What geology has to say about global warming

Jul 14, 2014 by William Menke, Earth Institute, Columbia University
Cobscook Bay State Park, Maine. Credit: W. Menke

Last month I gave a public lecture entitled, "When Maine was California," to an audience in a small town in Maine. It drew parallels between California, today, and Maine, 400 million years ago, when similar geologic processes were occurring. Afterward, a member of the audience asked me what geology had to say about global warming. The following is an expanded version of my answer. Note that I use the word geology to mean any element of the earth sciences that is focused on earth history, and do not distinguish the many sub-disciplines about which a specialist would be familiar.

Geologists think of the last 50 million years as the recent past, both because they represents only about one percent of the age of the earth, and because plate tectonics, the geologic process that controls conditions within the solid part of the earth, has operated without major change during that time period. This is the time period that is most relevant to gaining insights about earth's climate that can be applied to the present-day global warming debate.

The geological record of ancient climate is excellent. Ancient temperatures can be determined very precisely, because the composition of the shells of corals and other marine organisms varies measurably with it. Furthermore, the plants and animals that lived during a given time and are now preserved as fossils indicate whether the climate was wet or dry. The overall climatic trend has been cooling, from an unusually warm period, called the Eocene Optimum, 55-45 million years ago, to an unusually cool period, colloquially called the Ice Age, which ended just 20,000 years ago. The overall range in temperature was enormous, about 35°F. The earth was so warm during the Eocene Optimum that Antarctica was ice-free; ice caps did not start to form there until about 35 million years ago. Palm trees grew at high latitudes and cold-blooded animals, such as crocodiles, lived in the Arctic.

Lesson 1. The earth's climate (including its average temperature) is highly variable.

Notwithstanding very divergent conditions, life flourished both during the Eocene Optimum and the Ice Age, though in both cases life was more abundant in some parts of the world than in others. The fossil record indicates that forests were common during the Eocence Optimum, yet some areas were sparsely vegetated steppes and deserts. While the great glaciers of the Ice Age were lifeless, extremely large mammals such as Woolly Mammoth and Giant Ground Sloth inhabited lower latitudes. The changing climate produced both winners and losers. Some species adapted; others went extinct.

Lesson 2. Life flourished during both warm and cold periods; changes in climate produced both winners and losers.

An important issue is whether climate variability is due to processes occurring on the earth, or to changes in the intensity of sunlight – for it's the sun that keeps our planet warm. The geological evidence, though subtle, strongly supports earthly, and not solar, causes. This evidence is drawn from the study of the many shorter period climate fluctuations, some which last millions of years and other just thousands, which are superimposed on the long-term cooling trend.

Climate during the Ice Age (the last 4 million years) has been particularly unstable, with many swings of more than 10°F. These fluctuations are recorded in the annual layers of snow preserved in glaciers and in marine sediments, whose properties track the temperature at which they were formed. The timing of these swings closely follows regular fluctuations in the tilt of the earth's axis and the shape of its orbit around the sun. Called Milankovitch cycles, they are due to the gravitational influence of the moon and planets. Their magnitude can be reliably calculated, since they are due to fluctuations of the position and orientation of the earth relative to the sun, and not to any change in the sun's brightness. Surprisingly, they are too small to account for the large swings in temperature, unless the earth's climate system is acting to amplify them. Here's the subtle part of the argument: This mismatch between the feeble amplitude of the Milankovitch cycles and the large swings in climate is strong evidence that internal processes can cause strong climate variability.

Lesson 3. Variations in climate are mainly due to processes occurring on the earth, as contrasted to in the sun.

Roque Bluffs State Park, Maine. Credit: W. Menke

Ice Age levels are well known, because bubbles of Ice Age air are preserved within the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers. More ancient carbon dioxide levels are difficult to measure, since no samples of older air have been preserved. Several indirect methods are in use, one based on the effect of ocean carbon dioxide levels on the composition of marine sediments, and another on its effect on now-fossil plant leaves. These measurements show fairly convincingly that the long-term cooling trend over the last 50 million years is associated with a gradual decrease in carbon dioxide levels, from 2000-3000 parts per million during the Eocene Optimum to 200 p.p.m. during the Ice Age. The cause of this decrease is not fully understood, but seems to indicate that the total amount of carbon that can influence climate (carbon in the atmosphere, biosphere and ocean) is slowly decreasing, possibly because an increasing amount of carbon is being tied up in sedimentary rocks such as limestone.

Lesson 4. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are highly variable, with the highest levels being associated with warm periods and the lowest levels associated with cold periods.

The correlation of atmospheric temperature with carbon dioxide reflects the latter's role as a greenhouse gas. By absorbing heat radiated from the earth's surface and re-radiating it back downward, it causes the earth's surface to be warmer than it otherwise would be. The earth would be uninhabitable without the greenhouse effect, as can be seen by comparing the earth's average temperature of about 60°F to the minus 100°F average temperature of the moon, which receives exactly the same amount of sunlight. An important question is whether the high at the time of the Eocene Optimum was the cause of the high temperatures that occurred during that time period.

Ascribing causes to fluctuation in climate is a tricky business, because atmospheric carbon dioxide level is only one factor among several that determine earth's climate. Other important factors include: the amount of water vapor (another greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere; the percentage of the sky covered by clouds, which reflect sunlight back into space; the percent of land covered with ice and snow, which are also very reflective; and the percentage covered by oceans and and forests, which are very absorbing. All factors act together to maintain a given temperature; yet they feed back upon one another in complicated ways. Thus, for instance, had the Antarctic been glaciated during the Eocene Optimum (and the geological evidence is that it was ice-free), the world would have been somewhat cooler due to the high reflectivity of the ice. On the other hand, glaciers were absent precisely because the world was so warm. Geologic evidence alone cannot prove that the high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the Eocene Optimum caused the high temperatures then, since the contribution of other factors, such as clouds and water vapor are unknown. Nevertheless, global climate models seem to indicate that such a high temperature only can be maintained in a world with high carbon dioxide; no other combination of factors can explain it.

Changing global temperatures induce changes in patterns of rainfall, winds and ocean currents, all of which can have a profound effect on the ecosystem of a given region. A large decrease in rainfall will, of course, turn rainforest into a desert. However, geology has few specifics to offer on the subject of how any particular region will be affected. The factors that cause climate change at a given geographical location are too varied to allow convincing geological analogues. However, geology shows that variability is the norm. Some of today's deserts were forested a few million years ago, and some of today's forests were formerly deserts. From the human perspective, climate change has the potential of causing some areas to become less agriculturally productive (and therefore less inhabitable), and other to become more so.

Lesson 5. Local climates are very variable, changing dramatically over periods of thousands to millions of years.

Changing global temperature can cause a rise or fall in sea level due to the accumulation or melting of glacial ice. This effect is global in extent and one that can have an extremely deleterious effect on us human beings, since so many of us live near the coast. The geological evidence is very strong that sea level was higher by about 200 feet at times, such as during the Eocene Optimum, when Antarctica was ice-free, and was about 400 feet lower during the height of the Ice Age. The range is enormous; the world's coastlines are radically altered by such changes. The continental shelves were substantially exposed during the low stands, and many low-lying coastal areas were underwater during the high stands. Woolly Mammoths roamed hundreds of miles offshore of Virginia during the Ice Age. Beach sand deposits in inland North Carolina indicate that the shoreline was far inland during the Eocene Optimum.

Lesson 6. Sea level has fluctuated as the world's glaciers grow or recede, and was about 200 feet higher at times when Antarctica was ice-free.

Wolfe Neck Woods State Park, Maine. Credit: W. Menke

Carbon dioxide levels have risen since the end of the Ice Age, first to a natural level of about 280 p.p.m. just before the start of the Industrial Era, and then to 400 p.p.m. as people burned coal and petroleum in large quantities. Carbon dioxide is currently increasing at a rate of about 2.6 p.p.m. per year.

A critical question is the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide 35 million years ago, when glaciers began to form in Antarctica, for it serves as a rough estimate of the concentration needed to melt present-day Antarctica. It's a rough estimate only, for geological conditions were not exactly the same now and then. In particular, strong ocean currents that today keep warmer waters away from Antarctica were not present 35 million years ago, owing to the somewhat different configuration of tectonic plates. Unfortunately, the best currently-available estimates of atmospheric carbon dioxide during this critical time period have large uncertainties. Carbon dioxide decreased from 600-1400 p.p.m. at the start of the glaciations to 400-700 p.p.m. several million years later. These measurements are consistent with modeling results, which give a threshold of about 780 p.p.m. for the formation of a continental-scale ice cap on Antarctica. This value will be reached by the year 2150 at the present growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide – or sooner if emission rates continue to soar – suggesting that Antarctica will be at risk of melting at that time.

Antarctic ice will not melt overnight even should the threshold be reached. The deglaciation at the end of the Ice Age provides a useful example. The rate of was initially low, just one-tenth of an inch per year. It then gradually increased, peaking at about 3 inches per year about 14,000 years ago, which was about 5,000 years after the start of the deglaciation. This rate persisted for 1,600 years, during which time sea level rose a total of 60 feet. The average rate of sea level rise was slower, about a half-inch per year.

Lesson 7. Sea level rise as fast as a few inches per year can persist over thousands of years.

The most extreme scenario for future carbon dioxide levels considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts about 0.4 inches per year of sea level rise over the next century. This rate is less than, but similar in magnitude, to the average rate during the Ice Age deglaciation, but considerably smaller than its peak. Because of its focus on the current century, a reader of the IPCC report might be left with the sense that sea level rise will be over by 2100. Precisely the opposite is true! Geology demonstrates that melting accelerates with time and can last for several thousand years.

The most important lessons drawn from geology are that the 's can change radically and that the pace of change can be rapid. Geology also supports the theory that past periods of especially warm temperature were caused by high level. Of the many effects of global warming, geology is currently most relevant to rise caused by melting glaciers. The precision of the measurement is currently too poor to give an exact answer to a critical question, At what carbon dioxide level are we in danger of melting Antarctica? However, while crude, these estimates suggest that this threshold will be reached in 150-300 years, if carbon dioxide levels continue to rise at the current rate.

Explore further: Poles apart: Arctic sea ice has shrunk but Antarctic sea ice has grown

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Late Cretaceous Period was likely ice-free

Sep 24, 2013

For years, scientists have thought that a continental ice sheet formed during the Late Cretaceous Period more than 90 million years ago when the climate was much warmer than it is today. Now, a University ...

Recommended for you

Jeju Island is a live volcano, study reveals

14 hours ago

In Jeju, a place emerging as a world-famous vacation spot with natural tourism resources, a recent study revealed a volcanic eruption occurred on the island. The Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral ...

Has Antarctic sea ice expansion been overestimated?

14 hours ago

New research suggests that Antarctic sea ice may not be expanding as fast as previously thought. A team of scientists say much of the increase measured for Southern Hemisphere sea ice could be due to a processing ...

