Arctic is warming at twice the rate of anywhere else on Earth

December 18, 2014, NOAA Headquarters
Polar bears depend on sea ice for dens, food and mating. The loss of sea ice is affecting some polar bear populations and health. Credit: Kathy Crane, NOAA

A new NOAA-led report shows that Arctic air temperatures continue to rise at more than twice the rate of global air temperatures, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification. Increasing air and sea surface temperatures, declining reflectivity at the surface of the Greenland ice sheet, shrinking spring snow cover on land and summer ice on the ocean, and declining populations and health of some polar bear populations are among the observations released today in the Arctic Report Card 2014.

"Arctic warming is setting off changes that affect people and the environment in this fragile region, and has broader effects beyond the Arctic on global security, trade, and climate," Craig McLean, acting assistant administrator for the NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, said during a press conference today at the annual American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco. "This year's Arctic Report Card shows the importance of international collaboration on long-term observing programs that can provide vital information to inform decisions by citizens, policymakers and industry."

McLean joined other scientists to release the Arctic Report Card, an annual update provided since 2006, that summarizes changing conditions in the Arctic. Some 63 authors from 13 countries, United States and other nation's federal agencies and academia contributed to the peer-reviewed report. This year's report features updates on key indicators as well as a new report on the status of polar bears. Major findings of this year's report include:

  • Air temperatures: The jet stream pattern during early 2014 sent extreme cold air southward into eastern North America- and central Russia and extreme warm air northward into Alaska and northern Europe. Alaska recorded temperature anomalies more than 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) higher than the January average.
  • Snow cover: Snow cover across the Arctic during spring of 2014 was below the long-term mean of 1981-2010, with a new record low set in April for Eurasia and North America's June snow extent the third lowest on record. Snow disappeared three to four weeks earlier than normal in western Russia, Scandinavia, the Canadian subarctic and western Alaska due to below average accumulation and above normal spring temperatures.
  • Sea ice: The extent of sea in September 2014 was the sixth lowest since satellite observations began in 1979. The eight lowest sea ice extents since 1979 have occurred in the last eight years (2007-2014). At the time of maximum ice extent in March 2014, there had been a modest increase in ice thickness and age relative to the same time in 2013. Despite this, there is still much less of the oldest, thickest (greater than 13 feet or 4 meters) and most resilient ice than in 1988, when the oldest ice made up 26 percent of the ice pack compared to 10 percent this year.
  • Arctic Ocean temperature: As sea ice retreats in summer, (SST) in all the seas of the Arctic Ocean is increasing. The most significant linear trend is in the Chukchi Sea, northwest of Alaska, where SST is increasing at a rate of 0.9 degrees F (0.5 °C) per decade. In August 2014, in the Laptev Sea, north of Russia, and in the Bering Strait region, SST was as much as 7.2°F higher than the 1982-2010 average, while SST in the Barents Sea, north of Norway, was about 7.2°F lower than it was in 2013 but close to the 1982-2010 average.
  • Greenland ice sheet: Melting occurred across almost 40 percent of the surface of the Greenland ice sheet in summer 2014; for 90 percent of the summer the extent of melting was above the long-term average for the period 1981-2010; and the number of days of melting in June and July exceeded the 1981–2010 average over most of the ice sheet. In August 2014, the reflectivity (albedo) of the ice sheet was the lowest observed since satellite observations began in 2000. When less of the sun's energy is reflected by ice, melting increases. The total mass of the remained essentially unchanged between 2013 and 2014.
  • Arctic Ocean productivity: Declining sea ice is leading to an increase in sunlight reaching the upper layers of the ocean, setting off increased photosynthesis and greater production of phytoplankton, tiny marine plants which form the base of the food chain for fish and marine mammals. The timing of phytoplankton blooms throughout the Arctic Ocean is also being affected, with more frequent secondary blooms during the fall. In June, July and August 2014 the highest primary production - occurred in the Kara and Laptev seas north of Russia.
  • Vegetation: On land, peak tundra greenness, a measure of vegetation productivity and biomass, continues to increase. Between 1982 and 2013, the tundra biomass has increased by 20 percent. However, tundra greenness integrated over the entire summer shows a browning trend occurring in Eurasia, where summer have also been decreasing.
As sea ice retreats in summer, more sunlight reaches the upper layers of the sea, triggering increased blooms of phytoplankton such as here in the Bering Sea this fall. Credit: NASA

"The Arctic Report Card 2014 presents observations vital for documenting the state of the Arctic environmental system, understanding the complex interactions and feedbacks within the system, and predicting its future," said Martin Jeffries, Ph.D., principal editor of the 2014 Report Card, and Arctic Science Advisor and Program Officer for Arctic and Global Prediction, Office of Naval Research. "Observing, understanding and predicting are essential elements of the Arctic Research Plan of the Inter-agency Arctic Research Policy Committee and the implementation of the U.S. National Strategy for the Arctic Region."

The extent of sea ice in September 2014 was the sixth lowest since satellite observations began in 1979. Credit: NOAA

A special essay in this year's , written by the Norwegian Polar Institute and Polar Bears International, assesses polar bear populations in some areas where good long term data are available. The most recent data shows that a population decline in western Hudson Bay, Canada, was due to earlier sea ice break-up, later freeze-up and, thus, a shorter sea ice season. Polar bears depend on sea ice to travel, hunt, and mate, and in some areas, to den. Data shows that polar bear numbers had stabilized in the southern Beaufort Sea, after about a 40 percent decline since 2001. Polar bear condition and reproductive rates in the Chukchi Sea have been stable for 20 years, where is also declining though not as rapidly as in the southern Beaufort Sea.

Explore further: Report: Arctic loses snow, ice; absorbs more heat

More information: To view this year's report, visit www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/.

Related Stories

2014 Arctic sea ice minimum sixth lowest on record (Update)

September 22, 2014

Arctic sea ice coverage continued its below-average trend this year as the ice declined to its annual minimum on Sept. 17, according to the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado, ...

The yin-yang of polar sea ice

December 7, 2014

It comes as no surprise, therefore, when researchers announce as they did this past September that Arctic sea ice extent is still below normal, continuing a years-long downward trend, covering less and less of the north polar ...

Arctic sea ice continues low; Antarctic ice hits a new high

October 8, 2014

Sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean melted to its sixth lowest extent this year, while sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent continued to break winter records, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data ...

NASA scientists watching, studying Arctic changes this summer

August 21, 2014

As we near the final month of summer in the Northern Hemisphere, NASA scientists are watching the annual seasonal melting of the Arctic sea ice cover. The floating, frozen cap that stretches across the Arctic Ocean shrinks ...

Recommended for you

259 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JamesG
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 18, 2014
So somewhere on the Earth is cooling rapidly because average global temp stopped going up almost 2 decades ago. IPCC called it a "pause". Last I heard there were over 50 theories for that. The Earth's climate is an extremely complex machine. Every time they think they understand it and can predict what is going to happen, it throws them a curve.
gregs8365
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2014
I think the key to all of this is the statement "declining reflectivity at the surface of the Greenland ice sheet". Volcanic activity in the northern hemisphere has undoubtedly contributed to declining reflectivity due to ash accumulation on the surface of the ice, not just in Greenland, but also many places above the arctic circle. I don't know if it would also have an impact, but if arctic temps are the only ones increasing, would elevated CO2 levels in the northern latitudes from the same volcanic activity be a factor? Just makes sense.
gkam
3.4 / 5 (23) Dec 18, 2014
The Deniers are running out of excuses, like James G.
full_disclosure
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 18, 2014
The Deniers are running out of excuses, like James G.


Idiots like gkam don't know the difference between natural variation and a failed political agenda.
Grallen
4.5 / 5 (16) Dec 18, 2014
Hmm.. what it really seems like is that full_disclosure doesn't know the difference between facts and self-delusion.
PsycheOne
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2014
It's interesting that articles usually focus on anything that sounds like warming.

Clearly, if the arctic is warmer than average, then the rest of the planet has to be colder than average. Given the lack of global warming in 18 years or so, that would indicate that the rest of the planet has been getting colder.
gkam
3.5 / 5 (24) Dec 18, 2014
"Clearly, if the arctic is warmer than average, then the rest of the planet has to be colder than average."
----------------------------------------------

Oh my, . . where to start?

The problem is we are keeping more of the Sun's heat trapped in our atmosphere, warming it up, adding heat to the oceans, which drive the weather. More heat means more severe weather.

We have had no lack of warming, despite what you hear, it has gone into the mid oceans. The concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the oceans has made it more acidic, which is threatening life in the seas, upon which we depend for food and Oxygen.

This is real, and not a political point. It was politicized by coal and oil purveyors to save their investments in the money-stream we are locked into with oil and gas.

My opinion comes from earning a Master of Science in this field. I worked in the energy side of it most of my life, and have watched since 1980 as things got worse even faster than we feared.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (17) Dec 18, 2014
would elevated CO2 levels in the northern latitudes from the same volcanic activity be a factor? Just makes sense.

No, CO2 from volcanoes is negligible compared to anthro emissions..

" Emissions of CO2 by human activities are estimated to be 135 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes."

http://en.wikiped...mosphere

Volcanic activity in the northern hemisphere has undoubtedly contributed to declining reflectivity due to ash accumulation on the surface of the ice, not just in Greenland, but also many places above the arctic circle

I am not aware that it is any more notable than historically.
gkam
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 18, 2014
PsycheOne, the Earth is warming:

http://www.climat...globally
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 18, 2014
It's interesting that articles usually focus on anything that sounds like warming.

Clearly, if the arctic is warmer than average, then the rest of the planet has to be colder than average. Given the lack of global warming in 18 years or so, that would indicate that the rest of the planet has been getting colder.

No it doesn't, as the bulk of the Arctic is not factored into the world's temperature data-sets.
See this for Hadcrut coverage for instance....

http://moyhu.blog...nds.html

Also check out the 10 hottest years on record and while you're at it the heat being stored in the oceans
Heat NOT temperature.
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
3.1 / 5 (19) Dec 18, 2014
And, imido, what warms the water? It is the difference between the albedos of the ice and the ocean. And without the insulating coat of ice, the ocean is exposed to the atmosphere, as well as the radiant heat of the Sun.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2014
Arctic is warming at twice the rate of anywhere else on Earth
Because it has largest contact with marine water, which is the primary source of heat according to my theory.


What gobblygook have we here? The Arctic has more contact with marine water?? WTF are you talking about Zephyr, it is the smallest of Earth's oceans. Do you even TRY to think before you spout such unmitigated nonsense?

You don't have any theories pretender. You're just another crying crank looking for attention.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2014
And, imido, what warms the water? It is the difference between the albedos of the ice and the ocean. And without the insulating coat of ice, the ocean is exposed to the atmosphere, as well as the radiant heat of the Sun.

Oh, you'll love this gkam! Zephyr (imido is a sock-puppet for this banned user) posits that dark matter cascading through the planet causes nuclear fission to occur in the depths of the oceans, thereby heating them. And this is what is the real cause of global warming.

No, please stop laughing, he is serious! I know I know, I am rolling on the ground laughing at him too, he is too ignorant to breath on his own.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (20) Dec 18, 2014
Is Xenu involved?
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2014
what warms the water It is the difference between the albedos of the ice and the ocean. And without the insulating coat of ice, the ocean is exposed to the atmosphere, as well as the radiant heat of the Sun.
Nope, IMO the nuclear reactions of elements within marine water (lithium, potassium) are responsible for it. The http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg doesn't change so much, as the retreat of ice at Arctic gets balanced with increasing of ice area around Antarctica.


See gkam? Nuclear reactions of lithium and potassium, HILARIOUS!

Then he conflates permanent Arctic sea ice loss with transient sea ice gain in Antarctica, and calls them "balanced". He does not see how stupid and ridiculous he sounds!
gkam
3.2 / 5 (20) Dec 18, 2014
The Antarctic sea ice comes from the increased calving of the moving glaciers and the additional offshore snowfall from warmer waters around the continent.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2014
The Antarctic sea ice comes from the increased calving of the moving glaciers and the additional offshore snowfall from warmer waters around the continent.


Well, there's a little more to it that that I think. Freshening of the ocean waters due to the melting continental glaciers certainly seems to play a role, as do the faster winds occurring both around and off the continent and the apparent upwelling of warmer deep ocean currents. There also appears to be a role played by a lack of ozone at the south pole. To say it is complicated is being generous.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
Not really complicated or a surprise.
Waste heat equal to 1/10 of the solar flux that causes our 10 year climate variations is produced by burning fossil fuels.
It is well mixed in the atmosphere, and can not "escape," until it reaches someplace colder.

Think about it that 1/10th is 1/10000 of the Sun's output in heat energy. How can it not be changing the Earth and by thermodynamics, especially the poles?
SamB
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2014
I wonder how long we have to wait before we can use the North West Passage for shipping.. This would be a big advantage for the world trade organizations.. Has there been any studies done on a reliable prediction for summer free ice yet? I know already that many of the farmers in Canada are starting to buy up previously untenable land in the northern communities in preparation for more tillable land for the future ..
Already in Richmond BC, many of the water front homes have been abandoned because of the rapidly rising sea levels and house prices in the rest of the community have collapsed because of the prediction of a further 20' feet of ocean rise.. Also, many of the residents in BC are complaining of the endless warm summer days we now experience here. (I do miss the endless rain we used to get but I guess we will just have to put on a brave face and soldier on, eh?)
Water_Prophet
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2014
SamB-It's a not well advertised thing. The NW passage is being used. It has been for a few years now.

If you ask the experts why, they say, "global warming."
runrig
4.1 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2014
I wonder how long we have to wait before we can use the North West Passage for shipping.. This would be a big advantage for the world trade organizations..


Yes it would come in mighty useful for oil and gas tankers, not to mention coal shipment.
Let's shake the devil by the hand, eh?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2014
I wonder how long we have to wait before we can use the North West Passage for shipping.. This would be a big advantage for the world trade organizations..


Yes it would come in mighty useful for oil and gas tankers, not to mention coal shipment.
Let's shake the devil by the hand, eh?


Not often I disagree with you runrig, but I disagree here. While I am certainly concerned with the conditions leading to ice-free summers, quite frankly the opening of the NW shipping lanes with be a boon to shipping of all types, not just coal and oil. If the lanes are going to be open anyway, and it sure looks like they are, it would be ludicrous to not take advantage of them.

In fact, if I had my druthers, oil and coal would be the only shipping banned!
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2014
I wonder how long we have to wait before we can use the North West Passage for shipping.. This would be a big advantage for the world trade organizations..


Yes it would come in mighty useful for oil and gas tankers, not to mention coal shipment.
Let's shake the devil by the hand, eh?


Not often I disagree with you runrig, but I disagree here. While I am certainly concerned with the conditions leading to ice-free summers, quite frankly the opening of the NW shipping lanes with be a boon to shipping of all types, not just coal and oil. If the lanes are going to be open anyway, and it sure looks like they are, it would be ludicrous to not take advantage of them.

In fact, if I had my druthers, oil and coal would be the only shipping banned!

I surmise my sarcasm was missed..
gkam
3 / 5 (18) Dec 20, 2014
That's why I use snarkasm.

More bite.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2014
How could that be? Maybe there are previously unknown mechanisms that could explain such an occurrence. Come to think of it, here is one possibility...

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

To believe we know all there is to know about these complex systems is the height of arrogance. AGWism is a disease of arrogance.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2014
I surmise my sarcasm was missed..


You surmise correctly!! :D
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (16) Dec 21, 2014
Elsewhere Water_Prophet claimed
They show everything you need to know about why CO2 doesn't work
That is ONLY from Sol to Earth, U miss SO MUCH !

WHY Water_Prophet do U REFUSE to look at absorption/re-radiation of Earth to Space ?

You seem to have a very serious reading/comprehension neglect bias problem !

Please FOCUS on these SIMPLE questions, do U accept:-

1. Your TSI graph ONLY shows Sol to Earth - largely Shortwave (SW) ?

2. Earth converts SW to Longwave radiation (LW) ?

3. Negligible SW is emitted to space ?

SIMPLE logic by way of SUBTRACTION re energy PROVES LW to space is CORE issue !
.
.
.
Water_Prophet, this is a VERY simple issue, WHY do U ignore it & look intellectually feeble ?

Please be GENUINE & smarter & not come across with some form of disability... :-(

I await the clarity of response a REAL Physical Chemist (PC) can actually muster to this link:-
http://phys.org/n...day.html
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2014
Already in Richmond BC, many of the water front homes have been abandoned because of the rapidly rising sea levels
This appears to be a lie.

Google searches for abandoned homes in Richmond BC turns up only contingency plans for possible flooding, and unoccupied speculative investment properties.

And...

"The drawback of Richmond's geographical location, was that since all the land averages just one metre above sea level, it was prone to flooding, especially during high tide. As a result, all the major islands are now surrounded by a system of dykes, ...There is a possibility that, during an earthquake, the dykes could rupture and the alluvial soil may liquefy, causing extensive damage. Richmond is also at risk of a major flood if the Fraser River has an unusually high spring freshet."

http://en.wikiped..._climate

Forestgnome
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2014
The Deniers are running out of excuses, like James G.


What's a Denier? Some kind of fabric?
Forestgnome
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 21, 2014
Sea ice extent 6th lowest since 1079? Wake me up when it's the lowest. Then we'll start talking about what a 35 year time span means geologically.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2014
The image of the polar bear indicates this is nothing more than a political heartache story.
gkam
3 / 5 (18) Dec 21, 2014
Snide remarks are all that is left for the Deniers.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Dec 21, 2014
The Deniers are running out of excuses, like James G.


What's a Denier? Some kind of fabric?


