Here is a discussion of the C02 temperature data - do you notice on the graph that the blue line sometimes leads, and sometimes lags.

I understand that you lack a very basic understanding of the issues we are going over - but the fact that you want to present yourself as an expert - who knows better than the body of science - is just staggering.

http://www.skepti...ure.html
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Uba - with no courage of convictions said:
Again, I challenge you to find a dictionary definition for "global warming' which encompasses your claims.


So, I took about 20 seconds and found Webster's definition:

global warming

the recent increase in the world's temperature that is believed to be caused by the increase of certain gases (such as carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere

Full definition

an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution


Note the inclusion of oceanic temperatures.

Now please explain why you couldn't find that definition. Do I need to find more for you?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
NOT warming" is a current tense statement. 100 years of data shows the climate warmed until around 1997.


No for the 10,00th time. 100 years of data shows that the atmospheric temps stopped increasing around 1997 - but the system continued to warm - as is shown by all the other metrics I presented.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2014
UBA

You claim the system is warming, but admit temperatures haven't been increasing in 20 years. These are contradictory.
No - they are not contradictory
Yes, they are contradictory. That you deny this is simply you lying again.

- and the fact that you think they are - show a fundamental lack of understanding of basic principles.
What, like the principles involved in understanding a simple definition?

The temperatures we are looking at are one part of the wider system. A system as a whole can be warming - while specific parts of that system are cooling.
Your not showing this in a definition means you made it up. In other words, you are LYING.

That is very basic and obvious to me.
Lies come easy to chronic liars, I suppose.

That you do not understand such a basic principle is very telling.
That I don't buy into your lies, I'll grant you, certainly is telling. That you tell so many lies is likewise telling.

It is staggering that you want to spend your time - having a discussion of a science site - while advertising your lack of understanding of such a basic principle.
LOL. So says the liar who refuses to acknowledge a widely distributed definition.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Now please explain why you couldn't find that definition. Do I need to find more for you?


Thanks thermo - a very succinct demonstration of the basic that UBA is trying to pedal. I think that the answer to that is that UBA is not really interested in an adult conversation. It is a game - or as UBA expressed it - 'entertainment'

Thanks any way - I think that closes the argument for any one paying attention - which is probably none at this point.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
UBA
Do you even know when global warming supposedly began?
No I don't - do you?

It is actually a pretty poorly worded question (yet again). Those of us who have done some reading on the subject of climate - know that the temperatures have been going up and down for billions of years. We know that because of proxy data (that's the stuff you should look up in a intro college text book) - which was compiled by many different - very smart climate scientists. Here is a neat article on the subject.
So now all of a sudden billions of years of climate data is relevant to a discussion on AGW?

I thought you said you were smart and educated.

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Yes, they are contradictory. That you deny this is simply you lying again.


No they are not contradictory. What do you think the word system means? I did not realize that we had to define every word we use. It seems pretty clear to me what is meant by the word 'system'

I will be happy to rewrite for you - being that it seems you do not understand the word system.

'You claim the system (system meaning a complex set of interacting parts - that make up a whole entity - in this case our climate) is warming, but admit temperatures haven't been increasing in 20 years.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Uba: I apologize for not including the URL for Webster's definition. I should have realized you would never be able to find it considering you had not found it over the past few years.

http://www.merria...0warming

Now will you include ocean heating in your definition of global warming?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Funny, the post I was responding to clearly started with "UBA" and then referenced a previous post of mine.
You are correct - I was jumping back and forth too fast. The point still stands - your statement indicates that you are not aware of proxy data.
Funny, I described it much more thoroughly than you, and you have yet to state why it is relevant to AGW.

Using ad hominem just diminishes you. I understand that you find this entertaining. I do not.
Stop lying and obfuscating, and we can have a mutually pleasant conversation.

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
You claim the system is warming, but admit temperatures haven't been increasing in 20 years.


They certainly are relevant to a discussion of the earth's climate.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2014
We use more reliable and less politically manipulated temperature proxies.


Please share your more reliable temperature proxies. A discussion of the evidence that supports your claim that they are more reliable would also be interesting.
For what purpose? How is this even relevant?

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Stop lying and obfuscating, and we can have a mutually pleasant conversation.


How does calling someone and idiot lend itself to a mutually pleasant conversation? From my perspective - that notion went out the window a long time ago.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Leading?" When?
Damn it UBA - do you not realize how poorly you understand the subject at hand? Are you so inept at using something as basic as google?

Here is a discussion of the C02 temperature data - do you notice on the graph that the blue line sometimes leads, and sometimes lags.

I understand that you lack a very basic understanding of the issues we are going over - but the fact that you want to present yourself as an expert - who knows better than the body of science - is just staggering.

http://www.skepti...ure.html
I will not accept any reference from Skeptical (not) Science, as this material is highly manipulated and rationalized. Use scholarly and less polarized sources, or none at all.

And again, aren't we supposedly discussing AGW?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Uba - with no courage of convictions said:
Again, I challenge you to find a dictionary definition for "global warming' which encompasses your claims.
So, I took about 20 seconds and found Webster's definition:

global warming

the recent increase in the world's temperature that is believed to be caused by the increase of certain gases (such as carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere

Full definition

an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution


Note the inclusion of oceanic temperatures.
LOL. Fail.

Note the lack of ice extent and volume. Not the lack of glacier melt. Note the lack of multitudes of items strangedays is claiming.

Note how "oceanic temperatures" itself, is undefined. Is this surface temperatures, or the entire volume of the oceans? The first feeds back to my definition, and the latter is impossible to know, therefore irrelevant.

Interestingly, the surface temperatures case seeesm to be the intent, as encompassed by the Merriam-Webster Concise Encyclopedia article (below the basic definition).

"Increase in the global average surface temperature resulting from enhancement of the greenhouse effect, primarily by air pollution."

Now please explain why you couldn't find that definition. Do I need to find more for you?
The onus was on strangedays to find a definition which encompasses all of his claims.

I'm still waiting.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
I will not accept any reference from Skeptical (not) Science, as this material is highly manipulated and rationalized. Use scholarly and less polarized sources, or none at all.


You asked me about the relationship between temps and C02 - and I provided you a very comprehensive site - that gave you source data. But you reject that - it is easier to reject data that does not fit your position. Here is a different link for you. You know - you could take a minute a learn to use google.

http://www.newsci...nIbH2KQo

The more significant point - is that while trying to have a conversation in which you show that you know more than the science community about climate - you demonstrate fundamental gaps in your knowledge - such as not knowing that sometimes C02 leads temp, and sometimes vice versa.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Yes, they are contradictory. That you deny this is simply you lying again.
No they are not contradictory. What do you think the word system means? I did not realize that we had to define every word we use. It seems pretty clear to me what is meant by the word 'system'
Rationalization. But if you really want to go there:

If the "system" is warming, what is causing it to warm? How is atmospheric CO2 involved, in consideration that the atmosphere itself is not warming?

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
The onus was on strangedays to find a definition which encompasses all of his claims.


We are discussing climate - and the current warming trend. I gave you 100 years of data to support my position. Stop hiding behind childishness - go to a dictionary and find me a definition!!!!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Uba: I apologize for not including the URL for Webster's definition. I should have realized you would never be able to find it considering you had not found it over the past few years.
You're an ass, and please explain why the supposedly "smart and educated" strangedays couldn't find it himself?

Now will you include ocean heating in your definition of global warming?
No, it's a minority definition, it doesn't define what is meant by "oceanic temperatures," and the main article for the definition doesn't even include it.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
You claim the system is warming, but admit temperatures haven't been increasing in 20 years.