User comments : 152

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 14, 2014
Nevertheless, global climate models seem to indicate that such a high temperature only can be maintained in a world with high carbon dioxide; no other combination of factors can explain it.

Not a single computer model has matched observed data, ever, yet the AGW Cult persists that they are right and man made CO2 is to blame.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2014
Not a single computer model has matched observed data, ever, yet the AGW Cult persists that they are right and man made CO2 is to blame
@anti-g
1- personal conjecture not based upon evidence and due to ignorance of scientific methods
2- fallacy
3- There is NO proof or supporting evidence to your claim

HOWEVER, if you wish to TRY to prove your claim, you can go here: http://dialogueso...nge.html
Make your case
prove your point IF you are able to.

ONE reason that you continually spam/troll a SCIENCE site with known fallacies like you do: because you lack the ability to prove yourself

now you can change that IF YOU ARE ABLE
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (19) Jul 14, 2014
Find me a single computer model that match observed data.
Moron.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2014
Not a single computer model has matched observed data, ever, yet the AGW Cult persists that they are right and man made CO2 is to blame.
It does not surprise me that you are unable to comprehend what is written here. Your low education level combined with your extreme denialist views leaves you unable to understand the intricacies of climate science and thus you stoop to insulting rhetoric and willful misunderstandings. You are the epitome of the denialist conspiracist.

The good news is that you are laughingly inept at sowing doubt about this subject, and the science and the debate has moved beyond you. You and your ilk have become irrelevant. A sad and crazy group belonging in the same category as flat Earthers and deniers of plate tectonics.

I laugh at you and your stupidity. You are just a joke now.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 14, 2014
Find me a single computer model that match observed data.
Moron.
@anti-g
YOU made the claim first... it is YOUR BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE AGW WRONG

and again, I give you the link from Thermo: http://dialogueso...nge.html

You believe there is a conspiracy, well... THERE IS ONE: IN YOUR OWN CAMP OF BELIEVERS
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
&
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

YOU have large amounts of money being funneled into DENYING the science and sowing FUD, something which the SCIENCE of AGW does NOT do (wonder why?)
DENIERS pay for a campaign to discredit the science... NOT WITH SCIENCE, but with adverts and plays on fear, etc... targeting the uneducated, like you, anti-g
and YOU FELL FOR IT

IF you could understand the SCIENCE, you would know AGW is real

antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 14, 2014
Wow!! You have to be more dumb than I thought to fall for that website.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2014
Wow!! You have to be more dumb than I thought to fall for that website.
@anti-g
again... PROOF that you've been taken in by KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE is here:
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

as well as here: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

Now that we KNOW that you will NOT try to PROVE that AGW is false, because
YOU CANNOT
and we know, because you admit as much, that you have NO ABILITY TO USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO MAKE A VALID ARGUMENT

then we can justify that you are: A TROLL
A SPAMMER
UNEDUCATED
ILLITERATE
as well as any other denigration that you've offered towards anyone else here

you don't even try because you know there is NO evidence
you stay here because you don't have the ability to prove your point

thanks for proving to the world that you are impotent to the FACTS and to the SCIENCE that PROVE AGW IS REAL

bet your big oil/whatever handlers are pissed
supamark23
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014
Find me a single computer model that match observed data.
Moron.


What would be the point? You're mentally retarded and can't understand what we're talking about anyway. How do I know you're retarded? Because pedophiles are known for below average IQ, and you're a long standing member of NAMBLA - QED you're retarded.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 14, 2014
Hey Magganus, I know you are "smart" and you know the "science", so just find me a single climate model that matches observed data please.
TegiriNenashi
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 14, 2014
"The changing climate produced both winners and losers. Some species adapted; others went extinct".

Does the author imply the government should initiate "No creature left behind [in the warming world]" program?
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2014
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2014
Find me a single computer model that match observed data.
Moron.

When you take out the short-term climate variables .... they all do.
Moron, did you say?

http://iopscience...4022.pdf

http://www.skepti...Fig1.jpg

www.skepticalscie...p?n=1748

This is because, oh moron, GCM's CANNOT short-term variables such as ENSO, and aerosols, even solar. Hence the need to look at the long term. ged it? (rhetorical).
And no it does not matter because GHG physsics makes warming unarguable. GCM's only predict where that warming will be put ...........in the LONG-TERM.
Oh. and have you checked deep ocean heat increase lately, (rhetorical).
http://www.skepti...Data.jpg
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2014
Does the author imply the government should initiate "No creature left behind [in the warming world]" program?
@tegiri
Are yuu implying that AGW is false?
if you are, take the challenge along side anti-g
PROVE IT
http://dialogueso...nge.html

all you need to do is prove, using the scientific method, that you are right
and we are wrong
you get $$$$
we get schooled

I await your attempts with great anticipation
supamark23
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2014
"The changing climate produced both winners and losers. Some species adapted; others went extinct".

Does the author imply the government should initiate "No creature left behind [in the warming world]" program?


More like we shouldn't be picking winners and losers - and because of AGW, we are in fact picking winners and losers in the game called "Life". Dumbfcuk.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 14, 2014
Hey runrig, your AGW Cult has trained you well. When faced with the truth, your response is to just spew garbage and filth. In fact, you can't even keep track of your lies anymore. You present graphs showing increasing temperatures during the last decade and increasing ocean heat. I guess no one told you the lie of increasing ocean heat was fabricated to explain away the fact that the planet has been cooling for the last 16 years.
I'm still waiting for a climate model that matches observed data.
http://judithcurr...an-heat/
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
I guess no one told you the lie of increasing ocean heat was fabricated to explain away the fact that the planet has been cooling for the last 16 years
so let me get this straight... the ENTIRE WORLD collaborated together to alter the MEASURED DATA of the devices used to make the data that runrig displayed?
and that is easier for you to swallow than the comment that the science is correct?
the following link: http://www.epa.go...emp.html
proves that you have the IQ of a carrot and can read half as well as one

whoops! a link proving you are an idiot.. sorry anti-g. you are playing for the losers
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

Koch brothers et al are paying for stupid people like you
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2014
Ok stunty, let me give it to you straight. Hey...hey... why are you dropping your pants, pull that back up.

http://stevengodd...e-fraud/
Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
When you take out the short-term climate variables .... they all do.


So now we get to pick and choose what we want to include in our models to fit our observations? That seems like sound science...

This site is becoming a joke, with the same cast of clowns posting the same drivel over and over again. How many more times can we read
personal conjecture not based upon evidence and due to ignorance of scientific methods
from the stumpy captain? I'll bet at least 1/person/article for anyone who disagrees with his "we know it all" fundamentalist "science".

Nevertheless, global climate models seem to indicate that such a high temperature only can be maintained in a world with high carbon dioxide; no other combination of factors can explain it.


Should have read "no other KNOWN combination of factors can explain it". The day we actually know it all is the day we make our weather, not predict it.

Come on, who's gonna be the first to call me an idiot?
supamark23
4 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2014
When you take out the short-term climate variables .... they all do.


So now we get to pick and choose what we want to include in our models to fit our observations? That seems like sound science... ?


No sh!t for brains, you can't see a trend unless you look at the long term. Maybe you should bone up on statistics, then move to basic science before commenting here again - or I will mercilessly heckle you.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014
Ok stunty, let me give it to you straight. Hey...hey... why are you dropping your pants, pull that back up.

http://stevengodd...e-fraud/
@Anti-g
your NON-EMPIRICAL data posted against EMPIRICAL DATA
are you stupid?

try again... only thins time, go get REAL proof.
go find a peer reviewed study that has been accepted, like MY evidence.
all you got is someone making up charts and making accusations... supported by zero empirical data
it doesn't even compare.

nice try... for a four year old down syndrome boy
now try using REAL science

http://www.climat...-content

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

http://celebratin...ome.html

http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
Hey runrig, your AGW Cult has trained you well.

Yep thanks for the complement - the "training" as you call it is called science - but you wouldn't know.

When faced with the truth, your response is to just spew garbage and filth

Yep that's you.

In fact, you can't even keep track of your lies anymore. You present graphs showing increasing temperatures during the last decade and increasing ocean heat. I guess no one told you the lie of increasing ocean heat was fabricated to explain away the fact that the planet has been cooling for the last 16 years.


Christ - you really are away with the Fairies .... well of course I knew that. But it's good that you demonstrate the fact to the peeps out there reading this who know no better.

And FYI: The words of anyone (whether they are experts or not) no not turn the world on its head.
Kindly provide me with the peer-reviewed paper/s that support your/Curry's assertion re ocean heat increase.
And also please provide me with evidence that the ENSO cycle can be predicted ... and so be represented in GCM's and so model the 0.4C swing twixt la Nina and El Nino.
Ta Muchly.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
I'll bet at least 1/person/article for anyone who disagrees with his "we know it all" fundamentalist "science"
@scroof
show me one post where I said science knows it all
I never claimed it... but I READ IT (science)... which is unlike you, who has been given link after link for proof and STILL you cling to your faith instead of seeing the empirical data in front of you
Come on, who's gonna be the first to call me an idiot?
there is NO NEED if you call yourself one with a post like the one you left...
LIKE I SAID BEFORE

IF YOU ARE SO SURE that AGW is not real... http://dialogueso...nge.html

convince them. convince us by WINNING the challenge
otherwise you are just wasting your time because many of the readers here actually comprehend science (like runrig, Maggnus, Thermodynamics, Protoplasmix and more) so your constant derision only undermines your own posts
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
So now we get to pick and choose what we want to include in our models to fit our observations? That seems like sound science...


No my friend - we gather the grey-matter and twig what it is that GCM's are doing .... and CAN do.
The CANNOT predict climate cycles of unknow duration. Why is that so hard to understand???

Therefore you have to look at the long-term in their predictions and put aside known cooling cycles - as is the case during the "pause (and warming cycles - El Nino) and end up with a mean FFS.
The reason this demonstration of what is/can be done by them is necessary is precisely because you numbskull deniers don't understand the science. To everyone else its bloody obvious.
Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2014
No sh!t for brains, you can't see a trend unless you look at the long term.... I will mercilessly heckle you

Haha, that's rich coming from the guy who thought the only way to get biodiesel from algae was to genetically modify it:
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Heckle away, it just makes you look dumber. BTW, a long term trend still has to include short term variability such as humans GHG uptick over the last century.
@stumpy
First, stop posting that stupid "challenge", nobody will ever be able to disprove man has influenced the climate.
Second:
been given link after link for proof and STILL you cling to your faith

Proof, now that's a strong word. Proof typically means fact, and AGW is far from fact. It's currently our best guess, that's about it. Also, what "faith" are you talking about here?
runrig, Maggnus, Thermodynamics, Protoplasmix and more

Sure is a lot of you in that car, clowns never cease to amaze me
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
Hey Stupidnator - run of the mill algae does not produce biofuels, fcuktard. You need to get them to produce very specific hydrocarbons which they don't do in any useful quantity on their own. Do us all a favor and just run a hose from your tailpipe into your car next time you feel like going somewhere. it's the least you can do for the world.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2014
Scroofy baby...