Someone who thinks that the 6th lowest total in a thousand years, coming only 2 years after the lowest total in a thousand years, is something not worth looking at. Someone who thinks that the degree of climate change has something to do with political sides. Someone who is too stupid to read a graph, or thinks the world's scientists are involved in a UN conspiracy to steal your wealth. A lying snake whose reality is based on what it means only to him. An obfusticator who looks at the science not for enlightenment but to confirm his preconcieved notions.

A lying, twisted, conspiracist fool. Or just stupid like ubamoron.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 21, 2014
Forestgnome claimed
Sea ice extent 6th lowest since 1079? Wake me up when it's the lowest. Then we'll start talking about what a 35 year time span means geologically
When U get an education in comparative specific heat & realise the amount of energy it takes to melt ice is 75 TIMES more than it takes to warm water by only one degree centigrade then U MUST realise that for each little bit of ice lost amounts to MASSIVE absorption of heat.

When that ice is gone we R quite frankly fucked BIG time & CO2 is still rising !

ie. From specific heat (proven for >200 yrs NEVER refuted), take 400 billion tonnes of water, say off Greenland (now) each year.

U have ice at zero C which changes to water at zero C absorbing 330 units of heat.

Now take that SAME 400 biillion of water & apply the same heat, what is final temperature ?

When U go through that simple math U realise the immense problem we ALL have !!!!

https://en.wikipe...capacity

wakey wakey !
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2014
That's why I use snarkasm.

More bite.


Is Xenu involved?


Snide remarks are all that is left for the Deniers.


cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2014
Someone who is too stupid to read a graph,


Because weather and climate happens on graph paper....
gkam
3.3 / 5 (21) Dec 21, 2014
AGW happening, why are you denying it?

And we are slowly taking action against greenhouse gases.

What are you doing?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 21, 2014
Someone who is too stupid to read a graph,


Because weather and climate happens on graph paper....


It happens on the planet over scales longer than the human lifetime (though this period is seeing an acceleration of that process).
Perhaps climate scientists should just publish columns of data and let the deniers plot the damn things themselves - maybe the penny would drop then.
But no, I'm reminded of idiots like Bob Tisdale and Willis Eschenbach on WUWT and recoil at the enormity of stupidity available in the human mind.

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2014
CantThink85 said:
Someone who is too stupid to read a graph,


Because weather and climate happens on graph paper....


Seldom have I seen a person commenting on a technical issue who is proud of his inability to read a graph. The only two that come to mind are CantThink and WaterDummy.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2014
Perhaps climate scientists should just publish columns of data and let the deniers plot the damn things themselves


Plotting data in graphs only will tell you what has happened, it does not give one clairvoyance about dynamic systems which aren't fully understood. The current "pause" in AGW only goes to show that regardless of what the graphs insist will happen, it isn't just so.

I'm surprised you waste your time here when you could be "plotting data" of Powerball drawings to show you what the winning numbers will be. No matter how much you want it to happen, no amount of graphs and charts equates to a crystal ball.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2014
"No matter how much you want it to happen, no amount of graphs and charts equates to a crystal ball."
---------------------------------------
What do you have?
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2014
"No matter how much you want it to happen, no amount of graphs and charts equates to a crystal ball."
---------------------------------------
What do you have?

I have an understanding that I don't know what tomorrow may bring. I also have skepticism for any model that does not account for all the variables or properly consider how the Earth interacts with it's environment. It's abundantly clear astrophysicists do not have a clue about planetary interactions, yet this comical lack of knowledge forms the basis for the Earth-Sun connection in regards to climate science. Laughable at best, yet we should return to the "Stone Age" to appease Chicken Little AGWite alarmist soothsayers who are so sure what tomorrow will bring. If you really want to do your part, turn off the computer and lights, sell your car, stop eating meat and anything you don't grow yourself, and find a hole to crawl in so you can reduce your carbon footprint to acceptable levels you hypocritical JA.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2014
cantdrive85 muttered
I have an understanding that I don't know what tomorrow may bring
Use mechanised transport ?

Climate issue U has a pertinent analogy re engines. Behaviour in a combustion chamber is chaotic with unpredictable aspects, it is modeled by a computer precisely controls fuel/timing in concert with feedback, result HIGH probability power U need U will get as required.

ie It's "balance of probabilities", re ALL of Science

For Climate, ie high probability observation confirms
- Proof specific heat, statistical mechanics etc is sound
- Proof GHG's add thermal resistivity
- Insolation stable whilst temps rise
- & Albedo reduces = +ve feedback

Obviously there R other variables eg Air/ocean currents. Like engine these R subject to chaos but, via integration have high certainty Eg Apply Specific heat correctly etc

Bulk variables already checked
Unfortunately CO2 is hard for most to understand

What possible others R as thermally comparable as CO2 ?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2014
It's abundantly clear astrophysicists do not have a clue about planetary interactions
@cd
what is truly abundantly clear is that you have a (listed?) series of fallacious comments that you like to spread around as though they were true

You have been proven wrong about astrophysicists, their knowledge and their abilities so many times in the past that i wonder why you continue to post such blatantly fallacious stupidity with such personal conviction!!
case in point
your insistence that astro's don't know plasma physics, completely debunked here http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3492
and that is just ONE source... there are so many others refuting you there as well

but beside that... all you are offering in your denigrations above are personal conjecture... you have zero supporting evidence

if you want to see what blatant stupidity is: read up on how the eu thinks the grand canyon/moon craters formed despite the observations!

skip the pseudoscience eu
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2014
Laughable at best, yet we should return to the "Stone Age" to appease Chicken Little AGWite alarmist soothsayers who are so sure what tomorrow will bring.
@cd
and here we see why you refuse to accept the actual climate science that is out there:
1- you don't understand ANY of it
2- you can't fit it into your electric worldview without proving eu wrong
3- it is observed and experimental, so you fear the effect it has on your eu pseudoscience

lastly, you believe in the political rhetoric
Perhaps, if you would refrain from stuffing your head so far up your anal cavity, you could see that there ARE solutions that don't require shutting off all technology... but that would also mean you have to admit science works... and you would never capitulate to that conclusion

keep living in your eu pseudoscience dream world

i would rather have the REAL science
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (17) Dec 22, 2014
cantdrive85 claimed
It's abundantly clear astrophysicists do not have a clue about planetary interactions, yet this comical lack of knowledge forms the basis for the Earth-Sun connection in regards to climate science
When it comes to thermal issues its very well known but obviously not when it comes to gravitational interactions, the so called "3 body problem" & above.

Thermals, radiation etc are very well known, re Sun & Earth 'connection' the predominant is Insolation, heliospheric magnetic effects negligible

cantdrive85 claimed
..yet we should return to the "Stone Age" to appease Chicken Little AGWite alarmist soothsayers..
No. Y listen/argue with uneducated media, learn Science instead, isn't that MUCH smarter & even easier ?

cantdrive85 claimed
.. find a hole to crawl in so you can reduce your carbon footprint to acceptable levels you hypocritical JA.
Its easy to reduce emissions, just takes bit more IQ if U want to, then U become smarter :-)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2014
With a more active sun, there would be a higher concentration of charged particles impacting Arctic atmosphere as they follow the earth's magnetic field.
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (17) Dec 22, 2014
ryggesogn2 grasping at straws (again) claimed
With a more active sun, there would be a higher concentration of charged particles impacting Arctic atmosphere as they follow the earth's magnetic field.
Really ? By what proportion is "higher concentration", did U not get schooled in your claimed degree in Physics to study the Earth's magnetic field in relation to Van Allen belts ?

https://en.wikipe...ic_field

https://en.wikipe...ion_belt

Sun's activity is down, hmmm, so be smarter, show link between remnant Solar Wind (SW) & its relation to TSI which augments this please:-

http://www.skepti...asic.gif

ryggesogn2, don't U recall me telling U many months ago education is so important, so U don't get led so easily by paid political/commercial propaganda, aspect of which is grasping at straws, checking them first - yeah ?

Can U be oh so wee bit smarter maybe ?

Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2014
Oh dear! Here in New Jersey we depend on the Polar Bear for food and warmth and entertainment.
gkam
3 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2014
Eddie's comment betrays his lack of education.

What happens to the bears happens to us.
Forestgnome
2 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2014
Forestgnome claimed
Sea ice extent 6th lowest since 1079? Wake me up when it's the lowest. Then we'll start talking about what a 35 year time span means geologically


My bad. Typo. That would be 1979.
Scroofinator
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2014
By what proportion is "higher concentration"

Notice the aurora borealis is most prevelant at the poles, and radiates further down with the strength of the solar storm. Using such simple logic makes it easy to see why there is a "higher concentration" of solar wind penetrating into our atmosphere at the poles.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2014
Scroofinator muttered
Notice the aurora borealis is most prevalent at the poles, and radiates further down with the strength of the solar storm
Not relevant to my question U quoted 'By what proportion is "higher concentration?"', any quantification, proportion ? No :-(

Scroofinator claimed
Using such simple logic makes it easy to see why there is a "higher concentration" of solar wind penetrating into our atmosphere at the poles
Not so simple, the proportion isn't quantified but, U also haven't gone into necessary detail regarding the phenomena, especially timing, not necessarily storm related, as I correctly offered earlier Solar Wind (SW) doesn't add any significant energy to TSI. Compare it to increased thermal resistivity in regards to GHGs especially CO2, SW is negligible.

If U notice details, U might see the distinctions ?

https://en.wikipe...i/Aurora

Especially fact SW interacts only with Magnetosphere, far above atmosphere ie. ionosphere !
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2014
the proportion isn't quantified

Because I haven't found a study yet that has done this. Let's call it a thought experiment for now.

SW interacts only with Magnetosphere

Wrong. TSI is only a MEASURE of the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun. Basically it's the measure of solar wind per unit area delivered to the surface. Since TSI~SW, it interacts throughout the atmosphere.

Observe Earth's Magnetosphere:
http://www-ssc.ig...re06.gif
Notice the 'polar cusp' regions. These are the areas that are more susceptible to enhanced EM delivery.

Also consider that the Magnetosphere is weakening at an alarming rate.
http://www.scient...xpected/
Put all of this together and you have more energy being delivered. Although it certainly doesn't help that we are losing the albedo that ice provides.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2014
BTW, why are you anti-science?
http://science.na...climate/
"If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link," notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA's Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. "The report offers some good ideas for how to get started."

NASA is interested, why aren't AGWites?

Also of note is how inadequate TSI is as a measure of EM radiation:
Devices currently used to measure total solar irradiance (TSI) reduce the entire sun to a single number: the total luminosity summed over all latitudes, longitudes, and wavelengths. This integrated value becomes a solitary point in a time series tracking the sun's output.

A single averaged number for the entire complexity of the Sun's output... oh my
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2014
Also consider that the Magnetosphere is weakening at an alarming rate.
http://www.scient...xpected/

Your characterization of the article is way overblown.

Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2014
Your characterization of the article is way overblown

So you're saying that the Magnetosphere weakening at a rate 10x faster than expected isn't alarming?
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2014
Your characterization of the article is way overblown

So you're saying that the Magnetosphere weakening at a rate 10x faster than expected isn't alarming?


From your link:
"Still, there is no evidence that a weakened magnetic field would result in a doomsday for Earth. During past polarity flips there were no mass extinctions or evidence of radiation damage. Researchers think power grids and communication systems would be most at risk."
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2014
I said "alarming" not "doomsday". Man, really grasping at straws on that one
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2014
The polar bears need to learn how to catch and eat the ground squirrels destroying the permafrost.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2014
Scroofinator conceded
Because I haven't found a study yet that has done this. Let's call it a thought experiment..
Its ok to think but, need to think through the broader issue, Y there is no -AGW attempt/study doh !

If there was ANY SW energy observed (to Earth) beyond TSI error bars then it would HAVE TO be quantified, if at least from all politically driven anti-AGW crowd to try & shift idea away from CO2 & attempt to prove no AGW, see that logic ?

Scroofinator claimed
TSI is only a MEASURE of the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun
Almost, it's the full radiative energy & cannot include (by definition) SW !

Scroofinator claimed
Basically it's the measure of solar wind per unit area delivered to the surface
Dead wrong!

Please Scroofinator refresh the FACTS

TSI = Radiative spectra
https://en.wikipe...solation

AND

SW = (only) Mass
https://en.wikipe...lar_wind

Any SW energy is negligible even 1/d^2 & bulk deflected !
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2014
Scroofinator missed the point
I said "alarming" not "doomsday". Man, really grasping at straws on that one
Your link used the word "doomsday", don't U recall or didnt U read your own link - LOL !

Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2014
MM, quit trying to make it sound like you weren't wrong, just admit it like I've had to do before.
From your first link:

"Insolation (from Latin insolare, to expose to the sun)is the total amount of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area during a given time"

This is exactly what I said:

"TSI is only a MEASURE of the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun. Basically it's the measure of solar wind per unit area delivered to the surface"

In the simplest form:
Solar radiating energy = Solar wind
TSI = solar wind/atmospheric losses

Any SW energy is negligible even 1/d^2 & bulk deflected

Are you trying to sound smart by calling out the inverse square law? Please explain how that even remotely applies to SW.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2014
Your link used the word "doomsday", don't U recall or didnt U read your own link - LOL !

Sure did, and the full quote is:
Still, there is no evidence that a weakened magnetic field would result in a doomsday for Earth.

So the article used the word "doomsday" to say there is no evidence there would be one, and you jokers pick out the scare word and try to put your own twist on it...

You tools are really starting to get dull
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2014
I thought of a solution for polar bears without ice floes - styrofoam. Big blocks of styrofoam.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2014

My opinion comes from earning a Master of Science in this field. I worked in the energy side of it most of my life, and have watched since 1980 as things got worse even faster than we feared
Who fucking cares? You are on a site where most people have degrees and nobody wants to brag about them but you. Because most know that they're irrelevant to the facts they post, and because they don't want to appear as idiot braggarts.

But as youve never disclosed exactly what this 'field' is, the claim is probably worth about as much as your claims of being an engineer, which youre also not.

What makes you think bullshit adds any weight whatsoever to the facts you post? Perhaps they have no weight by themselves and you are insecure about that.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 23, 2014
Scroofinator claimed
..quit trying to make it sound like you weren't wrong, just admit it like I've had to do before. From your first link:
"Insolation (from Latin insolare, to expose to the sun)is the total amount of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area during a given time"
Key word is "radiation" ie p+ & e- is NOT considered as 'radiation' (physics definition) in precision re electromagnetic (EM) spectra as per 2 links I offered.
TSI is EM & NOT mass !

Scroofinator again
..I said:
"TSI is only a MEASURE of the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun. Basically it's the measure of solar wind per unit area delivered to the surface"
Solar radiating energy = Solar wind
TSI = solar wind/atmospheric losses
Still dead Wrong, linked U to recognized definitions

Key word "radiating" ie Radiative emissions (EM) never include mass !

Sun's "output" (correct term) = MIX of "radiation" & "mass", former =TSI, latter = Solar Wind

In YOUR sentence, cont
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2014
Scroofinator, I acknowledge you DID say this
..exactly what I said:
"TSI is only a MEASURE of the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun. Basically it's the measure of solar wind per unit area delivered to the surface"
U said it but, U didn't notice contradiction in your statement ?

S1 "TSI is only a MEASURE of the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun"
S2 "Basically it's the measure of solar wind per unit area delivered to the surface"

Note S1: word "only", ie NOT mass !

Also links I offered, TSI is ONLY electromagnetic EM, NOT mass of p+ & e-

Solar Wind (SW) is exclusively mass, mostly p+ & e- excludes EM !

Hey I can be sympathetic U mis-understood. Concentrate specifically on p+ & e- which MUST be in units of mass per time NOT watts per m^2.

Notice TSI always quoted in units of W/m^2, NOT mass/time, do U see the distinction ?

Granted that mass has kinetic energy but, as I stated, bulk magnetically deflected, energy negligible ie FAR less than TSI :-(
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2014
What Mike and many others here fail to understand is that the MHD models astrophysicists use to describe the energy transfer between the solar environment and Earth are completely meaningless.

"...a DL must be treated as a part of a circuit which delivers the current I. As neither DL nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of DL's. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory."
http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf

Basically, the fact that the MHD models are meaningless in describing energy transfer from the Sun's plasma environment to the Earth, any extrapolations from those models are also meaningless. As such, current climate models are GIGO.
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2014
gkam,
Imagine you were a leader in the field of environmental change.
The idiots here have no respect for it, after all, like me, they criticize the articles.

The biggest problem is from pretenders or people with no education who spout their opinions out, which is fine, but then deny even when they do not know, and of course are uninterested in learning or even considering a fact that contradicts their opinion.

Or those who remain nameless, who use mainstream popular science, like chaos, integration, TSI, plasma engineering, and having only a fork's understanding of how the food tastes.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 25, 2014
cantdrive85 claimed
..Mike and many others here fail to understand is that the MHD models astrophysicists use to describe the energy transfer between the solar environment and Earth are completely meaningless
Take re MHD U mean
https://en.wikipe...dynamics
Not my area of interest, haven't commented, don't know why U want to engage me but, as U did; there's nothing compelling re TSI & MHD :-(

Maths&physics as per my link here in agreement with observed re ANY energy (E) of Sol to Earth which might affect Earth's E balance, even a little.

Efficient to focus on evidence; re Earth's E balance - we have Total Solar Insolation (TSI), which obviously is electromagnetic (EM) only & is by definition. Obviously there might be some particulate energy eg p+ & e- Solar Wind (SW) Kinetic E ?
How about Eddy currents adding to TSI where ?

Evidence ie ANYTHING actually quantified re beyond TSI which impacts Earth from Sol, especially affecting climate ?
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 25, 2014
Water_Prophet expounding or showing us example of Hypocrisy
The biggest problem is from pretenders or people with no education who spout their opinions out, which is fine, but then deny even when they do not know, and of course are uninterested in learning or even considering a fact that contradicts their opinion
Agree fully with your pattern.