They certainly are relevant to a discussion of the earth's climate.
Non sequitur.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Stop lying and obfuscating, and we can have a mutually pleasant conversation.
How does calling someone and idiot lend itself to a mutually pleasant conversation? From my perspective - that notion went out the window a long time ago.
Stop lying and obfuscating, and we can have a mutually pleasant conversation, and I won't feel the need to call you an idiot.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
I will not accept any reference from Skeptical (not) Science, as this material is highly manipulated and rationalized. Use scholarly and less polarized sources, or none at all.
You asked me about the relationship between temps and C02 - and I provided you a very comprehensive site - that gave you source data. But you reject that - it is easier to reject data that does not fit your position. Here is a different link for you. You know - you could take a minute a learn to use google.
Funny you should say that, in light of your "global warming" definition failure.

http://www.newsci...nIbH2KQo This article clearly backs my assertion, but just tries to rationalize it away.

From the article:

"Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. "

The more significant point - is that while trying to have a conversation in which you show that you know more than the science community about climate - you demonstrate fundamental gaps in your knowledge - such as not knowing that sometimes C02 leads temp, and sometimes vice versa.
Generally speaking, this is not true, as shown above from your own link.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Uba - you indecisive ass: Let's make it clear to everyone how disingenuous you are.

You asked for a comprehensive definition of "global warming."

I gave you Merriam Webster wherein it includes both the atmosphere and the oceans.

You then denied it because it was a "minority" definition.

You wouldn't accept it from me because it was supposed to come from Strange.

You deny AGW.

You will not draw any conclusions from the Woodfortrees graphs you post (so they mean nothing)

You will not draw any conclusions from the loss of arctic ice and the gain of antarctic ice (so they mean nothing)

Don't you see what a strange duck you are?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
The onus was on strangedays to find a definition which encompasses all of his claims.
We are discussing climate - and the current warming trend.
Don't try to change the subject. We are discussing the supposed Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), nothing more.

I gave you 100 years of data to support my position.
Which fails to support your position! Rather it clearly supports my assertion. There has been no substantive global warming in about 18 years.

Stop hiding behind childishness - go to a dictionary and find me a definition!!!!
I did. Here it is again:

Consensus definition of global warming:

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

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

Ergo, global cooling for more than 17 years.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Uba - you indecisive ass: Let's make it clear to everyone how disingenuous you are.
Naw, this is your shtick.

You asked for a comprehensive definition of "global warming."
I didn't ask you.

I gave you Merriam Webster wherein it includes both the atmosphere and the oceans.
This definition is incomplete for reasons I already gave.

You then denied it because it was a "minority" definition.
That's not true, I only pointed out it was a minority definition. The consensus is important when it comes to definitions.

You wouldn't accept it from me because it was supposed to come from Strange.
Yes. Strangedays was the one making up his own definition and challenging mine during this discussion.

You deny AGW
Not true. It just isn't apparent.

You will not draw any conclusions from the Woodfortrees graphs you post (so they mean nothing)
Another lie. I have already described my conclusion, but here it is again: There has been no global warming in about 18 years.

You will not draw any conclusions from the loss of arctic ice and the gain of antarctic ice (so they mean nothing)
Another lie. I conclude that Antarctic sea ice is varying a little below the most recent 30 year mean, and Antarctic sea ice is varying above the mean.

Don't you see what a strange duck you are?
So not following some set of rules of behavior and expectations you have in your mind makes me a "strange duck?" Maybe that you would have these rules and expectations makes you the strange duck. Have you thought of that?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Uba seems to be a bit confused with his BS.

I said:
You deny AGW


He said
Not true. It just isn't apparent.


However, 4 hours earlier I said:
He has told us that he does not know if AGW is true or false.


And he replied:
This is a lie. I have stated many times AGW is falsified by the fact the temperatures aren't rising, under the supposedly increasing pressure of higher atmospheric CO2 content.

IF AGW theory is true, why did only a little extra CO2 supposedly cause a significant rise, while a lot of CO2 causes no rise at all?


So, here is a clear demonstration that Uba, not only lies, but can lie about things he says in the same thread.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2014
"The report said: 'There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.'"
http://www.dailym...igh.html
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
ubybooby,

I'm still waiting for your UBYMORONIC update on the status of the Glacier National Park glaciers.

What's the hold up? According to your past claims, they should be easily visible from MILES AND MILES away, as they continued to grow at an accelerated pace. I don't understand why you are having such difficulty in finding them.

In other news: global surface temps haven't stopped warming --much less gone into decline-- as the delta has continued to be positive, albeit smaller than prior to 1997, as you well know, since you, too, read the article published right here on PO just a couple short months ago, reporting those findings.

If you weren't so intent upon promulgating your willful disunderstanding of these matters, a quick reference to fluid thermodynamics would easily provide you a reason for this so-called anomaly, simply by demonstrating the variability in a system as heat is added, and the various components of the system seesaw on their way to a new equilibrium.

Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Of course it's understood, ubybooby, that the limited semi-intelligenge of a smelly teratoma resident upon the spotted bottom of a troll might experience some difficulty in grasping these concepts.

But that's neither here nor there.

Since you insist upon frequently displaying that very limited semi-intelligence here at PO, then you'll have to pay to play, just like anyone else, so don't be expecting any special consideration towards your UBYMARONIC prevarications.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
UBA

Don't try to change the subject. We are discussing the supposed Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), nothing more.


Speak for yourself - i am discussing the climate - and the current warming trend.

The central point for me - is that you are the one constantly appearing on Phsorg - and indicating that you know better than the current community of scientists who are studying our climate. Then you demonstrate that you do not understand some very basic concepts - such as proxy data, and the fact that in the historical record - sometimes C02 has lead temps, and other times vice versa.

Then you are cool arguing around and around in circles. Strange behavior for someone who does understand some of the first prinicples.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Strange. I am still waiting for Uba to explain why he lied about what he said just a few hours ago in this thread. He just can't seem to keep his story straight.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Uba seems to be a bit confused with his BS.
This seems to be your problem.

I said:
You deny AGW
He said
Not true. It just isn't apparent.
However, 4 hours earlier I said:
He has told us that he does not know if AGW is true or false.
And he replied:
This is a lie. I have stated many times AGW is falsified by the fact the temperatures aren't rising, under the supposedly increasing pressure of higher atmospheric CO2 content.

IF AGW theory is true, why did only a little extra CO2 supposedly cause a significant rise, while a lot of CO2 causes no rise at all?
Right, meaning it isn't apparent and it's falsified by the current evidence, in spite of "AGW theory." If the evidence changes in support of AGW, so will my opinion (unlike yours).

So, here is a clear demonstration that Uba, not only lies, but can lie about things he says in the same thread.
No. This is a clear demonstration of a desperate attempt on your part to manipulate the context.

Knock it off.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Repost:

Uba seems to be a bit confused with his BS.
This seems to be your problem.

I said:
You deny AGW
He said
Not true. It just isn't apparent.


However, 4 hours earlier I said:
He has told us that he does not know if AGW is true or false.


And he replied:
This is a lie. I have stated many times AGW is falsified by the fact the temperatures aren't rising, under the supposedly increasing pressure of higher atmospheric CO2 content.

IF AGW theory is true, why did only a little extra CO2 supposedly cause a significant rise, while a lot of CO2 causes no rise at all?

IF AGW theory is true, why did only a little extra CO2 supposedly cause a significant rise, while a lot of CO2 causes no rise at all?
Right, meaning it isn't apparent and it's falsified by the current evidence, in spite of "AGW theory." If the evidence changes in support of AGW, so will my opinion (unlike yours).

So, here is a clear demonstration that Uba, not only lies, but can lie about things he says in the same thread.
No. This is a clear demonstration of a desperate attempt on your part to manipulate the context.

Knock it off.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
I'm still waiting for your UBYMORONIC update on the status of the Glacier National Park glaciers.

What's the hold up? According to your past claims, they should be easily visible from MILES AND MILES away, as they continued to grow at an accelerated pace. I don't understand why you are having such difficulty in finding them.
I gave it to you. It is hard to tell from all the snow:

June Snowstorm Hits Glacier National Park

In other news: global surface temps haven't stopped warming --much less gone into decline-- as the delta has continued to be positive, albeit smaller than prior to 1997, as you well know, since you, too, read the article published right here on PO just a couple short months ago, reporting those findings.
B.S.. The trend is downward, from 1997.