Proof, now that's a strong word. Proof typically means fact, and AGW is far from fact. It's currently our best guess, that's about it. Also, what "faith" are you talking about here?


Natch ...
ALL forecasts are "currently our best guess". .... and you hit it there, though you didn't mean to.....

There is no certainty in the world except death and taxes.
But given the "current best guess" is saying some very damaging things will happen, just what is your objection to acting to mitigate the problem?
Or do you fall into the peculiarly US centric "my tax dollars" brigade. And thus display one of the most ugly of human traits .... selfishness.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
now that's a strong word. Proof typically means fact, and AGW is far from fact
@scroof
IF it is far from fact, then you should NOT have a problem disproving it

this is the FALLACY of your argument that you cannot seem to be able to fathom.

There is only science. I believe in SCIENCE. at one time I also was skeptical about AGW, until I started reading the studies that the above mentioned posted. Guess what... THE SCIENCE DOESN'T LIE

so spare my your denigrations and references to your personal clown fetishes, I don't care. You have a habit of posting BS and not reading relevant links and studies, then whining because someone won't make it easy for you

that is YOUR choice. But just because YOU can't comprehend what is going on doesn't mean it isn't happening
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2014
Hey Stupidnator - run of the mill algae does not produce biofuels, fcuktard.

Wow, that's some very original heckling, I'm deeply hurt...
http://www.renewa...jet-fuel
From the article:
Microalgae can be up to 80% oil by dry weight, although that number is for wild strains that are slow growers

Please just stop, your wasting my time.

@runrig
I'm all for modeling and prediction, and I LOVE when my tax money goes to science (NASA is grossly underfunded BTW), but what I was trying to imply is exactly what you said, we have some good guesses. AGW doesn't do anything other. Maxwell proved how EM works, Newton proved how planets interact, AGW proves.... nothing. All it does is correlate data to things we don't fully understand, and claims to be truth. That's not science, that's dogma.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2014

Kindly provide me with the peer-reviewed paper/s that support your/Curry's assertion re ocean heat increase.

Here you go.
http://newzealand...-review/
Odin2
3 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2014
edit
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
AGW proves.... nothing. All it does is correlate data to things we don't fully understand, and claims to be truth. That's not science, that's dogma.


You may as well say that GR and SR are "dogma" ...in that it is just accepted science. And as such man goes forward with that. Come the day something better comes along then we switch to that. It is just the way science works and AGW science is no more or less than SR and GR or QM come to that. Unarguable GHG science tells us axactly what x ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is capable of doing and GCM's model that (without being able to model short-term cycles). It's as simple as that. Given the implications of the science, you and your ilk say we do nothing. FFS.
No one's saying drop fossil like a hot potato - just move to renewables ASAP. WITHOUT doing economic harm.
Attacking the science is in the long run self-defeating - your lot will have no credibility when it comes to what you should be doing - arguing what to do in mitigation.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014

Kindly provide me with the peer-reviewed paper/s that support your/Curry's assertion re ocean heat increase.

Here you go.
http://newzealand...-review/

It may be peer-review in your alternative Universe, but there's many a lunatic in the asylum who thinks he's the only sane one in there, you know.

Sorry epic fail.
Climategate emails. Are you that gullible?... who scammed all the other "hockey-stick" graphs then?
And explain why it's wrong to insert actual data on a graph rather than proxy tree data when they skew away from the proxy relationship - as northern trees have... because of light levels. I'll let you google that. Not that you will.
Hint. You're talking to people with knowledge here. As opposed to people with belief via conspiracy and/or incompetence, because a tiny number of "experts" have a contrary opinion - with NO peer-reviewed science ... as here demonstrated.
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014
I figured it out Scooternatordude - you don't actually know how genetics works. Also "oil" is a generic term - you could say any single cell organism is largely "oil" because the cell membrane and all the structures inside the cell are made with lipids, aka "fat", aka "oil" (more precisely phospho-lipids).

What I'm talking about is getting the algae to make very specific hydrocarbons (fats/oils) of specific lengths/bond composition.

http://dglassasso...iofuels/

If you could use plain ol' algae to make fuel, we'd already be doing it on a very large scale.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
AntiEm said:
Find me a single computer model that match observed data.
Moron.


Here you go. Here is another model that does a good job of matching the data.

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

Fairly recent - in fact, you have already seen it. I guess you are just one of those who couldn't read the figures.
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2014
Antigoracle -
I'm still waiting for a climate model that matches observed data.


I did a little poking around on google - it seems to me in this post - your respected Judith Curry is reporting that the models actually do match the observed data quiet well.

http://judithcurr...parison/
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2014
Antigoracle -
ever, yet the AGW Cult persists that they are right and man made CO2 is to blame.


It is really interesting. I read a very complex article like this - and am impressed by the depth of knowledge, and insight of someone who is clearly knowledgable in their field (geology) and has a great ability to communicate ideas on a complex subject such as the earth's geological history, as related to the climate.

Then the comments section is instantly spammed - by what seem to be some real knuckle draggers. Antigoracle - what are your credentials for claiming to know better than this presenter, and also the current consensus of science. I don't have any credentials - which is why I come here to learn - not argue with the scientists. The frustration for me is that it seems that our progress is slowed by knuckledraggers - who don't have science credentials - but a very high self opinion. Correct me if I am wrong Anti.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
If you enjoyed reading this article, then sit back and listen to the following.
https://www.youtu...MweOVOOI
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
If you enjoyed reading this article, then sit back and listen to the following.
https://www.youtu...MweOVOOI


Yes, why don't you just do that, auntie griselda --and don't forget to wipe the drool off your snout!

Nurse will be along shortly to change your diaper and give you your meds.
Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2014
You may as well say that GR and SR are "dogma"

I've actually said that exact thing, but that's for another day. It pretty much seems how science is, with people devoutly following whatever the current theory de jour may be. We have theories that should be scrutinized by the science community, and when they are people are outcast like they have the plague. Not because their ideas are proven wrong, but because they "just can't be right with out data".

you and your ilk say we do nothing

Nope, never once said we should do nothing. Actually, if you go back through some of my old posts(on other articles) I've been pretty clear that we have to get better about emissions.

My point is this: there are many other variables in the climate equation that aren't being considered. For instance:
https://uk.news.y...#9wnboNP
Our magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than expected, but nothing to see here.

Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2014
I figured it out Scooternatordude - you don't actually know how genetics works

Lol, how does that even apply here? At least you attempted to be original with that "heckle".

http://www.wired....biofuel/
Just when they started to succeed is when the plug got pulled," said phycologist Jeff Johansen of John Carroll University, who collected algal strains for the program in the 1980s. "We were growing them in ponds and we were going to grow enough to have them made into a diesel fuel.


It's possible, just not backed.

This is my last comment on the subject on this page, as it's for climate change debate. Now, if we want to talk about algal oil taking over as a major energy source (also being an milder pollutant), then I'm game.

No matter how complex the response you try to craft, your still wrong.
Dr_toad
4 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
OK. You're illiterate, and your alligator mouth is in control of your tiny little alligator brain.

I used the words in context. Can you understand what the problem might be with people taking you seriously?
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2014
hey toadstool, wouldn't it be my alligator fingers (or is it claws?) doing the work for my alligator brain? Now you've got me confused, my multi-millon year old primitive brain can't handle it...

Can you understand what the problem might be with people taking you seriously?

Didn't realize a problem could arise from considering an alternative point of view. I could be wrong, I could be right, who gives a shit as long as every possible scenario is covered.

Is there a reason you felt the need to chime in here? Especially considering you offered nothing to the discussion, I'd think you just wanted to read your own words of insults. Self-satisfying are we now?
Dr_toad
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2014
Hummingbird ass.
sennekuyl
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2014
Hey runrig, your AGW Cult has trained you well. When faced with the truth, your response is to just spew garbage and filth. In fact, you can't even keep track of your lies anymore. You present graphs showing increasing temperatures during the last decade and increasing ocean heat. I guess no one told you the lie of increasing ocean heat was fabricated to explain away the fact that the planet has been cooling for the last 16 years.
I'm still waiting for a climate model that matches observed data.
http://judithcurr...an-heat/

Wait, we've lost 1 - 2 years? Is it 16, 17, or 18 years of cooling at higher temperatures than the previous 60?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2014
Antigoracle -
I'm still waiting for a climate model that matches observed data.


I did a little poking around on google - it seems to me in this post - your respected Judith Curry is reporting that the models actually do match the observed data quiet well.

http://judithcurr...parison/

I just love it when you Chicken Littles reveal your ignorance.
Right at the top of the page on your link, leads to the following:
http://curryja.fi...2012.pdf
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2014
Antigoracle - did you look at the graphs presented by Judith Curry? You asked for an example of a model that matches observed data. Dr. Curry gave it to you.
Budding Geologist
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
I wish people would refrain from the level of vitriol I see in this discussion... Why stoop to that level, no matter the amount of frustration. Anyways, the article stated we do not know why CO2 levels have dropped gradually since the Eocene. Modern grasses have only been extent since then and the more efficient C4 grasses are an even more recent development, so the hypothesis is that they increased the Earths capacity for CO2 fixation despite cooler temperatures allowing us to reach the punctuated equilibrium seen in the Pleistocene.
Budding Geologist
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
I wish people would refrain from the level of vitriol I see in this discussion... Why stoop to that level, no matter the amount of frustration. Anyways, the article stated we do not know why CO2 levels have dropped gradually since the Eocene. Modern grasses have only been extent since then and the more efficient C4 grasses are an even more recent development, so the hypothesis is that they increased the Earths capacity for CO2 fixation despite cooler temperatures allowing us to reach the punctuated equilibrium seen in the Pleistocene.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
Hey runrig, your AGW Cult has trained you well. When faced with the truth, your response is to just spew garbage and filth. In fact, you can't even keep track of your lies anymore. You present graphs showing increasing temperatures during the last decade and increasing ocean heat. I guess no one told you the lie of increasing ocean heat was fabricated to explain away the fact that the planet has been cooling for the last 16 years.
I'm still waiting for a climate model that matches observed data.
http://judithcurr...an-heat/

Wait, we've lost 1 - 2 years? Is it 16, 17, or 18 years of cooling at higher temperatures than the previous 60?


ROFL. I wish I could give you 10 points for that one.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2014
Nurse will be along shortly to change your diaper and give you your meds.
--calibantard
You sound like, you look and smell like, what I don't want in my diaper.
What's the fascination with diapers, are you a pervtard?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2014
Scroof said:
Didn't realize a problem could arise from considering an alternative point of view. I could be wrong, I could be right, who gives a shit as long as every possible scenario is covered.


What you don't understand is that some of us care about science. Your claim to be suspicious of GR, SR, and AGW would be fine if you could suggest something as an alternative. You don't offer anything other than derision at the articles that are published. If you want us to give regard to your "scenarios" then present some.

The idea that "every possible scenario" should be given serious consideration is without merit.