Your opinion Water_Prophet that CO2 is not significant re TSI is correct, agree with U :-)

People who did graduate as a Physical Chemist (PC) of which U Water_Prophet claim, should know energy flows in 3D, so Y do U completely IGNORE Earth's emissions which any person with intelligence & Physics training easily determines it MUST be overwhelmingly Long Wave (LW) ie. Plain to "see" Short Wave from Earth is negligible !

Why do U ignore LW, where CO2's absorbance/re-radiation is the HIGHEST ?

Water_Prophet muttered
..having only a fork's understanding of how the food tastes
What does this even mean re U ?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2014
@CD states
...MHD models are meaningless in describing energy transfer from the Sun's plasma environment...
And we've already proven, time and again, that you are lying when you make statements like this

it's called personal conjecture without evidence

and you have never been able to prove that modern astrophysicists don't learn plasma physics either... whereas i've been able to demonstrate that they DO learn plasma physics

Several ways!
For starters, the fact that you have never been able to provide a single astrophysics curriculum that does not include plasma physics is damning enough for you!

which goes directly to your comment made above, and is, again, directly refuted here: http://www.pppl.gov/

still trying to push the same lies ?

you keep trolling, i will keep pointing out that you are still lying
http://arxiv.org/...92v1.pdf
just remember 13, cd!

perhaps you should start learning real science now: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2014
Not my area of interest, haven't commented, don't know why U want to engage me but, as U did;
@Mike Massen

he's not really trying to engage you with physics or maths... this old comment (and similar ones) goes back to his unsupported conjecture regarding the abilities of astrophysicists and physics in general, really
He thinks everything stopped progressing in 1980 (or whenever that stupid alfven speech was)

this is actually a pretty popular tactic with cults, religions and pseudoscience... they figure that if the repeat it often enough, it must be true...

Enter CD and his repetitious claims that are already debunked by modern physics

I wouldn't worry too much about him, Mike
he still argues that magnetic reconnection isn't real, and that grand canyon/craters/dust devils on mars/earth are all formed by plasma: http://phys.org/n...ars.html )
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2014
He thinks everything stopped progressing in 1980


Once again, another moronic statement. Of course nothing stopped, the metaphysical pseudoscientists are making huge advancements down their dead end road of nonsensical physics. In fact, they have invented even more ad hoc undetectable, unmeasurable nonsense such as dark energy to save the theory from the fate of theories such as epicycles. What hasn't changed is the understanding of how to properly model the plasma, a fact that is readily obvious by reading but a couple astrophysical papers.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2014
Take re MHD U mean
https://en.wikipe...dynamics
Not my area of interest, haven't commented, don't know why U want to engage me but, as U did; there's nothing compelling re TSI & MHD :-(


Of course, why should one who claims to understand the Earth's climate bother with the understanding of the primary driver of weather and climate...The Sun and how the Earth interacts in it's environment.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2014
cantdrive85 claimed
Of course, why should one who claims to understand the Earth's climate bother with the understanding of the primary driver of weather and climate
U misunderstand, NEVER claimed to fully understand Earth's climate, although I have multiple uni qualifications & across disciplines I am not a graduated meteorologist or climate scientist. Have accepted the view on balance of probabilities Total Solar Insolation (TSI) is (main) driver - really cantdrive85, it is by far strongest & most pervasive source of ENERGY - yes or no ?

Do U cantdrive85 claim its not, show ?

Do U cantdrive85 have ANY evidence of ANYTHING adding to TSI ?

Eg Kinetic Energy of particulates ie Solar Wind ?

cantdrive85 continued
The Sun and how the Earth interacts in it's environment.
Other that TSI, cantdrive85 what else is there?

Notice cantdrive85 U answer posts AFTER my Q to U & STILL don't answer my Q, U skipped it altogether Y is that ?

Evidence, pls get on with it ?
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2014
Elsewhere Water_Prophet claimed
How can you say I ignore longwave radiations?
By evidence, U ignored long wave (LW) radiation re CO2's interference to space, U only saw TSI.

U write Fossil Fuel (FF) proportion of TSI, yet U IGNORE FACT Earth converts short wave (SW) to LW & CO2 interferes with emission to Space. Nobody is disagreeing FF adds heat & CO2. But, U, as a claimed Physical Chemist (PC) haven't acknowledged CO2's interference U even claimed "CO2 is a red herring", which is obviously completely WRONG !

Water_Prophet claimed
..1998 was a very hot year; Industry was booming and the Sun was at/near a max
Huh? U claim Sun TSI was at max ? Not according to this
http://www.skepti...asic.gif

Water_Prophet claimed to be a PC, yet doesn't write like one, does Water_Prophet accept:-

1. TSI mainly SW
2. Earth converts SW to LW
3. LW to space interfered by CO2

Simple Water_Prophet I asked U before, WHY do u STILL evade it ?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
"Ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is 'not melting', says global warming expert

...In fact, the poles are "much more stable" than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought."

http://www.expres...y-Peiser
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2014
"Ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is 'not melting', says global warming expert

http://www.expres...y-Peiser
@uba
i almost laughed at the poorly shopped photo at the head of the article... and you actually thought this was legitimate or reputable?

it is a news article, and as such it is worth nada
no reference/no links to studies

your choice of articles was poor indeed
you probably didn't even notice the horrible photo-shop pic at the top!
THAT in itself screams unprofessional

How come you never refuted the studies i posted for you?
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
http://www.scienc...abstract

since you think AGW is false... you SHOULD have had no problems with this
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 30, 2014
ubavontuba claimed
..In fact, the poles are "much more stable" than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought."
Really ?
How is this so called 'fact' demonstrable, anything called "Evidence" ?

Comparative ice mass ?

Precise area ?

How does it compare with this, can u offer an actual useful/thoughtful rationale ?
http://nsidc.org/...ure3.png

OR

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

ubavontuba blurted this ill thought link
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/548516/North-South-poles-not-melting-Dr-Benny-Peiser
Is this the best you found, really ?

Didn't U notice NO data set examined ?

Was it a busy robot - region ?

Would U buy snake oil from this guy & RELY on his methodology ?

Compare it with the links I've offered in this post, ANY rationale/dialectic ?

Please something intelligent for a change, low salinity contribution maybe ?
zz5555
4 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2014
it is a news article, and as such it is worth nada
no reference/no links to studies

Well, it discussed the study that found thickening ice in the ocean surrounding Antarctica. The problems with this are that 1) the ocean surrounding Antarctica isn't the pole - the pole is still melting and that melt is accelerating, and 2) the reason for the thickening ice is the increasing winds in the area and those are likely related to global warming.

So it shows the exact opposite of what the article claimed and doesn't help ubavontuba's argument. Of course, that's what can be expected from a denier organization like GWPF. And fake skeptics like ubavontuba don't check out any claims from articles that deny CO2's role in global warming, so his post is also to be expected.
Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
zz5555-
I don't know, like so many things, there are ways it can be plausible.
I accidentally proposed that the Earth has simply attained another equilibrium with its anthropomorphically induced heat increase (hows that for a non-argumentative statement, huh? huh? ;o).

Assumption; man has reached a plateau in the amount of change he affects on the Earth. Equivalent to so much N. Hemisphere ice melting to reach this new equilibrium. Might the ice not thicken in the remaining bits? Snow/moisture is now being driven farther than before, on average for snow, and the temperature gradient can be steeper.

Submitted as a mental chew toy.
zz5555
4 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2014
I accidentally proposed that the Earth has simply attained another equilibrium with its anthropomorphically induced heat increase

For good or ill, empirical evidence shows that's not true - we're still getting more energy from the sun than we emit (http://www.skepti...iate.htm ). Earth has quite a bit of warming to go before we reach equilibrium. The continued (and accelerating) melting of glaciers and ice sheets also show that. As you indicated above, waste heat is only a tiny part of that - most of the warming is due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
@zz5555
1) the ocean surrounding Antarctica isn't the pole - the pole is still melting and that melt is accelerating,
Please explain how ice melts in consistently sub-zero temperatures, as a result of slightly elevated CO2.

"the warmest temperature ever recorded at the South Pole was a freezing -12.3 degrees Celsius (9.9 degrees Fahrenheit)."

http://education..../?ar_a=1

2) the reason for the thickening ice is the increasing winds in the area and those are likely related to global warming.
How is wind supposedly responsible for ice thickening AND increasing extant?

The hypothesis for the increasing extant has long been that wind blows the ice farther out to sea, which should cause thinning, shouldn't it?

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
For good or ill, empirical evidence shows that's not true - we're still getting more energy from the sun than we emit (http://www.skepti...iate.htm ). Earth has quite a bit of warming to go before we reach equilibrium. The continued (and accelerating) melting of glaciers and ice sheets also show that. As you indicated above, waste heat is only a tiny part of that - most of the warming is due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Funny then that global sea ice extant has returned to normal (even if some has 'migrated' south):

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

zz5555
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2014
Please explain how ice melts in consistently sub-zero temperatures, as a result of slightly elevated CO2.

Ice sheets don't melt in the middle of the continent, they melt at the ice shelfs where the glaciers are in the ocean. As the oceans around Antarctica have warmed, the ice shelfs have melted faster, meaning the ice disappears from Antarctica.
How is wind supposedly responsible for ice thickening AND increasing extant?

I can see no reason why the winds couldn't do both. Winds aren't going to just disperse the ice - some of it will disperse (leaving open water for more ice to form) and some will crash together, making thicker ice. The fact that the ice pretty much melts out every summer indicates that none of this is multi-year ice, it's just first year ice that has piled up.
zz5555
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2014
Funny then that global sea ice extant has returned to normal (even if some has 'migrated' south)

A couple points there:
1. Your link shows normal as the 1978-2008 mean - a period when the ice was melting rapidly. That means the "normal" here is less than the "normal" before the melt began. We need more extant to reach any pre-melt "normal".
2. You're looking at extant, which is kind of meaningless if you want to find out if we're losing ice. You can see how much volume the Arctic has lost at PIOMAS. The gains in Antarctic sea ice don't make up for that.
3. None of this shows the earth to be in equilibrium. The gains in Arctic sea ice over the last two year and the gains in Antarctic sea ice are happening in spite of continued warming temperatures in those areas. And that means we're not in equilibrium.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
Ice sheets don't melt in the middle of the continent, they melt at the ice shelfs where the glaciers are in the ocean. As the oceans around Antarctica have warmed, the ice shelfs have melted faster, meaning the ice disappears from Antarctica.
Backpedaling. Your claim was, "the ocean surrounding Antarctica isn't the pole - the pole is still melting and that melt is accelerating,"

So are you admitting you were in error?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
Winds aren't going to just disperse the ice - some of it will disperse (leaving open water for more ice to form) and some will crash together, making thicker ice.
If the ice is both dispersing AND thickening, how can that not be anything but MORE ice volume?

The fact that the ice pretty much melts out every summer indicates that none of this is multi-year ice, it's just first year ice that has piled up.
Do you even bother to research before you spout?

This graph;

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

shows the lowest sea ice extant certainly does not drop to zero, and has increased well more than 1 million sq. km. From the lowest extant recorded.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2014
1. Your link shows normal as the 1978-2008 mean - a period when the ice was melting rapidly. That means the "normal" here is less than the "normal" before the melt began. We need more extant to reach any pre-melt "normal".
Baseless claim. The Cryosphere Today satellite data only goes back to 1979.

2. You're looking at extant, which is kind of meaningless if you want to find out if we're losing ice. You can see how much volume the Arctic has lost at PIOMAS. The gains in Antarctic sea ice don't make up for that.
Another baseless claim. Where is the data?

3. None of this shows the earth to be in equilibrium. The gains in Arctic sea ice over the last two year and the gains in Antarctic sea ice are happening in spite of continued warming temperatures in those areas. And that means we're not in equilibrium.
So how does that work? Warmer temperatures and MORE ice? Maybe we should arrest the Antarctic sea ice for for disobeying the laws of thermodynamics?

Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
zz5555-
Skepti lies. You seem like you've got a good head on your shoulders, how can I convince you to use other sources?
Like, and I am sure I am misinterpreting your comment, of course we take in more than we release...
zz5555
3.9 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2014
Backpedaling. Your claim was, "the ocean surrounding Antarctica isn't the pole - the pole is still melting and that melt is accelerating,"

Fine, I should have said "the ocean surrounding Antarctica isn't the pole - the pole is still losing ice and that ice loss is accelerating"

Does that help you? ;)
zz5555
4 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
"Another baseless claim. Where is the data?"
Sorry - the 1000 character limit has its limitations. I assumed you might be interested enough to look - it's easy to find when you google PIOMAS (http://psc.apl.uw...V2.1.png )
So how does that work? Warmer temperatures and MORE ice?

There's some indication that salinity gradients and increased precipitation from warmer temperatures help increase the amount of ice that can freeze, but really just because the area is warmer doesn't mean that it's warm enough in the winter to prevent freezing.
zz5555
4 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Skepti lies. You seem like you've got a good head on your shoulders, how can I convince you to use other sources?

SkepticalScience links to the sources. Can you refute them? Are you saying that nearly all the scientists that do anything related to climate science are in some grand conspiracy? That seems like madness.

Like, and I am sure I am misinterpreting your comment, of course we take in more than we release...

You might want to think about what "equilibrium" means. If we absorb more energy then we emit, we are, by definition, not in equilibrium. You seem to be agreeing that we're not in equilibrium due to CO2?
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
Backpedaling. Your claim was, "the ocean surrounding Antarctica isn't the pole - the pole is still melting and that melt is accelerating,"

Fine, I should have said "the ocean surrounding Antarctica isn't the pole - the pole is still losing ice and that ice loss is accelerating"

Does that help you? ;)
No. How can it lose ice faster than it accumulates at the pole, if the pole itself isn't melting? Does the ice just up an walk away?

Perhaps you are claiming Antarctica is like a saucer full of salt (salt being an analogy for ice) and the ice is running off the edge because the plate is too full? So? How is that "losing ice?"

ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
Sorry - the 1000 character limit has its limitations. I assumed you might be interested enough to look - it's easy to find when you google PIOMAS (http://psc.apl.uw...V2.1.png )
I looked at the PIOMAS data. It says nothing about any relationship with Antarctic gains. So again, your claim remains baseless.

There's some indication that salinity gradients and increased precipitation from warmer temperatures help increase the amount of ice that can freeze, but really just because the area is warmer doesn't mean that it's warm enough in the winter to prevent freezing.
More hand-waving nonsense. Are you just making this stuff up for your own confirmation bias?

thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
Uba said:
How can it lose ice faster than it accumulates at the pole, if the pole itself isn't melting? Does the ice just up an walk away?

Perhaps you are claiming Antarctica is like a saucer full of salt (salt being an analogy for ice) and the ice is running off the edge because the plate is too full? So? How is that "losing ice?"


Uba, do you understand the concept of stress and resulting strain? Do you understand what plastic deformation means?

http://en.wikiped...ering%29

http://en.wikiped...ysics%29

Let me summarize. When the depth of the ice gets deep enough it produces stress that causes the solid ice to flow. So, in your terms, it does walk away. This even holds for the earth's crust and even concrete under enough stress. Do you understand this?
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
Skepitgarbage shows only bits of the picture they want to show.
Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases


Because, water is about 45x more common than CO2. And, though difficult to compare apples to apples, because water does not decay in the atmosphere, but stays pretty constant globally (function of temperature and water availability, neither changes much on average), there is a growing consensus that the Global Warming Potential of 1 kg of H2O released in a dry atmosphere is between 2 and 3.
It means 2x45, and CO2 is dominated by H2O. Why not show the plot with water?

Also, I'd contest Mona Loa, having a CO2 meter myself, I monitor CO2 increasing with traffic every day. It goes to a minimum at night of 380ppm. The key being in the middle of three huge metropoli, it sinks below 400ppm. It shouldn't be possible, except ML island is on an active volcano.

Just for starts...
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
You might want to think about what "equilibrium" means. If we absorb more energy then we emit, we are, by definition, not in equilibrium. You seem to be agreeing that we're not in equilibrium due to CO2?

Ah, I get you.
Nah, my position is; of course CO2 is a GHG, but its effects are trivial, due to the small change in its amounts and initial concentration.
I think we'll both agree that H2O is a GHG as well. We may not agree that it is >> more powerful.
The average concentration of [CO2] has increased 280+120 to 400 ppm. The change you get is from the 120ppm. By % its huge, by [CO2] its small.
Now water vapor has increased and average of 435ppm. They say it's feedback from CO2, but casual thought about this implies, heat from CO2 causes increase of H2O. But that increase of H2O should cause an even greater temperature, thus more water... and more feedback. Which is not observed, obviously the magnitudes must be wrong.
zz5555
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
Because, water is about 45x more common than CO2.

You do understand that water vapor, since it is very short lived in the atmosphere, can't drive the climate, right? So when looking at things that are driving the climate, it is appropriate and correct to filter out water vapor. They could have left it in, but then people would have to ignore it because, again, water vapor can't drive climate change.
Also, I'd contest Mona Loa

It's Mauna Loa (sorry, the wife's from Hawaii) and this is a silly argument. The wind generally blows the volcano's CO2 away and it's very obvious when this doesn't happen. But the real clincher is that Mauna Loa agrees with the readings at the other CO2 monitoring sites, the one's without volcanoes. (http://www.skepti...ents.htm )

So your 1st argument doesn't hold water (see what I did there? ;) and the 2nd argument is known not to be a problem.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2014
But that increase of H2O should cause an even greater temperature, thus more water... and more feedback.

Which it does. You may mistakenly believe that the feedback must be runaway. But that's not true. Feedback in water vapor does not lead to runaway warming (http://www.skepti...nced.htm ). If this isn't your belief, could you specify why you believe feedback from water vapor isn't observed?