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

If you weren't so intent upon promulgating your willful disunderstanding of these matters, a quick reference to fluid thermodynamics would easily provide you a reason for this so-called anomaly, simply by demonstrating the variability in a system as heat is added, and the various components of the system seesaw on their way to a new equilibrium.
Maybe that makes sense to you, but when I add heat to a pot of water from an overhead heat source, the air under the heat source heats quite rapidly as opposed to the water.

The only way to heat the water, for any length of time without heating the air, is to place the heat source directly in the water.

Try it.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
UBA

Don't try to change the subject. We are discussing the supposed Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), nothing more.
Speak for yourself - i am discussing the climate - and the current warming trend.
This is a lie, as previously you stated, "We know the surface temps are on a plateau..."

How can there be "current warming," and no warming, at the same time?

The central point for me - is that you are the one constantly appearing on Phsorg - and indicating that you know better than the current community of scientists who are studying our climate. Then you demonstrate that you do not understand some very basic concepts - such as proxy data, and the fact that in the historical record - sometimes C02 has lead temps, and other times vice versa.
As shown to you with your own reference, this statement is generally false. You're trying to suggest a trend based on possible (but controversial) exceptions.

Then you are cool arguing around and around in circles. Strange behavior for someone who does understand some of the first prinicples.
I'm the one arguing in circles? Isn't it you who flips between agreeing there is currently no warming, and then disagreeing and stating there currently is warming?

Make up your mind.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Strange. I am still waiting for Uba to explain why he lied about what he said just a few hours ago in this thread.
Unlike chatterbots, I have a life outside the internet.

He just can't seem to keep his story straight.
So it hurt you so much to lose the argument concerning me having to educate you about sea ice vs. land ice, that you will go to these extremes to manufacture a controversy?

Wow. I had no idea I had such power over you.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
I'm the one arguing in circles? Isn't it you who flips between agreeing there is currently no warming, and then disagreeing and stating there currently is warming?


No - I have been very consistent - I have always been clear that I understand that the system (the earth's climate system) is warming. What you keep dancing around is that I also understand (because I can read a graph - despite your childish remarks to the contrary) that atmospheric temperatures have been flat for about 20 years. This is the topic we have been around and around - and notice how you bring it up once again. That is what I mean by arguing in circles.

My position remains steadfast. You consistently show that you have little or no understanding of some very basic first principles (eg. you did not realize that over geological time - sometimes C02 has lead temps, and at other times it has been vice versa). But you want to argue that you know better than the scientists studying the climate.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Thermo said
Now will you include ocean heating in your definition of global warming?
Uba retorts
No, it's a minority definition
No, it is not. According to direct inquiry of NOAA as well as EPA, global warming includes the oceans as well... and they've also posted on Climate.gov
not all land masses and oceans have experienced or will experience a constant, identical rate of warming.
so climate.gov ALSO includes oceanic temps as part of global warming - it also states
That's the way it is with Earth's near-surface temperature as atmospheric greenhouse gas levels climb. Temperature trends across the entire globe aren't uniform because of the diverse geography on our planet—oceans versus continents, lowlands versus mountains, forests versus deserts versus ice sheets—as well as natural climate variability
so the gov't also recognizes oceanic temps in GW as it explains it on its site (NOAA) climate.gov
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
This is a lie, as previously you stated, "We know the surface temps are on a plateau..."


I will put this in a sentence for you - to demonstrate that it is possible to be discussing the whole system - and then to also make a comment about one part of that whole system. Your lack of comprehension on this issue suggests that you have much difficulty with more than the simplest of logic - and again I say - but you want to argue that you know better than the whole scientific community.

The sentence is "while the system overall is clearly in a warming trend, it is clear that atmospheric temperatures have been flat for about 20 years."

See how that works?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
I'm the one arguing in circles? Isn't it you who flips between agreeing there is currently no warming, and then disagreeing and stating there currently is warming?
No - I have been very consistent - I have always been clear that I understand that the system (the earth's climate system) is warming. What you keep dancing around is that I also understand (because I can read a graph - despite your childish remarks to the contrary) that atmospheric temperatures have been flat for about 20 years. This is the topic we have been around and around - and notice how you bring it up once again. That is what I mean by arguing in circles.
Again, show me a consensus definition of "global warming" which encompasses the entire "system." Not being able to do that means you are making up your own definition, which is a fallacy.

Why is it AGWites have to resort to fallacies to support their claims? Is it because the only way to support a lie, is with more lies?

My position remains steadfast. You consistently show that you have little or no understanding of some very basic first principles (eg. you did not realize that over geological time - sometimes C02 has lead temps, and at other times it has been vice versa). But you want to argue that you know better than the scientists studying the climate.
Again, your own reference belies this claim, making you a liar yet again.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Thermo said
Now will you include ocean heating in your definition of global warming?
Uba retorts
No, it's a minority definition
No, it is not. According to direct inquiry of NOAA as well as EPA, global warming includes the oceans as well... and they've also posted on Climate.gov
not all land masses and oceans have experienced or will experience a constant, identical rate of warming.
so climate.gov ALSO includes oceanic temps as part of global warming - it also states
That's the way it is with Earth's near-surface temperature as atmospheric greenhouse gas levels climb.
This is because these organizations are desperately trying to redefine global warming because of their epic failed predictions.

But a simple Google search and poll of the definitions, quickly shows mine is still the consensus.

Temperature trends across the entire globe aren't uniform because of the diverse geography on our planet—oceans versus continents, lowlands versus mountains, forests versus deserts versus ice sheets—as well as natural climate variability
so the gov't also recognizes oceanic temps in GW as it explains it on its site (NOAA) climate.gov
Whatever. The global temperature graphs include ocean temperatures anyway.

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

Bazinga!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
This is a lie, as previously you stated, "We know the surface temps are on a plateau..."
I will put this in a sentence for you - to demonstrate that it is possible to be discussing the whole system - and then to also make a comment about one part of that whole system. Your lack of comprehension on this issue suggests that you have much difficulty with more than the simplest of logic - and again I say - but you want to argue that you know better than the whole scientific community.

The sentence is "while the system overall is clearly in a warming trend, it is clear that atmospheric temperatures have been flat for about 20 years."

See how that works?
Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose everything but the atmosphere is warming. So, how is atmospheric CO2 involved, if the atmosphere itself isn't warming?

Is it magic?

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
This is because these organizations are desperately trying to redefine global warming because of their epic failed predictions
@uba
personal conjecture without evidence. This is your opinion and there is no supporting evidence proving your statement
But a simple Google search and poll of the definitions, quickly shows mine is still the consensus
not an argument. a "simple search" of "Fairy Turds" gives About 1,010,000 results (0.31 seconds)
so your appeal to google is irrelevant and without merit because it is obvious that over a million people are talking about fairy turds, and we know that those aren't real.

also - Google will tailor your results to give you what it thinks you want. google is what gave me that info I posted above from climate.gov...

NOAA/EPA are organizations which define the terms as well as support the research. there is no reason not to accept their definition...
unless ????
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
This is because these organizations are desperately trying to redefine global warming because of their epic failed predictions.
@Thermodynamics
@strangedays
@Caliban
@everyone else
here is something to remember: uba was arguing the same tired refuted argument when I posted that definition which comes from NOAA/EPA and the gov't.
That made her really mad... so now she downvotes anything (I)we post

She obviously doesn't like that, but strangely also decided to APPEAL to CONSPIRACY
wow, huh? (quoted)
(tsk, tsk... poor uba)
why would ANYONE appeal to conspiracy on a science site?
to hide an agenda?
to hide a known fallacy?
perhaps to just obfuscate truth?
so... essentially, she is saying that we can't trust the gov't org's, but then posts a link that uses the gov't measurements (cherry picked, no doubt... I am not even bothering to look)

IOW-she doesn't want truth, she wants to spread fallacies and obfuscate the truth

stick to the science and she will fail (after getting mad)LOL
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
This is because these organizations are desperately trying to redefine global warming because of their epic failed predictions
@uba
personal conjecture without evidence. This is your opinion and there is no supporting evidence proving your statement
You know, you throw this B.S. statement around a lot. Either you know you are lying, or you are a fool.