Your comments such as
This site is becoming a joke, with the same cast of clowns posting the same drivel over and over again.


add zero value to the debate. Give us an alternative if you want to be considered as someone interested in science. So far I haven't seen any science from you.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
I wish people would refrain from the level of vitriol I see in this discussion
@Budding Geologist
the discussion would be less vitriolic if the troll posters would provide links/references to legitimate sites/papers with real science. The vitriol comes from the long years (for some) of trying to convince the exact same people (sometimes under different profile names) of the exact same thing that has already been proven scientifically.
there are some people above that were given HUGE amounts of data proving plate tectonics, yet the individual in question refused to read the links because someone didn't make it easy for them to just read a blurb and go on... to which they argued with stupidity and blatantly debunked posts/links for days on end.
THIS is a religious like fanatical devotion to anti-science, or pseudoscience

what would YOU do after years (for some) of fighting that?
I wish I could give you 10 points for that one
@Thermo
just saw that!
thanks for pointing it out!
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
My point is this: there are many other variables in the climate equation that aren't being considered. For instance:
https://uk.news.y...#9wnboNP
Our magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than expected, but nothing to see here.

Scroofy:
It may surprise you - but I also am occasionally irritated by sciences position re SR/GR vs QM but it seems to me that that is merely human nature at work.
However with climate science it is simply unarguable that GHG's warm a planet. We know more solar is incoming than terrestrial IR outgoing. That is a simple imbalance that cannot be explained by magnetic fields, CR's or anything else but an excess of EM energy kept in the system. EM energy is not polarised and magnetism does not affect it.
We have to get real here and not seek out bizarre causations where none can exist.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2014
Didn't realize a problem could arise from considering an alternative point of view
@scroof
please read this from Dr. Keating:
"Contrary to claims by deniers, the scientific process examines and review all alternatives. That is one of the reasons it takes so long. It is also one of the reasons there is such a high level of confidence in the results. Many papers are published and presentations made at conventions that are then reviewed by the scientific community and found to have problems. In this manner, we examine all sorts of alternatives and slowly, but very surely, add to our understanding of the science. One of the false arguments deniers make is that climate scientists will only find evidence of global warming because that is what their funding is for. The truth is that climate scientist are in the business of studying the climate."

http://dialogueso...and.html

consider it considered
Tom_Andersen
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
If the models were not supposed to model short term variability, then why do they have short term rises and falls?

Since the models show short term variability, one would expect that simply varying the initial conditions slightly (which is done) would produce an ensemble of temperature records that include the current temperature record. They do not, at the 95% CL.
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2014
If the models were not supposed to model short term variability, then why do they have short term rises and falls?


Tom - they are models. They are of course not perfect representations of reality. There is still much we have to learn about the climate. Think about weather models. Sometimes they tell is it is going to rain tomorrow - and it doesn't. Do we reject weather models - and stop watching the forecasts? No - we understand that the models are working with the best data available - but are not perfect. They are accurate - up to a point. The further out you get in your predictions - the higher the likelihood they will be wrong. Same thing with tracking storms. That is why - when you look at projected storm tracks - they show an ever widening error bar. And different models show different tracks. Over time - the models get better - as we understand the systems better.

Antigoracle demands an example of a model that fits observation - Dr. Curry supplied one!!!
Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
would be fine if you could suggest something as an alternative

First, we don't need an alternative, we need to include other factors which are currently overlooked. I have supplied many between this post and the others I have commented on. The problem is, irregardless of the theory at hand, anything said against it gets you binned in the "crackpot" group.
EM energy is not polarised and magnetism does not affect it

You do release EM stands for electroMAGNETICS? Also, a CME is a highly charged burst of ionized plasma, which interferes heavily with earths magnetic field (northern lights is an easy one to see). Doesn't matter if it's polarized or not, it still influences the earth. And the earth's (normally) robust magnetic field is one of the main reasons we are able to live happily on this little blue dot. I don't have the data or equations to prove anything, but to dismiss it simply because your lot is satisfied with the current incomplete explanation of CO2 is foolish.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2014

Wait, we've lost 1 - 2 years? Is it 16, 17, or 18 years of cooling at higher temperatures than the previous 60?

I put 16 because I knew that is the highest you can count.
We don't want that single neuron in your head to explode now, do we.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2014
You do release EM stands for electroMAGNETICS? Also, a CME is a highly charged burst of ionized plasma, which interferes heavily with earths magnetic field (northern lights is an easy one to see). Doesn't matter if it's polarized or not, it still influences the earth. And the earth's (normally) robust magnetic field is one of the main reasons we are able to live happily on this little blue dot. I don't have the data or equations to prove anything, but to dismiss it simply because your lot is satisfied with the current incomplete explanation of CO2 is foolish.

I've said many times on here that there are influences on the Strat that filter down to the Trop and affect WEATHER - the effect is to reposition Low vs High pressure over the Arctic. That is NOT adding more W/m*2 of energy to the Earth's energy budget. Oh, and what do you think happens in the Ionosphere?
There's no recent correlation with solar activity-
http://www.skepti...nced.htm
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Scroffie said:
First, we don't need an alternative, we need to include other factors which are currently overlooked. I have supplied many between this post and the others I have commented on. The problem is, irregardless of the theory at hand, anything said against it gets you binned in the "crackpot" group.


Just because you think of something does not mean it has not already been tried and discarded. If it has been tried and discarded because of analysis that shows it is not an important factor, all you have to do is look up the analyses and show why they were wrong for us to want to consider it again. However, when you bring up something we have seen before that has already been analyzed you just look incompetent. I suggest you learn to use Google to research the things you want people to look at. Then bring up the issue and the fact that you have looked it up and that it has not been correctly researched. There is a lot already out there.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Scroofie says:
And the earth's (normally) robust magnetic field is one of the main reasons we are able to live happily on this little blue dot. I don't have the data or equations to prove anything, but to dismiss it simply because your lot is satisfied with the current incomplete explanation of CO2 is foolish.


What makes you think that others have not looked at the earth's magnetic field and its effect on AGW?

You make it clear that you can't prove anything but you want us to go out and look it up for you and prove what?

Can you even tell us how it might interact?

Here is one possible way. There is on-going research on the effect of the magnetic field on particles impacting the upper atmosphere and causing cloud seeding like particles do in cloud chambers. This was brought up years ago and initial investigations showed the impact would be minimal. However, there is still research going on to quantify it. You should have been able to find that on Google. Cont
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Continued: So, Scroofie, I don't give your interactions much credit because you don't do your homework. Instead, you just assume that because you have thought of something the climatologists have not. You could not be more wrong. So, you accuse everyone of some sort of conspiracy:

I don't have the data or equations to prove anything, but to dismiss it simply because your lot is satisfied with the current incomplete explanation of CO2 is foolish.


We dismiss it because it has already been looked at or is being looked at. If you are so dead set on figuring out how the magnetic field and CMEs are affecting AGW, go drum up some business with the EU guys. They will give you the kind of food for thought that you seem to want. Just keep in mind that every idea is not equal in science. In fact, you can go through and test the ideas and that is why yours don't count for much. You just don't seem to be able to test them.
Scroofinator
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2014
Wow thermo, quite the rant, I even got 3 posts out of you. I feel special.
So, you accuse everyone of some sort of conspiracy

Never said anything close to that.
There is on-going research on the effect of the magnetic field on particles impacting the upper atmosphere and causing cloud seeding like particles do in cloud chambers

I'm aware of this research, but I think the opposite effect would occur. Wouldn't it make more sense if the highly charged particles helped dissipate clouds, not seed them? Think of it this way, if you shot cotton candy with bird shot, you wouldn't have more cotton candy at the end.
http://www.lunarp...les.html
During the Maunder Min, there were very low numbers of sunspots/solar flares, which in my theory would lead to more cloud cover and more TSI being reflected, thus leading to colder weather. The Little Ice age is well known.

I've given you a cause and effect, should be easy for science to test.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2014
...............
During the Maunder Min, there were very low numbers of sunspots/solar flares, which in my theory would lead to more cloud cover and more TSI being reflected, thus leading to colder weather. The Little Ice age is well known.

I've given you a cause and effect, should be easy for science to test.

I've given you a cause and effect, should be easy for science to test.


It has, and has found no correlation with global temps. It has a correlation with some regional cooling around the globe, especially in the NH (though there are more proxies available there). We know western europe suffererd some notable cold winters. But then again the meteorological community know that the odds of a colder winter in W Euro is higher in a winter of low solar activity. In the winter hemisphere the Tropical Strat will be colder and the deltaT with the polar Strat decreased ... thereby weakening the Stratospheric Polar Vortex.

cont
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2014
cont

"....in the quiet bit of the solar cycle, when there is less UV to absorb, the stratosphere is relatively cooler.
The Hadley Centre model shows that the effects of this percolate down through the atmosphere, changing wind speeds, including the jet stream that circles the globe above Europe, North America and Russia.
The net change is a reduced air flow from west to east, which brings colder air to the UK and northern Europe and re-distributes temperatures across the region."
http://www.newsci...rop.html

http://science.na...climate/
http://www.realcl...minimum/

There was enhanced volcanic activity and aerosols during the time of the LIA also.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2014
but I think the opposite effect would occur
@scroof
this is the part where conspiracy comes in, really. you "think"... based upon NO empirical data or support. Your conclusions are drawn from your personal gut feelings without regard to the scientific method while thousands of man-hours are put into research getting empirical data supporting the conclusions of actual science
if you shot cotton candy
IS cotton candy part of a self-generating cycle like evaporation/clouds? THAT in itself undermines your whole analogy

Read Thermo's posts again... not really a rant as much as logic and an attempt to appeal to your scientific side- the scientific method

Thermo & runrig are talking science with established empirical data, so far you've given us this
but I think the opposite effect would occur
do you see the flaw in your logic?

support it with evidence and do some homework... and read the links being left for you

it really DOES help
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2014
Scroof: The reason people think that particles will produce clouds is that they do in a cloud Chamber. Originally built by Wilson in the 1920s. Those of us who went through physics classes in the 1960s and 1970s are familiar with them because they were used for particle detection. Nowdays they use other types of detectors and the cloud chambers are not used for anything other than classes.

http://en.wikiped..._chamber

There is no evidence that birdshot through cotton candy is anything like a particle trail through saturated water vapor.
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2014
Stump
quit screaming conspiracy, I have said none of the sort. Your annoyingly repetitive line of bs is already tough to deal with, quit trying to stuff words in my mouth.

Thermo,
thanks for the link. Basically in the cloud chamber water vapor gets hit with ions and forms droplets, leaving a trail along the path of the ion. Does that mean particles do interact with cloud formation? Solar flares and CMEs are essentially the Sun's shotgun.