So something, other than water vapor, must heat up the earth before the water vapor can start its feedback. As you indicated above, waste heat does contribute to this warming. However, CO2 contributes much more (about 100X more).
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2014
Also, I'd contest Mona Loa, having a CO2 meter myself, I monitor CO2 increasing with traffic every day. It goes to a minimum at night of 380ppm. The key being in the middle of three huge metropoli, it sinks below 400ppm. It shouldn't be possible, except ML island is on an active volcano.

By the way, why do you believe that this shouldn't be possible? CO2 isn't identical throughout the world. Here's recent CO2 measurements from Utah: http://weather.us...-day-co2 . The readings often go below 380. A global map (https://www.clima...mosphere ) shows how CO2 levels vary globally on one day. I don't know where you live, but I see no reason why you can't have a different CO2 level than somewhere else in the world. Just because CO2 is a well mixed gas doesn't mean it's identical everywhere. https://www2.ucar...-dioxide
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
Uba said:
How can it lose ice faster than it accumulates at the pole, if the pole itself isn't melting? Does the ice just up an walk away?

Perhaps you are claiming Antarctica is like a saucer full of salt (salt being an analogy for ice) and the ice is running off the edge because the plate is too full? So? How is that "losing ice?"


Uba, do you understand the concept of stress and resulting strain? Do you understand what plastic deformation means?

http://en.wikiped...ering%29

Let me summarize. When the depth of the ice gets deep enough it produces stress that causes the solid ice to flow. So, in your terms, it does walk away. This even holds for the earth's crust and even concrete under enough stress. Do you understand this?
And what has this to do with CO2? (D'oh!)

Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015
CO2 levels should not be able to go below the true average.

Ah, zztop, you may know I always said the rating of water was BS. Well, I recently spoke with a man with IPCC "in the know." (Not in the IPCC.) That short-lived thing isn't even really purported by the IPCC. The life of GHGs is how long it takes them to degrade chemically. Methane to oxidize, Fluorides to precipitate, etc..

Water remains a constant, which is why they need to define it as if 1 kg of water were released into the atmosphere of a world without humidity. So the short-lived in the atmosphere does not apply. It would even be "immortal" on the planet sans water. Its life needs to be defined over time periods of humidity or some other normalized standard to make it comparable with the other GHG broken down by the environment, logically, if artificially. That's why it is so hard to agree on.
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015
Didn't mean average. Meant minimum, or true diffused value.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2015
CO2 levels should not be able to go below the true average.

This is a meaningless statement, even after changing "average" to "minimum". What is the minimum? You already know that CO2 levels aren't uniform over the earth. What more do you need to know? So your local CO2 level differs from that of the level at Moana Loa. That is expected and normal.
That short-lived thing isn't even really purported by the IPCC. The life of GHGs is how long it takes them to degrade chemically. Methane to oxidize, Fluorides to precipitate, etc..

This is a special sort of silliness. You claim that "short-lived" isn't supported by the IPCC and that it means that the component will degrade chemically in a short time. Interestingly, the IPCC (and everyone else) disagree with you.

cont.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2015
Let's look at how the IPCC defines short-lived:
This set of compounds is primarily composed of those with short lifetimes in the atmosphere compared to well-mixed greenhouse gases, and has been sometimes referred to as short lived climate forcers or short-lived climate pollutants.

This is from the Glossary of the WG1 AR5 Final report. So it's the lifetime of the component that is important and something like water vapor, that precipitates out in a matter of days without something else to keep it in the atmosphere, would be considered short-lived. As would something like methane that chemically degrade quickly, so you were half right.

cont.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2015
What does the IPCC say about water vapor being short-lived? How about:
The short-lived GHGs ozone (O3) and stratospheric water vapour also contribute to anthropogenic forcing.

From p. 54 of the WG1 AR5 Final report. So the IPCC does support the idea of wat
er vapor being a short-lived GHG. (Note that they only talk about statospheric water vapor because they're looking at anthropogenic forcing. Stratospheric water vapor increase comes from the degradation of methane and the increase of methane is anthropogenic. If you need a resource that shows all water vapor is short-lived, there are many. Here's one: http://www.epa.go...2014.pdf )

cont.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2015
So we now know that there is no doubt that your claims about water vapor not being short-lived are false. You claim that you got this information a man "in the know". So what do we now know about that?
1. The man was definitely not "in the know", or
2. The man knowingly lied to you, or
3. You misunderstood the man, or
4. You lied about what the man said to you, or
5. You made the whole thing up.
I'm not sure which is correct (and I don't really care), but we do know without a shadow of doubt that your claim above was incorrect.

Before we continue with this discussion, I think you need to acknowledge your mistake and admit that water vapor is a short-lived GHG that can't drive climate change.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2015
Uba, do you understand the concept of stress and resulting strain? Do you understand what plastic deformation means?
@Thermo
not likely
thus far she has ignored anything like pressure, friction, wind, etc which will alter her POV with regard to a lot of things, especially like making/melting ice and climate science

my position is; of course CO2 is a GHG, but its effects are trivial
@ALCHE/h2oCrybaby
not if you include the forcing & cycle it has with water vapor
which was not only described in the study i linked to you about 50 times, but also observed, measured and more
it explains WHY CO2 is so powerful and it is called the "Control Knob" for temps, but that is also all physics, demonstrations, measured/observed data and reality, so you ignored it (and actually said you wouldn't read it)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2015
Before we continue with this discussion, I think you need to acknowledge your mistake and admit that water vapor is a short-lived GHG that can't drive climate change.
@zz5555
you are more likely to get a papal audience and permission for canonization of a dead pet that historically killed children for no reason than get Uba OR ALCHE to admit any faults....
Especially with regard to any CO2 issues

sorry

I even linked the free version of the following study:http://www.scienc...abstract

which not only supports your position but uses measured and observed physics, data and properties to prove it

ALCHE prefers his Wiki graph that he somehow thinks refutes the study when it actually supports it and proves it's points

Hope you are having a great New Years
PEACE
zz5555
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2015
you are more likely to get a papal audience and permission for canonization of a dead pet that historically killed children for no reason than get Uba OR ALCHE to admit any faults....
Especially with regard to any CO2 issues

You may be right. We'll have to see how honest Water_Prophet is. I don't believe ubavontuba has the mental ability to evaluate any scientific argument and he/she doesn't have the honesty or intellectual curiosity to consider that his/her politics/philosophy might be in error, so there's no real reason to interact with him/her.

Hope your New Year's is great as well.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2015
I don't believe ubavontuba has the mental ability to evaluate any scientific argument and he/she doesn't have the honesty or intellectual curiosity to consider that his/her politics/philosophy might be in error, so there's no real reason to interact with him/her
@zz5555
hate to defend uba but... with regard to other areas of science she is actually not stupid

she only gets stupid with regard to climate science!
don't ask me why
I figure it is a combination of:
- political belief
- religion
- the possibility of being paid to sow FUD and undermine actual science

Mostly i think the first two plus a little Dunning-Kruger
especially considering the posts i've seen/interacted with uba regarding biology, astrophysics

I wrote off ALCHE/prophet when he saw the results of the combo experiment with Thermo were not going his way and threw a temper tantrum and ran off

you should also goto: http://saposjoint.net
set up a profile
i am TruckCaptainStumpy there
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015
So here's the thing about the life time of water, it is defined by the temperature. If you want to be pugnacious, and it looks like you do, you can use a lower ceiling for humidity. In the driest desert the humidity is 6%, Atacma. Over the sea, humidity is 100%. And a 1 atm, it is tough to go below 10,000ppm. You can use that as a baseline.

Well, IPCC guy just vectored me away from what I used to believe, that the IPCC was perpetrating a deliberate falsehood, regarding playing on the masses about "indistinguishable particles," vs having a perfectly plausible reason for the gap.

So, he isn't really important, except that I must have impressed him enough to not waive me off as you average kook. He simply said you need to develop relevant conventions for water. Those conventions, which are still being discussed, arrive at a still contested GWP for water of 2-3.

Have a party.

2x45 = 90, 3 x 45 = 135.

Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015
Sorry, it should be;
2 x [H2O]/[CO2] = 2 x 20000/400 = 2 x 100 =200
and
3x ... = 300.

Must be New Years party residuals. Not that you paid any midn to my last retraction.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 02, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed - with WORST unintelligent logic possible
Ah, I get you.
Nah, my position is; of course CO2 is a GHG, but its effects are trivial, due to the small change in its amounts and initial concentration
Very bad uneducated tripe, do U still claim to have graduated as a Physical Chemist (PC) ?

WHY don't U see quiescent (pre industrial revolution) CO2 ppm level allows that heat retention to be on average higher than otherwise if we didn't have any CO2 ?

Y don't U understand such a simple issue ?

Instead of appearing so willfully ignorant Y can't U calculate the differential ?

Dont U read or recall I mentioned U should look at Mars, at least, by comparison ?

Mars:
0.07% earths atmosphere ie VERY thin !!
High daily temps on occasion can reach 20-30C in the SHADE !!
Father from sun than earth !!

So Y is it so WARM on MARS ?

Is it MAYBE because its CO2 is 95% !!! of atmosphere ?

U can't U Water_Prophet work out CO2's resistivity ?
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2015
So here's the thing about the life time of water, it is defined by the temperature.

So you agree that CO2 can't drive the climate. It only serves as a feedback as a result of some climate driver that has warmed the earth. And since you indicated above that CO2 has a much larger forcing than waste heat, you must acknowledge that CO2's effects on the climate are very great.
Well, IPCC guy just vectored me away from what I used to believe, that the IPCC was perpetrating a deliberate falsehood, regarding playing on the masses about "indistinguishable particles," vs having a perfectly plausible reason for the gap.

This is an interesting statement. As you must be aware, the IPCC just reviews papers by scientists, it doesn't perform any science itself. So your statement is identical to you saying that you believe thousands of scientists have been part of a great conspiracy. That's a very revealing claim.

Cont.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2015
So, he isn't really important, except that I must have impressed him enough to not waive me off as you average kook.

Well, since you now know without any question that he was lying to you, perhaps you impressed him as someone gullible enough to believe anything you hear without checking (which appears to be the case).
Those conventions, which are still being discussed, arrive at a still contested GWP for water of 2-3.

Why is this relevant? You've acknowledged that water only acts as a feedback to other warming, so it's the cause of the other warming that is responsible for the increase in water vapor and the increase in warming due to that water vapor (and you've acknowledged that CO2 is a very important part of that warming).

To say otherwise is exactly the same as pushing someone off a cliff and claiming that you didn't kill them - gravity did.
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2015
Ah, so you skeptiguys are all the same, huh? putting words in peoples mouths, misconstrue, obnoxious, fooled by pronouncements from a website that can't do better than a bright high schooler and, of course, ignored.
Such a wonderful option.

I imagine you're all authors of skeptigarbage, or something?

But finally, NO! the math is not complicated on feedback! If a little effect causes a big effect, but that big effect has no ceiling, than it causes a bigger effect.

I think that's down at High School level enough you skepitgarbage enthusiasts can understand.

But you'll still argue about it.

Keep the faith guys, ignore the realities.
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2015
Ah, well this seems to be cool:

The truth about Skeptical Science.
http://www.popula...nce.html
Looks like John is in for a lot of money in a libel suit...

If this is false.
Posted in 2012, and not taken down...
Hmmm....
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2015
zz5555: I think you had a typo when you said:
So you agree that CO2 can't drive the climate.


I think you meant H2O not CO2 (not that Alche/Waterdummy would have caught that).
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2015
Alche/Waterdummy said:
Ah, well this seems to be cool:

The truth about Skeptical Science.
http://www.popula...nce.html
Looks like John is in for a lot of money in a libel suit...

If this is false.
Posted in 2012, and not taken down...
Hmmm....


So, you think that his degree in physics does not let him understand how AGW works? Please explain what there is in the theory of AGW that is not covered in a physics degree?

Also, if you take a look at the skepical science site team listing:

http://www.skepti...team.php

You will find they have a lot of scientific horsepower there.

But then, I assume your brass bowl filled with water and ice and a candle below it does a much better job of predicting the weather of the earth than any of that "physics stuff" that everyone else uses.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK zz5555, Thermo!
Ah, so you skeptiguys are all the same, huh? putting words in peoples mouths, misconstrue, obnoxious, fooled by pronouncements from a website that can't do better than a bright high schooler and, of course, ignored
@ALCHE/h2oCrybabyprophet
Skeptical Science site uses references and links studies on almost every article it writes

I read the articles, then the studies referenced
They are saying the same thing the articles from Skeptical science

CONSIDERING that you have never been able to refute a single study linked HERE
then i find it highly unlikely that you will be able to refute studies from their site

Which reminds me: I've linked two studies for you to refute
One specifically talks about the properties of H2O and CO2 and links a feedback cycle and you keep saying that it is wrong, but you have never been able to provide the maths, evidence or any other ANYTHING refuting the study

why is that?
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
@Captain_Stumpy
Uba, do you understand the concept of stress and resulting strain? Do you understand what plastic deformation means?
@Thermo
not likely
thus far she has ignored anything like pressure, friction, wind, etc which will alter her POV with regard to a lot of things, especially like making/melting ice and climate science
Okay then, same question: What has this to do with CO2?
ubavontuba
3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
@zz5555
I don't believe ubavontuba has the mental ability to evaluate any scientific argument and he/she doesn't have the honesty or intellectual curiosity to consider that his/her politics/philosophy might be in error, so there's no real reason to interact with him/her.
It seems odd you should say this after ditching our last conversation. Why did you do that? Were my questions just too scientifically rigorous for you?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
Uba said:
@Captain_Stumpy
Uba, do you understand the concept of stress and resulting strain? Do you understand what plastic deformation means?
@Thermo
not likely
thus far she has ignored anything like pressure, friction, wind, etc which will alter her POV with regard to a lot of things, especially like making/melting ice and climate science
Okay then, same question: What has this to do with CO2?

However, the question Uba originally asked was:
No. How can it lose ice faster than it accumulates at the pole, if the pole itself isn't melting? Does the ice just up an walk away?

Perhaps you are claiming Antarctica is like a saucer full of salt (salt being an analogy for ice) and the ice is running off the edge because the plate is too full? So? How is that "losing ice?"


I answered your question which was not about CO2. Please point out where you think you asked about CO2.
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
@Uba, give these folks a break.
They've just had the major crux of their arguments exposed as a crock. Someone with less education or environmental clout than they claim to have. You wonder about their scientific rigor, that's why: Even with Cook's a whole undergrad degree in physics, when you lie or omit, it makes you look stupid.
http://www.popula...nce.html

Think about that: Years and years these "five" have been referent, smugly referent, to this Skepticalscience page. And we find all this "Final Word" (in their minds) science has as much standing as a poster here.

Seems like they've got a lot of soul searching, justifications and back-peddling to do. Give'em a break.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
@Captain_Stumpy
Okay then, same question: What has this to do with CO2?
@Uba
you got it wrong again
the question SHOULD be:
why do you ignore the studies with the empirical data?

Think about that: Years and years these "five" have been referent, smugly referent, to this Skepticalscience page. And we find all this "Final Word" (in their minds) science has as much standing as a poster here
@ALCHE/h20crybabyprophet
this shows what an imbecile you are
i've only been on PO for just over a year, moron

also: i will tell you the same thing i told Uba
It is NOT about your perception, my perception or anything else, it is about THE SCIENCE
keyword: SCIENCE

i follow the evidence
you make sh*t up and try to pass it off as legitimate science
thats called PSEUDOSCIENCE, not science
put your waterbowl away, there is no scrying for you here
follow the evidence and the studies
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
@Uba continued
the above links actually reinforces the studies that i've been linking to you (and that idiot ALCHE/h2ocrybabyprophet too)
If you will note: http://www.arctic...ortcard/air_temperature.html]http://www.arctic...ure.html[/url]
which is linked from the main page linked above: http://www.arctic...ortcard/
Shows and reinforces the study i linked to you already that you had no actual refute for but simply labeled BS because you are afraid of the science within it: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
you didn't like it because you said it was describing it after the fact, except that she has been pushing & preaching this for almost 2 decades

she even talks about THAT in her video, which i already linked to you months ago when you started being stupid about cold WEATHER in the AGW CLIMATE problem

ignoring the evidence will not make things easier or make the problems go away
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
and backpedaling as well.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2015
@thermodynamics:
I answered your question which was not about CO2. Please point out where you think you asked about CO2.
You intruded on a conversation I was having with zz5555, which began as follows:

ubavontuba1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014

For good or ill, empirical evidence shows that's not true - we're still getting more energy from the sun than we emit (http://www.skepti...iate.htm ). Earth has quite a bit of warming to go before we reach equilibrium. The continued (and accelerating) melting of glaciers and ice sheets also show that. As you indicated above, waste heat is only a tiny part of that - most of the warming is due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.


Funny then that global sea ice extant has returned to normal (even if some has 'migrated' south):

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


So again, what has the supposed south polar ice loss have to do with CO2?

ubavontuba
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2015
@Uba, give these folks a break.
They've just had the major crux of their arguments exposed as a crock. Someone with less education or environmental clout than they claim to have. You wonder about their scientific rigor, that's why: Even with Cook's a whole undergrad degree in physics, when you lie or omit, it makes you look stupid.
http://www.popula...nce.html

Think about that: Years and years these "five" have been referent, smugly referent, to this Skepticalscience page. And we find all this "Final Word" (in their minds) science has as much standing as a poster here.

Seems like they've got a lot of soul searching, justifications and back-peddling to do. Give'em a break.
LMFAO! That's hilarious!

And no, they do not deserve a break.

ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2015
@Captain_Stumpy
Okay then, same question: What has this to do with CO2?
@Uba
you got it wrong again
the question SHOULD be:
why do you ignore the studies with the empirical data?
This is your shtick. Don't avoid the question with the distraction of pretending it is mine. Just answer the question.

zz5555
4 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2015
zz5555: I think you had a typo when you said:
So you agree that CO2 can't drive the climate.


I think you meant H2O not CO2 (not that Alche/Waterdummy would have caught that).

Nice catch. Yeah, I don't see any other way of interpreting Water_Prophet's claims.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
@Cap'n:
@Uba continued
the above links actually reinforces the studies that i've been linking to you
Shows and reinforces the study i linked to you already that you had no actual refute for but simply labeled BS because you are afraid of the science within it: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
you didn't like it because you said it was describing it after the fact, except that she has been pushing & preaching this for almost 2 decades

she even talks about THAT in her video, which i already linked to you months ago when you started being stupid about cold WEATHER in the AGW CLIMATE problem

ignoring the evidence will not make things easier or make the problems go away
Again, it is B.S.. There is no statistical evidence which proves we are experiencing any weather extremes which are outside of natural variation.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
putting words in peoples mouths, misconstrue, obnoxious, fooled by pronouncements from a website that can't do better than a bright high schooler and, of course, ignored.

I'm not sure where I put words in your mouth. I think your problem is that you don't pay attention to what you've said. Take, for instance, when you said:
Waste heat equal to 1/10 of the solar flux that causes our 10 year climate variations is produced by burning fossil fuels.

And you also said that waste heat was about 1/10000th of the heat coming from the sun. That's in the ballpark. Total TSI is about 1366W/m2, and because of the geometry and albedo of the earth (http://www.cawcr....olar.pdf ), that works out to ~239W/m2. TSI varies about 1.3W/m2 over the 11 year cycle which means the solar forcing changes ~.228W/m2 over that period.

Cont.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
why do you ignore the studies with the empirical data?
This is your shtick. Don't avoid the question with the distraction of pretending it is mine. Just answer the question.

@Uba
you are backpedaling/trying to redirect the conversation from the proven fact that you've ignored the more than 50 studies that i've linked in the past YEAR proving you wrong...

there are a mere 7 in this comment thread: http://phys.org/n...lps.html

but i can dig up the others if you like

it still doesn't answer the question, which i will continue to post because it is 100% TRUE

why do you ignore the studies with the empirical data?
ESPECIALLY the ones that prove you wrong, like the Francis study

Why haven't you ever been able to give any reputable evidence that those studies are "wrong" or "bs" or anything else you've claimed

after all
IF it was "bad science" as you claimed
there would be evidence and studies refuting it
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
@ubaTROLL
Again, it is B.S..

repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true than the first time

you've never been able to give any evidence that ANY of the linked studies are "bad science", "bs" or any other claim you have given

that is the genius of the scientific method: if you have the ability to refute it, you can
that evidence must use the scientific method and will be given the same treatment of the original (peer review and investigation for validity)

guess what?
you've never given ANY information for ANY reputable source proving that ANY study is wrong or bad or bs

you will simply keep repeating your same old lines with no evidence

and i will continue to point out that you've never been able to offer any reputable evidence at all whatsoever that there is anything wrong with any of the studies

you lose anyway
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
Now, for measurement, we know that forcing from waste heat is ~.03W/m2 (http://aoss-resea...nr09.pdf ). So waste heat is ~1/8000th of the heat coming from the sun and ~1/8th of solar variation. But we also know from WG1 AR5, that the anthropogenic CO2 forcing is ~1.68W/m2 - or 56x more than waste heat. So your statements indicate that you must know that CO2 levels are very important in the current warming. To say otherwise would be to deny reality (and some pretty simple math).

Later you said:
So here's the thing about the life time of water, it is defined by the temperature.

So here you say you know that it takes warming to keep water in the atmosphere. So you admit that water can't drive the warming, something warms the earth and increases the water content of the atmosphere. Therefore, you must know that something else is responsible for the climate warming (including the warming from water).

Cont.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
Again, to deny this is to deny reality.

So I can't see where I've put words into your mouth. I've only made logical inferences from your statements. If the forcing from CO2 is much greater than the forcing from waste heat, as you indicate, then it can only follow that CO2 is much more important than waste heat in the warming of the earth. And if H2O requires something else to heat the earth before H2O levels in the atmosphere can increase, as you stated, then it logically follows that H2O cannot drive the climate. To say otherwise is to deny the very statements you've already made. I've quoted your very statements - are you now denying that you made them?
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
@Cap'n:
This is your shtick. Don't avoid the question with the distraction of pretending it is mine. Just answer the question.

@Uba
you are backpedaling/trying to redirect the conversation from the proven fact that you've ignored the more than 50 studies that i've linked in the past YEAR proving you wrong...

there are a mere 7 in this comment thread: http://phys.org/n...lps.html

but i can dig up the others if you like

it still doesn't answer the question, which i will continue to post because it is 100% TRUE

why do you ignore the studies with the empirical data?
ESPECIALLY the ones that prove you wrong, like the Francis study

Why haven't you ever been able to give any reputable evidence that those studies are "wrong" or "bs" or anything else you've claimed

after all
IF it was "bad science" as you claimed
there would be evidence and studies refuting it
All this just to avoid one question?

zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
Ah, well this seems to be cool:

The truth about Skeptical Science.
http://www.popula...nce.html
Looks like John is in for a lot of money in a libel suit...

If this is false.
Posted in 2012, and not taken down...
Hmmm....

There's clearly a number of logical fallacies in your link (but no one expects poptech to be logical), including a pretty blatant ad hominem. I've always found that people only jump to the ad hominem fallacy when they know their arguments don't hold any water. So I'll take this as an admission by you that you know you're arguments about waste heat and water have been wrong.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2015
@Cap'nTROLL:
repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true
That it is true is what makes it true.

you've never been able to give any evidence that ANY of the linked studies are "bad science", "bs" or any other claim you have given
How much do you want to bet on that?

guess what?
you've never given ANY information for ANY reputable source proving that ANY study is wrong or bad or bs

you will simply keep repeating your same old lines with no evidence
Again, your shtick.

and i will continue to point out that you've never been able to offer any reputable evidence at all whatsoever that there is anything wrong with any of the studies
See? Your shtick. And lying too.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
But finally, NO! the math is not complicated on feedback! If a little effect causes a big effect, but that big effect has no ceiling, than it causes a bigger effect.

You've made this claim, but have shown no supporting evidence that H2O "has no ceiling". On the other hand, I've shown plenty of evidence that H2O has a very real ceiling, as long as we're still talking about earth. Do you have any evidence that H2O "has no ceiling"?
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
Ah, zzz, why did I put you on ignore with the other skeptiguys?
Well, look at it from my perspective: You defer to a guy with less education than myself, who I have stated; lies by omission, mixes assertions and truth to arrive at conclusions he desires, rather than logical ones.

If it is beneath me to argue with the the author of skeptilies, I am certainly not going to debate with his lackey.

And that's just it: I don't care if you argue about my own education not being better than Mr. Cook's, I say it is, and that is why you are ignored.

Have fun with Uba. I am enjoying his side of the arguement. However; I have full confidence in you: Uba hasn't realized that by arguing with you, you will drag him down to you level and beat him with experience.

https://www.goodr...ring-you
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
You defer to a guy with less education than myself, who I have stated; lies by omission, mixes assertions and truth to arrive at conclusions he desires, rather than logical ones.

And yet I don't defer to him. I showed previously that you were mistaken about the "lies", so I'm not sure what you're referring to there. As for "a guy with less education than myself", I wonder if you can identify the logical fallacy you made there? ;)

I don't care if you argue about my own education not being better than Mr. Cook's, I say it is,

I don't recall claiming anything about your education relative to Mr. Cook's, so you made that whole thing up. Have you figured out the logical fallacy you're using yet? While I don't know (nor do I care) about your education, you have shown an inability to think logically.
PopTech
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2015
@zz5555

"There's clearly a number of logical fallacies in your link (but no one expects poptech to be logical), including a pretty blatant ad hominem."

I am always very logical. Which fact about Skeptical Science would you like to dispute? That they censor all opposing viewpoints, smear highly credentialed scientists, that John Cook was self-employed as a cartoonist for over a decade or that they secretly Photoshop themselves as Nazis on their not-so-secret forums?

http://www.popula...nce.html

"I've always found that people only jump to the ad hominem fallacy when they know their arguments don't hold any water."

So you agree that anyone's arguments who uses the word "denier" do not hold water? This is good to know
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 04, 2015
@pooptech

I've long wondered about your business model.

A solitary endeavor fueled by a loner with a missionary zeal without an understanding of how science works.

Or a well funded organization backed by the carbon mining industry.

In any case your site lacks credibility
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2015
@UbaTROLL
That it is true is what makes it true
you've never been able to prove that it IS true
whereas I've been able to prove that you are a liar
heck, its readily apparent by reading above!
How much do you want to bet on that?
if you COULD have proved anything, you WOULD have
See? Your shtick. And lying too
this is actually funny!
i have just demonstrated and shown where you've continually LIED
and repeatedly said the same thing without ANY evidence
but you are simply saying "it's my shtick" LMFAO

guess you are blind and illiterate as well? what?

like i said above
if you could have proven anything was bad science
you would have
especially considering the following link
http://dialogueso...nge.html

so why didn't you win, uba?
why aren't you world famous for demonstrating its all a hoax and the science is bad?
publish that study... i gotta see it!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2015
POST SCRIPT
to Uba
on this thread: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
I told you the following
you've never given ANY information for ANY reputable source proving that ANY study is wrong or bad or bs
to which you stated
Now you are just blatantly lying
This is the challenge to you:

link the evidence
show the reputable, peer reviewed journals and publications that refute the studies that i have linked and prove that i have linked a study that has been "refuted, revoked or proven to contain ANY bad, disreputable science"

prove yourself with equivalent peer reviewed studies refuting those that i've linked
show where they've been retracted or revoked for bad science

i'm waiting
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2015
You know, actually, even though John Cook is probably posing a an "environmental Nazi," as a joke or something--AT LEAST WE HOPE!--, the incredibly poor taste reflects reflects alot on his judgment, and colors his message grotesquely.

I don't think I am going to be even able to look at a skeptilink now without seeing "Heil-Cook-er."
And I don't think it is a coincidence that the most obnoxious trolls on this site have this mentality, or to be fair, the parody of it.

Even so, it is disgusting, because I am sure John Cook's supporters know all about it, know all about the half-truths, omissions, etc.. Looking at it this way, how could they not?

Makes you wonder when the supporters of AGW, a cause that is noble, have such people in it. Gotta wonder about conspiracies and things. It's disgusting.

Once more:

Disgusting.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2015
You know, actually, even though John Cook is probably posing a an "environmental Nazi,"
&
that John Cook was self-employed as a cartoonist for over a decade
@ALCHE/h20crybaby
@pooptech
1- you referenced pooptech as a legit source - pooptech is an extremist site that has no legitimacy in the scientific circles, and only caters to the anti-science crowd pushing a belief in a conspiracy in modern climate science
2- since you cannot attack the science and refute the studies, you choose to attack the site and the site admin/owner and poster?

WHO GIVES A SH*T !!

There is an overwhelming amount of SCIENCE, in the form of STUDIES that prove global warming/climate change!

Unless you can provide reputable sources of equivalent science/evidence refuting the studies
then you guys are TROLLING

Where is the reputable science refuting the studies?
neither of you are famous yet...
and you WOULD be if you had reputable science ...

but you're here trolling instead
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2015
[continued]
Once more:
Disgusting.
and once more: WHERE IS THE SCIENCE REFUTING THE STUDIES

that whole thing above regarding John Cook is what is a red hering... nothing more than a distraction

attack the poster/person in the hopes that no one will notice
if true, does it affect the actual science?
does it affect the outcome?
does it change the FACTS that you have not provided a single reputable source or study refuting ANY of the linked studies I've posted NOR have you been able to attack and refute a single study linked on skeptical science

you like to THINK you did, and you continue to say you have, but ANY poster here can search Google for historical posts and they will ALL find the same results:

You two have NEVER ONCE refuted a SINGLE STUDY here with ANY reputable science

like i said... you would be world renowned if you had... the Oil companies/big $$ pushing the anti-science anti-AGW would have made SURE of it

TROLLS
both of you
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2015
Let me summarize with respect to Alche/WaterBowl.

1) Counter to physics and all serious technical studies (hundreds of them) he denies that CO2 can affect any serious change in the heat balance of the planet.

2) He believes that sensible heat from combustion is the driver of global warming.

3) He has a brass bowl filled with water and ice and a candle under it that he professes is a more accurate model of the Earth's climate than any other model that exists.

4) He judges web sites by their names instead of their content.

5) He has a CO2 meter in his house that he believes is more representative of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than the multiple professional CO2 measuring stations operating throughout the world.

Is it any mystery why he looks like a full-on loon when he puts forward his pseudoscience?
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2015
Team,

Let's all have a moment of silence for the the death of Skeptiscience. All the personal attacks, all the misconstrue, all the half-truths, all the whining calls for us to justify our data, and all the lies are just not going to have the same effect now that we know that the supreme authority for all of these-

the quasi-Nazi John Cook,

-is only a website with all the referent authority of you, me, heck anyone off the street!

What should we think of those people who refer to "just anybody" as the end-all and be-all of climate science? Well, my opinion of them is less than I have of that just anybody.

Anyway, Phys.org has changed, let's have a moment of silence as we recognize the supporters of skeptigarbage.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
is only a website with all the referent authority of you, me, heck anyone off the street!
@ALCHE/crybabyH2O
FIRST thing - i trust NOTHING from that extremist BS site pooptech or it's owner who has repeatedly demonstrated nothing but PSEUDOSCIENCE here on PO

SECONDLY: the FACTS still haven't changed one bit
The articles that ARE on the site are supported by studies, which are empirical evidence
The articles are researched and well written, and there is more science and actual real physics on that site than ANYTHING you OR poopytech have posted to date

What have you ever brought to PO for evidence?
your water bowl, a CLAIM of a home CO2 detector and a graphic from Wiki that you don't understand
Nothing, not ONE THING, ever verified, proven or even supported by ANY evidence other than your delusions

at least SkepticalScience has taken the time to research and link referenced studies
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
@pooptech
I am always very logical. Which fact about Skeptical Science would you like to dispute?
First - you promised to litigate in a thread here a few months back because we pointed out your fallacies
where are those papers and when can i expect to be served?
I would really like to square off with you in court

Second: you are here to try to argue against skeptical science?
that is OT
why not argue against the linked and referenced studies that he has linked for supporting evidence?

I will tell you why: the same reason you have never been able to refute a single study here on PO
you have NO EVIDENCE
that is the whole reason you attacked Cook & not the science

can it!
this is a science site, not your personal vendetta site
i wouldn't believe anything your site posted given your history here on PO
and the above is one reason why...
when backed into a corner with science, you resort to threats and lies
just like your threat of litigation

STILL WAITING
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2015
@Cap'nTROLL:

Okay, that's two more long, evasive posts you've made to avoid the question. Have you no shame, at all?

ubavontuba
3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2015
@Cap'nSTUPIDTROLL
so why didn't you win, uba?
why aren't you world famous for demonstrating its all a hoax and the science is bad?
Oh please, it was obviously rigged from the beginning. AGWites have long ago made their hypotheses unfalsifiable. It is simply not science.

I might as well make a similar counter offer. But it too would have no value because the only evidence I would accept (and I actually would accept it, unlike Chris Keating) is an unadjusted global temperature dataset. Unfortunately, unadjusted global temperature data sets don't exist because the AGWites insist on manipulating the data!

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2015
Okay, that's two more long, evasive posts you've made to avoid the question. Have you no shame, at all?
@Ubastupid
so, again... what you are saying is you have nothing except your own personal conjecture

that still doesn't count as a refute, nor is it equivalent to the empirical studies posted
Oh please, it was obviously rigged from the beginning
said like a true troll

let me make it far more clear to you and all the rest of the "deniers" or anti-science posters who claim climate science/AGW/Global Warming is false:

even a cursory look at the overwhelming scientific evidence shows that the predominant amount of research supports AGW
the scientists can see this and know it is real
http://www.wunder.../928.asp

the only people arguing it are politically motivated, conspiracy theorists, religious extremist or plain delusional and not scientifically literate

the evidence speaks volumes
you just refuse to hear it
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
AGWites have long ago made their hypotheses unfalsifiable. It is simply not science
@UbatardTROLL
and again, you have never once been able to prove this claim
in fact, you have never once been able to offer reputable scientific studies supporting ANY of your claims!

you can link all the extremist sites you want
you can cherry-pick all the data you want
you can blatantly lie about the results like above

but it still doesn't change the results OR the facts: you have nothing but personal conjecture

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2015
@Cap'nSTUPIDTROLL
so why didn't you win, uba?
why aren't you world famous for demonstrating its all a hoax and the science is bad?
Oh please, it was obviously rigged from the beginning. AGWites have long ago made their hypotheses unfalsifiable. It is simply not science.

I might as well make a similar counter offer. But it too would have no value because the only evidence I would accept (and I actually would accept it, unlike Chris Keating) is an unadjusted global temperature dataset. Unfortunately, unadjusted global temperature data sets don't exist because the AGWites insist on manipulating the data!



Uba: Lying again. Raw data is available from a number of sources. Here is an article on one.

http://www.newsci...7eePF9ac

All you have to do is search for raw global temperature data. Have fun data mining.

Now stop lying about the availability of unadjusted data.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2015
@Cap'nSTUPID:
Okay, that's two more long, evasive posts you've made to avoid the question. Have you no shame, at all?
so, again... what you are saying is you have nothing except your own personal conjecture
And again, you evade the question?

the only people arguing it are politically motivated, conspiracy theorists, religious extremist or plain delusional and not scientifically literate
Another lie. There certainly are well respected scientists arguing against it. Probably the most famous being Judith Curry.