"With regards to 'climate change', I think this is extremely misleading. The Carbon Brief article states: If the aim is to communicate science, "climate change" may be best as scientists say it better encapsulates the broad impacts of rising greenhouse gas emissions. Well, I guess 'climate change' helps you get around the inconvenient truth of the hiatus in global surface temperature increase. And it implies that any change, or weather you don't like, is caused by humans." -Judith Curry

http://judithcurr...-change/

But a simple Google search and poll of the definitions, quickly shows mine is still the consensus
not an argument.
The popular results generally load first, and the first page definitions generally match mine. And, it is derived from the IPCC definition.

a "simple search" of "Fairy Turds" gives About 1,010,000 results (0.31 seconds)
so your appeal to google is irrelevant and without merit because it is obvious that over a million people are talking about fairy turds, and we know that those aren't real.
Red herring argument. This is irrelevant.

also - Google will tailor your results to give you what it thinks you want. google is what gave me that info I posted above from climate.gov...

NOAA/EPA are organizations which define the terms as well as support the research. there is no reason not to accept their definition...
unless ????
How about the IPCC?

"Global warming

Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions.
"

http://www.ipcc.c...e-i.html

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
stick to the science and she will fail (after getting mad)
LOL. Good luck with that.

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
Uba pointed out:
"Global warming

Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions.
"

http://www.ipcc.c...e-i.html


Unusual for Uba, but she was right this time. Of course she can't read. What does she think is meant by "surface temperature." Is the air the "surface?" Surface generally includes the troposphere, ground, and water. I think only a dufus like Uba would think it means air.

When you walk into a room do you consider the surface to be the air?

When you walk onto a golf course do you call the surface the air?
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
And when Uba was shown that he was lying about a comment he made only 4 hours earlier in the same thread, his response was:
Knock it off.


Really??? Knock it off???

Why don't you just say that you got mixed up and couldn't recall that earlier lie. It would have been better than "knock it off."
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
UBA
I'm the one arguing in circles? Isn't it you who flips between agreeing there is currently no warming, and then disagreeing and stating there currently is warming?


Notice you did not refute me response to this accusation. The reason you did not refute my response - is because I have been totally consistent in showing an understanding that the system as a whole is warming - but that atmospheric temps are on a plateau. This questions your reading comprehension - and your ability to understand - what seems to me a pretty straight forward position.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose everything but the atmosphere is warming. So, how is atmospheric CO2 involved, if the atmosphere itself isn't warming?

Is it magic?


Of course that is a great question.

Firstly - let me point out that we don't have to suppose anything - here is some data to support the understanding that the system is warming.

http://data.giss....aphs_v3/

cont.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
cont.

Now - we have a complex system - right? Energy is both entering, and leaving that system through radiation. That system is close to being in balance - but various factors have caused the variations we have seen over geological history. Energy is being absorbed by the oceans, and the land, and the ice etc., while energy is also being reflected back into space. Energy is also being moved around by winds, and ocean currents. So it only takes a tiny change in the dynamics, to affect that balance. As the ice melts, the oceans absorb more energy, and reflect less energy back. The ocean currents move that energy around. The air temps are generally above the ocean temps, so there is an exchange of energy from the atmosphere to the oceans. Pretty complex right? Scientists have concluded that the driver of the current change - is green house gases in the atmosphere. If you dispute this conclusion - please explain the current change. What is the driver?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
Pretty complex right?

Yep.
And AGWites take the simplest answer that supports their agenda.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
And AGWites take the simplest answer that supports their agenda.


Really - so looking at all the data just presented - what is your explanation for the warming?

Maybe another lie - like the one you keep peddling on this board "the earth has been warming for 10,000 years."

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2014
what is your explanation for the warming

Nature.

As you say, the system is very complex and the ONLY way to extract any signal from the noise is with THE CLIMATE SIMULATION.
Anyone who understands computer simulation understands the concept of verification, validation and accreditation.
Some computer simulations are so good they are used to certify airline pilots.
Has the CLIMATE SIMULATION ever been validated? No. But the AGWites are very quick to use its output to support their faith. GIGO.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
Nature.


And you really think that this an explanation? You don't understand how childish and inadequate your explanation is. What exactly is nature? Describe the operation of the system. When we ask for an explanation - we need mechanisms, and data. You criticize "AGWites" - and then your explanation for the current warming trend is "nature." Just "nature" - no details, no mechanisms, no cause and effect, no data. Just "nature." Wow ryggy - you really take Dunning Kruger to a new level.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
Anyone who understands computer simulation understands the concept of verification, validation and accreditation.


I don't understand computer simulations. I have taken 6 or 7 computer programming classes - written a few programs in my time - but I don't do it for a job. I definitely don't understand simulations - way above my pay grade. There are people who do understand simulations - they spend their lives studying them, and working with them. I have operated a flight simulator. I think that is a very different animal to a climate model - orders of magnitude different. I think that the experts who are working with the climate models - are aware that we are in early days as far as understanding all the dynamics of this vast and complex system called our climate. I suspect that just like the weather modellers - these folks know that we are a long way from perfecting the system. This does not invalidate the system. cont.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
So what are your credentials Ryggy - for critiquing the experts who are refining the climate models?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
You know, you throw this B.S. statement around a lot. Either you know you are lying, or you are a fool
@uba
so you have empirical evidence of a grand conspiracy of scientists?
You made an opinionated (and unprovable) statement which is, by definition a personal conjecture, and you cannot prove it without enlisting more polarized opinions and unsubstantiated opinions, therefore it is not only valid, but highly accurate descriptor of your statement.
Blogs, personal opinions and the like are not proof, therefore irrelevant and without merit.

Unless you get a court to issue an opinion (or something similar) it is pretty much just conspiracy talk and crackpot BS because you are dealing with roughly 97% the entire planet's scientists... an IMPOSSIBLE task to get that many people on the exact same page... even religion couldn't do it and fractured into splinter groups like baptist, evangelist, mormon...etc.
to be cont'd
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2014
for critiquing the experts

Do some research and you will find the climate simulations are not validated.
I pointed this out in a link a few months ago.
Why do AGWites have faith in simulations that are not valid?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
@uba cont'd
The popular results generally load first, and the first page definitions generally match mine. And, it is derived from the IPCC definition
on YOUR pc... not mine. first off. google shows the payout section first (those who pay more to show up first). then it is the tailored results to match what you usually look for. I usually look for studies, specific results etc, so the first few pages to show up in MY google search was what I posted. Try searching the same thing with other browsers like duckduckgo and you will find different results
Good luck with that
and yet you've already got so pissy that you've started downvoting posts regardless of content... which supports my argument. lol
either that or you've decided to become the latest EU and DAW acolyte? which is it?
lol
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
Red herring argument. This is irrelevant
@uba
it is every bit as relevant as your appeal to google as an authority.

my google results are not the same as your google results... as shown above... so appealing to the authority of results from google is like appealing to the results of a search for fairy turds.

completely irrelevant and without merit and proven by the post.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
for critiquing the experts

Do some research and you will find the climate simulations are not validated.
I pointed this out in a link a few months ago.
Why do AGWites have faith in simulations that are not valid?


If you really understood the process of validation, you would realize the process is the same as for theories, you try to falsify them. To do so you try to run them within their parameter space to determine how they respond. The beauty of a model is that you can have it fail within one parameter space and still have it valid for the space you need results in. This might be a bit too complicated for you, but the bottom line is that no computer program is a faithful representation of the subject being modeled. That is just fine because you don't need a perfect model, you need a model that helps you understand what you wanted to examine. You think that if a model is not a perfect representation it is worthless. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
Uba pointed out:
"Global warming

Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions.
"

http://www.ipcc.c...e-i.html
Uba, ...was right this time.
As usual.

Of course she can't read. What does she think is meant by "surface temperature."
Is the air the "surface?" Surface generally includes the troposphere, ground, and water. I think only a dufus like Uba would think it means air.