This was another interesting thing:
A strong electric field is often used to draw cloud tracks down to the sensitive region of the chamber

So if strong electric fields can affect clouds, why wouldn't a strong magnetic field? Faraday's law of induction says it should. The earth is just a pretty big chamber.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2014
quit screaming conspiracy, I have said none of the sort
@scroof
if you would be so kind as to look back at the conversation, Thermo said (and you answered
So, you accuse everyone of some sort of conspiracy
Never said anything close to that
to which I added an explanation which is how others derive the "conspiracy" from your comments. I was not stuffing words in your mouth, but explaining why your viewpoint can be considered conspiratorial from an outside or objective POV.

please read the whole comment in context before jumping to conclusions. I CAN clarify my statements when needed, you know... unless I feel that you are being lazy and not reading the material provided at all, like with the Geology/plate tectonics issue.
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2014
to which I added an explanation which is how others derive the "conspiracy"

Personal conjecture based on a bias.

So your interpretation is valid for everyone else? Why don't we let people speak for themselves.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2014
So your interpretation is valid for everyone else? Why don't we let people speak for themselves.
@scroog
CAN does not mean IS, or WILL... perhaps remedial reading is on order?

People have the ability to speak then let them,,, I was trying to help you, but if you wish to remain ignorant, so be it.

you ARE really good at that... must take years of practice
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
I was trying to help you

Haha, the only thing you were trying to help is your pathetic rating on this site from your little lemmings lackeys.

but if you wish to remain ignorant, so be it.

Ignorant is as ignorant does, bitch
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Ignorant is as ignorant does, bitch


Really - tossing around hateful, misogynistic insults. That's how you want to persuade?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2014
Ignorant is as ignorant does, bitch


Really - tossing around hateful, misogynistic insults. That's how you want to persuade?

Wasn't there just an article on Physorg about if you want to change someones view on something - strongly agree with them . Didn't read it, but that's the gist of the article title..
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2014
Ignorant is as ignorant does, bitch


Really - tossing around hateful, misogynistic insults. That's how you want to persuade?

Wasn't there just an article on Physorg about if you want to change someones view on something - strongly agree with them . Didn't read it, but that's the gist of the article title..

Here it is - http://medicalxpr...ely.html
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Ignorant is as ignorant does, bitch


Really - tossing around hateful, misogynistic insults. That's how you want to persuade?
@strangedays
considering the complete lack of intellectual skills, logic, or ability to argue intelligibly (which would necessitate intelligence and the ability to comprehend English as well as the content provided).. what else does she have?
Aunti-g has YET to provide any content other than TROLLING posts... I've never seen any scientific arguments, logical posts, or intelligent thought to date: only immature posturings, ranting and hostility for anyone with intelligence.(speaks volumes about character and mental status)
Whydening Gyre
3.5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2014
Ignorant is as ignorant does, bitch


Really - tossing around hateful, misogynistic insults. That's how you want to persuade?
@strangedays
considering the complete lack of intellectual skills, logic, or ability to argue intelligibly (which would necessitate intelligence and the ability to comprehend English as well as the content provided).. what else does she have?
Aunti-g has YET to provide any content other than TROLLING posts... I've never seen any scientific arguments, logical posts, or intelligent thought to date: only immature posturings, ranting and hostility for anyone with intelligence.(speaks volumes about character and mental status)

Geez, Cp'n. I hope you are not driving when you type all that out...:-)
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Ignorant is as ignorant does, bitch


Really - tossing around hateful, misogynistic insults. That's how you want to persuade?
@strangedays
considering the complete lack of intellectual skills, logic, or ability to argue intelligibly (which would necessitate intelligence and the ability to comprehend English as well as the content provided).. what else does she have?
Aunti-g has YET to provide any content other than TROLLING posts... I've never seen any scientific arguments, logical posts, or intelligent thought to date: only immature posturings, ranting and hostility for anyone with intelligence.(speaks volumes about character and mental status)

Geez, Cp'n. I hope you are not driving when you type all that out...:-)

haven't left yet... waiting on the crowd to get motivated. sigh.
maybe in 10?
one can only hope...
PEACE

OOPS! just got my walking orders! C-ya!
DoieaS
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
Nevertheless, global climate models seem to indicate that such a high temperature only can be maintained in a world with high carbon dioxide; no other combination of factors can explain it.
The carbon dioxide levels advance the periods of global warming at both short, both large temporal scales, which disproves the carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming. The elevated carbon dioxide levels are the consequence of it. Also, the high variability of global temperatures in the past effectively doubts the contribution of human factor to global warming. Such a warming cannot be explained even with terrestrial effects, but with cosmic origin, like the mutual constellation of planets and passing through clouds of dark matter in the galaxy.
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
which disproves the carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming.


No it doesn't

See - I dealt with nonsense easily. What was that - you want some support for my opinion. Well you did not provide any support. Oh fine - if you really insist.

http://www.scient...p-solve/

Interesting comment about the mutual constellation of planets there. Any research and data to support that idea?
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Really - tossing around hateful, misogynistic insults

No hate intended, just pointing out a fact, and I wasn't the first one to toss around insults. It seems that's you and the mainstream crews fall back option when you don't have any insightful or witty comments to make.

For instance I posted some interesting observations on cloud chambers a few comments up, and nobody has even tried to respond yet. All that has been said since sounds like a middle school cat fight, hardly real science talk.

I'll just start with the second point, no need to get into how particles affect clouds, I think that part is pretty clear.

A strong electric field is often used to draw cloud tracks down to the sensitive region of the chamber


Basically, science says magnetic fields (via Farraday's law of induction) have the ability to affect weather systems, yet all you AGW fundamentalists consistently say there is no effect. Are you all just in denial, or can't comprehend the significance?
Dr_toad
4 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
Maybe the problem lies elsewhere. Did you find Farraday's law on Breitbart? That could explain why you can't spell it, don't understand it, and have absolutely no clue what you're bleating about.

Basically.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2014
No hate intended,


You call someone a bitch - and then say no hate intended - really?

Are you all just in denial, or can't comprehend the significance?


I see you as the one in denial. Surely you understand that science does not get litigated on the comments section of a web site. There is (appropriately) a process. If you hypothesize that magnetic fields are causal in climate changes - then you demonstrate your reasoning - and begin a line of research. I expect that has already been done. One of the first steps in the process is a literature search - see who else is working in this area.

Hey - good luck on your new venture.

DoieaS
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2014
You call someone a bitch - and then say no hate intended - really?
Just downvote & report him, such an asocials have nothing to do in discussions with normal people.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2014
You call someone a bitch - and then say no hate intended - really?

Yup, pretty much. I'm not one for hating, but I will respond accordingly when habitually attacked for something so simple as a different view. It seems that's the only way to make a point with you closed minded simpletons.
That could explain why you can't spell it

So I add an extra r and now the argument is invalid? What a great scientific mind at work you have there.

Go on, try to explain to me how Faraday's law doesn't apply here. I doubt you can, seeing as you likely won't find any sources to cherry pick your views from.
Dr_toad
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2014
Why should I bother to help with the education you denied yourself? Your different view is from the stance of abject ignorance, and your response is childish abuse.

What do you expect, adulation for your inability to reason?
Shootist
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
"Generally speaking, I'm much more of a conformist, but it happens I have strong views about climate because I think the majority is badly wrong, and you have to make sure if the majority is saying something that they're not talking nonsense." - Freeman Dyson

"What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate." - Freeman Dyson

As a general rule, if Freeman Dyson doesn't understand something, you don't, either.
Dr_toad
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2014
Hanlon was a pollyanna. You're just a stubby, chump.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
You call someone a bitch - and then say no hate intended - really?

Yup, pretty much. I'm not one for hating, but I will respond accordingly when habitually attacked for something so simple as a different view. It seems that's the only way to make a point with you closed minded simpletons.
That could explain why you can't spell it

So I add an extra r and now the argument is invalid? What a great scientific mind at work you have there.

Go on, try to explain to me how Faraday's law doesn't apply here. I doubt you can, seeing as you likely won't find any sources to cherry pick your views from.


Snater,

What you display here is not a "different view" just more boilerplate, tagteam, denialist shillery in the face of ongoing, document/citation-supported peer-reviewed science in takedownafter takedownaftertakedownaftertakedown of this so-called skeptic's stance.

This constant battle is tiresome, indeed, and our patience is wearing thin.

Now, piss off.

Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
"Generally speaking, I'm much more of a conformist, but it happens I have strong views about climate because I think the majority is badly wrong, and you have to make sure if the majority is saying something that they're not talking nonsense." - Freeman Dyson

"What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate." - Freeman Dyson

As a general rule, if Freeman Dyson doesn't understand something, you don't, either.


That's right, shooty, so maybe you and Dyson, -Freeman Dyson can get together in an igloo with some Fine Polar Bears and come to a real understanding of your shared lack of understanding.

Your attempts at avuncular sarcasm are as awkward, missapplied, and mishandled as snater's boilerplate denialist shillery is tiresome.

Why don't you make an effort to contribute something of substance to the discussion next time?
Dr_toad
4 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2014
Cold comfort, eh?
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
denialist shillery in the face of ongoing, document/citation-supported peer-reviewed science

Well CaliToad, nobody has actually debated with me after Thermo left, so obviously your still looking for sources. It's ok, I'll entertain your profane denial until you find some PR article to tell you what to say.

I have 2 current "different views" that everyone's been sidestepping (BTW they were from Thermo's source):
First, charged particles do interact with clouds, and they help disperse clouds when water vapor condenses on said particles.
Second, weather can also be affected by strong magnetic fields via induction, as evidenced by the following:
A strong electric field is often used to draw cloud tracks down to the sensitive region of the chamber

Listen, AGW isn't wrong, I completely agree that GHG are poisoning us, but that's not the whole story.

Science aims to eliminate all unknowns, but without imagination(and luck) we won't even be able to find the unknown unknowns.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
Go on, try to explain to me how Faraday's law doesn't apply here. I doubt you can, seeing as you likely won't find any sources to cherry pick your views from
@scroof
again, you miss the point. in science, accuracy is fairly important... also, you should really go BACK a few post and re-read Strange
science does not get litigated on the comments section of a web site. There is (appropriately) a process. ...One of the first steps in the process is a literature search - see who else is working in this area
In the past, you have demonstrated a lack of initiative to read actual science in regard to a particular issue... for proof see: http://phys.org/n...ics.html

You made the claim without substantiating it with proof, it requires NO proof to rebut. If you should choose to add proof, you will receive proof from actual studies. I WOULD suggest you actually READING them if you get proof though, it will help your argument
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
nobody has actually debated with me after Thermo left
@scrood
you've posted NO empirical data supporting your conclusions, so there is NO DEBATE. you are making a conjecture and Thermo gave you some hard science. what is there to debate other than your spelling?
First, charged particles do interact with clouds
known and already accounted for in the research that gives the empirical data to the models
Second, weather can also be affected by strong magnetic fields via induction, as evidenced by the following
again, already accounted for in studies. You are assuming a much HIGHER power to affect with NO empirical evidence to support your conclusions...

perhaps you have a study that you can share supporting your proclamations?