But will you admit to this lie?

...Seriously, have you ever even thought to simply try to discuss this honestly?

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2015
@Cap'nLYINGTARD
AGWites have long ago made their hypotheses unfalsifiable. It is simply not science
@UbatardTROLL
and again, you have never once been able to prove this claim
LOL, how could I prove the negative that it is unfalsifiable? Why don't you tell us what you will accept to falsify it?

in fact, you have never once been able to offer reputable scientific studies supporting ANY of your claims!
Lying again! Why is it AGWites have to resort to lying all the time (rhetorical)? I'll tell you why. That's because the only way to support a lie, is with more lies!

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2015
@thermodynamics:
Uba: Lying again. Raw data is available from a number of sources. Here is an article on one.

http://www.newsci...7eePF9ac

All you have to do is search for raw global temperature data. Have fun data mining.

Now stop lying about the availability of unadjusted data.
"Raw data" and "unadjusted data" are not the same thing.

Even in your link they state, ""We released [the dataset] to dispel the myths that the data have been inappropriately manipulated, and that we are being secretive," meaning they're simply claiming it wasn't "inappropriately" manipulated. It is still manipulated.

By the way, why are you also still evading the polar ice melt question?

thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
Uba said:
"Raw data" and "unadjusted data" are not the same thing.
Please explain how this is a true statement. You said you cannot get unadjusted date but a simple search on Google shows that unadjusted date are available from multiple sites.

Are you just saying you will not accept any date even if it is certified to be "Raw data" and "unadjusted data"?
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
Uba said:
By the way, why are you also still evading the polar ice melt question?


Would you please explain this question? As far as I can tell from the conversation I have answered any of your questions. Possibly not to your satisfaction because you do not understand physics, but can you explain why you think I have not answered your question? What do you define as "the polar ice melt question?"
PopTech
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2015
@Hanoi Jane

This is not a business but an independent organization and it is not possible for me to be a "loner" when I have multiple members on my staff. We are funded by no one and have never received a penny from anyone. Our site is very credible.

Popular Technology.net is an impartial, highly cited website referenced over 225 times throughout 23 countries in books and scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major and regional news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, political institutions, on radio and by the technology community.

http://www.popula...net.html

PopTech
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2015
@Captain Deranged

Everything on Popular Technology.net is fully cited and sourced and it is taken very seriously in scientific circles, having been referenced by numerous scientists and in 5 peer-reviewed journals.

http://www.popula...net.html

Popular Technology.net is not a conspiracy theorist website as we have resources challenging 911, JFK and Moon Landing conspiracy theories.

The 1350+ peer-reviewed paper list is devastating to alarmists like Captain Deranged which is why they do everything they can to try and manipulate people into not referencing it.

http://www.popula...ing.html
PopTech
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2015
@Captain Deranged

Why are you lying that I promised to litigate in a thread here? Please quote where I made any such "promise".

I am not here to argue against Skeptical Science, I am here to correct nonsense that was stated about my site.

I never came here to "refute any studies", so maybe you are confused and need to learn how to read what I actually write.

You don't have to believe anything on my site as it is all fully cited and sourced, just read the references. So I take it that you do not wish to dispute any of the facts presented about Skeptical Science, that is good to know.

You truly are mentally deranged as I was never "backed into the corner" about anything.
PopTech
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2015
@Water_Profit

You truly broke Captain Deranged well done. Keep pounding away with the facts about Skeptical Science as they cannot respond to them and is causing them massive cognitive dissonance.

http://www.popula...nce.html

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science

It is very important for Mr. Cook to keep up this facade, as once people learn of his lack of credentials and scientifically worthless employment history they are unlikely to take his website seriously no matter how he desperately pads his resume.
PopTech
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2015
Skeptical Science: "Drown Them Out"

http://www.popula...out.html

"I think this is a highly effective method of dealing with various blogs and online articles where these discussions pop up. Flag them, discuss them and then send in the troops to hammer down what are usually just a couple of very vocal people. It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this. If we can coordinate better and grow the "team of crushers" then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively." - Rob Honeycutt

"Badgersouth [John Hartz] and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated "Crusher Crew" where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles." - Rob Honeycutt
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2015
Skeptiguys,
I just caught a glimpse before I logged in again, but I guess you are trying to bring yourselves up by mocking the bowl again; but consider just how powerful, predictive and flexible that bowl model is:

Leave the brass for a moment, and, in your mind, make it from a durable ceramic glaze.

Place one in the N. Hemisphere, and one in the S.. Fill with water as before.

Touch the handle, and you can not only see the effects of your credibility go down the drain, but hear it as well.

And don't you dare say I didn't predict that.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2015
@ubastupidTROLL
3 posts
ZERO links/ecidence refuting the above linked studies

Our site is very credible
@Poopytech
there is no evidence supporting this delusional belief other than your pwn personal conjecture
just like ubastupid above, you offer ZERO evidence refuting the links i've provided

Therefore you are no different than the person you are attempting to vilify with your claims

in fact, you could say that you are worse as at least Cook has published a study in a reputable journal whereas all you've provided is misinformation and BS

you even think that self reference to your biased site (which you claim impartiality but then refuse to allow certain posters the means to post, as you said in your own words) is somehow the same thing as peer reviewed studies

you even claimed it to be "logical", in fact!

and you tried reporting us for pointing out to you that you were not only wrong, but biased and lying

would you like to see THOSE quotes too?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2015
I am here to correct nonsense that was stated about my site
@Poopytech
you mean like us pointing out to you that you are biased?
that was YOUR OWN WORDS repeated back to you... and you ignored this and kept asking for evidence that you were biased!
I don't give people who delete my hundreds of comments from their website and ban me "chances"
YOUR WORDS - not mine

and...by definition, it also means that you are biased, as you will refuse the dissenting opinions of those you do not like

a non-biased website allows comments from ALL parties, not just select parties
Therefore, you are essentially lying about being impartial and non-biased

Your words above, not mine

and neither YOUR SITE
nor any ALCHE/prophet has provided ANY logical argument NOR evidence equivalent to the studies i linked refuting the information i posted

which means you lied AGAIN above

and that, poopT, is LOGIC
Water_Prophet
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2015
Who needs citations with accurate predictions?

Like you Stumps, I don't need to read your posts to know that presenting water has a molecular mass of ~18 needs a citation for you.

See the rest of us are smart enough to know if we drop a ball-it falls, if we say 2+2=4 that Stumpy needs a citation.

You always claim my predictions are inaccurate? They seem very accurate to me, where's your proof?

Don't bother, I don't need to read what you say to know what you are going to say.

Like climate change, you're predictable.

Begs the question though, why are you here? Do you need a vacation? I could take over for you a while.

"UbaTroll- Why do you still persist in not reading those articles that support MY opinion? If you provide evidence that refutes my claim, I'll pretend I didn't see it and come back later when everyone's forgotten!
I don't need to read peer reviewed papers to know what they say! They say what I think they say!"

See, buddy? easy, take a break.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
I never came here to "refute any studies"
you still haven't offered any EQUIVALENT studies as a refute to the original argument started months ago!

you seem to think that making a claim on a web site is equivalent to a peer reviewed study published in a reputable journal

it is not

your biased BS web site is nothing but an extremist hangout for those too stupid/political/religious/delusional to read the science

you make claims that are blatantly false and have been proven so using your own words and then expect people here to take you and your site seriously?
really?

now you are here supplying information to spear another site which posts articles with studies referenced as supporting evidence and you think this is going to change the FACTS?

who are you trying to convince? us or you?

unless you have studies published refuting the studies that are supporting AGW, then you have nothing to offer but personal conjecture

Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
ALCHE/CRYBABY said
You always claim my predictions are inaccurate? They seem very accurate to me, where's your proof?

Don't bother, I don't need to read what you say to know what you are going to say.

Like climate change, you're predictable.
of all the posts and claims of predictions as well as knowledge, what have you offered as evidence?

a biased website from a known liar
a lot of conjecture from you with absolutely no evidence
claim after claim of predictions with NO links or proof, just "your word"

this is nothing but TROLLING and BAITING
and you STILL have not offered anything supporting your conjecture
or refuting my studies which demonstrates that you even know what you are talking about let alone supports your position denying the science linked above

no proof
no substance
just BS
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2015
@Captain Deranged, I suggest you get your medication checked.

I never came here to "refute" let alone comment on any "study" you have ever posted. You have been told this repeatedly yet perpetually bring up this strawman argument.

you seem to think that making a claim on a web site is equivalent to a peer reviewed study published in a reputable journal

Quote where I made any such claim.

My website is politically independent and religiously agnostic so I have no idea what you are talking about.

you make claims that are blatantly false and have been proven so using your own words

You are clearly mentally deranged as no such thing has ever happened.

now you are here supplying information to spear another site which posts articles with studies referenced as supporting evidence and you think this is going to change the FACTS?

The facts are all fully sourced in my articles, those intellectually honest can read it for themselves.
PopTech
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2015
@Captain Deranged

there is no evidence supporting this ...belief other than your pwn personal conjecture

Actually I just provided you with overwhelming evidence, as my site is referenced over 225 times throughout 23 countries in books and scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major and regional news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, political institutions, on radio and by the technology community. http://www.popula...net.html

you even think that self reference to your ...site (which you claim impartiality but then refuse to allow certain posters the means to post, as you said in your own words) is somehow the same thing as peer reviewed studies

Nothing in that link is "self-referenced" as those are all independent third parties. My site is not a discussion board, so get over it. I made no claim that anything was equivalent to peer-reviewed studies. My site is cited in 5 peer-reviewed journals.
PopTech
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2015
@Captain Deranged

you mean like us pointing out to you that you are biased?
that was YOUR OWN WORDS repeated back to you... and you ignored this and kept asking for evidence that you were biased!
I don't give people who delete my hundreds of comments from their website and ban me "chances"
YOUR WORDS - not mine

That is only evidence of treating people how I am treated. It is not being biased it is being fair. I have discussions all the time with rational people who do not censor my comments.

and...by definition, it also means that you are biased, as you will refuse the dissenting opinions of those you do not like a non-biased website allows comments from ALL parties, not just select parties

Incorrect, I do not allow lies, misinformation or strawman arguments to be posted. I also do not allow spam. Comments also have to be on topic. These comment rules are frequently violated. It has nothing to do with dissenting opinions.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
Quote where I made any such claim
@PoopT
the argument was presented with Cook's STUDY, and your counter was
Calling the "study" with egregious errors like this worthless is accurate
then you linked your SITE

your site is NOT a peer reviewed reputable journal
nor was the link you gave to a study refuting the linked study from Cook
this is in regard to the following study: http://iopscience...4024.pdf

your answer was to link to a list of people who supposedly discussed with you that the study mis-classified the papers they published
This is NOT a "reputable study published in a peer reviewed journal"
therefore you have NOT offered equivalent evidence supporting your assertions as quoted above, you have simply linked your assertions and biased inclinations and then claimed it is equivalent by repeating a link and claiming your site is not biased and
my site is referenced over 225 times
blah blah blah
2B contd
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2015
Water_Prophet with clear indication of delusion & inability to communicate
Leave the brass for a moment, and, in your mind, make it from a durable ceramic glaze.
Place one in the N. Hemisphere, and one in the S.. Fill with water as before.
Touch the handle, and you can not only see the effects of your credibility go down the drain, but hear it as well.
And don't you dare say I didn't predict that.
Again immensely qualitative but, it doesnt even make sense, what do U imagine U are measuring & where is their aspect of "Specific Heat" ?
https://en.wikipe...fic_heat

It seems very clear Water_Prophet, you are ill and/or on weed or other substance abuse...

Still havent addressed long wave IR to space & CO2's interference AND my earlier Q how your miniscule brass bowl predicts a *change* in heat transfer dynamics explaining the so called "Pause", ie Its timing, specific heat influence etc ???????

Shake yourself up & get an Education - Puh-lease !
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2015
PoopT [cont'd]
Then you tried to backpedal out of the conversation with
(I am not interested in any of the propaganda "consensus" studies)
when you had not established that:
1-it was propaganda
2-it was a false study
3-that there was any refute published
4-that there was any information not correct proven by any means that conforms to the same rigorous controls and structure as a peer reviewed study

then you started whining about your "saintly demeanor" (my term used in sarcastic hyperbole with regard to your continual claims of impartiality)
But you made the specific claims that you do NOT allow certain posters

you can claim EITHER "evidence of treating people how I am treated" OR you can open the comments to ALL parties and claim to be impartial and biased
There is no middle ground if you want to be impartial... you MUST open the comments to the refute or arguments against you regardless of WHO they are

to be cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2015
@poopTROLL
you throw out comments like
Why are you and Cook trying to libel these scientists?
then when pointed out that the same applies to YOU and that you are on a public forum, and that stating impartiality on a public access site while being demonstrably against impartiality by not allowing posters is also no different
you get all stupid and start making insane TROLL posts about how righteous you are
(when it was demonstrated and proven in your own words that you were NOT impartial)

IMPARTIAL: Not partial or biased; unprejudiced (Wordnik)

https://en.wikipe...rtiality
Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reason
Banning people from YOUR site is NOT IMPARTIAL
therefore your continued argument is false
ctd
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2015
@PoopTROLL
You continue to argue that your site has some special quality of impartiality
& yes, you DID offer a refute to a study, regardless of intent

Conclusions: you have been proven a liar (especially with regard to impartiality), above and here: http://phys.org/n...ics.html

I would go on but this would drag out for too many continuous posts, so i will shorten this

You are on a science site
People argue a point, then produce evidence supporting their conclusions
I have argued a point and supplied STUDIES linked/published in reputable peer reviewed journals

you have NOT given any equivalent data/studies refuting anything i said
plus you've been proven not to be trustworthy despite your claims otherwise

Therefore you and your claims can be dismissed out of hand as it does not meet the equivalence of a peer reviewed study

feel free to claim otherwise
the evidence is above in black and white against you
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2015
@Captain Deranged
the argument was presented with Cook's STUDY, and your counter was
Calling the "study" with egregious errors like this worthless is accurate
then you linked your SITE

Thanks for proving yourself wrong, as I was quoted no claim was made by me that my site was equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal.

your site is NOT a peer reviewed reputable journal

Shall we call you Captain Obvious now?

nor was the link you gave to a study refuting the linked study from Cook [et al. 2013]

Strawman argument, no claim was made that it was a study but it certainly refutes Cook et al. (2013)

http://www.popula...sts.html

...and then claimed it is equivalent by repeating a link...

No equivalent claim was ever made and you failed to quote me making any such claim. So you have failed to support any of your nonsensical arguments.
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2015
@Captain Deranged
your answer was to link to a list of people who supposedly discussed with you that the study mis-classified the papers they published

Not "supposedly" but were contacted and anyone that wants to can confirm this for themselves.

This is NOT a "reputable study published in a peer reviewed journal"

Thanks Captain Obvious.

therefore you have NOT offered equivalent evidence supporting your assertions as quoted above,

My "assertions" as quoted was that the study was worthless due to egregious errors. Are you unable to read what you quoted?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2015
no claim was made by me that my site was equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal
@PoopTROLL
go back and re-read for clarity and take your prozac
i asked for equivalent evidence but you linked your site, which is NOT equivalent evidence, therefore, by action, you are positing that your site somehow is equivalent to peer reviewed studies by continual insistence that your refute was legitimate or equivalent
Strawman argument
no, it's not
again, we are on a science site and the request was made to prove yourself
you chose to offer circumstantial non-peer reviewed links, not studies, therefore (see above for Captain Obvious again)
No equivalent claim was ever made and you failed to quote me making any such claim
your continual links were consistent with assertions of equivalent assumption and that was made clear to you, even after you chose to post your
"Rebuttals to Criticism" section

PopTech
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2015
@Captain Deranged
Then you tried to backpedal out of the conversation with (I am not interested in any of the propaganda "consensus" studies)

It is not possible for me to backpedal out of your deranged strawman argument.

when you had not established that:
1-it was propaganda
2-it was a false study
3-that there was any refute published
4-that there was any information not correct proven by any means that conforms to the same rigorous controls and structure as a peer reviewed study

This has all been established, including rebuttals to your strawman arguments.

http://www.popula...sts.html

http://dx.doi.org...3-9647-9

http://dx.doi.org...4.04.045
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2015
Not "supposedly" but were contacted and anyone that wants to can confirm this for themselves
so you claim
this is a science site, then your claim or refute should be equivalent or it is then considered a non-answer and can be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant
your continual insistence that it is legitimate should have been taken to the logical step of offering a study for peer review, not continue to make claims that it would take a year to fact check by ones self
This is the crux of the argument
your continual insistence of legitimacy must be provable, and the only way for you to prove it with any kind of equivalence to the posted studies is to create and publish a study of your own

i noticed that you have yet to do that
in court, you would be dismissed against a study as not provable and circumstantial at best

considering your track record above & elsewhere...

and since we ARE arguing the reliability of evidence
you're not reliable
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged

But you made the specific claims that you do NOT allow certain posters

This is correct, I am unbiased and treat others how they treat me. Everyone intellectually honest knows this to be fair treatment. I also do not allow spammers or those who violate the comment guidelines.

There is no middle ground if you want to be impartial... you MUST open the comments to the refute or arguments against you regardless of WHO they are

You do not define the context of what "impartial" means when I use it.

http://www.macmil...mpartial

impartial (defined) "not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group"
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2015
My "assertions" as quoted was that the study was worthless due to egregious errors
@PoopTROLL
noted and already answered, but i will answer again

When there was a request for equivalent evidence, you linked your site and your list as evidence, which is, as noted above, not equivalent nor is it reliable unless published in a format that conforms to the same rigors as the initial evidence given, in this case a study
This has all been established, including rebuttals to your strawman arguments
this is YOUR strawman argument, as you tend to repeat it without evidence

Also
we've given you complete open access studies as supporting evidence and you are hiding relevant data behind a paywall for a refute
i suggest you conform to the same standards of argument that we are giving you

Otherwise it is simply demonstrating your unwillingness to give full access to relevant information which goes back to the argument of reliability

what are you hiding?

PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged
you throw out comments like
Why are you and Cook trying to libel these scientists?
then when pointed out that the same applies to YOU and that you are on a public forum,

You failed to point any such thing out.

and that stating impartiality on a public access site while being demonstrably against impartiality by not allowing posters is also no different


IMPARTIAL: Not partial or biased; unprejudiced (Wordnik)

https://en.wikipedia.org...
What a clown you are, first of all Wikipedia is not a dictionary and second you do not define the context of my words. The correct definition of "impartial" how I use it is linked to the definition at the bottom of my website.

http://www.macmil...mpartial

impartial (defined) "not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group"
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2015
I am unbiased and treat others how they treat me
@PoopTROLL
and now you want to play semantic games with regard to words?
you chose to add "impartial" to your website and used it to repeatedly define your character

Impartial, as defined above, means that you allow dissenting opinion
and again, you demonstrate that you are not impartial by your prejudice of people's FORMER behaviour

by all means, continue to play semantic word games here
it only makes YOU look bad, not me
I only pointed out that you lied about being impartial
you are the one trying to justify your personal prejudice against dissenting opinions in the same way that xtians argue that their bible supports their own prejudices

keep it up
continue to make my point
works for me
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged
You continue to argue that your site has some special quality of impartiality
& yes, you DID offer a refute to a study, regardless of intent

It does based on the actual definition I was using. Offering a refutation to a peer-reviewed study and claiming the refutation was peer-reviewed are two different things.

Conclusions: you have been proven a liar (especially with regard to impartiality),

The only thing you have proven is that you are deranged.

you have NOT given any equivalent data/studies refuting anything i said
plus you've been proven not to be trustworthy despite your claims otherwise

Perpetual strawman argument as no such thing has been "proven".

Therefore you and your claims can be dismissed out of hand as it does not meet the equivalence of a peer reviewed study

You would like to hand-wave away my rebuttals using your strawman arguments but it does not work that way.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2015
You failed to point any such thing out
Try again, poopyTROLL
when i pointed it out your started getting all STUPID with regard to "veiled threats"
LMFAO
first of all Wikipedia is not a dictionary
where did i claim that it was a dictionary?
Please quote this for me
you do not define the context of my words
When using it on a public access site, i most certainly DO get to point out that your use is not conforming to the common usage!
that is what i've been saying... you CHOOSE to state
not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group
but even your own LINK also says
Not having strong opinions or supporting a particular opinion or idea
Which is the definition that is most commonly used AND it is the definition that you are most certainly violating with your biased posts and conjecture against Climate Science
ROTFLMFAO

Whoopsie for you, eh?

PopTech
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged
i asked for equivalent evidence but you linked your site, which is NOT equivalent evidence, therefore, by action, you are positing that your site somehow is equivalent to peer reviewed studies by continual insistence that your refute was legitimate or equivalent

Perpetual strawman argument, quote where I claimed it was peer-reviewed. It is certainly legitimate but no claim was ever made that it was peer-reviewed.

[b]your continual links were consistent with assertions of equivalent assumption and that was made clear to you,

Your mental derangement is not an excuse to re-define the intent of my posts.

even after you chose to post your "Rebuttals to Criticism" section

You're f*cking mentally deranged or outright high on some for of illegal narcotics. I posted my "Rebuttals to Criticism" section to address comments made about my list of peer-reviewed papers nothing else. This was explained to you before.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2015
@PoopyTROLL
this is going nowhere

here it is in a nutshell, and I'll not continue to point out your own fallacious claims with regard to this point, because:
1- it's already above in black and white
2- we've already established the facts in the case
3- reiteration and semantics are not valid arguments with regard to evidence in this case as it has already been discussed and you refused to meet the requirements, regardless of your attempt to distract away from it

This is a SCIENCE site
i link/Linked STUDIES supporting my position
you didn't
your argument (sans equivalent peer review) is no different than linking the following as refute: https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s

your circular redirection to establish credibility has failed
the evidence above supports this conclusion regardless of your attempt to distract away from it and justify your posts

your continued argument is simply more strawman/red herring argument obfuscating science
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged
and now you want to play semantic games with regard to words?

Huh? Are you seriously high or were you dropped on your head as a child?

you chose to add "impartial" to your website and used it to repeatedly define your character

Impartial, as defined above, means that you allow dissenting opinion

The definition how I have always used "impartial" has been provided for you multiple times now as it was before. It is directly linked off the bottom of my website.

http://www.macmil...mpartial

impartial (defined) "not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group"

You do no re-define the context of how I use my words.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2015
You're f*cking mentally deranged or outright high on some for of illegal narcotics.
@PoopyTROLL
I must have hit a nerve by proving you wrong above
WOW
normally i only get cussed by Prins or Mundy
Your mental derangement
strawman/attempted obfuscation and misdirection
You would like to hand-wave away my rebuttals
attempted obfuscation and intentional redirection along with blatant lie as proven/demonstrated above
Perpetual strawman argument as no such thing has been "proven".
except that it has, in balck and white above, despite your attempts to draw away from it and obfuscate it
anyone reading the above exchanges and going to the links will also see the exact same thing... where you are trying to utilise argument of semantics to justify intentional prejudiced biased publications on your site as well as hide your lack of credibility and lack of equivalent evidence refuting the studies

see above for details
all in black and white
WHOOPSIE again, TROLL
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged
When there was a request for equivalent evidence, you linked your site and your list as evidence, which is, as noted above, not equivalent nor is it reliable unless published in a format that conforms to the same rigors as the initial evidence given, in this case a study

Quote where I claimed it was peer-reviewed.

Also we've given you complete open access studies as supporting evidence and you are hiding relevant data behind a paywall for a refute i suggest you conform to the same standards of argument that we are giving you ...what are you hiding?

Despite all your insanity and mental derangement I provided you with two peer-reviewed studies and now due to your ignorance of all things peer-review you are trying to claim I am hiding them because the publishers use a paywall. ROFLMAO!

Please get back on your medication.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2015
Huh? Are you seriously high or were you dropped on your head as a child?
@PoopyTROLL
attempted obfuscation and misdirection
Personal conjecture without evidence in an attempt to malign via denigration due to lack of evidence
The definition how I have always used "impartial" has been provided for you multiple times now as it was before. It is directly linked off the bottom of my website
Attempted redirection and red herring
Trying to salvage credibility by shifting blame to others instead of accepting reality is not very scientific

again, claiming to be impartial while demonstrating personal prejudice
Next fallacy?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2015
Quote where I claimed it was peer-reviewed
@PoopyTROLL
Attempted obfuscation and redirection
Asked and answered, see above for details
red herring and semantics in an attempt to salvage credibility from the mess you've made of it
Despite all your insanity and mental derangement I provided you with two peer-reviewed studies and now due to your ignorance of all things peer-review you are trying to claim I am hiding them because the publishers use a paywall.
Why would you hide relevant information?
Why make someone PAY for the chance to see your refute?
this is a tactic given by a LOT of trolls and deniers in an attempt to hide facts and data that when read will point out their fallacy

I;ve been open and linked free studies
I've even offered to link full studies from a paywalled site IOT prove a point

Why are you hiding?
YOU started the argument and refused to link relevant data
NOW you hide it?

WHY?
is there something there that undermines you?
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged
When using it on a public access site, i most certainly DO get to point out that your use is not conforming to the common usage!

Keep smoking the funny stuff. Anyone intellectually honest can see you are completely off your rocker that you think you can redefine the context of words people use.

you CHOOSE to state
not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group
but even your own LINK also says
Not having strong opinions or supporting a particular opinion or idea
Which is the definition that is most commonly used...

Clown, read the definition not the Thesaurus (notice the red and white 'T')

http://www.macmil...mpartial

impartial (defined) "not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group"
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged
here it is in a nutshell, and I'll not continue to point out your own fallacious claims with regard to this point, because:
1- it's already above in black and white
2- we've already established the facts in the case
3- reiteration and semantics are not valid arguments with regard to evidence in this case as it has already been discussed and you refused to meet the requirements, regardless of your attempt to distract away from it

What we have established is,

1. You are deranged
2. You are deranged
3. You are deranged

your circular redirection to establish credibility has failed

This is not circular, which reference here is not real?

http://www.popula...net.html
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2015
I must have hit a nerve by proving you wrong above

If trying to reason with someone deranged like yourself is it then you certainly did.

where you are trying to utilise argument of semantics to justify intentional prejudiced biased publications

Quote where I used any other definition for impartial.
PopTech
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged
Attempted redirection and red herring Trying to salvage credibility by shifting blame to others instead of accepting reality is not very scientific

Who defines the context of what they write?

Asked and answered, see above for details

Quote where I claimed it was peer-reviewed.

Why would you hide relevant information?

Is it legal for me to post copy-written material without the publishers permission?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2015
Keep smoking the funny stuff. ...you think you can redefine the context of words people use
Attempted obfuscation as well as red herring

This is simply your choice and utilization of semantics to justify your continued prejudice against dissenting opinions and people who justify arguments with science and studies

please note that there are more definitions than the single use you CHOSE (which is usually used by LLC's or co.'s)
which is why i also gave links
and the common usage is
Not partial or biased; unprejudiced
Wordnik
"not prejudiced towards or against any particular side or party" http://dictionary...mpartial
"The definition of impartial is not favoring one side or opinion more than another." https://www.yourd...mpartial
http://dictionary...idge.org
https://duckduckg...finition

all the links show the same thing
you trying to justify being prejudice and biased
PopTech
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged
This is simply your choice and utilization of semantics to justify your continued prejudice against dissenting opinions and people who justify arguments with science and studies

It is not possible for me to justify your strawman arguments.

What is the definition of the word "impartial" that I am using?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2015
@PoopTROLL
What we have established is
Personal conjecture without evidence
Attempted redirection of argument in order to obfuscate lack of credibility and lies
This is not circular, which reference here is not real?
attempted redirection of argument in an attempt to obfuscate lies proven above in his own words
If trying to reason with someone deranged like yourself
personal attack in attempt to discredit the poster because poster pointed out lies and attempts to redirect from argument and obfuscate from lies/lack of credibility
See above for details
Quote where I used any other definition for impartial
red herring/strawman and attempted obfuscation from semantics argument where PoopyT is trying to justify being prejudice/biased as proven above in the post
See above for details
PopTech
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged

red herring/strawman and attempted obfuscation from semantics argument where Poptech is trying to justify being prejudice/biased as proven above in the post

It is not possible for me to justify your strawman arguments.

Quote where I used any other definition for impartial. Failure to do so means you lost the argument.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2015
@PoopTROLL
Quote where I claimed it was peer-reviewed
Obfuscation of argument
Asked and answered
See above
Who defines the context of what they write?
attempted semantic game redirecting from argument
Obfuscation and red herring attempting to hide being prejudiced/biased & lying
See above for details
Is it legal for me to post copy-written material without the publishers permission?
why hide the refute you are choosing to attempt to establish credibility unless there is data available inside that refutes your claims?
Again, the above exchange has been open and linked free material
Also, there have been multiple posts in various threads giving ways to access myself for PM or file sharing
Attempted obfusaction and hiding relevant data
What is the definition of the word "impartial" that I am using?
Attempted redirection
Asked and answered
Strawman and red herring in an attempt to redirect from & obfuscate being prejudiced and biased

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2015
@PoopyTROLL
Quote where I used any other definition for impartial. Failure to do so means you lost the argument.
Attempted redirection from argument and strawman/red herring
Asked and answered above

This is your Attempted obfuscation because it has been pointed out that you are prejudiced and biased

your strawman has already been noted and the answers are already above which means that you are still trying to redirect from the obfuscation and prejudiced/biased proof as linked and posted above

see above for more details

unless, of course, you are illiterate
Then buy a text-to-speech converter and try using it properly
i guess it means that not only did YOU lose the argument but you couldn't read the argument to begin with

here is a site that offers free classes to people like you: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
maybe you can learn something there?

PopTech
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged. You have lost this argument as you perpetually dodge all my questions with your gibberish responses.
Asked and answered

Quote where I claimed it was peer-reviewed.

attempted semantic game redirecting from argument
Obfuscation and red herring attempting to hide being prejudiced/biased & lying

It is not possible for me to justify your strawman arguments and libel.

Who defines the context of what they write?

why hide the refute you are choosing to attempt to establish credibility unless there is data available inside that refutes your claims?

Is it legal for me to post or transmit copy-written material without the publishers permission?

Attempted redirection Asked and answered

What is the definition of the word "impartial" that I am using?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2015
@PoopTROLL
i have to go for tonight, so feel free to continue adding your irrelevant and OT arguments below

i will come back and point out that you are attempting to redirect/obfuscate later
ok?

you should look into the MIT link above, maybe you can learn something?
there are a lot of others too
https://www.edx.o...0XMmrzIW

https://www.edx.o...0VsmrzIV

https://www.coursera.org/jhu

you should perhaps try to learn a little about science. poopTROLL

have a nice night
PopTech
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged, stop dodging the request and your gibberish responses do not count.
Asked and answered above

Quote where I used any other definition for impartial.

Failure to do so means you lost the argument.
PopTech
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged
i will come back and point out that you are attempting to redirect/obfuscate later
ok?

Further dodging my questions and requests later with your gibberish responses will only mean you lost the argument. Thank you for conceding.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2015
PoopyTROLL
You have lost this argument as you perpetually dodge all my questions with your gibberish responses.
Again, see above for details
ASKED AND ANSWERED ABOVE
there is no need to continually repeat the same thing over and over

this is the same tactic you tried in the other thread
it also gave you NO legitimacy nor did it help you gain back any credibility

The answers you want have already been given
CLAIMING that you won an argument doesn't make it any more real that claiming you are a mercedes makes you a car

as anyone can see and read above, you've been totally destroyed

but like i also said, i have to go
So

i suggest you actually READ the posts above
because you look like a complete IDIOT (and pretty stupid too) continuing to re-post and redirect the argument as well as hide/confuse/obfuscate the FACTS as proven above

you lied
you're biased and prejudiced

Thanks for continuing to point this out to everyone!
see you tomorrow
PopTech
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged
...as anyone can see and read above, you've been totally destroyed

Further dodging my questions and requests with your gibberish responses will only mean you lost the argument. Thank you for conceding.
PopTech
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2015
The questions and requests that Captain Deranged cannot respond to,

1. Who defines the context of what they write?

2. What is the definition of the word 'impartial' that I am using?

3. Quote where I used any other definition for the word 'impartial'.

4. Quote where I claim my website articles were peer-reviewed.

5. Quote where I claim my website is equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal.

6. Is it legal for me to post or transmit copy-written material without the publishers permission?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (14) Jan 06, 2015
PopTech just confirmed his website has no value to advance a Science dialectic with these key & implied admissions
The questions and requests that Captain Deranged cannot respond to,
1. Who defines the context of what they write?
2. What is the definition of the word 'impartial' that I am using?
3. Quote where I used any other definition for the word 'impartial'.
4. Quote where I claim my website articles were peer-reviewed.
5. Quote where I claim my website is equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal.
6. Is it legal for me to post or transmit copy-written material without the publishers permission?
Your site appears to invite sensationalism by argument & thus may have a commercial aim, if at least as paid to craft it by who ?
Is there any commercial return, if not who administers ?

Is there anything on your site which handles key physics head on such as:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2 to the atmosphere NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"
Water_Prophet
3 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2015
Pop, that's what happens when you beat the pants off one of the skeptitrolls, another "coincidentally" shows up to continue. You think you're talking to someone new.

thermodynamics is the "reasonable" one. He'll magnanimously explain to you as if you were a 4 yr old, why quasi-Nazi Cook is right.

Then as you're winning there, Maggnus, Stumpy, Caliban, Mike_M, etc., will show up and harangue your conversation inanely and insolently. Picking every word apart, as if that were difficult to do.

Good luck.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2015
...cannot respond to
I guess PoopTROLL really cannot read or scroll?
poor thing
1
2
3
4
5
6
ASKED & ANSWERED
Attempted OBFUSCATION and redirect from argument/red herring/strawman
SEE ABOVE

as everyone can see by simply reading above, you not only are attempting to BAIT/TROLL and draw this thread out into a million posts that are already asked and answered... you are stupidly trying to obfuscate the proven facts above where you show prejudice and bias and lied

it can't be asked and answered any more clearly than what was already posted and given ABOVE, so continuing to re-ask and show to everyone that you can't read or you are so stupid you can't scroll up... that is just wasting time and continuing to BAIT/TROLL/OBFUSCATE

to be continued
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2015
[cont'd]
@poopTROLL
Continuing to ask the exact same questions that are already addressed, answered above demonstrates your NEED to obfuscate the truth!
Why do you need to somehow BURY the posts above proving you are wrong, biased, prejudiced and lied?
do you think you will get a ticket?
It's not like the internet isn't already fill of trolls like you... and it is not like it can't simply be re-read either

continuing to point out that you are too stupid to scroll/read or comprehend what is already asked/answered only demonstrates my point further, you know
Pop, that's what happens when you beat the pants off one of the skeptitrolls
@ALCHE/h2oCrybaby
(i didn't leave the argument- there are other things in life than posting to trolls)
considering that he has YET to prove anything other than he's a troll, prejudiced, biased and stupid... & considering you've been utterly exposed as a fraudulent TROLL yourself...
at least you can console each other in your LOSS
LMFAO
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (14) Jan 06, 2015
Water_Prophet & a predictable pattern
Then as you're winning there, Maggnus, Stumpy, Caliban, Mike_M, etc., will show up and harangue your conversation inanely and insolently. Picking every word apart, as if that were difficult to do.Good luck.
Evidence is clear re Water_Prophet, he complains, speculates, & only ever offers oddball uneducated comments, nothing useful, nothing to converge in a dialectic to arrive at an essential truth, only layers of opinion upon misunderstandings of basic physics, materials, mathematics !