When you walk into a room do you consider the surface to be the air?

When you walk onto a golf course do you call the surface the air?
Are you really this stupid?

"Surface temperatures" in this context would be the temperatures measured by weather stations (generally, the lower troposphere).

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
And when Uba was shown that he was lying about a comment he made only 4 hours earlier in the same thread, his response was:
Knock it off.
Really??? Knock it off???

Why don't you just say that you got mixed up and couldn't recall that earlier lie. It would have been better than "knock it off."
LOL. Thermo is having difficulty understanding the scientific definition of "falsifiability."

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2014
If you really understood the process of validation, you would realize the process is the same as for theories, you try to falsify them.

Thermo agrees, THE CLIMATE SIMULATION used to predict the end of the world has not been validated.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
UBA
I'm the one arguing in circles? Isn't it you who flips between agreeing there is currently no warming, and then disagreeing and stating there currently is warming?
Notice you did not refute me response to this accusation.
Non sequitur.

The reason you did not refute my response - is because I have been totally consistent in showing an understanding that the system as a whole is warming - but that atmospheric temps are on a plateau.
You seem to have a comprehension problem. So far, I haven't seen you provide ANY temperature data from any of the parts of the "system" you claim to be showing are warming, other than the same surface temperature resources I use.

This questions your reading comprehension - and your ability to understand - what seems to me a pretty straight forward position.
You seem to have a problem understanding the very definition of "warming."

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose everything but the atmosphere is warming. So, how is atmospheric CO2 involved, if the atmosphere itself isn't warming?

Is it magic?
Of course that is a great question.

Firstly - let me point out that we don't have to suppose anything - here is some data to support the understanding that the system is warming.

http://data.giss....aphs_v3/

cont.
Surface temperatures? That's all you have?

Even this highly manipulated data set shows no warming from more than a dozen years.

http://www.woodfo....4/trend

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
cont.

Now - we have a complex system - right? Energy is both entering, and leaving that system through radiation. That system is close to being in balance - but various factors have caused the variations we have seen over geological history. Energy is being absorbed by the oceans, and the land, and the ice etc., while energy is also being reflected back into space. Energy is also being moved around by winds, and ocean currents. So it only takes a tiny change in the dynamics, to affect that balance. As the ice melts, the oceans absorb more energy, and reflect less energy back. The ocean currents move that energy around. The air temps are generally above the ocean temps, so there is an exchange of energy from the atmosphere to the oceans. Pretty complex right? Scientists have concluded that the driver of the current change - is green house gases in the atmosphere. If you dispute this conclusion - please explain the current change. What is the driver?
Gobbledygook and gibberish which does nothing to answer the question.

So, are you admitting you have no idea how the mechanisms might work – essentially admitting everything you have claimed about the "system" is garbage?

strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
So far, I haven't seen you provide ANY temperature data from any of the parts of the "system" you claim to be showing are warming, other than the same surface temperature resources I use.


Come on UBA - is it just a stupid game for you - or are you seriously screwed up? It really is frustrating. I don't really care that you lie (or perhaps have a major reading comprehension proble). I really wish you would not feel the need to spam the internet with your ignorance. I do understand the posters who get frustrated with you - and resort to ad hominem - what else do you do with such intransigence, and ignorance.

Here is a link I posted twice on this thread - last time June 24th - http://web.archiv...odels-2/

There is a pretty picture there with some temperature data there for you.

How about this one from July 4th? Some nice temperature data there.

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

strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2014
So, are you admitting you have no idea how the mechanisms might work


Nowhere was that admitted. The scientists who are studying the climate - have a very good understanding of the drivers of the warming and cooling cycles we have identified over geological time. I certainly do not understand them all - it would take a lifetime of study. Recently I was reading about the glacials, and interglacials - and how plate tectonics have been very involved in that process. I have not idea how. But the experts who study it do.

Sorry UBA - I have no more time to waste talking to someone who writes such bullshit.

Over and out.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
Ryggy
And AGWites take the simplest answer that supports their agenda.


This from the person who answered a question about the drivers of the current warming with 'nature.' Would that you could see the irony of such stupidity - but as with UBA - you are just a waste of time. Guess that is the game you play.

Over and out.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2014
AGWite simple answer: CO2 increasing, apparent global temperature increasing, we don't like economic prosperity, CO2 correlates. Simple, adjust the models to make it so.

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
If you really understood the process of validation, you would realize the process is the same as for theories, you try to falsify them.

Thermo agrees, THE CLIMATE SIMULATION used to predict the end of the world has not been validated.


Rygg2: Thermo does not agree that there is such a thing as a climate simulation "used to predict the end of the world." This is the way Rygg2 tries to get his lies into text. Please Rygg2, just give us a link to this simulation?

I know you have no such link.

Another example of lying.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
AGWite simple answer: CO2 increasing, apparent global temperature increasing, we don't like economic prosperity, CO2 correlates. Simple, adjust the models to make it so.


Another lie from Rygg. He just keeps them coming.

Please show us a reference that shows those recognizing AGW do not like economic prosperity.

Just another lie from anarchist Rygg.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
Another lie from Rygg. He just keeps them coming.


I don't know if there is any answer to the stupidity, childishness and lies. Perhaps the 'please don't feed the trolls group' have the only response that makes any sense. Runrig feels that it is important to answer the ignorance - the problem with that is that you end up arguing around and around in circles - you just cannot make any headway with people who will lie, be childish, and obfuscate. Maybe downvoting is all you can do.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
I'm still waiting for your UBYMORONIC update on the status of the Glacier National Park glaciers.

What's the hold up? According to your past claims, they should be easily visible from MILES AND MILES away, as they continued to grow at an accelerated pace. I don't understand why you are having such difficulty in finding them.


I gave it to you. It is hard to tell from all the snow:


You did nothing of the sort, jackass. Why haven't you posted an image from today? OH, I know --probably because the epic snowfall that occurred in mid-June is already melted.

Neither here nor there --a June snow says nothing whatsoever about the state of the glaciers, which is precisely what you wish to avoid having to speak about.

What a wanker.

Just another example of the troll-ass teratoma's sophistry.

I mean UBYMORON's sophistry.

thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
Bounty:

http://dialogueso...nge.html

All you have to do is go to this page, prove that AGW is incorrect and win $30,000.

So, all of you who can prove AGW is wrong (by falsifying it) can pick up your loot.

Here is the opportunity for you to take your pet view and WIN.

Rygg2, you should have this one hands down. Just show how the socialists are plotting.

Uba, you certainly have this one in your pocket. You have the Woodfortrees site to back you up.

Cantdrive85, I am sure you can show it is because of a short circuit in the EU.

Antigorical, I am sure you can win this by showing Al Gore is the mastermind of this hoax.

I guess I am just left out on this one because I understand the physics and know you can't win.

Just let us know when you collect.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
If you weren't so intent upon promulgating your willful disunderstanding of these matters, a quick reference to fluid thermodynamics[...]as heat is added, and the various components of the system seesaw on their way to a new equilibrium.


Maybe that makes sense to you, but when I add heat to a pot of water from an overhead heat source, the air under the heat source heats quite rapidly as opposed to the water.

The only way to heat the water, for any length of time without heating the air, is to place the heat source directly in the water.

Try it.


No, you try it. Maybe you'll drop yer goddam blowdrier in yer tub while yer at it, and save us all the trouble of ever having to read another of your idiot posts here.

But it does --seriously-- sound like just the kind of dumbass demonstration of willful disunderstanding of principle that we all have come to expect from you. By the same logic, it would be impossible for the sun to heat any ocean or terrestrial waters.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
@strangedays:
Nature.
And you really think that this an explanation? You don't understand how childish and inadequate your explanation is. What exactly is nature?
I believe that would also be known as natural variability.