Then perhaps we can actually debate a KNOWN or discuss eh UNKNOWN... otherwise there is FAR too much data to sift thru just for conjecture or comment.

that is why that page challenged anti-agw believers... the overwhelming scientific data
Dr_toad
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
Why try to reason with someone who can't? He's happy to be stupid.
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
Here you go:
http://www.solars...ver.html
Over even longer periods, we are forced to resort to indices based on isotope abundance, such as C-14 in tree rings and Be-10 in ice cores. In Fig 5 we show the inferred change in low-cloud factor from the Heliocentric Potential, an interplanetary magnetic field index calculated by O'Brien (1979) which is based on a combination of carbon isotope concentration in tree-rings, the aa index and cosmic ray flux. This index suggests a significant increase in low-cloud factor during the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), leading to an increased albedo for Earth and a cooler climate during this time.

Pretty sure that was my hypothesis as well.
It is worthwhile noticing that at epochs of sunspot maxima, solar irradiance is enhanced and the low cloud cover is reduced together with the Earth's albedo. The opposite effect occurs at sunspot minima.

So essentially they found a strong correlation between cloud cover and sunspots/CMEs.
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
Also of note:
Only for the low cloud was there any significant correlation with cosmic ray flux, but this appears to be widespread across the globe with a significant degree of correlation globally, in the tropics and in mid-latitudes, particularly over the oceans.

Interesting considering the current bombardment of typhoons on the eastern Pacific.
Also, we suspect that the physical state of the cloud droplets may play a significant role in the cosmic ray-cloud interaction.

and finally
Taken at face value, our results imply that, possibly excluding the last decade or so when an accentuated rise in global temperatures is widely accepted to have occurred as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect, most of the global warming of the twentieth century can be quantitatively explained by the combined direct (irradiance) and indirect (cosmic ray induced low cloud) effects of solar activity.

Funny they have to appease AGW just to get the paper published...
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2014
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2014
Well CaliToad, nobody has actually debated with me after Thermo left, so obviously your still looking for sources. It's ok, I'll entertain your profane denial until you find some PR article to tell you what to say.

I have 2 current "different views" that everyone's been sidestepping (BTW they were from Thermo's source):


No one is sidestepping them. They are IRRELEVAnt at worst, or only somewhat relevant, at best. More cherry-picked distractions, and all without citations, ie -boilerplate denialist shillery:

First, charged particles do interact with clouds, and they help disperse clouds when water vapor condenses on said particles.
Second, weather can also be affected by strong magnetic fields via induction, as evidenced by the following:
A strong electric field is often used to draw cloud tracks down to the sensitive region of the chamber


So goddam what? When was the last Munder Minimum that featured atmospheric CO2 levels of 400+ppm?

Now do you get it?
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2014
Listen, AGW isn't wrong, I completely agree that GHG are poisoning us, but that's not the whole story.


No, YOU listen, scroty--

The whole story IS CO2/GHG AGW effects. They are causing an increase in surface temperatures, globally, that will --if left unchecked-- lead inevitably to the extinction or near extinction of countless species, quite possibly on an order to rival the Great Dying event, itself.
This is before, during, and after the collapse of civilization as we know it, accompanied by unimaginable strife and suffering for humanity on a Global scale --not just in local conflicts, disease outbreaks, and famines.

All your tired bullshit boilerplate denialist shillery does is gum up the wheels, and slow any progress toward official and public recognition that the crisis exists, and that it needs urgently to be addressed on a global scale.

Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
Science aims to eliminate all unknowns, but without imagination(and luck) we won't even be able to find the unknown unknowns.


Do you know what this statement is, scroty?

It is an example of what is technically termed "nit-picking" --in other words, a case of focusing upon a detail -usually irrelevant- while failing to address the LARGE, LOOMING, ISSUE at hand.

Your two different views may indeed have some merit from a scientific viewpoint, but they are at best- only very minor contributing, subsidiary factors in AGW, as their effects are entirely overwhelmed by the those of Anthropogenic(that's the "A") -derived CO2/GHGs to Global(that's the "G") atmospheric thermal properties, causing an increase in Warming(that's the "W") to global surface temperatures.

And resorting to rummyisms doesn't bolster your case --but rather has exactly the opposite effect of casting a shadow of intentional fraud and chicanery over anything it's said in reference to.

Got it now, scroty?

Shootist
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2014
The polar bears will be fine.

Until someone shows me all the dead and drowned polar bears, a pox upon your AGW house.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
Until someone shows me all the dead and drowned polar bears, a pox upon your AGW house.


A nice synopsis of your position on the issue of global warming - thanks for sharing. I will paraphrase.

"I am not interested in studying our world - or in worrying about the future - f**k the bears, and all the other wild life - why should we should we give a shit?"
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
The polar bears will be fine.

Until someone shows me all the dead and drowned polar bears, a pox upon your AGW house.

What a strange chap.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2014
Until someone shows me all the dead and drowned polar bears, a pox upon your AGW house.


A nice synopsis of your position on the issue of global warming - thanks for sharing. I will paraphrase.

"I am not interested in studying our world - or in worrying about the future - f**k the bears, and all the other wild life - why should we should we give a shit?"

Yep, selfishness.
That's the top and bottom of it.
IMO the vilest human trait.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
Here you go: http://www.solars...ver.html
Pretty sure that was my hypothesis as well
So essentially they found a strong correlation between cloud cover and sunspots
@Scroof
first let me thank you for providing a link and reference
second.. may I ask WHY said paper was pulled from the Armagh Observatory site?
http://star.arm.a...41epb.ps
we suspect ...play a significant role in the cosmic ray-cloud interaction
&
an accentuated rise in global temperatures is widely accepted to have occurred as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect, most of the global warming of the twentieth century can be quantitatively explained by the combined direct (irradiance) and indirect (cosmic ray induced low cloud) effects of solar activity
instead of flooding the site, I will just post this link which explains what I would like to share:

http://skepticals...nced.pdf
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
So essentially they found a strong correlation between cloud cover and sunspots/CMEs.
@scroof
that link I posted has a lot of info on it rebutting your post about CME's and suggestions about how much influence it has had over the global warming issue. I hope you actually READ this link, unlike last time... It not only as information, but also references STUDIES and papers supporting the position stated in the link.
Funny they have to appease AGW just to get the paper published...
well, they are making a claim about global warming.. and in fact they are suggesting that GHG's are not responsible for the warming... which is not logical when you look at all the science (see all the papers and explanations on the link I left)
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2014
Caliban, dude, you need to pump the brakes. Fire and brimstone isn't very becoming of science.

They are IRRELEVAnt at worst, or only somewhat relevant, at best.

Well, I've provided a peer reviewed paper from some of your scientists that corroborates with what I've been saying, along with plenty of other cites in it. What more does your majesty require for a civil discussion?

All your tired bullshit boilerplate denialist shillery does is gum up the wheels, and slow any progress toward official and public recognition that the crisis exists, and that it needs urgently to be addressed on a global scale.

So 1/4 of the population doesn't agree
http://www.gallup...ing.aspx
Does that mean everyone must conform? With terms like "Concerned Believers" being tossed around, it sounds kinda religious to me.

The public should be aware of a problem, the majority is, but how are going to address a problem we don't fully understand?
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2014
Your two different views may indeed have some merit from a scientific viewpoint

Well thanks for acknowledging the Sun in relation to climate.
but they are at best- only very minor contributing, subsidiary factors in AGW, as their effects are entirely overwhelmed by the those of Anthropogenic(that's the "A") -derived CO2/GHGs to Global(that's the "G") atmospheric thermal properties, causing an increase in Warming(that's the "W") to global surface temperatures.

Debatable.
fraud and chicanery over anything it's said in reference to.

Just because it came from a scumbag's mouth doesn't make it any less valid. Do you need an explanation of an unknown unknown? It's something that we live in complete ignorance of, all the while never imagining that we didn't know it. Gravity is one example, EM, QM, etc... It took observation and imagination to birth these ideas, not rage filled sermons of conformity.
Scroofinator
1.9 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
Stumpy,
That source is getting quite recycled, I think Runrig posted it first, followed by Thermo. Do try to find something fresh. Anyways, here's one of my favorite tidbits from it:
So the jury is still out regarding whether or not there's a long-term trend in low-level cloud cover.

They don't know for sure, and admit it. Why can't you?

Let's be honest, all AGW has is observation and loose correlation, not a true theory that describes the weather processes of the Earth.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
They don't know for sure, and admit it. Why can't you?
@scroof
I've never had a problem admitting to empirical evidence, and that is what it says

your argument was
First, charged particles do interact with clouds, and they help disperse clouds when water vapor condenses on said particles.
Second, weather can also be affected by strong magnetic fields via induction, as evidenced by the following:
with regard to the AGW, right?
my POV is simple and supported by the post: studies have shown that GCRs exert a minor influence over low-level cloud cover, solar magnetic field has not increased in recent decades, nor has GCR flux on Earth decreased. if GCRs did have a significant impact on global temperatures, they would have had a net cooling effect over the past 50 years, especially over the past strongest warming years.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
Let's be honest, all AGW has is observation and loose correlation, not a true theory that describes the weather processes of the Earth.
@scroof
you started this debate with figuring out how the magnetic field and CMEs are affecting AGW, and you were given a link that helps you prove that though
the jury is still out regarding whether or not there's a long-term trend in low-level cloud cover
there is plenty of empirical evidence supporting the claims of Thermo above and my post saying essentially that your processes are being taken into consideration and dealt with, as well as researched, and they've been found lacking the power to make the changes that anti-AGW groups claim.

Also, there is no "loose correlation" but EMPIRICAL evidence in the science behind global warming. It is the denier who has "loose correlations" to which they assign far greater import than deserved.
And when proven wrong, they will jump to something else or claim conspiracy.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
That source is getting quite recycled, I think Runrig posted it first, followed by Thermo. Do try to find something fresh. Anyways, here's one of my favorite tidbits from it
@scroof
lastly, recycled or not, it contains some really good information. It doesn't matter HOW many times it is recycled if it has relevant info.

Yes, it has a quote that you want to lock onto like a bull-dog... but is it saying what you think it is saying?

that link essentially undermined your whole argument above against Thermo, and your stance on global warming (as posted thus far). The only support you could get out of it was the quote you gave, to which I fully support until proven otherwise (that is how science works)

It is good to see you actually read the link, too.
I hope you learned something important about warming from it and about science: It doesn't matter what you WANT to believe, it only matters what the empirical evidence says.
I've argued this point on numerous threads not only AGW.
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
Well thanks for acknowledging the Sun in relation to climate.


We're way past that, moron.

but they are at best- only very minor contributing, subsidiary factors in AGW, as their effects are entirely overwhelmed by the those of Anthropogenic(that's the "A") -derived CO2/GHGs to Global(that's the "G") atmospheric thermal properties, causing an increase in Warming(that's the "W") to global surface temperatures.

Debatable.


No. And you aren't smart enough to derail this argument with dimestore, boilerplate, denialist shillery, either
fraud and chicanery over anything it's said in reference to[...]

Do you need an explanation of an unknown unknown?[/q.]