Some key questions I have asked Water_Prophet to simply clarify re:-

1. His Brass Bowl & candle which he claims predicts climate change - how because ice melts
- re just when his brass bowl manages a year/decade as heat flow changes
*nothing*

2. Clarification of his definitions or terms of reference
*nothing*

3. Asking Y he ignores long wave radiation to space re CO2
*nothing*

Yet he does respond to anything that might pull others down :-(
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2015
@Poptech- RE previous comment, you'll notice they never argue with each other. Just harass other's of the site.

Mike_Massen:
Electrodynamics can be predicted with just two things:
The existence of charge, and the speed of light is constant.

From these all of Faraday's equations can be derived, all electronics, optics.
Optics is a gateway to quantum mechanics.

All of that from two assumptions.

So yes, I predict climate change with a brass bowl, because ice melts, and it is your loss that you do not.
PopTech
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2015
@Captain Deranged you continue to dodge my questions and requests with gibberish misuses of logical fallacies in a psuedo-intellectual rant. Everyone reading this can see you are unable to respond,

1. Who defines the context of what they write?

2. What is the definition of the word 'impartial' that I am using?

3. Quote where I used any other definition for the word 'impartial'.

4. Quote where I claim my website articles were peer-reviewed.

5. Quote where I claim my website is equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal.

6. Is it legal for me to post or transmit copy-written material without the publishers permission?
PopTech
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2015
@Mike_Massen
PopTech just confirmed his website has no value to advance a Science dialectic with these key & implied admissions

This comment does not even make any sense.

Your site appears to invite sensationalism by argument & thus may have a commercial aim, if at least as paid to craft it by who ?
Is there any commercial return, if not who administers ?

Conspiracy theorist, I have no commercial aim and receive no funding of any kind.

Is there anything on your site which handles key physics head on such as:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2 to the atmosphere NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

My site is not a discussion of physics but instead includes various resources, exposés and rebuttals for skeptics to use against alarmist arguments.
PopTech
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2015
@WP
Pop, that's what happens when you beat the pants off one of the skeptitrolls, another "coincidentally" shows up to continue. You think you're talking to someone new.

thermodynamics is the "reasonable" one. He'll magnanimously explain to you as if you were a 4 yr old, why quasi-Nazi Cook is right.

Then as you're winning there, Maggnus, Stumpy, Caliban, Mike_M, etc., will show up and harangue your conversation inanely and insolently. Picking every word apart, as if that were difficult to do.

But Captain Deranged argues like someone high on crack. He is the only one here who attempts to argue like an insane lunatic who just escaped from a mental health ward. The fact that no one else defends his insanity speaks volumes.

RE previous comment, you'll notice they never argue with each other. Just harass other's of the site.

This is the intent, they are attempting to bully anyone skeptical off this site since they are unable to debate.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2015
poopTROLL said
you continue to
are you stupid and cannot comprehend what "Asked and answered" means?
Everyone reading ...
ok, at this point there is only a finite number of things that can be happening:
1- you're truly stupid & incapable of scrolling
2- you are intentionally misleading and trying to obfuscate science with your continual attempts to engage in debate about questions already asked & answered
3- you are simply TROLLING & BAITING

continuing to re-post the same thing regardless of the answers also supports my assertions above about your biased prejudice and highlights the nature of your TROLLING

if you don't like what was said, you simply annoy the f*ck out of the site/person with irrelevant OT posts till you either get banned or they shut down commenting, in which you can then claim to be abused for attention

perhaps you should Google literacy courses in your area?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2015
ALCHE/h2oCrybaby said
previous comment, you'll notice they never argue with each other. Just harass other's of the site
we don't argue with each other because the others link evidence that is a legit reference and it allows the spread of science, NOT PSEUDOSCIENCE like you, and especially not like the biased anti-science of PoopyT posts

even when i disagree with the others, or they disagree with me, there is RESPECT because their opinions are supported by scientific evidence and studies, not waterbowls and personal conjecture

That and they can actually comprehend physics and the underlying science
Plus, Thermo is actually experienced in a related field and has far more experience that your stupidity here

i trust his knowledge and expertise, as well as Runrig's and certain others, because i know them

I also trust you to post irrelevant pseudoscience, because i've been researching you and those like you (including poopyT)
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2015
@pooptech

"But Captain Deranged argues like someone high on crack. He is the only one here who attempts to argue like an insane lunatic who just escaped from a mental health ward. The fact that no one else defends his insanity speaks volumes."

There is no insanity to defend. Your linguistic tricks are frustrating, as all the caveats on your site trying but failing to defend your bias.

PopTech
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2015
@Captain Deranged
..cannot comprehend what "Asked and answered" means?

Dodging my questions and requests with gibberish misuses of logical fallacies in pseudo-intellectual rants and then declaring them "asked and answered" is not a valid response.

Now please answer my questions and provide what I requested.

1. Who defines the context of what they write?

2. What is the definition of the word 'impartial' that I am using?

3. Quote where I used any other definition for the word 'impartial'.

4. Quote where I claim my website articles were peer-reviewed.

5. Quote where I claim my website is equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal.

6. Is it legal for me to post or transmit copy-written material without the publishers permission?

Everyone can see you squirm.
PopTech
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2015
@Hanoi Jane
There is no insanity to defend. Your linguistic tricks are frustrating, as all the caveats on your site trying but failing to defend your bias.

What linguistic tricks? Please quote where I made any.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2015
poopTROLL said
you continue to
you ARE stupid and cannot comprehend what "Asked and answered" means
Everyone reading ...
ok, at this point there is only a finite number of things that can be happening:
1- you're truly too stupid and incapable of scrolling
2- you are intentionally misleading and trying to obfuscate science with your continual attempts to engage in debate about questions already asked and answered
3- you are simply TROLLING & BAITING

continuing to re-post the same thing regardless of the answers also supports my assertions above about your biased prejudice and highlights the nature of your TROLLING

you ignoring of the plethora of links also proves your bias & prejudice (and stupidity)

if you don't like what was said, you simply annoy the f*ck out of the site with irrelevant OT TROLL posts till you either get banned or they shut down commenting

then you claim to be abused for the attention you get from it
black and white proven above, poopyT
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2015
PopTech-Try the ignore button. It's not perfect, but you you won't demean yourself by arguing with people, if they are more than one person, who won't see anything differently.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (12) Jan 12, 2015
Elsewhere Water_Prophet made idle claims:-
What is the basis of your claim that CO2's effect to space is negligible when U ONLY focus on incoming Total Solar Insolation (TSI) ?

Evidence abundantly clear, u ignore CO2's increased thermal resistivity of IR to space !

Why Would U Water_Prophet ignore something immensely important ?
==========================================================

Its as if you have some serious mental block to even THINK of that issue ?

Did U look at Mars as I urged:-
- Less than 1% of Earth's atmosphere
- Farther away from sun
- High CO2 of ~95%
yet can reach a balmy 20 to 30C in the shade...!

As a claimed Physical Chemist, why can't u even find any link to support your claim, let alone an educated opinion based upon your university training ?

Look forward to integrity & mature dialectic here Water_Prophet - can you please communicate well, just like a trained uni graduate ?

Can U be smarter please Water_Prophet - Physics please ?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2015
Can U be smarter please Water_Prophet - Physics please ?
@Mike
Not likely
she is even taking to advising trolls how to TROLL... notice above?
Try the ignore button. It's not perfect, but you you won't demean yourself by arguing with people, if they are more than one person, who won't see anything differently
this is because she's been trounced and proven a liar and TROLLING pseudoscience crackpot
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

she cannot refute actual science
all she has is her water bowl with ice and a few vague claims that have already been debunked with the studies i linked

Plus there is the issue of education, which you continually point out (great job there, Mike!)

Those lies are proven more and more every time she posts to you!
Keep up the great work Mike!
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2015
@Captain Deranged

Dodging my questions and requests with gibberish misuses of logical fallacies in pseudo-intellectual rants and then declaring them "asked and answered" is not a valid response.

You have failed to answer these questions and cannot prove that you did,

1. Who defines the context of what they write?

2. What is the definition of the word 'impartial' that I am using?

3. Quote where I used any other definition for the word 'impartial'.

4. Quote where I claim my website articles were peer-reviewed.

5. Quote where I claim my website is equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal.

6. Is it legal for me to post or transmit copy-written material without the publishers permission?

Keep misusing the word "troll", as it only makes you look like the deranged clown that you are.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2015
poopTROLL said
you continue to
you ARE stupid and cannot comprehend what "Asked and answered" means
Everyone reading
ok, at this point there is only a finite number of things that can be happening:
1- you're truly too stupid and incapable of scrolling
2- you are intentionally misleading and trying to obfuscate science with your continual attempts to engage in debate about questions already asked and answered
3- you are simply TROLLING & BAITING

continuing to re-post the same thing regardless of the answers also supports my assertions above about your biased prejudice and highlights the nature of your TROLLING

you ignoring of the plethora of links also proves your bias & prejudice (and stupidity)

if you don't like what was said, you simply annoy the f*ck out of the site with irrelevant OT TROLL posts till you either get banned or they shut down commenting

then you claim to be abused for the attention you get from it
black and white proven above, poopyT
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2015
I would invite you to PM me,
No thanks, not interested.

but i already know you've tried to log into a certain site i frequent... why is that?
I was doing some research on you to verify my then suspicion you are a chatterbot. I was interested in your posting rate and wanted to see if you were posting on multiple sites, simultaneously.

I've upvoted you in the past... and when you are correct-even defended you
-forget that ever happening again
And I have thanked you for it and I have occasionally upvoted you too.

you haven't been correct in the climate thread yet!
I have been correct every time. It is you who has been, and continues to be, incorrect.

the simple reason is: you seem to think political sites
What "political sites" are you accusing me of using?

and conjecture
When have I used "conjecture?"
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2015
Sorry, please ignore that last post. It was meant for another thread.
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2015
@Captain Deranged

You are now resorting to spamming.

Dodging my questions and requests with gibberish misuses of logical fallacies in pseudo-intellectual rants and then declaring them "asked and answered" is not a valid response.

You have failed to answer these questions and cannot prove that you did,

1. Who defines the context of what they write?

2. What is the definition of the word 'impartial' that I am using?

3. Quote where I used any other definition for the word 'impartial'.

4. Quote where I claim my website articles were peer-reviewed.

5. Quote where I claim my website is equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal.

6. Is it legal for me to post or transmit copy-written material without the publishers permission?

Keep misusing the word "troll", as it only makes you look like the deranged clown that you are.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2015
You are now resorting to spamming
actually, poopyT, you are doing the spamming... i am pointing out that you ARE stupid and cannot comprehend what "Asked and answered" means

you are STILL ingnoring the facts above... because you think it will somehow reinforce your argument? why?

continuing to re-post the same thing regardless of the answers also supports my assertions above about your biased prejudice and highlights the nature of your TROLLING (which is the posting of OT content meant to elicit an emotional response- your repetition, ignoring of facts and lying does exactly that)

you ignoring of the plethora of links also proves your bias & prejudice (and stupidity)

if you don't like what was said, you simply annoy the f*ck out of the site with irrelevant OT TROLL posts till you either get banned or they shut down commenting

then you claim to be abused for the attention you get from it

black and white proven above, poopyT
and you CONTINUE to demonstrate it
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2015
Keep misusing the word "troll", as it only makes you look like the deranged clown that you are.
@poopyT
please read
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
https://en.wikipe...ernet%29

the repetitious posting of the above coupled with intentional misleading and trying to obfuscate science with your continual attempts to engage in debate about questions already asked and answered is TROLLING and BAITING

therefore, per the definition you are a troll
especially considering that you've been proven to be BIASED (NOT impartial), a liar and more

thanks for helping prove my argument
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2015
@Captain Deranged

You continue to post your spam without answering these questions. If your claim was true that they have been "answered" then you could easily provided the answer following each one. Instead you think you can dodge my questions and requests with gibberish misuses of logical fallacies in pseudo-intellectual rants but it does not work that way. These will be asked until you provide the answers.

1. Who defines the context of what they write?

2. What is the definition of the word 'impartial' that I am using?

3. Quote where I used any other definition for the word 'impartial'.

4. Quote where I claim my website articles were peer-reviewed.

5. Quote where I claim my website is equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal.

6. Is it legal for me to post or transmit copy-written material without the publishers permission?

Wikipedia is not dictionary, please get an education on how to look up the definitions of words.

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2015
Wikipedia is not dictionary
@PoopyT
nobody claimed it was... but they DO reference dictionaries as well as other resources

dict's also state the exact same thing (from Urban dictionary to Merriam Webster)ROTFLMFAO
Whoopsie, troll boy!

Perhaps YOU should learn how to use the internet?
the repetitious posting of the above coupled with intentional misleading and trying to obfuscate science with your continual attempts to engage in debate about questions already asked and answered is TROLLING and BAITING

now you are also SPAMMING with BS
proven by continuing to re-post the same thing regardless of the answers
which also supports my assertions above about your biased prejudice and highlights the nature of your TROLLING
you ignoring of the plethora of links also proves your bias & prejudice (and stupidity)

black and white proven above, poopyT
and you CONTINUE to demonstrate it

as my grandson just pointed out... you need to "LEARN TO INTERWEBZ"

Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2015
Gee... it's so nice to so how well you kids play together at school...
Better tone it down or Benni won't let his preteens participate...
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2015
@Captain Deranged

You do not even understand the words you use during your gibberish rants let alone proper sources to define them.

The negative connotation of [Internet] "troll" is defined as, "To deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments to a community forum, chat room, newsgroup and/or a blog in order to bait other users into responding."

http://www.webope...oll.html

Now I am not posting anything "derogatory or inflammatory" to bait anybody despite your mental derangement. Since you are a computer illiterate you do not understand what an Internet troll actually is. I am glad I could give you a proper education on this.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2015
I am not posting anything "derogatory or inflammatory" to bait anybody
@PoopyT
the repetitious posting of the above coupled with intentional misleading and trying to obfuscate science with your continual attempts to engage in debate about questions already asked and answered is TROLLING and BAITING (and SPAMMING too)

When you continually repeat a post to annoy (or because you are too stupid to read the original response), then it becomes a TROLL comment, it is being used to BAIT into yet another OT discussion, and it is continually repeated almost verbatim (SPAM)

Per the KIDS at my grandsons school
You ain't teaching nobody nothin there but how to troll and be a jerk...
the rest was a very uncomplimentary comment that would require an anatomically impossible act that is likely illegal anyway

you think you can teach people how to research?
Really? LMFAO
for that, you must be IMPARTIAL and follow the evidence

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
you need it
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2015
You do not even understand
and considering i've already explained that more than half a dozen times, this (again) supports my assertions above about your biased prejudice and highlights the nature of your TROLLING
you ignoring of the plethora of links also proves your bias & prejudice (and stupidity)

black and white proven above, poopyT
and you CONTINUE to demonstrate it

Feel free to continue to prove you are a crackpot posting pseudoscience
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2015
@Captain Deranged

You continue to post your spam without answering these questions. If your claim was true that they have been "answered" then you could easily provided the answer following each one. Instead you think you can dodge my questions and requests with gibberish misuses of logical fallacies in pseudo-intellectual rants but it does not work that way. These will be asked until you provide the answers.

1. Who defines the context of what they write?

2. What is the definition of the word 'impartial' that I am using?

3. Quote where I used any other definition for the word 'impartial'.

4. Quote where I claim my website articles were peer-reviewed.

5. Quote where I claim my website is equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal.

6. Is it legal for me to post or transmit copy-written material without the publishers permission?

Keep demonstrating your grade school level of education and computer illiteracy by misusing the word "troll".
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2015
Sorry, please ignore that last post. It was meant for another thread.

I would like to know....
How is it you post another thread response in another thread... unless you have multiple threads open in multiple windows?
Therefore - do one at a time...
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2015
Whydening Gyre observed
How is it you {ubavontuba} post another thread response in another thread... unless you have multiple threads open in multiple windows?
Therefore - do one at a time
Such pattern is consistent with those of a commercial agenda Ie. Post in as many threads as quickly as possible to "get a job done".

Its not consistent with someone who just has a passing interest, its consistent with the execution of a plan and a sense of military zeal albeit sloppy.

Supporting evidence is, at least in early stages, ubavontuba didn't actually read all links he posted to attempt to counter thoughtful posts of others *in the business*, such as runrig & thermodynamics. Consequently ubavontuba shot himself in the foot a few times. That AND the further supporting evidence is he has no depth of understanding developed in the field.

Ie. His approach is intellectually minimalist (like that in a job) further supported by his simple vocabulary & crafting of posts.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2015
poopTROLL said
you continue to
you ARE stupid and cannot comprehend what "Asked and answered" means
Everyone reading
ok, at this point there is only a finite number of things that can be happening:
1- you're truly too stupid and incapable of scrolling
2- you are intentionally misleading and trying to obfuscate science with your continual attempts to engage in debate about questions already asked and answered
3- you are simply TROLLING & BAITING

continuing to re-post the same thing regardless of the answers also supports my assertions above about your biased prejudice and highlights the nature of your TROLLING

you ignoring of the plethora of links also proves your bias & prejudice (and stupidity)

if you don't like what was said, you simply annoy the f*ck out of the site with irrelevant OT TROLL posts till you either get banned or they shut down commenting

then you claim to be abused for the attention you get from it
black and white proven above, poopyT

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

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