Describe the operation of the system. When we ask for an explanation - we need mechanisms, and data.
Funny you should make this demand, when you failed to provide the same level of evidence just a few posts prior!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
You know, you throw this B.S. statement around a lot. Either you know you are lying, or you are a fool
@uba
so you have empirical evidence of a grand conspiracy of scientists?
Straw man.
You made an opinionated (and unprovable) statement which is, by definition a personal conjecture,
No, you made an opinionated and false statement. I clearly provided evidence that your statement was false.

and you cannot prove it without enlisting more polarized opinions and unsubstantiated opinions,
Clearly, this is your shtick.

therefore it is not only valid, but highly accurate descriptor of your statement.
Lying is unbecoming to you.

Blogs, personal opinions and the like are not proof, therefore irrelevant and without merit.
Judith Curry is a well recognized and highly respected climate scientist.

Unless you get a court to issue an opinion (or something similar) it is pretty much just conspiracy talk and crackpot BS because you are dealing with roughly 97% the entire planet's scientists... an IMPOSSIBLE task to get that many people on the exact same page... even religion couldn't do it and fractured into splinter groups like baptist, evangelist, mormon...etc.
to be cont'd
Obviously, you don't know many climate scientists.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
@uba cont'd
The popular results generally load first, and the first page definitions generally match mine. And, it is derived from the IPCC definition
on YOUR pc... not mine. first off. google shows the payout section first (those who pay more to show up first). then it is the tailored results to match what you usually look for. I usually look for studies, specific results etc, so the first few pages to show up in MY google search was what I posted. Try searching the same thing with other browsers like duckduckgo and you will find different results
Good luck with that
and yet you've already got so pissy that you've started downvoting posts regardless of content... which supports my argument. lol
either that or you've decided to become the latest EU and DAW acolyte? which is it?lol
Whatever. The IPCC definition stands.

And from Wikipedia, here is a, "...concise list of online English dictionaries whose definitions are based upon well-established content."

http://en.wikiped...ionaries

Of the "Selected online English dictionaries," all agree with my definition.

And of the "Advanced Learner Dictionaries," all agree with my definition.

But if you have a well established English language dictionary which says different, feel free to let us know.

Good luck with that.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
Red herring argument. This is irrelevant
@uba
it is every bit as relevant as your appeal to google as an authority.

my google results are not the same as your google results... as shown above... so appealing to the authority of results from google is like appealing to the results of a search for fairy turds.

completely irrelevant and without merit and proven by the post.
If you have a well established English language dictionary which states otherwise, by all means, please share. Otherwise admit you are wrong, or be branded a liar.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
So far, I haven't seen you provide ANY temperature data from any of the parts of the "system" you claim to be showing are warming, other than the same surface temperature resources I use.
Come on UBA - is it just a stupid game for you - or are you seriously screwed up? It really is frustrating. I don't really care that you lie (or perhaps have a major reading comprehension proble). I really wish you would not feel the need to spam the internet with your ignorance. I do understand the posters who get frustrated with you - and resort to ad hominem - what else do you do with such intransigence, and ignorance.
So ad hominems are what you resort to when you can't answer the questions?

Here is a link I posted twice on this thread - last time June 24th - http://web.archiv...odels-2/

There is a pretty picture there with some temperature data there for you.

How about this one from July 4th? Some nice temperature data there.

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/ How are these relevant?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2014
Repost:
So far, I haven't seen you provide ANY temperature data from any of the parts of the "system" you claim to be showing are warming, other than the same surface temperature resources I use.
Come on UBA - is it just a stupid game for you - or are you seriously screwed up? It really is frustrating. I don't really care that you lie (or perhaps have a major reading comprehension proble). I really wish you would not feel the need to spam the internet with your ignorance. I do understand the posters who get frustrated with you - and resort to ad hominem - what else do you do with such intransigence, and ignorance.
So ad hominems are what you resort to when you can't answer the questions?

Here is a link I posted twice on this thread - last time June 24th - http://web.archiv...odels-2/

There is a pretty picture there with some temperature data there for you.

How about this one from July 4th? Some nice temperature data there.

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/
How are these relevant?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
This is because these organizations are desperately trying to redefine global warming because of their epic failed predictions
@uba
you made the above claim & I responded
personal conjecture without evidence. This is your opinion and there is no supporting evidence proving your statement
you then replied
You know, you throw this B.S. statement around a lot. Either you know you are lying, or you are a fool
& I replied
so you have empirical evidence of a grand conspiracy of scientists?
and you say this is
Straw man
the original argument is the straw man. It has no relevance because it is YOUR opinion, which makes the statement I made correct. Your appeals to authority or Google only substantiate my inquiries about the grand conspiracy as well as reinforces my statement
therefore it is not only valid, but highly accurate descriptor of your statement
it was a personal opinion and not a valid claim

no lies there
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
So, are you admitting you have no idea how the mechanisms might work
Nowhere was that admitted. The scientists who are studying the climate - have a very good understanding of the drivers of the warming and cooling cycles we have identified over geological time. I certainly do not understand them all - it would take a lifetime of study. Recently I was reading about the glacials, and interglacials - and how plate tectonics have been very involved in that process. I have not idea how. But the experts who study it do.
Funny, first you state you haven't admitted you have no idea how the mechanisms might work, then you clearly admit you don't understand them.

Worse, you demanded this very level of evidence from Rygg2, and yet you can't deliver it yourself!

Hypocrite much?

Sorry UBA - I have no more time to waste talking to someone who writes such bullshit.

Over and out.
Good, we don't need your lies here.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
Lying is unbecoming to you
@uba
please provide proof that I lied, otherwise this is more irrelevance meant to distract from your lack of evidence
Judith Curry is a well recognized and highly respected climate scientist
and she posted an OPINION, to which you've relied upon as being legitimate without any evidence. this is called faith; it is NOT science. Provide PROOF of the "grand conspiracy". You made the claim, the burden of proof is upon YOU
Obviously, you don't know many climate scientists
and obviously you don't know much about proof, or presenting evidence. I can research information and get far more scientists that disagree with you about your conspiracy as well as supporting the original argument
it's a minority definition
which I proved incorrect. it may be minority in your world, but not in my searches or postings, that is why I put it up there.
you can disagree... sure. I don't care. but it is still accurate and relevant

no lies here either
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
Whatever. The IPCC definition stands.
@uba
for you. not for me.
I accept the definition that I posted above. Mostly because I got it from scientists and not beaurocrats. You believe what you want
Of the "Selected online English dictionaries," / "Advanced Learner Dictionaries,"
when was the last update? when was the last change/modification for more modernized and more factual data? Do both dictionaries have the entire lexicon of the field that we are discussing?
Otherwise admit you are wrong, or be branded a liar
and it is given in the original post I left: NOAA, EPA and Climate.gov

Google SHOULD get you there... or is yours suddenly not working correctly?
maybe all those irrelevant searches is affecting your search algorithm?

and look at that... no lies here either!

http://dialogueso...nge.html
take the bounty! win money...
PROVE THE SCIENCE WRONG
this is your chance, uba.
Thermo gave you gold! take it
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
Good, we don't need your lies here.
one last post, UBA...

just in case you missed it. Thermodynamics posted it above
Bounty:

http://dialogueso...nge.html

All you have to do is go to this page, prove that AGW is incorrect and win $30,000.

So, all of you who can prove AGW is wrong (by falsifying it) can pick up your loot.

Here is the opportunity for you to take your pet view and WIN.
http://dialogueso...nge.html

Here is your chance to prove all of us wrong with your beliefs and point of view. Take the challenge. make $30,000!

forget posting for pennies (or are you being paid well for your disruption?)
go for the gold, you will also definitely get worldwide fame and recognition as well!

I will even add to the pot!
the challenge has been made... all you gotta do is take it up
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
@Caliban
I gave it to you. It is hard to tell from all the snow:
You did nothing of the sort, jackass. Why haven't you posted an image from today? OH, I know --probably because the epic snowfall that occurred in mid-June is already melted.
Why are you such an ass? Are you unable to check these things for yourself?