No, moron.

Even if you were talking about an "unknown unknown", which you aren't, using the rummyism
-as I said- creates an impression of chicanery, simply by association, and especially so when you try to pedal your bullshit denialist shillery in the same breath.

When was the last Maunder Minimum with 400+ppm CO2?
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2014
Stumpy,

That source is getting quite recycled, [...] fresh. Anyways, here's one of my favorite tidbits from it: So the jury is still out regarding whether or not there's a long-term trend in low-level cloud cover.

They don't know for sure, and admit it. Why can't you?

Let's be honest, all AGW has is observation and loose correlation, not a true theory that describes the weather processes of the Earth.


Nah --let's be more honest, still, and state the obvious-- you'll glom on any item that offers the slightest promise of confusing or distracting(and flooding the comments with a lavish smearing of this mud) attention from the overriding fact that AGW is verified and established science, and therefore, because of the dire existential threat it represents, must be dealt with.

For anyone besides yourself, it's not about how much money you plan to make via your narcissistic denialist shillery.

Your mud isn't substantial enough to stick, dirt-dauber.

Now, piss off.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
Scroofy...

Regardless of any possible causation regarding CR's and magnetic fields I posted a graph showing Solar activity vs global average temps. Can you please either point out any correlation on there between the two, or else find and post evidence of any. The solar cycle is cyclic, it goes up and down with a period of 11 years. Meanwhile, apart from the pause in significant atmospheric temp rise the climate system continues to store heat.
sirfiroth
1 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2014
In reading these post, If all of you guys are examples of the best and brightest scientific minds in the country, as we have been told you are, we as a civilization are in deep trouble. Your arguments supporting AGW are nothing more than pseudo-scientific rhetoric!
Out of the thousands of peer reviewed papers written there is not one based on empirical evidence that shows CO2 to be causative of temperature rise.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
Out of the thousands of peer reviewed papers written there is not one based on empirical evidence that shows CO2 to be causative of temperature rise.


How do you know this sirfiroth? Have you read every one of these papers - to determine that not one has empirical evidence that shows C02 to be causative or temperature rise. Have you see the graphs of C02 and temperature over geological time? Here is an example. http://www.c2es.o...co-2.png

And another - http://www.ncdc.n...ange.jpg

Would you agree that both of those graphs show a pretty impressive correlation? Now - correlation does not equal causation - but we have a pretty impressive correlation - right?- so the objective now is to identify the driver of this correlation. Do you have any explanations? Have you really read all of these thousands of peer reviewed papers - to conclude that not one shows empirical evidence of the causal nature here.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
to determine that not one has empirical evidence that shows C02 to be causative or temperature rise.

Don't need to read them all, history tells us that CO2 levels typically rise during this part of the interglacial period. Please see figure 2 under "Global Temperature":
http://climate4you.com/
According to ice core analysis, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the atmospheric CO2 concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm. The present interglacial is about 2 degC colder than the previous interglacial, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration now is about 100 ppm higher.

So we are at higher CO2 concentration, yet overall global temperatures are cooler than the previous cycles.

Error, error, does not compute...
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
Don't need to read them all,


Sure you do. In order to stipulate that 'not one of those papers' contains a certain proof - you have to have read all the papers. Pretty basic logic there.

Did you look at the second graph I referenced? Do you honestly not see that there has been a very strong correlation between C02 and temps over geological time? Do you have an explanation for such a strong correlation? Error Error does not compute - well first you have to turn on the computer....

I did try to look at figure 2 under "global temperature" - could not figure out what you were talking about - or why you were referencing that particular figure.
sirfiroth
1 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
How do you know this sirfiroth? Have you read every one of these papers - to determine that not one has empirical evidence that shows C02 to be causative or temperature rise.


I don't have to read them! if that one paper did exist it would be plastered all over the internet supporting anthropogenic global warming! Then I too would be a believer in AGW.
Perhaps you could supply the link to that one special paper?
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
How do you know this sirfiroth? Have you read every one of these papers - to determine that not one has empirical evidence that shows C02 to be causative or temperature rise.


I don't have to read them! if that one paper did exist it would be plastered all over the internet supporting anthropogenic global warming! Then I too would be a believer in AGW.
Perhaps you could supply the link to that one special paper?


Uh, yeah...

Tell you what, sirfiroth --why don't you produce "that one special paper" that unequivocally states that you can -better still, that you've been trained to- type.

If it's the latter of the two, then we'll know that you're at least as smart as a monkey, yes?

That shouldn't be at all difficult, since you've typed your comment into the box at bad old socialist, watermelon, ecoterrorist, AGW-lovin' PhysOrg.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
Do you honestly not see that there has been a very strong correlation between C02 and temps over geological time?

I'm not saying that at all, the data clearly show's that has been the case for at least the last 400k years, up until the industrial revolution. We clearly have increased the CO2 levels, around 100ppm based on the average over the last 3 interglacial periods.

The point is we have increased GHG significantly, but we are no longer warming. AGW doesn't really cause global warming as they first thought, although it's effect could prove to be just as bad. I hypothesize that GHG actually causes more extreme weather, in all seasons. Think about it, essentially we are putting more gas/particles in the air to add to the clouds and storms we currently would be having due to the low solar cycle. The clouds would be heaver which is why we see more low level cloud cover, instead of a more even distribution throughout the upper atmosphere.

sirfiroth
1 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
Tell you what, sirfiroth --why don't you produce "that one special paper" that unequivocally states that you can -better still, that you've been trained to- type.


I do hope you realize how non sequitur your comments prove to be, but it's always humorous to read your 'I really have nothing useful to contribute so I'll attack someone's creditability post'! They always seem to add a morsel of nonintellectual humor to these pages.
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2014
Tell you what, sirfiroth --why don't you produce "that one special paper" that unequivocally states that you can -better still, that you've been trained to- type.


I do hope you realize how non sequitur your comments prove to be, but it's always humorous to read your 'I really have nothing useful to contribute so I'll attack someone's creditability post'! They always seem to add a morsel of nonintellectual humor to these pages.


Thanks, for the compliment, sirfiroth-- but it is misdirected, since you got to the party with that honor before I got there.

As for your _non sequitur_ jibe, well-- I thought that the analogy might help you to bridge the divide between demanding a single, "special" paper proving AGW, and understanding that AGW has been established through a massive preponderation of the evidence, as has nearly all science.

See if you can find a single "special paper" that proves Quantum Mechanics, for instance.

Oh --and I think you meant "credibility".
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2014
In reading these post, If all of you guys are examples of the best and brightest scientific minds in the country, as we have been told you are, we as a civilization are in deep trouble
@sirfiroth
C'mon, REALLY?
If YOU are any indication of the current generations ability ro read and comprehend English, then we are TOTALLY screwed!
1- this is a PUBLIC science site (PUBLIC)
2- This site is on the WWW (note your address bar in your browser)
3- This site is filled with a whole range of PSEUDOSCIENCE posters and some like above who cannot or will not accept empirical data nor scientific evidence
4- there are only a COUPLE of scientists on here that I know of... a couple students too there is NO requirement for a person even being intelligent to get a profile. See Antigoracle or Rygg for more details.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) 23 hours ago
I don't have to read them! if that one paper did exist it would be plastered all over the internet supporting anthropogenic global warming! Then I too would be a believer in AGW.
Perhaps you could supply the link to that one special paper?
@sirfiroth
1- there isn't just ONE paper, there are THOUSANDS supporting the evidence
Lets start here... really small... http://blogs.scie...sagrees/
you can see based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming and found EXACTLY ONE! just ONE that suggests something different.

then go here: http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf

now the kicker... you want JUST ONE PAPER when there are THOUSANDS proving it...

your comments are no better than the TROLLS/SPAMMERS here.
LEARN TO RESEARCH
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) 23 hours ago
I do hope you realize how non sequitur your comments prove to be, but it's always humorous to read your 'I really have nothing useful to contribute so I'll attack someone's creditability post'!
@sirfiroth
we wasn't JUST attacking your credibility, he was showing you where you completely FAILED to make even a BASIC argument for your position.

You make a claim: AGW is false because there is no 1 paper proving it.
Guess what: there are THOUSANDS proving it... as shown in those links I left... perhaps you should START by READING SOME OF THOSE PEER REVIEWED PAPERS and then speaking intelligently about the reasons why one or more might be wrong.

OR
go here http://dialogueso...nge.html
and PROVE, using the scientific method that you are correct. then you win $$$$, and respect WORLDWIDE.

a SIMPLE proposition. We will wait and see where you go from here.
Dr_toad
5 / 5 (5) 23 hours ago
Captain, 10 year-olds don't know anything, and they know it. 15 year-olds know everything, but we don't know it. 40 year-olds are starting to get it, then some of them go like ryg and shut down all knowledge and any desire for it to preach hatred and insulate themselves from change.

I truly don't know what antig's problem is, because he's not old enough to have had any changes yet, and I doubt he will. Maybe the flying spaghetti monster can help him?

Nah, what the hell am I saying?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) 23 hours ago
Captain, 10 year-olds don't know anything, and they know it. 15 year-olds know everything, but we don't know it. 40 year-olds are starting to get it, then some of them go like ryg and shut down all knowledge and any desire for it to preach hatred and insulate themselves from change.

I truly don't know what antig's problem is, because he's not old enough to have had any changes yet, and I doubt he will. Maybe the flying spaghetti monster can help him?

Nah, what the hell am I saying?


Whatever age antig is he is definitely juvenile.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) 22 hours ago
@Sirfiroth - I found one - I found - only took me a couple of minutes on google - based on the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community - I am sure there are plenty more - but one should be enough to shut you up - sighhhh - I know it wont.

https://www.eumet...Released
runrig
5 / 5 (5) 19 hours ago
@Sirfiroth - I found one -
https://www.eumet...Released


"Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes. In the present work, this analysis is being extended to 2006 using the TES instrument on the AURA spacecraft. Additionally, simulated spectra have been calculated using LBLRTM with inputs from the HadGEM1 coupled model and compared to the
observed satellite spectra."

Understand? - No, your problem not ours. Now go back to WUWT and fanboy with the converted.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) 13 hours ago
Scoofinator
The point is we have increased GHG significantly, but we are no longer warming.


I wish you could understand how completely false that statement is. It is fundamental to the issue of climate change. We ARE still warming. I think you just surpassed UBA - in terms of your level of ignorance. I am not going to repeat all the links - but the fact is - the ice sheets/glaciers are melting, the oceans are warming, the oceans are rising - and yes - the surface temps are on a plateau - but look at this one graphic - and tell me we are not warming. http://www.ncdc.n...arge.jpg
sirfiroth
1 / 5 (7) 13 hours ago
Captain Stumpy said:
there isn't just ONE paper, there are THOUSANDS supporting the evidence
Lets start here... really small... http://blogs.scie...sagrees/

now the kicker... you want JUST ONE PAPER when there are THOUSANDS proving it...it..


When in science does anyone prove anything? And you provide an irrelevant argument from authority? What has that got to do with science? There is no consensus in science!
Unfortunately for your cause those thousands of papers are unsupported by empirical evidence!

I said: "Out of the thousands of peer reviewed papers written there is not one based on empirical evidence showing CO2 to be causative of temperature rise."
You do realize without that one paper I seek, the thousands of papers you tout are meaningless, nothing more than opinion and speculation?
JohnGee
5 / 5 (4) 13 hours ago
Sirfiroth, there are appeals to authority, and then there are fallacious appeals to authority. An appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious if the authority appealed to is an authority on the subject at hand.

Your confusing the two makes you look extremely ignorant.
Dr_toad
5 / 5 (6) 13 hours ago
Sir Froth, your opinion of science has no affect on science, thanks to science. Your speculations on science will never be more than farts in a windstorm.
sirfiroth
1 / 5 (7) 12 hours ago
Strangedays wrote:
I found one - I found - only took me a couple of minutes on google - based on the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community - I am sure there are plenty more - but one should be enough to shut you up - sighhhh - I know it wont.
https://www.eumet...Released


LOL, Based on the overwhelming OPINION of the scientific community you say? As it turns out is just another computer model. Sorry strangedays, computer models are not empirical evidence and nowhere does it single out CO2 as being causative of mid level or upper tropospheric temperature rise.

But you might find this of interest: http://judithcurr...ratures/
"The failure of data to support warming in the troposphere is a serious problem for the credibility of climate models and would seem to contradict the view that continuously rising CO2 is continuously driving up TLT".
sirfiroth
1 / 5 (7) 11 hours ago
runrig wrote:
Additionally, simulated spectra have been calculated using LBLRTM with inputs from the HadGEM1 coupled model and compared to the
observed satellite spectra."

Understand?


Completely, it is evident you have no real interest in a proper scientific debate on anthropogenic global warming knowing full well science does not support your position. Evidently you seek only to defend pseudo-scientific AGW rhetoric thus revealing your own personal level of scientific integrity.
FYI, regarding WUWT I am not registered on the board never posted there, but now that you mention it I might do so. Additionally you evidently do not grasp the difference between computer models and empirical evidence? Here is a clue, when someone says, 'simulated spectra have been calculated using LBLRTM' it just might be a clue that it is a computer model and computer models are not empirical evidence. We all see how well that worked out between IPCC models and empirical evidence...
sirfiroth
1 / 5 (6) 11 hours ago
John Gee wrote:
Sirfiroth, there are appeals to authority, and then there are fallacious appeals to authority. An appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious if the authority appealed to is an authority on the subject at hand.

Your confusing the two makes you look extremely ignorant.


Amazingly you are right, not about my being ignorant, but about strangedays appeal to authority would be fallacious, since there is reason to believe that his experts claim is being made because of bias or prejudice. Not to mention without any supporting empirical evidence.

Out of the thousands of peer reviewed papers written there is not one based on empirical evidence showing CO2 to be causative of temperature rise. Do you have that peer reviewed paper?

I know you will just post more moronic distractions in an attempt to coverup the fact you don't have that paper either.
sirfiroth
1 / 5 (6) 11 hours ago
Dr toad wrote;

Sir Froth, your opinion of science has no affect on science, thanks to science. Your speculations on science will never be more than farts in a windstorm.


Yea, you are probably right, all I have is empirical evidence to support my opinion and speculations....
Dr_toad
5 / 5 (5) 11 hours ago
Then present evidence, not opinion.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) 9 hours ago
There is no consensus in science
@sirfrothi
if by consensus you mean that science is not made by voting on the popularity of a piece, then you are right. HOWEVER, the consensus in this case is simply the OVERWHELMING preponderance of information and empirical data supporting the conclusions, NOT some general assembly taking a vote
Unfortunately for your cause those thousands of papers are unsupported by empirical evidence
are you really that stupid?
THOSE THOUSANDS OF PAPERS are PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, not some blog entries from popular geeks who can write a legible sentence, therefore you are EMPIRICALLY PROVEN WRONG by YOUR OWN COMMENT which PROVES that you are not able to comprehend HOW SCIENCE, EMPIRICAL DATA, PUBLISHED PAPERS and PEER REVIEW WORKS.

which means you are basing your ENTIRE argument upon a FALLACY

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) 9 hours ago
Completely, it is evident you have no real interest in a proper scientific debate on anthropogenic global warming knowing full well science does not support your position.
@sirFroths at the mouth
you DO realise that Runrig is a retired meteorologist and far more able to argue his point that you, right?
I mean, after your claims that Peer reviewed publications in scientific journals are NOT empirical evidence, your posts are THIN in content. Your argument is based upon NO SCIENCE and the fact that you have NO IDEA about science, the scientific method, peer review, published papers, and empirical data is proven in your posts above.

GIVEN this as a starting point... then you want to argue that the SCIENCE does not support the position/conclusions of Runrig? WOW... just.... WOW!
Tell you what. GO HERE: http://dialogueso...and.html

prove it to the world... then come back and talk turkey.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) 9 hours ago
Yea, you are probably right, all I have is empirical evidence to support my opinion and speculations....
@sirfrothi
which you've produced NONE of.

like I said above... go here: http://dialogueso...and.html

IF YOU CAN USE the scientific method
AND YOU HAVE EMPIRICAL DATA
then you should have NO PROBLEMS proving your point and winning the $30,000.oo and gaining some respect and admiration. I promise you that if you win, we will listen.

until then, I've seen ZERO empirical evidence supporting your conclusions, and you can see above that there is EMPIRICAL evidence proving you know SQUAT about the peer review process and how science journals are published, or how papers and studies are published.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it more true
Do what the good DR. Toad says...
Then present evidence, not opinion.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) 7 hours ago
Scoofinator
The point is we have increased GHG significantly, but we are no longer warming.


I wish you could understand how completely false that statement is. It is fundamental to the issue of climate change. We ARE still warming. I think you just surpassed UBA - in terms of your level of ignorance. I am not going to repeat all the links - but the fact is - the ice sheets/glaciers are melting, the oceans are warming, the oceans are rising - and yes - the surface temps are on a plateau - but look at this one graphic - and tell me we are not warming. http://www.ncdc.n...arge.jpg


And this Strange...

https://c479107.s...7576.jpg

sirfiroth
1 / 5 (5) 7 hours ago
How do you disprove something that has yet to be proven? That is why I am asking for that paper showing CO2 to be causative of temperature rise. You have yet to comment on the evidence to the contrary: http://judithcurr...ratures/
"The failure of data to support warming in the troposphere is a serious problem for the credibility of climate models and would seem to contradict the view that continuously rising CO2 is continuously driving up TLT".
Did you even look at what I posted or are you going to offhanded dismiss that without comment? Showing you have no real interest in a proper scientific debate on anthropogenic global warming? I know full the science (empirical evidence ) does not support your position. So maybe you seek only to defend pseudo-scientific AGW rhetoric? Please Captain Stumpy please quit sending people to that bogus AGW challenge site!
runrig
5 / 5 (5) 7 hours ago
But you might find this of interest: http://judithcurr...ratures/
"The failure of data to support warming in the troposphere is a serious problem for the credibility of climate models and would seem to contradict the view that continuously rising CO2 is continuously driving up TLT


Well I personally wouldn't thanks.
Ms Curry has painted herself into a corner, for which there is no return to credibility amongst her peers.
She has no alternative but to paint even harder.

SIr/madam: there are always gainsayers - that is the nature of the human beast. However we also have a thinking brain. And, I don't know about yours, but mine tells me that the *odd* climate scientist skeptic, no matter how eloquent, does NOT logically gain superiority of knowledge over the majority.
I refute all that she has to say in her opinion of the the A aspect of AGW (as an expert on meteorology).
But thanks anyway.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) 7 hours ago
LOL, Based on the overwhelming OPINION of the scientific community you say? As it turns out is just another computer model. Sorry strangedays, computer models are not empirical evidence and nowhere does it single out CO2 as being causative of mid level or upper tropospheric temperature rise.

Look, how many more times ....
Of course GCM's are not empirical evidence of AGW. How you arrive at that conclusion is quite, quite bizarre.
That's like saying my scientific calculator is empirical evidence of a scientific algorithm.

Err, the science behind the algorithm is what makes it empirical.

The empirical bit is the well known, unarguable knowledge of the heat retentive properties of GHG's.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) 7 hours ago

Completely, it is evident you have no real interest in a proper scientific debate on anthropogenic global warming knowing full well science does not support your position. Evidently you seek only to defend pseudo-scientific AGW rhetoric thus revealing your own personal level of scientific integrity. .................

Sir/madam...
Mere hand-waving and the usual resort of the denialist against those who have knowledge. (and contempt of).
You do not turn the world upside down to deny it in order that it fit your opinion, gained from ignorance and an ideological bias you will at no cost relinquish. You do of course also display a stunning D-K syndrome.
if you cannot/will not understand what the science says emprically, what it observes and what it's models are DOING and NOT doing then - well I care not a jot. However your ignorance will NOT have the last word on here whilst I spot it and can deny it.
strangedays
5 / 5 (4) 4 hours ago
@sirfiroth
That is why I am asking for that paper showing CO2 to be causative of temperature rise


So - sirfiroth has made this grand pronouncement - that there is no 'empiracal' evidence supporting AGW - so that is it - case closed - unless you provide a paper with 'empiracal' evidence. Interesting right?

So here is what we know in nutshell. The climate system is warming very rapidly - much faster than at any time in the past 65 million years - http://www.scient...n-years/

That is empirical right? So we as a species have wisely said - ooops - is this a problem? It seems reasonable to wonder if it is a problem. So we have studied the past climate - through many different techniques - such as ice cores, and sediments, and tree rings etc. And they (the scientists) seem to have developed a pretty good understanding of the past climate - and the drivers of that climate.(cont).

strangedays
5 / 5 (3) 3 hours ago
cont. This leaves us with a puzzle. How do we know what is causing the current warming - and if it is a problem or not? We can't just build a bunch of Earth's - and do like a relly big experiment - where we manipulate variables - and generate 'empirical' data. So what to do? We can look at the variables that seem to have been involved in past temperature changes. Milankovich cycles - nope. Solar radiation - nope. Plate tectonics - nope. None of the variables looked at so far seem to correlate. But C02 does. And we have a good understanding of the role C02 has played in past era, as well as a good understanding of the mechanism by which C02 traps heat.

So then we built models - which is of course the next best thing to doing that big experiment. And the models indicate the earth will keep warming - and within certain error bars - the models seem pretty good at predicting LONG TERM temperature trends. cont.
strangedays
5 / 5 (3) 3 hours ago
cont.

So sirfiroth - instead of being so smug - and thinking you have just hit the grand slam by demanding your 'empirical' data. Hows about you contribute constructively to the topic - maybe develop an experiment that will tell us conclusively what is causing the current warming. Maybe inform us of other variables that are actually causing the warming - and provide 'empirical' data to support your new hypothesis - and win yourelf a bunch of prize money.