"Visitors will discover a snow-covered landscape at Logan Pass. Winter weather may be encountered with cold temperatures and wind, as well as icy conditions." - Great Falls Tribune, July 3, 2014

http://www.greatf...2124511/

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2014
@Caliban
No, you try it. Maybe you'll drop yer goddam blowdrier in yer tub while yer at it, and save us all the trouble of ever having to read another of your idiot posts here.

But it does --seriously-- sound like just the kind of dumbass demonstration of willful disunderstanding of principle that we all have come to expect from you.
AGWites are terrible human beings.

It appears the failure of their doomsday cult prophecies likely induces a defensive stress hysteria, which subsequently traps them in a deviancy amplification spiral. That is, the more the facts line up against them, the worse they get as human beings!

Caliban typifies the AGWite deviancy amplification spiral.

By the same logic, it would be impossible for the sun to heat any ocean or terrestrial waters.
So what, you don't think an overhead heat source can heat anything? Are you really this stupid?

I'm only asserting it must also heat the air above the water.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
the original argument is the straw man. It has no relevance because it is YOUR opinion, which makes the statement I made correct. Your appeals to authority or Google only substantiate my inquiries about the grand conspiracy as well as reinforces my statement
therefore it is not only valid, but highly accurate descriptor of your statement
it was a personal opinion and not a valid claim

no lies there
I never claimed there was a " grand conspiracy of scientists." This was a misrepresentation made up by you.

"A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument."

http://en.wikiped...traw_man

Ergo, you are a liar.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
@uba
please provide proof that I lied
See my previous, post.

Judith Curry is a well recognized and highly respected climate scientist
and she posted an OPINION, to which you've relied upon as being legitimate without any evidence. this is called faith; it is NOT science.
How is this any different than the opinion pieces you provided regarding the definition for global warming? Did any of it come from a well established English language dictionary?

Provide PROOF of the "grand conspiracy". You made the claim, the burden of proof is upon YOU
And there you go with the straw man lie again.

and obviously you don't know much about proof, or presenting evidence. I can research information and get far more scientists that disagree with you about your conspiracy as well as supporting the original argument
it's a minority definition
which I proved incorrect. it may be minority in your world, but not in my searches or postings, that is why I put it up there.
Did it come from a well established English language dictionary?

you can disagree... sure. I don't care. but it is still accurate and relevant
No, it's purely made up bull.

no lies here either
Which is just another lie!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
Whatever. The IPCC definition stands.
@uba
for you. not for me.
So you admit you are making up your own definitions, which is just another way to lie and obfuscate.

I accept the definition that I posted above. Mostly because I got it from scientists and not beaurocrats.
But definitely not a well established English language dictionary, eh?

You believe what you want
I'll use the standard English definition.

Of the "Selected online English dictionaries," / "Advanced Learner Dictionaries,"
when was the last update? when was the last change/modification for more modernized and more factual data?
Why didn't you check?

Do both dictionaries have the entire lexicon of the field that we are discussing?
You didn't even check the reference, did you? There were eight dictionaries, not two.

Otherwise admit you are wrong, or be branded a liar
and it is given in the original post I left: NOAA, EPA and Climate.gov
Which are not dictionaries, which only serves to support my assertion they're trying to change the definition.

and look at that... no lies here either!
And this, again, is another lie!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
one last post, UBA...

just in case you missed it. Thermodynamics posted it above
Bounty:

[url]http://dialogueso...nge.html[/url]

All you have to do is go to this page, prove that AGW is incorrect and win $30,000.

So, all of you who can prove AGW is wrong (by falsifying it) can pick up your loot.

Here is the opportunity for you to take your pet view and WIN.

Here is your chance to prove all of us wrong with your beliefs and point of view. Take the challenge. Make $30,000!


[url]http://dialogueso...nge.html[/url]

forget posting for pennies (or are you being paid well for your disruption?)
go for the gold, you will also definitely get worldwide fame and recognition as well!

I will even add to the pot!
the challenge has been made... all you gotta do is take it up
I have proved it, again and again. What makes you think this AGWite will accept any proof that you will not?

You won't even accept the standard definition for global warming!

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
Uba is now in a snit. Here is a chance for her to prove AGW wrong and win $30,000 and she is too chicken shit to even try (even though she thinks she as already proven it).

Could it be that Uba just can't admit that she has never proven anything.

Uba, we know you are a fraud and if you had any science to back up your claim you would be jumping at the chance to prove them wrong. Instead, you snivel and pretend you are above the fray.

So, here is the URL again:

http://dialogueso...nge.html

Enter, collect your reward, and prove us wrong!

Of course not. You don't have enough of a science background to even attempt a proof.

What a wienie.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
Uba is now in a snit. Here is a chance for her to prove AGW wrong and win $30,000 and she is too chicken shit to even try (even though she thinks she as already proven it).
How can I prove that which you won't even agree to the definition?

Could it be that Uba just can't admit that she has never proven anything.

Uba, we know you are a fraud and if you had any science to back up your claim you would be jumping at the chance to prove them wrong. Instead, you snivel and pretend you are above the fray.
No, I'm too smart to fall for this obvious trap.

Enter, collect your reward, and prove us wrong!
As soon as you and the challenger agree to the well established standard English dictionary definition for global warming.

Of course not. You don't have enough of a science background to even attempt a proof.
Says the idiot that didn't even know sea ice and freshwater ice have different melting points.

What a wienie.
That's real science-y there of you thermo.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
So, let me set this up. Uba has an argument going with everyone about the definition of global warming. He is trying to make it up as he goes.

Completely unrelated to that I post a web site with a guy who is willing to award $30,000 to anyone who can falsify AGW (which Uba says he has done multiple times).

I post the URL of the web site:

http://dialogueso...nge.html

And Uba answers:

How can I prove that which you won't even agree to the definition?


So, here is Uba, still whining about the correct definition that TCS and I put forward, but not even knowing that the web site doesn't care what our definition is because we have nothing to do with the web site.

This is just some guy offering $30K to anyone who can falsify AGW.

So, Uba, get you ass in gear and win that prize.

Oh, that's right, you have no way to do that because you are ignorant.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
some guy offering $30K to anyone who can falsify AGW.

More can be made promoting AGW.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
some guy offering $30K to anyone who can falsify AGW.

More can be made promoting AGW.


So, Rygg2, it sounds like you can't falsify AGW.

With all of the quote mining you do, don't you claim to have falsified AGW many times?

Wouldn't it be easy for you to quote mine your way to $30K?

Or, are you saying that all of the quote mined material you toss out does not falsify AGW?

Here is your chance. Just mine your way to $30K. You should be able to make that in less than a day if you really can falsify AGW.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
Sounds like a rigged bet.
A better bet would be to see if a temperature prediction made today by the CLIMATE MODEL for 10 years in the future is obtained.
This doesn't require the subjective input of 'peers' to determine falsifiability.
It's a similar type bet Paul Ehrlich lost when he bet on his theory the world is ending.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
Sounds like a rigged bet.
A better bet would be to see if a temperature prediction made today by the CLIMATE MODEL for 10 years in the future is obtained.
This doesn't require the subjective input of 'peers' to determine falsifiability.
It's a similar type bet Paul Ehrlich lost when he bet on his theory the world is ending.


Rygg:

You talk a good game but won't put in a little effort to falsify what you call false.

The bet is not about a model (you hate models anyway). It is about the theory of AGW (which you think is a diabolical plot by scheming socialists to change the world order and steal your money). Here is your opportunity to prove your point and earn money.

I would go for it in a heartbeat if I didn't already know the theory is sound.

So, you are not even going to try because you know your only background is in quote mining and hating imaginary socialists.

Pathetic lack of backbone and knowledge.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
I never claimed there was a " grand conspiracy of scientists." This was a misrepresentation made up by you
@uba
this is a lie. You never used the WORDS, but you infer it with your claims like
This is because these organizations are desperately trying to redefine global warming because of their epic failed predictions
and then attempt to bolster your claims with links to polarized blogs or people who are fringe protestors which also make inferences, like you, to conspiracy.
therefore, ONCE AGAIN, NO LIE THERE, which makes you the liar, not I.
the only misrepresentation I made was the fact that the "straw man" was actually YOUR ATTEMPT to confuse the issue by calling the argument a "straw man" because you misrepresent facts in order to support your own fallacious comments.
Ergo, you, Uba, are a liar attempting to push the blame on others who point out your own fallacious comments, lack of research and knowledge
See my previous, post
the proof that you are a liar? ok...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
How is this any different than the opinion pieces you provided regarding the definition for global warming? Did any of it come from a well established English language dictionary?
@uba
now THIS is a straw man. If you will observe the references (NOAA, EPA, Climate.gov) they are the organizations which DEFINE the words by using science and producing the lexicon of the field for the use by Dictionary sources, which means it is a primary source for the information, not a secondary source like a dictionary. The term is used as part of the lexicon of meteorologists and climate scientists etc, much like physicists also have terms and words with specific meaning for the transmission of information with ease and specificity. Your definition may be valid for use by non-scientists, but for scientists in the field, the NOAA, EPA, Climate.gov definition is the one to use.

therefore, you are proven, once again, to be blatantly lying for your own obfuscation purposes
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
And there you go with the straw man lie again
@uba
another blatant lie, already proven. You made the claim, the burden of proof is yours
Did it come from a well established English language dictionary?
strawman. it came from the scientific agencies that establish the lexicon and define the terms for use. another lie for you, uba
No, it's purely made up bull
then complain to NOAA, EPA, Climate.gov and enter the challenge and prove us all wrong. win the money and bragging rights
So you admit you are making up your own definitions, which is just another way to lie and obfuscate
NOAA, EPA, Climate.gov, not I. strawman and blatant lie yet again
definitely not a well established English language dictionary
see above refute to your strawman
Why didn't you check?
I did. but the burden of proof is still upon you

your continued attempts to obfuscate by misdirection, strawman arguments and more is failing.
it is all in black and white above proving you wrong.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
uba cont'd
There were eight dictionaries, not two
but you only specified two types
Selected online English dictionaries," / "Advanced Learner Dictionaries
to which I replied about. another strawman and blatant lie and attempt at misdirection and obfuscation
Which are not dictionaries
again, agencies with the responsibility of defining the lexicon for use in the field, which makes them specialised dictionaries by definiton. Your claims that they are NOT dictionaries is like saying Dr. Suess definition of his own made up words is not valid nor a legitimate dictionary so cannot be used for support
I have proved it, again and again
then prove it to the site and get your money
failure to do so only supports the claims that you are blatantly lying and obfuscating truth here on PO
What makes you think this AGWite will accept any proof that you will not?
try reading the site
prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2014
The bet is not about a model

Of course it is.
That is the ONLY way AGWites discern signal from noise, by tweaking the feedback knobs.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
I have proved it, again and again. What makes you think this AGWite will accept any proof that you will not?
@uba
the first part of this sentence is a blatant lie. You've only proven it in your own mind.

the REQUIREMENTS are simple:
prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;
You must be 18 years old or older to enter

IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY PROVE IT, USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and you HAVE already proven it, as you claim, Uba, then re-post your proof to the site and collect your money, bragging rights and fame

I will await the announcements.
I can make a prediction right now, specifically about you, Uba- IF you even face up to the fear of public humiliation and try, you will fail to do so on the grounds that you will give no empirical proof, nor will you provide a proof using the scientific method (like your Einstein paper)

IF you win, I will have to accept it as proof.
go for it
I'll chip in on the winnings
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
How can I prove that which you won't even agree to the definition?
@uba
use the lexicon that is also used by the people IN THE FIELD
As soon as you and the challenger agree to the well established standard English dictionary definition for global warming
how about using the lexicon that is also used by the people IN THE FIELD. he will not refute empirical data used with the scientific method!

OR - YOU could also ask him directly before posting your comment to establish a common ground...

You are afraid to do it because you KNOW you don't have a leg to stand on, NOT because
I'm too smart to fall for this obvious trap
IOW - your posts are filled with obfuscation and lies, and the only thing you CAN do is comment on a public site, argue about semantics and definitions which can be malleable depending on circumstance and hope no one notices... that about right?

here's to you deniers
failures at the ONE TIME you have a chance of proving something
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
The bet is not about a model

Of course it is.
That is the ONLY way AGWites discern signal from noise, by tweaking the feedback knobs.


Rygg: That may be the ONLY way you can think of, but that just shows how unscientific your mind is. This is about the theory of AGW (which you keep saying is a sham that you have disproved multiple times). All you have to do is to falsify it once. Then you win.

All you can do is focus on your view of what models should do and I doubt you have ever actually understood the theory. Go ask Rush or FixedNews.

Of course you don't have a clue how to falsify AGW so you denigrate the contest. If you had a modicum of self respect you would take a shot at it with your best arguments.

Instead, we find you curled up sucking your thumb.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2014
This is about the theory of AGW

The data AGWites claim supporting AGW is from THE CLIMATE MODEL and the 'forcings' that are tweaked in the model to fit observations.
This assumes ALL the forcing values are correct AND all the forcings are known.
GIGO.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
This is about the theory of AGW

The data AGWites claim supporting AGW is from THE CLIMATE MODEL and the 'forcings' that are tweaked in the model to fit observations.
This assumes ALL the forcing values are correct AND all the forcings are known.
GIGO.


Rygg: I shouldn't be helping you on this because I know you won't share your easy winnings with me, but I will help out of the goodness of my heart.

The core of the theory of AGW is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate at which it cannot be effectively removed by natural processes, thereby increasing the molar content of the CO2 in the atmosphere, increases the heat retained by the earth and drives up the heat content of the earth. The sun provides short wave radiation that is absorbed by multiple absorbers and becomes heat. The earth then radiates at long wavelengths and CO2 interferes with the heat transfer from the earth to outer space.

Where is the model dufus?

Just falsify it.

Win $30K (share)
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
@Caliban
I gave it to you. It is hard to tell from all the snow:
You did nothing of the sort, jackass. Why haven't you posted an image from today? OH, I know --probably because the epic snowfall that occurred in mid-June is already melted.
Why are you such an ass? Are you unable to check these things for yourself?

"Visitors will discover a snow-covered landscape at Logan Pass. Winter weather may be encountered with cold temperatures and wind, as well as icy conditions." - Great Falls Tribune, July 3, 2014

http://www.greatf...2124511/


And, of course, still no response. My question to you did not concern the weather --much less weather from almost a week ago-- it was about the current extent of the glaciers.

Just more UBYMORONIC diversion and prevarication.


Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
@Caliban
I gave it to you. It is hard to tell from all the snow:
You did nothing of the sort, jackass. Why haven't you posted an image from today? OH, I know --probably because the epic snowfall that occurred in mid-June is already melted.
Why are you such an ass? Are you unable to check these things for yourself?

"Visitors will discover a snow-covered landscape at Logan Pass. Winter weather may be encountered with cold temperatures and wind, as well as icy conditions." - Great Falls Tribune, July 3, 2014

http://www.greatf...2124511/


And, of course, still no response. My question to you did not concern the weather --much less weather from almost a week ago-- it was about the current extent of the glaciers.

Just more UBYMORONIC diversion and prevarication.



Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
Caliban typifies the AGWite deviancy amplification spiral.

By the same logic, it would be impossible for the sun to heat any ocean or terrestrial waters.

So what, you don't think an overhead heat source can heat anything? Are you really this stupid?

I'm only asserting it must also heat the air above the water.


You're only asserting something that everyone already knows, and trying to dodge the fact of insolation heating not only the atmosphere --especially near-surface-- and the amplification of that effect by the heat-trapping caused by the presence of increasing amounts of GHGs, and the additional heat uptake of marine bodies simultaneously, simply because you wish to ignore the obvious -- that the heat capacity of water means that even the tiniest uptick in water temp equates with a staggering amount of added heat in the system. Then, there is less radiative loss from marine bodiesbecause of the higher gradient near the surface due GHGs.

This you hope to ignore.

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

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